Page 1 of 1
Abiogenic Oil Formation
Posted: 2008-07-29 12:43am
by starslayer
I'm having some trouble
here in a debate on whether or not most oil forms from decaying plant matter. Thomheg I can deal with (have I made any errors in responding to him?), but William I'm finding more difficult. I simply don't have the knowledge or sources to refute his evidence. Is there any literature out there that covers the oil-forming process and reactions in detail, as well as points to evidence for it? Are William's sources credible? How can I improve here?
Posted: 2008-07-29 02:43am
by starslayer
Ghetto Edit: Gah, forgot to specify that I was ctcoker.
Posted: 2008-07-29 10:47am
by CaptainZoidberg
Would it help to show him a graph of US oil production?
Since production has peaked and is now declining, you could argue that oil must've taken formed a long time ago and is no longer replenishing itself.
Posted: 2008-07-29 02:32pm
by Wyrm
Ask where all the carbon and hydrogen comes from in the oil. You cannot form oil without an abundance of either by basic chemistry, thermodynamics ect aside. Both are rare in the lithosphere (especially hydrogen), but freakin' everywhere in biomass.
William first has to find a source of abiotic carbon and hydrogen in large concentrations before he can claim abiotic oil.
Another thing:
William wrote:You wrote:Now that we have that cleared up, William, you stated that conditions in the oil-bearing rock layers are not deep enough for oil to form there. You're correct; however, the first hit on Google explains why you're otherwise wrong. In short, oil forms lower than it is found; it migrates up to more porous rocks over time, and there forms reservoirs. So yes, the conditions are right for oil formation in the Earth; however, where oil is found is an entirely different story.
ctcoker,
Kenney et al's published paper, his laboratory work, and fundamental chemistry all show a pressure of 30,000 atmospheres is required to have convert chain molecules to light hydrocarbons. That pressure would required roughly 100 km of overburden. Oil source rock is hypothesized to be at roughly 10 km. The Wikipedia article that you provide a link to is a kid's picture. You have no argument. A scientific debate is a search for truth, not simple contradiction or a high school debate where the debaters argue both sides to demonstrate their ability to argue.
William is now artfully dodging the issue, which is that the oil is
found in a different place than it
forms.
Posted: 2008-07-29 06:59pm
by Junghalli
Is he arguing that new oil is constantly being formed therefore we don't have to worry about PO? If so, I'd say burden of proof is definitely on the quite extraordinary claim that new oil is formed fast enough to replace what we take out of the fields.