Interesting Article (Abiotic Oil)

Chris Whewell · Post by **Chris Whewell** » 19 Jul 2005, 01:33

http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 19 Jul 2005, 02:13

Except that it's a complete load of bollocks.

RogerCO · Post by **RogerCO** » 19 Jul 2005, 09:16

Yawn, here we go again...

Abiotic Oil

If you start to look in to the Peak Oil debate sooner or later you will come
across some sceptic talking about how Peak Oil is all a mad chimera and there is something called abiotic oil which means we don?t have to worry. Abiotic oil means oil that is not formed from biological material over millions of years, but is supposed to be spontaneously created from carbon and hydrogen deep inside the earth.
Beware!

Three points to be aware of:

1. There is no concrete evidence for the existence of non-biological oil in a form which we could exploit. The two most commonly cited stories centre around Russian deep drilling finding oil at greater depths than normal, and a particular field in the Mexican Gulf which appears to be re-filling. Both of these can be explained by conventional geology and do not prove the existence of non-biological (abiotic) oil.

2. Even if oil can be formed by a non-biological process it is certain that this cannot be extracted with our existing or envisioned future technology. It would have to be brought up through a region where the pressure & temperature would cause it to break down, and where our drilling technology and borehole liners will not work
( there is some weak evidence that some hydrocarbons ? particularly
methane ? can be produced in the type of conditions found deep in the
earth?s mantle)

3. Even if abiotic oil existed, it clearly can not replensh fields at anything near the rate at which we use it, and it is still oil and burning it still generates greenhouse gases and pollution.
In practice there is no way that abiotic oil exists in any form that can be economically exploited. If we had the technology to drill that deep inside the earth then we would do far better by extracting geothermal energy?now there is a story whose time may yet come. Remember the Hot Rocks? project ?

First published in GreenSWord, the newsletter of the SW Green Party of England & Wales, June 2005

Post by **clv101** » 19 Jul 2005, 18:07

Looks like Joe Vialls isn't writing any more: http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic10079.html

mobbsey · Post by **mobbsey** » 19 Jul 2005, 23:05

I tracked down this guys work online about 18 months ago. It's really interesting the way he works. He seems to run a whole string of apparently unrelated web sites all peddling climate change denial, abiotic oil, and various other "zionist inspired" conspiracy theories.

Actually, there are two very clear reasons why abiotic oil makes no sense.

1. The distribution of carbon isotopes -- oil contains carbon isotopes typical of a surface environment, not the profile of carbon isotopes you would expect if it had 'bubbled up' from the mantle.

2. Pollen -- oil contains pollen grains... I don't think plants live inside the Earth's mantle!

P.

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 20 Jul 2005, 00:45

Not to mention that, from what I remember, the article supposes that "Peak Oil" was just dreamed up by a NWO think tank around Year 2000 (like "funny how this just came out") and ignored the fact that it's a 50 year old theory proven by recent history.

Chris Whewell · Post by **Chris Whewell** » 21 Jul 2005, 20:34

Thanks for posting your theories on the matter. I personally find theories to be troublesome since they cannot be proven, but rather, only disproven.

It could be possible to form hydrocarbons from limestone under the appropriate fischer-tropfsch conditions of pressure and in the presence of an adequate catalyst. The delta G for hydrogenation of bicarbonate to methane is negative above a certain temperature and pressure. and if these conditions were present, one would expect the reaction to proceed. Unfortunately, nobody knows what exact conditions exist deep within the earth, and this theory is not provable either.

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 22 Jul 2005, 06:30

<<I personally find theories to be troublesome since they cannot be proven, but rather, only disproven.>>

That sounded a bit odd to me. A theory is a frame work and offers the best explanation for the current data. ?Proof? is just a reasonable argument to say what is the most probable (you can never prove anything absolutely). Maybe Voltaire said it better:

?Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.?
<<It could be possible>>

Possible but is it so? Just because something is possible does not mean that is actually so.

<<and this theory is not provable either.>>

Its not even a theory, its just an idea or at best a hypothesis and if there is not test that can be done to support it then its not much of use either.

Is there any actually evidence that requires an ?abiotic Oil? explanation? Do we have any bacteria that can do what is required to do? What other alternative explanations are there?