It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A number of geologists in Russia adhere to the abiogenic petroleum origin hypothesis and maintain that hydrocarbons of purely inorganic origin exist within Earth's interior. Astronomer Thomas Gold championed the theory in the Western world by supporting the work done by Nikolai Kudryavtsev in the 1950s. It is currently supported primarily by Kenney and Krayushkin.[15]
The abiogenic origin hypothesis lacks scientific support. Extensive research into the chemical structure of kerogen has identified algae as the primary source of oil. The abiogenic origin hypothesis fails to explain the presence of these markers in kerogen and oil, as well as failing to explain how inorganic origin could be achieved at temperatures and pressures sufficient to convert kerogen to graphite. It has not been successfully used in uncovering oil deposits by geologists, as the hypothesis lacks any mechanism for determining where the process may occur.[16] More recently scientists at the Carnegie Institution for Science have found that ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can be synthesized under conditions of the upper mantle.[17]
Originally posted by sr_robert1
reply to post by Solenki
You tell him to read and do his own research. But where does your research come from? Government approved science books? There is only so much information avaible in this world that is not tainted by government corruption. I'm not sayin that either one of you is right or wrong. I'm just sayin.
Originally posted by mckyle
Originally posted by endisnighe
I have done extensive research on this topic.
God I love it when I see introductions like this!
I think you've been doing your "Exstensive Research" referecing the wrong texts - or should I say websites. You'll be hard pressed to find any academic supporting the Abiotic theory.
Alaska is in decline, so I don't know where you sourced this "200 year" supply from. Oh wait a minute - I do know! The same websites you got all the other misinformation off!
We are probably at peak tap flow now people. But don't take my word for it. Go and research it for yourselves, using valid industry sources - not crackpot websites.
Originally posted by polar
reply to post by Solenki
the rest is not worth to comment as it just false information from some portuguese (no offense I love Portugal, went there 3 times in the last years) forum with no source, no papers, nothing.
You don't need to come here full of rocks in your hands because of what is written here. I pasted this article wich i read in that forum because i found it to be very interesting and wanted to share. Each one think what they want out of it as i made it myself. I´m not telling this is real i didn't even wrote it! You chose what to believe.
you should chose better ways to explain some stuff with your higher scientific knowledge on this subject, like a more civilized way respecting others not laughing about it.
So this is an American book with american authors translated to portuguese wich i translated to English!
For more about them, do a little search.
[edit on 16-11-2009 by polar]
Originally posted by sr_robert1
reply to post by Solenki
You tell him to read and do his own research. But where does your research come from? Government approved science books? There is only so much information avaible in this world that is not tainted by government corruption. I'm not sayin that either one of you is right or wrong. I'm just sayin.
Originally posted by sr_robert1
reply to post by Solenki
You tell him to read and do his own research. But where does your research come from? Government approved science books?
Originally posted by MorfeuZ
reply to post by polar
This is very interesting. I've never heard of it. S&F.
Link with more info on Abiotic Oil:
en.wikipedia...
reply to post by Solenki
I think that just because the Petroleoum we usually extract from Earth comes from decomposed organic matter, it doesn't mean that ALL the oil comes from it. IMO, the theory has great validity.
But maybe the OP could change the title of the thread, cause just because Abiotic oil production may be somewhat possible, it doesn't mean that ALL of it is abiotic either.
[edit to correct a few things]
[edit on 16/11/2009 by MorfeuZ]
[edit on 16/11/2009 by MorfeuZ]
Originally posted by mckyle
You'll be hard pressed to find any academic supporting the Abiotic theory.
Originally posted by makeitso
Here is the PNAS information. Dated 2002.
PNAS The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum
Conclusions from the PNAS: The pressure of 30 kbar, at which the theoretical analyses of section 4 predicts that the Hydrocarbon system must evolve ethane and heavier hydrocarbon compounds, corresponds to a depth of more than 100 km. The results of the theoretical analysis shown in Fig. 2 clearly establish that the evolution of the molecular components of natural petroleum occur at depth at least as great as those of the mantle of the Earth, as shown graphically in Fig. 4, in which are represented the thermal and pressure lapse rates in the depths of the Earth.
Here is the followup testing (Again) Dated 9-2004
Physicsweb - Petroleum under pressure
Scientists in the US have witnessed the production of methane under the conditions that exist in the Earth's upper mantle for the first time. The experiments demonstrate that hydrocarbons could be formed inside the Earth via simple inorganic reactions -- and not just from the decomposition of living organisms as conventionally assumed -- and might therefore be more plentiful than previously thought.
And the PNAS for it:
Generation of methane in the Earth's mantle: In situ high pressure?temperature measurements of carbonate reduction
Conclusions: The study demonstrates the existence of abiogenic pathways for the formation of hydrocarbons in the Earth's interior and suggests that the hydrocarbon budget of the bulk Earth may be larger than conventionally assumed. The wide pressure?temperature?composition stability field of methane documented here has broad implications for the hydrocarbon budget of the planet and indicates that methane may be a more prevalent carbon-bearing phase in the mantle than previously thought, with implications for the deep hot biosphere (25). In particular, isotopic evidence indicating the prevalence of biogenic hydrocarbons pertains to economically exploited hydrocarbon gas reservoirs, largely in sedimentary basins (2); these observations and analyses do not rule out the potential for large abiogenic reservoirs in the mantle. Moreover, the assumption that CO2 is the sole carrier of mantle-derived noble gasses (26, 27) should be reevaluated. Finally, the potential may exist for the high-pressure formation of heavier hydrocarbons by using mantle-generated methane as a precursor.
From the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Dated 1999
Abiogenic methane formation and isotopic fractionation under hydrothermal conditions
These results, combined with the increasing recognition of nickel-iron alloy occurrence in oceanic crusts, suggest that abiogenic methane may be more widespread than previously thought.
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Nagoya University, Japan. Dated 1994.
Mantle hydrocarbons: abiotic or biotic?
It appears that hydrocarbons may survive high pressures and temperatures in the mantle, but they are decomposed into lighter hydrocarbon gases such as CH4 at lower pressures when magmas intrude into the crust; consequently, peridotite cumulates do not contain heavier hydrocarbons but possess hydrocarbon gases up to C4H10.
[edit on 29-10-2004 by makeitso]
Gladly my research comes from myself, again I am a Geologist.
Originally posted by makeitso
Originally posted by mckyle
You'll be hard pressed to find any academic supporting the Abiotic theory.
Are you sure?
The theory that petroleum is derived from biogenic processes is held by the overwhelming majority of petroleum geologists.[130] Abiogenic theorists however, such as the late professor of astronomy Thomas Gold at Cornell University, assert that the source of oil may not be a limited supply of “fossil fuels”, but instead an abiotic process. They theorize that if abiogenic petroleum sources are found to be abundant, Earth would contain vast reserves of untapped petroleum.[131] The abiogenic origin hypothesis lacks scientific support, and all current oil reserves have evidence of biological origin. It also has not been successfully used in uncovering oil deposits by geologists.
Originally posted by polar
Article is an excerpt from the book: "Black Gold Stranglehold "de Jerome R. Corsi and Craig R. Smith
Authors:
Jerome Corsi: Dr. Jerome Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and articles, including the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. His latest best-seller was The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada. He is a senior staff reporter for WorldNetDaily.com and the author of two books on contemporary Iran: Atomic Iran and Showdown with Nuclear Iran. In his 2005 book Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil, which he co-authored with Craig. R. Smith, Dr. Corsi predicted oil prices at over $100 a barrel.
This wasn't written by some ignorants as you guys are making of it.
Information about authors:
Craig R. Smith: Craig R. Smith is Chairman of Swiss America Trading Corporation, a national investment firm specializing in U.S. gold and silver coins. Mr. Smith founded the company in 1982 out of a bedroom in his home with $50.00. It has since grown into one of the largest and most respected firms in the industry known for its dedication to consumer education and safety..... www.craigrsmith.com...
So this is an American book with american authors translated to portuguese wich i translated to English!
For more about them, do a little search.
[edit on 16-11-2009 by polar]
Originally posted by mckyle
Not to impune your good name sir, but not all who publish academic work, are necessarily recognised by the international academic community.
Originally posted by aorAki
Originally posted by polar
Two well-esteemed Geologists I see. Much better would be investigating peer-reviewed Scientific scholarly articles by Geologists rather than Entrepreneurs/Political Scientists as they may well not understand the nuances that Geologists are equipped to (this is a geological subject, right?).
At this stage, I am with my fellow geologist Solenki. (S)he understands (sorry, unsure of your gender, not that it's important).
I am not a petroleum geologist, rather a paleontologist/sedimentologist and specifically a laboratory technician at a Tertiary Institution. There is a crossover however. I can assure you, at least in the case of the Geology Department at my institution, that we do not engage in deceit and do our best to understand the mechanisms of the Earth.
Originally posted by ufoptics
reply to post by makeitso
I love it....you came in said your piece with science backing you up and they ran. Cheers to you friend
Peace