[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 244 KB, 698x2300, xjjg3y9jr4m31.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14953080 No.14953080 [Reply] [Original]

How did oil get 40,000 feet deep? Is it all plate tectonics?

>> No.14953119

>>14953080
Oil is created by the interaction of carbonaceous rocks and water in an abiotic process deep in the earth's crust, though only in regions relatively devoid of oxygen. The dinosaur origin of oil has been largely debunked in recent decades.

>> No.14953145

>>14953119
>f carbonaceous rocks and water
What is the interaction

>> No.14953148

>>14953145
High temperatures and pressures break the bonds of the water molecule and hydrogen reacts with carbon in the rocks, first forming methane and then more complicated hydrocarbons.

>> No.14953158

The oil was created by the advanced dinosaur civilization before they left Earth and went to the stars

>> No.14953181

>>14953080
>Is it all plate tectonics?
First of all, there are no tectonic plates, this is just a lie your high school teacher taught you. There's no evidence for subduction whatsoever.

>How did oil get 40,000 feet deep?
Because hydrocarbons form abiogenically deep within the Earth and are pushed upward toward the surface.

>> No.14953192
File: 2 KB, 125x125, your_meds.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14953192

>>14953119
MEDS, NOW.

>> No.14953194

>>14953192
Go back to /pol/ schizo.

>> No.14953200

>>14953080
The jews put the oil down there because they thought we'd never reach it and they could keep it for themself

>> No.14953204

>>14953119
So you're saying dinosaurs aren't real? I knew it. "dinosaurs" amirite

>> No.14953213

>>14953148
Sounds like bullshit. How did the water get in there?

>> No.14953230

>>14953119
Both are wrong, the vast majority of oil was formed from lipid-rich algae and plankton such as dinoflagellates.

>> No.14953257

>>14953213
That's a stupid question. Water permeates nearly every part of Earth, all the way down to the Mantle. The carbon cycle where carbonaceous rock is subducted back down into the depths also draws in water as waterlogged surface strata (and oceanic plate collisions) also send the water down with it. Coincidentally this water intrusion into the Mantle also causes certain kinds of anomalous vulcanism, such as that seen in mainland Asia.

>> No.14953275

>>14953257
>Water permeates nearly every part of Earth, all the way down to the Mantle.
How do you know this? It's pretty incredible that you know what's deep inside the earth, when geologist don't. Could it be that you're guessing?
>he carbon cycle where carbonaceous rock is subducted back down into the depths also draws in water as waterlogged surface strata (and oceanic plate collisions) also send the water down with it.
How can that place be at such a high pressure that it breaks the water, but also so chill that the water just flows in? What happens there? It sounds like a load of bullshit.
>That's a stupid question.
And you gave a pretty stupid answer.

>> No.14953292

>>14953275
>How do you know this? It's pretty incredible that you know what's deep inside the earth, when geologist don't. Could it be that you're guessing?
Geologists are extremely confident about this.
>How can that place be at such a high pressure that it breaks the water, but also so chill that the water just flows in? What happens there? It sounds like a load of bullshit.
Tectonic processes involve immense pressures, with literally multiple kilometers of crust forcing the mass downwards. I also mentioned that in some cases the water does rise back up in a superheated state along with magma, particularly if crustal material stagnates and dries, causing vulcanism, such as in the anomalous volcanoes of mainland Asia. This idea was introduced some time ago but has recently become effectively proven through reconstruction of the mechanism in models.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031920116301200
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031920110000439

Are there any other basic geological concepts you want to argue against or are you done?

>> No.14953315

Curious how you can extract oil at depths that far exceed the lowest layer fossils have been found in but the fossil origin of oil somehow doesn't get discredited.

By the way, soviet geologists subscribed to the abiotic theory of oil.

>> No.14953325

>>14953315
>soviet geologists subscribed to the abiotic theory of oil
Makes sense. Stupid vatniks.

>> No.14953374

>>14953315
>By the way, soviet geologists subscribed to the abiotic theory of oil.
And used it to find previously-thought-impossible sources of oil and gas. It's the basis for their success in the industry.

>> No.14953402

>>14953119
it's amazing how there's a schizo ready to pipe up no matter what the topic

>> No.14953425

>>14953402
Read The Deep Hot Biosphere and look into Russian geological journals and you'll find yourself somewhat surprised.

>> No.14953437
File: 74 KB, 652x727, aboitic_oil.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14953437

>>14953425
>>14953402
>>14953374
>>14953325
>>14953315
>>14953292
>>14953275
>>14953257
>>14953230
>>14953204
>>14953200
>>14953192
>>14953158
>>14953148
>>14953145
>>14953119

>> No.14953578
File: 948 KB, 733x690, hothead.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14953578

>>14953275
When you are this ignorant and uniformed /sci/ is not the board for you.
>not understanding permeability
>not understanding solubility
>not understanding

>>14953257
Why are you surprised when its a yahoo schizo?

>> No.14953580

>>14953437
Interesting that largely discredited isn't debunked; which, when combined with positive results of exercising theory to make successful predictions, sounds like the typical "muh peer review without replication or confirmation effort".

>> No.14953623

>>14953578
>Why are you surprised when its a yahoo schizo?
I shouldn't be surprised by how retarded some board tourists are, but they amaze me every day. Geology isn't even that difficult a topic to read, anyone could learn the concepts.

>> No.14954394

>>14953148
>there is a way to turn worthless coal into oil
You had my curiosity sir, but now you have my attention.

>> No.14954402

>>14953119
It's amazing the length's that NPC's are willing to go to in order to not face unpleasant truths... The more retarded the NPC the more outlandish the rationalizations.

>> No.14954409

>>14953148
What carbon? Like some calcium carbonate?
Heated calcium carbonate and water creates methane?
That doesnt seem like a likely reaction. Seems like the reverse reaction would be much more likely.

>> No.14954412

>>14954394
>here is a way to turn worthless coal into oil
Hes not saying coal hes saying "carbon on the rock" for plausible deniability.

>> No.14954425

>>14954394
Coal is not worthless and its been known for at least a century how to turn it into oil. Sometimes thats profitable, sometimes it isnt, it depends on prices and cost of capital.

>> No.14954608

>>14954425
And said oil is completely different and way more inefficient

>> No.14954621

>>14954608
Every oil from every reservoir is different.

>> No.14954683

>>14953437
CITATION NEEDED

>> No.14954710

>>14953119
What are the implications?
Is oil essentially a renewable resource then?

>> No.14954747

>>14954402
Agreed. Even though abiotic oil has been experimentally proven true, with oil being found precisely where the theory predicted it ought to be in metamorphic rock strata, it's still denied by hopeless NPCs.

>> No.14954750

>>14954710
Yeah basically. As long as you don't frack the reservoir strata they will eventually refill. Oil field workers are familiar with this happening.

>> No.14954762

>>14954710
No, you are being bamboozled. Notice there are no actual chemical reactions being mentioned.
I mean, there are reactions that can make hydrocarbons but then you are just replacing one problem with another. Can you make oil from coal? Yes, but then theres the problem of the origin of coal

>> No.14954798

>>14954621
But not as inefficient as coal produced oil, it's one of the main reasons why Germany lost WW2

>> No.14954825

>>14954798
What an abhorrent post

>> No.14954915

>>14953192

Ah yes, the classic Catholic response to anyone who speaks the truth, "take your meds".

You believe that crackers turn to jesus meat, stfu.

>> No.14954918

>>14954402
>It's amazing the length's that NPC's are willing to go to in order to not face unpleasant truths... The more retarded the NPC the more outlandish the rationalizations.

Stfu, Catholic livestock. You people are the ultimate NPCs.

>> No.14954922

>>14953315
>Curious how you can extract oil at depths that far exceed the lowest layer fossils have been found in but the fossil origin of oil somehow doesn't get discredited.
>By the way, soviet geologists subscribed to the abiotic theory of oil.

Based

>> No.14954925

>>14953325
>Makes sense. Stupid vatniks.

Yeah, the country known for its oil doesn't know wtf they are talking about. You stupid fucking catholic

>> No.14955165

>>14954750
>they will eventually refill
From where?

>> No.14955167

>>14955165
The deep regions of the crust, which is where the oil in them originally came from.

>> No.14955168

>>14955167
>The oil was just there
Sounds like the big bang theory.

>> No.14955190

>>14953119
>carbonaceous rocks
Damn... I wonder how ALL that carbon got in those rocks!? Maybe there's some carbon-rich things that get buried and become part of the rocks? But what could it be!? WHAAAAAAAAATT??

>> No.14955191

>>14955168
It's produced by a physical-chemical process under immense heat and pressure. That's like saying that diamonds are "just there."

>> No.14955197

>>14955190
>what is limestone?
Yeah I guess technically some of the calcium carbonate in the world is a coral fossil, since they've been around since nearly the beginning of life, but it's also precipitated out from saturated water.

>> No.14955233

>>14955197
>>what is limestone?
Indeed what is it? I just read about its origins which there were two(2) of:
>Life
and... *drum roll*
>limestone that was already there. (whare did that come from)?

Really makes you think!

>> No.14955246

>>14955197
Oh, and nearly all limestone on Earth is from life btw.

>> No.14955253

Kent Hoven says if you leave pickles out for a few years they become stone.

>> No.14955291

>>14955233
>and... *drum roll*
>>limestone that was already there. (whare did that come from)?
>Really makes you think!
Do they not teach the age of the Earth in schools anymore? There was carbonaceous rock produced as what are called "marine cements" during the billions of years life didn't exist. Aragonite is CaCO3 formed within metamorphic rocks, which comes from a place life cannot exist (though modern biological life does use one type of crystalline Aragonite in shells, it can be distinguished from the inorganic form by its structure).

>> No.14955336

>>14953080
35f. Fuk sake americans.

>> No.14955492

>>14955197
So limestone and water heated produce hydrocarbons? No they dont.
The opposite reactions are more likely, you would get an equilibrium with some PPM of hydrocarbons due to such possible but unlikely reactions

>> No.14955502

>>14955492
It's empirically true that oil has been drilled in areas predicted by the abiotic model and which the biological model said oil could never form within. It's up to you to provide compelling proof of your theory, because I already have proof of mine.

>> No.14955555

>>14955502
I dont have to do shit, seethe

>> No.14955560

>>14955502
His evidence is "I don't think." And he's right, he doesn't.
Anyway, do you have a link to the wiki about that drilling? I want to read more because it sounds interesting. thanks

>> No.14955561

>>14955502
>oil has been drilled in areas predicted by the abiotic model
That's just a bias brainlet. Do you think they just say
>the model says there's oil here sir
and then spend millions drilling to find out if it's true? No, they do a bunch of stuff first to know for sure. If it turns out there wasn't oil there, you won't hear about it. You only hear about the successes and it makes it look like the model is always behind the prediction. Either way, oil is obsolete. Why even care?

>> No.14955563

>>14955561
>oil is obsolete
goddamn that's a whole new level of stupid
Are you German? I bet you're German.

>> No.14955860

>>14955561
>Do you think they just say
>>the model says there's oil here sir
>and then spend millions drilling to find out if it's true?
They literally did that actually. Test wells were drilled in places where no other indicators of oil existed, and oil was found there. One of the most famous ones was in Sweden IIRC.

>> No.14955874

>>14955560
The drilling was done in the Siljan Ring Crater in Sweden. It conclusively proved that methane and oil were found seeping through granite bedrock, where no fossils could have formed. Interestingly, the oil was unusable because it contained an enormous amount of microscopic iron oxide particles, which turn into sludge in the well. Those particles are created by extremophile bacteria that consume oil, meaning that the oil must have originated from the well at-depth.

>> No.14955897

>>14955561
>If it turns out there wasn't oil there, you won't hear about it. You only hear about the successes and it makes it look like the model is always behind the prediction.
Literally unfalsifiable.
Literally claiming the fact that we didn't hear about failures means that there were failures.
This is your brain on reddit.

>> No.14956193

>>14955897
Its called a control group. You have to hear about failed drilling operations. Its not some hypothetical thing, oil companies obviously have records about dry wells they drilled for nothing but its just something not publicised, not kept as a secret either

>> No.14956232

>>14953292
>literally multiple kilometers of crust forcing the mass downwards
There's no way this can be true. Isn't there more rock beneath? How can rock move into more rock without something popping out to the surface as a result? Show me the new mountain that was formed last year/decade/century and I might believe you, otherwise that explanation is a load of bullshit.
>everything is compressed at a great pressure, but also everything is moving pretty freely into space being occupied by other matter, and while this happens the volume of the surface doesn't change, and also water just drips in there gently from the surface and gets destroyed by the huge pressure that for some reason didn't prevent it from seeping in
>or maybe none of this is true and oil is just deceased animals
Which one of those two requires you to jump through more hoops?

>> No.14956238

Guis its just heat+pressure you can do anything with heat+pressure you dont need a model or some shit

>> No.14956263

>>14954683
CITATION SNEEDED

>> No.14956315

If abiotic oil is real then it exists at really deep depths. Like down 15 km. There might be oil everywhere if you just keep drilling

>> No.14956375

Abiotic oil is completely retarded. Lets assume whatever process you image that creates it actually happens. Now you have a bunch of long chain hydrocarbons under immense heat and pressure in the absence of oxygen. Can you guess what happens next? They break into shorter hydrocarbons like natural gas. Abiotic oil is nonsense start to finish.

>> No.14956383

>>14956375
>They break into shorter hydrocarbons like natural gas
Theres likely reactions going in both sides until theres an equlibrium. The equilibrium depends on the pressure and temperature.

>> No.14956401

>>14956383
Complete nonsense. Cope harder, you whiny fag.

>> No.14956409

>>14956401
Do you understand the concept of chemical equilibrium?

>> No.14956418

>>14956409
Do you? Let's assume their is some equilibrium reaction (there's not). Which side is energetically favored? Protip: it's the hydrocarbons cracking. None of this should be a mystery. We've been cracking hydrocarbons for more than a century.

>> No.14956422

>>14956418
That doesn't mean you get 100% cracking into gas. The less likely reactions still happen with a lower frequency

>> No.14956437

>>14956422
That's nonsense and I was already being extremely generous by already taking a lot of shaky assumptions to be true. Why don't you read up on cracking and come back?

>> No.14956448

>>14956437
You dont get 100% efficiency on any reaction. Reverse reactions happen too. The equilibrium depends on many factors.

>> No.14956452

>>14956448
Cracking is not an equilibrium reaction. Why don't you look it up instead of arguing from ignorance?

>> No.14956455

>>14956452
Chemical equilibrium is a general concept that applies to all chemical reactions including cracking.
Just as molecules can break they can also join.

>> No.14956475

>>14956455
More nonsense. Here, I'll make I easier for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracking_(chemistry)

>> No.14956508

Quick question. Does this model means that there's oil in the moon? What about mars?

>> No.14956515

>>14956475
Yes, cracking is a chemical reaction, and as such its subjected to chemical equilibrium

>> No.14956532

>>14956515
Not that guy, but I just want to point that equilibrium doesn't mean "in the middle". It might as well mean that all the oil cracked and there's nothing left, and that could be a fine equilibrium for that reaction.

>> No.14956547

>>14956532
>to point that equilibrium doesn't mean "in the middle"
Cool but nobody said it was in the middle

>> No.14956622

There was an oil company owner who casually mentioned on TV they've known for a long time that oil is abiotic, renewable and that all the buzz about it being a depleting fossil fuel is nonsense.

>> No.14956625

Why do idiots conflate renewable with unlimited?

>> No.14956713

>>14956232
Do you not believe in plate tectonics?

>> No.14956715

>>14956508
There are abiotic hydrocarbons on many planets, but they have to be geologically active. To give an example, many of Saturn's moons have lakes or oceans of liquid hydrocarbons. Titan and Hyperion are the most well-studied examples.

>> No.14956717

>>14953080
>Is it all plate tectonics?

Imagine still buying into this outdated trash lol. Do people still do this? Come on grandpas, time to move on to real science

>> No.14956911

>>14956547
You are a special kind of stupid

>> No.14957391

>>14953230
>dinoflagellates
dinosaur sperm?

>> No.14957399

>>14953080
If oil floats, why doesn't it come to the surface and cover the top of the ocean everywhere? There is trillions of barrels under the ocean.

>> No.14957469

>>14953080
wow 35 degrees f? That's insane.

>> No.14957481

finally a based thread

>> No.14957636

>>14956911
Why? I am not stupid and i didnt say anything stupid. I never claimed that the equilibrium point was "in the middle". I fact i said many times it was a function of many factors, including temperature and pressure

>> No.14958085

>>14955563
calm down, Seth

>> No.14958361

>>14956375
you mean some sort of natural hydrocarbon cracking?
doesn't happen without catalysts

>> No.14958367

>>14957399
that's what BP did a few years ago

>> No.14960300

Bump

>> No.14960827

>>14954394
nigger, people already turned coal into oil for centuries