by AdamB » Sun 12 Jun 2022, 09:05:13
Seriously Tanada. This? Again? The reason why this idea doesn't even matter is because it is far easier to make liquid hydrocarbons out of natural gas, be it from other reservoirs or dairy cows farting. 440,000 PSI pressures to make some synthetic oil? Sort of? Maybe?
The Eagleford, when you do the thermal mapping of the generation, and other there you get oil (because the organic material wasn't heated as much) and other there you get gas (because the oil you first created was cracked to oil under additional temperature and pressure). And when you can type the kerogen involved (which geochemists do all the time) you discover the type of organic material the oil is sourced from (and therefore the nearby gas in the same formation), and in that same instant know it wasn't built from the raw materials quoted in the article.
The problem for the abiotic folks is always the geochemistry, where that gang of scientists can parade around their work on the organic material that all known oil and gas comes from, as opposed to those claiming it comes from something else, but can't back it up with the geochemistry. Or pressures and temperatures that turn sedimentary rock into granite, destroying the organic material along the way because of exactly those high pressures and temperatures needed to allegedly make oil. Except at those temperatures it then vaporizes to oil, and then methane even breaks down into, I dunno. I'll have to ask a chemist, what happens to methane under extreme pressures and temperatures. You end up with carbon and hydrogen in some form I imagine.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"