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?
The above is acceptable to me, but not what you originally said.
Fossil fuels have almostzero 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.
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.
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.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.