Dr David Evans

Re:- CFP: Oil is NOT a fossil fuel and AGW is non-science

Aah – that scholarly journal the CanadaFreePress :-)

Originally Posted by :
To recapitulate, Stalin’s team of scientists and engineers found that oil is not a ‘fossil fuel’ but is a natural product of planet earth – the high-temperature, high-pressure continuous reaction between calcium carbonate and iron oxide – two of the most abundant compounds making up the earth’s crust.

As an organist chemist for most of my working life, I’ve always been lead to believe that ‘oil’ is mainly a mixture of compounds of carbon & Hydrogen, aka hydrocarbons of general molecular formula – CnH2n+2. (hence why it gives CO2 & water when it burns in air)whereas the molecules quoted above are CaCo3 & FeO (or Fe2O3)
Sussed the problem?

Furthermore, I believe ‘oil’ is loaded with other complex organic molecules which are agreed by everybody except crackpots to have originated from previously living organisms.
(There has been some speculation that some Methane might be a residue of an early Earth atmosphere but I think the search for abiogenitic methane has always drawn a blank.
Finally, it’s unfortunate for those who think oil isn’t ‘fossil’ or even coal, that deposits occur in ‘sedimentary ‘rocks.

If I can be bothered, I may try to debunk the other links tomorrow.

[Rep]

re: David Evans

You might like to read , if you dare, this article from deltoid on hime:-

Deltoid: The Australian's War on Science XV

Fairly shredded him!

[Rep]

Clippo before you try debunking this link may help you

The high-pressure genesis of hydrocarbons

after all you have been complimentary lately and I would hate you to make a complete idiot of yourself

[Rep]

I haven't read any but the third article yet, I'm afraid.

However, I did find the third one quite interesting.
Although I believe he is wrong, partially due to the fact that his counter-point 3 contradicts the original point 1 which he does not seem to dispute and also because his support for the cosmic rays argument is, as has been shown through numerous studies rejecting the hypothesis, at best misplaced, he has clearly applied a lot of thought to the issue and strikes me as an intelligent and honest man, unlike many others.

I was particularly pleased to read of his faith in the integrity of the scientific community as a whole, and the closing line is very reasonable and in line with the views of every sane person, proponent or sceptic - we must hope that he doesn't lose his bet, because otherwise that will show the problem is increasing, and in the meantime cheap ways of cutting emissions should be implemented.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
I’ve always been lead to believe that ‘oil’ is mainly a mixture of compounds of carbon & Hydrogen, aka hydrocarbons of general molecular formula – CnH2n+2. (hence why it gives CO2 & water when it burns in air)whereas the molecules quoted above are CaCo3 & FeO (or Fe2O3)
Sussed the problem?

Oh right. so now you're telling us you don't believe in alchemic transmutation? :-)

[Rep]

Originally Posted by g hall:
Clippo before you try debunking this link may help you

The high-pressure genesis of hydrocarbons

OK, so we've got FeO and CaCO3, and it would seem lots of good old fashioned (but triple distilled!) H2O. Out of this we somehow get multiple hydrocarbons of CnHn.

If this is the case, then remaining from the reaction we must end up with some shedloads of Fe - which is fine, as the core of the earth is largely molten Fe at high T&P, So perhaps the heavy Fe somehow trickle back toward the centre of the earth. Also lots of Ca, but (depending on the precise reaction) lots of O and i would suspect a fair amount of spare C knocking around too.

My word! C and O - that explains it. We take oil out of the ground, the earth 'naturally' creates some more, fills up all the space where the extracted oil was and as a by product, the 'spare' C and O forms CO2 and leaches to atmosphere!!

This clearly accounts for the link between increased oil use (and therefore extraction) and the increase in atmospheric CO2.

Can I have my nobel prize now, please?

:-)

Seriously - can anyone show a representative chemical reaction to show how CH chains are formed from FeO and CaCO3?

[Rep]

Originally Posted by yuqingeng:
hey ......... was born.

1. Don't give up your day job to take up employ as a joke writer.
2. Spamming.
3. Banned.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
re: David Evans

You might like to read , if you dare, this article from deltoid on hime:-

Deltoid: The Australian's War on Science XV

Fairly shredded him!

If that is your definition of shredding then I'm afraid like your MMGW stance you're completely wrong
BTW did you mean him not hime

[Rep]

C_Steam wrote:-

Originally Posted by :
Seriously - can anyone show a representative chemical reaction to show how CH chains are formed from FeO and CaCO3?

Point 1. - I raised the question 'sussed the problem?' because in the CFP report, no mention of 'triple distilled water, was mentioned (and this would be a hydrogen source which might further combine with carbon to for -CH- bonds.

Point 2. - Close examination of the paper did indeed show the inclusion of 'triple distilled water'. (NB, the importance of 'triple distilled' is to ensure that absolutely no 'organic' pollution would subsequently negate the experiment.

Point 3. - We have discussed 'abiotic oil' on this forum before - several times I think. I know for certain that I described the ideas of Thomas Gold, an astrophysicist, who drilled into igneous rocks in Sweden and basically found SFA in hydrocarbon terms.

Point 4 - I spent about an hour last night outlining flaws in this paper but then realised it almost certainly had been done before so I gave up.

Point 5 – I went to wiki and found an amazingly balanced article on this subject.
Abiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Point 6. – I also went to the OilDrum website where I knew this topic had been discussed before as follows :-

From :- The Oil Drum | Abiotic Snake Oil
One of the responses in that website says it all for me :-

Originally Posted by :
Below, a good rebuttal by Dr. John Clarke:
The fact remains that the abiotic theory of petroleum genesis has zero credibility for economically interesting accumulations. 99.9999% of the world's liquid hydrocarbons are produced by maturation of organic matter derived from organisms. To deny this means you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.
1. The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.
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).
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 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).
8 ) The almost complete absence of significant petroleum occurrences in igneous and metamorphic rocks (the rare exceptions discussed below).
The evidence usually cited in favour of abiogenic petroleum can all be better explained by the biogenic hypothesis e.g.:
9. Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in igneous rocks (better explained by reaction with organic rich country rocks, with which the pyrobitumens can usually be tied).
10. Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in metamorphic rocks (better explained by metamorphism of residual hydrocarbons in the protolith).
11. The very rare occurrence of small hydrocarbon accumulations in igneous or metamorphic rocks (in every case these are adjacent to organic rich sedimentary rocks to which the hydrocarbons can be tied via biomarkers).
12. The presence of undoubted mantle derived gases (such as He and some CO2) in some natural gas (there is no reason why gas accumulations must be all from one source, given that some petroleum fields are of mixed provenance it is inevitable that some mantle gas contamination of biogenic hydrocarbons will occur under some circumstances).
13. The presence of traces of hydrocarbons in deep wells in crystalline rock (these can be formed by a range of processes, including metamorphic synthesis by the fischer-tropsch reaction, or from residual organic matter as in 10).
14. Traces of hydrocarbon gases in magma volatiles (in most cases magmas ascend through sedimentary succession, any organic matter present will be thermally cracked and some will be incorporated into the volatile phase, some fischer-tropsch synthesis can also occur).
15. Traces of hydrocarbon gases at mid ocean ridges (such traces are not surprising given that the upper mantle has been contaminated with biogenic organic matter through several billion years of subduction, the answer to 14 may be applicable also).
The geological evidence is utterly against the abiogenic postulate.
(my bold emphasis)

It is worth reading the article here and all of the other forum responses. Many discuss the shortcomings of the Russian paper quoted by g hall earlier.

Finally, in case g hall misunderstands my position, I accept that the ‘Russian’ experiments may have found traces of hydrocarbons but as I understand it, nobody has successfully repeated it (which is a prime condition of scientific study). On balance I think the probability of deriving all or many of the multitudinous organic compounds found in crude oil by an abiotic process is vanishingly small. For me, the conventional geological explanations are more than adequate.

[Rep]