Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Ichihara

Origin of oil poll

Did you ever heard of abiotic origin of oil?   25 members have voted

  1. 1. Did you ever heard of abiotic origin of oil?

  2. 2. If yes, which theory do you prefer?

    • mainstream fossil fuel theory
    • abiotic origin of oil theory
    • first time I've heard of it

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

37 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Im interested in number of people who heard about abiotic origin of oil.

Thanx.

Edited by Tiggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If the abiotic theory is the earth' s sweat then yes.....doing more research......

Ok answer time

Are you suggesting that people are not somehow aware of the hypothesis was first proposed by Georg Agricola in the 16th century? Outrageous.

Edited by bubblykiss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If the abiotic theory is the earth' s sweat then yes.....doing more research......

Ok answer time

Are you suggesting that people are not somehow aware of the hypothesis was first proposed by Georg Agricola in the 16th century? Outrageous.

did you even know what he wrote about it in the first place?

to answer your question- Im not suggesting anything. its a poll. for definition of poll search as you did for abiotic origin of oil theory.

Edited by Ichihara
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By using my ability deduct word meanings through parts and my father's insane ability to research any obscure conspiracy....I had more than a fair idea.

The 3rd line is a joke.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well i cant do the poll. I answer no on the first one but it dosent let me vote unless I also vote in the second one

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Nonething to do with this thread but I just read your quote under your thing and realized your quoting Terry Pratchett.

His books are awesome just saying

Edited by spartan max2
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well i cant do the poll. I answer no on the first one but it dosent let me vote unless I also vote in the second one

perhaps mods can help us by adding 3rd option in second question. "first time hear of it"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While abiogenic hydrocarbons have been found, such as at the Lost City hydrothermal vents in the mid-atlantic, I do not believe that any oil of abiogenic origin has ever been found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The surveys going badly for the abiotic proponents, now there's a surprise :clap:

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The carbon sequestered after the cretaceous period had to go somewhere. Coal and shale gas alone does not account for it.

Now, could there be a small amount of abiotic oil? Could be but to me it sounds more like Gazprom theorizing themselves to happiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps mods can help us by adding 3rd option in second question. "first time hear of it"

Done.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so far 12:1 lead fossil fuel. i did expect this results but not in this ratio. it means that i need to break this paradigm of normal science. :whistle: it will be great journey.

as for me mods can closed this poll.

Edited by Ichihara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so far 12:1 lead fossil fuel. i did expect this results but not in this ratio. it means that i need to break this paradigm of normal science. :whistle: it will be great journey.

as for me mods can closed this poll.

Start by telling us where the five-fold compared to present of carbon dioxide went....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so far 12:1 lead fossil fuel. i did expect this results but not in this ratio. it means that i need to break this paradigm of normal science. :whistle: it will be great journey.

as for me mods can closed this poll.

Its simple, when you find that abiotic barrel of oil, you can retire from the proceeds of your endeavours. That should be nice and simple to achieve.

After all the proof of the pudding is in the retirement fund - not in the imagination.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Start by telling us where the five-fold compared to present of carbon dioxide went....

can you reformulate question. i dont understand where is the problem with abiotic theory.

Edited by Ichihara
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can you reformulate question. i dont understand where is the problem with abiotic theory.

Abiotic theory says that the oil came from geological processes underground through the decomposition of rocks. In this case the source of the oil/gas is from rocks and not from the atmosphere. The point Questionmark is making is where did all that CO2 go if it wasn't sequestered in the form of fossil fuels - it should still be out there in the atmosphere. It went somewhere and conventional theory says it went into bio-matter which was subducted to deep underground where the actions of heat and pressure converted it to fossil fuels. If that is not what happened then where is it ?

Paleogeology and paleoclimatology show there is s correlation between the amount of CO2 taken out of the atmosphere at the end of the cretacious and the amount of fossil fuel generated.

Another inconvenient fact for the abiotic theory is that oil from the ground has what are called biomarkers which are chemicals which can only be derived from life processes. You can tell the age and the original biomatter which went to form the oil. If abiotic theory is correct where did these bio-markers come from ? Rocks have never been alive so they cannot come spontaneously from the decomposing rock as would be required from abiotic theory and the chemical processes needed to form them are not present in geological rock.

Biomarkers are any of a suite of complex organic compounds composed of carbon, hydrogen and other elements such as oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur, which are found in crude oils, bitumens, petroleum source rock and eventually show simplification in molecular structure from the parent organic molecules found in all living organisms. Essentially, they are complex carbon-based molecules derived from formerly living organisms.[1] Biomarker compounds are typically analyzed using gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. Some examples of biomarkers found in petroleum are pristane, phytane, steranes, triterpanes and porphyrin. Geologists and Geochemists utilize biomarkers traces found in crude oils and their related source rock to unravel the stratigraphic origin and migration pathways of presently existing petroleum deposits.[2]

http://en.wikipedia....ker_(petroleum)

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where did life comes from? how earth was formed? why we have earthquake lights? etc. all those questions are tied with oil story. did plants come from oil or oil came from plants? i believe that life came from the underground. biology is just a branch of thermodynamics. as Gold said : Hydrocarbons are not biology reworked by geology , but rather geology reworked by biology.

in abiotic theory gas/oil isnt form out of the rocks. who say it isnt in atmosphere? or in the ground?

interesting that you mentioned gas. usually fossil fuel proponents evade it in discussion. we found methane on bottom of ocean on hydrothermal fields. also we found methane on Saturns moon Titan. did dinosaurs and plants lived on Titan? also we have Methane on Jupiter and Saturn. and on earth beneath sediment layers. we have methane hydrate deposits. carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe. its produced in stars. our sun produced carbon. in cosmos mostly bounds with hydrogen compounds. hydrocarbons are all over cosmos why do we believe that hydrocarbons on earth are from dinosaurs and plants is beyond me.

Paleogeology and paleoclimatology show so much that we have few theories how earth was formed, where comes water on earth. normal science say that came out of the sky. water came from the sky. it isnt that cut and dry simple answer.

where did bio markers come from? thats uneasy question and abiotic theory provide more evidencies than fossil fuel theory. in short they came on way up. bioproducts are added in petroluem when pressure force it up. one of the biomarkers are porphyrins.

porphyrins are organometallics - metal + carbon + hydrogen + nitrogen. animals porphyrins are iron-porphyrins (haemoglobin).plants porphyrins are magnesium-porphyrins (chlorophyll). if oil came from plants we would find magnesium in oil but we didnt. if oil came from animals we would find iron in oil but again in real world we didnt.

in petroleum we can find metals such as mercury, nickel, lead, arsenic etc.

wher is a proof that oil originate from plants? did we made oil from plant material in the laboratory under conditions resembling those in nature?

on another hand we have numerous experiments where we made oil out of elements we found in nature. combination of carbon dioxide, hydrogen and/or methane. spinel catalysation, serpentinite synthesis, graphite synthesis...how Nazists made oil? Fischer–Tropsch process.

we have found pure abiotic oil on earth such as in Lost city. where are there biomarkers? http://www.wnd.com/2008/02/45838/

what about Bach Ho oil field? then Eugene Island 330.phenomenon of oil wells refilling themselves is widely reported. this is from wiki:

Something mysterious is going on at Eugene Island 330. Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, was supposed to have declined years ago. And for a while, it behaved like any normal field: Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330's output peaked at about 15,000 barrels per day (2,400 m3/d). By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels per day (640 m3/d). Then suddenly -- some say almost inexplicably -- Eugene Island's fortunes reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels per day (2,100 m3/d), and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million.[5]

—Christopher Cooper, Wall Street Journal

then what about finding oil where we it couldnt be find by fossil fuels proponents. such as in Siljan in Sweden.

we found hydrocarbons in diamond. how?

how come that we found helium where we find oil?

to get back on your qustion on biomarkers. microbes/bacteria can live in the extreme pressures and we found organisms that metabolize non-organic hydrocarbons as an energy source. organisms that live without photosynthesis. we even have microbes that produce hydrocarbons. im sure you heard of thermophilic bacteria...

Edited by Ichihara
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where we found hydrocarbons we find helium. on earth helium is made by radioactive decay of thorium and uranium. in sediment layer we found helium which couldnt be produce by uranium and thorium found there. it came from somewhere.we found helium in oil. i guess that can tell you from which depth oil came. helium comes from the centre of the earth and pops out at the weakest point of the crust.

imagine we use helium sniffers to find oil.

i try to find one site but i cant about microbes from underground. anyway we found therophiles in depth off 1,6 km. also microbes who live at 110 C. we found fossilized microbes 200 meters in granite. we have methane eating bacteria. i will try tommorow.

why we have 96% co2 atmosphere on Venus? Venus is exposed to radiation more then our planet. Radiation divide water in hydrogen and oxygen. hydrogen went to space as we loosing our atmosphere. oxygen oxidize and bound with other elements as carbon. as i said it isnt short answer. it takes time to make puzzles. but once you are over, everything fits into right place.

one more thing,oil window as geologist say is between 1 and 6 kilometers deep. in gulf of mexico (remember disaster) they drilled at 9 km.

Edited by Ichihara
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i once read how scientists put iron, calcium carbonate and water to made methane and others carbon. all we need is temperature and pressure. im sure you heard of Miller/Urey experiment.

The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass flasks and flasks connected in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

Within a day, the mixture had turned pink in colour,[9] and at the end of two weeks of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10–15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars were also formed.[10] Nucleic acids were not formed within the reaction. 18% of the methane-molecules became bio-molecules. The rest turned into hydrocarbons like bitumen.

http://en.wikipedia....Urey_experiment

Edited by Ichihara
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

since we didnt have water on early earth and since i dont believe that water surprisingly came from the sky its more logical to conclude that perhaps oil and water are formed in the same time with same process.

Edited by Ichihara
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to believe that life and oil originate from surface and not from underground is similar to paradigm that sun orbits around earth and not other way around. Hydrothermal vents could have different explaination...shrimps ,crabs, tubes , bacteria...its life outhere...et cetera et cetera

it takes times that idea settle in mind. but once there you will notice how abiotic theory have a lot more sense then fossil fuel theory.

Edited by Ichihara
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where did life comes from? how earth was formed? why we have earthquake lights? etc. all those questions are tied with oil story. did plants come from oil or oil came from plants? i believe that life came from the underground. biology is just a branch of thermodynamics. as Gold said : Hydrocarbons are not biology reworked by geology , but rather geology reworked by biology.

in abiotic theory gas/oil isnt form out of the rocks. who say it isnt in atmosphere? or in the ground?

interesting that you mentioned gas. usually fossil fuel proponents evade it in discussion. we found methane on bottom of ocean on hydrothermal fields. also we found methane on Saturns moon Titan. did dinosaurs and plants lived on Titan? also we have Methane on Jupiter and Saturn. and on earth beneath sediment layers. we have methane hydrate deposits. carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe. its produced in stars. our sun produced carbon. in cosmos mostly bounds with hydrogen compounds. hydrocarbons are all over cosmos why do we believe that hydrocarbons on earth are from dinosaurs and plants is beyond me.

Paleogeology and paleoclimatology show so much that we have few theories how earth was formed, where comes water on earth. normal science say that came out of the sky. water came from the sky. it isnt that cut and dry simple answer.

Methane is one of the few hydrocarbons which is known to form naturally without biological processes, this is not surprising since it is the simplest hydrocarbon possible. The creation of methane by abiotic processes is not adequate evidence to show that "hydrocarbons" as a group are abiotic. There is no evidence that the long chain hydrocarbons which are present in thick crudes or even sweet crudes are formed by abiotic processes.

The point you have avoided addressing is not that carbon can be leached from rocks - but where did those rocks get the carbon - predominantly from life processes. The limestone classes of rocks are all formed as sedimentary rock from the decay of shell baring organisms. Limestones and the related shales which have been capped by ignious rocks (through volcanic activity) are the main place where oils and gases are looked for because it is known that where limestone exists hydrocarbons are almost certain also present because they are the other product of organic decomposition. What you have also failed to address is where all of the carbon in the atmosphere at the end of the Cretaceous went if it was not sequestered in limestones and hydrocarbons in the above described process.

where did bio markers come from? thats uneasy question and abiotic theory provide more evidencies than fossil fuel theory. in short they came on way up. bioproducts are added in petroluem when pressure force it up. one of the biomarkers are porphyrins.

porphyrins are organometallics - metal + carbon + hydrogen + nitrogen. animals porphyrins are iron-porphyrins (haemoglobin).plants porphyrins are magnesium-porphyrins (chlorophyll). if oil came from plants we would find magnesium in oil but we didnt. if oil came from animals we would find iron in oil but again in real world we didnt.

in petroleum we can find metals such as mercury, nickel, lead, arsenic etc.

wher is a proof that oil originate from plants? did we made oil from plant material in the laboratory under conditions resembling those in nature?

on another hand we have numerous experiments where we made oil out of elements we found in nature. combination of carbon dioxide, hydrogen and/or methane. spinel catalysation, serpentinite synthesis, graphite synthesis...how Nazists made oil? Fischer–Tropsch process.

The process you describe is taking a biological high weight hydrocarbon and catalytically cracking it into smaller and lighter hydrocarbons. It supports your position in no way at all.

we have found pure abiotic oil on earth such as in Lost city. where are there biomarkers? http://www.wnd.com/2008/02/45838/

as I have said already it is well known that light hydrocrabons like methane can be formed abiotically, the study identifies a few very light hydrocarbons which are formed in the extreme conditions at a hydrothermal vent - exactly where existing understanding would place them.

what about Bach Ho oil field? then Eugene Island 330.phenomenon of oil wells refilling themselves is widely reported. this is from wiki:

Something mysterious is going on at Eugene Island 330. Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, was supposed to have declined years ago. And for a while, it behaved like any normal field: Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330's output peaked at about 15,000 barrels per day (2,400 m3/d). By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels per day (640 m3/d). Then suddenly -- some say almost inexplicably -- Eugene Island's fortunes reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels per day (2,100 m3/d), and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million.[5]

—Christopher Cooper, Wall Street Journal

What about it ? A field runs nearly dry and then another field either beside it or under it has a breakthrough due to the decompression of the original field and starts to leak into the old field. A lucky accident for the oil companies - nothing more.

then what about finding oil where we it couldnt be find by fossil fuels proponents. such as in Siljan in Sweden.

80 barrels in 5 years work with a high probability of them been derived from contamination from the drilling process. Not really compelling evidence of anything really.

we found hydrocarbons in diamond. how?

how come that we found helium where we find oil?

Diamonds - high pressure and temperature conversion of carbon into diamonds - just the sort of conditions known to form oils. Your point.

Helium - a rare lighter than air gas which doesn't bind to anything else - why do you imagine you would find significant quantities in oil ?

to get back on your qustion on biomarkers. microbes/bacteria can live in the extreme pressures and we found organisms that metabolize non-organic hydrocarbons as an energy source. organisms that live without photosynthesis. we even have microbes that produce hydrocarbons. im sure you heard of thermophilic bacteria...

Again whats your point - you are describing organisms that exist by decomposing already existing hydrocarbons - the opposite process to what you have described for abiotic oil.

Nothing that you have just written would convince any reasonable person to change their position on the biotic origins of oil.

For a review of the evidence against the abiotic theory I suggest you read this real scientific paper;

http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Siljan Ring meteorite crater, Sweden, was proposed by Thomas Gold as the most likely place to test the hypothesis because it was one of the few places in the world where the granite basement was cracked sufficiently (by meteorite impact) to allow oil to seep up from the mantle; furthermore it is infilled with a relatively thin veneer of sediment, which was sufficient to trap any abiogenic oil, but was modelled as not having been subjected to the heat and pressure conditions (known as the "oil window") normally required to create biogenic oil. However, some geochemists concluded by geochemical analysis that the oil in the seeps came from the organic-rich Ordovician Tretaspis shale, where it was heated by the meteorite impact.[43]

In 1986–1990 The Gravberg-1 borehole was drilled through the deepest rock in the Siljan Ring in which proponents had hoped to find hydrocarbon reservoirs. It stopped at the depth of 6,800 metres (22,300 ft) due to drilling problems, after private investors spent $40 million.[44] Some eighty barrels of magnetite paste and hydrocarbon-bearing sludge were recovered from the well; Gold maintained that the hydrocarbons were chemically different from, and not derived from, those added to the borehole, but analyses showed that the hydrocarbons were derived from the diesel fuel-based drilling fluid used in the drilling.[44][45][46][47] This well also sampled over 13,000 feet (4,000 m) of methane-bearing inclusions.[48]

In 1991–1992, a second borehole, Stenberg-1, was drilled a few miles away to a depth of 6,500 metres (21,300 ft), finding similar results. Again, no abiotic hydrocarbons were found.[1][34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin#Trace_metals

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i once read how scientists put iron, calcium carbonate and water to made methane and others carbon. all we need is temperature and pressure. im sure you heard of Miller/Urey experiment.

The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass flasks and flasks connected in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

Within a day, the mixture had turned pink in colour,[9] and at the end of two weeks of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10–15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars were also formed.[10] Nucleic acids were not formed within the reaction. 18% of the methane-molecules became bio-molecules. The rest turned into hydrocarbons like bitumen.

http://en.wikipedia....Urey_experiment

So what ? No geologist or scientist denies that methane is made by abiotic processes and that the difference between abiotic and biotic methane is readily shown from its isotopic profile. It is not an argument that supports the formation of high molecular weight crudes which have never been shown to be the products of abiotic processes. It is the fundamental weakness of the abiotic theory that it jumps from methane to thick crudes without any credible explanation.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where we found hydrocarbons we find helium. on earth helium is made by radioactive decay of thorium and uranium. in sediment layer we found helium which couldnt be produce by uranium and thorium found there. it came from somewhere.we found helium in oil. i guess that can tell you from which depth oil came. helium comes from the centre of the earth and pops out at the weakest point of the crust.

imagine we use helium sniffers to find oil.

Again i have to ask so what ? helium migrates up through rocks and gets trapped by the same mechanisms which trap oils below sedimentary and igneous rocks. It in no way shows that the helium was formed in the same processes as the oil itself.

i try to find one site but i cant about microbes from underground. anyway we found therophiles in depth off 1,6 km. also microbes who live at 110 C. we found fossilized microbes 200 meters in granite. we have methane eating bacteria. i will try tommorow.

what do you hope to achieve through this ? If the microbes are forming crudes at great depth it is proof that the oil is biotic. But the reality is that these microbes are feeding off biotic and abiotic methane. Its a side issue at best and cannot explain the volumes of crude oil found within historic sedimentary rocks - the deposits which are the sole source of commercially viable oil reserves.

why we have 96% co2 atmosphere on Venus? Venus is exposed to radiation more then our planet. Radiation divide water in hydrogen and oxygen. hydrogen went to space as we loosing our atmosphere. oxygen oxidize and bound with other elements as carbon. as i said it isnt short answer. it takes time to make puzzles. but once you are over, everything fits into right place.

Again you show a fundamental lack of understanding of the fact that the chemical and geological processes present on these other planets is utterly different to that on earth. On Venus the rocks were carbon rich and decayed through the action of the sun on them. This carbon once liberated from the rock was rapidly oxidized into CO2 - which built up in a feedback mechanism (CO2 > carbonic acid > sulphuric acid) plus global warming to eventually saturate the atmosphere with CO2. This is all because Venus is significantly closer to the sun than the earth is and the same process could not happen here.

one more thing,oil window as geologist say is between 1 and 6 kilometers deep. in gulf of mexico (remember disaster) they drilled at 9 km.

Can I suggest you look into plate techtonics and especially subduction. There is no contradiction between 9Km oil and biotic origins. In short rocks are in constant motion and at plate boundaries they move vertically.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.