Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
- Status
Louis Hissink: FOSSIL FOOLS?
A general reading of the comments about climate sceptic articles published by the ABC’s The Drum webpage reveals the existence of the persistent belief that petroleum is a fossil fuel derived from the burial of biomass via tectonic subduction in the shallow parts of the Earth’s crust. There is a belief that this carbon was removed from the atmosphere over millions of years, and that humanity is now rapidly putting it back into the atmosphere by burning coal and oil products. This prevailing theory is known as the Biotic Oil theory. Coal deposits are considered to be simply masses of compressed vegetation, and another example of biomass removed from the biosphere into the lithosphere. These views are not based in fact. ...
One of the more interesting exercises is to Google the phrase “experimental evidence of biotic oil theory” and apart from Google suggesting “did I mean 'abiotic,'” nothing turns up. This isn’t surprising because experimentally it’s not possible to generate petroleum from subjecting biomass to pressures and temperatures thought to exist at the base of sedimentary basins. Hence no scientific literature on the subject.
. Peak Oil & Russia
One of the more interesting exercises is to Google the phrase “experimental evidence of biotic oil theory” and apart from Google suggesting “did I mean 'abiotic,'” nothing turns up. This isn’t surprising because experimentally it’s not possible to generate petroleum from subjecting biomass to pressures and temperatures thought to exist at the base of sedimentary basins. Hence no scientific literature on the subject.
. Peak Oil & Russia
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Abiotic
William B. Stoecker: Abiotic.
Abiotic
William B. Stoecker: Abiotic.
Decades ago, some maverick researchers, most of them in the old Soviet Union, proposed that the fossil fuel theory is incorrect, and that most oil and gas is of abiotic origin, formed from methane and other carbon compounds trapped in the Earth when it was formed. They suggest that there is no “peak oil,” but that vast amounts of oil and gas are slowly rising from Earth’s mantle and the lower crust, enough to last us for thousands or even millions of years. Dmitri Mendeleev, a chemist, was one of the Soviet proponents of abiotic origin; many of the others were geologists. French chemist Marcellin Berthelot and American astronomer Thomas Gold were among the first Westerners to agree with them. Gold even convinced Swedish authorities to drill a test well in granite with no organic sediments over, under, or in it, and small amounts of oil were found. Oil and gas have been found elsewhere when wells penetrated below all the sediments, but skeptics claim that the oil somehow leaked down from overlying sediments, or that the rock layers had so folded and twisted that the igneous basement rocks were now above some sediments.
In the mud on ocean bottoms, vast amounts of methane are trapped in frozen hydrates or methane clathrates, far exceeding all the gas ever produced or found in proven reserves. Found at depths over 300 meters, the methane molecules, due to cold and pressure, are trapped in a kind of cage of water molecules and mixed with the sediments. The methane trapped in one small area off the coast of the Carolinas could, if we could extract it, supply the US with over fifty years of natural gas…and this is but a small part of the worldwide supply of clathrates. We may or may not be able to develop safe and economical ways of tapping this resource, but the sheer volume of the gas is hard to explain with the biological theory. The carbon alone in the clathrates is estimated at twice the total amount of carbon in all other “fossil fuel” deposits, and these include coal, which is mostly carbon.
Helium gas is found in some gas wells, enough to make it profitable to extract it. This light and inert gas, because it cannot burn, is used in balloons and airships. Being inert and non-reactive it cannot form compounds, including organic compounds. So everyone is forced to admit that helium is abiotic; it was trapped inside the Earth when our planet was formed. So if helium was trapped, why not methane?
Interstellar gas and dust clouds contain a variety of hydrocarbons and other organic compounds, obviously not formed from marine algae, compounds such as methane, formaldehyde, acetylene, ethylene, ketene, methanol, and benzene. In addition, the atmosphere of Saturn’s moon Titan is mostly methane, and no one seriously believes that oceans of liquid water and marine organisms exist on Titan, which is far from the Sun and colder than dry ice. So if methane and other hydrocarbons form in space and can be trapped on Titan, obviously some must have been trapped in the early Earth. In addition, some meteorites, called carbonaceous chondrites, contain kerogen, the supposed residue of marine organisms which is converted into petroleum…but there are no marine organisms in space, largely because there are no oceans. Currently accepted theory holds that the Earth was formed by the accretion of meteors, asteroids, and comets, so, along with the methane, significant amounts of kerogen had to have been trapped in our planet at its birth.
So it is virtually certain that much oil and gas (but probably not all of it) is of abiotic origin, and the amounts remaining are likely to far exceed all that we have tapped so far.
In the mud on ocean bottoms, vast amounts of methane are trapped in frozen hydrates or methane clathrates, far exceeding all the gas ever produced or found in proven reserves. Found at depths over 300 meters, the methane molecules, due to cold and pressure, are trapped in a kind of cage of water molecules and mixed with the sediments. The methane trapped in one small area off the coast of the Carolinas could, if we could extract it, supply the US with over fifty years of natural gas…and this is but a small part of the worldwide supply of clathrates. We may or may not be able to develop safe and economical ways of tapping this resource, but the sheer volume of the gas is hard to explain with the biological theory. The carbon alone in the clathrates is estimated at twice the total amount of carbon in all other “fossil fuel” deposits, and these include coal, which is mostly carbon.
Helium gas is found in some gas wells, enough to make it profitable to extract it. This light and inert gas, because it cannot burn, is used in balloons and airships. Being inert and non-reactive it cannot form compounds, including organic compounds. So everyone is forced to admit that helium is abiotic; it was trapped inside the Earth when our planet was formed. So if helium was trapped, why not methane?
Interstellar gas and dust clouds contain a variety of hydrocarbons and other organic compounds, obviously not formed from marine algae, compounds such as methane, formaldehyde, acetylene, ethylene, ketene, methanol, and benzene. In addition, the atmosphere of Saturn’s moon Titan is mostly methane, and no one seriously believes that oceans of liquid water and marine organisms exist on Titan, which is far from the Sun and colder than dry ice. So if methane and other hydrocarbons form in space and can be trapped on Titan, obviously some must have been trapped in the early Earth. In addition, some meteorites, called carbonaceous chondrites, contain kerogen, the supposed residue of marine organisms which is converted into petroleum…but there are no marine organisms in space, largely because there are no oceans. Currently accepted theory holds that the Earth was formed by the accretion of meteors, asteroids, and comets, so, along with the methane, significant amounts of kerogen had to have been trapped in our planet at its birth.
So it is virtually certain that much oil and gas (but probably not all of it) is of abiotic origin, and the amounts remaining are likely to far exceed all that we have tapped so far.
So those guys grading potential reserves by lipids and phenolic bio markers are wasting their time?
Maybe those markers are contaminants only? I don't know without reading a hell of a lot more. The “experimental evidence of biotic oil theory” is unavailable to consult anyway and that is what is fascinating to me after a century into the oil economy. The predictive history of abiotic is way better than biotic, so which one is the truer science? And who keeps it quiet?
So, that entitles them to fly in the face of everything that they preach?.... Spare me.
The British High Court, for one.
You are the one that is stating that the options exist. The reason why they aren't being adopted on a wholesale basis is due to inconsistencies or high cost. The message is that the majority of people aren't willing to part with their money to march to the beat of your drummer.
Is that so? If the big and powerful auto companies are such an effective lobby, how is it that they allowed the legislation to get passed in the first place? GM wasted a ton of cash retooling their manufacturing to accommodate this niche and scrapped it due to the reality that there would not be enough interest and sales to keep the project afloat.
2 things; The particulate reflect l/s wave radiation as well... there's no way around that reality. Second, the eco-bible delivered up by the IPCC/UN identifies water vapour as teh single most influential green house mechanism.
That's great... How about we analyze the relative contributions of the different components between natural sources and anthropogenic sources.
So.. You are unable to justify the inclusion of green tech based on it's own merits, clearly, there isn't enough interest or technological merit to keep the technology afloat; the overall plan necessitates that the eco-niche can make it is by requiring a parasitic relationship with oil/gas.
tell ya what, instead of taxing the oil companies, why not tax the hell out of everyone that hasn't spent the cash on converting themselves?... You willing to consider that or is it a no-go because you'd, personally, get nailed?
For one with so much personal knowledge in the area, I find it interesting that you did not recognize that the fire suppression actions interrupted the natural cycles of forest chronology.. How come you didn't mention that the amount of deadfall on the floor in many areas of BC is in excess of 1 or 2 metres? That deadfall may as well be gasoline when a fire is started in that area.
In a non-managed froest, the natural cycles would have cleeaned-up those materials
Familiar with teh multiple ice-ages that the globe has experienced?... There's your precedence for ya.
Geological records. ocean studies, etc. It all points to the fact that before gumans came along the planet was chugging along quite well. We showed up and after a while we loaded up the atmosphere with crap that never occurred naturally, loaded up the oceans with similar crap, and spread a lot of our crap around the ground. You mean to say that you didn't know humans polluted?
So where did these gumans come from and how are they responsible for all the extinction events and mountain trashing?
They can do more, we all can. One or two persons footprint isn't the issue, it's an entire industry that prevents necessary changes that is.
How about some details.
The world in awash in unused energy, solar alone can more than meet our demands. Factor in the many other sources and fossil fuel dependency makes no sense at all in the long term.
This is California we're talking about, the voters are a very powerful lobby. GM never really got behind the vehicle, the ones who were lucky enough to lease an EV1 fought as hard as they could to hold onto them. The supposed replacement presented to CARB, hydrogen cell vehicles, have never really materialized nor will hydrogen ever really be a viable alternative to gas due to cost extreme volatility and handling issues.
Most of the reflection is being done by the clouds, not the particles. Most of the sunlight still gets through. Free molecules of H2O are a major component of the greenhouse effect.
You mean the same natural sources that allow life to exist on the planet in the first place. Somehow I think production of clean water, food and breathable takes precedence over the burning of coal and oil.
Like I said, it's very hard for solar, wind, geo-thermal and other energy sources to get a foot in the door of a market dominated by the fossil fuel sector.
It's suppossed to be a common resource, and as far as I'm concerned the market is there to serve people not the other way around. The industry is still going to make money and society gets the benefit of investing the money made from a common resource into an infrastructure that gives us a sustainable future. BP and other fossil fuel companies have been trying to greenwash themselves for years, why not have them finally put up or shut up.
Sure it has to a degree. I also realize that well managed forestry is more like long-term agriculture than industry. The company my dad helped run for a couple of decades for instance planted far more trees than it harvested, many of those are now dead or dying thanks to climate change. Like I've pointed out already, fire suppression has played a contributing role in beetle infestation in BC, it hasn't caused it. The beetle have always been there, it's the lack of long cold winters in recent decades that has opened up vast new areas for the beetle to exploit. It wasn't fire suppression that did that, it was an overall change in the global environment caused by altering the atmosphere. Introducing gigatons of CO2 into the air on a yearly basis is going to have an effect, it's basic thermodynamics. More heat in a system means there's more energy to do work(melt ice, heat water, power winds,etc...) and the climate will change.
So, that has little to do with over all climate change. The 1 billion or so tons of CO2 all the dead wood in BC is predicted to be adding to the atmosphere in the next decade is a fraction of the overall amount emmitted by burning fossil fuels, a practice that has been going up not down.
And science is learning how to model the effect that has had on climate. Science often raises as many questions as it answers.
A little more info:
the average gas-powered vehicle emits about 640 g of carbon per liter of gas and diesel about 734 g/l. If the crude had been left as it was, that carbon would not have been released into the atmosphere and we wouldn't have disasters like Exxon Valdez and BP/GoM. There are other bits of evidence of human interference in natural phenomenon, too. For instance, CFCs and the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere. Basically we shyte in our own crib.
Start reading. Nobody is keeping anything quiet. Can you explain why oil can only be found in sedimentary strata? Yes oil will migrate from point to point ONLY if the rock is of the right type and it can move rather quickly too. Look into DC current extraction techniques in use.
Beave. It's not just the lipids but it goes right down to classification of oil grades by DNA!
Perhaps oil is just the toxic waste from middle earth?
Who is we? Is there too many people on the planet? Too many Chinese? Too many Africans? Too many indigenous people?
How about Belgians? Should we get rid of the Belgians? They are waaaaaay overpopulated. Belgium is by far the densest populated place on the planet. Canada has 2 people per km/sq where as Belgium has 344.3 Should we reduce the number of Belgians and work our way down or are Belgians more important than those in Nigeria or Peru?
“experimental evidence of biotic oil theory”
I will get right at it Petros. DNA, that's very interesting. Can you provide a link to the experimental evidence of biotic oil theory please, it would help get me where you are faster.
A/ Life In The Crust Of The Earth
One major point that detractors of this theory make is that oil contains bio-markers, which are the remains of dead organisms such as bacteria and diatoms. Thermophilic, or heat loving, bacteria have been found living in rocks far down in the Earth's crust, close to the molten mantle. It is not difficult to envisage these bacteria living anaerobically on a ready supply of high energy hydrocarbons seeping continually upward from hot rock below. This could certainly result in organic material being present in oil that formed abiotically, though this is speculation.
b/ sedimentary strata may be easier to seep into than all other surrounding rock
C/
2.) Paleontology analyses of the oil, - and its significance: The Paleontology analyses of the oil in the shallower Permian and Upper and Lower Carboniferous sandstone formations have demonstrated the presence of spore-pollen and other microphytofossils of the Devonian and Proterozoic ages, establishing thereby upward migration from the deeper formations, which migration is not necessarily correlated to the age of either. The paleontology analyses of the oil from these wells has been performed by laboratories in Lvov, Minsk and Moscow. The proterozoic microphytofossils examined included the following: Protoleiospheridium conglutinatum Tim., Zonoleiospheridium larum Med., Leiominuscula rugosa Naum., Margominuscula rugosa Medw., Protoarchaeosacculina stava. Naum., Leiopsophosphaera giganteus Schep., Asperatopsophosphaera magna Schep., Strictosphaeridium implexum Tim., Gloecapsomorpha hebeja Tim., Turuchanica alara Rud., Pulvinomorpha angulata Tim. The observations from all laboratories have been that the proportion of proterozoic microphytofossils is usually equal to 70%-75% of the total spore pollen abundance in oil from every formation and reservoir, irrespective of the reservoir rock, its depth or its age.
3.) Bacteriological analysis of the oil and the examination for so-called “biological marker” molecules: The oil produced from the reservoirs in the crystalline basement rock of the Dnieper-Donets Basin has been examined particularly closely for the presence of either porphyrin molecules or “biological marker” molecules, the presence of which used to be misconstrued as "evidence" of a supposed biological origin for petroleum. None of the oil contains any such molecules, even at the ppm level. There is also research presently under progress which has established the presence of deep, anaerobic, hydrocarbon metabolizing microbes in the oil from the wells in the uppermost petroliferous zones of the crystalline basement rock in the Dnieper-Donets Basin.http://www.gasresources.net/DDBfields.htm
Last edited:
Link of what? Fat free Polish sausage that is still greasy?
You need to start with the basics Beave. Before asking me to choose a side and give you information how about you go on, search and find yourself a source of inorganic oil in the pre-cambrian rock.
Hopefully at some point you come to the realization that what you are talking about as abiotic oil isn't a theory but a hypothesis.
I hope that helps.
You need to start with the basics Beave. Before asking me to choose a side and give you information how about you go on, search and find yourself a source of inorganic oil in the pre-cambrian rock.
Hopefully at some point you come to the realization that what you are talking about as abiotic oil isn't a theory but a hypothesis.
I hope that helps.
Close to the mantle eh? This data was retrieved by who? Jules Verne? No material has ever been retrieved from more than 12.2km deep. It's 70km to the mantle.
Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum.
Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum.
J. F. Kenney
Joint Institute of The Physics of the Earth - Russian Academy of Sciences
Gas Resources Corporation, 11811 North Freeway, Houston, TX 77060, U.S.A.
Ac. Ye. F. Shnyukov
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Vladimirskaya Street 56, 252.601 Kiev, Ukraine
V. A. Krayushkin
Institute of Geological Sciences
O. Gonchara Street 55-B, 01054 Kiev, Ukraine
I. K. Karpov
Institute of Geochemistry - Russian Academy of Sciences
Favorskii Street 1a, 664.033 Irkutsk, RUSSIA
V. G. Kutcherov
Russian State University of Oil and Gas
Leninskii Prospect 65, 117.917 Moscow, Russia
I. N. Plotnikova
National Petroleum Company of Tatarstan (TatNeft S.A.)
Butlerov Street 45-54, 423.020 Kazan, Tatarstan, RUSSIA
1. Introduction.
With recognition that the laws of thermodynamics prohibit spontaneous evolution of liquid hydrocarbons in the regime of temperature and pressure characteristic of the crust of the Earth, one should not expect there to exist legitimate scientific evidence that might suggest that such could occur. Indeed, and correctly, there exists no such evidence.
Nonetheless, and surprisingly, there continue to be often promulgated diverse claims purporting to constitute “evidence” that natural petroleum somehow evolves (miraculously) from biological matter. In this short article, such claims are briefly subjected to scientific scrutiny, demonstrated to be without merit, and dismissed.
The claims which purport to argue for some connection between natural petroleum and biological matter fall into roughly two classes: the “look-like/come-from” claims; and the “similar(recondite)-properties/come-from” claims.
The “look-like/come-from” claims apply a line of unreason exactly as designated: Such argue that, because certain molecules found in natural petroleum “look like” certain other molecules found in biological systems, then the former must “come-from” the latter. Such notion is, of course, equivalent to asserting that elephant tusks evolve because those animals must eat piano keys.
In some instances, the “look-like/come-from” claims assert that certain molecules found in natural petroleum actually are biological molecules, and evolve only in biological systems. These molecules have often been given the spurious name “biomarkers.”
The scientific correction must be stated unequivocally: There have never been observed any specifically biological molecules in natural petroleum, except as contaminants. Petroleum is an excellent solvent for carbon compounds; and, in the sedimentary strata from which petroleum is often produced, natural petroleum takes into solution much carbon material, including biological detritus. However, such contaminants are unrelated to the petroleum solvent.
The claims about “biomarkers” have been thoroughly discredited by observations of those molecules in the interiors of ancient, abiotic meteorites, and also in many cases by laboratory synthesis under imposed conditions mimicking the natural environment. In the discussion below, the claims put forth about porphyrin and isoprenoid molecules are addressed particularly, because many “look-like/come-from” claims have been put forth for those compounds.
The “similar(recondite)-properties/come-from” claims involve diverse, odd phenomena with which persons not working directly in a scientific profession would be unfamiliar. These include the “odd-even abundance imbalance” claims, the “carbon isotope” claims, and the “optical-activity” claims. The first, the “odd-even abundance imbalance” claims, are demonstrated to be utterly unrelated to any biological property. The second, “carbon isotope” claims, are shown to depend upon measurement of an obscure property of carbon fluids which cannot reliably be considered a measure of origin. The third, the “optical-activity” claims, deserve particular note; for the observations of optical activity in natural petroleum have been trumpeted loudly for years as a “proof” of some “biological origin” of petroleum. Those claims have been thoroughly discredited decades ago by observation of optical activity in the petroleum material extracted from the interiors of carbonaceous meteorites. More significantly, recent analysis, which has resolved the previously-outstanding problem of the genesis of optical activity in abiotic fluids, has established that the phenomenon of optical activity is an inevitable thermodynamic consequence of the phase stability of multicomponent fluids at high pressures. Thereby, the observation of optical activity in natural petroleum is entirely consistent with the results of the thermodynamic analysis of the stability of the hydrogen-carbon [H-C] system, which establish that hydrocarbon molecules heavier than methane, and particularly liquid hydrocarbons, evolve spontaneously only at high pressures, comparable to those necessary for diamond formation.
There are two subjects which are particularly relevant for destroying the diverse, spurious claims concerning a putative connection of petroleum and biological matter: the investigations of the carbon material from carbonaceous meteorites; and the reaction products of the Fischer-Tropsch process. Because of their importance, a brief discussion of both is in order.
1.1 The carbonaceous meteorites.
The carbonaceous meteorites, including particularly the carbonaceous chondrites, are meteorites whose chemical composition includes carbon in quantities ranging from a few tenths of a percent to approximately six percent, by mass.1-5 The age of the carbonaceous meteorites is typically 3-4.5 billion years; and their origins clearly abiotic. The mineral structures in these rocks establish that the carbonaceous meteorites have existed at very low temperatures, much below the freezing point of water, effectively since the time of their original formation.
DB (a good read for anyone interested destroys the abiotic mythology I think.)
Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum.
J. F. Kenney
Joint Institute of The Physics of the Earth - Russian Academy of Sciences
Gas Resources Corporation, 11811 North Freeway, Houston, TX 77060, U.S.A.
Ac. Ye. F. Shnyukov
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Vladimirskaya Street 56, 252.601 Kiev, Ukraine
V. A. Krayushkin
Institute of Geological Sciences
O. Gonchara Street 55-B, 01054 Kiev, Ukraine
I. K. Karpov
Institute of Geochemistry - Russian Academy of Sciences
Favorskii Street 1a, 664.033 Irkutsk, RUSSIA
V. G. Kutcherov
Russian State University of Oil and Gas
Leninskii Prospect 65, 117.917 Moscow, Russia
I. N. Plotnikova
National Petroleum Company of Tatarstan (TatNeft S.A.)
Butlerov Street 45-54, 423.020 Kazan, Tatarstan, RUSSIA
1. Introduction.
With recognition that the laws of thermodynamics prohibit spontaneous evolution of liquid hydrocarbons in the regime of temperature and pressure characteristic of the crust of the Earth, one should not expect there to exist legitimate scientific evidence that might suggest that such could occur. Indeed, and correctly, there exists no such evidence.
Nonetheless, and surprisingly, there continue to be often promulgated diverse claims purporting to constitute “evidence” that natural petroleum somehow evolves (miraculously) from biological matter. In this short article, such claims are briefly subjected to scientific scrutiny, demonstrated to be without merit, and dismissed.
The claims which purport to argue for some connection between natural petroleum and biological matter fall into roughly two classes: the “look-like/come-from” claims; and the “similar(recondite)-properties/come-from” claims.
The “look-like/come-from” claims apply a line of unreason exactly as designated: Such argue that, because certain molecules found in natural petroleum “look like” certain other molecules found in biological systems, then the former must “come-from” the latter. Such notion is, of course, equivalent to asserting that elephant tusks evolve because those animals must eat piano keys.
In some instances, the “look-like/come-from” claims assert that certain molecules found in natural petroleum actually are biological molecules, and evolve only in biological systems. These molecules have often been given the spurious name “biomarkers.”
The scientific correction must be stated unequivocally: There have never been observed any specifically biological molecules in natural petroleum, except as contaminants. Petroleum is an excellent solvent for carbon compounds; and, in the sedimentary strata from which petroleum is often produced, natural petroleum takes into solution much carbon material, including biological detritus. However, such contaminants are unrelated to the petroleum solvent.
The claims about “biomarkers” have been thoroughly discredited by observations of those molecules in the interiors of ancient, abiotic meteorites, and also in many cases by laboratory synthesis under imposed conditions mimicking the natural environment. In the discussion below, the claims put forth about porphyrin and isoprenoid molecules are addressed particularly, because many “look-like/come-from” claims have been put forth for those compounds.
The “similar(recondite)-properties/come-from” claims involve diverse, odd phenomena with which persons not working directly in a scientific profession would be unfamiliar. These include the “odd-even abundance imbalance” claims, the “carbon isotope” claims, and the “optical-activity” claims. The first, the “odd-even abundance imbalance” claims, are demonstrated to be utterly unrelated to any biological property. The second, “carbon isotope” claims, are shown to depend upon measurement of an obscure property of carbon fluids which cannot reliably be considered a measure of origin. The third, the “optical-activity” claims, deserve particular note; for the observations of optical activity in natural petroleum have been trumpeted loudly for years as a “proof” of some “biological origin” of petroleum. Those claims have been thoroughly discredited decades ago by observation of optical activity in the petroleum material extracted from the interiors of carbonaceous meteorites. More significantly, recent analysis, which has resolved the previously-outstanding problem of the genesis of optical activity in abiotic fluids, has established that the phenomenon of optical activity is an inevitable thermodynamic consequence of the phase stability of multicomponent fluids at high pressures. Thereby, the observation of optical activity in natural petroleum is entirely consistent with the results of the thermodynamic analysis of the stability of the hydrogen-carbon [H-C] system, which establish that hydrocarbon molecules heavier than methane, and particularly liquid hydrocarbons, evolve spontaneously only at high pressures, comparable to those necessary for diamond formation.
There are two subjects which are particularly relevant for destroying the diverse, spurious claims concerning a putative connection of petroleum and biological matter: the investigations of the carbon material from carbonaceous meteorites; and the reaction products of the Fischer-Tropsch process. Because of their importance, a brief discussion of both is in order.
1.1 The carbonaceous meteorites.
The carbonaceous meteorites, including particularly the carbonaceous chondrites, are meteorites whose chemical composition includes carbon in quantities ranging from a few tenths of a percent to approximately six percent, by mass.1-5 The age of the carbonaceous meteorites is typically 3-4.5 billion years; and their origins clearly abiotic. The mineral structures in these rocks establish that the carbonaceous meteorites have existed at very low temperatures, much below the freezing point of water, effectively since the time of their original formation.
DB (a good read for anyone interested destroys the abiotic mythology I think.)
BEAVE!!!! For pete sakes learn the differnce between hypothesis and theory!!!!
It will really help.
It will really help.
those damn Belgians and their waffles... Come to think of it; waffles, sausages.. Hell their both breakfast foods and I'm pretty damned sure that Jules Verne ate breakfast.
We're through the looking glass here folks.
Of course Verne ate brekkie. That waffle egg sausage sammage thing from Mc Donald's was developed specifically for the long journey's to middle earth.
- Status