Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] The Myth of Fossil Fuels

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Clansgian AT wmconnect.com
  • To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] The Myth of Fossil Fuels
  • Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:25:53 EST


> >When I post something like this, it is intended to expand people's
> thinking.

Ditto when I point out the weaknesses in the posit. What's the point of
posting something to get people to thinking and then when they think about it
and
conclude otherwise to take umbrage at it??

>> assigned belief and intent to my post that I did not intend.

Bev, in my reply to your post, besides using the passive voice 'you' meaning
'someone, anyone', where have I addressed your beliefs or you personally at
all?? Who is doing the assigning here?

>
>
> >No, no, no...Oil contains all the isotopes, mostly C12 and C13.
> C14 is made in the atmosphere, not inside the Earth.

Right, it establishes my point.


>> Fossil fuels have almost
> zero C14, and IMO, what little it does have is there from 'mixing' or
> contamination.

Fossil fuels have almost zero C14 because every source of carbon contains
almost zero C14. It, as you point out, is only made in the upper atmosphere
and
occurs as less than on part in a trillion of availble carbon. It is
implausable that atmospheric C14 would have a chance to mix with the expected
C12 and
C13 of carbon that would have been present when the mantle was formed. The
reason there is so little C14 in fossil fuels is because they have been in
the
ground so long, most of it has decayed into C13. That there is any at all is
a
strong indicator of biological and therefore atmospheric origin.





>
> >I find it interesting that you will consider non-Western ideas and
> theories when it comes to medicine, government, and philosophy, but when
> it comes to scientific exploration, you tow the Western theory/party
> line of the fossil fuel origin and Peak Oil theory and exclude any other
> contradictory evidence that might point to a slightly different
> conclusion.

Two things in refeverse order of importance. First that is no contradictory
evidence of much wieght. Sticking strictly with a scientific model, the
overwhelming evindence is against an abiotic origin of fossil fuels.
Aboiticicst
raise some interesting questions but none of them pass muster.

But that's a trifle compared to this:

Why would you find that odd? Here is the thing: if someone is going to
describe a phenomenon using the scientific method and scientific
measurements,
then by God stick with it. If it is a scientific study that is being
forwarded
and a scientific hypothesis that is being defended, then stick with science
to
do it.

Peak Oil analysis takes into account all known and extant data concerning the
existence of petroleum. New data might surface that force a different
conclusion. It hasn't happened yet, might some time, but it hasn't happened
yet.

There are huge gaping holes in the Abiotic Oil theory that are not explained
and there are other data used to support it that do not pass muster. I am
going to include the major ones at the end of this post because few people
will
be interested in reading that far. But you, Bev, I invite to read them and
then tell me that you think petroleum might have an abiotic origin.

So you see, if I am going to use science as a tool, I am not going to
half-ass do it. If someone uses science, stick to science.

If someone wants to expand their experince into othe modes of thinking, then
do that. But don't expect any results if that excursion into aternatives is
just bending science a little or only considering things that science
validates
or can be discussed in scientific terms. It's the doo-doo pile so many step
in trying to think of atsrology as some sort of astronomy-lite or
unenlighened
astronomy. They (as astronomy and astrology) are two different modes of
thinking altogether, it does no good to try to explain the one in terms of
the
other.

It is a challenge most people are not up to to try to think in terms of
another system of reality without referencing it back to western scientific
thought
as if western science is THE truth that actually and really explains the
silly notions held by others before they knew better.

Want to try it? Cut a slice of carrot like a disk. What does it look like?
Most readily see that it looks exactly like a human eye.

Science and chemistry tell us now of days that the phytochemicals in a carrot
are marvelously protective of our eyesight and will even prevent and reverse
macular degeneration.

But another mode of thinking altogether says that in the natural world there
is a "doctrine of signatures" where Nature left her mark on everything. It
is
not coincidnece that a slice of carrot looks like and eye. (Remember all
the news about how lycopene in tomatoes protects the heart, a tomato has four
chambers and is red. A newly recommended treatment for enhancing the
neuro-transmitters in the brain is to eat walnuts ... that are in a hard
skill and look
just like a brain). Can you let you mind explore that mode of thinking
without referencing the reality back to science as the standard? Most people
can't.

If one is to make use of an alternate way of looking at things, look at
things in that alternate way. Within the paradigm of the 'doctrine of
signatures'
(as an example) the thinking needs to be consistent, but it doesn't have to
be consistent with science (an vice versa).

Now back to the abiotic oil. Here are some characteristics of petroleum.
Look over the list, it can be verified if you are that interested, and then
tell
me that there is any possibility at all that petroleum has an abiotic origin:

1) The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks. If
any signicant amout of oil were from a hydrocarbon lake, why would oil only
occur in sedementary rock?

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). Biomarkers are organic
compounds of specific biological origin identifying whether the petroluem is
primarily of bacterial origin, or what type of plant the organic material
came
from. How did those compounds get in the abiotic oil?

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 (C) 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). That is, if oil were coming
from
from some hydrocarbon lake below, why is there always a biologically active
geological layer above the deposit.

8 ) The almost complete absence of significant petroleum occurrences in
igneous and metamorphic rocks.

Etc. there's a lot more evidence than this but it gives you an idea why
petrologist dismiss the abiotic theory out of hand.




James




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page