Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: djf

>>Biologic material DOES NOT decompose into “fossil” fuels. It simply cannot. Except for perhaps the simplest ones, methane and ethane.<<

If people who believe that should have an opportunity. They should raise some money and start a company that searches for oil on that theory. Exxon made $40 billion last year under the mistaken impression that they could find oil by looking for anoxically decayed organic matter trapped in shale with overlying impermeable rock.

The proof would be in showing that you could better predict where oil and gas will be found.


37 posted on 02/02/2008 4:04:48 AM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: gondramB

Almost there but... Exxon made $40 billions in a market driven by speculators and the fear of international stability of the oil supply.


95 posted on 02/02/2008 7:31:50 AM PST by Shanty Shaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: gondramB
The mere coincidence of finding oil in shale deposits below impermeable layer of rock is merely prima facie evidence that the oil is of biologic origin. It is only proof that shale provides and excellent collection medium for the oil. Coincidence should never be mistaken for proof. That is what has gotten us into this whole global warming folderol.

It may well be that the sedimentary nature of the shale, which causes it to preserve fossils in between layers of sediment is what makes it good at coalescing oil, i.e. the "bugs" in shale cuttings and core samples which predict the probability of the presence of oil do not necessarily prove that they are the source of the oil.

In this case, geologists may be guilty of conflating coincidence with origin.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the theory, I'm only saying that adhering to dogma simply because it disagrees with the newer theory is not "scientific," it is dogmatic. Science and scientist must always be open to challenges to accepted dogma.

It is that kind of closed-minded acceptance of dogma which is now causing our politicians to contemplate bankrupting our society simply on the word of the currently accepted dogma of climate change.

When science becomes close minded to any challenge to accepted theory, it ceases to be science and becomes religion.
96 posted on 02/02/2008 7:53:17 AM PST by Sudetenland (Mike Huckabee=Bill Clinton. Can we afford another Clinton in the White House...from either party?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson