patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,263,760 comments by 15,100 users - desertguy online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 79 - 84 of 84 Search these comments
79
PeopleUnited
2021 Nov 10, 8:12pm
PeopleUnited
2021 Nov 10, 8:12pm
B.A.C.A.H. says
I find that the moment anyone claims or stands on intellectual superiority, they have revealed their weakness. It is a form of blindness to pretend that there is even such a thing.
I agree with Richwicks, intelligence, or at least the ability to measure it, is a human construct. If intelligence is a quantifiable characteristic, the best way to define it would be that intelligence is the ability to learn. That is an important ability. But what is more important than the ability to learn would be the ability to apply what you have learned, that is wisdom. Intelligence without wisdom just makes one an educated fool.
But back to the OP.
Here is another article supporting the geologic and biological origins of petroleum, based on the extensive study of the Williston Basin.
https://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/dow/dow.htm
use his question to point out the Intellectual Inferiority in others.
I find that the moment anyone claims or stands on intellectual superiority, they have revealed their weakness. It is a form of blindness to pretend that there is even such a thing.
I agree with Richwicks, intelligence, or at least the ability to measure it, is a human construct. If intelligence is a quantifiable characteristic, the best way to define it would be that intelligence is the ability to learn. That is an important ability. But what is more important than the ability to learn would be the ability to apply what you have learned, that is wisdom. Intelligence without wisdom just makes one an educated fool.
But back to the OP.
Here is another article supporting the geologic and biological origins of petroleum, based on the extensive study of the Williston Basin.
https://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/dow/dow.htm
80
Patrick
2021 Nov 10, 10:38pm
Patrick
2021 Nov 10, 10:38pm
You know, the unusual thing about earth is not the large amounts of petroleum, but the large amounts of oxygen we have to burn it with.
Oxygen is extremely reactive, and I don't think it's common for planets to have large amounts of oxygen in their atmospheres.
Oxygen is extremely reactive, and I don't think it's common for planets to have large amounts of oxygen in their atmospheres.
81
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 11, 12:17am
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 11, 12:17am
richwicks says
I consider it a given that hydrogen and probably methane were part of the true "primordial soup" that became whole planets, and that much hydrogen thus was common from their beginnings during the formation of our Sol system, and likely in planets elsewhere when hydrogen was plentiful at the relevant times in their formation.
After several billion years it seems unlikely most primordial gaseous hydrogen would have long since outgassed or bonded with non-mobile elements including what may become abiotic petroleum. From what I was just reading (having just boned up more than ever on the topic of abiogenic oil for sake of this discussion), there EXIST deposits that are considered abiotic in origin by both geologists and oil companies, but only a few of them are commercially exploitable and small/limited at that. All the large pools of oil, whose availability and cost of extraction and delivery is a huge mover in the world economy, are considered mostly biotic in origin, with a minor abiotic contribution possible in some formations.
Relevant to the usual context of abiotic versus biotic origins of oil, if primordial hydrogen is a big constituent of abiotic oil production, it's a finite, limited, closed system resource. People usually cite abiotic oil as part of anti-conservation sentiments, as in "Oil's made by the earth and endlessly renews itself! Therefore, conserving it is pointless and stupid"
WRT to the abiotic origin for hydrocarbons, what we've found on Titan to me strongly suggests that hydrocarbons may very well have been part of the formation of the planets.
I consider it a given that hydrogen and probably methane were part of the true "primordial soup" that became whole planets, and that much hydrogen thus was common from their beginnings during the formation of our Sol system, and likely in planets elsewhere when hydrogen was plentiful at the relevant times in their formation.
After several billion years it seems unlikely most primordial gaseous hydrogen would have long since outgassed or bonded with non-mobile elements including what may become abiotic petroleum. From what I was just reading (having just boned up more than ever on the topic of abiogenic oil for sake of this discussion), there EXIST deposits that are considered abiotic in origin by both geologists and oil companies, but only a few of them are commercially exploitable and small/limited at that. All the large pools of oil, whose availability and cost of extraction and delivery is a huge mover in the world economy, are considered mostly biotic in origin, with a minor abiotic contribution possible in some formations.
Relevant to the usual context of abiotic versus biotic origins of oil, if primordial hydrogen is a big constituent of abiotic oil production, it's a finite, limited, closed system resource. People usually cite abiotic oil as part of anti-conservation sentiments, as in "Oil's made by the earth and endlessly renews itself! Therefore, conserving it is pointless and stupid"
82
Reality
2021 Nov 11, 5:12am
Automan Empire says
"Likely" or "Unlikely"? You and I have trillions of hydrogen atoms in our bodies, both in the form of water and in the form of organic molecules. In fact, hydrogen is by far the most numerous atoms in our bodies. There are probably far more hydrogen and carbon inside this planet than there are oxygen atoms to oxidize them all. The very unusual phenomenon of significant free oxygen on earth's surface (atmosphere) is almost entirely the result of biological action (photosynthesis) breaking up water molecules, so it' entirely a surface phenomenon (a byproduct of that surface process/phenomenon is turning simple hydrocarbon into biomass) . Assuming the earth's interior is very hot below the top few miles (out of nearly 4000 mile radius to the core center) due to the heat from uranium and thorium decay and tidal force from moon causing friction inside the earth, i.e. the interior of the earth is not inhabited by a different species of intelligent beings, then most hydrogen and carbon on earth are bound up in simple hydrocarbon, mostly liquid Methane under high pressure, just like on other planets and their satellites, untinged by biological process like on earth's surface. We get a proof of that from massive methane outgassing from volcanic eruptions.
Automan Empire says
You are reading the product/result of heavily gate-kept publishing industry, and with a significant time delay depending on when the book was published. By your description, your book was likely written around two decades ago. The author was engaging in what is called "rear-guard action," gradually retreating from an untenable position, grudgingly admitting the existence abiogenic hydrocarbon but falsely insisting that's minority. What they call signs for biogenic are actually signs for bio-contamination of what came up from below. Even their most "reliable" evidence, the optic action, only took place for distillants 15-carbon equivalent or bigger/longer, whereas left-handed chirality should have been possible significantly before reaching 15-carbon. All biological organic molecules should be left-handed where chirality is possible. The "optic action" is simply saying there is some degree of imbalance between left-handedness vs. right-handedness but not nearly sufficient evidence for all being left-handed (where chirality is possible); i.e. pretending a sign for bio-contamination to mean biogenic origin.
Automan Empire says
There are good reasons for conservation as private action in daily life: just like conserving water, conserving electricity and conserving food; all three are regenerated every day but it costs resources and effort to regenerate and deliver them. Likewise, it costs resources and labor to bring hydrocarbon to your nearest gas station, so it is a good idea to conserve them. Beyond that, assessing special taxes on top of the delivery of fresh water, electricity, food or hydrocarbon, that would just be your overlords looking for excuses to exploit you. Just look at their own lives: what conservation action did they take when they burn more than tens of thousands of average homes' annual carbon footprint when private-jetting themselves into those "climate action" conventions plotting how to force you conserve? Their purpose for promoting the idea that you should conserve to a far more strict degree than what is comfortable to you is to tax you and even kill you and your family so that they can keep your bank deposits, take your assets and avoid paying you the pension they promised to you. Spending one's own time and effort echoing their agenda is a little like the hapless Stockholm-Syndrome peons living under communism and/or national socialism volunteering their own time echoing their governments' totalitarian propaganda. You know what's more: it's precisely those Stockholm-Syndrome peons eagerness to be cruel to each other that entice the banksters to promote Communism and National Socialism and other forms of totalitarianism in those countries: so government officials in those countries would be able to loot the local population and transfer the money to banks in "freer" countries, and then political upheavals kill them all and the banksters get to keep the money. That's how banksters divert money from the middle class in freer countries to their own pockets by promoting totalitarianism in countries that are full of Stockholm-Syndrome peons.
After several billion years it seems unlikely most primordial gaseous hydrogen would have long since outgassed or bonded with non-mobile elements including what may become abiotic petroleum.
"Likely" or "Unlikely"? You and I have trillions of hydrogen atoms in our bodies, both in the form of water and in the form of organic molecules. In fact, hydrogen is by far the most numerous atoms in our bodies. There are probably far more hydrogen and carbon inside this planet than there are oxygen atoms to oxidize them all. The very unusual phenomenon of significant free oxygen on earth's surface (atmosphere) is almost entirely the result of biological action (photosynthesis) breaking up water molecules, so it' entirely a surface phenomenon (a byproduct of that surface process/phenomenon is turning simple hydrocarbon into biomass) . Assuming the earth's interior is very hot below the top few miles (out of nearly 4000 mile radius to the core center) due to the heat from uranium and thorium decay and tidal force from moon causing friction inside the earth, i.e. the interior of the earth is not inhabited by a different species of intelligent beings, then most hydrogen and carbon on earth are bound up in simple hydrocarbon, mostly liquid Methane under high pressure, just like on other planets and their satellites, untinged by biological process like on earth's surface. We get a proof of that from massive methane outgassing from volcanic eruptions.
Automan Empire says
From what I was just reading (having just boned up more than ever on the topic of abiogenic oil for sake of this discussion), there EXIST deposits that are considered abiotic in origin by both geologists and oil companies, but only a few of them are commercially exploitable and small/limited at that. All the large pools of oil, whose availability and cost of extraction and delivery is a huge mover in the world economy, are considered mostly biotic in origin, with a minor abiotic contribution possible in some formations.
You are reading the product/result of heavily gate-kept publishing industry, and with a significant time delay depending on when the book was published. By your description, your book was likely written around two decades ago. The author was engaging in what is called "rear-guard action," gradually retreating from an untenable position, grudgingly admitting the existence abiogenic hydrocarbon but falsely insisting that's minority. What they call signs for biogenic are actually signs for bio-contamination of what came up from below. Even their most "reliable" evidence, the optic action, only took place for distillants 15-carbon equivalent or bigger/longer, whereas left-handed chirality should have been possible significantly before reaching 15-carbon. All biological organic molecules should be left-handed where chirality is possible. The "optic action" is simply saying there is some degree of imbalance between left-handedness vs. right-handedness but not nearly sufficient evidence for all being left-handed (where chirality is possible); i.e. pretending a sign for bio-contamination to mean biogenic origin.
Automan Empire says
Relevant to the usual context of abiotic versus biotic origins of oil, if primordial hydrogen is a big constituent of abiotic oil production, it's a finite, limited, closed system resource. People usually cite abiotic oil as part of anti-conservation sentiments, as in "Oil's made by the earth and endlessly renews itself! Therefore, conserving it is pointless and stupid"
There are good reasons for conservation as private action in daily life: just like conserving water, conserving electricity and conserving food; all three are regenerated every day but it costs resources and effort to regenerate and deliver them. Likewise, it costs resources and labor to bring hydrocarbon to your nearest gas station, so it is a good idea to conserve them. Beyond that, assessing special taxes on top of the delivery of fresh water, electricity, food or hydrocarbon, that would just be your overlords looking for excuses to exploit you. Just look at their own lives: what conservation action did they take when they burn more than tens of thousands of average homes' annual carbon footprint when private-jetting themselves into those "climate action" conventions plotting how to force you conserve? Their purpose for promoting the idea that you should conserve to a far more strict degree than what is comfortable to you is to tax you and even kill you and your family so that they can keep your bank deposits, take your assets and avoid paying you the pension they promised to you. Spending one's own time and effort echoing their agenda is a little like the hapless Stockholm-Syndrome peons living under communism and/or national socialism volunteering their own time echoing their governments' totalitarian propaganda. You know what's more: it's precisely those Stockholm-Syndrome peons eagerness to be cruel to each other that entice the banksters to promote Communism and National Socialism and other forms of totalitarianism in those countries: so government officials in those countries would be able to loot the local population and transfer the money to banks in "freer" countries, and then political upheavals kill them all and the banksters get to keep the money. That's how banksters divert money from the middle class in freer countries to their own pockets by promoting totalitarianism in countries that are full of Stockholm-Syndrome peons.
83
AmericanKulak
2021 Nov 11, 8:41am
AmericanKulak
2021 Nov 11, 8:41am
Reality says
That's a frequent PR Science issue with Meteorites: "Amino Acids, the building block of RNA, found in this 100 MYA Meteorite from Mars found in Antarctica Frozen Lake"
Of course, 100 MYA Antarctica was temperate, and that lake was teeming with organic chemistry when the meteorite fell into it, and meteorites are pockmarked so it's a no brainer that a submerged rock would take organically filled water inside. Also, saying Amino Acids are the Building Block of RNA is like saying pumice are building blocks of massive ampitheaters, it misses 99% of the story of building ampitheaters or aqueducts.
What they call signs for biogenic are actually signs for bio-contamination of what came up from below.
That's a frequent PR Science issue with Meteorites: "Amino Acids, the building block of RNA, found in this 100 MYA Meteorite from Mars found in Antarctica Frozen Lake"
Of course, 100 MYA Antarctica was temperate, and that lake was teeming with organic chemistry when the meteorite fell into it, and meteorites are pockmarked so it's a no brainer that a submerged rock would take organically filled water inside. Also, saying Amino Acids are the Building Block of RNA is like saying pumice are building blocks of massive ampitheaters, it misses 99% of the story of building ampitheaters or aqueducts.
« First « Previous Comments 79 - 84 of 84 Search these comments
The abiotic case is that carbonate rocks and water get subducted by plate tectonics and changed by the deep heat and pressure into petroleum spectrum molecules.
This is often brought up by people holding cornucopian pro-petroleum positions, suggesting that because it's an abiotic process, oil is endlessly renewable. Proponents never take the hypothesis further and detail processes, timelines, and specific deposits showing clear evidence of abiotic origin. Furthermore, they never seem to recognize that even if petrogenesis proves 100% abiotic and as described, it's STILL too slow of a process to provide limitless energy resources to humans for limitless time.
The biotic case is that extant petroleum deposits consist of metamorphosed ancient biological deposits like algal mats in lakes. Much of the coal on earth was originally jungle land that existed before cellulose eating bacteria evolved, resulting in very long term in-situ accumulation of carbon.
Accessible oil shale deposits contain identifiable fossils and chemical signatures of biological processes. A particularly good example is the Messel Pit in Germany, an ancient lake which formed in a deep volcanic vent with chronically low oxygen below the surface waters. The pit was believed to release intermittent clouds of CO2 that caused mass die-offs of larger animals, whose bodies sank to the hypoxic depths to become preserved in remarkably excellent condition. The contents of this pit were estimated to represent over a million years of accumulation, from a time period approximately 47 million years ago. Therefore, this pit is not only proof that oil CAN form biotically, it gives a lower bound of 47 million years needed for that to become oil under those specific conditions since. The location is believed over time to have drifted 10 degrees further North in latitude in addition to gaining up to a few hundred feet of overburden above the shale deposits. https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/evolution/messel_pit.html
Proponents of abiotic petrogenesis, are you aware of any specific oil deposits that can be conclusively proven to have formed only by abiotic processes?