Posted on 11/23/2005 2:13:47 PM PST by Dan Evans
Abiotic oil production is only relevant if production rates of new oil are significant relative to consumption rates
I can remember looking at the Atlantic Coastlines of SA and Africa and noting that they bore a remarkable symmetry. Teachers of the time noted that others had made the same observation, but there was no way it was more than coincidence. I shut up about it, but never really believed that it was just coincidental. Somewhat similar situation here, though I admit that I am biased because I like the possibility.
"....like getting marriage counseling from OJ Simpson." Well, it worked for Robert Blake.
That makes intuitive sense also.
I've never yet seen anything die and then lie there and turn into oil.
Try being more patient.
I've checked out Dinosaur nesting areas looking for eggs, but found no oil. Maybe that was not long enough ago also, don't know.
I've read about that theory. It also has appeal.
The problem is that Velikovsky's idea was that hydrocarbons "rained down" from the tails of comets as the Earth passed through them.
What Velikovsky failed to realize is that the tails of comets -- while pretty when the Sun reflects off them -- are incredibly insubstantial; mere wisps of vapor. You could probably get more hydrocarbons from a herd of farting cows.
Another howler from Velikovsky on the same topic is that he thought that maybe "manna from Heaven" during the Exodus originated from the same source (comet tails). The problem is that Velikovsky laughably presumed that "hydrocarbons" (methane and petroleum etc.) and "carbohydrates" (sugars, starches, etc.) were interchangeable molecules.
That's because you yourself would have died at those pressures and temperatures.
Sorry, but no, it wouldn't.
The conditions necessary for good fossilization/preservation are different than those necessary for petrochemical conversion.
Yes, good intuition on your part -- there are indeed ways to determine the age and source of petroleum reserves. For example: Using Oil Biomarkers in Petroleum Exploration
And relevant to the biogenic/abiogenic debate:
Abiogenic formation of alkanes in the Earth's crust as a minor source for global hydrocarbon reservoirs.Abstract: Natural hydrocarbons are largely formed by the thermal decomposition of organic matter (thermogenesis) or by microbial processes (bacteriogenesis). But the discovery of methane at an East Pacific Rise hydrothermal vent and in other crustal fluids supports the occurrence of an abiogenic source of hydrocarbons. These abiogenic hydrocarbons are generally formed by the reduction of carbon dioxide, a process which is thought to occur during magma cooling and-more commonly-in hydrothermal systems during water-rock interactions, for example involving Fischer-Tropsch reactions and the serpentinization of ultramafic rocks. Suggestions that abiogenic hydrocarbons make a significant contribution to economic hydrocarbon reservoirs have been difficult to resolve, in part owing to uncertainty in the carbon isotopic signatures for abiogenic versus thermogenic hydrocarbons. Here, using carbon and hydrogen isotope analyses of abiogenic methane and higher hydrocarbons in crystalline rocks of the Canadian shield, we show a clear distinction between abiogenic and thermogenic hydrocarbons. The progressive isotopic trends for the series of C1-C4 alkanes indicate that hydrocarbon formation occurs by way of polymerization of methane precursors. Given that these trends are not observed in the isotopic signatures of economic gas reservoirs, we can now rule out the presence of a globally significant abiogenic source of hydrocarbons.
In a matter of days I expect my inbox to begin filing up with spam touting the benefits of abiotic oil skin preparations and dietary supplements.
Is coal only found close to the surface as opposed to near "bedrock"? Little or no He found with coal, but common with natural gas? Gas and or oil above a coal seam?
Someone must have gone though a thorough and academic comparison of occurance and composition to make some guess as to whether they have the same origin.
I shall revise my remarks. It would play havoc with public perception of these theories.
Sorry, but the lowest denominator of public perception is that oil comes from dead prehistoric flora and fauna created by eons of blah, blah, blah and is a finite resource.
So if they now say, we were wrong, it really comes from the earth's core or subcore and maybe nearly infinite if hard to get at, that is going to change what people think about science and scientists and energy conservation and drilling in Anwar and a whole host of other things.
It won't be as big as the change from flat earth to round earth, but it would be a big change that would recolor a lot of current conventional wisdom.
And let's not EVEN get into the fact that abiotic oil can "add inches in the bedroom."
BTW, a word to the wise - don't fall for that one. I tried it - followed the directions religiously - but our bedroom is the same damn size it's always been.
Dear friend:
I am Prince Mbeke Mbutu of Nigeria. My royal family has secretly discovered and profited handsomely from vast deposits of abiotic oil. Unfortunately, we are being watched by unscrupulous foreign banks and Governments. We need a trusted friend so that we can transfer tens of billions of dollars out of Nigeria. If you will send me your savings and checking account information I personally guarantee, on the honor of my royal family name, that you will receive 10% of all monies transferred. My estimate is that you will receive no less than 10 billion dollars.
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.