Posted on 09/14/2009 4:38:09 PM PDT by decimon
A team of scientists based at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden have made a "revolutionary" discovery about how hydrocarbon is formed, learning that animal and plant fossils are not necessary to form crude oil.
>
The article, titled Methane-derived hydrocarbons produced under upper mantle conditions, and published in Nature Geoscience, states that
"Whether hydrocarbons can also be produced from abiogenic precursor molecules under the high-pressure, high-temperature conditions characteristic of the upper mantle remains an open question. It has been proposed that hydrocarbons generated in the upper mantle could be transported through deep faults to shallower regions in the Earth’s crust, and contribute to petroleum reserves."
>
(Excerpt) Read more at digitaljournal.com ...
Swedish crude ping.
How do we test this hypothesis??
The abiogenic theory isn’t new. I wrote a paper on it in school 20 years ago, and I try to interject it into any conversion about oil supplies.
Russians hypothesized this quite some time ago, drilled on the premise, and struck oil.
Kinda kills Peak Oil theory.
not a new theory, and, to me makes more sense than “fossil fuels” ever did.
I see I don’t need to make the same statement you just made. Thank you :)
I have heard this theory talked about for years now. It does explain why there is more crude today in some oil fields that should have (!) played out years ago.
Sorry, I don’t have a source. I just remember that I heard it somewhere.
Oil is now a renewable fuel, lol! Plus, we could always mine Titan.
Eventually, they will figure out this is where life came from as well.
How else can there be crude oil SEVEN MILES below the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico?
I’ve not seen any plate tectonics models that put formerly plant-bearing plates subsuming there.
Well, they test for bio-markers in attempt to prove that crude is a fossil fuel. I suppose they could test for anti-bio-markers to prove it isn’t a fossil fuel. Then we could all sit around and argue who’s markers matter.
I guess just cuz there are fossils in oil doesn’t mean that the fossils are the reason there is oil. The ocean doesn’t exist because of the fish that are in it.
The oil seeped up from the mantle and absorbed the tiny fossils over the centuries. That has got to be a possibility
Right with you. I did a thesis paper in high school in 1970 just because I didn’t buy the dinosaur theory. Kewl!
I don't. I leave that to Rus Swedes.
The problem isn’t the amount of oil...it’s the amount that is allowed to come to market.....
I’m happy to find some other people that have heard of it. When I mention it, I usually just get blank stares because everyone “knows” that oil comes from dead dinosaurs and people treat the abiogenic theory as something similar to believing in UFOs.
Thank the Lord!
Maybe we can get rid of those ugly windmills that are sticking up in the middle of beautiful valleys. We drove through PA and they hurt my eyes.
And they throw ice!
Wow, how interesting! If this is true, doesn’t it blows to smithereens the whole liberal / environmental mindset that we’re using up all the oil and will have to switch to some other source of energy?
yes, which is why libs will fight this science tooth and nail
I like it every time some doomist talks about peak oil, because they always find some huge deposit of oil whenever they, the doomists, do.
Believe it or not, the theory was presented in a chemistry class at a *very* liberal university, which I’m currently, ah, attending. I’d heard of it before, but I was surprised when it was brought up by the teacher.
Simple: How many planets and moons in our solar system contain methane or other hydrocarbons in their atmospheres?
How many of them have had biological life present on their surfaces at some point in history to account for this if you believe in “fossil fuel”????
There have been articles on FR about it before in the last few years. That’s where I first heard about it. I wish I had saved the links.
Carbon dioxide is still defined as a toxic substance potentially regulated by the EPA.
So don't hold your breath...wait, we NEED to hold our breath...
However, this discovery does not mean that emissions from the combustion of hydrocarbons do not create climate change.
Yeah, I think we're all set with that global warming crazy-talk.
My husband has always said that oil is a renewable resource and he has a very complicated theory. Weren’t we supposed to run out 20 years ago?
Oh yes, I've seen the fish making the water. They're always kind of sucking in and then spitting out. That must be where all the water comes from. That's also why fish started out so small. They had to make all that water before they could get very big.
Look and see if hydrocarbons form on other planets that never had dinosaurs? Like entire oceans of methane?
Drill in rock formations, and at depths, that are not oil bearing according to conventional theory.
See if oil can be created on a lab using the theory, (it can) Have someone explain precisely, the dynamics of oil creation from biological sources in a way that stays within the laws of thermodynamics. They do it all backwards. They say, we find oil in this zone of heat and pressure in the earth, in strata about this old. So their “recipe” is to put detrius from old animals, at that temperature and pressure, for that number of years. But they do not explain it with a testable hypothesis. Their approach would explain that strippers are created by building a bar, keeping it at a constant 72 degrees, serving alcohol, and playing motley crue. After all, these are precisely the conditions where you successfully find strippers.
Hydrogen and carbon are like 1st and 4th most common elements. They readily bond. They do it all over the universe. At different temperatures and pressures, it can be a gas, a liquid, a solid. Only on earth does it need to come from a dinosaur.
The theory that microorganisms create the oil is also backwards. The organisms feed on it, they are a contaminant, not the cause. Conventional oil theory is based on working backwards from an observation, not upon a hypothesis tested by experiment.
Doesn’t matter. The world ends in 2012.
Of course it does. Lib and enviro-tard insiders admitted years ago that we weren't running out of oil, quietly of course. That's where the global warming (followed by climate change) came from.
Corsi’s book explained exhaustively why the bio-markers are contaminants, feeding on the oil, not creating it. And don’t we even have micro-organisms right now that we use to try to mitigate oil spills? They actually use oil as food?
It’s not really that crazy.
Holy smokes! I got an old motley crue album. All I need now is a pole and a bar.
Seriously, I think they already proved they can make petroleum from turkey guts. I think they already built a plant
“However, this discovery does not mean that emissions from the combustion of hydrocarbons do not create climate change.”
Another fine example of the same “science”. There is no repeatable experiment that has established that CO2 will change the climate. It’s a hypothesis, that has grown wings and suckles at the government teat, thats all.
“The world ends in 2012.”
Good point. We are awash in insanity,, we really are. But im all for this theory of 2012. That December im going to wear out the line, “hey baby, it’s the end of the world,,wanna get lucky?”
I know, I know... and a damn poor hypothesis at that.
How can the CO2 molecules at .038 of a percent concentration even get close enough together in the atmosphere to form a layer/barrier to trap heat?
Through no scientific testing or even minimal research on my part, I've always considered the idea - that petroleum comes entirely from dinosaurs and plants - was doubtful if not just stupid. I have no idea how much oil/gas can be squeezed out of a brontosaurus or how much humans have burned in the last century but I'd bet a gallon of 30-weight that we've already used more than nature could make from every plant and animal that ever existed.
Hmmmm,,, don’t know about the Turkey guts. It’s be interesting to know what they are doing chemically. Wonder if its a good parallel to what the argument is for traditional theory for creation of oil?
We are getting in the zone where my lack of education starts becoming dangerous.
And its a coincidence im sure, that buying that hypothesis means that we need world government. After all, the atmosphere respects no borders.
To find that gambling is happening in the mantle.
By now, most anyone with a brain knows that petroleum has to come from some other source than life waste. - How would it ever have gotten into pools, and how would we have so much of it?
Our known reserves have continually increased, year by year, in spite of the incredible volume we consume. Visualize a million barrels of oil - a huge amount, but we use more than that in a day.
Extremely high temps and pressures. Essentially a giant uber-pressure cooker. It doesn’t take millions of years either.
If you search the posts of the late "Texas Cowboy" aka Cobb1, you will find dozens of threads on this. He was a petroleum engineer, and didn't accept biological origin.
In the '50s the Chicken Littles were telling us that we would run out in 1967.
Well that solves where the oceans came from
I totally agree
Bookmark for later
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.