[DantesPeak]

Matt - you've been mentioned in Congress this evening by Congressman Bartlett. He recommends reading about your "audacious" view of PO.

Abiotic oil has not come up in the discussion of PO.

[MattSavinar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DantesPeak', 'M')att - you've been mentioned in Congress this evening by Congressman Bartlett. He recommends reading about your "audacious" view of PO.

Abiotic oil has not come up in the discussion of PO.

[MattSavinar]

http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS

as of 6:48 pm pacific time, cspan is streaming it.

Best,

Matt

[MattSavinar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', 'h')ttp://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS

as of 6:48 pm pacific time, cspan is streaming it.

Best,

Matt

[DantesPeak]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', 'h')ttp://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS

as of 6:48 pm pacific time, cspan is streaming it.

Best,

Matt

[VMA131Marine]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'P')lease do not post abiotic oil threads to the Peak oil Discussion forum.

We have a 25 page Official Abiotic Oil Thread here:

http://www.peakoil.com/forum11.html

You too, Matt.

I'll let it perk for a while in Current Events.

[Leanan]

Oil does not come from dinosaurs. Well, there may be a few in the mix, but most oil comes from other organic matter. Usually microscopic marine life. When people say that oil comes from dead dinosaurs, they are either mistaken, or speaking figuratively.

But Corsi takes it literally. He thinks the name "fossil fuel" means we think oil is made from dinosaur fossils. He claims the fact that oil is found underwater means that it can't be really be a fossil fuel, because dinosaurs couldn't live that far underwater!

[VMA131Marine]

The abiotic oil proponents like Corsi can easily make a case for at least some oil, beyond trace amounts, being abiotic by using their theory to predict and find oil in a location that the "fossil" theory says it can't exist. The simple fact is, though, that if abiotic oil exists then the major petroleum companies would be actively trying to exploit it. The financial incentives for doing so would be too great not to.

One thing that the abiotic theory has not illuminated is why the combination of carbonaceous rocks, water, and heat and pressure at depth would produce oil and not just methane. Whereas the formation of oil from organic matter involves the breaking down of long molecules like proteins into shorter hydrocarbon chains abiotic oil theory requires the creation of long hydrocarbon chains from much simpler molecules. On the other hand, I'd have far fewer problems with the supposition of abiotic methane than I do with abiotic oil. Methane seems to be very common in the Solar System and the Universe implying that there are abiotic ways of creating it. Is there any evidence for abiotic methane on Earth?

[VMA131Marine]

Fascinating! Considering my previous post in this thread about the possibility of abiotic methane, Jerome Corsi's latest anti-Peak Oil missive on WND would seem to indicate he is following this thread and others.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=47471

The problem is that he expounds on a single example that supports his thesis while ignoring the vast body of evidence that says the thesis is wrong or at least not the principal explanation for the fossil fuel deposits we see around the planet. In all the abiotic oil articles I have read, I have yet to see any quantitative (ie testable, which would be a prerequisite for having a provable theory) predictions about how much oil we should find and where it should be found. It should be eminently clear that if oil is abiotic the net production rate cannot be anywhere close to the current consumption rate of 30 Gb/yr.

Assuming that, in fact, abiotic oil is produced at our current rate of consumption for the purposes of a simple analysis, and there's no reason for choosing this rate other than convenience, and assuming that abiotic oil has been produced for half of the planets 4.5 billion year life (for no reason other than that the geological processes which are presumed to produce abiotic oil have been ongoing for at least that long) then a quick calculation shows that the Earth would have produced 6.9X10^19 barrels of oil.

That, by the way, is 1% of the planet's total volume, and enough oil to cover the planet's surface to a depth of 72km - for comparison the maximum depth of the oceans is about 11km at the Mariana's Trench and if you spread the oceans evenly over the surface of the planet, the water depth would be about 2.6 km. So, this is a problem for abiotic oil theory, even if you can come up with a chemical mechanism that works. Is there an equilibrium chemical process that can produce methane and the longer hydrocarbon molecules in the proportions that are observed in existing crude oil deposits? And, if so, why are natural gas fields found at greater depths than oil fields? Gas being much less dense and therefore more bouyant than oil, it should rise to the surface faster and be found in shallower formations than oil if abiotic oil theory is correct. These issues exist of course in addition to the other problems for abiotic oil including specific biological markers and that oil is only found in or near sedimentary formations with a suitable geological trap.

Finally, at the end of the article, Corsi uses this quote:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')homas Gold himself made the point on page 85 of his 1998 book: "Nobody has yet synthesized crude oil or coal in the lab from a beaker of algae or ferns."

[Free]

One can not emphasize this point often enough that it doesn't matter for the PO-dilemma if fossil fuels are created by dead dinosaurs, abiotic processing or the energy fairy - as long as the rate of replenishment doesn't match the rate of extraction.

And since the overwhelming evidence of known history of rate of production and discovery seems to suggest that this is the case, there is no need to get ensnarled into such a futile debate.

After all, if the reservoirs are replenished at a sufficient rate through abiotic creation of fossil fuels, why for example doesn't seem this to be the case in the probably best documented oil-producing country in the world, the USA? It would be silly to assume that oil is being recreated everwhere else but there - especially since we all know that it is gods own country.

It is clear to every sane person that this is a smoke screen debate with the sole purpose of creating an impression in the naive public of a fierce conflict within the scientific community when in fact there isn't one.

Similar to other politically motivated agendas like "intelligent design" or the denial of human-induced global warming. They are the laughing stock of all scientists who deserve that name.

The debate is irrelevant, and so is Corsi. He is the equivalent of a scientific troll. Don't feed the trolls.

[bobcousins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('VMA131Marine', 'T')hat, by the way, is 1% of the planet's total volume, and enough oil to cover the planet's surface to a depth of 72km - for comparison the maximum depth of the oceans is about 11km at the Mariana's Trench and if you spread the oceans evenly over the surface of the planet, the water depth would be about 2.6 km.

[DantesPeak]

Some great posts, well done.

The media in the US frequently doesn't pickup on statements that are irrational even under minor scrutiny. In general, pessimistic themes - like PO - are also discouraged. There are many who truly believe that it is in the national interest to always be positive. I dare say that the President and VP strongly embrace that theory, but enough said about that.

As long as theories like abiotic oil and oil company price fixing conspiracies gain more attention than the real issues, those that seek to distract us from issues like PO are winning over public opinion.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

Corsi. the Fat Man


He wants the rapture. That is his agenda. He wants to see the world go down in a nuclear conflict. What a sick pig.

[Synergist]

Matt Simmons in many interviews has alluded to the fact that some critics of Peak Oil are paid P.R. pitchmen for the Saudi national oil company.

This guy is almost more than likely Exhibit A.

[OilsNotWell]

Yes, that is a fact that some of those arguing against a peak at all (the oil fairy, or abiotic oil), or a peak in the far too distant future to worry about now have monetary incentives at play.

Michael Lynch, for example. Does work for the Saudis and short sellers...

And there have been threads here that detail CERA's (Yergin) background...

And, coupled with the practices of this admin corrupting the media process (like Miller/NYTimes, NPR, WaPo, and many others), paying 'reporters' to write favorable pieces (Armstrong Williams and others), slipping admin propaganda TV pieces as 'news' without attribution, and so much more, that it does suggest that there appears to be a well-laid out plan or structure to utililize the 'media' (expansively defined; including traditional media (print, radio, TV) and alternative (internet, pseudo-authors, paid pundits masquerading as objective experts) to silence critics, reframe the 'debate' or create one where none existed, discredit, switch the message, etc.

I believe I've seen the outlines of tactics such as these applied to what should mostly be a scientific debate in regards to global warming, and turning it into a political debate...

For example, I construed 'State of Fear' by Michael Crichton to be a blatant politicization of the global warming thesis (2-second plot summary: radical environmentalists plot to create eco-tragedies to force political change) Unfortunately, as a work of fiction Mr Crichton did not leave well enough alone and included his scientific 'evidence' of temperature data at the back of the book to try and refute warming trend lines but which had the opposite effect of contradicting his conclusions. Perhaps that may be what we are seeing here with Mr. Corsi.
The overall tactics are fairly transparent when you know what to look for.

[Taskforce_Unity]

Hmmz, he's on the direct attack mode:

Corsi directly attacking Rigzone, the oildrum and peak energy blogs

Im wondering were this will lead

[WebHubbleTelescope]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Taskforce_Unity', 'H')mmz, he's on the direct attack mode:

Corsi directly attacking Rigzone, the oildrum and peak energy blogs

Im wondering were this will lead

[OilsNotWell]

Relax, abiotic oil still really doesn't mean anything at all. Exxon Mobil is not going to suddenly declare they are going to exploit their new and amazing suddenly replenishing reservoirs.(Although I really do wish that they would so we can all forget about this and do something fun, like talk about classic 70's Mopar cars like the Super Bee with monster carbs.) In fact, this hypothesis (and Gold's work) supposedly has as its basis some phantom old USSR secret studies... Kind of ironic that they are basing their arguments on damn pinko commies.

But, remember, this is all done to generate controversy and publicity to sell a book.

Ignore them as you would a troll. Seriously. The worst thing (more so than insults) to them would be if this thread died right here, right now. They want to be debated, but like a previous poster said, to debate on this point is truly very silly.

Hey, that's a good new term we can use on this theory:

Suddenly Replenishing Reservoirs, or SuRRe! (pronounced 'sorry', buzzz, wrong answer.)

[VMA131Marine]

Notwithstanding Corsi's latest fluff piece 'debinking' biomarkers in WND, here's a nice little primer on the subject. Unfortunately, it's probably too technical for Corsi and his primary audience to understand:

http://www.oiltracers.com/biomarker.html

Amazing that for something that doesn't exist there's a whole subset of the oil industry devoted to studying biomarkers ...

http://www.geomarkresearch.com/pdf%20Pr ... oposal.pdf

[Cynus]

Corsi has now gone on to claim that Christians should believe in abiotic oil because the idea of oil as a fossil fuel is akin to believing in evolution. That is to say abiotic : fossil fuel :: creationism : evolution. The logic is so tortured I'm surprised steam isn't coming out of his ears, however, I'd love to see a moa or great auk so I'm going to ask him if he can get me an abiotic great auk

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47529
Is abiotic oil a new argument for Creationism?