Oil is NOT a fossil fuel...

[Zohaar818]

http://www.energybulletin.net/2093.html

 

[and greetings to Uncle Al...]

 

"...The results demonstrate that methane readily forms by the reaction of marble with iron-rich minerals and water under conditions typical in Earth's upper mantle," said Laurence Fried, of Livermore's Chemistry and Materials Science Directorate. "This suggests that there may be untapped methane reserves well below Earth's surface. Our calculations show that methane is thermodynamically stable under conditions typical of Earth's mantle, indicating that such reserves could potentially exist for millions of years." The study is published in the Sept. 13-17 early, online edition of the PNAS.

 

The mantle is a dense, hot layer of semi-solid rock approximately 2,900 kilometers thick. The mantle, which contains more iron, magnesium and calcium than the crust, is hotter and denser because temperature and pressure inside Earth increase with depth. Because of the firestorm-like temperatures and crushing pressure in Earth's mantle, molecules behave very differently than they do on the surface. "When we looked at the samples under these pressures and temperatures, they revealed optical changes indicative of methane formation," Fried said. "At temperatures above 2,200 degrees Fahrenheit, we found that the carbon in calcite formed carbon dioxide rather than methane. This implies that methane in the interior of Earth might exist at depths between 100 and 200 kilometers. This has broad implications for the hydrocarbon reserves of the planet and could indicate that methane is more prevalent in the mantle than previously thought. Due to the vast size of Earth's mantle, hydrocarbon reserves in the mantle could be much larger than reserves currently found in Earth's crust."

 

 

*Authors of the PNAS study are the following: Henry P. Scott, Indiana University, South Bend; Russell Hemley and Ho-kwang Mao of the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory; Dudley Herschbach of Harvard University: Laurence Fried, Michael Howard and Sorin Bastea of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

 

-Zohaar

[Tormod]

NOTE THAT THIS IS AMERICAN RESEARCH, posted and freely available on-line for almost a year...

 

Who cares what nationality it is...

 

Anyway, methane is merely an *indicator* of life. That it is not conclusive of life has been known (or should I say "suspected", I don't know what phrases will meet your requirements) for a long time. The occurence of Methane on Mars has been known for a while know, as has methane on Titan, yet there is no evidence yet for the existence of living matter there. The issue in both places is that too much methane is observed compared to what predictions say, because methane leaked into the atmosphere evaporates into space due to the solar wind. So there must be underground sources.

 

I don't see why it would be different here on Earth.

[Boerseun]

The issue with methane is that it could be an indicator of life in an oxygen-rich atmosphere. Oxygen breaks methane down very swiftly, and the reaction is so efficient that in an oxygen-rich atmosphere, there shouldn't be a single methane molecule at all.

 

Unless there's a constant source of methane.

 

This could either be life, or seepage from underground reservoirs. And in the case of Titan, the amount of methane in the atmosphere is explained by the lack of oxygen. Methane can exist quite happily on Titan.

 

Methane pockets underground could very well exist without biological origins, and there not being any gas exchange between these pockets and the oxygen in the atmosphere, could exist for millions of years.

 

It's a humbling thought: If ET is sitting behind a spectroscope, checking out planet Earth from his lab on a planet far, far away, the first indicators he'll have that there might just be life on this blue spot he's looking at, is the combined result of our collective farts. So - next time you let one rip; you might just be communicating info about Earth to an alien scientist.

 

I think we should promote public farting.

[Zohaar818]

Who cares what nationality it is...

 

Anyway, methane is merely an *indicator* of life. That it is not conclusive of life has been known (or should I say "suspected", I don't know what phrases will meet your requirements) for a long time. The occurence of Methane on Mars has been known for a while know, as has methane on Titan, yet there is no evidence yet for the existence of living matter there. The issue in both places is that too much methane is observed compared to what predictions say, because methane leaked into the atmosphere evaporates into space due to the solar wind. So there must be underground sources.

 

I don't see why it would be different here on Earth.

 

I'm just wondering what the chances are of finding oil on Mars or Titan..and how the fossil fuel advocates would expalin a fossil fuel being found on planets that supposedly never supported life and on which there are no fosils...

 

Meanwhile back on earth....I talked to a friend who used to work for Royal Dutch Shell on some of their oil rigs..and he told me that although he knows nothing of fossils per se, he doubts that all the oil he pumped came from fossils..he echoed statements already posted here in this thread..mostly that while no fossils had been recovered from any field anywhere below 16,000 feet oil was being pumped from 30,000 foot wells every day of the week.

 

-Zohaar

[Tormod]

I think we should promote public farting.

 

Oh, we have them, it's called "online forums".

[Tormod]

..mostly that while no fossils had been recovered from any field anywhere below 16,000 feet oil was being pumped from 30,000 foot wells every day of the week...

 

How would you go about recovering a fossil from 16,000 feet below the ground?

[Eclogite]

I'm just wondering what the chances are of finding oil on Mars or Titan..and how the fossil fuel advocates would expalin a fossil fuel being found on planets that supposedly never supported life and on which there are no fosils...

Nobody with any understanding of the topic would claim that the only mechanism for producing hydrocarbons is a biogenic one. What is claimed, and generally accepted, is that terrestrial hydrocarbon deposits are biological in origin.

Meanwhile back on earth....I talked to a friend who used to work for Royal Dutch Shell on some of their oil rigs..and he told me that although he knows nothing of fossils per se, he doubts that all the oil he pumped came from fossils

So, why should we pay any heed to the words of a self declared geological neophyte working in a semi-skilled labouring position on a drilling rig?

mostly that while no fossils had been recovered from any field anywhere below 16,000 feet

I know this is wrong. I do not expect you to accept that declaration without evidence. I shall look for on-line citations that will show you this is a false statement.

oil was being pumped from 30,000 foot wells every day of the week

Name a single well where oil is being pumped from a depth of 30,000'. A single well anywhere on the planet. Name one. There are some wells whose length is in the region of 30,000', but which are at a considerably shallower depth.

[Fishteacher73]

How would you go about recovering a fossil from 16,000 feet below the ground?

at least not by drilling for oil... the whole process would essentially destroy anything in the drilling process, unless you are specifically drilliong for cores. There is a whole branch of petrophysics specifically dedicated to examining fossils in cores to determine the likely hood of oil. I forget the real name, I can get it for you if you wish, (my dad worked as Mobil oil's international explarations lead and now goes all over explaining new logging equipment for Baker Atlas) but they are commonly referred to as bug men. (I believe they are technically petropaleobiologists, but I am not sure).

[Tormod]

Thanks, Fish. I was just curious. I read an article a while back about how researchers are drilling holes into the San Andreas fault, from the side, to study the rocks deep down in order to see if they could predict quakes. So I figured there must be some sort of method to get up material from far, far below without breaking it.

[Harzburgite]

(I believe they are technically petropaleobiologists, but I am not sure).

The term you are looking for is micropaleontologist. This does not mean they are very small paleontologists :hihi: , but that they study microscopic fossils. These are present in quantity in many formations. They can be recovered intact from the drilled rock cuttings and do not require that a core be taken. As Eclogite suggested these can certainly be recovered from 16,000' or deeper.

[Little Bang]

If their is oil on mars they will find fossils of life.

[Boerseun]

If their is oil on mars they will find fossils of life.

If there is oil on Mars, Team America will invade!

 

F**K YEAH!!!

[Zohaar818]

at least not by drilling for oil... the whole process would essentially destroy anything in the drilling process, unless you are specifically drilliong for cores. There is a whole branch of petrophysics specifically dedicated to examining fossils in cores to determine the likely hood of oil. I forget the real name, I can get it for you if you wish, (my dad worked as Mobil oil's international explarations lead and now goes all over explaining new logging equipment for Baker Atlas) but they are commonly referred to as bug men. (I believe they are technically petropaleobiologists, but I am not sure).

 

 

You guys...really kill me... If you just google fossils recovered at depth you'll see many links all quoting 16,ooo feet as lowest depth fossils recovered.

Now, I know some of you hear the word fossils and think dinosaur bone, but we study fossils so small that they can only bee seen in microscopes, too..mostly sea life..

[Ammonites are the most easily found fossils.]...but many sites will tell you no fossil has been found below three mile depths..

"Bacterial fossils hold the record for the oldest and smallest fossils ever found. Cyanobacteria, or “blue-green bacteria,” have been found in rocks from the Archean, 3.5 billion years ago. Cyanobacteria (along with other bacteria) also form mats and mounds known as stromatolites, which have existed on earth from the Precambrian to the present day. The smallest fossils ever found belong to the magnetobacteria, which form nanometer-size crystals of the mineral magnetite within their cells."

http://www.paleoportal.org/fossil_gallery/taxon.php?taxon_id=95

 

i have searched to find any mention of a fossil find below 16,000 feet and cannot find one single incidence of such..but I am open to any links you send me.

 

As for the depth of oil wells..I posted the links and the quotes..it is obvious to me that many of you just read the last three posts and think that is the whole thread..or perhaps, as is a habit with many raised on TV..you just choose to ignore what doesn't suit you....so I plead with you..if you want to debunk the "Oil is Not a Fossil fuel" people, like me, instead of firing cheap shots or some off the cuff rhetoric, and quips devoid of links to support them why don't you [again] Google something... like 'world's deepest oil wells' 'world's deepest fossils'..etc..and see what comes up.

Frankly, i grow weary of answering the same question without getting answers to point number six in my list of anomalies conflicting with 'standard' fossil fuel theory.

Again it seems a deliberate choice by some here to ignore what cannot be explained chosing instead to try and find a fault in my choice of words or [assumed] belief system.

 

I posted this already...but I will refresh your memories...

 

"The "Deepwater Pathfinder" is drilling an exploration well in Walker Ridge 285. This well will be the deepest ever drilled in the Gulf of Mexico in terms of total depth - the water depth is 6,654 feet (2,016 meters), with a planned total drilling depth of around 31,000 feet (9,400 meters). The drill ship's dimensions were impressive too, allowing it to drill in up to 7,500 feet of water."

http://www.hydro.com/en/press_room/news/archive/2002_05/hunting_oil_mexico_en.html

 

NOTE: this was being done in 2002..3 years ago...

NOTE: 30000 feet = 9,144 meter

 

And now I post these....

 

"In a sample of 20,715 deep wells drilled in the U.S. through December 1998, 11,522 (56 percent) are classified as produci"ng gas and/or oil wells, with gas wells comprising nearly 75 percent of producing wells. Of the 1,676 wells exceeding 20,000 feet, 974 (58 percent) are producing wells"..

 

"Deep drilling in Oklahoma"

[*from Oklahoma State University]

 

Oklahoma has long played an important role in the development of deep drilling.

The first hole drilled below 30,000 feet for commercial production purposes was completed in Beckham county in 1972 . In 1974, drilling commenced on GHK/Lone Star's Bertha Rogers 1-27 in Washita County, eventually reaching a world record depth of 31,441 feet."

http://economy.okstate.edu/papers/economics%20of%20deep%20drilling.pdf

 

 

That was 30 years ago, in Oklahoma. Currently there are deep water wells in S.E. Asia, Russia, and in the Gulf of Mexico...dozens of them..and here's what made it possible...

 

 

"The Role of Technology

With every passing year it becomes possible to exploit oil resources that could not have been recovered with old technologies. The first American oil well drilled in 1859 by Colonel Edwin Drake in Titusville, Pa. — which was actually drilled by a local blacksmith known as Uncle Billy Smith — reached a total depth of 69 feet (21 meters).

 

* Today’s drilling technology allows the completion of wells up to 30,000 feet (9,144 meters) deep."

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/

 

And for those who still don't believe me..go here!

http://www.spe.org/specma/binary/files/194813003ATCE_EmergingDrilling_kmillheim.pdf

And you will see a nice PDf layout complete with graphics saying things like:

 

"Cycles of Deep Drilling•Early 70’s two ultra-deep wells were drilled in Oklahoma by Lone Star Producing Company•Bertha Rogers #131,441 ft.•#1 E.D. Baden30,050 ft."

 

If you scroll down to page 12 [of 26] you will see a color graphic.. showing a map of wells located in the Gulf of Mexico that are drilled [and producing] at levels to BELOW 30,000 feet. A total of 7 drilled since 1997 and all just a couple hundred miles south of New Orleans.

 

A respondent here asked for me to name one well below 30,00 feet, I give you 9 in less than 5 minutes online surfing Google...and deliberately leaving out any wells in the former communist bloc just so there will be no more cultural chauvinism in this discussion .

 

Honest ignorance I can deal with..honest but conflicting interpretations of objective science I can deal with [in fact i applaud it..it shows passion and a desire to know the truth of things]..but comments and commentary that deliberately ignores the obvious and irrefutable evidence in front of one's nose on the grounds that it is impossible according to 'theory' or because it doesn't fit with one's world view is specious, and time wasting.

[should I post those six points again just to remind everyone of what oil IS a fossil fuel theory cannot explain?]

 

-Zohaar

[Harzburgite]

Zohaar, it is not my intention to give offense, but you have grasped some incorrect ideas along the way.

Let's deal with three of them:

 

No fossils recovered below 16,000'.

1. Actually whether or not fossils have been recovered from below this depth has absolutely no bearing on your argument. (For one thing many of the supposed sources of petroleum would not leave fossl traces.) The relevant matter is whether they exist in sediments of the sameage as those found at these depths.

And they do. At these depths formations will typically be of Palaeozoic age, often Lower Palaeozoic. Such formations contain abundant fossils.[There might just be the tiniest hint in the name Palaeozoic - check wth your local classics scholar or any good dictionary. :hihi: ]

2. I googled as you suggested for recovery of fossils: you appear to be misinterpreting the water depth from which fossils have been recovered. Not the same thing at all.

3. How do you think we know what age these deep formations are (and we certainly do) if not for the fossils they contain?

 

Well Depths

The greatest depth of a well is not the depth from which production takes place. This may be several thousand feet shallower.

 

Gas Production

All the deep wells you reference are gas producers, not oil producers. Oil is not found at these depths. Read your own references.

Eclogite did not ask you to name wells below 30,000'. He/she did not ask you to name wells that were producing gas from below 30,000', but to name wells that were producing oil from that depth or beyond. You have failed to do so. Not your fault. There are not any. Please recognise that simple fact.

[Erasmus00]

Zohaar, it seems to me like there is at least one gaping flaw with what you propse. C12/C13 isotope ratios in oil are indicative of life. None of your links seem to explain why this would be in inorganic compounds.

 

Another flaw was pointed out by UncleAl

 

If you shoot a microliter of petroluem into a gas chromatograph or a liquid chromatograph it is screamingly obvious it is neither an equilibrium thermodynamic product (e,g, SASOL) nor a non-equilibrium kinetic branch. 95+% of the linear alkanes are even-numbered. They were made by acetyl-CoA oligimerization - that's life.

 

Again, your theory doesn't seem to indicate why this would be.

 

And, on a final note, you seem inclined to believe that all competent scientists hold your view, and that the American people (or maybe laypeople all over the world) have been duped by evil oil companies to drive their price up. I'd like to point out that even if the abiotic theory is true, that doesn't mean that oil is replenishing faster then we consume. We could still easily run out of oil, regardless of how oil is formed. Deeper drilling is also more expensive, leading to more expensive oil. The abiotic theory doesn't really adress the potentially finite amount of oil.

-Will

[C1ay]

You guys...really kill me... If you just google fossils recovered at depth you'll see many links all quoting 16,ooo feet as lowest depth fossils recovered.

Yeah, links to more abiotic theorists, none with scientific credibility. Do you consider that some kind of scientific proof of your claims?

 

By the way, don't let the members here confuse you with facts. You might be able to get some sci-fi publisher to print this work of fiction you've got going here :hihi:

[Zohaar818]

Zohaar, it seems to me like there is at least one gaping flaw with what you propse. C12/C13 isotope ratios in oil are indicative of life. None of your links seem to explain why this would be in inorganic compounds.

 

Another flaw was pointed out by UncleAl

 

Again, your theory doesn't seem to indicate why this would be.

 

And, on a final note, you seem inclined to believe that all competent scientists hold your view, and that the American people (or maybe laypeople all over the world) have been duped by evil oil companies to drive their price up. I'd like to point out that even if the abiotic theory is true, that doesn't mean that oil is replenishing faster then we consume. We could still easily run out of oil, regardless of how oil is formed. Deeper drilling is also more expensive, leading to more expensive oil. The abiotic theory doesn't really adress the potentially finite amount of oil.

-Will

 

"C12/C13 isotope ratios in oil are indicative of life."

This is the same as saying methane is an indicator of life when it clearly is not the sole indicator and cannot be relied upon as such. Methane is found on Titan and no one is claiming biological origin for that, are they? Yet it is always bandied about that methane is an indicator of life. And I bet if they find c12 or c13 isotopes in Titan methane you will be among the first to say that is not proof of life... And you would be right. An indication is not the same as proof. The word indicate comes from the same root as the word to indicte someone..which I think you will agree is not the same as proving him guilty.

 

Further:

 

I already demonstrated that carbon 14, another 'indicator of life 'has been found in diamonds..so there goes that theory..and I've posted links showing that methane and helium stimulated with lasers produce diamonds..a process not considered in standard diamond making theory but easily done in a lab. That was in response to..let's see..oh yes, another of Uncle Al's witty contributions...Uncle Al, I believe, ridiculed the quoted statement that the same geothermal processes are at play in oil formation deep in the crust that diamonids were created from.

So what to make of LoL's science or the site in which it was demonstrated that stimulating methane and helium under pressure by laser makes half-carot diamonds in the lab?

 

Is there a dispute to that?

 

 

The reason this abiotic argument makes sense in terms of the economics of oil production is that it now seems we are on the verge of finding an alternative way to get oil than to wait a million years for bio-matter to magically become oil [a process we have not duplicated in the lab, as far as i know, to demostrate the validity of the theory]

But I believe we have the technology to test abiotic origin if indeed it works as the growing number of scientists arer beginning to accept.

 

Lawrence of Livermore is not a creationist institute and if they say they can demonstrate that oil is not dependent on bio origin and that hydrocarbon reserves are huge below the mantle, I tend to believe them. it also gives hope that we can duplicate the process enough times to enough skeptics to end the argument.

 

Again, Uncle Al..his first response was to dismiss on the ground sit was Russain science. '"giggle".[ probably one of his more science based posts, I might add]. [NOT]

What he portrayed in his view of Russian science is now being echoed in your assumptions that folks who believe in God are disqualified from being able to conduct objective experiments. Well, Einstein believed in God, but oddly, not in Creationism.

And either do I..I am not a creationist..and do not hold to any of their tenets regarding the great jehovah or Intelligent design.

But I don't have any problem with them using science to argue science..and I would think it is more an indictment against the current science that people seeking objectivity are forced on to Bible-beating sites just to get to even read the facts about things science can't argue with and can't explain. People like me.

I am only interested in finding a theory that takes anomalies into account and explains them, not ignores them completely. Any theorist who does, from any camp and for any reason will find in me a true skeptic.

 

Apart from the science I get detractors asking me to name just one producing oil well at 30,000 feet. Well I pointed out 9 within the land boundaries and territorial waters of the United States..two in Oklahoma and 7 in the Gulf of Mexico.

You wanna argue that point?

 

 

I believe I have posted enough links to enough [non-creationist] sites in anwer to all the supposedly damning objections or flaws..

I did make the mistake of calling feet meters to someone's glee, as if that explains everything..all the anomlaies, or point six in the list i submitted.

 

So, until someone explains point six to me I have nothing more to post here..there are so many interesting things happening on other threads..

 

-Zohaar