“The U.S. Energy Department predicted temperatures reaching a metal-melting 500 degrees Fahrenheit.”
Five hundred degrees Fahrenheit melts...what? Not much.
That's a respectable temperature and all, but I bake bread at ~350-400, so if 500 F is metal melting, I'll have to rethink my position on 9/11...and get a new oven.
Even 500 C won't melt many metals.
Do they mean Kelvin? No, that's only ~440 F.
What are they saying?
Don't mean to nitpick, but...
The fossil origin of oil theory does not seem to fit the facts.
Many theories do not seem to fit the facts. There is one that does, though...something to do with an electric universe.
solrey, nick c, I appreciate and respect your opinions and I'm glad you've also chosen to weigh in on this issue.
Solrey, good point about the metals not melting, but this statement may have taken into account the very intense pressure and temperatures at the depths where the oil is located. The addition of pressure in addition to temperature causes metal to lose it tensile strength. That has been one of the difficulties with ultra-deep drilling, metal apparatus break and crush at such depths unless made of very strong alloys, but seemingly this difficulty has been solved.
solrey, a little follow up to your excellent quoted passages on electromagnetic energy playing a significant role in oil formation:
"One can, then, conceive the production, by purely mineral means, of all natural hydrocarbons. The intervention of heat, of water, and of alkaline metals - lastly, the tendency of hydrocarbons to unite together to form the more condensed material - suffice to account for the formation of these curious compounds. Moreover, this formation will be continuous because the reactions which started it are renewed incessantly." -- Marcellin Berthelot, chemist, 1866
"It may be supposed that naphta was produced by the action of water penetrating through the crevices of the strata during the upheaval of mountain chains because water with iron carbide ought to give iron oxide and hydrocarbons." -- Dmitri Mendeleyev, chemist, 1877
"Do these fuels result always and necessarily in one way from the decomposition of a pre-existing organic substance? Is it thus with the hydrocarbons so frequently observed in volcanic eruptions and emanations, and to which M. Ch. Sainte-Claire Deville has called attention in recent years? Finally, must one assign a parralel origin to carbonaceous matter and to hydrocarbons contained in certain meteorites, and which appear to have an origin foreign to our planet? These are questions on which the opinion of many distinguished geologists does not as yet appear to be fixed." -- Marcellin Berthelot, chemist, 1866
Notice, that while electricity is not mentioned specifically by these eminent chemists of the 19th century, the processes they refer to are suspciously connected to metals that are subject to chemical - electrical processes.
...heat, of water, and of alkaline metals... -- Berthelot
...iron carbide ought to give iron oxide and hydrocarbons. -- Mendeleyev
Is it thus with the hydrocarbons so frequently observed in volcanic eruptions and emanations... -- Berthelot
The first two quotes mention metals that are frequently in play in electrical battery type chemical reactions. And we have seen in numerous posts, here, in the forum where electromagnetic energy facilitates chemical reactions, even transmutations of chemical elements, such is the power of electrical energy to influence and control chemical molecular formation.
And the third quoted passage is specific to the observations that were quite common in the 19th century, but largely overlooked in the 20th century, that volcanic activity and hydrocarbons were observed in close association with each other.
Also, it is my hypothesis that hydrocarbons are found in particular strata, not because of abundant biological activity, but rather because of abundant electrical activity, say by increased auroral activity, or other means of increased electrical activity that heated up the crust and lead to a more active crust/mantel interface (increased volcanic and earthquake activity), and possibly one could even propose planetary electrical discharges causing hydrocarbon formation and would account for the high number of meteorites found with hydrocarbons embedded in them.
"Whether naphta was formed by organic matter is very doubtful, as it is found in the most ancient Silurian [Ordovician] strata which correspond with the epochs of the earth's existence when there was very little organic matter; it could not penetrate from the higher to the lower (more ancient) strata as it floats on water (and water penetrates through all strata)." -- Dmitri Mendeleyev, chemist, 1877
How come it seems that 19th century scientists like Birkeland and the above had so much on the ball, yet were ignored by supposedly more advanced 20th century Science