Oil Doesn't Come From Dead Dinosaurs

Hahaha, my post got deleted because I questioned a currently held belief about oil. I dont even believe it because I dont know nearly enough about the subject.
Isnt that what religions used to do? Silence the alernatives.
 
EndLightEnd said:
Hahaha, my post got deleted because I questioned a currently held belief about oil. I dont even believe it because I dont know nearly enough about the subject.
Isnt that what religions used to do? Silence the alernatives.
Click to expand...
You are correct Sir. Biogenic theory is indeed a religion. And fossil fuel cultists are it's fundamentalists.
 
Last edited:
Billy T said:
For the third time Glasby does not say that about biologic origin. He says that about one of the two abiotic theories (T. Gold's).
Click to expand...
Abiotic theory says hydrocarbons are formed in the mantle. Unfortunately for Glasby, it's biogenic theory that says hydrocarbons are formed in the crust. However Glasby says this is not possible on thermodynamic grounds. Therefore biogenic theory is invalid.

"The elemental distribution in the crude oil from all studied deposits does not match such of any known crustal rock." -- Kirill S. Ivanov, 2007
 
Last edited:
OilIsMastery said:
Abiotic theory says hydrocarbons are formed in the mantle. Unfortunately for Glasby, it's biogenic theory that says hydrocarbons are formed in the crust. However Glasby says this is not possible on thermodynamic grounds. Therefore biogenic theory is invalid. ...
Click to expand...
MORE LIES (and no page number referrence for your false claims).

Here is what Glasby actually said about abiotic formation in the upper mantle:

“…A key point is the role of hydrogen generated by the Fischer-Tropsch reaction in the formation of abiogenic hydrocarbons (Holm and Charlou, 2001). However, the error in this statement, as we shall see later, lies in the fact that the upper mantle is too oxidizing to permit methane to be the dominant form of carbon there. It is for this reason that commercial-grade petroleum deposits could not have formed abiogenically.…”

From page 88 end of first column of Gasby’s review paper in highly respected RESOURCE GEOLOGY, vol. 56, no. 1, 85–98, 2006
See it for free at:
http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf

I.e. Yes, the Fischer-Tropsch reaction, which is necessary for the transformation of hydrogen (and CO2) into methane can take place in the mantle BUT the formation of significant abiogenic oil is impossible there as it is too oxidizing for the methane to survive there. Thus, it is the ABIOTIC theory that is impossible as it requires free hydrogen and /or methane be produced from the inorganic compounds water, H2O and carbonate rocks and/or CO2. In other words, even if hydrogen and/or methane were produced inorganically, they would rapidly be re-oxidized, not subsequently transformed into petroleum.

At the start of the discussion section, column 1 page 92, Glasby restates this as follows:

“…{abiotic origin} arguments presented by Kenney et al. (2002) do represent a rigorous interpretation of the thermodynamic data. However, the formation of higher hydrocarbons from methane in the upper mantle is only one link in the chain of petroleum formation. Perhaps the clearest argument against the abiogenic theory is the oxidation state of the mantle. …”

Because oil usually migrates to where it is now found, that often is not be where it was formed. Where it formed Glasby (and others) call the “souce rocks.” Here, from page 93, first column, are some of his examples and his conclusion that it is of biologic origin:

“In the North Caspian Basin, the source rocks were thought to be basinal black shales of upper Palaeozoic age (Ulmishek, 2001b). In the Dnieper-Donets Basin, geological data indicated the presence of two principal source rocks, the Lower Carboniferous marine shales and Devonian siliceous shales and carbonates (Ulmishek, 2001c). In a large part of this basin, the source rocks occur at a great depth and have not yet been drilled. In spite of the incomplete knowledge of the source rocks in these three areas, petroleum formation was interpreted entirely and convincingly within the framework of conventional petroleum geology with no mention made of an abiogenic source…”.

SUMMARY: Glasby states exactly the opposite of your lies about what he states.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T said:
MORE LIES (and no page number referrence for your false claims).
Click to expand...
On page 85 (in the Abstract) Glasby writes and I quote:

"Formation of higher hydrocarbons in the upper layers of the Earth's crust occurs only as the result of Fischer-Tropsch-type reactions in the presence of hydrogen gas but is otherwise not possible on thermodynamic grounds."

Therefore biogenic theory is invalid.

Here is what Glasby actually said about abiotic formation in the upper mantle:

“…A key point is the role of hydrogen generated by the Fischer-Tropsch reaction in the formation of abiogenic hydrocarbons (Holm and Charlou, 2001). However, the error in this statement, as we shall see later, lies in the fact that the upper mantle is too oxidizing to permit methane to be the dominant form of carbon there. [sze=4]It is for this reason that commercial-grade petroleum deposits could not have formed abiogenically[/size].…”

From page 88 end of first column of Gasby’s review paper in highly respected RESOURCE GEOLOGY, vol. 56, no. 1, 85–98, 2006
See it fro free at:
http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf

I.e. the Fischer-Tropsch reaction, which is necessary for the transformation of hydrogen (and CO2) into methane can take place in the mantle but formation of significant abiogenic oil is impossible there as it is too oxidizing for the methane to survive there. Thus, it is the ABIOTIC theory that is impossible as it requires free hydrogen and /or methane be produced for the inorganic compounds water, H2O and carbonate rocks and/or CO2. In other words, even if hydrogen and/or methane were produced, it would rapidly be re-oxidized.

At the start of the discussion section, column 1 page 92, Glasby restates this as follows:

“…{abiotic origin} arguments presented by Kenney et al. (2002) do represent a rigorous interpretation of the thermodynamic data. However, the formation of higher hydrocarbons from methane in the upper mantle is only one link in the chain of petroleum formation. Perhaps the clearest argument against the abiogenic theory is the oxidation state of the mantle. …”:
Click to expand...
If formation of methane in the presence of oxygen is impossible, then how does Glasby propose methane forms in the crust? The crust has more free oxygen than the mantle and therefore the crust is more oxidizing than the mantle. LOL @ U.

"I don't think anybody's arguing that gas couldn't be generated from the mantle." -- Barry J. Katz, 2002

From the National Academy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org/content/101/39/14023.full
 
Last edited:
OilIsMastery said:
... Therefore biogenic theory is invalid.
Click to expand...
This is your assertion, not Glasby's.


OilIsMastery said:
... If formation of methane in the presence of oxygen is impossible, then how does Glasby propose methane forms in the crust? The crust has more free oxygen than the mantle and therefore the crust is more oxidizing than the mantle.
Click to expand...
I am not an expert but any fool (except you?) knows the answer to that - Methane is formed both in cows guts and in other biologic material rich regions where the oxygen has been depleted.

Oxygen is depleted even in lakes open to the air sometime by algae blooms that die and use all the available O2 up, fish then die etc. This oxygen depletion happens much more frequently in the organic rich bottom sea muds. Here because it is cold and under high pressure, the methane that forms is sequestered in Methane Hydrates. (Japan is starting big project to harvest methane from these hydrates.) These hydrates contain, by most all estimates, more fuel/ energy than ALL THE OIL AND COAL the Earth has. I.e. if we could only convert a small fraction of the methane now on the ocean floor, made from decay of dead organisms, we could have several fold increase in the known oil deposits plus all the already used oil. It is no mystery how the oil was made or where it came from. - More methane is accumulating in the deep ocean as we type these messages.

You must be very ignorant not to know that even today enormous quanties of methane are being produced and sequestered at the bottom of the sea.

This has always happen in the deep ocean, if living organisms exist in the ocean.* They are the carbon and hydrogen source for most of this methane but some can be produced in the mantle inorganically. Their dominance is why oil and coal are mainly found in (or not far from) the deepest parts of the ancient oceans.
-----------------
*Large rivers also transport hugh amounts of organic matter to the sea - Thus the adjacent ocean shelf is rich in Methane Hydrates in and near their deltas. Organic matter also falls into stagnet water and forms methane - It then is called "swamp gas." How ignorant are your? :confused::shrug::D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T said:
This is your assertion, not Glasby's.
Click to expand...
It is a necessary conclusion based upon Glasby's assertion that complex hydrocarbons cannot form in the crust on thermodynamic grounds.

The mantle is less oxidizing than the crust. If methane can form in the crust, so too can it form in the mantle which is less oxidizing.

"I don't think anybody's arguing that gas couldn't be generated from the mantle." -- Barry J. Katz, 2002

From the National Academy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org/content/101/39/14023.full
 
Last edited:
Orleander said:
OIM, where do you think coal comes from? Or have you already said that and I missed it?
Click to expand...
The hydrocabons in coal come from the earth's mantle and volcanoes. In space, they also come from mantle conditions and volcanoes.

"Numerous meteorites with carbonaceous content have been reported, including lumps of pure coal, though these are not prominently promoted in science, as their references are usually common rather than scientific. After all such things as extraterrestrial coal simply can't exist, so why would a scientist bother recording it?" -- Thomas J. Brown, The End of Fossil Fuels

"Seams of coal are sometimes fifty or more feet thick. No forest could make such a layer of coal; it is estimated that it would take a twelve-foot layer of peat deposit to make a layer of coal one foot thick; and twelve feet of peat deposit would require plant remains a hundred and twenty feet high. How tall and thick must a forest be, then, in order to create a seam of coal not one foot thick but fifty? The plant remains must be six thousand feet thick. In some places there must have been fifty to a hundred successive huge forests, one replacing the other." -- Velikovsky

What about an 800 foot thick coal seam in Australia? How many miles thick must the plant matter have been to form such massive pure carbon deposits?
Click to expand...
http://thomasbrown.org/EndofFossilFuels/End_Fossil_Fuels.html

http://www.mantleplumes.org/Siberia.html

The coal-bearing sequence is closely tied to the overlying volcanic sequence
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
no, I don't care where the hydrocarbons come from. I care about where coal comes from. Is coal 100% pure hydrocarbon? How does it become hard coal?
 
No, I mis-spoke. Not where does it come from on the planet. Most things on our planet come from the planet. Where does it come from as in what is it made of? If its made of carbon, what is that carbon made from?
 
Orleander said:
No, I mis-spoke. Not where does it come from on the planet. Most things on our planet come from the planet. Where does it come from as in what is it made of?
Click to expand...
The mantle. All chemical elements on earth come from the mantle.

If its made of carbon, what is that carbon made from?
Click to expand...
Carbon is a chemical element. It's not made up of anything except subatomic particles.
 
But it can come from the core, so not everything comes from the mantle. And nothing starts on the crust and gets buried or subducted?
 
The crust was formed when the mantle cooled. Therefore any chemical element in the crust came from the mantle. Furthermore, no biological molecule can survive subduction into the mantle.
 
Therefore it reforms into various compounds. It depends on the length of time the molecule exists under certain pressures and temperatures. Glad to be of service, introducing you to the science of oil formation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top