PDA

View Full Version : Getting oil out of asteroids



Zachary
2007-Oct-16, 03:38 PM
Ok this is a purely hypothetical question, but assume that at some time in the future we find large hydrocarbon reserves an asteroid in the asteroid belt (a really large one, that can't easily be moved closer to earth), at a time where terrestrial oil resources are scarce and the price of oil has mushroomed. There would be a strong demand to mine the reserves on the asteroids, but how would we get at them? And more importantly how would we get them back to earth? If you want a large supply of oil you couldn't really use space-bound supertankers because the cost would be astronomically silly.

Could you fire the oil out of some sort of gun? That would get the oil to earth orbit but the oil would diffract at the 'barrell', meaning collecting it would be seriously hard work.

Would it be possible to assemble the oil into a ring in earth orbit? That would be a sight to see.

Cheers,
Zac.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Oct-16, 03:50 PM
I may be wrong, but finding an asteroid with hydrocarbon deposits may be next to impossible. All the coal, oil, and oil shale deposits here on the Earth are the result of bio-mass. Not sure about Natural Gas.

ETA: Natural Gas is also a fossil fuel.

Daffy
2007-Oct-16, 05:39 PM
I may be wrong, but finding an asteroid with hydrocarbon deposits may be next to impossible. All the coal, oil, and oil shale deposits here on the Earth are the result of bio-mass. Not sure about Natural Gas.

ETA: Naturral Gas is also a fossil fuel.

I have no opinion on this (not qualified) but there is a growing number of people who are disputing this (originally from a Wall Street Journal article):


Still, most geologists are hard-pressed to explain why the world's greatest oil pool, the Middle East, has more than doubled its reserves in the past 20 years, despite half a century of intense exploitation and relatively few new discoveries. It would take a pretty big pile of dead dinosaurs and prehistoric plants to account for the estimated 660 billion barrels of oil in the region, notes Norman Hyne, a professor at the University of Tulsa in Oklahoma. "Off-the-wall theories often turn out to be right," he says.

Even some of the most staid U.S. oil companies find the Eugene Island discoveries intriguing. "These reservoirs are refilling with oil," acknowledges David Sibley, a Chevron Corp. geologist who has monitored the work at Eugene Island.
http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm

Tucson_Tim
2007-Oct-16, 05:44 PM
I have no opinion on this (not qualified) but there is a growing number of people who are disputing this (originally from a Wall Street Journal article):


http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm

Interesting. Any geologists on the board?

Daffy
2007-Oct-16, 05:56 PM
Interesting. Any geologists on the board?

Well, there is an astronomer mentioned:


Economics never hindered the theorists, however. One, Thomas Gold, a respected astronomer and professor emeritus at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., has held for years that oil is actually a renewable, primordial syrup continually manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attacked by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the dinosaurs, he says.

And...

"It kind of blew me away," says Jean Whelan, a geochemist and senior researcher from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. Connected to Woods Hole since 1973, Dr. Whelan says she considered herself a traditional thinker until she encountered the phenomenon in the Gulf of Mexico. Now, she says, "I believe there is a huge system of oil just migrating" deep underground.

Captain Kidd
2007-Oct-16, 06:00 PM
I'm no geologist, but I did sleep at a ... no I slept at home last night, never mind.

I wonder, since extracting the oil probably leaves cavities. I would think some or a lot of the "refilling" is oil being squeezed out of the cracks in the surrounding rocks. But's that's an off-the-cuff thought.

I seems remember water is frequently pumped in to maintain pressure. But is that done in the desert?

Edited to typo a correct.

NEOWatcher
2007-Oct-16, 06:04 PM
I wonder, since extracting the oil probably leaves cavities. I would think some or a lot of the "refilling" is oil being squeezed out of the cracks in the surrounding rocks. But's that's an off-the-cuff thought.
Well; one of the articles did mention that they have evidence that it is coming from below and not from the sides.

So; maybe we have a lot more underground, so, why not use it up? After all, the major byproduct is only CO2. :rolleyes:

Neverfly
2007-Oct-16, 06:08 PM
This ties in with this thread. (http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/65851-non-organic-formation-oil-natural-gas.html)

All the same, if we assume for the moment that non-biological processes create oil, those processes are still highly unlikely to be at work in the asteroid field.

I will say though, at this time, the evidence in favor of abiogenic oil is slight and circumstancial and the evidence against quite convincing.

I would love it if abiogenic theory was correct though.

Captain Kidd
2007-Oct-16, 06:09 PM
Well, "surrounding" does count down. ;) As I said, it was just an off-the-cuff thought.

Daffy
2007-Oct-16, 06:10 PM
I would love it if abiogenic theory was correct though.

Me, too, sort of. It would be nice if we (civilization) would quit screwing around and develop some truly modern energy sources. But in the meantime, I sure would hate to see civilization collapse through lack of oil.

I like my toys as much as the next person.

Captain Kidd
2007-Oct-16, 06:10 PM
This ties in with this thread. (http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/65851-non-organic-formation-oil-natural-gas.html)

All the same, if we assume for the moment that non-biological processes create oil, those processes are still highly unlikely to be at work in the asteroid field.

I will say though, at this time, the evidence in favor of abiogenic oil is slight and circumstancial and the evidence against quite convincing.

I would love it if abiogenic theory was correct though.
It also makes colonizing and/or terraforming Mars a bit easier if it is non-organic and naturally occurring as I'm assuming Mars would have just as good of a chance to have some too.

IsaacKuo
2007-Oct-16, 06:15 PM
It's a bit of a stretch to call Gold a "respected" astronomer. He had a long history of dubious theories even before "The Deep Hot Biosphere". The small handful of ideas which were sort of vindicated get all the publicity, but there were hordes of ridiculous misses for every supposed hit.

Regardless, getting back to the original topic there's a lot of methane in outer space and it's certainly not biogenic. For example, Titan has lots of methane. I can't see any plausible scenario for importing hydrocarbons to Earth, though. It makes more sense to use solar energy to create biodiesel or maybe even hydrogen fuel.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Oct-16, 06:15 PM
It also makes colonizing and/or terraforming Mars a bit easier if it is non-organic and naturally occurring as I'm assuming Mars would have just as good of a chance to have some too.

A la Pennzoil - Marzoil.

Argos
2007-Oct-16, 06:50 PM
I know you´re posing an hypothetical question, but I think that by the time we´re able to freely hop from asteroid to asteroid and call the solar system our living room, oil will have disappeared from the energy matrix.

eburacum45
2007-Oct-16, 07:09 PM
That's right.

And even if we have a hydrogen economy at some time in the future, there will be no advantage in mining hydrogen from Jupiter or even Uranus and sending it to Earth; the energy consumed in extracting it from a gas giant's gravity field and sending it across the solar system would be more than the energy obtained from the hydrogen itself, so it would be better not to bother.

novaderrik
2007-Oct-16, 07:25 PM
by the time we could even regularly get to the asteroid belt without too much trouble, we would have evolved past the need for dirty hydrocarbons. we will have developed "free" energy sources that give us enough energy to do whatever we need to do in any given week. everyone would be happy, and we would only work to better ourselves, with no thought to profit. we would have the ability to transport across the solar system without even getting on a ship of any sort.
it would be the perfect utopian Star Trek universe.

JustAFriend
2007-Oct-16, 10:25 PM
It also makes colonizing and/or terraforming Mars a bit easier if it is non-organic and naturally occurring as I'm assuming Mars would have just as good of a chance to have some too.

....and so you stumbled on the solution for terraforming Mars: Build millions of SUVs from the native iron-oxides all over the surface and let global warming serve a human purpose!!!!

:lol::lol::lol:

novaderrik
2007-Oct-16, 11:19 PM
or maybe just a bunch of hydrocarbon burning power plants.

Ronald Brak
2007-Oct-16, 11:19 PM
Hydrocarbons, yes. Oil, no.

Carbon in various meteorites is generally insoluable. That is, you're not going to get oil out of it. Well, it would be easier to get oil out of various rocks you probably have around your house than most meteorites.

tdvance
2007-Oct-17, 05:29 PM
That's right.

And even if we have a hydrogen economy at some time in the future, there will be no advantage in mining hydrogen from Jupiter or even Uranus and sending it to Earth; the energy consumed in extracting it from a gas giant's gravity field and sending it across the solar system would be more than the energy obtained from the hydrogen itself, so it would be better not to bother.

Supppose it is only Jupiter's gravity that is the issue?

I'm thinking of a one-time expenditure of energy to put a big hollow rock in an orbit that regularly passes close to Earth and to Jupiter (some micro-corrections needed from time to time, perhaps). This expenditure is amortized over the lifetime of the rock (hopefully centuries or more)--and the per-load cost is that of getting the hydrogen from jupiter to the rock, and from the rock back to Earth.

Todd

NEOWatcher
2007-Oct-17, 05:54 PM
Supppose it is only Jupiter's gravity that is the issue?
...

And what does that solve?
Whether it is a rock, or a balloon, that mass of hydrogen still needs to accelerate out of Jupiter's gravity. If it is transferred from the rock, then you still need to restore the rock's speed by the same amount as you would have without the rock anyway.

And; you have moved all your acceleration costs from being amortized over many journeys to a single, huge, up-front expenditure to get the rock in the proper orbit.

IsaacKuo
2007-Oct-17, 06:07 PM
I don't think you quite understood tdvance's idea. He's asking what the deal would be if Jupiter's gravity were the only issue. Your retort is that his proposal doesn't solve the issue of Jupiter's gravity. Well...duh! That was the whole point!

The answer tdvance was looking for is that the energy required to lift the hydrogen out of Jupiter's gravity well totally overwhelms the potential kinetic energy which the hydrogen could provide.

In the upper atmosphere, Jupiter's escape velocity is around 60km/s. That requires an input of 3,600 megajoules per kg of hydrogen lifted (assuming perfect efficiency). In contrast, the energy of the hydrogen fuel is only 143 megajoules per kg.

NEOWatcher
2007-Oct-17, 06:35 PM
I don't think you quite understood tdvance's idea...
Apparently not. Tdvance's post sounded to me like a proposed solution to counter the problem that eburacum45 pointed out.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-18, 01:05 AM
Apparently not. Tdvance's post sounded to me like a proposed solution to counter the problem that eburacum45 pointed out.

The asteroid-go-round (AGR) would not solve the problem of delta-v (change in velocity) needed to match the speed of the hydrogen carrier to the speed of the AGR. Even if the AGR gets very close to Jupiter, it's still whipping by at a tremendous speed. If the hydrogen container is somehow lifted to orbital hight, it's still left unmoving in the path of the oncoming AGR and wham! oops, there goes all your hard work. To accelerate a large mass of hydrogen (or anything) enough to move it away from Jupiter and toward somewhere else, whether it's carried on an AGR or not, still requires the same amount of energy.

Jens
2007-Oct-18, 02:14 AM
we will have developed "free" energy sources that give us enough energy to do whatever we need to do in any given week.

Actually, in a sense we do have a free energy source already, for at least the next few billion years. We have this huge fusion reactor, which requires no work at all on our part, sending out a phenomenal amount of radiation in our direction day in and day out. We already harness it to some extent, but simply using that energy more effectively will probably give us essentially unlimited power if we want it. For example, building solar panels in space and beaming the energy down to the earth. There may be technical difficulties, but it's by far a more realistic solution than doing something like mining hydrogen on Jupiter or trying to find hydrocarbons on asteroids.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-18, 02:35 AM
Actually, in a sense we do have a free energy source already, for at least the next few billion years. We have this huge fusion reactor, which requires no work at all on our part, sending out a phenomenal amount of radiation in our direction day in and day out. We already harness it to some extent, but simply using that energy more effectively will probably give us essentially unlimited power if we want it. For example, building solar panels in space and beaming the energy down to the earth. There may be technical difficulties, but it's by far a more realistic solution than doing something like mining hydrogen on Jupiter or trying to find hydrocarbons on asteroids.

Yes. And even if the scenario were feasible and fuel was imported to Earth, an equal amont of oxygen would also need to be imported to burn it all. Otherwise we'd end up with all our current O2 tied up in combustion products.

eburacum45
2007-Oct-18, 03:07 AM
That would also add to sea level rise, as burning imported hydrocarbons or hydrogen would make water.

But be careful beaming energy down to Earth; too much and you mess up the heat balance of our little world.

MentalAvenger
2007-Oct-18, 03:24 AM
But in the meantime, I sure would hate to see civilization collapse through lack of oil. We still have the whales…………….

MentalAvenger
2007-Oct-18, 03:36 AM
I'm thinking of a one-time expenditure of energy to put a big hollow rock in an orbit that regularly passes close to Earth and to Jupiter (some micro-corrections needed from time to time, perhaps). This expenditure is amortized over the lifetime of the rock (hopefully centuries or more)--and the per-load cost is that of getting the hydrogen from jupiter to the rock, and from the rock back to Earth.As Noclevername pointed out, there is very little advantage to “Cyclers” (as they are called). Ignoring the Jupiter gravity well for the moment, if you are going to accelerate your load of hydrogen to catch up to the cycler (AGR), you might as well continue on to Earth with the tanker. Same on the other end. And, you save having to transfer the hydrogen twice.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-18, 05:45 AM
That would also add to sea level rise, as burning imported hydrocarbons or hydrogen would make water.

But be careful beaming energy down to Earth; too much and you mess up the heat balance of our little world.

This may be offset by the reduction in greenhouse gas output from an all-solar (mostly) economy. Depending on the means of transmitting, it should be possible to minimize the waste heat lost during beaming. More energy kept in useable form means more efficiency and better cost-effectiveness, too.

Jens
2007-Oct-18, 07:31 AM
It seems to me that the idea of mining things like hydrogen or hydrocarbons from outside the earth is sort of based on a misconception of what we lack and what we don't lack. I don't think, as I wrote earlier, that we lack energy. We have a tremendous amount of energy available. And we certainly don't lack hydrogen, it's just the extraction that's hard. Same with water. We have so much water on the earth already that we needn't worry about it. The problem is that most of it is salty, and it costs money to purify it. But there's no way that it would ever become cheaper to get water from outside the earth than it would be to clean it here (OK, I'm a bit overconfident here, who knows). Space technology may advance, but so will water purification technology.

The thing that we really have a constraint on, in addition to some metallic elements, perhaps, is land. I believe that we will run out of land long before we run out of energy or even water. And unfortunately, we can't import land from asteroids. So asteroids will be extremely useful for space exploration or the colonization of space, but I doubt there's much use for anything they have here on earth. Just IMHO.

Neverfly
2007-Oct-18, 07:49 AM
Oh I don't know...

We could go fetch some big asteroids and pile them up in the ocean and make some big islands...

Maybe even a continent after a while.

Think Australia wants a little sister?

Ronald Brak
2007-Oct-18, 08:07 AM
We still have the whales…………….

47.6 barrels of oil per sperm whale... that comes to 630 million sperm whales a year to replace petroleum. Currently there are about one million sperm whales - Quick! Start playing Barry White through the hydrophones! We need more whales!

Jens
2007-Oct-18, 08:26 AM
We could go fetch some big asteroids and pile them up in the ocean and make some big islands...

Maybe even a continent after a while.


Well, in that case we might as well just move the Himalayas. :)

But there is a slight problem. What will happen to the ocean level?

Actually, I suppose the thing to do would be to dig out the deep parts of the ocean and fill the shallow spots with land. And level the moutains to make more flatland.

Neverfly
2007-Oct-18, 03:07 PM
Well, in that case we might as well just move the Himalayas. :)

But there is a slight problem. What will happen to the ocean level?

Actually, I suppose the thing to do would be to dig out the deep parts of the ocean and fill the shallow spots with land. And level the moutains to make more flatland.

I hadn't thought of that.
Of course, water displacement.

We will hollow out the asteroids into like a half dome then. Pop a hole in the top for air to push out. water will fill the interior.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-18, 03:19 PM
Eventually, Earth would grow so large that the gravity will increase, and the weight/pressure of the water will rupture the sides of those hollow asteroid/mountains. At which point everyone on Earth will need to move to Fuller-style floating air-cities. (The oceans will be too turbulent for water cities for quite some time, as more domes rupture.)

IsaacKuo
2007-Oct-18, 03:53 PM
How about we do all this crap to Mars's environment, instead of Earths? ;)

MentalAvenger
2007-Oct-19, 05:48 AM
Mars currently doesn’t have much of an environment, so there isn’t much we can do to it. Contamination and terraforming are rather moot on a planet that doesn’t even have an environment as we know it. In any case, most of the suggestion were not applicable to Mars anyhow.

Drbuzz0
2007-Oct-19, 08:51 AM
Well oil is not "running out" there may be a bit of a crunch and some of the reserves may soon dry up.

But there's plenty more oil around in oil sands and in the deep ocean. How difficult is it to drill in the (really) deep ocean? I'm not sure, but I would guess a lot easier than going out to an asteroid or comet to get hydrocarbons.

Of course, if you run out of oil, you can still make it. It's just a hydrocarbon. You can synthesize it from coal, which is a good source for carbon. The germans did it in the second world war. The south africans did it for a long time.

How hard is it to make all the products from crude oil out of other carbon sources? It's kinda hard. You have to have a lot of energy and go through a bunch of chemical processes of steam reformatting, distilling, cracking...

But it's a hell of a lot easier than going out to an asteroid to get hydrocarbons!


If you really want hydrocarbons it really comes down to two questions? Do you have hydrogen? Do you have carbon? Then it's just a chemical process. It's not actually *that* hard to do.

It can also be done from biomass through high temperature decomposition and resequencing. Anything organic can be reduced to hydrocarbons in the end.

Is it easy to do on a large scale? Not really but...
A lot easier than going out to an asteroid for the stuff!

Noclevername
2007-Oct-19, 03:31 PM
In the end, the real question is who will make money off it. If it costs more to squeeze oil out of rocks than to convert your company to an alternate energy source, the oil will go unsqueezed. (unsquoze?)

Noclevername
2007-Oct-19, 03:52 PM
If you can get to the asteroids and stay there long enough to mine them, (and find enough energy to do so) haven't you kind of proved that you don't need oil?

Trakar
2007-Oct-22, 07:33 PM
Ok this is a purely hypothetical question, but assume that at some time in the future we find large hydrocarbon reserves an asteroid in the asteroid belt (a really large one, that can't easily be moved closer to earth), at a time where terrestrial oil resources are scarce and the price of oil has mushroomed. There would be a strong demand to mine the reserves on the asteroids, but how would we get at them? And more importantly how would we get them back to earth? If you want a large supply of oil you couldn't really use space-bound supertankers because the cost would be astronomically silly.

Could you fire the oil out of some sort of gun? That would get the oil to earth orbit but the oil would diffract at the 'barrell', meaning collecting it would be seriously hard work.

Would it be possible to assemble the oil into a ring in earth orbit? That would be a sight to see.

Cheers,
Zac.

While I find the concept of abiogenic oil plausible, and fully expect hydrocarbon deposits of one degree or another in many if not most astronomical bodies, the concept of tapping and recovering these deposits for use back on Earth (presumably as Fuel?) strikes me as about as plausible and "forward thinking" as a business plan proposing the ranching of whales so that we could corner the lamp oil market.

JonClarke
2007-Oct-22, 10:08 PM
The whole idea of significant abiogenic oil reserves on Earth has as much credibility as the expanding Earth. I have pointed this out in previous posts which other people have kindly linked to.

Methane extraction from the abiogenic organic matter in carbonaceous asteroids is a different story. So would be methane and other hydrocarbon gases on Titan. But neither are oil, as such.

Jon

Noclevername
2007-Oct-22, 10:11 PM
Shipping combustible fuels across the Solar System to use as fuel on Earth makes less sense than just sending energy to Earth. (http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/65920-sbsp-space-based-solar-power.html)

Noclevername
2007-Oct-22, 10:14 PM
Mars currently doesn’t have much of an environment, so there isn’t much we can do to it. Contamination and terraforming are rather moot on a planet that doesn’t even have an environment as we know it. In any case, most of the suggestion were not applicable to Mars anyhow.

I think you meant Mars has no ecology. Environment just means the surroundings. And I think he was joking, hence the winkie ;).

Drbuzz0
2007-Oct-23, 01:42 AM
I had proposed an alternate solution for dealing with the possible shortage of oil supplies. It's pretty basic chemistry and it uses a resource we have a surplus of.


http://depletedcranium.com/ppl2gas.jpg

Noclevername
2007-Oct-23, 01:48 AM
Just a modest proposal.

Trakar
2007-Oct-23, 01:53 AM
The whole idea of significant abiogenic oil reserves on Earth has as much credibility as the expanding Earth. I have pointed this out in previous posts which other people have kindly linked to.

Methane extraction from the abiogenic organic matter in carbonaceous asteroids is a different story. So would be methane and other hydrocarbon gases on Titan. But neither are oil, as such.

Jon

I disagree with your assessment of the plausibility of abiotic oil or at the least the plausibility of an abiotic progenitor of a substantial portion of the hydrocarbon components of what we term "oil."

This isn't to say that I don't think that there are biologic factors involved, but rather that there are several compelling supportive theories which pass the smell test as far as providing plausible alternative origins and production mechanisms to the traditional algae masses covered in sediment and cooked under high pressures and this is the process in toto, argument.

But we don't have much disagreement as far as the specific topic of this thread is concerned, and there's little sense in pursuing this tangent in a thread where it really isn't topical. I am new to these forae, if I stumble upon a more topically related thread, I'll look forward to a more detailed discussion of plausibilities.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-23, 02:00 AM
I am new to these forae, if I stumble upon a more topically related thread, I'll look forward to a more detailed discussion of plausibilities.

There's a discussion about it at this thread. (http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/65851-non-organic-formation-oil-natural-gas.html)

Jens
2007-Oct-23, 02:37 AM
I had proposed an alternate solution for dealing with the possible shortage of oil supplies. It's pretty basic chemistry and it uses a resource we have a surplus of.

That's pretty cool. Actually, if you did it on a big enough scale, say 6 billion people or so, you'd alleviate the need for the oil in the first place! Killing two birds with one stone, so to speak.

jlhredshift
2007-Oct-23, 03:01 AM
" Soylent Green IS people"

MentalAvenger
2007-Oct-23, 06:24 AM
I think you meant Mars has no ecology. Environment just means the surroundings.Oh, you want to play semantics? Can I play too? Ok, Mars doesn’t have much of an environment in the same way that some restaurants don’t have much of an atmosphere. They both have about the same amount of air, but some have a great atmosphere. It’s called a metaphor.

Oh, and here’s another one: Environmentalists don’t just want to have an environment, they just want a better environment. (As opposed to separatists who want just separation, racists who just want to race, and imperialists who only drive Imperials.)

MentalAvenger
2007-Oct-23, 06:28 AM
Just a modest proposal.Ah, you read Jonathan Swift, I’m impressed. :)

JonClarke
2007-Oct-23, 08:33 AM
I disagree with your assessment of the plausibility of abiotic oil or at the least the plausibility of an abiotic progenitor of a substantial portion of the hydrocarbon components of what we term "oil."

This isn't to say that I don't think that there are biologic factors involved, but rather that there are several compelling supportive theories which pass the smell test as far as providing plausible alternative origins and production mechanisms to the traditional algae masses covered in sediment and cooked under high pressures and this is the process in toto, argument.

What are these theories and what evidence is there for them?

In the meantime you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.

1) The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.

2) The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).

3) The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).

3) The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and depositional environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, those indicating marine conditions only in marine sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only bacterial biomarkers).

4) Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).

5) The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory.

6) The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of biological fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything like the fractionation of light carbon that is seen in petroleum).

7) The location of petroleum reservoirs down the hydraulic gradient from the source rocks in many cases (those which are not are in areas where there is clear evidence of post migration tectonism).

8 ) The almost complete absence of significant petroleum occurrences in igneous and metamorphic rocks (the rare exceptions discussed below).


Jon

Trakar
2007-Oct-23, 02:34 PM
There's a discussion about it at this thread. (http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/65851-non-organic-formation-oil-natural-gas.html)

Yes, I actually did see that earlier and did skim through the discussion, though, to my eye, it only touches upon oil a couple of times and there doesn't seem to be much real discussion of the science, but I'll go back over it in more detail and see if perhaps my initial assessment was a bit hasty. Thank-you for the reference!

Trakar
2007-Oct-23, 02:54 PM
What are these theories and what evidence is there for them?

Though I am loathe to employ wiki as a stand-in for legitimate reference, its page of the topic does provide a handy compilation and fairly even-handed addressment of the abiotic oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin)subject matter. Again this isn't anything other than a background overview for any more involved discussion of the issue.


In the meantime you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.

While I appreciate your efforts to provide direction to my life, I somehow don't feel the obligation to indulge your dictates to pursue discussion in an area which I have already acknowledged as being tangential to this thread's
primary topic.

If you would care to start a more appropriate thread, or lead the way to a more appropriate thread, I would be happy to address your rather simplistic and largely irrelevent concerns in a more thorough and detailed fashion.

Daffy
2007-Oct-23, 07:18 PM
What are these theories and what evidence is there for them?

In the meantime you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.

1) The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.

2) The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).

3) The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).

3) The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and depositional environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, those indicating marine conditions only in marine sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only bacterial biomarkers).

4) Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).

5) The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory.

6) The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of biological fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything like the fractionation of light carbon that is seen in petroleum).

7) The location of petroleum reservoirs down the hydraulic gradient from the source rocks in many cases (those which are not are in areas where there is clear evidence of post migration tectonism).

8 ) The almost complete absence of significant petroleum occurrences in igneous and metamorphic rocks (the rare exceptions discussed below).


Jon

While I have no opinion on the subject as such (I am not qualified), I do find it intriguing. If you are interested, this article seems to address many of your questions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

JonClarke
2007-Oct-23, 10:35 PM
While I have no opinion on the subject as such (I am not qualified), I do find it intriguing. If you are interested, this article seems to address many of your questions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

There are a great many wikipedia articles that illustrate the strength of the wikipedia concept. That isn't one of them.

Jon

JonClarke
2007-Oct-23, 10:50 PM
Though I am loathe to employ wiki as a stand-in for legitimate reference, its page of the topic does provide a handy compilation and fairly even-handed addressment of the abiotic oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin)subject matter. Again this isn't anything other than a background overview for any more involved discussion of the issue.

That article is not even handed but one sided defence of the theory.


While I appreciate your efforts to provide direction to my life, I somehow don't feel the obligation to indulge your dictates to pursue discussion in an area which I have already acknowledged as being tangential to this thread's primary topic.

No dictates, noattempts to provide direction to your life, just a list of things you need to consider if you want to discuss the topic in an informed fashion. if you don't want to that's fine, your choice.


If you would care to start a more appropriate thread, or lead the way to a more appropriate thread, I would be happy to address your rather simplistic and largely irrelevent concerns in a more thorough and detailed fashion.

You have been already pointed to a thread. here it is again. http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/65851-non-organic-formation-oil-natural-gas.html - I will post my points there again so that you can explain why you think they are simplicistic and largely irrelevant.

Jon

Drbuzz0
2007-Oct-24, 01:06 AM
In a nutshell:

Oil is organic, in the sense that it's made out of hydrogen-rich carbon-based compounds.

Oil is basically hydrocarbons. Gasoline, diesel, kerosine, LPG and all the other stuff that is made out of oils are hydrocarbon-based. (plastic and stuff involves more chemistry to create molecules).

Crude oil does contain other stuff like sulfur and nitrous compounds, but that stuff is small, incidental and generally undesired anyway.

When fuel is produced it's by separating the oil by the legnth of the hydrocarbon molecule chains. Shorter chains are lighter. They have a higher vapor pressure and such.

From the top down you get gasses then stuff like naptha, which is a light weight quickly evaporating. Then you have short chain hydrocarbons which make up high-octane gasoline, then lower octanes, then diesel and kerosene and then heating oils and then thicker oils, which are often used as the baisis of lubricants, then you get thick greasy oils and finally tar.

It's possible to get more light hydrocarbons out of the heavier ones by heating them under pressure or using a catalyst to break them apart. This is called "Cracking" It also helps to purify the product. Steam cracking adds high pressure steam and can also increase the hydrogen concentrations and form more complex molecules which are often desirable.

You can go the other way too, using a variety of processes to rebond the hydrocarbon chains.

This stuff is actually the made of the simplest organic compounds. It's just a matter of taking organic matter, and decomposing it under pressure until the compex molecules break down. Under high pressures the molecules will end up decomposing and rebonding into hydrocarbon chains. Most organic stuff is made out of mostly hydrogen and carbon. Of course, there are a few other things in the mix too, but nitrates often separate.

If you have enough hydrogen this happends and you get oil. If it's almost all carbon you get coal, which has little hydrogen and is mostly carbon.

Okay, so why am I saying this? Because you can turn nearly anything organic into hydrocarbons and then you get them to the correct weight for what you want and there ya go.

It can be done with biomass. It can be done with coal. Actually it has been done on large scales with coal and natural gas. The Fischer-Tropsch process is a well known method for doing this in a continuous system at relatively good effeciency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process



The only reason petrolium is what is used is that it's already roughly what we want. If you want to do it with coal, it's no problem, but you're going to have to hydrogenate it and decompose it under pressure and the crack the resulting material to what you want. It turns out that's more difficult and expensive than paying for $65+ a barrel for oil.

So why am I saying this? I'm sure a lot of you here already know this stuff.

Because if you can turn most organic matter into gasoline then you can do so with people. And that's something we have a huge surplus of. People contain lots of lipids and proteins and stuff. That stuff decomposes relatively easily and should work just fine.

The biggest question is how soon until we start turning people into gasoline so that I can afford to get a car with a bigger engine?

Van Rijn
2007-Oct-24, 01:12 AM
Got the joke the first time. Soylent brand gasoline and all that. But now it is a bit redundant.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-24, 01:13 AM
The biggest question is how soon until we start turning people into gasoline so that I can afford to get a car with a bigger engine?

Why, do you need to compensate for something? ;)

Seriously, the best car I ever had was a Sprint with a dinky 3-cylinder engine. Shook like it was watching Pokemon if it went over 80, but it lasted 11 years with minimal maintainance and probably would have gone 22 more if bad fortune hadn't taken it away. Got fantastic milage.

Daffy
2007-Oct-24, 01:58 AM
There are a great many wikipedia articles that illustrate the strength of the wikipedia concept. That isn't one of them.

Jon

Given your utter lack of any specific reasons, I am unable to respond.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-24, 02:14 AM
Got the joke the first time. Soylent brand gasoline and all that. But now it is a bit redundant.

Also, it's redundant.

Daffy
2007-Oct-24, 02:51 AM
Also, it's redundant.

"Department of Redundancy Department."

Noclevername
2007-Oct-24, 06:33 AM
"Department of Redundancy Department."

I think there's a Department for that.

Van Rijn
2007-Oct-24, 07:14 AM
I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you.

JonClarke
2007-Oct-24, 09:57 AM
Given your utter lack of any specific reasons, I am unable to respond.

Since I have given reasons several times elsewhere (some in this thread), I thought it unneccessary. But since you have missed their significance (even though you quoted them), here they are again.

Any theory for the original of large scale accumulation of petroleum needs to account for the following:

1) The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.

2) The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).

3) The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).

3) The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and depositional environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, those indicating marine conditions only in marine sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only bacterial biomarkers).

4) Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).

5) The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory.

6) The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of biological fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything like the fractionation of light carbon that is seen in petroleum).

7) The location of petroleum reservoirs down the hydraulic gradient from the source rocks in many cases (those which are not are in areas where there is clear evidence of post migration tectonism).

8 ) The almost complete absence of significant petroleum occurrences in igneous and metamorphic rocks (the rare exceptions discussed below).

All these individually are extremely strong indicators that economic accumulations of petroleum are of biological. Collectively they are even stronger.

Furthermore the evidence usually cited in favour of abiogenic petroleum can all be better explained by the biogenic hypothesis e.g.:

9) Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in igneous rocks (better explained by reaction with organic rich country rocks, with which the pyrobitumens can usually be tied).

10) Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in metamorphic rocks (better explained by metamorphism of residual hydrocarbons in the protolith).

11) The very rare occurrence of small hydrocarbon accumulations in igneous or metamorphic rocks (in every case these are adjacent to organic rich sedimentary rocks to which the hydrocarbons can be tied via biomarkers).

12) The presence of undoubted mantle derived gases (such as He and some CO2) in some natural gas (there is no reason why gas accumulations must be all from one source, given that some petroleum fields are of mixed provenance it is inevitable that some mantle gas contamination of biogenic hydrocarbons will occur under some circumstances).

13) The presence of traces of hydrocarbons in deep wells in crystalline rock (these can be formed by a range of processes, including metamorphic synthesis by the fischer-tropsch reaction, or from residual organic matter as in 10).

14) Traces of hydrocarbon gases in magma volatiles (in most cases magmas ascend through sedimentary succession, any organic matter present will be thermally cracked and some will be incorporated into the volatile phase, some fischer-tropsch synthesis can also occur).

15) Traces of hydrocarbon gases at mid ocean ridges (such traces are not surprising given that the upper mantle has been contaminated with biogenic organic matter through several billion years of subduction, the answer to 14 may be applicable also).

16) The trace elements found in oil such as V, Ni, As, Pb, Cd, etc. that supposedly indicate abiogenic origin are either result of biological concentration (in the case of V) or through reductive precipation of dissolved solutes in ground water. Black shales and coals are also enriched in these elements abd reductive trapping of heavy mentals is a common process for formation of low temperature sediment-hosted ore bodies.

Jon

Trakar
2007-Oct-24, 03:17 PM
That article is not even handed but one sided defence of the theory.

(reference to wiki article concerning abiogenic oil production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin)theories) Well, two points about your statement seem to beg for clarification and bring into question, at least to my reading, whether or not you've actually given the article and its listed references more than a superficial read and consideration (or perhaps I'm mistaking prejudicial bias for careless ignorance?).
1) The article isn't a "defense" of abiogenic production, but rather a discussion, with referenced support, for the various predominant
Abiogenic Oil theories and considerations, as well as an exposition of, again with referenced support, the predominant arguments against Abiogenic Oil production.
2) There is not a single all encompassing Abiogenic Oil production theory, but rather a broad and diverse spectrum of considerations, which, IMO, cover the range from largely unsupported and fantastical, to plausible.



No dictates, noattempts to provide direction to your life, just a list of things you need to consider if you want to discuss the topic in an informed fashion. if you don't want to that's fine, your choice.

Ahhh, perhaps it was my misinterpretation of your language usage, which seemed an attempt to dictate commands for my required course of action. But such usages are easy to misunderstand in this type of format, if that is the case, I apologize for misunderstanding your communication. Rather than get into what (hopefully) are additional areas of potential miscommunication in the above statements, I'll wait and take them to the indicated thread, where they are hopefully, at the least, tangentally topical.



You have been already pointed to a thread. here it is again. http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/65851-non-organic-formation-oil-natural-gas.html - I will post my points there again so that you can explain why you think they are simplicistic and largely irrelevant.
Jon

Indeed, topically related, though the discussion on that thread seemed to only sparsely and lightly touch upon the abiogenic "oil" topic, and seemed to have been largely abandoned without addressment of the few counterpoints and supporting references already provided by other posters. I will, however be glad to enjoin the discussion at that location, thank-you for responding to my request. As to explaining why I consider your "points" simplistic and largely irrelevent, that doesn't require much room. I consider them to be of this nature primarily due to the apparent lack of consideration of the full range of abiogenic production concepts, and most particularly the qualifications inherent and implicit in my original statements.

Daffy
2007-Oct-24, 04:24 PM
Since I have given reasons several times elsewhere (some in this thread), I thought it unneccessary. But since you have missed their significance (even though you quoted them), here they are again.

Several of your points were specifically addressed in the article (for example, sedimentary rocks). Since you dismissed it without (apparently) even reading it I assume your mind is made up and that's the end of discussing it with you.

That's OK; you're probably right. As I said before, I find the subject intriguing but am not qualified to argue it. On the other hand, I am at least willing to read opposing viewpoints before I dismiss them out of hand.

JonClarke
2007-Oct-24, 09:21 PM
Several of your points were specifically addressed in the article (for example, sedimentary rocks). Since you dismissed it without (apparently) even reading it I assume your mind is made up and that's the end of discussing it with you.

Daffy, it would be helpful if you were to express the arguments you find compelling or weak in you own words and we can discuss them.

Yes, I have a firm opinion on the subject based on a good understanding of geology. But that does mean it could not be changed with additional evidence.

That's OK; you're probably right. As I said before, I find the subject intriguing but am not qualified to argue it. On the other hand, I am at least willing to read opposing viewpoints before I dismiss them out of hand. [/QUOTE]

How do you know I haven't? Have you considered the possibility that I may know the issues better than the person writing such such articles?

Jon

Daffy
2007-Oct-24, 10:53 PM
How do you know I haven't? Have you considered the possibility that I may know the issues better than the person writing such such articles?

Jon

Because of your previous comment.

But, OK, let's start with sedimentary rocks: does this observation make sense?

The likelihood that abiogenic oil seeping up from the mantle is trapped beneath sediments which effectively seal mantle-tapping faults [16]

Kudryavtsev's Rule that states petroleum can be found in all layers of a sedimentary basin; subsequently proven to be of limited application; it has also been stated as applying to hydrocarbon deposits, including natural gas, petroleum, and coal. Nikolai Kudryavtsev pointed that the eruptions of mud-volcanoes have liberated such large quantities of methane that even the most prolific gasfield underneath should have been exhausted long ago and also provided several other geological arguments about abiotic and deep origin of petroleum.

jlhredshift
2007-Oct-24, 11:47 PM
Nikolai Kudryavtsev pointed that the eruptions of mud-volcanoes have liberated such large quantities of methane that even the most prolific gasfield underneath should have been exhausted long ago

I'll take a shot at this one. I think the source of the methane is clathrates carried by subducted seafloor. What I do not know is the survivability of the frozen methane hydrate as it is being subducted.

Trakar
2007-Oct-25, 02:16 AM
I'll take a shot at this one. I think the source of the methane is clathrates carried by subducted seafloor. What I do not know is the survivability of the frozen methane hydrate as it is being subducted.

Of course, you could buy a subscription to Nature/NPG, and/or AAAS, which would gain you access to most of the journals and papers available. Or alternatively, most localities possess some access to state/local university systems and it is not terribly difficult to access trade and professional publications for most if not all fields through such.

JonClarke
2007-Oct-25, 08:26 AM
OK, let's start with sedimentary rocks: does this observation make sense?

Kudryavtsev's Rule that states petroleum can be found in all layers of a sedimentary basin; subsequently proven to be of limited application; it has also been stated as applying to hydrocarbon deposits, including natural gas, petroleum, and coal.

First of the note that "the rule has limited application". It's not quite clear what this means. Does it mean that it works in limited cases? If so, what about the less limited cases where it does not work? If it only works in a limited number of cases then other explanations are likely to be more generally useful. For example a basin, or stacked series of basins with a long history are likely to have many episodes in which there will be generation of suitable sources, reservoirs, and traps. For example, in southern central Australia, the Cambrian, Permian and Mesoizoic successions are all prospective for liquid hydrocarbons. Not because of something seeping up from the mantle, but because of mutliple horizons of source rocks. If the source rocks are not there though then the story is different. For example further west there is only one prospective petroleum horizon because there is only one prospective source rock horizon. Further south there are thick sedimentary successions, potential reserviors and traps, but no source rocks and therefore no targets.

The other thing to note is the linking by Kudryavtsev of coal, gas, and petroleum. These are quite different materials and can have very different origins.

Nikolai Kudryavtsev pointed that the eruptions of mud-volcanoes have liberated such large quantities of methane that even the most prolific gasfield underneath should have been exhausted long ago and also provided several other geological arguments about abiotic and deep origin of petroleum.

To comment meaningfully on this one would need to know the petroleum fields in question, look at the detailed calculations, and check against independent data. However, I would caution against quick acceptance of such calculations. The have many assumptions built into them that may not be correct. I would also point out that mud volcanoes are not universal phenomena, but found in only some places and have complex origins.

Jon

Daffy
2007-Oct-25, 04:28 PM
Kudryavtsev's Rule that states petroleum can be found in all layers of a sedimentary basin; subsequently proven to be of limited application; it has also been stated as applying to hydrocarbon deposits, including natural gas, petroleum, and coal.

First of the note that "the rule has limited application". It's not quite clear what this means. Does it mean that it works in limited cases? If so, what about the less limited cases where it does not work? If it only works in a limited number of cases then other explanations are likely to be more generally useful. For example a basin, or stacked series of basins with a long history are likely to have many episodes in which there will be generation of suitable sources, reservoirs, and traps. For example, in southern central Australia, the Cambrian, Permian and Mesoizoic successions are all prospective for liquid hydrocarbons. Not because of something seeping up from the mantle, but because of mutliple horizons of source rocks. If the source rocks are not there though then the story is different. For example further west there is only one prospective petroleum horizon because there is only one prospective source rock horizon. Further south there are thick sedimentary successions, potential reserviors and traps, but no source rocks and therefore no targets.

The other thing to note is the linking by Kudryavtsev of coal, gas, and petroleum. These are quite different materials and can have very different origins.

Nikolai Kudryavtsev pointed that the eruptions of mud-volcanoes have liberated such large quantities of methane that even the most prolific gasfield underneath should have been exhausted long ago and also provided several other geological arguments about abiotic and deep origin of petroleum.

To comment meaningfully on this one would need to know the petroleum fields in question, look at the detailed calculations, and check against independent data. However, I would caution against quick acceptance of such calculations. The have many assumptions built into them that may not be correct. I would also point out that mud volcanoes are not universal phenomena, but found in only some places and have complex origins.

Jon

Thanks...please don't misunderstabnd me; I am not supporting this theory...I just trying to understand it better.

If I understand you correctly, does this not indicate possible uncertainty with both ideas?

JonClarke
2007-Oct-27, 08:06 AM
Thanks...please don't misunderstabnd me; I am not supporting this theory...I just trying to understand it better.

If I understand you correctly, does this not indicate possible uncertainty with both ideas?

The problem is that the process of oil formation is not a simple one. this is true for most things in geology BTW. In specific cases there are always details that remain uncertain.

But as a whole, based on what we presently know, I don't think there is any doubt that economic accumulations of oil are of biological origin.

Jon

Daffy
2007-Oct-27, 03:46 PM
The problem is that the process of oil formation is not a simple one. this is true for most things in geology BTW. In specific cases there are always details that remain uncertain.

But as a whole, based on what we presently know, I don't think there is any doubt that economic accumulations of oil are of biological origin.

Jon

I'll let it go...you keep restating your position without answering my questions. That's OK...you are certainly under no obligation to do so.

Cheers.

JonClarke
2007-Oct-29, 09:23 PM
I'll let it go...you keep restating your position without answering my questions. That's OK...you are certainly under no obligation to do so.

I regret you think this. Which of your questions have I not answered?

You have pointed me to a wikipedia article:


While I have no opinion on the subject as such (I am not qualified), I do find it intriguing. If you are interested, this article seems to address many of your questions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Did you want me to do a point by point discussion of this?

You said:


Given your utter lack of any specific reasons, I am unable to respond.

This was after I had given you eight things the abiogenic hypothesis needed to explain that were currently very well explained by the biogenic theory (and you even quoted them). I then gave you them again plus another eight replies to specfic objections that abiogenetic proponents had with the biogenic theory.

This led you to ask the first specific question I could identify:


OK let's start with sedimentary rocks: does this observation make sense?

Quote:
The likelihood that abiogenic oil seeping up from the mantle is trapped beneath sediments which effectively seal mantle-tapping faults [16]

Kudryavtsev's Rule that states petroleum can be found in all layers of a sedimentary basin; subsequently proven to be of limited application; it has also been stated as applying to hydrocarbon deposits, including natural gas, petroleum, and coal. Nikolai Kudryavtsev pointed that the eruptions of mud-volcanoes have liberated such large quantities of methane that even the most prolific gasfield underneath should have been exhausted long ago and also provided several other geological arguments about abiotic and deep origin of petroleum.

To which I responded with three paragraphs of discussion. How is this not answering your question? Indeed, since you said "Thanks" to my reply,. I assumed I had!

Your responded with another question:


If I understand you correctly, does this not indicate possible uncertainty with both ideas?

Agaion, I gave an answer to this question.

So which questions have I not answered?

Jon

JonClarke
2007-Oct-29, 09:39 PM
Apologies for not replying earlier, I missed your reply.


(reference to wiki article concerning abiogenic oil production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin)theories) Well, two points about your statement seem to beg for clarification and bring into question, at least to my reading, whether or not you've actually given the article and its listed references more than a superficial read and consideration (or perhaps I'm mistaking prejudicial bias for careless ignorance?).

How about you actual raise specific points? What have I said or done that indicates "prejudicial bias" or "careless ignorance".


(1) The article isn't a "defense" of abiogenic production, but rather a discussion, with referenced support, for the various predominant Abiogenic Oil theories and considerations, as well as an exposition of, again with referenced support, the predominant arguments against Abiogenic Oil production.

I disgree. An encyclodpedia article on an ATM hypothesis should also indicate clearly why this hypothesis is almost universally rejected at present . It does not.


2) There is not a single all encompassing Abiogenic Oil production theory, but rather a broad and diverse spectrum of considerations, which, IMO, cover the range from largely unsupported and fantastical, to plausible

Then why don't you discuss them, clearly distinguishing which ones you mean and the evdience in their favour?


Ahhh, perhaps it was my misinterpretation of your language usage, which seemed an attempt to dictate commands for my required course of action. But such usages are easy to misunderstand in this type of format, if that is the case, I apologize for misunderstanding your communication.

Accepted. I don't always write clearly either.


Rather than get into what (hopefully) are additional areas of potential miscommunication in the above statements, I'll wait and take them to the indicated thread, where they are hopefully, at the least, tangentally topical.

Thank you.


Indeed, topically related, though the discussion on that thread seemed to only sparsely and lightly touch upon the abiogenic "oil" topic, and seemed to have been largely abandoned without addressment of the few counterpoints and supporting references already provided by other posters. I will, however be glad to enjoin the discussion at that location, thank-you for responding to my request. As to explaining why I consider your "points" simplistic and largely irrelevent, that doesn't require much room. I consider them to be of this nature primarily due to the apparent lack of consideration of the full range of abiogenic production concepts, and most particularly the qualifications inherent and implicit in my original statements.

If you think the issue has only been lightly touched upon, I suggest you come up with specific points. But so far the discussion seems to have died. Not that I mind, particularly.

Jon

Daffy
2007-Oct-30, 10:00 PM
I regret you think this. Which of your questions have I not answered?

You have pointed me to a wikipedia article:



Did you want me to do a point by point discussion of this?

You said:



This was after I had given you eight things the abiogenic hypothesis needed to explain that were currently very well explained by the biogenic theory (and you even quoted them). I then gave you them again plus another eight replies to specfic objections that abiogenetic proponents had with the biogenic theory.

This led you to ask the first specific question I could identify:



To which I responded with three paragraphs of discussion. How is this not answering your question? Indeed, since you said "Thanks" to my reply,. I assumed I had!

Your responded with another question:



Agaion, I gave an answer to this question.

So which questions have I not answered?

Jon

I concede all your points. The thanks was genuine, too.

JonClarke
2007-Oct-30, 10:07 PM
You are welcome!

Cheers

Jon