Posted on 06/09/2004 9:15:38 PM PDT by narses
There were alot of dinosaurs, and the plants the herbevoires amoung them ate. However the other factor is that they, the dinosaurs and the plants, were around for a long, long time.
I think you are speaking to a strawman version of the theory. The theory is that if the oil is formed much deeper in the crust than we currently think, the oil fields we access today are the result of "leaks" from that larger resevoir. Leaks which could only take place under certain conditions. Some fields would be replenished, but most would not, having been "cut off" from their original source by geologic activty. There is also the issue of the speed of "refill" of those fields that do still have some commnection to the deeper resevoir.
I'm not saying Gold is correct, just that his theories may be being misrepresented and/or oversimplified.
There is no communication between the stacked reservoirs and no reason whatsoever to think that the oil in these reservoirs originated from a common source of supply. Almost always we can identify the probable source rock for each reservoir, being an underlying shale. But that shale has given up all the oil it could and it migrated upward from the shale to the highest sealing trap the oil could find.
Fossil Fuels Made without Fossils
Similar reactions deep in the Earth may
churn out hydrocarbons from inorganic matter
By Gabe Romain
http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2004-09-13-3
Yes, but it does provide an explanation as to why played out oil well suddenly become productive again.
So do conventional theories.
Discovery of abundant, accessible hydrocarbons nearly everywhere in the solar system
Address:http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=245547
Abstract analysis of the data gathered during the Comet Halley encounter during 1987 resulted in a body of literature asserting that all comets contain substantial percentages of hydrocarbon solids. These solids appear to have a strong similarity to petrochemicals. Arguments are made that the amount of hydrocarbon material in the accessible comets of the inner Solar system can substantially exceed the known reserves of hydrocarbons on Earth.
This theory gets posted here every couple of months. It doesn't get less stupid.
Supposedly, sulfur (and nitrogen) come from proteins.
How do oil experts explain that hydrocarbons are common everywhere in the solar system?
It's entirely possible that much of a natural gas was produced from non-organic sources deep within the earth. Oil is different altogether.
"Of course, I often wonder where all my extra coat hangers come from too...I think socks are the embryonic form of a coat hanger, 'cause everytime I lose a sock in the dryer, I find more coat hangers around. Hummmmmm"
Obviously we need an abiotic theory of coathanger formation. Time to call the Russians.
We now know that carbon, the fourth most abundant element in the Universe after hydrogen, helium and oxygen, is almost certainly also the fourth most abundant in the planetary system; where it is predominantly in the form of hydrocarbons.
The major planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, have large amounts of methane and other hydrocarbon gases in their atmospheres.
Titan, a large satellite of Saturn, has methane and ethane in its atmosphere, and these gases form clouds and behave much like water does in the atmosphere of the Earth. Triton, a large satellite of Neptune, appears to have hydrocarbons mixed with water ices on its surface, as does the outermost planet known at this time, Pluto.
A large fraction of all the asteroids show a surface reflectance closely resembling that of tar, and the comets have hydrocarbons among the gases they emit.
The surface of the core of Comet Halley, recently observed by spacecraft, is most reasonably interpreted as one of tar.
Complex, polycyclic hydrocarbon molecules, similar to those in natural petroleum have been observed to be a prominent component of interplanetary dust grains that currently enter the Earth's upper atmosphere.
Nope. Paper clips are embryonic coat hangers
While I don't actually have a dog in this fight, since I'm perfectly willing to believe the biological origin of oil...
Still... I do wonder why, if this is a continual process of compressing biomass into oil... where is the halfway made oil?
I'm more inclined to believe it's a conspiracy between the hamper and the washer to make the dryer look bad.
Or all the sea with oysters by Avram Davidson
What is served by 'fighting' about how oil is formed? Why not use all available ideas to find more? Could it be that some men believe that oil should be scarce & expensive? Hmmmmmm.
Still... I do wonder why, if this is a continual process of compressing biomass into oil... where is the halfway made oil?
According to Gold, its way down deep, in the "hot biosphere". -- A blasphemous idea, apparently.
Correct. Nor does the abiogenic theory explain why most oil provinces are associated with marine sediments and organic source rocks.
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.