Ben Waimata wrote:At this stage some abiogenic/abiotic origin for oil seems more likely to me than the usual fossil fuel theory, simply because saying I have no idea where it comes from seems easier than believing it was created during an aeon that seemed to operate on a different set of natural laws than what we see around us now.
I am not interested in the political discussion here, keep the carbon underground makes sense regardless of it's origin. It's the thinking behind the concept that is as interesting as anything else.
I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I would like to hear your responses!
Chris Kott wrote:I am confused. So the earth is only, like, six thousand years old...
Tj Jefferson wrote:Ben,
There is an oilternate hypothesis, abiogenic petroleum. This is prevalent in Russia
what is the catalyst and why is it never found in association with the product?
One of the main reasons we infer that fossil fuel deposits were formed in wetland environments is the geological structures and rock types which are invariably associated with them.
I can with certainty say that Russian oil companies, those who actually look for find and extract oil do NOT support this hypothesis.
I looked through this thread, I did not have any intention of suggesting imporous stone would be a good location. I'm not sure where that was. What I was referring to was specific strata, salt domes and other formations where we tend to explore as far as I know. I think the discussion has diverged a little but maybe this will draw it back: this is a chicken or egg problem- do the strata trap oil on the way up or do they define a "crucible" required for formation. That is the difference between the hypotheses right? Oil coming up could be from either deep biogenic or abiogenic. Oil trapped on the way down or buried is shallow biotic by definition, theres no other carbon source.
If there are non-sedimentary formations that have been found to yield quantities of any fossil fuel, it's news to me.
with respect Dr Redhawk, I guess I have been through a couple of paradigm shifts and the number of papers has less bearing than before. I am as guilty as anyone of producing answers to support my hypotheses, several published! The content of the papers is something I am interested in, and whether they have adequately addressed the primary shortfalls of the hypothesis. You probably could cite lots of books and journals about chemical agriculture before your "transition"! Yet you were able to make the change which is fantastic and now lead the counterassault.
there are so many books and papers published and proven through testing that it should be a moot point as to what oil is and where it came from