[PersecutedGadfly]

How exactly do 'fossils' make 'fuel'?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')et's examine closely the alleged chemical processes by which decaying plants and dinosaurs are supposed to decay into "fossil fuel."

Richard Heinberg, one of the core faculty of New College of California (Santa Rosa) the "peak-production" adherent who is author of "Powerdown: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World" tells us that "the assertion that all oil is abiotic requires extraordinary support, because it must overcome abundant evidence" that ties "specific oil accumulations to specific biological origins through a chain of well-understood processes that have been demonstrated, in principle, under laboratory conditions." So, if what Heinberg asserts is true, we should have no problem discovering the precise laboratory-proven formula under which ancient plant and animal life decay into hydrocarbon fuel. ...

The transformation from "kerogen" to "fossil fuels" appears to be more a matter of faith, rather than an observed process that can be described in a precise chemical formula such that we can replicate in a laboratory the process by which the compound is produced. This is a common complaint of scientists who propose the abiotic, deep-earth theory of the origin of oil. Astronomer Thomas Gold, stated the point succinctly on page 85 of his 1998 book, "The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels." "Nobody has yet synthesized crude oil or coal in the lab from a beaker of algae or ferns." ...

Published scientific analyses attempting to describe "the notion of kinetic cracking of kerogen into petroleum" tend to start with the fundamental definitional problem. Consider this example:

It is important to keep in mind that the name kerogen, in opposition with usual chemical nomenclature, does not represent a substance with a given chemical composition. Indeed kerogen is a generic name, in the same sense as lipids or proteins.

The resulting theoretical discussions, while generally elaborate, typically remain unspecified in rigorous chemical formulae that identify chemical transformation processes. These technical discussions of how kerogen produces oil from source rock generally end up describing field-oven heating devices typically designed to analyze rock samples, such as the Rock-Eval prolysis device, into which geologists can cook "source rock" in the field to see if the specimen rock looks like other "source rock" where oil has already been found. Again, the result is practical field geology, not rigorous laboratory science specifying chemical formulae identifying how flora and protoplasm turn into hydrocarbons.

In sharp contrast, methane has been synthetically produced in a rigorous laboratory setting with a full specification of the chemical formulae involved in the combination of iron oxide, calcium carbonate, and water to produce methane at pressure conditions of the Earth's upper mantle. The scientists conducting the experiment concluded:

The observation of methane formation at mantle pressures is significant because it demonstrates the existence of abiogenic pathways for the formation of hydrocarbons in the Earth's interior and suggests that the hydrocarbon budget of the bulk Earth may be larger than conventionally assumed.

[lawnchair]

Why does it matter, exactly?

The reservoirs we know about are depleting. And they ain't refilling (at least at anything above an imperceptible pace).

We've poked a whole lot of holes in the ground this century, and we know where oil is not found.

If there is some other place to find oil, one of the tens of thousands of oil companies in the last century would have tapped into it and be seriously wealthy.

I tend to believe the biogenisists. While I like their science, they've also put gas in my car these many years. The abiogenisists haven't.

[PersecutedGadfly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lawnchair', 'W')hy does it matter, exactly?

[Zardoz]

Why are these stupid posts by PG (AKA "OilIsMastery"; AKA "Offshore") about abiotic oil not instantly moved to this thread? :

The Official Abiotic Oil Thread

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Moderator's Note:

This is the official thread on Abiotic Oil Theory. Anyone who posts about abiotic oil in a different thread will soon find their post moved to this thread.

If you don't want to read through this entire thread, fine. I'll sum it up for you. Basically abiotic oil theory is either totally incorrect (we would be swimming in it by now) or oil is not being produced fast enough to meet even a tiny demand (in which case abiotic oil is irrelevant).

[seldom_seen]

What's the point?

What you're doing is like going around the party at 3am when the liquor stores are closed and challenging people as to whether beer is bade from barley and hops.

[PenultimateManStanding]

It's interesting that this subject would come up again as I just recently read the wikipedia article on abiotic oil. I'm not taking sides on this but I'm curious how Russia came to be the world's second largest exporter of oil. I thought they peaked in the 80's. Then I read how they found oil deep in crystalline basement rock. It's enough to make you wonder, anyway. If the abiotic theory is correct, it wouldn't necessarily mean that depleted fields should be refilling which of course they aren't. What it might mean is that new fields might be found in unexpected places.

[TheTurtle]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'W')hat it might mean is that new fields might be found in unexpected places.

[TheDude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'I')t's interesting that this subject would come up again as I just recently read the wikipedia article on abiotic oil. I'm not taking sides on this but I'm curious how Russia came to be the world's second largest exporter of oil. I thought they peaked in the 80's. Then I read how they found oil deep in crystalline basement rock.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheTurtle', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'W')hat it might mean is that new fields might be found in unexpected places.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'I')t's interesting that this subject would come up again as I just recently read the wikipedia article on abiotic oil. I'm not taking sides on this but I'm curious how Russia came to be the world's second largest exporter of oil. I thought they peaked in the 80's. Then I read how they found oil deep in crystalline basement rock.

[PenultimateManStanding]

Back to the subject of getting old. I noted for you my complaints, but I should also note that when I was young and my skin was thin I used to get these frightful nosebleeds. But I haven't had a nosebleed in 30 years. Those were bad. They wouldn't stop for hours and hours. Getting old has it's benefits I guess. I thought I was going to die from those nosebleeds. But death comes around anyway.

[TheDude]

The "Abiotic Oil" Controversy. Good concise read for doubters.

[NoFreeSpeech]

The Origins Of Oil And Petroleum

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'K')antrowitz turned to the geologist beside him and asked, "Do you really believe that petroleum is a fossil fuel?" The man said,"Certainly" and all four of them joined in. Kantrowitz listened quietly and then said, "The deepest fossil ever found has been at about 16,000 feet below sea level; yet we are getting oil from wells drilled to 30,000 and more. How could fossil fuel get down there?

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seldom_seen', 'W')hat's the point?

What you're doing is like going around the party at 3am when the liquor stores are closed and challenging people as to whether beer is bade from barley and hops.

[NoFreeSpeech]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lawnchair', 'W')hy does it matter, exactly?

[TheTurtle]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NoFreeSpeech', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')n old truism holds that a scientific discovery has three stages--first, people deny it is true; then they deny it is important

[NoFreeSpeech]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheTurtle', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NoFreeSpeech', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')n old truism holds that a scientific discovery has three stages--first, people deny it is true; then they deny it is important

[lawnchair]

There's a major difference between continental drift, heliocentrism, or evolution, each of which were a largely philosophical matter (though eventually having useful consequences); and abiotic oil, which would have an immediate tens-of-billions of dollar upside.

The implication is that you, Gadfly/NFS, are far and away cleverer than pretty much everyone at Chevron, et al. who are spending ridiculous amounts to drill in deep water in the path of hurricanes, nuking tar, and getting shot at in Nigeria. If you just had a little capital, you'd prove a multi-billion dollar industry so very wrong. They could just keep drilling in Texas and it'd all be good.

I can get contacts for mineral rights, very cheap, on depleted oil fields here in Kansas. I can tell you that the majors aren't interested, so you can get in for pocket change and drill as deep as you have stringers. If Kansas just ain't right for your theory, you can buy drilling rights in most of the world that has never produced oil-as-we-know-it for pennies. Even a coked-out George W Bush could start an oil company. I guess that the abiotic oil believers, put together, just can't afford a rig?

If the upshot of abiotic oil is that there is more oil, but it is so deep and so slow-percolating that it is more expensive than tarsands and ethanol, what does it matter?

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lawnchair', 'T')here's a major difference between continental drift, heliocentrism, or evolution, each of which were a largely philosophical matter (though eventually having useful consequences); and abiotic oil, which would have an immediate tens-of-billions of dollar upside.