I’m not intentionally kidding above, so if I’ve misspoken w/o realizing it or anything I’ve written there is funny, a laugh at my expense is more than appropriate. :-)

TexasJew and all in the hydrocarbon sciences, my standing curiosity is: How thoroughly are the claims on either side of the oil origins ‘debate’ (to the extent that it is a debate) considered to have been vetted and/or debunked? And how many in the oil business (stateside) even see it as a debate? Or is the non-biological origin of crude oil considered so ‘looney’ as to be not worth acknowledging/refuting (and if so, why)?

The way it’s been characterized by the Russian ‘non-biological’ camp, the debate has more or less three sides: the bio’s, the Russian non-bio’s, and Gold, who is in a world by himself, arguing a different theory from the Russians.

Thus, allegedly – according to the Russian camp – debunking Gold neither validates nor invalidates their theory. Will that dog hunt (or not)?

RD on September 26, 2008 at 9:29 AM

You are kidding right?

Since it is a THEORY, why don’t you get yourself a well… starting drilling.. and take your ass to the bottom of that hole and then tell me what you see.

Then while down there we can have you evaluate the carbon molocules, the isotopes, the gamma ray (since there will be quite a bit of radiation down there) and anything else. While down there, why don’t you tell us the temp (since it is required by law in the U.S. to give BHT’s and send us some chip samples as we would love to see what lurks at 40,000 feet.

Or you can go to Russia and try to speak to the people who did the deep drilling and see if THEY have core samples, resistivity data, oil and gas samples and anything else that they may let you look at.

Theories… think about it.

They argue that the notion that pristane and phytane found in crude oil (which, in their model, comes from the mantle) came from chlorophyll on the planetary surface is just a hypothesis to begin with…

RD on September 26, 2008 at 9:24 AM

If that’s true, one wonders, then where did all of that chlorophyll-ane from the planetary surface go? Don’t know if they account for that or not. (Is it possible that it can decay or break down when exposed to sunlight or other physical processes?)

TexasJew on September 25, 2008 at 10:58 PM

Yes, except (and I don’t know what I’m talking about here, so bear that in mind :-) that, absent the C-13 question, I thought those chlorophyll by-products are explained in the ‘non-biological origins’ theory, by predicting their formation in exact ratios / isotopes / trans-forms etc., from physical processes (i.e., temperature and pressure?). They argue that the notion that pristane and phytane came from chlorophyll is just a hypothesis to begin with…

Then, they argue (no idea if it’s true or not, or if my re-telling is 100% accurate – I’m paraphrasing :-) that the high temps/pressures of the mantle are the only place where lower-order HC’s (like methane / ethene etc.) spontaneously transform into the portfolio of higher-order HC’s, and – lo and behold – there, they transform into the exact ratios found in crude oil (*anes). They also claim that the ‘biological’ theory has never been able to demonstrate (much less prove) how those HC’s came into being in the first place, especially in those exact ratios. Then they reach even further by stating flatly, those HC’s could not be created at the shallow depths/temps proposed by ‘biological oil proponents’, because it would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (Whereas, at higher temps/pressures, they claim to be able to prove, crude oil appears spontaneously.)

They claim they can even account for variations (such as between trans-configurations of certain oil molecules), claiming it is a direct function of certain fundamental variables, and implying that, when the conditions of those variables are reproduced / manipulated in the laboratory, they can consistently generate whatever variations they choose, etc.

They then go on to prove it on paper, ostensibly, using the very same sort of advanced physics that they insinuate most geologists don’t engage in (among other subtle digs), thus demonstrating their innate superiority ;-).

The C-13 question is brushed aside by flipping it around: presumably, whatever life came about was based on carbon, so it was inevitable that it took on the C-isotope ratios found wherever planet-surface carbon came from – presumably, from the mantle… Impossible?

That’s why I scratch my head and wonder, what’s the deal here? (And why are the Russians finding oil at depths where we say it doesn’t exist? Has it simply trickled down toward the mantle from vast oil lakes closer to the surface?)

btw, I am a petroleum geologist and have worked extensively with petroleum geochemistry. I wish that Gold had been correct, but it appears that he was quite off the mark.

burt, this thread is about Oil Shale, not Shit Head.

TexasJew on September 25, 2008 at 6:31 PM

The first of several about Hastings

Don’t tell Alcee Hastings

HornetSting on September 25, 2008 at 4:59 PM

Now that we are discussing each other’s comments, I am perfectly willing to believe Gold was wrong about this; he frequently was wrong. I thing a little more justification than, “Gold was plain wrong,” is in order.

burt on September 25, 2008 at 6:21 PM

burt, this thread is about Oil Shale, not Shit Head.

Check it out…

http://www.ecospheretech.com/

Sorry, but Gold was plain wrong, at least as far as to the origin of most of the vast majority of oil in the earth.

Thank our little algal buddies for most of our world’s oil.

He is a disgrace!  But you already knew that.  Here is what you didn’t know:
This comes as both a stunning and ridiculous development; Americans are still coping with high energy prices and coming to grips with a plan to bailout Wall Street, an…

It is conventional wisdom that the pores through which oil flows to get to the drill hole fill up with particulate solids over time and cause the well to become unproductive. There may well continue to be petroleum in the well but it isn’t flowing rapidly enough. Wells are repaired by fracturing the nearby rock with explosives and leaching out the pores with solvents. Without these procedures, the petroleum may leach some of the pores over time.

The problem is, most people want to vote the bums out….but they LOVE their own reps….

HornetSting on September 25, 2008 at 5:13 PM

Yes, I noticed that.:)

I think it’s a Communist joke.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on September 25, 2008 at 5:26 PM

You think Rimlick is a card carrying member?

*eats*

The Red Brigade teaching our civics classes.

Limerick on September 25, 2008 at 5:15 PM

What?

The problem is,
HornetSting on September 25, 2008 at 5:13 PM

The Red Brigade teaching our civics classes.

doesn’t Las Vegas count on cheap gas? why would people in Las Vegas for for Ried. they need to kick his butt out. He is one of the single biggest reasons for the downturn in Vegas.

unseen on September 25, 2008 at 5:09 PM

The problem is, most people want to vote the bums out….but they LOVE their own reps….

McCain be ‘Harry Truman in 1948 meets Reagan in 1980′

Meanwhile, Obama is available if anyone needs him ( like one of the tools in your toolbox that you almost never need )