They have no shame, biotic theory has no test, and cannot be falsified according to them. That this renders it an unscientific theory doesn't matter, for believers of a religion, it MUST be true.
Abiotic theory predates biotic theory, the latter was coined in the late 19th century by rockefeller as a way to make oil seem inherently scare and pushed on the geology community
The test that proves biotic theory has been around for a very long time and is used daily in labs around the world. It is called pyrolysis by which source rock is converted to oil and gas through heating.
David Middleton wrote: The Saturnian moon, Titan, has seas of liquid methane and there is evidence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Titan’s atmosphere. "
David wrote:Firstly, there is nothing unusual about EI 330’s production curve
You make this easy for me rd123. That's such a dumb test, and typical of your sort. If I open the fridge and take out my socks, does that act alone tell you where the socks came from? No. If there was some fungus growing on the socks then biotic geologists would conclude the socks came from the fungus. Cos that's what you do with the oil you find it rocks.
pyrolysis just means 'create by heat \ fire' it isn't a test for biotic oil.
Alexander F. Goncharov wrote: We show that when methane is exposed to pressures higher than 2 GPa, and to temperatures in the range of 1,000–1,500 K, it partially reacts to form saturated hydrocarbons containing 2–4 carbons (ethane, propane and butane) and molecular hydrogen and graphite. Conversely, exposure of ethane to similar conditions results in the production of methane, suggesting that the synthesis of saturated hydrocarbons is reversible. Our results support the suggestion that hydrocarbons heavier than methane can be produced by abiogenic processes in the upper mantle.
We show that when methane is exposed to pressures higher than 2 GPa, and to temperatures in the range of 1,000–1,500 K, it partially reacts to form saturated hydrocarbons containing 2–4 carbons (ethane, propane and butane) and
U know I don't care about your dumb 'matching' oil signatures biomarker test. I know and accept it links the oil to 2 different rock types, and will logically suggest the upper bedrock sourced its oil from the lower sediment rock. But it doesn't tell you where the lower sediment rock got the oil from or indeed if the sediment rock was deposited with oil.
You are stuck on this, and need to move on.
rockdoc123 wrote:We show that when methane is exposed to pressures higher than 2 GPa, and to temperatures in the range of 1,000–1,500 K, it partially reacts to form saturated hydrocarbons containing 2–4 carbons (ethane, propane and butane) and
You are just showing more of your ignorance here. Those are LPG (as I said before) not long chain hydrocarbons that relate to oil. How many times do you have to be told the difference between oil and gas? Apparently at least 5 times.
your statement here just shows what a complete moron you are. The source rock does not have oil in it until is matures. It has extremely low permeability (nano darcies) so it is impossible for oil to have somehow come in there. Your talk about the lower sediment rock etc just demonstrates you haven't a frigging clue about anything that has been discussed here. But that doesn't stop you from blathering on as if you do. It links the oil to a source rock which is a shale with kerogen in it and a reservoir rock which is a rock with pore space filled with oil and permeability that allows the oil to get in there.
Jesus wept. What a complete moron.
PROGRESS!
So now LPGs can be made in the mantle huh? If the high priest of biotic oil David Middleton admits that, it must be true. We are more than half of the way to abiotic oil. You say its extremely hard to reverse the process of cracking between LPGs and methane. And I believe you. Tell us, compared to c1 to c2-5, is it harder or easier, or about the same to convert LPGs to slightly longer carbons chain rings and trees? hehehe!
peakoilwhen wrote:with the entire western funding for oil drilling being scarce, you've just stated why no one will drill in Hawaii.
peakoilwhen wrote: Its doubtful there is economic oil there, the sort that blasts itself 50ft and 5b/sec into the sky.
But for a demo of abiotic oil, its good though.
peakoilwhen wrote:David wrote:Firstly, there is nothing unusual about EI 330’s production curve
He's right, there's nothing unusual, because as usual it breaks Hubbert's curve, which is based on a finite resource model, and instead tends towards a constant non zero output.
wtf?
How can a well have a constant output indefinately? Because its slowly being renewed by upwelling mantle oil.
AdamB wrote:So far, no sign of oil at all, economic or otherwise. In part because...as has been pointed out to you...<snicker snicker>...at those temperatures oil gets turned into thermogenic gas...for starters. You know...just like it does everywhere else in the world.....duh.
Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests