THE Abiotic Oil Thread pt 2 (merged)

[EnergyUnlimited]

:?: FUSION With all respect - do your homework better, your calculations only describes the lack of knowledge.

I do not consider chemical reactions to be "calculations".

So, if you are a serious criticizer of the Abiogenic Hydrocarbon chemical process, than get the full report and come back with a matured calculation that belongs to the reality instead of what you already have presented here.

So could you present us with details of chemical process (as found in the publication which you are referring to) which is supposedly delivering Methane (CH4) solely from Calcium carbonate (CaCO3), Iron oxide(s) (Fe3O4, FeO, Fe2O3) and Water (H2O)?

You may post here for discussion purpose relevant part (one dealing with chemistry) of article from Nature Geoscience, (presumably you have access to it).

I would like to find out more details about chemical process responsible of transferring hydrogen from water to form methane and also to learn where oxygen is going as per proposed process.

You seem to advocate chemical impossibility on quite unsophisticated level here.
You probably misunderstood article or some details of it.

Why do you think that the “ Deep Carbon Observatory” was started in US 2008 and why
Do you think that they now are seeking science experience from Russia and their continuing
Research since the 1960,s within the Abiotic Hydrocarbon field ?
http://www.gl.ciw.edu/deep_carbon_project

1. Out of curiosity (to learn more about carbon cycle).

2. To provide additional forum for academics, so they can argue about particular subjects.

3. To provide jobs and secure public grants for particular academic institutions.

[rockdoc123]

Hydrocarbon, the result from my testing clearly show that the level of knowledge about the Abiotic
Oil and Gas theory and experience up to now are at a very low level after testing via my various
postings:: NOTE - On this forum at least until now...

I have a PhD in geology and have published several papers which deal with organic geochemistry, I've worked in the oil and gas exploration and development side of things for 30+ years which I believe qualifies me as being able to comment intelligently on this matter. Gold was shown to be wrong a long, long time ago. The fact we can demonstrate each and every oil occurrence to have come from a mature source rock, the fact we can take a source rock and create hydrocarbons in the lab, the fact we have biomarkers that can be traced from source to reservoired oil, the presence of diamonoids in all oils, the fact that reservoirs do not continue to replinish themselves, the fact that oil is not found everywhere (there are more dry holes by far than successful discoveries) pretty much puts a nail in the coffin of the abiotic theory. Bottom line is there is physical proof for an organic source for all oils, there is no physical proof for an abiotic origin.
Believe me if we actually thought there was anything in this theory we would all be exploring with it....even the Russian companies (eg Lukoil) gave up beating that dead horse a long time ago.

[Devil]

Bravo, RockDoc123! That puts the church fairly and squarely in the middle of the village.

Even if there be minute quantities of abiotic HCs, these were derived ultimately from C that has already passed through the biotic carbon cycle and has passed down the crust by seismic (possibly impact) activity.

Maybe Dr Swede will gracefully admit that he cannot persuade us experienced scientists that he carries any weight, except in his turnip-head. Who is this joker anyway and what are his qualifications?

[threadbear]

I met an oil man over the holidays. Has his own wells. He was adamant that oil comes from deep inside the earth, is abiotic in nature and that if just about any well ran dry, all they had to do was drill deep enough and they'd find more. He said it was a matter of money and the right technology, but the world is awash in both oil and natural gas, and technology is catching up, particularly where natural gas is concerned. I'm agnostic on the issue. I think though, that people have to be very careful about "conventional wisdom" when it comes to scientific theory backed by huge sums of money. Climategate, case in point. Carbon plays a part, no doubt, but solar activity is a huge part of the equation, as well.

[Dr SWEDE]

So, i can see that still after so many weeks - Prof. Devil have yet not been able to find
any good ideas as how to protest against coming success for the Abiotic Hydrocarbon
agenda.

Well, i am not surprised at all, Abiotic Hydrocarbon are winning more and more ground
globaly for each day that are passing and at the same time we can see governments
building up budgets for drilling after it.

Small Devils are good breakfast for larger Abiotic Devils.

[dinopello]

Well, i am not surprised at all, Abiotic Hydrocarbon are winning more and more ground
globaly for each day that are passing and at the same time we can see governments
building up budgets for drilling after it.

Which governments are spending tax money drilling for abiotic hydrocarbons ?

[EnergyUnlimited]

So, i can see that still after so many weeks - Prof. Devil have yet not been able to find
any good ideas as how to protest against coming success for the Abiotic Hydrocarbon
agenda.

What success?
I don't see any.
Just few academics talking and few fools losing money, that's about it.

[Dr SWEDE]

Time to rethink, soon !

[threadbear]

Bravo, RockDoc123! That puts the church fairly and squarely in the middle of the village.

Even if there be minute quantities of abiotic HCs, these were derived ultimately from C that has already passed through the biotic carbon cycle and has passed down the crust by seismic (possibly impact) activity.

Maybe Dr Swede will gracefully admit that he cannot persuade us experienced scientists that he carries any weight, except in his turnip-head. Who is this joker anyway and what are his qualifications?

<br>
<br>
Abiotic means "not" biotic or not derived from living sources. The "even if there are minute quantities" logic rests on the assumption that trickle down from the surface wouldn't amount to much. If oil is a combination of biotic sources filtering down and abiotic rising up, there is absolutely no rationale for the idea that there are only minute quantities. I had NO idea that some drillers think that oil is abiotic, until I spoke with a driller. It's in his best interest to understand the nature of oil, don't you think? His livlihood rests on it.

[dinopello]

I had NO idea that some drillers think that oil is abiotic, until I spoke with a driller. It's in his best interest to understand the nature of oil, don't you think? His livlihood rests on it.

It would seem to be in his best interest but probably not required for him to make a living. I have friends in the Wind Energy business who go out and secure land leases from farmers in areas on the east coast that have wind potential. They get permission to set up anemometers, collect data and if it looks good they make an offer for rights to erect the wind mills at some point in the future. They seem to have little interest as to what makes the wind.

[rockdoc123]

I had NO idea that some drillers think that oil is abiotic, until I spoke with a driller. It's in his best interest to understand the nature of oil, don't you think? His livlihood rests on it.

I've spent much of my life dealing with "drillers" ...if you mean the guys on the rigs most have a high school education. Drilling engineers on the other hand probably wouldn't know much about it either.

[EnergyUnlimited]

8)

Time to rethink, soon !

Looks like wishful thinking.
I could write similar unsubstantiated projections on any subject.
It doesn't mean that it would be something useful.
Even if true, still irrelevant in my remaining life left (I would be 80+ at biotic/abiotic break even).

[lonewolf]

NTSA!

from another current thread
"Unfortunately you've found the main forum on the internet that has done more to damage and discredit the peak oil message than any venue on earth." -MD

To all "Abiotic" morons - go create/infest your own site.
This is PeakOil.com and NOT PeakFairyTale.com
albeit I do acknowledge it is indeed very difficult to distinguish any difference recently.

[dinopello]

from another current thread
"Unfortunately you've found the main forum on the internet that has done more to damage and discredit the peak oil message than any venue on earth." -MD

To all "Abiotic" morons - go create/infest your own site.
This is PeakOil.com and NOT PeakFairyTale.com
albeit I do acknowledge it is indeed very difficult to distinguish any difference recently.

This is more a public square rather than an academic forum. It's good to have this because these are the arguments you hear in talking to people in your community. People want to believe the fairy tale and it's useful to have a place where you see the arguments for the fairy tale and people's reaction to it.

Those who say there are massive stockpiles of ever regenerating abiotic out there are easy to deal with. First, if they knew about any, they wouldn't be pimping it on this forum, they would be getting rich. Like if I claim biotic gold is made by caterpillars and all you people buying gold are idiots because anyone can breed gold caterpillars and make your stash worthless. What's wrong with this picture ?

[lonewolf]

"Biotic gold from caterpillars" is all fine and good - for utter caterpillar-brained morons - and they are 'welcome' to all the caterpillar gold they can possibly conjure. BUT, that doesn't mean that I/we have to welcome these willful morons into my/our house and/or feed them. If they are so 'smart', shouldn't they be capable of providing for their own shelter and substance (i.e. website)? How is it right and proper for them to feel free to invade my/our living room and deposit their hourly dump (fecal load) on the living room rug?

[dinopello]

How is it right and proper for them to feel free to invade my/our living room and deposit their hourly dump (fecal load) on the living room rug?

Well, if you put it that way ... But, I guess I don't view this site as my personal living room. I see it more as the public square and anyone who comes in is a community member. Just, some community members are annoying, some have agenda's, some are just plain crazy - just like in real life.

Back in the day, they had a way of dealing with those who got too far out there in the public square

[Dr SWEDE]

Biotic or Abiotic origin ?

[Tanada]

Biotic or Abiotic origin ?

All of the Methane Hydrates I have ever heard of are Biotic in nature, they clearly show the C12/C13 ratio of plant accumulated carbon, not that of abiotic carbon.

[rockdoc123]

All of the Methane Hydrates I have ever heard of are Biotic in nature, they clearly show the C12/C13 ratio of plant accumulated carbon, not that of abiotic carbon

to be specific wherever they have looked at the carbon makeup of hydrates they can be traced to thermogenic or biogenic origins with plant or bacterial precursors. In the cases of some of the more famous offshore hydrates that oil companies try to avoid when drilling for deep targets you can actually trace the flow of gas upwards from deeper traps on seismic. And those traps are most definitely from biogenic origins.

There is a wealth of peer-reviewed literature on this if anyone cares to look.

eg:

Origins of methane in natural methane hydrates are inferred from the carbon and hydrogen isotope compositions and hydrocarbon compositions. The methane in hydrates recovered from marine sediments around the world is mainly derived by the microbial reduction of CO2 from sedimentary organic matter, while the origin of methane in hydrates from permafrost areas is generally thermogenic decomposition of organic matter. Total organic carbon content in sediments is a key factor controlling the amount of methane hydrates.

Waseda, A., 2001, Origin of Methan in Natural Methane Hydrates, Aquabiology, V. 23, p. 446 - 450

[Dr SWEDE]

Tanada

Hydrate Leakage:
Methane gas leakage up through pores in the sediment rock could have caused plugging of the pores, forming hydrate domes. Similar ice plugs are found in gas pipelines at low temperatures and are a nuisance.

Another consideration is whether the methane source is from a biotic oil source or directly from abiotic seepage from sources deep within the Earth’s mantle. "The abundance may imply the latter." Biotic or “Fossil” Oil

Biotic oil production is waning even in the midst of rising fuel prices, signaling to many the arrival of “peak oil.” World oil projections as per Campbell’s peak oil study (ref. 9) imply diminishing of long-term supply and the end of “cheap oil.” This by no means signals a lack of fuels or energy, but recovery potential and expense become the issues.

Synthetic fuels can be derived from coal and natural gas using the well-known Fischer-Tropsch (F–T) process (ref. 10) or by modifications to current refinery techniques (Prof. Harold H. Schobert, 2006, Energy Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802–5000,
schobert@ems.psu.edu , personal communication). These fuels, with some further refining or additives, have the potential to be transportation and aviation fuels. Biofuels—such as ethanol and biodiesel—are
also emerging for aviation applications but will require further refining (ref. 11). Abiotic Oil

Even in the face of depleting oil supplies and high energy prices, there is re-emerging evidence that oil is abiotic of origin and is continually being formed deep within the Earth (ref. 12). These concepts are
given credence by NASA scientists in studies showing that abundant methane of a nonbiologic nature is found on Saturn’s giant moon Titan (ref. 13), a finding that validates the contention that oil is not a fossil
fuel. Further, the impact of the 4.5-bya (billion years ago) comet 9P Tempe1 showed an abundance of hydrocarbon CH–X in the post-impact spectra, whereas it was only marginally available in the pre-impact
spectra. Abundant water and CO2 appeared in both spectra with the configuration constituency of a “dirt ball” (ref. 14).

There is also laboratory evidence of hydrocarbon generation of oil at intense pressures (refs. 8, 15,
and 16). In 1951 Nikolai Kudryavtsev initiated the abiotic theory of oil formation, which is now attributed
to Russian and Ukranian scientists. This abiogenic theory was perhaps first cited by Mikhailo Vasilyevich
Lomonosov in the year 1757 with notable proponents such as Mendeleev (ref. 12) and Berthelot (refs. 16
and 17).

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2007/ ... 214816.pdf