AHC Have Abiotic Oil formation become a dominate theory

Nietzsche

Banned
As it says in the title with a Pod no later then 1900 make the Abiotic Theory the dominate theory of oil formation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Eh, you might as well argue that the planet expanded instead of tectonic plate movement. Seriously. Look it up, that's a thing. Thankfully small and relegated to only the most retarded, but still a thing.

This, while much more plausible...is just as unlikely, as the evidence against it is massive. You could give it more support, but there comes a time when it'll be phased out for simply being -wrong-.
 

Jimmyson

Banned
Eh, you might as well argue that the planet expanded instead of tectonic plate movement. Seriously. Look it up, that's a thing. Thankfully small and relegated to only the most retarded, but still a thing.

This, while much more plausible...is just as unlikely, as the evidence against it is massive. You could give it more support, but there comes a time when it'll be phased out for simply being -wrong-.

True but even things that are blatantly wrong such as Lysenkoism have been adopted by some state, perhaps an oil producing state uses this theory as propaganda. Perhaps something along the lines of a "The Supreme Being gives us this oil as a gift for we are the chosen people and it is ever replicating." sort of thing sounds better for propaganda then our countrys resource comes from dead plant matter. So as the theory is wrong it is still considered one of the dominate theorys of how the formation of oil happens as a world power holds it as state dogma
 
True but even things that are blatantly wrong such as Lysenkoism have been adopted by some state, perhaps an oil producing state uses this theory as propaganda. Perhaps something along the lines of a "The Supreme Being gives us this oil as a gift for we are the chosen people and it is ever replicating." sort of thing sounds better for propaganda then our countrys resource comes from dead plant matter. So as the theory is wrong it is still considered one of the dominate theorys of how the formation of oil happens as a world power holds it as state dogma
The problem is that such a theory would be a total dead end for oil geology. Practical oil exploration depends upon an intimate understanding of the paleogeology that leads to masses of marine life dying and being transformed by heat and pressure into oil.
 

Jimmyson

Banned
The problem is that such a theory would be a total dead end for oil geology. Practical oil exploration depends upon an intimate understanding of the paleogeology that leads to masses of marine life dying and being transformed by heat and pressure into oil.
So this is a no go unless the challenge is changed to something like make it a dominate theory for a time period greater then 15 years
 

hammo1j

Donor
Thomas Gold's book The Deep Hot Biosphere is worth a read in respect of the Abiogenesis of oil.

This makes the case for this theory as a fact based contender. IIRC correctly approx 15% of Oil Industry experts (esp Russians) believe Oil does not have a biological origin.
 

mowque

Banned
Thomas Gold's book The Deep Hot Biosphere is worth a read in respect of the Abiogenesis of oil.

This makes the case for this theory as a fact based contender. IIRC correctly approx 15% of Oil Industry experts (esp Russians) believe Oil does not have a biological origin.

It is nonsense. Wiki has an easy list-

Key arguments against chemical reactions, such as the serpentinite mechanism, as being the major source of hydrocarbon deposits within the crust are;

  • The lack of available pore space within rocks as depth increases
    • This is contradicted by numerous studies which have documented the existence of hydrologic systems operating over a range of scales and at all depths in the continental crust.[57]
  • The lack of any hydrocarbon within the crystalline shield areas of the major cratons, especially around key deep seated structures which are predicted to host oil by the abiogenic hypothesis.[31] See Siljan Lake.
  • Limited evidence that major serpentinite belts underlie continental sedimentary basins which host oil
  • Lack of conclusive proof that carbon isotope fractionation observed in crustal methane sources is entirely of abiogenic origin (Lollar et al. 2006)[4]
  • Mass balance problems of supplying enough carbon dioxide to serpentinite within the metamorphic event before the peridotite is fully reacted to serpentinite
  • Drilling of the Siljan Ring failed to find commercial quantities of oil,[31] thus providing a counter example to Kudryavtsev's Rule[41] and failing to locate the predicted abiogenic oil.
  • Helium in the Siljan Gravberg-1 well was depleted in 3He and not consistent with a mantle origin[58]
    • The Gravberg-1 well only produced 84 barrels (13.4 m3) of oil, which later was shown to derive from organic additives, lubricants and mud used in the drilling process.[41][42][43]
  • The distribution of sedimentary basins is caused by plate tectonics, with sedimentary basins forming on either side of a volcanic arc, which explains the distribution of oil within these sedimentary basins
  • Kudryavtsev's Rule has been explained for oil and gas (not coal): Gas deposits which are below oil deposits can be created from that oil or its source rocks. Because natural gas is less dense than oil, as kerogen and hydrocarbons are generating gas the gas fills the top of the available space. Oil is forced down, and can reach the spill point where oil leaks around the edge(s) of the formation and flows upward. If the original formation becomes completely filled with gas then all the oil will have leaked above the original location.[59]
  • Ubiquitous presence of diamondoids in natural hydrocarbons such as oil, gas and condensates are composed of carbon from biological sources, unlike the carbon found in normal diamonds.[60]
 
I certainly think that the theory could be accepted for a while.

Any group that believed it would miss a lot of oil findable by standard theory, and luck into a few deposits, not expected by them.

So, ja, standard theory wins out, eventually.

OTOH, the biggest understanding is less the whole 'shallow seas' thing, and more the anticline traps that HOLD the oil, however produced.

The abiotic guys would be drilling twice as many wells for the same amount of oil produced, and thus wouldn't be competitive.


As for modern abiotic theory, the versions I've seen seriously discussed pertain only to natural gas (methane) and even then not to most of the existing supply. They're mostly claiming there are vast untapped reserves that haven't been found yet. IIRC.
 
It is nonsense. Wiki has an easy list-

Key arguments against chemical reactions, such as the serpentinite mechanism, as being the major source of hydrocarbon deposits within the crust are;

  • The lack of available pore space within rocks as depth increases
    • This is contradicted by numerous studies which have documented the existence of hydrologic systems operating over a range of scales and at all depths in the continental crust.[57]
  • The lack of any hydrocarbon within the crystalline shield areas of the major cratons, especially around key deep seated structures which are predicted to host oil by the abiogenic hypothesis.[31] See Siljan Lake.
  • Limited evidence that major serpentinite belts underlie continental sedimentary basins which host oil
  • Lack of conclusive proof that carbon isotope fractionation observed in crustal methane sources is entirely of abiogenic origin (Lollar et al. 2006)[4]
  • Mass balance problems of supplying enough carbon dioxide to serpentinite within the metamorphic event before the peridotite is fully reacted to serpentinite
  • Drilling of the Siljan Ring failed to find commercial quantities of oil,[31] thus providing a counter example to Kudryavtsev's Rule[41] and failing to locate the predicted abiogenic oil.
  • Helium in the Siljan Gravberg-1 well was depleted in 3He and not consistent with a mantle origin[58]
    • The Gravberg-1 well only produced 84 barrels (13.4 m3) of oil, which later was shown to derive from organic additives, lubricants and mud used in the drilling process.[41][42][43]
  • The distribution of sedimentary basins is caused by plate tectonics, with sedimentary basins forming on either side of a volcanic arc, which explains the distribution of oil within these sedimentary basins
  • Kudryavtsev's Rule has been explained for oil and gas (not coal): Gas deposits which are below oil deposits can be created from that oil or its source rocks. Because natural gas is less dense than oil, as kerogen and hydrocarbons are generating gas the gas fills the top of the available space. Oil is forced down, and can reach the spill point where oil leaks around the edge(s) of the formation and flows upward. If the original formation becomes completely filled with gas then all the oil will have leaked above the original location.[59]
  • Ubiquitous presence of diamondoids in natural hydrocarbons such as oil, gas and condensates are composed of carbon from biological sources, unlike the carbon found in normal diamonds.[60]

I forgot to check this thread.
Could you please explain this http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ca...-20080213.html ?
 
I forgot to check this thread.
Could you please explain this http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ca...-20080213.html ?

Titan's hydrocarbons are the result of primordial methane reacting in the presence of ultraviolet light to form more complex hydrocarbons--methane is very easily formed in the interstellar medium. For that matter, so are heavy hydrocarbons--there have been icy bodies in the outer solar system, like Jupiter trojan asteroids, whose spectral signatures match tar.

The theory of abiotic oil formation is still not accepted because it, overall, fails to predict the location of new oil reserves as well as biotic oil formation. Where abiotic oil formation says there should be deposits, there aren't. It is largely agreed that, in the inner solar system, the solar wind blew away the vapors of volatile chemicals like methane--only further out, where it existed as ice, did methane remain.

As with darwinian evolution, there is no way to keep biotic oil formation down--in science, those theories that have the most evidence behind them triumph. A regime that rejects scientific truth in the modern day does not last long--that's why the Soviets abandoned lysenkoism.
 
Titan's hydrocarbons are the result of primordial methane reacting in the presence of ultraviolet light to form more complex hydrocarbons--methane is very easily formed in the interstellar medium. For that matter, so are heavy hydrocarbons--there have been icy bodies in the outer solar system, like Jupiter trojan asteroids, whose spectral signatures match tar.

The theory of abiotic oil formation is still not accepted because it, overall, fails to predict the location of new oil reserves as well as biotic oil formation. Where abiotic oil formation says there should be deposits, there aren't. It is largely agreed that, in the inner solar system, the solar wind blew away the vapors of volatile chemicals like methane--only further out, where it existed as ice, did methane remain.

As with darwinian evolution, there is no way to keep biotic oil formation down--in science, those theories that have the most evidence behind them triumph. A regime that rejects scientific truth in the modern day does not last long--that's why the Soviets abandoned lysenkoism.

OK. Thank you.
 
contradictions

The main people who deny global warming are the main people who use the theory of evolution, a theory that oil comes from life forms that existed millions of years ago.

The main supporters of this denial believe that the earth ready formed by God less than twenty thousand ears ago. If God created the earth ten thousand years ago, he could just as easily have put oil under Stone Mountain GA as under Spindletop. So why aren't the creationists asking the big oil companies whom they support to drill for oil near Sudbury or under Stone Mountain?
 

Meerkat92

Banned
The main people who deny global warming are the main people who use the theory of evolution, a theory that oil comes from life forms that existed millions of years ago.

The main supporters of this denial believe that the earth ready formed by God less than twenty thousand ears ago. If God created the earth ten thousand years ago, he could just as easily have put oil under Stone Mountain GA as under Spindletop. So why aren't the creationists asking the big oil companies whom they support to drill for oil near Sudbury or under Stone Mountain?

You might as well ask how creationists can breed dogs without wondering what makes them change over time or why their doctors constantly need to change antibiotics to combat these new "superbugs". :rolleyes:
 
Top