The topology of petroleum occurrence is a further defeat for the argument ... of an exclusively organic or exclusively abiogenic origin for petroleum. If oil were either rising from primordial sources in the earth’s interior or created in “oil windows” by catagenesis, the more mobile fractions would escape from the depths and be found more abundantly near the surface and less mobile fractions, low gravity oils, would be present at depth. Exactly the opposite is the norm. Methane gas, the most mobile hydrocarbon, is more abundant with depth, worldwide; and tars, the least mobile, are most abundant at and near the surface.
Working backwards through the above points, we can say that:
1. Topologies of hydrocarbon occurrences indicate that methane effuses from the interior, not petroleum; that
2. Topologies of hydrocarbon occurrences indicate that low-gravity oil is not generated at depth in oil windows; that
3. Methane beneficiates fossiliferous shales and peat deposits, creating oil shales and coal. Oil shales and coal do not generate methane; methane generates oil shales and coal; that
4. Bacteria and archaea in the outer crust strip hydrogen from methane progressively through condensates, high gravity oil, and low gravity oil, to bitumens; that
5. Hydrides of silicon and carbon along with intermetals rise into crustal levels where dissociation and oxidation liberate the heat of endogeny and deposit rock-forming minerals, and metal deposits, leaving only methane and hydrogen to effuse into the atmosphere; that
6. Nonmetal hydrides escaping from the interior of the primordial earth created a reducing atmosphere that was changed over to oxygen-rich by the loss of hydrogen to space; and that
7. The discovery that hydrogen nuclei under pressure penetrate atomic shells of metals, transmuting the metals to intermetals, densifying them, and fluidizing them, creates an entirely new geological picture of the earth’s interior, of endogeny, and of the mode by which the crust was created.
Indalo wrote:The idea (I don't think this has yet been proven) that the world's oil fields are actually replenishing, is worth studying alongside the idea that the world's oil fields are depleting. I'm afraid the proof of the latter is overwhelming, whereas the proof of the former is negligable. The world's appetite for the black gold is currently so insatiable, that most of the known mega fields are in depletion: Cantarell, North Sea, Kuwait, and the debate rages about Saudi's Ghawar, particularly over statistics and various numerical interpretations. These fields are simply unable to produce as much as they did in their maximum capacity days, whether it be due to lack of investment in advanced technologies or lack of truth about initial estimates, whatever, they are simply not producing enough for the world's market.
I've been folllowing Peak Oil for a few years and I'm ready to entertain many different interpretations: it's an elite game, played the expense of the rest of us, it's a 'myth' created by (fill in the blank) it's a conspiracy theory etc. I would not like to see the EU fraternity swallow the 'oil fields are refilling from bellow' 'theory' purely because it also goes against the overwhelming data, just as I hope you do not ridicule the Global Warming theory (nb I did not say Anthropogenic Global Warming) simply because it has been shoved, arguably, 'unscientifically' down our throats. If you had been studying the numbers, reading the opinions, following the graphs of say, the past five years, you would accept the fact that the world is struggling right now to produce as much oil as the market demands. If the refilling from bellow theory is right, it really doesn't matter as it is not taking place quickly enough to save the world economic system from extreme and severe withdrawal symptoms as that economy is based ENTIRELY on an abundant and cheap flow of oil. I am very much against the doomerish view of a world filled with marauding zombie hordes caused by the sudden and complete melt down of the world economy because of a sudden and complete depletion of oil fields, but it is right in front of your face right now, that the ongoing depletion of previously reliable abundantly cheap fossil fuels is causing an economic crisis of proportions previously unseen, throughout the western World.
Indalo wrote:However, the problem with oil is clear, it's production, refinement and is controlled by maybe two dozen people in the world. Control and power is the problem. With these individuals attempting to silence all alternatives we have caused some of the worst disasters in history and slowed down the progress of all mankind.
Another 20 million barrels of oil a day by 2015? That would be truly remarkable, requiring huge expansions of oil sands and oil shale resources, vastly increased production out of Saudi Arabia, and the discovery of replacements for the sharply declining production in Mexico, Russia and the North Sea. And in the unlikely event that such an expansion did come to pass, as testimony two weeks ago by CERA's chairman Daniel Yergin observed, it's not going to be cheap. Not only are the newer, "unconventional" sources of oil inherently more expensive to develop, but the oil industry is facing severe shortages of manpower and equipment. Ramping up current supply by 25 percent in just ten years will cost a pretty penny.
Myth or Not..
It is toxic... and we need to find cleaner, more sustainable, and decentralized forms of energy...
Petroleum is the old paradigm... holding onto it will just limit us.
Let's re-steer this thread in the direction of a finding a direct and cogent EU Planetary Science connection with the original post or it looks to be heading south to the NIAMI forum.
It seems to me that recently I heard a report on the radio that said scientists had discovered an insect that, when feed on a particular diet, deficates petroleum. (Or maybe it was on another thread of this very forum.)bdw000 wrote:Gold's hypothesis is that bacteria deep down convert methane into more complex organics, eventually leading to crude oil. This seems very much within the realm of possibility, if a tad unlikely.
The oil and gas that fuels our homes and cars started out as living organisms that died, were compressed, and heated under heavy layers of sediments in the Earth's crust. Scientists have debated for years whether some of these hydrocarbons could also have been created deeper in the Earth and formed without organic matter. Now for the first time, scientists have found that ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can be synthesized under the pressure-temperature conditions of the upper mantle —the layer of Earth under the crust and on top of the core. The research was conducted by scientists at the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory, with colleagues from Russia and Sweden, and is published in the July 26, advanced on-line issue of Nature Geoscience.
Going from there to the next link:The oil and gas that fuels our homes and cars started out as living organisms that died, were compressed, and heated under heavy layers of sediments in the Earth's crust. Scientists have debated for years whether some of these hydrocarbons could also have been created deeper in the Earth and formed without organic matter. Now for the first time, scientists have found that ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can be synthesized under the pressure-temperature conditions of the upper mantle —the layer of Earth under the crust and on top of the core. The research was conducted by scientists at the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory, with colleagues from Russia and Sweden, and is published in the July 26, advanced on-line issue of Nature Geoscience.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests