Scientific Retards

Status
Not open for further replies.
OilIsMastery said:
I thought you agreed that I proved Campbell, Deffeyes, and Heinberg are "fucking idiots" for believing in the oil window and all of their other ridiculous beliefs.
Click to expand...

no one with even the most basic knowledge of logic and the scientific method agree with you.
 
OilIsMastery said:
I think we've come to an agreement so let me tell you my conclusions so we can start arguing again.

Saying that the bulk of the oxygen is biogenic in origin is a totally meaningless statement. It doesn't mean we are running out of oxygen. Oxygen is the third most common element in the universe.
Click to expand...

Agreed - some of gaseous O2 in the atmosphere is of biotic origin some of it isn't - there is probably data on what the proportion is of biotic to abiotic is - but frankly I'm about to start watching the Dr Who episiode I missed earlier so I can't be arsed to look for it.

However the conversion of our primordial atmosphere to a similar oxygen/nitrogen mix that we have today was the result of micro organisms, and marked the advent of the evolution of photosynthesis.

Ironically it caused a mass extinction of a huge number of the anaerobic beasties that were around at the time.

There's little chance of running out of oxygen in the foseeable future - even if we poisoned the oceans to remove phytoplankton and burned down our forests we would have enough oxygen for a very long time indeed [citation omitted for the reasons given above]

Not sure what your point is though
 
pjdude1219 said:
no one with even the most basic knowledge of logic and the scientific method agree with you.
Click to expand...
So hydrocarbon bonds break apart above 275 degrees F as claimed by Heinberg? No they don't. The 33 billion barrels of oil at Carioca are trapped by 500 degree heat.

So oil can't be found past 15,000 feet TVD as claimed by Deffeyes and Heinberg? Oil companies have been drilling past 15,000 feet TVD since 1938.
 
OilIsMastery said:
I thought you agreed that I proved Campbell, Deffeyes, and Heinberg are "fucking idiots" for believing in the oil window and all of their other ridiculous beliefs.
Click to expand...

ok here the quote you posted - lets tease it apart so you understand it

"Burying the sediments, or the oil, deeper than 15,000 feet continues the molecular breaking until the remaining product has only one carbon atom per molecule. That gas, almost pure methane (CH4) is often referred to as "dry" natural gas. The limit of 15,000 feet is the bottom of the oil window." -- Kenneth Deffeyes"

so first of all, what is the oil window? - its the range of depth at which oil forms - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Formation

Just forms - nothing else

No prediction about where oil can be found can necessarily be extrapolated from this - indeed to do so is to misunderstand the terminology and jump to aconclusion that is not supported by the facts.

As the oil itself can migrate in any direction through the rock, and as rock strata can be re-shuffled or subducted to take the oil bearing rock to a different depth, it can therefore be found deeper.

Now beyond the oil window the oil will - as you rightly point out - be converted into methane - but like all geological processes this is slow - not instananeous.
Deffreyes even points this out in the quote by stating that oil continues to be broken down until the remaining product has only one carbon atom per molecule - thereby stating clearly that the process is not instantaneous.
It follows therefore that if we find oil beyond the oil window, it is not proof of an abiogenic origin, it is merely an oil reserve that has not yet fully converted into metane - indeed this is exactly what Deffeyes statement tells us.

Do you see now - references to the oil window related to formation - not where reservoirs can be found.

Scientific language is generally unambiguous, but it is nuanced - you need to learn to spot that nuance to interpret its true meaning.
 
Last edited:
synthesizer-patel said:
Agreed.... Not sure what your point is though
Click to expand...
My point is we will never run out of hydrocarbons just as we will never run out of oxygen.

http://www.peakoil.net/about-peak-oil

Oil was formed in the geological past under well understood processes.
Click to expand...
Well understood processes? Lol.

In fact, the bulk of current production comes from just two epochs of extreme global warming, 90 and 150 million years ago, when algae proliferated
Click to expand...
So according to Colin Campbell almost all oil was formed only twice in the history of the universe.

I don't know how he possibly knows that. Oil is being drilled from igneous rock and precambrian sediments.
 
Last edited:
synthesizer-patel said:
ok here the quote you posted - lets tease it apart so you understand it

"Burying the sediments, or the oil, deeper than 15,000 feet continues the molecular breaking until the remaining product has only one carbon atom per molecule. That gas, almost pure methane (CH4) is often referred to as "dry" natural gas. The limit of 15,000 feet is the bottom of the oil window." -- Kenneth Deffeyes"

so first of all what is the oil window - its the range of depth at which oil forms - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Formation

Just forms - nothing else
Click to expand...
Noone has ever witnessed oil forming at that depth. Ever. Rank speculation and I challenge you to find a source for that claim that predates Deffeyes. The temperature and pressure at that depth isn't sufficient.
 
OilIsMastery said:
Noone has ever witnessed oil forming at that depth. Ever. Rank speculation and I challenge you to find a source for that claim that predates Deffeyes. The temperature and pressure at that depth isn't sufficient.
Click to expand...

Your assertion here is taken from the Kenney et al paper - the paper has been thoroughly debunked
 
Last edited:
I did not read all the posts. So, here is the question. Those who believe in abiotic oil, what is the mechanism to find oil ? What sensors I need or build to do that?
 
kmguru said:
Those who believe in abiotic oil, what is the mechanism to find oil?
Click to expand...
Best way is an ultra-deep water rig such as an enhanced-Enterprise class drillship which can drill in 12,000 feet of water and 25,000 feet past the mythological "oil window" (the so-called MZOF lol). It'll cost you $750 million to buy or $600,000 per day to lease. www.deepwater.com

What sensors I need or build to do that?
Click to expand...
Seismic. www.westerngeco.com
 
Last edited:
I think, it may be cheaper to get the Russians or the Chinese to drill it. As to sensors, I think, I may have to build one from scratch....using multi-spectral FFT technology.
 
Oil is older than cyanobacteria. Oil is > 3.46 Billion years old.

http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/1/50

The most ancient evidence comes from the Warrawoona Group (>3.46 Ga), where hydrocarbon droplets were apparently formed
Click to expand...

Cyanobacteria is only 3.45 Billion years old.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/305816.stm

'Oldest ever' fossils found ...

They found some 3.45 billion-year-old dolomite in the Pilbara range in North West Australia. After etching it with acid they found the fossils using an electron microscope.

It is believed that the fossils are of a cyanobacteria - an organism that still forms thick mats in warm shallow seas today.
Click to expand...
This suggests oil is older than any living organism.

OWNED!!!

Cyanobacteria (blue green algae) does not generate crude oil. Precisely the opposite, it feeds on crude oil and destroys it.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=4206002

Several pieces of evidence indicate that Microcoleus chthonoplastes and Phormidium corium, the predominant cyanobacteria in microbial mats on crude oil polluting the Arabian Gulf coasts, contribute to oil degradation by consuming individual n-alkanes. Both cyanobacteria grew phototrophically better in the presence of crude oil or individual n-alkanes than in their absence, indicating that hydrocarbons may have been utilized. This result was true when growth was measured in terms of dry biomass, as well as in terms of the content of biliprotein, the accessory pigment characteristic of cyanobacteria. The phototrophic biomass production by P. corium was directly proportional to the concentration of n-nonadecane (C19) in the medium
Click to expand...
In fact, environmentalists use cyanobacteria to clean up oil spills.

http://www.amazon.com/Ecology-Cyano...TF8&coliid=I3SXF6MXB4J3JG&colid=3MMKZAZ2DTWIO

the role of cyanobacteria in ecosystem recovery from oil pollution
Click to expand...
LOL
 
Last edited:
OilIsMastery said:
From your links:

http://www.scgis.ru/russian/cp1251/h_dgggms/1-2003/informbul-1_2003/hydroterm-22e.pdf


Owned.

Also the temperatures and pressures shown in the diagram there are hilarious and simply wrong.

Not one of those links says oil has been observed forming above 15,000 feet TVD. Try again.
Click to expand...

so you refute the data that the paper presents, but still manage to accept that statement - how very scientific

However you should have read to the end - the author describes the presence of deep oil depostis by two possible methods.
Downwards migration of biomass or upwards migration of deep carbon sources.
So he doesn't rule out a biogenic source at all.
 
synthesizer-patel said:
so you refute the data that the paper presents, but still manage to accept that statement - how very scientific
Click to expand...
Yup. Thanks synth. I love you forever.

Oh this is a cute little gem too. Scientists at Oxford reject the claim of 3.45 billion year old cyanobacteria.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11882895?dopt=Abstract

Questioning the evidence for Earth's oldest fossils.

Earth Sciences Department, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PR, UK. martinb@earth.ox.ac.uk

Structures resembling remarkably preserved bacterial and cyanobacterial microfossils from about 3,465-million-year-old Apex cherts of the Warrawoona Group in Western Australia currently provide the oldest morphological evidence for life on Earth and have been taken to support an early beginning for oxygen-producing photosynthesis. Eleven species of filamentous prokaryote, distinguished by shape and geometry, have been put forward as meeting the criteria required of authentic Archaean microfossils, and contrast with other microfossils dismissed as either unreliable or unreproducible. These structures are nearly a billion years older than putative cyanobacterial biomarkers, genomic arguments for cyanobacteria, an oxygenic atmosphere and any comparably diverse suite of microfossils. Here we report new research on the type and re-collected material, involving mapping, optical and electron microscopy, digital image analysis, micro-Raman spectroscopy and other geochemical techniques. We reinterpret the purported microfossil-like structure as secondary artefacts formed from amorphous graphite within multiple generations of metalliferous hydrothermal vein chert and volcanic glass. Although there is no support for primary biological morphology, a Fischer--Tropsch-type synthesis of carbon compounds and carbon isotopic fractionation is inferred for one of the oldest known hydrothermal systems on Earth.
Click to expand...
Fischer-Tropsch-type processes! Read it and weep.
 
OilIsMastery said:
Oil is older than cyanobacteria. Oil is > 3.46 Billion years old.

http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/1/50



Cyanobacteria is only 3.45 Billion years old.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/305816.stm
This suggests oil is older than any living organism.
OWNED!!!
Click to expand...

You utter retard - these two articles are talking about the same fossils - the journal article is merely more accurate in describing the date than the popular press article.


OilIsMastery said:
Cyanobacteria (blue green algae) does not generate crude oil. Precisely the opposite, it feeds on crude oil and destroys it.

In fact, environmentalists use cyanobacteria to clean up oil spills.
Click to expand...

what to you think happens to the oil ?

it is merely converted to other hydrocarbons that have a better bioavailability for the bacteria

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v14/n5/abs/nbt0596-639.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=98d477e4b484403295b0330116a394fa

Your point is irrelevant anyway - Biogenic oil origin theory describes what happens to lipids and other hydrocarbons present in organisms after they are dead, and how they are converted into crude oil by physical - not biological processes - it does not predict million/billion year old cyanobacteria to be present in oil reserves.
 
oilismystery said:
Oil is older than cyanobacteria.
- - -
This suggests oil is older than any living organism.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't.

We don't know how old cyans are. And we know that cyanobacteria are not the first living or quasiliving organisms. They are too complicated. There was life before them.

What it suggests is that we can learn a lot about the early stages of life on earth by studying its remains and fossils - such as very old crude oil.

That is the second time you have been corrected on that point by me. I'm predicting at least two more, in various threads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top