Posted on 06/04/2012 10:05:51 AM PDT by jongaltsr
How long are we going to continue referring to oil as Fossil fuel when we have known for many (Many) years that oil as we know it comes not from Dinosaurs etc but rather from "other" organic materials such as "trees" etc.
Animals that die (including dinosaurs) do not leave a trace of "oil" when they die. They putrefy, dehydrate and turn to dust, leaving only their bones to be discovered later on.
Yes there are fossils in the La Brea Tar Pits and many other such surface Tar Pits around the world but that is because animals fell in the oil that already existed and drowned because they could not swim or breathe.
Tar comes from trees, grasses, moss, peat moss etc and any fossils that are found in them were the result of those items being buried in amongst the organic material before it sunk down and decomposed far beneath the earth's surface.
Petroleum Geologists following biotic production of produce gas and oil for the industry.
Those working under Abiotic theories have scammed investors and sometimes governments out of cash and time, but no commercial oil/gas production.
You might consider why all oil/gas commercial production is sourced to sedimentary basins, and why oil/gas never is sourced to igneous rock.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=31193
I cannot prove that no Leprechaun exist anywhere on the planet either.
Cheers.
We've got plenty of time to debate it without being ugly.
/johnny
You have the wrong FReeper.
Cheers.
/johnny
/johnny
/johnny
The aboitic claim is it is formed far deeper than the sedimentary layers.
It is just frustrating to me to see this nonsense posted over and over at Free Republic. It makes us look like fools.
I don't mind looking a fool, I've done that more than once. I want the truth of the matter.
/johnny
Actually, the planet makes oil from more than one process, but all othese processes come down to hydrocarbons. Living things are made of hydrocarbons, so when living things are broken down via pressure and temperature, wah lah, hydrocarbons for pools of oil! BActeria, which are made of hydrocarbons, eat rocks and when they in turn are broken down via heat and pressure, wah lah, more oil in the pools!
Are you familiar with Van Flandern’s exploding planet theory?
In an environment of insufficient oxygen, Methane is the lowest energy state of carbon and hydrogen. A planet/moon forming with insufficient oxygen and sufficient hydrogen & carbon is going to form Methane. If large amounts of carbon exist rather than the 1/4 ratio to hydrogen, then some is going to form ethane. (or other similar basic ratios)
Notice all the trace amount of hydrocarbons found on Titan (as measured with their Gas Chromatograph and Mass Spectrometer)
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=31187
They are all the most basic ratios of those combinations. There is no Heptane, Heptene, Heptyne, Cycloheptane, Heptadiene, Octane, Octene, Octyne, Cyclooctane, Octadiene, Nonane, Nonene, Nonyne, Cyclononane, Nonadiene, Decane, Decene, Decyne, Cyclodecane, Decadiene and so on. In crude oil we get carbon strings hundreds of atoms long.
What was found on Titan wasn’t complex hydrocarbons, it was the most basic, simplest hydrocarbons that can exist.
I’m actually enjoying the conversation. Its a subject of some interest to me. I work in the oil world.
I’m willing to grant that crude oil is a thing unto itself, but I’m not sure that this proves or disproves anything with respect to the basic conversation. Maybe we’re talking past each other.
I look out into space and see balls of hydrogen, balls of methane and ethane (which is, in essence, balls of frozen natural gas), and balls of frozen helium, and so forth. Its hard for me to look at that and not conclude that the universe is made from hydrogen, methanes, carbon, and so forth, that the chemicals you find on earth you are going to find again and again scattered everywhere you look in outerspace.
Then you come to earth and find that biological processes give off methane (or at least I do periodically throughout the day).
I suppose thackneys’ point is that, while elemental hydrocarbons pre-exist the earth, it took biological processes or some biological input for it to take the form we see in crude oil. Am I getting that right?
What is the most basic, simplest hydrocarbon that we can detect on Titan from here?
'Splain me.
I will listen. And learn.
/johnny
I am, as well, and I'm glad you are, as well. Jump in when I'm being stupid.
/johnny
Stay with the first word, elemental, elements, atoms, not hydrocarbons.
If Carbon and Hydrogen are ejected in a big bang creation of the universe, as these hot gas combine, they are going to eventually form their lowest energy state. Without a sufficient presence of oxygen, they are going to eventually form simple hydrocarbons, like what is found on Titan.
On earth, when the organic debris remains in contact with sufficient oxygen, it eventually goes to the lowest energy state, carbon dioxide, water, sulfur dioxide, etc. When sediment at the bottom of the lake/ocean cover over and bury the organics away from a source of oxygen, we get hydrocarbons. The more thermally mature our sediment rock becomes (heat and time factors) the lighter (smaller) our hydrocarbons become. Natural Gas is found in greater percentages than oil in the more thermally mature fields.
We sent a Gas Chromatograph and Mass Spectrometer to Titan on the Huygens probe.
/johnny
If methane isn't a hydrocarbon, I'm the Queen of England.
And I'm not.
Hydrocarbons exist on Titan.
/johnny
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.