Just a Question.... Please reply.

the discussion about 'abiotic oil' (a serch term which will yield plenty of results see ATS search is not going to end anytime soon.

it does not really matter as much as you'd think, because deep drilling is costly and they'd still find ways to rip you off even if oil was rather plentiful.

case in point: crude prices are nominally those of ~4 years ago (and dropping) but what about gasoline? price hikes are immediate, drops are delayed and oftentimes skipped entirely.

Originally posted by cruzion
LOL @ abiotic oil gaining credence over time!
Abiotic oil does indeed exist, but not in the amounts that the conspiracy buffs would have you believe.

Abiotic oil has gained credence but not due to 'conspiracy buffs' as much as the inability of concerned parties to cover up the fact that the evidence for the 'conventional' theory where never more or more obvious. At worse the biotic origin were selected as 'convention' because it rests on the foundation that it's yet another 'scarce' resource that we must give a arm and a leg for.

Even proven BIOTIC payzones sometimes replenish themselves, because of cracks and the porosity in the rocks, especially in places like synclines, like your diagram earlier represents.

Proven biotic? There are accepted 'proven' abiotic sources? It's WELL established that reservoirs can refill over time the difference being that up to know it's been presumed that they are simply refilling from deeper source rock ( funny that they say that instead of source reservoirs) and not from a unknown geological process?

Oil is formed mainly from shallow water marine fossils. Oil is created at a temperature of around (if i remember correctly) 240-260 degrees. If the sediments that hold the fossils go above 260, they start turning to gas.

Oil is currently presumed , and certainly defended along those lines, to be formed from shallow water marine fossils because it's found with such traces ( which apparently didn't turn to oil/gas) in the fields and oil. The fact that oil are found below geological strata where such marine fossils have been found hardly seems to bother those who are reaping the profits this industry generates.

Above 300 degrees, the oil and gas begins to get destroyed.
Russia is the worlds 8th largest oil exporter, and the worlds #1 gas exporter. Its top 8 producing fields are all shallow water marine fossil deposits.

Russia is the world's second largest exporting country. As for the 300 degrees yes, but such temperatures are normally associated with very great depths which isn't required for the abiotic process.

Lithospheric plates move because the upper asthenosphere is plastic-like, maleable rock, and below it, in the mantle, there are convection currents withing the magma.

OK....

The topographic experssion of these currents is mainly mid-ocean ridges, but can br crustal, as in rift valleys (iceland?).
Why drill to 40,000 foot, when most biotic oil is found at 6000-11000 foot. It is very exspensive to drill deep holes.

Yup, it doesn't make much sense to drill such deep wells without either massive state subsidy ( risk management, if you will ) or a lack of access to shallow reserves. With all the oil that is available to us as is these deep source oil REALLY isn't needed and very probably not profitable in the prices ranges where a less severely manipulated world oil supply is like to settle.

Stellar

Originally posted by cruzion
Wrong!
Big oil would be all over this like a rash. There is an always increasing trend in consumption.

But it's isn't increasing very fast and these days it's decreasing at quite a amazing rate.

The USA consumes 80 million barrels a day, and produces only 26 million a day

You really need to work on your basics. The world oil consumption is around 80 million barrels a day ( well it used to be) of which the US uses around 25 % at 20 odd million barrels per day. Of that, as i remember, around 45% is imported.

Maybe you should stick to geology or do a cursory examination of other disciplines before you proceed with more commentary on this subject?

- hence their reliance on importing from the middle east.

The US is not dependent on middle east oil and could relatively easily make up the shortfall elsewhere with similarly large investments of 'aid' and other forms of economic 'help'.

Now, if you were Shell or whomever, and you could drill vast reserves of domestic oil, wether biotic or abiotic, you would do so immediately. There is huge profits to be made.

Not when oil prices slumped to eight dollars in 1998 and seem to be on a similar route ( price adjusted for inflation and general depreciation may be around 20 -30 dollar range) currently. There is very precious little profit to me made in drilling for more oil ( Unless you do so in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and in a few other gulf states with shallow light sweet) these days and it's MUCH smarter to invest your capitol in restricting supplies than it is to cause a further glut by drilling.

The increase in domestic production would result in a decrease of importation from the middle east. It would not be 'a flood' of the market, resulting in deprecated values for oil.

Depending on the price range. Oil from the middle east is last to be supplanted because it is BY FAR the cheapest to get out of ground to say nothing of refining it. Middle east oil is and will be with us for a long time to come and those countries or corporations which can gain access to it will be able to provide a very substantial theoretical subsidy to entities of their choice.

If a huge field is found, then OPEC reduces production elsewhere.

But who will? It isn't that simple ( one nation will have to reduce production and reserve capacity cost plenty of money to maintain) and frankly unless markets and production can be judged very accurately you are either going to overestimate and cause a glut or underestimate and cause and possibly instigate a economic downward spiral that may lead to massive further reductions in output. I am most certainly not accusing OPEC of being responsible for the current downturn ( there were never shortages of any size) but in theory they could be IF they cooperated or could cooperate as closely as the wall street banking elite seem able to do.

OPEC has but a few tools with which to manipulate prices which is also quite insignificant as compared to the tools of nation states, international corporations and international hedge funds and other financial institutions. As it is many corporations are trying to kick themselves in the head for buying massive stockpiles of oil at 130 dollar prices just months ago when so many 'indicators'( liars and worse) where projecting 150 or even 200 dollar price ranges. I am sure that the buying of energy stocks at such artificially high prices did much to create the initial liquidity crisis in many industries which were by no means alleviated by the financial bailouts and general , sudden, credit freeze.

A pretty near perfect storm and we have not seen the worse of the consequences by any stretch of the imagination.

Stellar

Originally posted by autowrench
I too am of the belief that oil is not fossil fuel. Check here:

www.worldnetdaily.com...

Wow.

The work of Giora Proskurowski and editorialization of WorldNutDaily are two different things.

Just because all the same matter is present deep in the earth that could yield a similar compound (though in much smaller quantities), doesn't mean what we drill isn't from a different and much more available source - bio-matter.

Typical black and white WorldNutDaily thinking. Something else besides bio-matter can produce oil, so NO OIL came from bio-matter!

I mean look at their title, and see if you can pluck out the Cheney agenda here.

Discovery backs theory oil not 'fossil fuel'
New evidence supports premise that Earth produces endless supply

As for those asking what the "purpose" of this type of oil is, what's yours?

You really need to work on your basics. The world oil consumption is around 80 million barrels a day ( well it used to be) of which the US uses around 25 % at 20 odd million barrels per day. Of that, as i remember, around 45% is imported.

I was close, I said 80/26! Which is world consumption/US consumption, and not US consumption/US production as I mistakenly stated. I'm not an encyclopedia, but I was close.
www.eia.doe.gov...

Maybe you should stick to geology or do a cursory examination of other disciplines before you proceed with more commentary on this subject?

Maybe you shouldn't patronise people so much. They may think you're an arrogant a**. It's not like knowledge of a subject is a de facto standard for anyone posting on ATS!

reply to post by StellarX


I am curious, if you do not think oil is the result of geologic processes on biological material, what DO you think it is?

And secondly, why can we create oil (reproduce the geologic process of pressure and heat) using biological material if oil is not derived from biological material?

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I am curious, if you do not think oil is the result of geologic processes on biological material, what DO you think it is?

It's the result of a geological process? Well that's what i am leaning towards but i don't know and can't prove beyond a doubt if it's abiotic or biotic sources which we are currently extracting.

And secondly, why can we create oil (reproduce the geologic process of pressure and heat) using biological material if oil is not derived from biological material?

More interestingly why can we create oil by stimulating geological forces on the elements known to exist at various depths?

Stellar

Originally posted by cruzion
I was close, I said 80/26! Which is world consumption/US consumption, and not US consumption/US production as I mistakenly stated. I'm not an encyclopedia, but I was close.
www.eia.doe.gov...

You don't have to be a encyclopedia when your online. I don't mind the mistake but would expect better from someone who wishes to create the impression that they frequently work with these numbers.

Maybe you shouldn't patronise people so much. They may think you're an arrogant a**.

And maybe someone who mixes up the simplest of numbers shouldn't accuse others of being 'patronizing' lest the 'arrogant' 'patronizing' parties start calling him names that are quite a bit more accurate given his earlier mistakes?

It's not like knowledge of a subject is a de facto standard for anyone posting on ATS!

Yes i know that it's not the standard on ATS for people to know what their talking about hence the fact that i focus on their posts to 'help' towards something of a less embarrassing views and claims.

It's a good thing i never expected any of these largely uneducated ( or sometimes misinformed) arrogant fools to thank me for my efforts. I mean we all know such people , when exposed, fall down and offer up thanks instead of resorting to low tactics such as accusing those who offered help of being patronizing and arrogant.

Stellar