Ooops more oil

[B. Max]

Treehuggers must be fuming. How did all those trees and dinosaurs get down there. Assuming they did, why does the so called fossil fuel have sulfur where as biodiesel made from plants does not.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=51837

[M.Dancer]

Treehuggers must be fuming. How did all those trees and dinosaurs get down there. Assuming they did, why does the so called fossil fuel have sulfur where as biodiesel made from plants does not.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=51837

Given that this is from World Nut Daily...an organ of Rev Sun Young Moon......is this the same corsi who did the hatchet job on kerry with his swift boat liar campaign?

I would give this a grain of salt, but I would be over valuing it

[Black Dog]

Known as the Jack Field, the reserve – some 270 miles southwest of New Orleans – is estimated to hold as much as 15 billion barrels of oil.

15 billion barrels? that would last about, oh, two years at current consumption levels (and that's assuming 100 per cent of those 15 billion barrels is used for domestic consumption). As for the crap about abiotic oil, As per WorldNuts' usual standards, there's no mention of how the announcement of this discovery validates the abiotic oil theory. Its a farce, a hoax pereptuated on the gullible and people who read WingNut Daily...but that's redundant.

Given that this is from World Nut Daily...an organ of Rev Sun Young Moon......is this the same corsi who did the hatchet job on kerry with his swift boat liar campaign?

Good eye.

[B. Max]

Known as the Jack Field, the reserve – some 270 miles southwest of New Orleans – is estimated to hold as much as 15 billion barrels of oil.

15 billion barrels? that would last about, oh, two years at current consumption levels (and that's assuming 100 per cent of those 15 billion barrels is used for domestic consumption). As for the crap about abiotic oil, As per WorldNuts' usual standards, there's no mention of how the announcement of this discovery validates the abiotic oil theory. Its a farce, a hoax pereptuated on the gullible and people who read WingNut Daily...but that's redundant.

Given that this is from World Nut Daily...an organ of Rev Sun Young Moon......is this the same corsi who did the hatchet job on kerry with his swift boat liar campaign?

Good eye.

As usual shoot the messenger. When faced with facts. Like I said the treehuggers must be fuming.

[Shakeyhands]

perhaps if the messenger cited a credible source he wouldn't be shot?

[B. Max]

perhaps if the messenger cited a credible source he wouldn't be shot?

Like what. Nothing wrong with WND. Maybe the doubting thomas's could try answering the questions.

[GostHacked]

OK fine shoot that messnger.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=2395433

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...ft=1&f=1001

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14678206/

Come on guys, at least do a search online before you shoot that messenger.

[M.Dancer]

Like what. Nothing wrong with WND. Maybe the doubting thomas's could try answering the questions.

No it's a fine internet source.....

[M.Dancer]

OK fine shoot that messnger.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=2395433

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...ft=1&f=1001

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14678206/

Come on guys, at least do a search online before you shoot that messenger.

Perhaps you missed that world nut daily gives a different spin....I'm not saying that they haven't found any oil......I'm just not buying that oli isn't a fossil fuel as per world nut daily. Now I for one would not be surprised if a main stream news outlet gets duped by some moonbat pseudo science every now and again....but with WND it's their standard fare.

[Black Dog]

As usual shoot the messenger. When faced with facts. Like I said the treehuggers must be fuming.

Uh...what facts? Out of that whole article there's one fact: there's a potentially large oil find in the Gulf of Mexico. Unfortunately, this does nothing to support the rest of the articles ludicrous theory about abiotic (snake) oil. Indeed, the article completey fails to draw any connection between the fact of the discovery and the theory of abuiotic oil. It's just using a legitimate news article to flog Corsi's book (Corsi is on World Net's payroll as a columnist and his bok is being put out by-wait for it- WND Books. A shiny nickle to the intrepid detective who can tell me what the "WND" stands for.)

Let's go to the tape:

"We have always rejected the theories that oil and natural gas are biological products," Corsi told WND. "Chevron's find in the Gulf of Mexico validates our argument that the Gulf is a huge resource for finding oil and natural gas."

One of these things is not like the other. If their thesis was simply (totured phrasing aside): "the Gulf is a huge resource for finding oil and natural gas," I don't see a problem with that. Neither would any of the companies who spend millions each year drilling there. But how exactly doe sthat validate the theory hat oil and gas aren't biological products? Answer: it doesn't.

Chevron discovered the field by drilling the deepest to date in the Gulf of Mexico, down 28,175 feet in waters nearly 7,000 feet deep, some seven miles below the surface of the Earth.

Apparently, WorldNet's hacks don't do math: 28,175 feet is 5.3 miles (which is the number the other sources for this story give), not seven miles. Seven miles is around 38,000 feet. I guess they could be adding the 7,000 feet of water, but when geologists talk about the surface of the earth, that generally means the crust part.

"As an astronomer reading spectrographs," Corsi noted, "Gold knew that hydrocarbon products such as methane are abundant in our solar system. Gold knew that the abundant methane on Titan, the giant moon of Saturn, did not get formed by little dinosaurs up on Titan, or by any other kind of biological material. So far as we know, nothing living has ever been found on Titan."

But methane is not exclusively a biolgical product. It is produced through abiotic processes.

Most of the questions about abiotic ouil are answered here: Science or Politics

In order to discuss this point, the first task is to be clear about what we are discussing. There are, really, two versions of the abiotic oil theory, the "weak" and the "strong":

- The "weak" abiotic oil theory: oil is abiotically formed, but at rates not higher than those that petroleum geologists assume for oil formation according to the conventional theory. (This version has little or no political consequences).

- The "strong" abiotic theory: oil is formed at a speed sufficient to replace the oil reservoirs as we deplete them, that is, at a rate something like 10,000 times faster than known in petroleum geology. (This one has strong political implications).

Both versions state that petroleum is formed from the reaction of carbonates with iron oxide and water in the region called "mantle," deep in the Earth. Furthermore, it is assumed (see Gold's 1993 paper) that the mantle is such a huge reservoir that the amount of reactants consumed in the reaction hasn't depleted it over a few billion years (this is not unreasonable, since the mantle is indeed huge).

Now, the main consequence of this mechanism is that it promises a large amount of hydrocarbons that seep out to the surface from the mantle. Eventually, these hydrocarbons would be metabolized by bacteria and transformed into CO2. This would have an effect on the temperature of the atmosphere, which is strongly affected by the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in it. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is regulated by at least two biological cycles; the photosynthetic cycle and the silicate weathering cycle. Both these cycles have a built-in negative feedback which keeps (in the long run) the CO2 within concentrations such that the right range of temperatures for living creatures is maintained (this is the Gaia model).

The abiotic oil-if it existed in large amounts-would wreak havoc with these cycles. In the "weak" abiotic oil version, it may just be that the amount of carbon that seeps out from the mantle is small enough for the biological cycles to cope and still maintain control over the CO2 concentration. However, in the "strong" version, this is unthinkable. Over billions of years of seepage in the amounts considered, we would be swimming in oil, drowned in oil.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Pay no attention to Dog - an angry soul.

He has no original ideas and just sits around and poo-poohs everything on this site.

[Black Dog]

Pay no attention to Dog - an angry soul.

He has no original ideas and just sits around and poo-poohs everything on this site.

Say, Jerry: do you hjave anything to add to the subject or a counterargument to make (and by "argument" I mean a position supported by evidence)? No? Then bugger off.

[B. Max]

Most of the questions about abiotic ouil are answered here: Science or Politics

They most certainly are not. The guy who wrote that doesn't know what he's talking about. The rate or none rate of recovery of any rock formation with fracture that contains oil would have nothing to do with where the oil comes from, much less prove that it didn't come from below when we don't know the process of how it got there in the first place. Most likely shifting formations deep in the earth would control recovery rates or no recovery at all. To prove that it didn't come from below one would have to prove that it came from above and was the product of plants. To do that one would have to show how it got to that depth in the first place and into the fractures.

[B. Max]

OK fine shoot that messnger.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=2395433

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...ft=1&f=1001

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14678206/

Come on guys, at least do a search online before you shoot that messenger.

Perhaps you missed that world nut daily gives a different spin....I'm not saying that they haven't found any oil......I'm just not buying that oli isn't a fossil fuel as per world nut daily. Now I for one would not be surprised if a main stream news outlet gets duped by some moonbat pseudo science every now and again....but with WND it's their standard fare.

Yeah like man made global warming.

[M.Dancer]

Most of the questions about abiotic ouil are answered here: Science or Politics

Congrats...you found a non scientific conspiracy site!

[Black Dog]

They most certainly are not. The guy who wrote that doesn't know what he's talking about. The rate or none rate of recovery of any rock formation with fracture that contains oil would have nothing to do with where the oil comes from, much less prove that it didn't come from below when we don't know the process of how it got there in the first place. Most likely shifting formations deep in the earth would control recovery rates or no recovery at all. To prove that it didn't come from below one would have to prove that it came from above and was the product of plants. To do that one would have to show how it got to that depth in the first place and into the fractures.

Are you a geologist, Max? No?

Proof.

To deny this [that 99.99999% of the world's liquid hydrocarbons are produced by maturation of organic matter] means you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.

1) The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.

2) The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).

3) The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).

3) The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and depositional environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, those indicating marine conditions only in marine sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only bacterial biomarkers).

4) Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).

5) The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory.

6) The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of biological fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything like the fractionation of light carbon that is seen in petroleum).

7) The location of petroleum reservoirs down the hydraulic gradient from the source rocks in many cases (those which are not are in areas where there is clear evidence of post migration tectonism).

8) The almost complete absence of significant petroleum occurrences in igneous and metamorphic rocks.

The evidence usually cited in favor of abiogenic petroleum can all be better explained by the biogenic hypothesis, e.g.:

9) Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in igneous rocks (better explained by reaction with organic rich country rocks, with which the pyrobitumens can usually be tied).

10) Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in metamorphic rocks (better explained by metamorphism of residual hydrocarbons in the protolith).

11) The very rare occurrence of small hydrocarbon accumulations in igneous or metamorphic rocks (in every case these are adjacent to organic rich sedimentary rocks to which the hydrocarbons can be tied via biomarkers).

12) The presence of undoubted mantle derived gases (such as He and some CO2) in some natural gas (there is no reason why gas accumulations must be all from one source; given that some petroleum fields are of mixed provenance, it is inevitable that some mantle gas contamination of biogenic hydrocarbons will occur under some circumstances).

13) The presence of traces of hydrocarbons in deep wells in crystalline rock (these can be formed by a range of processes, including metamorphic synthesis by the Fischer-Tropsch reaction, or from residual organic matter as in 10).

14) Traces of hydrocarbon gases in magma volatiles (in most cases magmas ascend through sedimentary succession, any organic matter present will be thermally cracked and some will be incorporated into the volatile phase; some Fischer-Tropsch synthesis can also occur).

15) Traces of hydrocarbon gases at mid ocean ridges (such traces are not surprising given that the upper mantle has been contaminated with biogenic organic matter through several billion years of subduction, the answer to 14 may be applicable also).

16) Traces of hydrocarbons in hydrothermal fluids; these are also all compositionally consistent with derivation from either country rocks or Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.

The geological evidence is utterly against the abiogenic postulate.

[B. Max]

They most certainly are not. The guy who wrote that doesn't know what he's talking about. The rate or none rate of recovery of any rock formation with fracture that contains oil would have nothing to do with where the oil comes from, much less prove that it didn't come from below when we don't know the process of how it got there in the first place. Most likely shifting formations deep in the earth would control recovery rates or no recovery at all. To prove that it didn't come from below one would have to prove that it came from above and was the product of plants. To do that one would have to show how it got to that depth in the first place and into the fractures.

Are you a geologist, Max? No?

Proof.

To deny this [that 99.99999% of the world's liquid hydrocarbons are produced by maturation of organic matter] means you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.

1) The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.

2) The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).

3) The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).

3) The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and depositional environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, those indicating marine conditions only in marine sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only bacterial biomarkers).

4) Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).

5) The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory.

6) The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of biological fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything like the fractionation of light carbon that is seen in petroleum).

7) The location of petroleum reservoirs down the hydraulic gradient from the source rocks in many cases (those which are not are in areas where there is clear evidence of post migration tectonism).

8) The almost complete absence of significant petroleum occurrences in igneous and metamorphic rocks.

The evidence usually cited in favor of abiogenic petroleum can all be better explained by the biogenic hypothesis, e.g.:

9) Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in igneous rocks (better explained by reaction with organic rich country rocks, with which the pyrobitumens can usually be tied).

10) Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in metamorphic rocks (better explained by metamorphism of residual hydrocarbons in the protolith).

11) The very rare occurrence of small hydrocarbon accumulations in igneous or metamorphic rocks (in every case these are adjacent to organic rich sedimentary rocks to which the hydrocarbons can be tied via biomarkers).

12) The presence of undoubted mantle derived gases (such as He and some CO2) in some natural gas (there is no reason why gas accumulations must be all from one source; given that some petroleum fields are of mixed provenance, it is inevitable that some mantle gas contamination of biogenic hydrocarbons will occur under some circumstances).

13) The presence of traces of hydrocarbons in deep wells in crystalline rock (these can be formed by a range of processes, including metamorphic synthesis by the Fischer-Tropsch reaction, or from residual organic matter as in 10).

14) Traces of hydrocarbon gases in magma volatiles (in most cases magmas ascend through sedimentary succession, any organic matter present will be thermally cracked and some will be incorporated into the volatile phase; some Fischer-Tropsch synthesis can also occur).

15) Traces of hydrocarbon gases at mid ocean ridges (such traces are not surprising given that the upper mantle has been contaminated with biogenic organic matter through several billion years of subduction, the answer to 14 may be applicable also).

16) Traces of hydrocarbons in hydrothermal fluids; these are also all compositionally consistent with derivation from either country rocks or Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.

The geological evidence is utterly against the abiogenic postulate.

No not a geologist. According to the fossil fuel theory, it should be easy to create oil in a laboratory. Apparently that's not been done. The fossil fuel theory has some holes in it.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=47448

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

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

[gerryhatrick]

Treehuggers must be fuming. How did all those trees and dinosaurs get down there. Assuming they did, why does the so called fossil fuel have sulfur where as biodiesel made from plants does not.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=51837

What a nonsensical rant against environmentalists.

The problem is not oil, the problem is morally bereft politicians like George Bush and Stephen Harper who aren't willing to do anything about Global Warming.

Legislate tighter emision controls? No way, that would "destroy" the economy. Right?

Go find all the oil you want, but how about using it responsibly. No? Oh yeah, Bush and Harper are in the pocket of big oil, so of course they won't fight for our interests.

[Black Dog]

Another drubbing of abiotic snake oil.

Link

More to the point, Gold also claimed the existence of liquid hydrocarbons - oil - at great depths. But there is a problem with this: the temperatures at depths below about 15,000 feet are high enough (above 275 degrees F) to break hydrocarbon bonds. What remains after these molecular bonds are severed is methane, whose molecule contains only a single carbon atom. For petroleum geologists this is not just a matter of theory, but of repeated and sometimes costly experience: they speak of an oil "window" that exists from roughly 7,500 feet to 15,000 feet, within which temperatures are appropriate for oil formation; look far outside the window, and you will most likely come up with a dry hole or, at best, natural gas only. The rare exceptions serve to prove the rule: they are invariably associated with strata that are rapidly (in geological terms) migrating upward or downward.

The conventional theory of petroleum formation connects oil with the process of sedimentation. And, indeed, nearly all of the oil that has been discovered over the past century-and-a-half is associated with sedimentary rocks. On the other hand, it isnít difficult to find rocks that once existed at great depths where, according the theories of Gold and the Russians, conditions should have been perfect for abiotic oil formation or the accumulation of primordial petroleum - but such rocks typically contain no traces of hydrocarbons. In the very rare instances where small amounts of hydrocarbons are seen in igneous or metamorphic rocks, the latter are invariably found near hydrocarbon-bearing sedimentary rocks, and the hydrocarbons in both types of rock contain identical biomarkers (more on that subject below); the simplest explanation in those cases is that the hydrocarbons migrated from the sedimentary rocks to the igneous-metamorphic rocks.

It's worth noting, as the authour does, that abiotic oil has very few proponents among the geoological community who, one would assume, would know. The fact that its mainly championed by laypeople or scientists from other disciplines reminds me of Inteligent Design "theory", another pseudoscience designed to mystify and fool the gullible.

[B. Max]

Treehuggers must be fuming. How did all those trees and dinosaurs get down there. Assuming they did, why does the so called fossil fuel have sulfur where as biodiesel made from plants does not.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=51837

What a nonsensical rant against environmentalists.

The problem is not oil, the problem is morally bereft politicians like George Bush and Stephen Harper who aren't willing to do anything about Global Warming.

Legislate tighter emision controls? No way, that would "destroy" the economy. Right?

Go find all the oil you want, but how about using it responsibly. No? Oh yeah, Bush and Harper are in the pocket of big oil, so of course they won't fight for our interests.

Lets set the record straight, I have no use for treehuggers. Global warming is not a problem that Bush or Harper could do anything about because there is no man made global warming. The so called environmentalists are the problem who are really nothing but watermelons. Green on the outside and red on the inside. There is likely something Harper and Bush could do about that. Like legislate economic treason laws.

[B. Max]

Another drubbing of abiotic snake oil.

Link

More to the point, Gold also claimed the existence of liquid hydrocarbons - oil - at great depths. But there is a problem with this: the temperatures at depths below about 15,000 feet are high enough (above 275 degrees F) to break hydrocarbon bonds. What remains after these molecular bonds are severed is methane, whose molecule contains only a single carbon atom. For petroleum geologists this is not just a matter of theory, but of repeated and sometimes costly experience: they speak of an oil "window" that exists from roughly 7,500 feet to 15,000 feet, within which temperatures are appropriate for oil formation; look far outside the window, and you will most likely come up with a dry hole or, at best, natural gas only. The rare exceptions serve to prove the rule: they are invariably associated with strata that are rapidly (in geological terms) migrating upward or downward.

The conventional theory of petroleum formation connects oil with the process of sedimentation. And, indeed, nearly all of the oil that has been discovered over the past century-and-a-half is associated with sedimentary rocks. On the other hand, it isnít difficult to find rocks that once existed at great depths where, according the theories of Gold and the Russians, conditions should have been perfect for abiotic oil formation or the accumulation of primordial petroleum - but such rocks typically contain no traces of hydrocarbons. In the very rare instances where small amounts of hydrocarbons are seen in igneous or metamorphic rocks, the latter are invariably found near hydrocarbon-bearing sedimentary rocks, and the hydrocarbons in both types of rock contain identical biomarkers (more on that subject below); the simplest explanation in those cases is that the hydrocarbons migrated from the sedimentary rocks to the igneous-metamorphic rocks.

It's worth noting, as the authour does, that abiotic oil has very few proponents among the geoological community who, one would assume, would know. The fact that its mainly championed by laypeople or scientists from other disciplines reminds me of Inteligent Design "theory", another pseudoscience designed to mystify and fool the gullible.

Obviously you don't read the links. Present day theory about oil says that oil should not be found at the depths of the jack well. Apparently chevron and their engineers don't believe that and 6000 barrels a day of oil proves it. There is no proof that man evolved from apes. Then again, considering the comprehension level of some people today suggests their ancestors did climb down out of the trees, and before they were fully evolved.

[Black Dog]

Obviously you don't read the links. Present day theory about oil says that oil should not be found at the depths of the jack well. Apparently chevron and their engineers don't believe that and 6000 barrels a day of oil proves it.

Nonsense. Again: "For petroleum geologists this is not just a matter of theory, but of repeated and sometimes costly experience: they speak of an oil "window" that exists from roughly 7,500 feet to 15,000 feet, within which temperatures are appropriate for oil formation; look far outside the window, and you will most likely come up with a dry hole or, at best, natural gas only. The rare exceptions serve to prove the rule: they are invariably associated with strata that are rapidly (in geological terms) migrating upward or downward."

It's also interesting that you cite the engineers and geologists to support your crackpot theory, given that he theory of a biological origin of oil has been the basis of virtually all successful oil exploration for the past 100 years, while proponents of abiotic oil have turned up zilch.

There is no proof that man evolved from apes. Then again, considering the comprehension level of some people today suggests their ancestors did climb down out of the trees, and before they were fully evolved.

Well, given evolutionary theory does not posit that man evolved from apes, I guess that would put you in the should have stayed in the trees crowd.