'Fossil fuel' theory takes hit with NASA finding

worldnetdaily ^ | December 1, 2005

[R W Reactionairy]

The best argument I know against the "dead dinosaur" hypothesis is the sheer volume of oil--not just oil pumped from wells but the oil locked in oil shale, in tar sands, left in underproducing or unprofitable fields--trillions of barrels of the stuff. And at all different geologic features and widely varying depths which make no sense if one assumes the stuff is the debris of rotting reptiles from the same geologic era.

Sorry HB, but oil shale is a pretty good indicator that conventional oil comes from source rocks [shales] rich in organics. Oil shales appear to be oil deposits in the making. What is contained in the shales is not oil, but something that can be cooked into fairly nasty thick oil with the application of additional heat. For oil shales to turn into conventional oil, these shales would need to be buried at a depth where there was sufficient heat to cook down the oil; a cap rock to keep the stuff from bubbling to the surface and a "trap" to allow a commercial concentration would need to be present; and reservoir rock with good porosity and permeability would need to be in place so that when the stuff gets trapped, the extraction could occur at a commercial rate.

As noted by Strategerist, the source under standard models for biologically derived oil is plant not animal based.

One last thing: Coal deposits are also very large and contain fossil evidence of plants ... and yes some apparent animal tracks. Do you also believe that coal is abiotic?

[Candor7]

"I know they found gas in\on Saturn but have they found gas in\on Uranus yet? We have a right to know!"



This was genuinely funny!

I got a stich laughing on it!

OoooooooowwwwwwwwWWW!

[Candor7]

Well then what is renewable? The heat from the sun is generally thought to be renewable but as you say, it will one day flicker and become a red gas giant and then shrink . No more heat as it finally does. So is solar energy renewable. By your definition it is not either. The abiogenic theory says that oil has be

en made and is imminantly finite. That is not true. The abiogenic theory sees oil creation as a geological process which is ongoing and even though the process is measurable perhaps in eons, the fact is that these geological processes are still ongoing , much the same way that plate tectonics and weathering of rocks, and glaciation are ongoing processes.

We just don't know what the process is. Certainly Titan's Methane shows us that there is an abiogenic geologic process which produces hydocarbons. It is no great leap to postulate that a similar process might exist as a common form of geologic planetary process producing heavier hydrocarbons, such as oil.This is waht is fueling all of the gas on these postings: a new possible paradigm.

There may be many of these we don't know about. Abraham struck a rock and wine poured out. That may mean that the grapevines of Alsace/ Lorraine are in for some serious competition?

[tai-pan]

like phones you can carry in your pocket!

[justshutupandtakeit]

Thanks. I thought my fantasies had gotten the better of me again.

[SunkenCiv]

Thomas Gold ping.

[Fred Nerks]

http://www.saudicaves.com/gallery.html

http://www.saudicaves.com/new.html

There's more to the ME than dry sand.

[F.J. Mitchell]

All we gotta do is spur the renewabling process into a full gallop. The good Life is..... good.

[F.J. Mitchell]

LOL! yes they did, but I am hoping it's not enough to justify serious drilling.

[lewislynn]

I believe some fields that seemed to be "tapped out"

When prices are down

have later been found to have "re-filled".

When prices are skyrocketing.

[junta]

Does that mean the methane coming out my rear end is "abiotic?"