Relpy to Don: On The Origin Of Oil

degrees above absolute zero,

comes from plants'.

made no sense to me either.

condenses'.

you.

temperature is high.

the ground.

collects in

There aren't many abiogenic hydrocarbon deposits, and they aren't very big. Pretty much all the oil we find contains biomarkers, indcating that it originally came from plants and algea.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

degrees above absolute zero,

comes from plants'.

no sense to me either.

condenses'.

you.

temperature is high.

the ground.

collects in

The inner, rocky planets and the outer, gaseous planets condensed out of the proto-planetary disk in quite different conditions. There assuredly are some primordial gasses (or their subsequent compounds) around. However, the salient characteristic of the inner planets is that their gaseous envelopes were removed quite early in the evolution of the solar system, long before there was a stable surface with sand, basins, or deserts.

degrees above absolute zero,

Oil comes from plants'.

at made no sense to me either.

re:

there condenses'.

it to you.

, and temperature is high.

r on the ground.

lace.

oo collects in

serts..

Yeah, but it doesn't "jive" with him, man!

Because it is pure speculation, brought here as if it is fact. Very little is known about that, and what is known does not confirm this.

An other stupid simulation perhaps, like the global over heaters, the ones that block air traffic (do you believe that, they did not even measure anything, just ran a simulation, and now bankrupt all airlines, the airlines did some test flights and found no volcanic ash and no damage...

Stupid simulations are no good. We need real data and clear thinking. That rules out multitudes For sure Putin & The Oily Companies would like people to think the stuff is rare. Yes there is a finite supply, but it is not rare. Club of Rome, Oil peak, etc etc. all for the money, no science. Do not eat whale meat, save humanity.,

Not a chance, a species so stupid will

ar

is rare.

You're a piece of work.

On a sunny day (Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:19:08 -0700 (PDT)) it happened gearhead wrote in :

I know :-)

ar

Though rather more than Jan Panteltje seesm to appreciate

There is a fair bit of evidence about the differences between the inner and outer planets, and what is known doesn't make your theory about abiogenic oil anything like convincing.

The evidence for anthropogenic global warming certanly does involve simulating heat flow through the atmosphere, but the work is anything but stupid, and your scepticism is - to put it kindly - ill-informed.

Jet engines aren't designed to monitor volcanic ash levels. They have stopped working in the past when exposed to sufficiently high levels of volcanic ash - all four engines within one minute in one famous case - and the fact that brief test flight or two didn't run into enough volcanic ash to shut down the engines isn't actually sufficient evidnece to prove that the ban was ill-advised or over-cautious.

Ash clouds aren't that easy to detect, but satellite imaging does seem to do an adequate job.

I would have thought that LIDAR installations could pick it up, but presumably there aren't enough installations around to provide complete coverage.

But the intelligent use of simulation to back up satellite data does seem to be more useful.

You included, obviously - you don't seem to have gone to the trouble to find out where the real data about the volcanic ash cloud came from, which makes your thoughts on the subject actively misleading, rather than "clear".

is rare.

No science that you are prepared to pay any attention to - which is how you get to lump together the Club of Rome's 1972 report "Limits to Growth" which was rubbish, with today's concerns about peak oil, which aren't.

Whales are killed in an in-humane manner. Stopping whale hunting would seem to be a humane gesture. Whether this will generalise across other in-humane practices - like continuing to inject CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate that will to make the planet a less comfortable place for our kids - is an interesting question.

This is the case Bill's referring to (a 747):-

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them under control. I trust you are not in too much distress."

The ash cloud in this case was dry, so it didn't show up on the weather radar.

Landing with a half-functioning ILS and a completely sandblasted windshield, in Jakarta, at night (they couldn't see the runway to taxi once they were down), he described as: "a bit like negotiating one's way up a badger's arse".

Note also a Singapore airlines 747 lost 3 engines more than two weeks later in the same area.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

f is rare.

He's my Perl simulation of a dingbat. I've been working real hard on it. I've put in Palin engrams lately, see the difference? And I use a webcam pointed at my cat's litter box as a text randomizer.

degrees above absolute zero,

comes from plants'.

made no sense to me either.

condenses'.

you.

temperature is high.

the ground.

collects in

...and the dead plants from ages ago got buried, compressed by tectonics, and became coal of various grades: peat to diamond being the extremes. 'Splains the diff.

I don't believe everything I was taught in school. I do hold everything I have been taught up to the light of skepticism. Taking the stance of devils advocate for a moment I will assume everything I have been taught is wrong and I must come up with a new explanation.

So....

How would nature get all that carbon underground?

Carbon dioxide is slightly soluble in water, anyone who drinks soda pop can attest to that. So when it rains there are millions of gallons water seeping into the ground carrying who knows how many tones of carbon dioxide with it. I think man has a minuscule capability of sequestering carbon dioxide compared to nature.

I have heard that Russia has a technology to turn carbon dioxide back into long carbon chains, or fuel. That brings me to my next question; How could nature do the same thing?

If we have water carrying carbon dioxide deep underground we would then need some way to strip the oxygen from the carbon in order for the carbon to bond with other carbon. Perhaps a catalyst of some kind could be used... Wait a minute, underground there are all sorts of minerals of almost every type. Not to mention electricity that flows through the ground (Granted the electric flow through the ground is minuscule but it is there and it could do some thing, to one degree or another). Catalyst would be plentiful in that situation.

What if there are pure metals, like calcium, that would strip oxygen from the carbon dioxide and let the carbon concentrate in small pockets in those deep underground water ways. That to me would make more sense of how the carbon gets deep underground rather than having miles of dirt being thrown on top of a forest or something.

I have heard of oil fields being sucked dry of oil only to have someone come back decades latter to check it and find even more oil in the previously depleted well.

So perhaps an oil cycle is sitting on top of the water cycle and is renewable, depending on whether other elements underground are consumed or not. If something like calcium metal, for instance, were oxidized then the supply of it could be consumed and be un renewable.

I don't know for sure. I am not claiming to know what actually happens underground. I do claim that we don't really know for sure yet. Hell we act like we just came out of the dark ages or something.

I don't believe everything I was taught in school. I do hold everything I have been taught up to the light of skepticism. Taking the stance of devils advocate for a moment I will assume everything I have been taught is wrong and I must come up with a new explanation.

So....

How would nature get all that carbon underground?

Carbon dioxide is slightly soluble in water, anyone who drinks soda pop can attest to that. So when it rains there are millions of gallons water seeping into the ground carrying who knows how many tones of carbon dioxide with it. I think man has a minuscule capability of sequestering carbon dioxide compared to nature.

I have heard that Russia has a technology to turn carbon dioxide back into long carbon chains, or fuel. That brings me to my next question; How could nature do the same thing?

If we have water carrying carbon dioxide deep underground we would then need some way to strip the oxygen from the carbon in order for the carbon to bond with other carbon. Perhaps a catalyst of some kind could be used... Wait a minute, underground there are all sorts of minerals of almost every type. Not to mention electricity that flows through the ground (Granted the electric flow through the ground is minuscule but it is there and it could do some thing, to one degree or another). Catalyst would be plentiful in that situation.

What if there are pure metals, like calcium, that would strip oxygen from the carbon dioxide and let the carbon concentrate in small pockets in those deep underground water ways. That to me would make more sense of how the carbon gets deep underground rather than having miles of dirt being thrown on top of a forest or something.

I have heard of oil fields being sucked dry of oil only to have someone come back decades latter to check it and find even more oil in the previously depleted well.

So perhaps an oil cycle is sitting on top of the water cycle and is renewable, depending on whether other elements underground are consumed or not. If something like calcium metal, for instance, were oxidized then the supply of it could be consumed and be nonrenewable.

I don't know for sure. I am not claiming to know what actually happens underground. I do claim that we don't really know for sure yet. Hell we act like we just came out of the dark ages or something.

I don't believe everything I was taught in school. I do hold everything I have been taught up to the light of skepticism. Taking the stance of devils advocate for a moment I will assume everything I have been taught is wrong and I must come up with a new explanation.

So....

How would nature get all that carbon underground?

Carbon dioxide is slightly soluble in water, anyone who drinks soda pop can attest to that. So when it rains there are millions of gallons water seeping into the ground carrying who knows how many tones of carbon dioxide with it. I think man has a minuscule capability of sequestering carbon dioxide compared to nature.

I have heard that Russia has a technology to turn carbon dioxide back into long carbon chains, or fuel. That brings me to my next question; How could nature do the same thing?

If we have water carrying carbon dioxide deep underground we would then need some way to strip the oxygen from the carbon in order for the carbon to bond with other carbon. Perhaps a catalyst of some kind could be used... Wait a minute, underground there are all sorts of minerals of almost every type. Not to mention electricity that flows through the ground (Granted the electric flow through the ground is minuscule but it is there and it could do some thing, to one degree or another). Catalyst would be plentiful in that situation.

What if there are pure metals, like calcium, that would strip oxygen from the carbon dioxide and let the carbon concentrate in small pockets in those deep underground water ways. That to me would make more sense of how the carbon gets deep underground rather than having miles of dirt being thrown on top of a forest or something.

I have heard of oil fields being sucked dry of oil only to have someone come back decades latter to check it and find even more oil in the previously depleted well.

So perhaps an oil cycle is sitting on top of the water cycle and is renewable, depending on whether other elements underground are consumed or not. If something like calcium metal, for instance, were oxidized then the supply of it could be consumed and be nonrenewable.

I don't know for sure. I am not claiming to know what actually happens underground. I do claim that we don't really know for sure yet. Hell, we act like we just came out of the dark ages or something.

That is not true. Biological processes preferentially grab low mass carbon 12 and deltaC13 can be used to determine whether or not you are looking at biogenic or abiogenic material.

We have a pretty good idea of the initial solar nebula conditions that give rise to rocky inner planets. Without a magnetic field the solar wind would strip the Earths atmosphere off like it has done with Mars.

They found that their aeroplanes came back in one piece - not the same thing at all. Civilian airliners are not equipped to detect ash clouds. They have no idea if they flew into it or not. Only a crazy would fly into a serious ash cloud - BA009 lasted about 5 minutes before all 4 engines flamed out almost simultaneously. A brilliant incredibly cool pilot and a fair amount of good luck saved the day.

I travelled the length of Britain yesterday and there were places where the sky was visibly full of stuff as well as patches of clear blue sky. The recent sunsets were a bit disappointing to be honest but Fridays was properly Turneresque with very unusual colours.

We need to set a safe limit on volcanic ash that is above zero but still low enough to be acceptable in the modern safety culture. Bird strike is tested on aero engines but we now need a safe working limit for volcanic dust. US ambulance chasing lawyers will be claiming that "they" should have done more to prevent captain dimwit flying into a cloud of ash and crashing. We got away with it last time by a hairs breadth.

rare.

It is rare enough now that the price will continue to rise. And it will jump very abruptly when Saudi Arabia goes completely over to Al Qaeda. Look carefully at the nationalities of the 9/11 terrorists.

US refineries are rather bad at handling cheaper high sulphur crude so you are already between a rock and a hard place.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

EXACTLY! IT'S ALL FABRIATION! SLOMAN ADMITS IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers! Richard the Dreaded Libertarian, posting by way of Google ;-)

If you believe nothing you've been taught how do you evaluate what you see? How would you ever do science if you have no standards?

It's not very far underground. Much is on the surface.

?So?

Simple. Photosynthesis. Even plants can do it. You kinda need energy to push a bolder up hill, though. ...more than it took for it to roll down.

I don't believe everything I was taught in school. I do hold everything I have been taught up to the light of skepticism. Taking the stance of devils advocate for a moment I will assume everything I have been taught is wrong and I must come up with a new explanation.

So....

How would nature get all that carbon underground?

Carbon dioxide is slightly soluble in water, anyone who drinks soda pop can attest to that. So when it rains there are millions of gallons water seeping into the ground carrying who knows how many tones of carbon dioxide with it. I think man has a minuscule capability of sequestering carbon dioxide compared to nature.

I have heard that Russia has a technology to turn carbon dioxide back into long carbon chains, or fuel. That brings me to my next question; How could nature do the same thing?

If we have water carrying carbon dioxide deep underground we would then need some way to strip the oxygen from the carbon in order for the carbon to bond with other carbon. Perhaps a catalyst of some kind could be used... Wait a minute, underground there are all sorts of minerals of almost every type. Not to mention electricity that flows through the ground (Granted the electric flow through the ground is minuscule but it is there and it could do some thing, to one degree or another). Catalyst would be plentiful in that situation.

What if there are pure metals, like calcium, that would strip oxygen from the carbon dioxide and let the carbon concentrate in small pockets in those deep underground water ways. That to me would make more sense of how the carbon gets deep underground rather than having miles of dirt being thrown on top of a forest or something.

I have heard of oil fields being sucked dry of oil only to have someone come back decades latter to check it and find even more oil in the previously depleted well.

So perhaps an oil cycle is sitting on top of the water cycle and is renewable, depending on whether other elements underground are consumed or not. If something like calcium metal, for instance, were oxidized then the supply of it could be consumed and be nonrenewable.

As for bio markers, I don't doubt that some kind of algae could live in underground waterways. Or, perhaps as the water seeps through the surface soil it picks up soluble products of decomposition. I'm sure bacteria could contribute also.

I don't know for sure. I am not claiming to know what actually happens underground. I do claim that we don't really know for sure yet. Hell, we act like we just came out of the dark ages or something.

I don't believe everything I was taught in school. I do hold everything I have been taught up to the light of skepticism. Taking the stance of devils advocate for a moment I will assume everything I have been taught is wrong and I must come up with a new explanation.

So....

How would nature get all that carbon underground?

Carbon dioxide is slightly soluble in water, anyone who drinks soda pop can attest to that. So when it rains there are millions of gallons water seeping into the ground carrying who knows how many tones of carbon dioxide with it. I think man has a minuscule capability of sequestering carbon dioxide compared to nature.

I have heard that Russia has a technology to turn carbon dioxide back into long carbon chains, or fuel. That brings me to my next question; How could nature do the same thing?

If we have water carrying carbon dioxide deep underground we would then need some way to strip the oxygen from the carbon in order for the carbon to bond with other carbon. Perhaps a catalyst of some kind could be used... Wait a minute, underground there are all sorts of minerals of almost every type. Not to mention electricity that flows through the ground (Granted the electric flow through the ground is minuscule but it is there and it could do some thing, to one degree or another). Catalyst would be plentiful in that situation.

What if there are pure metals, like calcium, that would strip oxygen from the carbon dioxide and let the carbon concentrate in small pockets in those deep underground water ways. That to me would make more sense of how the carbon gets deep underground rather than having miles of dirt being thrown on top of a forest or something.

I have heard of oil fields being sucked dry of oil only to have someone come back decades latter to check it and find even more oil in the previously depleted well.

So perhaps an oil cycle is sitting on top of the water cycle and is renewable, depending on whether other elements underground are consumed or not. If something like calcium metal, for instance, were oxidized then the supply of it could be consumed and be nonrenewable.

As for bio markers, I don't doubt that some kind of algae could live in underground waterways. Or, perhaps as the water seeps through the surface soil it picks up soluble products of decomposition. I'm sure bacteria could contribute also.

I don't know for sure. I am not claiming to know what actually happens underground. I do claim that we don't really know for sure yet. Hell, we act like we just came out of the dark ages or something.

I don't believe everything I was taught in school. I do hold everything I have been taught up to the light of skepticism. Taking the stance of devils advocate for a moment I will assume everything I have been taught is wrong and I must come up with a new explanation.

So....

How would nature get all that carbon underground?

Carbon dioxide is slightly soluble in water, anyone who drinks soda pop can attest to that. So when it rains there are millions of gallons water seeping into the ground carrying who knows how many tones of carbon dioxide with it. I think man has a minuscule capability of sequestering carbon dioxide compared to nature.

I have heard that Russia has a technology to turn carbon dioxide back into long carbon chains, or fuel. That brings me to my next question; How could nature do the same thing?

If we have water carrying carbon dioxide deep underground we would then need some way to strip the oxygen from the carbon in order for the carbon to bond with other carbon. Perhaps a catalyst of some kind could be used... Wait a minute, underground there are all sorts of minerals of almost every type. Not to mention electricity that flows through the ground (Granted the electric flow through the ground is minuscule but it is there and it could do some thing, to one degree or another). Catalyst would be plentiful in that situation.

What if there are pure metals, like calcium, that would strip oxygen from the carbon dioxide and let the carbon concentrate in small pockets in those deep underground water ways. That to me would make more sense of how the carbon gets deep underground rather than having miles of dirt being thrown on top of a forest or something.

I have heard of oil fields being sucked dry of oil only to have someone come back decades latter to check it and find even more oil in the previously depleted well.

So perhaps an oil cycle is sitting on top of the water cycle and is renewable, depending on whether other elements underground are consumed or not. If something like calcium metal, for instance, were oxidized then the supply of it could be consumed and be nonrenewable.

As for bio markers, I don't doubt that some kind of algae could live in underground waterways. Or, perhaps as the water seeps through the surface soil it picks up soluble products of decomposition. I'm sure bacteria could contribute also.

I don't know for sure. I am not claiming to know what actually happens underground. I do claim that we don't really know for sure yet. Hell, we act like we just came out of the dark ages or something.