|
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
 Posted - 08/03/2007 : 13:01:05
|
|
Thomas Gold (of pulsar fame) hypothesized that oil and coal were formed through tectonic processes and predicted that oil would be found in igneous rocks if people only bothered to look. In the sole experimential test for this hypothesis, about 80 barrels of crude oil, and a 'substantial amount' of natural gas were extracted from a meteor crater in solid granite located in Sweden. Nothing approaching a commerical yield, however it did beg the question "where did this crude oil come from". Many people have guessed, but no one seems willing to accept Gold's views. The experiment undoubtedly will never be repeated due to the cost of drilling for oil.
|
 |
Edited by - On fire for Christ on 08/03/2007 14:21:38
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/03/2007 : 15:40:50 [Permalink]
|
From On Fire's wiki link: Origins of petroleum
'"Hydrocarbons are not biology reworked by geology (as the traditional view would hold) but rather geology reworked by biology". — Thomas Gold
Gold achieved fame for his 1992 paper 'The Deep Hot Biosphere in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [1], which presented a controversial view of the origin of coal, oil, and gas deposits, a theory of an abiogenic petroleum origin. The theory suggests coal and crude oil deposits have their origins in natural gas flows which feed bacteria living at extreme depths under the surface of the Earth; in other words, oil and coal are produced through tectonic forces, rather than from the decomposition of fossils. Gold also published a book of the same title in 1999, which expanded on the arguments in his 1992 paper and included speculations on the origin of life. He has been accused of stealing the abiogenic theory outright from Soviet geologists who first published it in the 1950s [2]. Although he later credited Soviet research, it is claimed that he first published a paper on the abiogenic theory in 1979 without citing any of the Soviet literature on the subject [3]. Gold's defenders maintain that these charges are unfounded: they say that, after first formulating his views on petroleum in 1979, he began finding the papers by Soviet geologists and had them translated. He was both disappointed (that his ideas were not original) and delighted (because such independent formulation of these ideas added weight to the hypothesis). They insist that he always credited the Soviet work once he knew about it.
According to Gold and the Soviet geologists who originated the abiogenic theory, bacteria feeding on the oil accounts for the presence of biological debris in hydrocarbon fuels, obviating the need to resort to a biogenic theory for the origin of the latter. The flows of underground hydrocarbons may also explain oddities in the concentration of other mineral deposits.
Most western geologists and petrologists consider petroleum abiogenic theories implausible and believe the biogenic theory of 'fossil fuel' formation adequately explains all observed hydrocarbon deposits. Most geologists do recognize the geologic carbon cycle includes subducted carbon, which returns to the surface, with studies showing the carbon does rise in various ways. Gold and geology experts point out the biogenic theories do not explain phenomena such as helium in oil fields and oil fields associated with deep geologic features.
However, recent discoveries have shown that bacteria live at depths far greater than previously believed. Whilst this does not prove Gold's theory, it may lend support to its arguments. A thermal depolymerization process which converts animal waste to carbon fuels does show some processes can be done without bacterial action, but does not explain details of natural oil deposits such as magnetite production.
|
Probably not, but would that it were so. Mayhap it is, but....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2007 : 16:02:04 [Permalink]
|
It's a pretty interesting debate, OFFC, and the debate has some important implications on terms of how much "fossil fuel" may remain in the earth. Your links amount to a balance of viewpoints.
I'm not qualified to give a real opinion, but I do think science either has, or will, get to the bottom of the controversy. Most geologists support the biogenic source of most hydrocarbons in the earth, so right now it's up to the abiogenic supporters to prove their hypothesis.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
marty
BANNED
63 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2007 : 17:19:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
It's a pretty interesting debate, OFFC, and the debate has some important implications on terms of how much "fossil fuel" may remain in the earth. Your links amount to a balance of viewpoints.
I'm not qualified to give a real opinion, but I do think science either has, or will, get to the bottom of the controversy. Most geologists support the biogenic source of most hydrocarbons in the earth, so right now it's up to the abiogenic supporters to prove their hypothesis.
|
Science is not a vote of the majority. Each side must prove their hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2007 : 17:43:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marty
Science is not a vote of the majority. Each side must prove their hypothesis. |
It's not as if there exists a similar amount of evidence and experimentation in favor of each theory. And in cases of historical theories, where we are some millions of years separated from the events in question, proof will necessarily be non-existant, and scientific truth will rest upon the weight of the evidence. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2007 : 21:57:28 [Permalink]
|
| Seriously, marty, is throwing out vague one-liners all you do? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2007 : 00:09:54 [Permalink]
|
marty remarked:| Science is not a vote of the majority. Each side must prove their hypothesis. |
I never said science was a matter of polls. But I do believe that the geological consensus is in support of biogenic sources of most hydrocarbons, so indeed the burden of proof is upon those supporting any hypothesis that challenges that consensus. I believe biogenic origin rises to the level of a scientific theory. But if the abiogenic hypothesis is correct, its supporers should be able to make their case and overturn the theory.
If I had a degree in Geology, and simply declared that all terrestrial oil came from hunks of moon cheese that had fallen to earth, there would be no need for the consensus to have to prove itself in light of my hypothesis. But if I had good evidence for moon-cheese-oil, there would be a need to either defend biogentic origins, or abandon the old theory and make moon-cheese-oil the new one.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 08/04/2007 00:14:09 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Thomas Gold`
