Source? Evidence? Documentation? Oil is organic, for heavens sake! Biologic markers are present in deep petroleum, even in the oldest Archean rocks. You missed Geology 101. Oil wasn't produced from dead "dinosaurs" but from dead plankton and microbes which have existed from very early in the life history of Earth, including deeply buried rocks that were once sea floors. The evidence is overwhelming. Indeed I do! The consensus of the worlds petroleum experts is that oil is a fossil fuel. A few scientists, mainly Russian, have a contrary theory that they have not yet been able to prove. A few stony meteors have been found with trace amounts of petroleum that some think suggests a non-biologic origin. But they could also be a result of long-dead life on a extraterrestrial world. There just isn't enough of this alien material to account for the amount of petroleum on the planet. An alternate theory that has more legs is the deep biotic genesis theory which holds that some deep biogenic oil comes from deep-dwelling microbes and is a biological source for oil which is not of a sedimentary origin and is not sourced from surface carbon in the ordinary manner. Microbial life has been discovered 5.2 kilometers deep and some aquifers are thought to extend to 20 km. The presence of biomarkers in the extremely rare examples of Proterozoic oils and within oils found in Mesozoic and younger crystalline reservoirs, suggest an origin as coming from deep-dwelling bacteria. Biogenic, not abiogenic. Deep life origin as opposed to the non-life origin that a few Russians promote, but cannot prove. What an absurd analysis! The US discovered buried oil, learned how to find it, developed methods to drill for it, and still lead the world in petroleum engineering and geology. Always have. The Russians just ain't experts in this field AT ALL. Why has it taken them so long to become an oil exporter? Because they had to wait until the end of the Cold War to get access to Western technology! You missed 6th grade Earth Science, too.
Damn seldom. They are still seeking to prove it. Absolutely, positively wrong and no scientist states this! Stop reading the National Enquirer for science news. Science isn't about what "makes sense" to you. It is about what can be proved and withstand scientific scrutiny. Hollywood is another place NOT to get science information from.
Red,here you go...enjoy [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]BLACK-GOLD BLUES[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2]Discovery backs theory oil not 'fossil fuel'[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+1]New evidence supports premise that Earth produces endless supply[/SIZE][/FONT] [SIZE=-1]Posted: February 01, 2008 1:00 am Eastern [/SIZE] [FONT=Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif]By Jerome R. Corsi[/FONT] [SIZE=-1]© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com [/SIZE] A study published in Science Magazine today presents new evidence supporting the abiotic theory for the origin of oil, which asserts oil is a natural product the Earth generates constantly rather than a "fossil fuel" derived from decaying ancient forests and dead dinosaurs. The lead scientist on the ........
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59991 Red, fossil fuels is a theory you obviously believe.but there is much growing eveidence to support abiotic oil.I could sit here and try to post article after article on the subject...instead i will just say google ...fossil fuel or abiotic...there is a ton of information of the subject.
I have no input on this debate. Appears this article provides a good discussion of the issues. Funny how Eugene Island (an offshoure block not actually an island ) off the coast of Louisiana is part of the controversy: Refilling Fields? Abiotic theorists often point out evidence of fields refilling. The most-cited example is Eugene Island, the tip of a mostly submerged mountain that lies approximately 80 miles off of the coast of Louisiana. Here is the story as related by Chris Bennett in his article “Sustainable Oil?” on WorldNetDaily.com: A significant reservoir of crude oil was discovered nearby in the late ’60s, and by 1970, a platform named Eugene 330 was busily producing about 15,000 barrels a day of high-quality crude oil. By the late ’80s, the platform’s production had slipped to less than 4,000 barrels per day, and was considered pumped out. Done. Suddenly, in 1990, production soared back to 15,000 barrels a day, and the reserves which had been estimated at 60 million barrels in the ’70s, were recalculated at 400 million barrels. Interestingly, the measured geological age of the new oil was quantifiably different than the oil pumped in the ’70s. Analysis of seismic recordings revealed the presence of a “deep fault” at the base of the Eugene Island reservoir which was gushing up a river of oil from some deeper and previously unknown source. (8) http://www.energybulletin.net/2423.html Here is a link to one of the papers referred to in this article about Eugene Island 330: http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/97015/eugene.htm
) Added: May 15, 2007 11-1-05 -- "Peak vs Deep Oil" - Full Segment (7:39trt) (less) Added: May 15, 2007 Category: News & Politics Tags: Gold coin silver buy coins URL Red ,here is a discussion involving drilling off the vietnam coast.WE {the UNITED STATES } couldn't get the job done and gave up.The vietnamese then went seeking the help of the premier DEEP well drillers in the world...who? the russians. DIG DEEP. How did the russians become so good at this deep well drilling.They were cut off from the middle eastern oil fields after ww 2.If they wanted oil ,they had to find their own,and how to get at it.Regardless of how much I hate the Russians ,they have beaten us on this time and again.
I'm pretty sure that congress is still opposing an exception for ANWR. Drilling in Wildlife preserves has been prohibited for quite a while, without specific permission. I don't think the per barrel cost has to hit $100/barrel(which it has), but rather $40/barrel would make horizontal drilling cost effective. Will have to find some articles to support this but I have several friends here in Houston in the industry and have heard this repeatedly. There is no doubt that drilling in an ecologically sound manner is much more expensive and the oil companies don't have a good track record here. But are they not doing this with some success in refuges in Louisiana and Galveston Bay? I suppose it's all relative. However, It should be noted that even if the shackles come off of ANWR, that it will take several years to bring the field to capacity and is unlikely to surpass 5% of our yearly consumption. Considering how we are continuing to increase in consumption, that just may only offset our growth, not actually put a dent in our imports. Most of the estimates of the field are just that, estimates. But I suppose it will eventually open up, as the majority of Americans will care more about there gas prices than possible damage to a refuge most will never experience.
Hey, I acknowledged that there is a abiogenetic theory out there, just that it hasn't been proved or accepted by the consensus. I also don't buy that the Russians have all the answers about oil and we are being "flat-earthers" about it. That is simply ridiculous. Here is the abstract from the paper by Proskurowski that was published in Science without the assumptions and popular spin put on it by WorldNetDaily.com, a website that has jumped on board this theory and publishes anything that remotely suggests that it is true. This is a step towards understanding abiotic hydrocarbon processes, not "New evidence that the Earth produces an endless supply [of oil]". There is far more evidence to support fossil origins and oil deposits are certainly not endless. Yours is a better argument when it includes some supporting data, though. You get an gold star for effort. But consider this:
