Abiotic Oil Why Isn't This Part of the Debate?

Yes, I love it when hyperbole is used as proof of correctness, 99%??? now please provide site proof of that statement, from the research I have done on the subject I have found that there is no 99% of scientist who bereave in biotic source for oil, to many site from reputable scientist available, with more letters behind their name than you have in your name.

Now other then pulling this out of your ass, please post where you fine this data? That 99% of scientist don't believe in a-biotic oil.

ps: consensus does not equal correctness.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The deepest fossil ever discovered was 7,382 feet below the sea floor. However oil companies are drilling for oil 3 times that deep.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hydrocarbon bonds do not break apart below 15,000 feet as claimed by the fossil fuel cult. It is indeed a problem for them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes they are and finding fossil oil.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyone can make unsupported assertions as you do. Thought I would demonstrate this by making one contradicting yours. Why do you not try to present arguments or journal references as I do?

 

You must be joking. Either that or you're not literate enough to read the links I've been providing you.

 

Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and carbon is the fourth most common element in the universe. One would think that these two elements are able to bond together all the time and are constantly binding together throughout the universe. Yet not according to Dr. Colin Campbell, British Petroleum's chief propagandist for the biogenic petroleum origin cult and it's "fossil" fuel myth. According to Colin Campbell hydrogen and carbon only bonded together twice in the history of Earth.

According to science there is a different reality than the myth perpetuated by Colin Campbell. According to the modern theory, and more importantly empirical data, hydrocarbons are constantly being created.

According to the BBC, the Discovery Channel, and Science Daily, the deepest fossil ever discovered was 7,382 below the sea floor.

In the The Abiotic Oil "Controversy" Richard Heinberg states:

However according to Transocean, they have successfully drilled oil wells 30,189 feet below the mudline in over 4000 feet of water. This is far below the 15,000 feet limit claimed by Heinberg. And no Mr. Heinberg, hydrocarboon bonds do not break apart below 15,000 feet. That is a lie.

Where does Richard Heinberg get such a ridiculous idea?

None other than Shell Oil's Kenneth Deffeyes of Hubbert's Peak fame.

In Beyond Oil: The View From Hubbert's Peak Deffeyes writes:

This makes one wonder what kind of drugs Deffeyes is on. Transocean, the world's largest deep water offshore driller, regularly drills oil wells, not natural gas wells, twice as far below the "oil window" claimed by Deffeyes. And they are going deeper looking for oil, not natural gas. This is confirmed by Chevron and Schlumberger.

 

Billy T, this is the reason that the Biogenic say that oil is finite,

So if hydrocarbons break apart below this line due to heat and pressure, where does the oil come from that is being found at 20,000ft.+ ?

It shouldn't be there according to Deffeyes and Heinberg, it should have broken down, under the heat and pressure.

I am not the smartest but it is a obvious question.

 

This is an utterly ridiculous statement. It reveals you as either gullible, poorly educated, or a third rate liar. This single statement confirms that paying any attention to your delusions is a complete waste of time.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4950540.stm

Last Updated: Thursday, 27 April 2006, 15:13 GMT 16:13 UK

You seem to be the one not paying attention, and the postulation of Deffeyes and Heinberg, that oil should have broken down, under the heat and pressure beyond 15000ft, is shown to be wrong, the window is much deeper than 15000ft. as proved by the wells that are now being brought in.

The deepest known fossil 7800ft, oil beyond 20000ft., oil should break down, under the heat and pressure beyond 15000ft. so were is the discussion about A-Biotic Oil now?, and the fossil was petrified, no organic substance, in the rock, and still oil is found? below this depth?

Put that in the cement mixer of your brain and tell me what comes out?

 

I can't figure out what you are claiming here. Are you saying that biological deposits, such as biogenic limestone, shale, and oil, don't exist below 7500 feet?

That's not a quote from me. I'm not arguing about the thermodynamics of organic chemical reactions.

But it seems to me that if hycrocarbon bonds don't break easily under the simple heat and pressure of oil depths, that's more of a problem for your apparent assertions (near as I can make them out) - it would eliminate one of the factors destroying the long chains of hydrocarbons (including fats and oils) that algae and such contain, and that seem to have been interred in the sediments of the oceans and swamps during the many millions of years in which pond scum ruled the planet, available for the comparatively smaller changes of crude oil formation.

 

Question:
Isnt the organic raw material for oil desposits more than 99% algae?

 

...And the answer is also obvious:

Oil does not break down at depths below 15,000 feet. If Deffeyes and Heinberg predicted that, they have been clearly proved wrong by the successful recovery of oil from much deeper.

Every one admits that some oil is biotic in orgin. Occam suggest that one cause is more creditable that two entirely different natural means of forming exactly the same type of chemical compounds.

-------------------------------------------

BTW, I am still waiting for any of the "a-biotic oil exists" group to explain how, in the absence of unbound hydrogen deep in the Earth, the production of oil is possible. Why do you ignore this direct question?

I am not surprized that OilisMaster does so, because he (or she?) does not ever discuse, present arguments, or references, (except for citing and believe in Deffeyes and Heinberg, who are clearly wrong). He only repeatedly ASSERTS the same often self-contradictory claims. (Such as the strong H-O bond in water can be broken down to supply hydrogen but the relative weak C-H bond in oil would not be - The freed hydrogen would form C-H bonds (at the same location) where conditions destroy the stroner H-O bond.)

Unlike him, you have in other posts exhibited some intelligence, ability to think, discuss, present evidence, etc. Why do you not do so here? I.e. answer my now several times possed question about there the ESSENTIAL free hydrogen comes from to form the postulated a-biotic oil.

OilisMaster's answer (It is from the hydrogen of the gas cloud that formed the Earth and stars of the universe, because hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, some is still deep in the Earth, etc.) is nonsense. The moltent earth let the heavy elements, like iron etc., sink to the center, but can not even now (much cooler today) prevent hydrogen from rapidly esacping into space.

Being the lightest of all gases, hydrogen molecules must travel faster than all others at the same temperature (Temperature is the average kinetic energy which is 1/2 m V^2)

For example, the oxygen molecule (atomic mass = 32) is 32/2 = 16 times heavier than the hydrogen molecule (atomic mass = 2). Thus when H2 and O2 are at the same temperature, the hydrogen is on average traveling 4 times faster. Not all molecules have that average velocity. Their distribution of velocites is well know Maxwell distribution and many of the faster hydrogen ones have more than enough velocity to escape from the Earth, even at the cold temperatrure of the upper atmosphere, where gas density is so thin that most "get away" from Earth with hitting another molecule on the way out, which could scatter them back down into denser air. This is true today! - True of all hydrogen back when Earth was so hot it was moltent.

I still believe that you are capable of thought, logic, understanding and RATIONAL DISCUSSION - at least I hope so. So if you are and still persist in support the a-biotic oil nonsense, you will attempt an answer to the question:

Where did the ESSENTAIL free hydrogen come from, deep in the Earth?

 

You failed the reading comprehension test. Correct me if I am wrong, but statements you have made about the theory of evolution in other threads indicate that you do not believe it is true, in spite of the massive amounts of evidence, and its overwhelming acceptance in scientific circles. But you have glommed on to abiotic oil hypothesis in spite of the fact that only a few outliers are proponents of the idea. This is relevant because it goes to your credibility. Truth may not be arrived at by consensus, but when the majority of the accredited experts in any field are in agreement, they are most likely correct.

This thread is very much like the threads on global warming skepticism, and HIV/AIDS skeptic threads.

 

If there is sedimentary rock past that depth please provide a link.

Oil companies are drilling directly into crystalline basement, not sedimentary rock.

You're going to run into the problem that the only people who posit living organisms at that depth are abiogenic petroleum theorists such as Thomas Gold who wrote The Deep Hot Biosphere.

 

No. Noone makes petroleum from algae.

 

Again consensus is not proof of correctness.

The following list contains many creationist scientists, but it is in no way exhaustive. You may notice the presence of many famous ones who were founders:

Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)

Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)

Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)

Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)

Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)

Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)

Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer)

Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)

Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

John Grebe (chemist)

Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

George F. Howe (botanist)

D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)

James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)

Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)

Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)

Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

Frank L. Marsh (biologist)

Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist)

Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)

William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist)

Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

A.J. (Monty) White (chemist)

A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)

John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

For more information, click here:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

For even more extensive lists, click here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

That’s a lot of impressive credentials in my book.

 

Agreed,but you then list people, instead of answer my direct question to you, asked for the third time in posts 272?

 

I make no apologies for my inability to take creationists seriously. Anyone who maintains that some magical being poofed everything into existence has no credibility about any scientific subject. If you can believe in creationism, you can believe in anything.

 

You've got it all wrong. It's Atheists who maintain that the universe magically poofed into existence and appeared out of nowhere for no reason at all and with no scientific explanation. What caused the Big Bang? Creationists have a First Cause, namely God. Atheists don't know what cause and effect are. The universe is an effect. So what is it's cause? Only creationists have an answer to this question.

But this is the wrong forum for this discussion.

 

First cause is useless. As Carl Sagan said, "If god created everything, what created god? If god has existed forever, why not save a step and say the universe has existed forever? If the answer is "I don't know", then why not save a step, and say "I don't know how the universe was created"?

But this is good; your posts have a quality of dogmatic certainty about them that is usually (but not exclusively) associated with religious faith.