Discussion in 'Current Events' started by NewGuy, May 26, 2004.
I know laboratory experiments have proven that under the right conditions, petroleum will break down to methane, a simpler form, but I've not seen any demonstration the opposite is true, under the conditions described and easily replicated in a lab. Have you seen any?
Since I have no lab for doing such things, I would not automatically discount the article.
Did you expect me to have said lab?
But aren't you Dr. Evil?
Seriously, why are there many lab studies of petroleum converting to methane under heat and pressure, but not vice versa?
I would imagine such a process demands empiricle evidence, because it's not normal for compounds to reorganize under such conditions. They usually decompose into simpler compounds.
It's entirely possible oil fields connect to deeper sources, but it's by no means proof of oil being generated. Shifting geological forces explain most of these leaks to existings wells.
It is just a proposed theory..... sounds pretty interesting too!
I guess you would believe the intense pressure created by all of that land and water to not account for it?
Yes, that's exactly my point. I can't find any study where heat and pressure (even using a catalyst) leads to convert methane to fossile fuel.
Methane is a product of fossile fuel refinement, under heat and pressure of crude oil, methane will rise to the top of the still as the lightest, most simple hydrocarbon byproduct, CH4.
Does CH4 convert to longer chains over C6H14 (gasoline) under after heat and pressure? No.
Is there some catalyst which would do so? Possibly.
Does any study identify the catalyst or replicate the process?
Not that I can find.
"Some scientists have proposed that the current understanding of petroleum and its orgins are incomplete. Some Russian scientists propose that petroleum is abiotic in nature. Some supporting scientific papers are at http://www.gasresources.net/. This theory also argues that oil supplies slowly replenish themselves, and that oil reserves are thus much larger than current estimates. Such theories are not widely accepted in the West."
Why would only a very few, mainly Russian scientists advance this theory?
Who would benefit from a perception of "endless oil" from existing sources?
"Most geologists believe that oil and many other fuels are fossil fuels created by fossilisation of ancient organic matter. Oil, they believe, comes from ancient seas and coal from ancient forests.
A minor competing hypothesis is that oil is formed by non-biological reactions naturally in the Earth's mantle and core. The constituent elements of petroleum are commonplace and it might be conceivable that appropriate conditions exist for oil to be formed deep within the Earth.
Evidence against this hypothesis comes from the observable fact that known oil deposits are found within geological strata suggesting they were deposited by sedimentation. "
Lots of competing evidence don't you agree?
That is why it is all theory.
I know Russian scientists are underpaid by the state, and can only scratch out a living outside of the private market today.
So who would privately fund a study to show the value of the reserves are greater than the accepted potentialit's reserves?
LUKoil? Taftnet? GazProm?
hmm, good article. That much oil from such a deep underground flow? Doesn't sound like the heap of dead dinosaurs we usually get fuel from...
Separate names with a comma.