The lies about Oil and the games we play

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Jarhead

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Great, pseudoscience. Think about whose interests it's in to make you believe that oil is endless.

Why aren't there any geologists in this forum?

The market forces are to continually create the opinion of a massive shortage, as they have continually been doing since the 1960's. This allows them to keep raising the price, and make more profit, while having to do less work for each dollar.

Sorry, your comment doesn't hold water to me...

If oil can be formed abiogenically, why is it only in sedimentary rocks?

Abiogenic formation of alkanes in the Earth's crust as a minor source for global hydrocarbon reservoirs.

From the limited amount of reading I've done on this subject, I think there is some evidence pointing towards the possibility of abiogenic oil formation. But in the end the fact that there has yet to be a full on 'gusher' that is clearly not from some sedimentary source rock is the best deciding factor in this debate.

Methane isn't anywhere close to oil.

Explain.

Methane is one simple compound. Oil is a diverse mix of hydrocarbons.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Jarhead

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Jarhead

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Great, pseudoscience. Think about whose interests it's in to make you believe that oil is endless.

Why aren't there any geologists in this forum?

The market forces are to continually create the opinion of a massive shortage, as they have continually been doing since the 1960's. This allows them to keep raising the price, and make more profit, while having to do less work for each dollar.

Sorry, your comment doesn't hold water to me...

If oil can be formed abiogenically, why is it only in sedimentary rocks?

It isn't just in sedimentary rocks. It is best to read things before you speak. If you had bothered to read something, you'd have not made that comment.

They are finding oil now, up to eight miles deep, well below and beyond the sedimentary rocks. Deep into the basalt and granite.

Okay, maybe they are finding oil in granite and basalt, but it had to have seeped into those rocks from sed rocks.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Methane is one simple compound. Oil is a diverse mix of hydrocarbons.

Crude oil, like that found in the spills to which you refer, is a very
complex mixture of compounds composed of (mainly) carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
and sulfur. Of these elements, carbon and hydrogen are by far the major
components. Linked together with inter-atom bonds, these CH compounds form a
dazzling variety of different kinds of molecules of many different shapes
and sizes. Collectively, these carbon-hydrogen compounds are referred to as
"hydrocarbons."

The smallest hydrocarbons are gaseous at ordinary room temperature. The
somewhat larger hydrocarbon molecules are liquids, whereas the largest are
solids. Of course in crude oil, all these different kinds of molecules are
"dissolved" in each other -- making for a rather unpleasant looking and
smelling mess.

Transported to a refinery, the various "fractions" of the crude oil (gases,
liquids, and solids) are separated from each other (and sometimes modified
in composition) before they are distributed for use. Obviously, the liquid
fractions are primary components of gasoline, diesel fuel, and lubricating
and heating oils. The very large hydrocarbon components are solids at room
temperature and are used for roofing and road surfaces -- tar and asphalt.

Methane is the simplest hydrocarbon. It is primarily the gaseous part of crude mentioned above. So actually methane and oil are very "close" as you say.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Jarhead

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Jarhead

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Great, pseudoscience. Think about whose interests it's in to make you believe that oil is endless.

Why aren't there any geologists in this forum?

The market forces are to continually create the opinion of a massive shortage, as they have continually been doing since the 1960's. This allows them to keep raising the price, and make more profit, while having to do less work for each dollar.

Sorry, your comment doesn't hold water to me...

If oil can be formed abiogenically, why is it only in sedimentary rocks?

It isn't just in sedimentary rocks. It is best to read things before you speak. If you had bothered to read something, you'd have not made that comment.

They are finding oil now, up to eight miles deep, well below and beyond the sedimentary rocks. Deep into the basalt and granite.

Maybe if you'd bother to post sources that aren't anti-semitic, globalist conspiracy theorist garbage you might have more success in making your case. The AAPG abstracts I linked above confirm the production of hydrogen gas within mantle rocks. Now you need a source of carbon and the proper conditions for production of first methane, and then long chain and cyclic hydrocarbons. If you're going to argue about science, start posting from the scientific literature and cut the political/conspiracy crap.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt
Oil lubricates the tectonic plates...we're pumping it all out, causing friction in the plates, causing the earthquakes

Sounds like Barbra Streisand and her "Global Warming" warnings.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: mugs
This thread will be interesting

I agree, but a person who has been on since 1999 should know this belongs in P&N.
Enough thread crapping.

My opinion is we (humans) will drain and burn all the fossil fuel we have on planet earth. It may take 10 years, it may take a thousand, but we will do it. If earth still exists at that time, we will finally move on to something cleaner and more efficient. But we are too dependant on it and will have to make it disappear before we finally learn.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Methane is one simple compound. Oil is a diverse mix of hydrocarbons.

Crude oil, like that found in the spills to which you refer, is a very
complex mixture of compounds composed of (mainly) carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
and sulfur. Of these elements, carbon and hydrogen are by far the major
components. Linked together with inter-atom bonds, these CH compounds form a
dazzling variety of different kinds of molecules of many different shapes
and sizes. Collectively, these carbon-hydrogen compounds are referred to as
"hydrocarbons."

The smallest hydrocarbons are gaseous at ordinary room temperature. The
somewhat larger hydrocarbon molecules are liquids, whereas the largest are
solids. Of course in crude oil, all these different kinds of molecules are
"dissolved" in each other -- making for a rather unpleasant looking and
smelling mess.

Transported to a refinery, the various "fractions" of the crude oil (gases,
liquids, and solids) are separated from each other (and sometimes modified
in composition) before they are distributed for use. Obviously, the liquid
fractions are primary components of gasoline, diesel fuel, and lubricating
and heating oils. The very large hydrocarbon components are solids at room
temperature and are used for roofing and road surfaces -- tar and asphalt.

Methane is the simplest hydrocarbon. It is primarily the gaseous part of crude mentioned above. So actually methane and oil are very "close" as you say.

not really. methane might be disolved in the crude oil mixture, but it sure as hell has much different properties than the rest of the mix.

 

[Jarhead]

Actually, it is not hype. Please read this article fom Wikipedia linked below.


"The capital fact to note is that petroleum was born in the depths of the earth, and it is only there that we must seek its origin." (Dmitri Mendeleev, 1877)[1]
Russian geologist Nikolai Alexandrovitch Kudryavtsev was the first to propose the modern abiotic theory of petroleum in 1951. He studied the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta, Canada and concluded that no "source rocks" could form the enormous volume of hydrocarbons, and that therefore the most plausible explanation is abiotic deep petroleum.

The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of petroleum, based on thermodynamic calculations made for the first time by Ukrainian scientist, Prof. Emmanuil B. Chekaliuk (1967), contends that petroleum is formed at high pressure and temperature in the earth's mantle, out of carbon that has never been part of a living thing. This theory is said to be supported by experimental studies conducted by Dr J.F. Kenney and his Russian colleagues. Their conclusions about petroleum origin are also said to vindicate the theories propounded by the geologist Nikolai Kudryavtsev.

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

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
I was digging in my back yard and found some jsut an inch down.

GET IT DIPSHIT! Oil is a finite supply. We need alternative energy now, tommorrow, next year or next centeury.

Or we can continue assuming the OZone layer is fine and global warming is "normal"

actually the ozone hole is healing now

So we're saved from skin cancer but will die of irreversible climate change in a few decades... Yay?

 

[Jarhead]

. F. Kenney

Joint Institute of The Physics of the Earth - Russian Academy of Sciences

Gas Resources Corporation, 11811 North Freeway, Houston, TX 77060, U.S.A.

Ac. Ye. F. Shnyukov

National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

Vladimirskaya Street 56, 252.601 Kiev, Ukraine

V. A. Krayushkin

Institute of Geological Sciences

O. Gonchara Street 55-B, 01054 Kiev, Ukraine

I. K. Karpov

Institute of Geochemistry - Russian Academy of Sciences

Favorskii Street 1a, 664.033 Irkutsk, RUSSIA

V. G. Kutcherov

Russian State University of Oil and Gas

Leninskii Prospect 65, 117.917 Moscow, Russia

I. N. Plotnikova

National Petroleum Company of Tatarstan (TatNeft S.A.)

Butlerov Street 45-54, 423.020 Kazan, Tatarstan, RUSSIA


The ?look-like/come-from? claims apply a line of unreason exactly as designated: Such argue that, because certain molecules found in natural petroleum ?look like? certain other molecules found in biological systems, then the former must ?come-from? the latter. Such notion is, of course, equivalent to asserting that elephant tusks evolve because those animals must eat piano keys.

In some instances, the ?look-like/come-from? claims assert that certain molecules found in natural petroleum actually are biological molecules, and evolve only in biological systems. These molecules have often been given the spurious name ?biomarkers.?

The scientific correction must be stated unequivocally: There have never been observed any specifically biological molecules in natural petroleum, except as contaminants. Petroleum is an excellent solvent for carbon compounds; and, in the sedimentary strata from which petroleum is often produced, natural petroleum takes into solution much carbon material, including biological detritus. However, such contaminants are unrelated to the petroleum solvent.




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

 

[ElFenix]

even if its abiotic, if we're using it at a rate faster than it is being made then we're still gonna run out.

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
I was digging in my back yard and found some jsut an inch down.

GET IT DIPSHIT! Oil is a finite supply. We need alternative energy now, tommorrow, next year or next centeury.

Or we can continue assuming the OZone layer is fine and global warming is "normal"

actually the ozone hole is healing now

So we're saved from skin cancer but will die of irreversible climate change in a few decades... Yay?

So much Negativity. I for one fully promote, and look forward too a life similar to Mad Max!

 

[Jarhead]

Another interesting article out of Wired magazine, interviewing a respected scientist, who has a great many accomplishments under his belt:


And by pumping out oil from the highest reservoir you release the pressure on the lower ones, allowing more oil to seep up.



Yes, the partial seal between the surface reservoir and the one below in some cases appears to break open violently.



What's the evidence for that?



Many fields have produced several times as much as the initial testing of their magnitude would have indicated. Some geologists frankly agree that fields are refilling themselves - Robert Mahfoud and James Beck, who say fields in the Middle East are refilling, and Jean Whelan, who has observed a site refilling in the Gulf of Mexico - though they won't concede my theory is correct.



Your onetime colleague Carl Sagan used to say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What evidence did you have for geologists who found your claims about oil extraordinary?



In Sweden I produced oil by the ton from 6 kilometers down. Eighty barrels we pumped, perfectly ordinary crude oil, entirely in nonsedimentary rock, in granite. It looked like perfectly good stuff.

The Russians have drilled 300 holes in Tatarstan since the Swedish experiments. They give me the credit for making the final determination between the biogenic and abiogenic theory by finding petroleum in the bedrock of Sweden.



http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/gold_pr.html

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Jarhead

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Jarhead

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Great, pseudoscience. Think about whose interests it's in to make you believe that oil is endless.

Why aren't there any geologists in this forum?

The market forces are to continually create the opinion of a massive shortage, as they have continually been doing since the 1960's. This allows them to keep raising the price, and make more profit, while having to do less work for each dollar.

Sorry, your comment doesn't hold water to me...

If oil can be formed abiogenically, why is it only in sedimentary rocks?

It isn't just in sedimentary rocks. It is best to read things before you speak. If you had bothered to read something, you'd have not made that comment.

They are finding oil now, up to eight miles deep, well below and beyond the sedimentary rocks. Deep into the basalt and granite.

Maybe if you'd bother to post sources that aren't anti-semitic, globalist conspiracy theorist garbage you might have more success in making your case. The AAPG abstracts I linked above confirm the production of hydrogen gas within mantle rocks. Now you need a source of carbon and the proper conditions for production of first methane, and then long chain and cyclic hydrocarbons. If you're going to argue about science, start posting from the scientific literature and cut the political/conspiracy crap.

These compounds don't form themselves. Do you see sugar in any rocks? Nope. Hydrocarbons are nothing more than ways for plants to store energy from photosynthesis. Without something assembling them, there is no way for hydrocarbons to form, except MAYBE the simplest, like CH4.

 

[Conky]

I wish global warming would hurry up... it's starting to get cold outside. :roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Great, pseudoscience. Think about whose interests it's in to make you believe that oil is endless.

Why aren't there any geologists in this forum?

Uh, I don't hold to the OP's theory of abiotic oil formation, but oil companies profit off the belief that our oil supply is limited and difficult to obtain. Not that the oil supply is endless. If the public believed that the oil supply is endless, there would be enormous public pressure to lower prices and slash their profits.

If you think that we use oil because the oil companies have tricked people into believing that the oil supply is endless so that we don't use alternatives, think again. We use oil and other fossil fuels because it is the only viable option for producing the amount of energy that our civilization needs that our technology allows at this time. The real myth is that there are alternatives. At this time, there simply is not.

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Methane is one simple compound. Oil is a diverse mix of hydrocarbons.

Petroleum consists primarily of alkane hydrocarbons of varying chain length (number of carbon atoms). Methane is the simplest alkane hydrocarbon with a single chain (1 carbon atom).
Saying that "methane isn't anywhere close to oil" is comparable to saying that gasoline (a compound of 7- and 8- chain alkane hydrocarbons, heptane and octane respectively) isn't anywhere close to oil. It is true, however, that unlike gasoline there are other sources of methane besides oil and natural gas, but that still doesn't change the fact that methane is the simplest component of oil (and natural gas), and as such is very "close to oil."
You are frequently involved in oil and other environmental discussions, and I see now that your actual ignorance on this subject is such that I will no longer be able to take your arguments seriously.

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
not really. methane might be disolved in the crude oil mixture, but it sure as hell has much different properties than the rest of the mix.

Surely you aren't serious. Methane has the same chemical formula, CnH2n+2, as every other alkane hydrocarbon, and as such is very similar to the "rest of the mix," which just happens to be composed primarily of alkane hydrocarbons. Text


edit: methane is CH4 -- C(1)H((2*1)+2).

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Great, pseudoscience. Think about whose interests it's in to make you believe that oil is endless.

Why aren't there any geologists in this forum?

Uh, I don't hold to the OP's theory of abiotic oil formation, but oil companies profit off the belief that our oil supply is limited and difficult to obtain. Not that the oil supply is endless. If the public believed that the oil supply is endless, there would be enormous public pressure to lower prices and slash their profits.

If you think that we use oil because the oil companies have tricked people into believing that the oil supply is endless so that we don't use alternatives, think again. We use oil and other fossil fuels because it is the only viable option for producing the amount of energy that our civilization needs that our technology allows at this time. The real myth is that there are alternatives. At this time, there simply is not.

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Methane is one simple compound. Oil is a diverse mix of hydrocarbons.

Petroleum consists primarily of alkane hydrocarbons of varying chain length (number of carbon atoms). Methane is the simplest alkane hydrocarbon with a single chain (1 carbon atom).
Saying that "methane isn't anywhere close to oil" is comparable to saying that gasoline (a compound of 7- and 8- chain alkane hydrocarbons, heptane and octane respectively) isn't anywhere close to oil. It is true, however, that unlike gasoline there are other sources of methane besides oil and natural gas, but that still doesn't change the fact that methane is the simplest component of oil (and natural gas), and as such is very "close to oil."
You are frequently involved in oil and other environmental discussions, and I see now that your actual ignorance on this subject is such that I will no longer be able to take your arguments seriously.

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
not really. methane might be disolved in the crude oil mixture, but it sure as hell has much different properties than the rest of the mix.

Surely you aren't serious. Methane has the same chemical formula, CnH2n+2, as every other alkane hydrocarbon, and as such is very similar to the "rest of the mix," which just happens to be composed primarily of alkane hydrocarbons. Text


edit: methane is CH4 -- C(1)H((2*1)+2).

Oil companies can profit off of our "belief" that oil is limited, but it's pretty obvious that it's good for them if we believe that "there's an assload of oil". Remember the Saudi government's statement that they have enough oil to last a long long time? Why would they do that if it doesn't benefit them?

What does methane being a part of oil have to do with anything? Methane forming abiogenically by no means that oil can form abiogenically. Oil is a mixture and that's what makes it oil. The ratios of its components can change, but oil is oil. The complexity of hydrocarbons is inversely proportional to the likelihood that it just appeared out of thin air, and the claims about methane forming this way are questionable. By the way, there's water in oil too.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Jarhead

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Great, pseudoscience. Think about whose interests it's in to make you believe that oil is endless.

Why aren't there any geologists in this forum?

The market forces are to continually create the opinion of a massive shortage, as they have continually been doing since the 1960's. This allows them to keep raising the price, and make more profit, while having to do less work for each dollar.

Sorry, your comment doesn't hold water to me...

If oil can be formed abiogenically, why is it only in sedimentary rocks?

Abiogenic formation of alkanes in the Earth's crust as a minor source for global hydrocarbon reservoirs.

From the limited amount of reading I've done on this subject, I think there is some evidence pointing towards the possibility of abiogenic oil formation. But in the end the fact that there has yet to be a full on 'gusher' that is clearly not from some sedimentary source rock is the best deciding factor in this debate.

Thanks for posting the link, which unfortunately concludes:

Given that these trends are not observed in the isotopic signatures of economic gas reservoirs, we can now rule out the presence of a globally significant abiogenic source of hydrocarbons.

Future Shock

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Oil companies can profit off of our "belief" that oil is limited, but it's pretty obvious that it's good for them if we believe that "there's an assload of oil". Remember the Saudi government's statement that they have enough oil to last a long long time? Why would they do that if it doesn't benefit them?

Maximizing their profits depends on a precise balance of high prices and high consumption. This is simple economics, where an industry seeks to sell the highest volume at the highest prices capable of supporting that volume.

What does methane being a part of oil have to do with anything? Methane forming abiogenically by no means that oil can form abiogenically. Oil is a mixture and that's what makes it oil. The ratios of its components can change, but oil is oil. The complexity of hydrocarbons is inversely proportional to the likelihood that it just appeared out of thin air, and the claims about methane forming this way are questionable. By the way, there's water in oil too.

You will note that my very first statement was that I do not hold to the theory of abiotic oil formation. Are you really that incapable of following the arguments of others?
Oil is primarily composed of, and ALL of its primary usable components are, alkane hydrocarbons, of which methane is the simplest form. Is water an alkane? No. Water is a contamination of oil, not a part of.
Hey, you were the one who said that "Methane isn't anywhere close to oil" when in fact methane is a primary component of oil and natural gas.

That there is more oil in the earth than we think there should be is not surprising. Oil is essentially liquid compost. It is even theoretically possible to establish a permanent continuous cycle of hydrocarbon fuel production (in fact, agriculture is such a production, as are plants in nature).

 

[Linflas]

You people are arguing about apples and oranges. Whether or not the supply of oil is limitless has nothing to do with whether or not there is more than one method for its formation. There is serious research being conducted in this area. As I pointed out in an earlier post the history of almost any science includes previously unthinkable theories turning out to actually have some validity as research continues. It could very well be that our current theories regarding solely a biological origin for oil may have more to do with the fact that the easiest oil for us to get at to date is not all that deep in the crust. The deepest drilling we have done to date is about 4,644 feet, still short of the boundry between the crust and mantle.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Jarhead

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Great, pseudoscience. Think about whose interests it's in to make you believe that oil is endless.

Why aren't there any geologists in this forum?

The market forces are to continually create the opinion of a massive shortage, as they have continually been doing since the 1960's. This allows them to keep raising the price, and make more profit, while having to do less work for each dollar.

Sorry, your comment doesn't hold water to me...

If oil can be formed abiogenically, why is it only in sedimentary rocks?

Abiogenic formation of alkanes in the Earth's crust as a minor source for global hydrocarbon reservoirs.

From the limited amount of reading I've done on this subject, I think there is some evidence pointing towards the possibility of abiogenic oil formation. But in the end the fact that there has yet to be a full on 'gusher' that is clearly not from some sedimentary source rock is the best deciding factor in this debate.

Thanks for posting the link, which unfortunately concludes:

Given that these trends are not observed in the isotopic signatures of economic gas reservoirs, we can now rule out the presence of a globally significant abiogenic source of hydrocarbons.

Future Shock

Hey, no doubt. The title of the article is "Abiogenic formation of alkanes in the Earth's crust as a minor source for global hydrocarbon reservoirs."

That a small amount of alkanes can be produced in the presence of CO2, H2O, and heat should not be suprising. Do the math for godssake. 2(CO2 + H2O) + energy = CH4 + 3(O2)
Methane (CH4) is the primary component of natural gas.
It's pretty much impossible to argue against that article. Abiotic hydrocarbon production is certainly possible, but by no means on a scale anywhere near capable of supporting our energy needs.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Oil companies can profit off of our "belief" that oil is limited, but it's pretty obvious that it's good for them if we believe that "there's an assload of oil". Remember the Saudi government's statement that they have enough oil to last a long long time? Why would they do that if it doesn't benefit them?

Maximizing their profits depends on a precise balance of high prices and high consumption. This is simple economics, where an industry seeks to sell the highest volume at the highest prices capable of supporting that volume.

What does methane being a part of oil have to do with anything? Methane forming abiogenically by no means that oil can form abiogenically. Oil is a mixture and that's what makes it oil. The ratios of its components can change, but oil is oil. The complexity of hydrocarbons is inversely proportional to the likelihood that it just appeared out of thin air, and the claims about methane forming this way are questionable. By the way, there's water in oil too.

You will note that my very first statement was that I do not hold to the theory of abiotic oil formation. Are you really that incapable of following the arguments of others?
Oil is primarily composed of, and ALL of its primary usable components are, alkane hydrocarbons, of which methane is the simplest form. Is water an alkane? No. Water is a contamination of oil, not a part of.
Hey, you were the one who said that "Methane isn't anywhere close to oil" when in fact methane is a primary component of oil and natural gas.

That there is more oil in the earth than we think there should be is not surprising. Oil is essentially liquid compost. It is even theoretically possible to establish a permanent continuous cycle of hydrocarbon fuel production (in fact, agriculture is such a production, as are plants in nature).

"You will note" that I was responding to your argument that claimed that it's irrelevant that methane is only one component of oil. "You will note" that the fact that methane is is not oil is relevant to this thread because supposed abiogenic methane formation does not mean that there is abiogenic oil formation. I don't know why this methane thing is such a big deal to you anyway. All I said is that methane != oil.

Edit: According to your link Jupiter's atmosphere contains a lot of methane and ethane. Great, they are abiogenic. Does that mean that they are close enough to oil that... wait a minute, you don't believe in abiogenic oil either.. So what are you saying? That I'm ignorant and that "methane is close to oil" because it is one of its alkane components?

 

[zephyrprime]

I have my own theory on the formation of oil. Like others, I don't believe that the traditional theory is correct. However, I also don't believe in the abiogenesis of oil.

What I believe is this: Oil is made from methane hydrates deep in the crust. The oil deposits we find are small leakage points located above the true source deposits.

It has already been shown that at the continental shelves, massive deposits of methane hydrates exist. The size of these deposits of hydrocarbon are greater than the size all known oil reserves. Whenever one tectonic plate inducts another underneath itself, methane hydrates would be carried along also. This process exposes the hydrates to extreme temperatures and pressures that cause the methane to be polymerised into oil. Some of the methane also manages to escape through cracks in the crust so that it never polymerises and instead either escapes into the atmosphere or becomes trapped to become a natural gas deposit.

Now most of the oil deposits in this theory are unfortunately deep deep underground far beyond the reach of coventional drilling technology. Sometimes however, tectonic plate motion or asteroid strikes cause large deep fractures to form on the crust. Through these fractures, oil can seep up nearer to the surface. Many seepages in the ocean just vent out into the ocean uselessly. Unfortunately, most seepages on land form only very small deposits. It's only when a seepage is lucky enough to coincide with a porous rocky area that a large oil deposit can form.

So, in order to exploit my theory (if it is indeed correct) would be to develop deep drilling technology and then find the seepage point within existing oil fields and then enlarge the seepage point.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
"You will note" that I was responding to your argument that claimed that it's irrelevant that methane is only one component of oil. "You will note" that the fact that methane is is not oil is relevant to this thread because supposed abiogenic methane formation does not mean that there is abiogenic oil formation. I don't know why this methane thing is such a big deal to you anyway. All I said is that methane != oil.

Edit: According to your link Jupiter's atmosphere contains a lot of methane and ethane. Great, they are abiogenic. Does that mean that they are close enough to oil that... wait a minute, you don't believe in abiogenic oil either.. So what are you saying? That I'm ignorant and that "methane is close to oil" because it is one of its alkane components?

Way to switch your argument. :roll:

You did not say that "methane != oil," you said that "Methane isn't anywhere close to oil." Obviously, methane is not oil. But it is a primary component of oil, identical in chemical forumlation (CnH2n+2) to all the other primary components of oil, which obviously does make it quite "close" to oil.

Nor did I say that didn't believe in abiogenic oil formation. I said that I didn't hold to the "OP's theory", i.e. in abiogenic oil formation capable of infinitely sustaining the world's oil needs.

Get a fsckin' clue, eh? You complain of pseudoscience (which the OP did do) but then spout your own psuedoscience (as though 2 wrongs make a right). When called upon and corrected for it, you further discredit yourself by resorting to mischaracterizations of those who corrected you.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Methane is one simple compound. Oil is a diverse mix of hydrocarbons.

Crude oil, like that found in the spills to which you refer, is a very
complex mixture of compounds composed of (mainly) carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
and sulfur. Of these elements, carbon and hydrogen are by far the major
components. Linked together with inter-atom bonds, these CH compounds form a
dazzling variety of different kinds of molecules of many different shapes
and sizes. Collectively, these carbon-hydrogen compounds are referred to as
"hydrocarbons."

The smallest hydrocarbons are gaseous at ordinary room temperature. The
somewhat larger hydrocarbon molecules are liquids, whereas the largest are
solids. Of course in crude oil, all these different kinds of molecules are
"dissolved" in each other -- making for a rather unpleasant looking and
smelling mess.

Transported to a refinery, the various "fractions" of the crude oil (gases,
liquids, and solids) are separated from each other (and sometimes modified
in composition) before they are distributed for use. Obviously, the liquid
fractions are primary components of gasoline, diesel fuel, and lubricating
and heating oils. The very large hydrocarbon components are solids at room
temperature and are used for roofing and road surfaces -- tar and asphalt.

Methane is the simplest hydrocarbon. It is primarily the gaseous part of crude mentioned above. So actually methane and oil are very "close" as you say.

not really. methane might be disolved in the crude oil mixture, but it sure as hell has much different properties than the rest of the mix.

Sigh. Of course it has different properties than the other hydrocarbons in crude. Here are some other hydrocarbons that also have different properties: methane, ethane, propane, gasoline, jet fuel, kerosene, diesel, gasoil, paraffin wax, and asphalt. Guess where all these come from? They are all refined (seperated by boiling point basically) from raw crude oil.