Nostr

Actually disagree here too. I think there is a concerted effort to ignore and deny the fact that it isn’t a “fossil” fuel. To the contrary it’s something naturally created by the planet that rises to the surface. There are many “depleted” wells that fill back up if you just leave them. There are VAST deposits that haven’t been anywhere near dead plant or animal life. There are deposits way below the surface layer where all of life is supposed to have occurred, AND, just for fun, there are hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) on other planets… so either they had life, OR it’s not created by organic matter.

I think there is a far more logical explanation. The combination of oil and water is why life *emerged,* it’s not a byproduct.

In the same way we don’t claim water is left over fluid from decaying organic matter, why on earth would we think hydrocarbons are?

This topic isn’t a specialty of mine or anything, but I’ve dug into it just enough that I’m pretty damn convinced the traditional narrative is either total horseshit, or at the very least, works extremely hard to ignore a number of very inconvenient facts.

armstrys 2y ago

I’m a geologist and worked in oil and gas exploration for 5 years. Oil (petroleum) comes from kerogen, which typically forms from plant matter buried at high pressure and temperature and then fills reservoirs underground or sometimes leaks to the surface. Scientists are able to fingerprint these oils and match them directly to source shale rock that is drilled in nearby wells. Oil would not have formed prior to the existence of certain types of life.

The hydrocarbons found on titan appear to be simpler hydrocarbons (including methane - natural gas) which are generated from organic compounds (uncertain whether caused by life or not).

This is all a question of abundance. Methane is easy for us to capture right now because there is a shit ton of it captured in geologic reservoirs. No one knows exact rates of regeneration, but given that it’s on a geologic time scale it is likely slower than the rate we deplete our reserves.

So we either find new synthetic mechanisms to create petroleum and nat gas or we eventually run out/pay more and more to extract per unit. Of course humans are creative and we have lowered the costs of extraction over and over since the discovery of oil.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Guy Swann 2y ago

Can you explain, conclusively, why it is that oil that comes from plant life and whatever other conditions that cause it to be in that form, is necessarily *created* by life, and not simply left over? Such that those same conditions couldn’t create it from hydrocarbons that aren’t a result of organic matter decay?

You mention some well known points that are relevant, but then the conclusion doesn’t follow. That “oil would not have formed prior to the existence of certain kinds of life” is not supported by the fact that organic matter can turn into oil if the conditions are right.

Again, my analogy. This would be like saying water was created by life because it seeps out of organic matter. The claim that it’s *created* solely by this means, and then explicitly adding certain conditions of pressure and temperature, simply is a guess. All of those other things can be true, while hydrocarbons could still create oil under similar conditions of pressure and temperature without life having been involved at all.

armstrys 2y ago

There is significant scientific evidence linking petroleum to the breakdown of kerogen. Kerogen is actually a solid found in shale rock - so it’s not like oil is just being compressed out of it. It’s actually metamorphosing from kerogen to oil via temperature and pressure.

This is scientifically a well understood process. This link seems to have a good technical description. https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~pisupati/ACSOutreach/Petroleum_2.html

Kerogen specifically comes in 4 types known types. All associated with plant life. The type of kerogen drives the composition of the liquids and gases that form at high pressures. This is why some reservoirs are gas rich (light oil) and others are mostly heavier compounds.

This isn’t to say that other type of hydrocarbons (not petroleum) can’t be formed via other processes, but the dominant source of methane and petroleum that geologists are searching for almost certainly come from kerogen.

Niel Liesmons 2y ago

If kerogen is associated with plant life, what proves for you that this association only goes one way?

armstrys 2y ago

You mean that kerogen isn’t formed via other mechanisms?

armstrys 2y ago

If this is what you’re asking… I don’t know of any concrete proof that kerogen can’t be generated via other processes, but oil is big business and scientists have been studying the link between oil reservoirs and their source rocks for decades. There is ample information suggesting that kerogen is derived from plants and little evidence (to no?) evidence to suggest another process that would create kerogen.

The only reason to need another explanation for the creation of kerogen is if you are motivated to disbelieve the most simple and widely supported explanation.

Niel Liesmons 2y ago

I see! Thanks man 🙏

Guy Swann 2y ago

It’s not being “motivated to disbelieve the most widely supported” explanation, more than it’s attempting to address some contradictions that the most widely held theory has a handful of potentially serious contradictions that only seem very loosely addressed. Essentially argued unimportant due to the other evidence in favor of it.

While the abiogenic theory has contradictions as well, but presents an extremely compelling explanation. I don’t “adhere” to either, but think the abiogenic theory is very interesting and I think the simple “the default must be true” mentality makes it much easier for the vast majority to ignore the contradictions in the status quo, while believing any inability to fully explain every piece in an alternative theory suggests what we already think must, by default, be the truth.

I obviously only have limited knowledge of this and it’s mostly a passing interest of mine. But I think both are compelling explanations and neither has conclusively convinced me.

I’m less inclined to simply believe what I’m told because those things have turned out to be wrong a *ton* of times in my past. If the economics, civics, nutrition, and medical “truths” I was taught (plus every war we’ve been through was built on staggering piles of bullshit), then why should I blindly believe the other “norms” they are so certain of? Seems to have a pretty garbage track record so far in my life, and not that some of these theories were just a little wrong either, it’s often terribly wrong with disastrous consequences…

So I choose to leave it open. Seems like a very reasonable decision from my perspective. 🤷🏻‍♂️

armstrys 2y ago

I respect the skepticism, but the study of petroleum generation is decades old and there is little reason to expect misinformation here. Additionally, I have not seen any concrete reasons to doubt the biogenic theory to explain all petroleum deposits on earth. Reservoir recharge and long migration pathways are both easily explained by the theory and chemical fingerprint data from oil and source rock deposits support the theory. If you have any specific examples of vast oil deposits that contradict the theory I would be glad to look into it.

armstrys 2y ago

I think the other important distinction here is that scientist being hired and trained by every single profit motivated oil and gas company exploring for oil is taught the biogenic theory. No private company would ever put money on the line to drill and oil exploration well that wasn’t supported by the biogenic theory. I think as bitcoiners we can all agree that is a strong signal of reality. This is extremely different than economic/medical policy and information being pushed by governments who are not profit driven.

Orange🍊Man👤 2y ago

Given the numerous falsehoods woven into our greater society for the mere purpose of mind control, I tend to be skeptical of the general narratives propagated to the masses.

The term "fossil fuel" is a PsyOp; and I believe it's not as scarce as it's professed to be.

That's just my two Sats though.

armstrys 2y ago

In a way you are right because people tend to associate “fossils” as being extremely rare. Most oil likely comes from the remnants of massive algal blooms that get buried on the sea floor. So these deposits are somewhat rare in that they don’t occur everywhere, but the were much more common and widespread than what most people associate with the word “fossil”

Orange🍊Man👤 2y ago

You nailed it man!

jgbtc 2y ago

There is quite a bit of life that dies and gets buried every day. And this has been true non-stop for billions of years. It's not like the process ceased when the dinos went extinct, right?

armstrys 2y ago

Correct, but the pressures and temperatures required to convert kerogen require the organic matter to be buried miles below the surface. Common source rocks for the oil and gas basins along the Atlantic margin are Cretaceous or Jurassic in age (so greater than 65 mm years old). This is coincidentally around the time the dinosaurs went extinct, but that is irrelevant since kerogen is derived mostly from plant life.

The real question is what rates active source rocks are expelling oil and how long it takes that oil to recharge reservoirs. Keep in mind that all of this is taking place on the scale of thousands to 100s of thousands of years and typical oil and gas fields are typically depleted on a scale of decades to a century. It’s very unlikely any source rock is actively expelling enough oil to keep up with the rate of depletion.