Oil Crisis

Status
Not open for further replies.
Carcano said:
Now here is something worth looking into:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/ap_huygens_update_050127.html

"Based on data collected by Huygens' instruments, Sushil Atreya, a professor of planetary science at the University of Michigan in the United States, believes a hydro-geological process between water and rocks deep inside the moon could be producing the methane.

"I think the process is quite likely in the interior of Titan," Atreya said in a telephone interview.

The process is called serpentinisation and is basically the reaction between water and rocks at 100 to 400 degrees Celsius (212 to 752 degrees Fahrenheit), he said."
Click to expand...
Don't tell that to Billy he might blow a wingnut.
 
OilIsMastery said:
White Tiger in Vietnam. You're welcome.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47673
Click to expand...

Thats 17,000 feet deep, not 30,000.

Theres also sedimentary rock close by, so a sedimentary deposit may have seeped into the granite structure.

Additionally it appears to contain organic debris:

"Dow emphasized that the oil's components indicate a lacustrine organic facies with lipid-rich, land-plant debris and fresh-water algal material, refuting theories of abiogenic origin in this area."

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2005/02feb/vietnam.cfm
 
Carcano said:
Thats 17,000 feet deep, not 30,000.
Click to expand...
Only 10,000 feet below the deepest fossil ever discovered.

Theres also sedimentary rock close by, so a sedimentary deposit may have seeped into the granite structure.
Click to expand...
You have no evidence of that. There are igneous rocks "close by" to every sedimentary rock on the planet. "Close by" proves, you guessed it, absolutely nothing.

Additionally it appears to contain organic debris:
Click to expand...
All oil "appears to contain organic debris" because it does. But only as a contaminant.

http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47509
 
Last edited:
OilIsMastery said:
1. Only 10,000 feet below the deepest fossil ever discovered.

2. You have no evidence of that. There are igneous rocks "close by" to every sedimentary rock on the planet.

3. All oil "appears to contain organic debris" because it does. But only as a contaminant.
Click to expand...

1. Regardless, you promised 30,000 feet...so?

2. From the Wiki article:

"White Tiger is the only oil field convincingly shown to be hosted in granite; however, inspection of the seismic profile of the area shows faulted basement passive margin which is sealed by an onlapping sedimentary sequence.

It is plausible that the oil has migrated laterally from the lowermost, mature sediments into the fault systems within the granite."

3. Where is the proof that the organic debris is a contaminant?
 
Carcano said:
Links are fine, but only in context with specific quoted paragraphs.

I'm not going to wade through all that to get to your key points.
Click to expand...
In other words you're too lazy to read and learn something. If you value wisdom and science I suggest you read them all thoroughly. At least twice.
 
Carcano said:
The Keebler Elves? :D
Click to expand...
One of the deepest holes ever made by humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole

The rock there had been thoroughly fractured and was saturated with water, which was surprising. This water, which unlike surface water must have come from deep-crust minerals, had been unable to reach the surface because of a layer of impermeable rock.

Another unexpected discovery was the large quantity of hydrogen gas, with the mud flowing out of the hole described as "boiling" with hydrogen.
Click to expand...
Not the Keebler Elves. I declare victory.
 
Last edited:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/gold_pr.html

What first made you think that there might be life at such depths?

It was in response to the long debate over how helium, which is concentrated in oil, could be associated with petroleum and biological debris. Helium has no affinity chemically with biological stuff. My argument was that the helium must have been swept up from below by petroleum from deep down, and that led me to the whole notion of the deep biosphere.

And you believe that the oily depths where you found magnetite represent the environment where life on Earth began?

Yes. You can only suppose the origin of life in circumstances where there is no direct access to the source of at least one of the components that you require. If you have the common story of the warm pond on the surface, then all of the things that are needed will be accessible to whatever microbes there are. So they will multiply exponentially up to the limit of the food supply. That means that in a flash the whole thing is done and they are all dead. There has to be a process of metering out at least one of the components so it's impossible to eat up everything at once. The hydrocarbons from the mantle provide that metered supply. If life developed down below, it could later crawl up to the surface and invent photosynthesis.
Click to expand...
 
OilIsMastery said:
In other words you're too lazy to read and learn something.
Click to expand...
This assumes there is something to learn, and I'm not going through 40+ pages to find the paragraph you have in mind by posting the link.

To your credit though, I did find passages which support your theories in an article on the Moho experiment.

Here are the relevant paragraphs:

"Even more surprisingly, this deep rock was found to be saturated in water which filled the cracks. Because free water should not be found at those depths, scientists theorize that the water is comprised of hydrogen and oxygen atoms which were squeezed out of the surrounding rocks due to the incredible pressure. The water was then prevented from rising to the surface because of the layer of impermeable rocks above it.

Another unexpected find was a menagerie of microscopic fossils as deep as 6.7 kilometers below the surface. Twenty-four distinct species of plankton microfossils were found, and they were discovered to have carbon and nitrogen coverings rather than the typical limestone or silica. Despite the harsh environment of heat and pressure, the microscopic remains were remarkably intact."

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=567
 
link from IAC said:
If you have the common story of the warm pond on the surface, then all of the things that are needed will be accessible to whatever microbes there are. So they will multiply exponentially up to the limit of the food supply. That means that in a flash the whole thing is done and they are all dead.
Click to expand...
? Creationist or just ordinary crackpot? You've found somebody else who thinks as you do. That's even better, for a combination of goofy illogic and topic irrelevancy, than your repeated assertion that no one has ever found a fossil below 7500 feet.

You have also been ignoring the limestone problem, btw. In case you hadn't noticed.
 
iceaura said:
? Creationist or just ordinary crackpot? You've found somebody else who thinks as you do. That's even better, for a combination of goofy illogic and topic irrelevancy, than your repeated assertion that no one has ever found a fossil below 7500 feet.
Click to expand...
I take it you don't know what a microbe is.

You have also been ignoring the limestone problem, btw. In case you hadn't noticed.
Click to expand...
Limestone is indeed a problem... for biogenic theorists. Oil has been drilled from igneous rock.
 
IAC said:
I take it you don't know what a microbe is.
Click to expand...
I do. I also know what a fossil microbe is.
IAC said:
Limestone is indeed a problem... for biogenic theorists. Oil has been drilled from igneous rock.
Click to expand...
It is also a problem for you - do you plan to deal with it?

If limestone is too difficult, another issue looms: you seem to be posting links and statements that deny biogenic origin of oil, and also links and statements that indicate a theory of oil formation involving microbial digestion of methane at great depth. Which do you prefer?
 
iceaura said:
another issue looms: you seem to be posting links and statements that deny biogenic origin of oil
Click to expand...
I seem to be? Let me be clear: I am.

and also links and statements that indicate a theory of oil formation involving microbial digestion of methane at great depth. Which do you prefer?
Click to expand...
My theory of oil formation does not involve microbial digestion of methane. My theory of contaminants called "biomarkers" in oil involves microbial digestion of hydrocarbons.
 
me said:
If limestone is too difficult, another issue looms:
Click to expand...
IAC said:
My theory of oil formation does not involve microbial digestion of methane. My theory of contaminants called "biomarkers" in oil involves microbial digestion of hydrocarbons.
Click to expand...
Righto. Now:
me said:
I take it you don't know what a microbe is. ”

I do. I also know what a fossil microbe is.

“ Limestone is indeed a problem... for biogenic theorists. Oil has been drilled from igneous rock. ”

It is also a problem for you - do you plan to deal with it?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top