A recent ABC report detailing the discovery of enormous volumes of hydrocarbons on Saturn’s moon, Titan, was accompanied with the comment that this may teach us more about our own planet’s oil reserves
One wonders whether the journalists writing this article were actually aware of what they were writing, for the Saturnine moon, 1.2 billion kilometres from the sun, where a warm day is -179 degrees Celsius, awash with oil, would cause some of us to ponder about the origin of hydrocarbons, especially when the prevailing belief is that hydrocarbons are assumed to be derived from buried biomass on earth.
To put Titan into perspective, it has a mass of 0.0075 that of earth, which makes it small indeed but then “has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, scientists report”. A satellite smaller than earth with no observed life, has more oil than earth? And it’s also a gigantic factory of organic chemicals?
Does this mean that there are carbon-based life-forms on Titan? Surely not, so how on earth are these hydrocarbons being formed. In fact the researchers are concentrating their work on how life evolved from these “organic” compounds, implying that the “oil” produced life, not the other way round.
Experimentally we now know that hydrocarbons are the high pressure polymorphs of the H-C system and according to the second law of thermodynamics impossible to be derived from biomass.
Considering these basic facts one is left with the conclusion that life is an epiphenomenon of oil. And if that is the case then Peak Oil theory is as much a crock as anthropogenic global warming, such theories being nothing more than pseudoscience.
Louis Hissink
Perth
———————
To help cover the costs of running this blog, click here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/display/donations.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The Russians not usually given to political correctness do search for oil and find it in unlikely places and do find some without the ‘usual’ biological markers.
http://www.gasresources.net/DDBflds2.htm
Louis, Peak oil will still happen even if Abiotic oil were found. How fast do you think it would form? Would it for faster than our usage?
“A satellite smaller than earth with no observed life, has more oil than earth?” ummm no, it doesn’t (or rather there is no evidence of ‘oil’)
Note the difference between ‘oil’ and hydrocarbons.
Look at the Cassini orbiter web page, Currently it is mapping the surface of titan and has found methane and ethane lakes, not oil.
It’s not strange either, complex hydrocarbons exist even in comets, probably on Neptune and Uranus too. Hydrocarbons also exist on Mars. If you look at the composition of the planets there is an increasing abundance of hydrocarbons as you move away from the sun. The inner rocky planets are pretty low (as a proportion to their mass), the outer planets much higher. This is due to gravitational effects in the early formation of the solar system. You would expect there to be more ‘organic’ chemicals in the outer solar system as they a lighter, it’s not some great mystery.
You are also mixing terminology. Organic in chemistry doesn’t mean it’s made by organisms.
The deposits that Jan mentions look interesting, however it would be more persuasive if it was actually a published article.
Jan, seems the USGS disagrees too:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/2201/E/
Note they have identified source rocks (implying biogenesis)
“Two identified source-rock intervals are the black anoxic shales and carbonates in the lower Visean and Devonian sections. However, additional source rocks possibly are present in the deep central area of the basin. The role of Carboniferous coals as a source rock for gas is uncertain; no coal-related gas has been identified by the limited geochemical studies. The source rocks are in the gas-generation window over most of the basin area; consequently gas dominates over oil in the reserves.”
Someone has it in a text book too:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-vZQugUaEWwC&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=%22dnieper+donets%22+basin&source=web&ots=cy4OEyEFyv&sig=0QXN7y1yyo3R1wzNaDMT2BxkDqA
Mr T,
Carbonaceous chondrite meteorits have kerogens or kerogen like (large chain insoluble organic molecules) does that imply a biotic source for the meteorites?
You can find lots of published papers on it if you’ll but use google.
As always the proof of the pudding is in the eating and the Russians have found oil with no biological markers in areas you would not have looked.
Jennifer – “One wonders whether the journalists writing this article were actually aware of what they were writing, for the Saturnine moon, 1.2 billion kilometres from the sun, where a warm day is -179 degrees Celsius, awash with oil, would cause some of us to ponder about the origin of hydrocarbons, especially when the prevailing belief is that hydrocarbons are assumed to be derived from buried biomass on earth.”
Tholins are not oil. If you read the article they have not found oil or anything like it. The hydrocarbons are bloody THOLINS for god’s sake. The writers of the article made the mistake of “oils are hydrocarbons therefore all hydrocarbons are oil fallacy”. Which is the same as “my dog has 4 legs therefore all animals with 4 legs are dogs”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tholin
“Tholin (after the Greek word for muddy), is a heteropolymer formed by solar ultraviolet irradiation of simple organic compounds such as methane or ethane. Tholins do not form naturally on modern-day Earth, but are found in great abundance on the surface of icy bodies in the outer solar system. They usually have reddish-brown appearance.”
Quite apart from this we have never sampled the hydrocarbons on Titan. How can you possibly conclude that they are not biological in origin. Can you absolutely rule out life in Titan? I can’t.
“Experimentally we now know that hydrocarbons are the high pressure polymorphs of the H-C system and according to the second law of thermodynamics impossible to be derived from biomass.”
Absolute and complete bullshit Louis. There is nothing in the second law, that I don’t think you even understand, that prevents the formation of oil from biomass. You people invoke the second law every chance you get to attempt to explain your crackpot theories. The Second Law is:
“The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.”
So you tell us now how this law prevents oil from biomass.
Jan, no I would not expect carbonaceous chondrites to have an organic origin for their organic molecules. Again this is because of the distribution of matter in the early solar system.
The US Geol Survey thinks there is a biogenic source for that oil, and they list it.
I have no particular opinion.
Ender,
Calm down. Now what is Tholin, and could you run a car on it?
And I don’t reckon there has been life as we know it on Titan – but one shouldn’t come to hasty conclusions – about anything – not even about AGW.
Mr T
I have no particular opinion.
Likewise but I like to explore options an alternatives and I’m also interested how life formed in the first place – mind you I’m quite open to the idea that life is an extra-terrestrial import meaning that I see no particular reason to assume it all happened on earth.
It would however be nice to see some necessary intermediate steps from C+H+N+O -> CHNO compounds that self replicate in the paleoligical record.
Ender
Read the pubished scientific papers displayed on http://www.gasresources.net where this is demonstrated. I cannot say anything more.
Mr T,
as you write under a pseudonym, your comments are ignored.
Louis,
Why would you ignore a comment simply because you don’t know the real name of the character who wrote it? Lots of people at blogs write under pseudonyms … it is the nature of the emerging culture.
Ofcourse you may have more regard for someone who uses their real name … just like Mr T is more believing of published as opposed to unpublished articles (see one of his earlier comments in this thread).
Jennifer,
Because experience tells me that it is a useful thing to do.
What really amuses me with the debate here is that the USGS has not proven this by experimental evidence – to wit- that oil, bitumen etc can be spontaneously derived from buried biomass ait temperatures and pressures typical of the base of sedimentary basins.
The crucial term is SPONTANEOUS – so there we are folks, go look the the evidence.
Well said Jennifer. It is noted that Boxer gets a lot of respect here, despite using a psuedonym and his reasons for it(I have no disrepect for Boxer btw.) People have different reasons for not using their real or full name, but that shouldn’t detract from what they have written. As was said, it is an emerging culture now.
The earlier thread on Moran/Garnaut with Ian Mott’s rabid outpouring as self-annointed blogmeister is a good example of how some people’s egos and hypocritical natures get a little out of control here:-
> I have advised Jennifer in the past that there is a very easy way to bring these people into line but she sometimes fails to retain what is being said.
Most of the offenders on this blog operate under a pseudonym to conduct cowardly defamatory attacks, like the ones above, on people who use their real name. All she needs to do is to advise any of the less than a dozen repeat offenders that they have abused their right to anonymity and can no longer post on the blog until they forward certified copy of their Drivers License (or equivalent) and provide other, verifiable, evidence (like ISP invoices)that links their URL to their true identity. This information would then be available in the event that any “real” person may pursue their lawful remedies in defamation.
I wonder if Jennifer, Paul and Neil really are in charge of this blog…
On topic, our limitations of ‘life as we know it’is one thing that potentially holds us back from great discoveries. Stop looking for the familiar and a whole other world opens up.
Jennifer – “Calm down. Now what is Tholin, and could you run a car on it?”
Sorry – I have taken my medication and I am alright now. (-:
As is detailed in the link Tholins are:
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/T/tholin.html
Any member of a family of large, complex organic molecules that form by the action of ultraviolet light on simpler organic molecules. Tholins are thought to be among the chemical precursors to life.
Tholins, which are generally reddish brown in color, do not exist naturally on Earth because the present oxidizing atmosphere of our planet blocks their synthesis. However, tholins can be made in the lab by subjecting mixtures of methane, ammonia, and water vapor to simulated lightning discharges. Conditions like this probably exist in many places in the universe, including the icy moons of the outer Solar System.
The presence of tholins may help explain the orange-red hue of Titan’s atmosphere and the reddish surface of some Centaurs and outer asteroids.
In 2007, a team of scientists at Southwest Research Institute, the University of Kansas, University College London, and The University of Texas at San Antonio, described a new model of tholin formation in Titan’s atmosphere (see illustration) based on findings by the Cassini spacecraft. These included the detection of benzene (a critical component in the formation of aromatic hydrocarbon compounds) in Titan’s atmosphere and large positive and negative ions at low altitudes. The detection of the negative ions, in particular, surprized researchers and suggests these ions may play an unexpected role in making tholins from carbon-nitrogen precursors.1
In 2008 came the announcement of the discovery of tholins in an extrasolar dust disk surrounding the young star HR 4796A. ”
I am pretty sure that you cannot run your car on them.
“And I don’t reckon there has been life as we know it on Titan – but one shouldn’t come to hasty conclusions – about anything – not even about AGW.”
No absolutely right however at this stage it would unwise to rule it out. The current conclusions about AGW are anything but hasty. They are the result of decades of research which nobody has contradicted in the peer reviewed literature yet.
“nobody has contradicted in the peer reviewed literature yet.”
Precisely why it can’t be trusted!
When everybody thinks the same you can be bloody sure there is not much thinking going on.
Tholins “are thought” to be ……
Total absence of experiment and total reliance on “what if” scenarios – basically pseudoscience.
While speculation is valid, it must be based on a firm foundation in physical reality.
I find it comforting that I have not been taken to task by my peers here on the matter of abiogenic oil theories; this suggests that the evidence for that doesn’t exist.
As experimental evidence for the spontaneous of hydrocarbon has been published, he ball is now in the court of the biogenecists.
Ender
“Tholins, which are generally reddish brown in color, do not exist naturally on Earth because the present oxidizing atmosphere of our planet blocks their synthesis. However, tholins can be made in the lab by agreesubjecting mixtures of methane, ammonia, and water vapor to simulated lightning discharges. Conditions like this probably exist in many places in the universe, including the icy moons of the outer Solar System.”
I am happy to agree that you and I not co-exist on the same planet.
So now we have Travis et al stroking Jen, Neil and Paul’s buttons about whether they are actually “in charge” of the blog, in the hope that they might lash out to prove a point.
All I did was outline a suggestion but the response of some of the prime abusers of anonymity only highlights the fact that they know full well that they are acting right outside community standards.
This so called “emerging culture” is a cop-out by the lazy that protects the gutless. The law protects real people from defamation. It was never intended to protect the alias’ of low life spivs like the one who hides behind the name Travis.
Ian and Travis have each thrown a nasty barb each others ways. Can we now get back to the topic at hand. Any further off-topic posts on this issue at this, and future threads, may be deleted and email correpondence may be ignored.
Louis – “As experimental evidence for the spontaneous of hydrocarbon has been published, he ball is now in the court of the biogenecists.”
No Luke, Steve Short and I have posted links to research ad-nauseam however you refuse to acknowledge it and then continue as if it never had been posted. You got completely routed by Steve Short and yet it would seem that this has not even touched on your beliefs.
I am not really sure what it would take.
Ender,
So post one reference supporting your position please.
Louis
I found this in a paper on the gas resources site:
“The natural environment does not mimic the highly-controlled, and highly-regulated, industrial, Fischer-Tropsch process. The Fischer-Tropsch process cannot be considered for the generation of natural petroleum.”
I suspect they might have to change their views due to this discovery:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/319/5863/604
any thoughts?
Seems to me the aim is to discover a process by which we can decant our own oil given the proper starting ingredients.
After that, the peak oil lobby can talk to the hand, yes?
“The current conclusions about AGW are anything but hasty. They are the result of decades of research which nobody has contradicted in the peer reviewed literature yet.”
Really?
Wasn’t there a paper recently showing that the “hot spot” in the low latitude middle troposphere predicted by the GCMs to exist if CO2 was causing warming, was entirely missing? Look around a little more. I know Gavin Schmidt did some convoluted thinking, or what passes for it at NASA, to dismiss this by claiming the models couldn’t be falsified by experiment. This, however is like conspiracy theories. By claiming to explain everything they actually explain nothing.
Interesting the talk about hydrocarbons on Titan and in meteorites. This is hardly news. Bet there are some in the cold traps at the lunar poles too.
Anyway, while the abiogenic oil theory is interesting and I have no great objection to it as you need to ask yourself where all the carbon on Earth originated anyway, it may be irrelevant if Los Alamos National Lab are right with their recent claim to have an economic process to make hydrocarbon fuel from atmospheric CO2 and water(just add energy). No doubt those who would condemn the human race to energy poverty will oppose this.
The really, really important question is, if you used organic hydrocarbons from Titan to produce food, would the food be “organic?”
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, The Soil Association, and others, will totally disapprove of this sort of research and urge people to firebomb the research facilities involved unless they can be convinced (properly paid) to declare that this research is “friendly” to our planet.
Dang, that gives me an idea. I’ll start a “Friends of Titan” (FOT) group which will demand public funds to study whether or not studying Titan will disturb its environment, and to do “public education” about the dangers of organic chemicals from Titan, and do “outreach and networking” with “concerned citizen groups” about whether hydrocarbons on Titan could have an effect on global warming.
Hubbard founded Scientology, Gore is the high priest of Our Baking Planet, so defending Earth from Titanic hydrocarbons is all mine! Send me the money!
Louis – “Ender,
So post one reference supporting your position please.”
No. The last 100 or so that we have posted made no dent in your ideas so I do not think that posting anything further would be fruitful.
Please just make a note to place a post back here when you sink the gusher into all the aboitic oil fields that you claim are out there.
So far the score is:
Bioitic Oil Theory – approx 2 trillion barrels
Abioitc Oil Theory – a couple of grams of drilling mud
So you only 2 trillion barrels or so behind – better get started.
Ender, you just wasted an opportunity, i was waiting to see which reference you thought most convincing/supporting of your position. many readers, like me, are still open minded on the issue. come on, we don’t like having to read ‘100 links’, but i am up for one.
At least this thread has managed to avoid descent into crude trogging, which is very nice to see. Several comments:
Firstly, there is no doubt that this is what the scientific ‘consensus’ (for Earth) regarding the origin of (commercial concentrations of) oil is:
‘Many researchers, always arrived at the same conclusions; pooled oil and gas in porous reservoirs can only be explained by it’s origin in thermally mature, organic-rich, sedimentary source rocks. This “biogenic theory” of oil and gas origin subsequently led to the “generative basin” concept and eventually to the “petroleum system” paradigm that is widely used with great success by the petroleum industry today. This paradigm integrates the data and ideas of geology, geophysics, petroleum engineering, mathematical modeling, and geochemistry into the conceptual framework within which most oil and gas exploration is carried out. No other scientific theory has taken the observations and experiments pertaining to the origin of oil and gas from the descriptive to the predictive stage and herein lays its value. Abiogenic hydrocarbons, primarily methane, are certainly present in some parts of the solar system, including planet Earth, but they have nothing whatever to do with the oil, gas, and coal that powers the world’s economy.’
Secondly, one needs to appreciate the clear distinctions between that which is thermodynamically permitted, that which might be demonstrable in a laboratory and that which may occur naturally on the planet (or on Titan). Every good thermodynamicist (and geochemist) knows there are many reactions which should, according to equilibrium thermodynamics, proceed to completion under (say) various conditions on Earth. An example is the reaction of oxygen and nitrogen which should proceed to nitric acid. Clearly we are not swimming in nitric acid nor are the oceans dilute nitric acid. The reason why not is that there are KINETIC constraints which inhibit this happening (in other than bolts of lightning). Another example – the Saturation Indices (logs of ion activity product over solubility product) of calcite (calcium carbonate) and dolomite (calcium magnesium carbonate) in seawater are +0.76 and +2.41 i.e. thermodynamically the sea should be perpetually milky with these precipitated carbonates. The fact is this doesn’t happen and calcium carbonate doesn’t form other than biogenically in organisms such as coral or molluscs etc, which make aragonite or calcite.
Thus there are likely to be very good scientific reasons why abiogenic oil appears to be rare on Earth but may be abundant on Titan.
BTW, while I wouldn’t go as far as Louis in debunking anthropogenic global warming completely there are certainly good hard scientific grounds for fearing that it is turning into some sort of half-assed, post-modernist pseudo-consensus which threatens to soon turn our lives into a nightmare.
For example:
‘We have shown that the ice core data from the warm period (around 42 KYBP) to the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and from the LGM to Holocene transition can be used to constrain the dust aerosol radiative forcing during these transitions. We find the dust radiative forcing to be 3.3 ± 0.8 W/m2. Assuming that the climate sensitivity is the same for both transitions, we obtain [the climate sensitivity] = 0.49 ± 0.07 K/Wm_2. This suggests 95% likelihood of warming between 1.3 and 2.3 K due to doubling of atmospheric concentration of CO2 (assuming that the CO2 doubling produces the radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2 according to the IPCC 2007 report). The ECHAM5 model simulation suggests that during the LGM the global average aerosol optical depth might have been almost twice the current value.
Such results are compatible with a climate sensitivity around or below 2 K for doubling of CO2 were also recently deduced using cloud resolving models incorporated within GCMs [Miura et al., 2005; Wyant et al., 2006], from observational data [Chylek et al., 2007; Schwartz, 2007], and from a set of GCM simulations constrained by the ERBE (Earth Radiation Budget Experiment) observations [Forster and Gregory, 2006].
All these results together with our work presented in this paper support the lower end of the climate sensitivity range of 2 to 4.5 K suggested by the IPCC 2007 report [Solomon et al., 2007].
Chylek, P., and U. Lohmann, 2008. Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L04804, doi:10.1029/2007GL032759.
In the spirit of this thread I would strongly agree with Louis that we must always beware of so-called scientific consensus.
As the quality of mathematical and scientific education declined noticeably in the late 20th century so the rush by those of strong ego to impose technically flawed paradigms on their peers seems to me to have accelerated.
Ok Dr Steve: Are we not yet completely hooked on biogenic gas, oil and coal?
Gavin
We are all definitely hooked on gas, oil and coal -it’s a terrible addiction we all have.
Nice to hear from you again Steve.
I’ve read the paper too and the kinetic constraints do seem to be ignored. My physics interest was solid state I’m a fair amateur jeweller too and I was quite taken aback when I saw that they were saying that diamonds very slowly convert back to graphite.
Ladies
Do not be concerned; your diamonds have to rise over an enormous energy hump before they turn into into pencil lead. They are quite safe.
You can still be concerned about slave labour though (blood diamonds). Diamonds aren’t for ever, but clever market duopolies seem like they could be.
Jennifer – “Ender, you just wasted an opportunity, i was waiting to see which reference you thought most convincing/supporting of your position.”
I am sure that you could search for abiotic oil and find one of our posts. I am frankly sick of it and really really do not care anymore. If Louis thinks oil is abiotic then I guess he can – obviously I am not going to sway him with science.
The people that explore for oil and find it where biological oil should be found are really all that matter. The fact is that we are reaching the end of the easy oil and that we will have to switch to better alternatives sooner rather than later. Unless Louis and his ideas do not prevent this then he can carry on as long as he likes.
Apart from Peak Oil there are now other reasons why it will be good when our transport and electricity supply is not provided by burning things. This is one of them – Ultra Fine Particles
http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/airquality/publications/health-impacts/pubs/content-chapters1-4.pdf
“You can still be concerned about slave labour though (blood diamonds).”
Not Australian diamonds.
What kind of remark is that anyway? The issue is the (IMHO obvious) error in the paper.
Ender,
where is the link we are all waiting for?
Ender,
Just read your last post to Jennifer – you seem to avoid answering our questions by diverting to other issues.
Your have never come up with one reference supporting you position, and you have never supplied any evidence of experimental data verifying that petroleum can actually be spontaneously derived from the burial of biomass to pressures and temperatures assumed to exist at the base of sedimentary basins.
So put up or shut up please.
There is little doubt that questioning Biotic Oil Theory has its dangers, principally in the amount of verbal abuse one is subjected to when the devout encounter blasphemy. And discussions with an oil company executive some weeks ago over abiotic oil theory, more as an aside from the main topic of global warming, resulted in the comment that none of his geologists believe petroleum is abiotic (not derived from buried biomass).
And it is in the statement that no one “believes” that defines the issue as one of belief in a dogma divorced from physical empiricism – and identifies the science more as pseudoscience, then science per se. But we should not be too hasty in identifying geology as pseudoscience, for clearly some sub-disciplines are emphatically driven by the scientific method. It is in the more vague areas of geological history, in common with astronomy and archaelogy, that geology wanders into pseudoscience and for that we can thank Sir Charles Lyell.
Pseudoscience relies, in the absence of empirical proof, persuasion by rhetoric than compelling empirical fact. Another error made is that of logic, since petroleum, being an excellent solvent of organic matter, is assumed to be derived from this organic matter; much like observing that my cat has 4 legs, as does my dog, therefore my cat must be a dog.
So those of you who believe that petroleum is biotic should invoke the fundamental geological paradigm that the key to the past is the present.
In order to help you in this endeavour some salient facts are mentioned.
1. Fossilisation of biomass, in the volumes observed in the stratigraphical record, is not observed today. As petroleum is supposed to be biotic, petreoleum proto-deposits would be a minimum requirement. Where are they?
2. Observation of dying and dead life forms show that biomass is continually recycled in the biosphere – fossils are not forming under our eyes. So what causes enormous masses of life forms to be preserved as fossils in the stratigraphic record?
3. In order to form future petroleum deposits biomass must be shown to be continually removed from the biosphere in places suitable for the future generation of petroleum – ie sedimentary basins. Where are these deposits? And more importantly, in terms of the carbon cycle, is this removed carbon accumulating?
Just a few ideas to mull over.
Whoops, missed an “on” before persuasion in the above. Trick is to work out where. 🙂
(one of the reasons proof-readers exist).
Louis,
Might I suggest that you moderate your language a little soften you approach a little referring to the continuing position that all oil is biotic in origin as pseudo-science tends to be rather inflammatory and confrontational.
Even if you are right (I’m not saying you are wrong mind you) there was not too long ago to suspect anything different. I don’t that being to confrontational helps reasoned discussion.
Louis here is a link to a forum where I have been collecting some links based on the Abiotic topic.
You might find it interesting.It is still ongoing process since I think this ABIOTIC angle needs to be considered.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=16
Louis – “Just read your last post to Jennifer – you seem to avoid answering our questions by diverting to other issues.”
No I am completely and utterly sick of it. If posts from a working geochemist cannot sway you then nothing I can post will make any difference.
You can have your theories and if it makes you feel superior then go ahead and feel superior. Meanwhile the real people will go about finding oil where the current theories predict it to be.
Again you are in no position the prevent the change from fossil fuels to better forms of transport thank goodness, as your fringe theories have made no impact as your abiotic mates have not demonstrated enough evidence to sway any of the petroleum geologists.
So unless you produce a gusher from somewhere biological oil could not have possibly existed that does not have biomarkers then really you should put up or shut up.
Ender,
“So unless you produce a gusher from somewhere biological oil could not have possibly existed that does not have biomarkers then really you should put up or shut up.”
It would seem the Russians already have is there any reason Louis has to as well?
Louis –
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/search-on-for-new-oil-fields/2008/02/23/1203467458014.html
“On current trends Australia’s crude oil and condensate production is declining from nearly 100 per cent of Australia’s needs in 2000, to just more than 60 per cent today, and, without major new discoveries, an anticipated 32 per cent by 2017.
That translates into a decline in the petroleum and petroleum products trade balance from a surplus of $0.9 billion in 2000, to a deficit of $13.7 billion today and a projected $28 billion deficit in 2017.”
So Louis here is your chance to save Australia. Why don’t you contact someone and tell them where to drill and save Australia 28 billion dollars?
I mean these stupid people are looking in all the wrong places:
“Dr Powell said new crude oil discoveries were essential for maintaining the economic benefit of petroleum supply, which reached $22.7 billion in 2006, with governments receiving $8.1 billion in taxes and royalties.
“Given the maturity of Australia’s oil producing areas, only the discovery of a substantial new oil province can arrest the decline in reserves and production,” he said.
Dr Powell said the most likely oil rich areas included the Arafura Sea in northern Australia, the remote eastern frontier regions such as the Faust, Capel and Fairway basins of the Lord Howe Rise and the continental shelf area south of Tasmania, the South Tasman Rise.
Onshore, they include the lower Paleozoic basins of central Australia such as the Canning, Georgina, Warburton and Darling basins – which have geological similarities to oil-rich basins in North America – and the Gunnedah, Pedirka and Simpson basins.”
You really need to set them straight.
Jan Pompe – “It would seem the Russians already have is there any reason Louis has to as well?”
No the Russians have not. All their oil is from conventional basins. The problem I have is no matter how many times I ask, and I have asked it a lot over the years, Louis has failed to list a single well that is producing aboitic oil. And yet he clings to these ideas like a pit bull and won’t let go.
I do post the following with a great deal of trepidation however if you ignore the top part and scroll to near the bottom you will see listed the Russian fields that are claimed to be abotic however they have proven to be anything but.
http://www.911-strike.com/ruppert-denial.htm
Ender,
OK I’ve read it I’ve also looked at some of the other material on his site and it seems quite an odd sort of place to be looking for scientific information. Having said that I’m not saying he is wrong on this issue but he does not provide verifiable source for his rebuttal data and interpretation. So how seriously should I, since I’m not a geologist, take it?
It also does not qualify as as meeting the Louis’ request, let me remind you what it was:
” Your have never come up with one reference supporting you position, and you have never supplied any evidence of experimental data verifying that petroleum can actually be spontaneously derived from the burial of biomass to pressures and temperatures assumed to exist at the base of sedimentary basins.”
No I must hit the road if I’m to get to Bellingen in time for dinner.
Jan Pompe – “” Your have never come up with one reference supporting you position, and you have never supplied any evidence of experimental data verifying that petroleum can actually be spontaneously derived from the burial of biomass to pressures and temperatures assumed to exist at the base of sedimentary basins.””
The true picture is:
” Your have never come up with one reference supporting you position THAT LOUIS HAS ACKNOWLEDGED, and you have never supplied any evidence of experimental data verifying that petroleum can actually be spontaneously derived from the burial of biomass to pressures and temperatures assumed to exist at the base of sedimentary basins THAT LOUIS HAS ACKNOWLEDGED.
The problem is that in the face of scientific evidence that he cannot contradict Louis goes away and then pops up later with the same arguments even when what he is saying is rebutted by a geochemist.
We have had some small wins. He no longer thinks that the greenhouse effect means that scientists think that there is a sheet of glass over the earth so that is progress.
Ender,
I pop up from time to time here because I actually have a pretty hectic daytime job involving extended periods in the field on drilling programs. As well I have to edit A News which doesn’t leave much time to other things.
You, I see, seem to have a continuing presence here, possibly leading to the inference you are living at my expense as a taxpayer.
I won’t repeat what Jan Pompe has noted, but do confirm that you still have not answered by question, principally because you can’t as there is no physical evidence to support your belief.
Ender,
” Your have never come up with one reference supporting you position THAT LOUIS HAS ACKNOWLEDGED,”
If your reference was of a similar calibre as the one you gave me I’m not surprised.
Ender
as for the rest of your post above in which more ad hominem’s are thrown at me, heaven’s sake, are you really THAT stupid?
Question of the day – what does the statement “THAT LOUIS AS AKNOWLEDGED” mean.
And Ender,
an Ending piece,
You still have not come up with solid empirically based arguments to counter mine.
I am off to Kambalda tomorrow to complete the Mandilla program, so I will be absent from posting here which Ender misinterprets mischieveously.
An Ending thought:
To verify that petroleum is derived from buried biomass one needs only to take a representative aliquot of the biomass and subject it to increasing pressure and temperature to those assumed to exist at base of the deepest sedimentary basins.
If the Biogenic theory is right, then all the polymers found in petroleum should be found.
Waiting, waiting, waiting.