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?
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.