It's all about algae and plankton

[canadas canadas + 136]

Just like the microscopic plants algae and plankton through photosynthesis and transformation through death, time, heat, pressure, depth and burial accumulation in the earth at the bottom of ancient seas resulted in kerogen and then petroleum crude oil and natural gas, these same microscopic plants hold the keys into whether the world eventually survives or not.  If these happen to die due to being choked off by pollution or poison in the ocean, then a very fast extinction could take place whereby the fish that feed on them also die due to starvation which affects those other fish that feed on those fish, etc. resulting in an uncontrollable chain reaction that eventually affects most ocean creatures and eventually us all.  This quick death and extinction chain reaction could start by environmentally affecting the smallest and most vulnerable first and eventually leading up to all others that depend on such a natural food chain.  Should we not be cultivating algae and plankton anywhere and everywhere in order to draw off carbon dioxide and feed it to them?  How about an experimental demonstration truck with a trailer tub full of algae and plankton being directly fed its carbon dioxide exhaust as the truck moves?  How about a system of processing the algae and plankton on the truck in order to turn it into fuel that the truck can use?

Edited July 27, 2019 by canadas canadas

[Meredith Poor + 883]

First, algae are often the source of fish die-offs due to oxygen starvation.

What is being described as 'algae' here is quite more complicated and includes 'cyanobacteria' and 'archaea'. The seaweed infestation in the Gulf of Mexico (including what's washing up on the beaches of Cancun) is 'algae'. Cyanobacteria is the stuff that makes water glow in the wakes of boats. A lot of the Archaea organisms are 'extremophiles', and insist on living in acid hot springs, frozen arctic ice, high-salinity lakes, and caustic pools. Some of this stuff we would describe as 'polluted' - please help yourself to a sulfuric acid bath in Yellowstone.

Many of these organisms are 'cleaning up' the pollution man is causing. Some useful species may go through a die-off. However, others will immediately take their place.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

The description of the origin of oil, as described, is still a theory and has never been proven. Just thought I'd throw that in to watch the fireworks....

[Meredith Poor + 883]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The description of the origin of oil, as described, is still a theory and has never been proven. Just thought I'd throw that in to watch the fireworks....

There are multiple sources of oil. A predominate one is 'lacustrine sediments'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacustrine_deposits

These sources are identified by molecular makeup - 'cyclic' and paraffin petroleums are different from those with lots of sulfur, short straight chain hydrocarbons, etc.

Every oil deposit has it's own distinct history, so there is no simple explanation for any of them.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

8 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The description of the origin of oil, as described, is still a theory and has never been proven. Just thought I'd throw that in to watch the fireworks....

A Soviet quack believed oil was abiotic meaning it doesn't come from biological sources. On the other hand, every logging geologist makes his living by looking through microscopes for fossilized biota. That's how they know the bit is in the payzone. On the other hand, no one has ever found abiotic oil yet, although the Soviet Union spent billions looking…

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

7 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Every oil deposit has it's own distinct history, so there is no simple explanation for any of them.

"God put it there" works for some.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

11 hours ago, canadas canadas said:

Should we not be cultivating algae and plankton anywhere and everywhere in order to draw off carbon dioxide and feed it to them? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

12 hours ago, canadas canadas said:

How about an experimental demonstration truck with a trailer tub full of algae and plankton being directly fed its carbon dioxide exhaust as the truck moves?  How about a system of processing the algae and plankton on the truck in order to turn it into fuel that the truck can use?

Conservation of energy.  A closed system on the truck can never even break even by thermodynamic laws.

Bioreactors that make fuel (ideally a liquid) from CO2 and sunlight are actively being researched.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_bioreactor

Edited July 27, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Meredith Poor + 883]

18 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

https://www.sapphireenergy.com/

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

14 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Bioreactors that make fuel (ideally a liquid) from CO2 and sunlight are actively being researched.

Immediately brought this to mind

You've invented a tree

 

[NickW + 2,714]

16 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

A Soviet quack believed oil was abiotic meaning it doesn't come from biological sources. On the other hand, every logging geologist makes his living by looking through microscopes for fossilized biota. That's how they know the bit is in the payzone. On the other hand, no one has ever found abiotic oil yet, although the Soviet Union spent billions looking…

On of the reasons it was so compelling in the USSR  was that searching for oil based on drilling methodically each grid square in an area reduced the risk of ending up in a Gulag in Siberia for 'bad decision making' by applying some form of logic as to where oil / gas deposits might exist.  

[specinho + 440]

On 7/27/2019 at 7:34 PM, canadas canadas said:

Just like the microscopic plants algae and plankton through photosynthesis and transformation through death, time, heat, pressure, depth and burial accumulation in the earth at the bottom of ancient seas resulted in kerogen and then petroleum crude oil and natural gas, these same microscopic plants hold the keys into whether the world eventually survives or not. ...................... Should we not be cultivating algae and plankton anywhere and everywhere in order to draw off carbon dioxide and feed it to them?  How about an experimental demonstration truck with a trailer tub full of algae and plankton being directly fed its carbon dioxide exhaust as the truck moves?  How about a system of processing the algae and plankton on the truck in order to turn it into fuel that the truck can use?

 

16 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Conservation of energy.  A closed system on the truck can never even break even by thermodynamic laws.

Bioreactors that make fuel (ideally a liquid) from CO2 and sunlight are actively being researched.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_bioreactor

 

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Immediately brought this to mind

You've invented a tree

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 7/27/2019 at 5:39 PM, Ward Smith said:

A Soviet quack believed oil was abiotic meaning it doesn't come from biological sources. On the other hand, every logging geologist makes his living by looking through microscopes for fossilized biota. That's how they know the bit is in the payzone. On the other hand, no one has ever found abiotic oil yet, although the Soviet Union spent billions looking…

Careful now... abiotic hydrocarbons exist on places other than our planet. I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of abiotic oil existing on Earth since we already know that it can be formed from inorganic chemical process. I do, however, think it's highly unlikely. Industrially we mess with hydrocarbons abiotically all of the time, but that isn't to say that such systems are replicable in nature. 

Edited August 3, 2019 by KeyboardWarrior

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

3 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Careful now... abiotic hydrocarbons exist on places other than our planet. I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of abiotic oil existing on Earth since we already know that it can be formed from inorganic chemical process. I do, however, think it's highly unlikely. Industrially we mess with hydrocarbons abiotically all of the time, but that isn't to say that such systems are replicable in nature. 

Sure, there's methane on Neptune. How did it get there? Let's analyze it shall we? Given the tremendous gravity and pressure, I'm thinking it forms by "natural" means, over untold eons, likely billions of years. What's our gravity again, and how does ours compare with Neptune? 

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

On 7/27/2019 at 11:00 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

The description of the origin of oil, as described, is still a theory and has never been proven. Just thought I'd throw that in to watch the fireworks....

Yeah, but is the one with the most chances of being right, algae reproduces fairly fast, and decays fairly quickly, a Hectare of algae can produce up to 172 ton of fat a year, fat is mostly hydrocarbon and has the same energy density as Oil, and cyanobacteria the oldest type of algae exist since 3 billion years ago, so there's should be large oil source rocks dating back to the Archean period

There's other ways of producing hydrocarbons, Carbon is fairly common in space, and hydrogen too, Water Methane and Ammonia are the most abundant compounds in the universe, Titan the biggest moon of saturn likely has 100's to not say 1000's of times more hydrocarbons than earth

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

30 minutes ago, Sebastian Meana said:

Yeah, but is the one with the most chances of being right, algae reproduces fairly fast, and decays fairly quickly, a Hectare of algae can produce up to 172 ton of fat a year, fat is mostly hydrocarbon and has the same energy density as Oil, and cyanobacteria the oldest type of algae exist since 3 billion years ago, so there's should be large oil source rocks dating back to the Archean period

There's other ways of producing hydrocarbons, Carbon is fairly common in space, and hydrogen too, Water Methane and Ammonia are the most abundant compounds in the universe, Titan the biggest moon of saturn likely has 100's to not say 1000's of times more hydrocarbons than earth

True, with the knowledge available at the moment, this theory is the one that stands the best chance of being correct (Occam's Razor).

That said, it is still a theory which has not been proven. We should not dismiss other scientific opinions or other theories out of hand simply because this one seems to fit.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

10 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Sure, there's methane on Neptune. How did it get there? Let's analyze it shall we? Given the tremendous gravity and pressure, I'm thinking it forms by "natural" means, over untold eons, likely billions of years. What's our gravity again, and how does ours compare with Neptune? 

Something tells me that you didn't read everything I said. I specifically stated that abiotic oil on Earth is highly unlikely. I stand firm on the position that dismissing it altogether is a fool's move. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

3 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Something tells me that you didn't read everything I said. I specifically stated that abiotic oil on Earth is highly unlikely. I stand firm on the position that dismissing it altogether is a fool's move. 

Proving a negative is ALWAYS a fool's errand 

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

15 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Sure, there's methane on Neptune. How did it get there? Let's analyze it shall we? Given the tremendous gravity and pressure, I'm thinking it forms by "natural" means, over untold eons, likely billions of years. What's our gravity again, and how does ours compare with Neptune? 

Easy, the six most common elements in the universe are

1-Hydrogen
2-Helium
3-Oxygen
4-Carbon
5-Neon
6-Nitrogen

Gravity has nothing to do with that

Helium and neon, do not form any compounds since they are noble gases, so the most common compound in the universe is Water since is hydrogen+oxygen, then the 2nd most common compound should be Methane or hydrogen+carbon, and the third most common compound should be Ammonia hydrogen+nitrogen

The amount of methane that can persist on a place is dependant on how oxygen is laying around, if there's a lot of oxygen methane in the atmosphere will oxidize to produce either alcohols or co2, if there's little oxygen wandering around there will be a lot of co2

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

3 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

Easy, the six most common elements in the universe are

1-Hydrogen
2-Helium
3-Oxygen
4-Carbon
5-Neon
6-Nitrogen

Gravity has nothing to do with that

Helium and neon, do not form any compounds since they are noble gases, so the most common compound in the universe is Water since is hydrogen+oxygen, then the 2nd most common compound should be Methane or hydrogen+carbon, and the third most common compound should be Ammonia hydrogen+nitrogen

The amount of methane that can persist on a place is dependant on how oxygen is laying around, if there's a lot of oxygen methane in the atmosphere will oxidize to produce either alcohols or co2, if there's little oxygen wandering around there will be a lot of co2

Keep in mind that when you are speaking definitively about our knowledge of the universe, we have only explored and have information on an infinitesimally small portion of it. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

18 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

That said, it is still a theory which has not been proven. We should not dismiss other scientific opinions or other theories out of hand simply because this one seems to fit.

I would suggest to you that possibly oil, or at least some oil volume, came down from Outer Space in huge sheets, splattering on the earth surface and draining down into the subsoil regions.  This would explain deposits of oil, some huge, that lie close to the earth surface. It also explains why you find oil in the Arctic, in Pennsylvania, in Texas, and in Arabia.  It also correlates to those stories in the Old Testament BIble about fire raining down out of the heavens.  If the edges of the oil sheets were ignited while passing through the atmosphere, you would see "fire," yet the bulk of the material would not be exposed to oxygen and thus not ignite.  

How it could be formed as sheets in outer space is a subject on which I am eminently not qualified to offer an opinion.  But hey, could be. 

Edited August 4, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

10 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

Easy, the six most common elements in the universe are

1-Hydrogen
2-Helium
3-Oxygen
4-Carbon
5-Neon
6-Nitrogen

Yet on earth neon is a trace gas.  How does it compare in abundance to iron (not on the list)? Most stars convert their cores to iron at the moment of extinguishment. Lots of dead stars out there, should be lots of iron. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

While I was raised a Christian, I'm pretty much a Free Thinker, and have little use for organized religion of any flavor since my late teens.

That said, over here in Malaysia, the government normally assumes that everyone is a follower of some type of religion, so on government forms, I generally tick the box for Buddhism when asked what religion I am (there are generally no "not applicable" or "none" options for religion on government forms here). My Chinese Malaysian wife is Buddhist (Taoist, actually, but Malaysia lumps Toaism under Buddhism) so I just tick the same box for religion that she does.  And I like the Buddhist / Taoist temples here in Asia, I find them relaxing (although the incense smoke can get a bit much).

Anyway, while reading this thread, I got curious what people who believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old think about how oil was formed.

The 6,000 year old Earth believers would include many Muslims and many Christians.  I am not poking fun.  Merely curious how a large portion of the Earth's population reconciles the general scientific view of Earth being billions of years old, and oil needing millions of years to "cook" under heat and pressure, with the general Muslim and Christian view that Earth is only roughly 6,000 years old.

Here ya go, a link, and a pdf file attached:

The Origin of Oil—A Creationist Answer

The Origin of Oil - A Creationist Answer.pdf

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Tom,

Here's a little exercise for you....

Grab a Scofield Reference Bible and actually read the first two chapters in Genesis AND the footnotes. It is interesting...

Best get back to me on email once you've had a chance to do it. We don't want to run afoul here...

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Tom,

Here's a little exercise for you....

Grab a Scofield Reference Bible and actually read the first two chapters in Genesis AND the footnotes. It is interesting...

Best get back to me on email once you've had a chance to do it. We don't want to run afoul here...

It's been decades since I read the Bible.  Was forced to read it repeatedly and also memorize chunks of it when I was a kid.  I rejected it decades ago.  But I have no issue with Christians, or with people believing any religion they want.  I simply do not like to be told that I must believe that XYZ religion is true.  I grew weary of that nonsense in my teens.  I see the fanaticism of various religions, all claiming to be the one, true religion.  And I mostly just ignore it.

Anyway, I downloaded the Scofield Reference Bible in a pdf here (I'm not familiar with the Scofield version) in order to see what you are alluding to.

https://epdf.pub/scofield-study-bible-new-king-james-version.html

Have not re-read the first 2 chapters of Genesis yet in the download yet, and so far have briefly glanced at the Scofield footnotes.  I will likely message you tomorrow about this.  Reading the Bible is not exactly high on my list of things to do, as I was forced to read various versions of the entire book repeatedly as a kid.

Agreed, getting off on a tangent of religion would likely put this thread into a tailspin of trolling, name-calling, and general havoc.  So I'll message you after reading the Scofield notes, rather than discussing Genesis publicly in this thread.