"Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water and moderate amounts of heat," Proskurowski wrote.
The study also confirmed a major argument of Cornell University physicist Thomas Gold, who argued in his book "The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels" that micro-organisms found in oil might have come from the mantle of the earth where, absent photosynthesis, the micro-organisms feed on hydrocarbons arising from the earth's mantle in the dark depths of the ocean floors.
It’s about time those big lovable dinos stop getting blamed for the evil black goo...
Giora Proskurowski
Lost City is a hypothermal field some 2,100 feet below sea level that sits along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at the center of the Atlantic Ocean, noted for strange 90 to 200 foot white towers on the sea bottom.
In 2003 and again in 2005, Proskurowski and his team descended in a scientific submarine to collect liquid bubbling up from Lost City sea vents.
So, basically, the Muzzies have an endless supply of wealth, to wage jehad with.
Plus,this is from WND.
There is also a related thread at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1963050/posts.
One more proof for my unscientific theory that “fossil” fuels is just a convenient whipping boy for the green persuasion, and has absolutely no relation to reality, or science.
Which only helps to point out that those of the radical green persuasion much less the normal environmental protection nazis, have no interest in science or reality.
Their interest is in exposing God for the faulty creation, and placing themselves in the position of savior. To rectify the mistakes made, however long ago they were made. Chutzpa!
Read Thomas Gold’s “The Deep, Hot Biosphere”.
The abiotic theory of hydrocarbon genesis has been widely believed by the Russians and Ukrainians for a long time. It is heresy to speak of this theory in western oil companies.
I used to work for BP in Alaska. Their geologists would have a hard time finding oil in the automotive section of a Costco store. That they believe crude is nothing more than dead dinosaur goo doesn’t surprise me.
Which makes it completely stupid forus not to drill in America!
Good find. But we need a better source. That WND article is a touch hysterical - its bordering on dishonest.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20080202/fob1.asp
The headline, that oil is suddenly no longer a fossil fuel, in particular is not related to the original article or the facts.
They have found a vent that is alkaline instead of acidic and it lets trace amounts of simple organic compounds form.
While this is cool, it does not mean that other 99.9% of fossil fuels no longer come from organic matter or that we suddenly have any more fuel than before.
The article doesn’t say it but I would guess the water has iron or cobalt and that the process is similar to that used to produce synthetic fuel, like the gasification of coal.
This is a very cool find because its organic building blocks being built non-organically - but there is so much methane in the universe we knew it wasn’t all coming from plants. But here on earth that is mainly where it comes from.
Great so Saudi Oil fields replenish.
We still have to get off the black heroin that is destroying our Nation.
With the discover of the deep ocean vents, it becomes more plausible, not less.
if the "peak oil" guys don't do it, Al Gore will. If Al Gore doesn't, OPEC will. How can you charge $100 a barrel if there is an inexhaustable supply?
oil-is-not-rotting-dinosaurs-theory ping
Interesting post. Thanks.
The sheer quantity of crude and the size of the oil fields should be enough to disabuse anyone that it was created by ancient life forms that were concentrated together and all died and decomposed together.
The stuff is a formative part of the earth in the same vein as rock.
Sigh.
Once again I cannot fathom how someone can write a book about a subject they don't have the foggiest understanding of.
NOBODY CLAIMS OR HAS EVER CLAIMED OIL COMES FROM DECAYING ANCIENT FORESTS AND DEAD DINOSAURS.
Oil comes from dead microscopic plankton in shallow seas, primarily during oceanic anoxic events in the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods where it would die and not decay because there wasn't enough oxygen and no life in the seafloor sediment.
All the oilfields on earth have been found under the above assumptions, and all the oil on earth is consistent in composition in having been derived from plankton.
Bump for later reading
We are being controlled by bad science. Congress sits on their fat butts and ignores any new information. The future will wonder way we allowed this government to lead us.
Robots take scientists into sea depths
Seattle Post-Intelligencer | 7/29/05 | Tom Paulson
Posted on 08/02/2005 3:42:11 PM EDT by LibWhacker
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1455539/posts
Shedding light on deep-sea thermal vents
Cosmos magazine | Thursday, January 10, 2008 | Agence France-Presse
Posted on 01/15/2008 3:20:49 PM EST by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1954189/posts
Deep-ocean vents are a source of oil and gas
(evidence of abiogenic hydrocarbons)
Nature News | 31 January 2008 | Rachel Courtland
Posted on 02/01/2008 12:42:53 AM EST by neverdem
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1963050/posts
Lost City pumps life-essential chemicals at rates unseen at typical black smokers
University of Washington | January 31, 2008 | Unknown
Posted on 01/31/2008 4:28:30 PM EST by decimon
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1962790/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=thomasgold
Once the War on Climate Change is in full swing, it won’t matter if it were discovered that one could simply throw a magic bean in his gas tank every night and the tank would fill itself by morning; we will be disallowed its use because it will destroy the planet.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47448
The discussion of Kerogen (second article) made the case that the term mixes fact with theory. That is slippery ground. It reminds me of the term “instinct” which compounds fact and Darwinian theory. In each case, the factual components do not prove the theory. The theory, or hypothesis, provides an explanation for the facts.
I think the article is well written for intelligent people who are prepared to think scientifically. Others may disagree with the conclusion. Their challenge, it seems to me, is to respond with more persuasive writing. Reliance one credentials is not enough. I’m less interested in what “scientists” think, than in what people who think scientifically think. Not all credentialed scientists think scientifically. Not everyone who thinks scientifically has the credentials some would demand.
Not a global warming thread but something you might find interesting.