[Tormod]

I dislike the attitute you are taking, Zohaar. You seem to be preaching a gospel you have found somewhere and assuming that others have no idea what they are talking about. Sorry, but I am not interested in discussing anything on those terms.

[Zohaar818]

http://www.gasresources.net/Nature(Editor01).htm

This link takes us to a rebuttal of a rebuttal of an article published in Nature magazine in
August 2002..and article which was savaged by T. Clarke an d which misrepresented both the facts and the tenets of the 4 original authors who claimed [rightly i affirm] that oil is NOT a fossil fuel. I suggest one read the whole article but for those who want the highlights I post these excerpts..

"...The second law of thermodynamics prohibits spontaneous genesis of hydrocarbons heavier than methane in the regimes of temperature and pressure found in the near-surface crust of the Earth. This fact has been known by competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers, mechanical engineers and thermodynamicists since the third quarter of the 19th century.

Contrary to the misstatements by Clarke, there is no “debate” on this consequence of the laws of thermodynamics, - nor on any other aspect of those laws. That natural petroleum is not a “fossil fuel” has been known (by competent scientists) since the time of Clausius, Boltzmann, Gibbs, and Mendeleev.

The scientific problem connected with the genesis of hydrocarbons has been that genuine scientists have not heretofore been able to explain how, and under what conditions, such molecules do spontaneously evolve. Our article has resolved this question: Petroleum hydrocarbons heavier than methane are the high-pressure members of the hydrogen-carbon system; their spontaneous genesis requires pressures comparable to those necessary for the spontaneous genesis of diamond.

"..Water is a (very) limited, minority component in the mantle. The eruptive transport process which brings petroleum fluids into the crust is gas driven, of great force, and involves nitrogen and methane.


".. There is not any “wealth of chemical evidence” which “points to” a biological origin. Correctly, there is no such “evidence” whatever.

The molecular structure of hydrocarbon and biotic molecules is determined by the quantum mechanical properties of the covalent carbon bond. Such is utterly independent of whether the molecule is of biotic or abiotic origin. A review, and repudiation, of such erroneous “looks-like/therefore-comes-from” arguments involving so-called “bio-markers” has been given at modest length in Energia, 22, September 2001, 26-34. A copy of this article was sent to Clarke.

"... The statistics of exploration success for western petroleum companies, drilling while following the traditional British/American biological-origin-of-petroleum (BOOP) notion, and in absence of seismic information (which permits visual identification of oil in the ground) is no better than one (1) successful commercial well out of approximately twenty-eight (28) dry holes, - which statistical success rate is no better than random...."

Now, if there is a scientist who disgarees would you please tell me what with and why.
All other comments notwithstanding, I hold to the view that the love of money is the root of all evil and that we have been sold a story to bolster or support a [false] economy..and a war or two that feeds the supply/demand economic agenda of Big Oil

-Sincerely
-Zohaar

[Zohaar818]

Originally Posted by Tormod

I dislike the attitute you are taking, Zohaar. You seem to be preaching a gospel you have found somewhere and assuming that others have no idea what they are talking about. Sorry, but I am not interested in discussing anything on those terms.

I am not preaching gospel, just posting facts with links. You told me to check the science..I did..the article I just posted contains quotes from serious scientific minds with references, as discussed in nature magazine, and in other journals of merit.
If there is any gospel to be preached it is to stop falling into the rather comfortable trap of believing things just because you were told to in school.
Science is the search for truth, isn't it?
My tone is reflective of my frustration with getting put-downs instead of scientific corrections which are easilly verifed
So now we have evidence , the science of which is not questioned, to undermine the generally accepted myth of oil as fossil fuel which we are not supposed to question.

Do you take issue with the science as quoted..that's all I'm asking. Is there a fundamental barrier to your believing that oil is Not a fossil fuel?
Do you understand the process by which bio-matter becomes a petrochemical?
[The molecular structure of hydrocarbon and biotic molecules is determined by the quantum mechanical properties of the covalent carbon bond. Such is utterly independent of whether the molecule is of biotic or abiotic origin. A review, and repudiation, of such erroneous “looks-like/therefore-comes-from” arguments involving so-called “bio-markers” has been given at modest length in Energia, 22, September 2001, 26-34. ]

To me they seem like honest straightforward questions..and I assure you I am quite open to be peruaded otherwise, provided you have answers which satisfy the posted arguments.

Honest
-Zohaar

[Zohaar818]

"...The belief that petroleum was a fossil fuel, therefore biological in its origin, was first advanced in the 18th century. Within fifty years, however, leading scientists in Germany and France had attacked the theory of petroleum's biological roots. It was not seriously challenged again until the Soviet scientists thoroughly crushed the idea by the 1960's. Despite these efforts, the theory remains powerfully in place in the West and petroleum is still largely regarded as a non-renewable resource."

More at:

http://www.the7thfire.com/peak_oil/p...troduction.htm


Nuff said,
-Zohaar

[Tormod]

You have a very one-sided and angry voice, Zohaar.

The abiogenesis oil theory is not new, and it has been adopted as an alternative theory, and also earned some respect among scientists. I have not stated that it is wrong. I have stated that there are several ways that oil may be produced and that hydrocarbons is the main source of petroleum today. How the hydrocarbons were produced is a different matter.

So I have not said that your gospel is wrong. Oil may probably very well be produced without living beings, ie non-organical. I have no evidence to say that this is not possible (it is probably impossible to prove that it is not).

But I believe you are wrong when you claim that oil *cannot* be produced from fossilized living organisms, and I also think it is folly to claim that people who hold to this theory are misguided.

[Tormod]

For an opposing view, here is a refutation of the abiotic oil theory:

http://www.museletter.com/archive/150b.html

[UncleAl]

Petroleum is almost exlusively even-carbon species from biological acetyl Co-A oligomerization. Refractory polycyclic chemical markers from polyisoprenoids and the like are chiral and resolved as per biological specs. C12/C-13 isotope fractionation is a loud marker for biological process.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf

A small fraction of natural gas may accumulate from abiogenic outgassing. Petroleum is created from anaerobic degradation of dead stuff trapped in sediment, followed by morphogenesis at modest temperatures and trapping accumulation beneath impermeable capstone or halite.

Hey dude, have you ever seen raw petroleum? The nasty thick oily smelly stuff ought to be burned.

[Zohaar818]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

Petroleum is almost exlusively even-carbon species from biological acetyl Co-A oligomerization. Refractory polycyclic chemical markers from polyisoprenoids and the like are chiral and resolved as per biological specs. C12/C-13 isotope fractionation is a loud marker for biological process.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf

A small fraction of natural gas may accumulate from abiogenic outgassing. Petroleum is created from anaerobic degradation of dead stuff trapped in sediment, followed by morphogenesis at modest temperatures and trapping accumulation beneath impermeable capstone or halite.

Hey dude, have you ever seen raw petroleum? The nasty thick oily smelly stuff ought to be burned.

Again from the quoted article as posted above:
"Our results reported the spontaneous genesis of methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, hexane, heptane, nonane, and decane, in both the normal and branched isomers, and alkenes, in the distribution characteristic of natural petroleum.
" The second law of thermodynamics prohibits spontaneous genesis of hydrocarbons heavier than methane in the regimes of temperature and pressure found in the near-surface crust of the Earth. This fact has been known by competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers, mechanical engineers and thermodynamicists since the third quarter of the 19th century.
"...there is no “debate” on this consequence of the laws of thermodynamics, - nor on any other aspect of those laws. That natural petroleum is not a “fossil fuel” has been known (by competent scientists) since the time of Clausius, Boltzmann, Gibbs, and Mendeleev.

The scientific problem connected with the genesis of hydrocarbons has been that genuine scientists have not heretofore been able to explain how, and under what conditions, such molecules do spontaneously evolve. Our article has resolved this question: Petroleum hydrocarbons heavier than methane are the high-pressure members of the hydrogen-carbon system; their spontaneous genesis requires pressures comparable to those necessary for the spontaneous genesis of diamond.

4.) Clarke’s ipse dixit and unsupported assertion that the spontaneous genesis of hydrocarbons can “be recreated in the laboratory,” is a gratuitous falsehood.

"..Such experiments have been attempted by diverse persons (who have been ignorant of the overriding constraints of the laws of thermodynamics) numerous times during the past century. All such attempts have failed, without a single, legitimate exception. Hydrocarbons can be (and are) synthesized at low pressures by the well-known Fischer-Tropsch processes, or the Kolb reactions. Such are driven, not spontaneous, processes. Heat can similarly be transferred from a colder to a hotter body, - so long as one drives the process by a refrigeration engine; however, such processes do not occur spontaneously in the natural world.

Go here for further edification...
http://www.gasresources.net/Introduction.htm

I don't make the science up..I just post it.
;-)

-Zohaar

[UncleAl]

"Our results reported the spontaneous genesis of methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, hexane, heptane, nonane, and decane, in both the normal and branched isomers, and alkenes, in the distribution characteristic of natural petroleum.

Petroleum does not contain odd-numbered alkanes - and certainly not in thermodyanmic equilibrium concentrations. Your source is lying. Uncle Al will make it easy for you: PETROLEUM IS MADE BY GOD. Any obvious empirical inconsistencies are now tests of faith. Take your propaganda and go away.

Petroleum hydrocarbons heavier than methane are the high-pressure members of the hydrogen-carbon system; their spontaneous genesis requires pressures comparable to those necessary for the spontaneous genesis of diamond.

http://www.me.berkeley.edu/diamond/s...ro/cphased.htm

3500 C and 2.2 million psi for geodynamic diamond formation 100 miles down? Petroleum does not survive 200 C diagenesis. Diamond C-12/C-13 isotope ratio is nothing like petroleum C-12/C-13 ratio. You are an idiot.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

...You are an idiot.

Gee, UA. You are being a little guarded. What do you really think?