Why Do You Think Oil Requires Millions of Years?

[Dave Hawkins]

I have been arguing recently over on the RM Dating thread about oil and it seems like it's own topic, so ...

This question goes primarily to Zadok001 taking up where we left off HERE (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=31507#post31507)

Zadok seems like an open-minded guy and it seems he, like me, is not a professional scientist. He wants me to convince him that crude oil does not take millions of years to form.

So ... I'll try. I want to break this up into very tiny baby steps. This exercise is as much as anything an exercise for me to see if I have the ability to convince anyone on these forums of anything at all. I've been doubtful that I can in the past, but I hold out hope.

First, I need to understand where you are at exactly, Zadok. You say that you are agnostic about this subject, i.e. you don't know. So I will start there.

Let's do it this way ... let's take one point at a time and see where we share common ground.

Ready?

1) Let's discover what parts of this piece from Wiki that we agree on ... Origin

According to the biogenic theory, petroleum is formed from the preserved remains of prehistoric zooplankton and algae which have settled to the sea (or lake) bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions. Over geological time, this organic matter, mixed with mud, is buried under heavy layers of sediment. The resulting high levels of heat and pressure cause the organic matter to chemically change during diagenesis, first into a waxy material known as kerogen which is found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in a process known as catagenesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuelThe parts that are important to me here are ...

1) that oil is formed from zooplankton and algae
2) that this matter is greatly compressed
3) that this causes hight heat and pressure
4) that this high heat and pressure causes chemical changes (diagenesis)
5) more heat causes it to change into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons (catagenesis)

Notice I'm leaving out the part about how long this takes. We don't want to discuss that yet ... we are seeking common ground first.

Do we agree on these 5 points? Or at least that these are highly likely?

[David B]

Dave, it's long been posited that when you start threads on other subjects while leaving a lot of things pretty much resolved on other threads, but which you don't accept and claim victory on (as your blog on varves), you are finding a way of avoiding awkward questions.

Please try to complete other threads before starting new ones - some might think that a pretty much obvious policy of starting new threads when embarrassed might lead people away from Christ, and you wouldn't want to do that, now, would you?

David B

[VoxRat]

Where's the popcorn smiley?

I'm going to assume that Dave H. is going to ignore David B.'s advice, as he pretty much ignores all suggestions about netiquette and pretty much everything else.

I'm going to be lurking only on this thread. But I just want to be clear on one thing: my silence does not imply that I see nothing wrong it. Already I see multiple errors in the OP. But I'm going to leave it to Zadok to hash it out.

I'd like to urge everyone else to do likewise. It's hard, I know, to let the tard flow unchallenged. But let's just try this as an experiment, shall we?

[Dave Hawkins]

David B ... There is no such thing as a "completed" thread. Thanks for your input though. Do you have anything to add WRT to OP?

[David B]

David B ... There is no such thing as a "completed" thread. Thanks for your input though. Do you have anything to add WRT to OP?

I'm stocking up on peanuts and popcorn, and awaiting Zadok001.

David B (likes VR's idea)

[ericmurphy]

I'm just going to quickly add that if Dave wants to persuade anyone that crude oil can be produced quickly, he needs to show us a procedure that can produce crude oil quickly. So far, he hasn't done so, and he knows he hasn't done so, because he's been told he hasn't done so. Just because something is some sort of hydrocarbon that can be burned as fuel does not mean it is crude oil.

So try that first, Dave. Find us a process that can produce actual crude oil, not just some random flammable hydrocarbon.

[ninewands]

I have been arguing recently over on the RM Dating thread about oil and it seems like it's own topic, so ...

This question goes primarily to Zadok001 taking up where we left off HERE (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=31507#post31507)

Zadok seems like an open-minded guy and it seems he, like me, is not a professional scientist. He wants me to convince him that crude oil does not take millions of years to form.

So ... I'll try. I want to break this up into very tiny baby steps. This exercise is as much as anything an exercise for me to see if I have the ability to convince anyone on these forums of anything at all. I've been doubtful that I can in the past, but I hold out hope.

First, I need to understand where you are at exactly, Zadok. You say that you are agnostic about this subject, i.e. you don't know. So I will start there.

Let's do it this way ... let's take one point at a time and see where we share common ground.

Ready?

1) Let's discover what parts of this piece from Wiki that we agree on ... Origin

According to the biogenic theory, petroleum is formed from the preserved remains of prehistoric zooplankton and algae which have settled to the sea (or lake) bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions. Over geological time, this organic matter, mixed with mud, is buried under heavy layers of sediment. The resulting high levels of heat and pressure cause the organic matter to chemically change during diagenesis, first into a waxy material known as kerogen which is found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in a process known as catagenesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuelThe parts that are important to me here are ...

1) that oil is formed from zooplankton and algae
2) that this matter is greatly compressed
3) that this causes hight heat and pressure
4) that this high heat and pressure causes chemical changes (diagenesis)
5) more heat causes it to change into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons (catagenesis)

Notice I'm leaving out the part about how long this takes. We don't want to discuss that yet ... we are seeking common ground first.

Do we agree on these 5 points? Or at least that these are highly likely?
:POPCORN:

Oh, and I guess I'm going to serve as the science police, since I spent 13 years as a reservoir engineer in oil & gas exploration. So ... let's keep it factual and evidence-based, Dave.

[Jobar]

OK! I get to learn some petrochemistry and -physics (is 'petrophysics' a real discipline?)

And watch Dave gnaw his own legs off, shouldn't wonder. :D

[Mike PSS]

Dave,
This is on topic, for you and Kodak.... ummm Zagreb... ummmm Zadok. Yeah, that's him.
Dave,
Did you read the information about Kerogen ?

And can you comment on WHY it is important?

[Notta_skeptic]

Where's the popcorn smiley?
http://planetsmilies.net/eat-drink-smiley-5168.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)
From here (http://planetsmilies.net/).

[Michael Tuite]

Hello Dave,
There are many lines of evidence that point to a requirement for geologically significant time scales to produce oil. I'll offer just one right now to kick off the discussion:

- The bottom of the ocean is cold (about 4 C). The geothermal gradient is about 20-25 degrees C per kilometer. So, you've got to bury the organic constituents of your oil a good kilometer or more in order to turn up the heat sufficiently to get things cooking. The fine-grained sediments which serve as oil source rocks accumulate on the sea floor very slowly - mere millimeters per thousand years. Even if you estimate a high sedimentation rate of 1 mm/yr, it's still going to take a million years for the source organic material to get to depth. Of course, for most of that time the organic matter is being chewed up by heterotrophic microbes - another important process in the formation of natural oils. So, the sedimentation rate of organic rich source rocks is well established, consilient evidence that oil takes millions of years to form.

I anticipate that your response might include an objection to the uniformitarian assumption that sedimentation rates in the past were similar to those presently observed. The hydrology of sedimentation is well-established science with few, if any, old-earth assumptions. Small particles settle out more slowly than do larger particles. Most (maybe all) organic-rich source rocks are fine grained. In your flood model, organic matter should be well mixed among sedimentary rock types, but it is not.

Natural oils are very complex chemical cocktails that vary according to ingredients, age, depositional environment, parent rock characteristics, reservoir rock characteristics, and many other variables. Using mass spectrometry and gas/liquid chromatography, we routinely examine the isotopic and molecular composition of oils and categorize and describe them according to their properties. I would wager a handsome sum that any anthropogenic oil would be readily chemically distinguishable from natural oils.

By the way, algae are single-celled photoautotrophs and as such are no more like animals than is an oak tree. Their remains are the primary constituents of oil. Cyanobacterial remains can also contribute to oils. Zooplankton make up a very small proportion of oils in large part because their numbers are so small in proportion to photosynthetic primary producers - just basic ecology.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a graduate student working in isotope and organic geochemistry (with a healthy dose of paleobiology). I spend my days (and too many nights) extracting organic matter from Paleozoic rocks.

Michael

[ninewands]

^^ This

Wow ... okay ... maybe I'm NOT the science police this time 'round.

Now, Dave ...

I'm going to get really radical here. I'm going to concede that crude oil can be generated from the appropriate biomass in say, 5,000 years once it is buried. You with me so far?

First problem

The source rock is usually, generally, almost always some type of shale or mudstone. This stuff is damned-near impermeable (seriously ... I've had core labs measure the permeability of shales ... we're talking microdarcy range permeability ... comparable to the street in front of your house). The viscosity of water is 1 centipoise at standard conditions ... the viscosity of fairly light crudes tends to be on the order of 10-30 centipoise. How long do you think it will take your newly formed crude oil to migrate out of the source rock into reservoir-quality rock?

Second problem

Oil forms in synclines and accumulates in anticline (or the upper end of stratigraphic traps ... or something else that seals the reservoir). The oil has to migrate up-dip in the reservoir rock until it finds the "trap" that keeps it in the reservoir.

The difference in density between fairly light crudes and water tends to be on the order of 0.2 gm/cc. That's not much in the way of buoyancy force. Also, the permeability of reservoir rocks is going to make migration to the "top" of the reservoir a fairly slow process. Most sandstone reservoirs have a permeability on the order of 50-500 millidarcies. If the oil droplets have to move through a couple of miles before they reach the "trap" how long do you think that will take? In a carbonate reservoir like those huge reef fields in the Middle East this process might go fairly quickly, but a carbonate reservoir like the San Andres formation out in West Texas is a different story.

Dave, there are very good reasons why there is no oil found in rocks less that about Miocene age. Part of the reason is that it takes quite a bit of time for oil to form from biomass, period. Another part is that it takes a damned long time for the stuff to accumulate in commercially exploitable quantities.

So, see ... turkey guts in a lab have exactly ZERO relevance to how long it takes to produce natural crude oil under natural conditions out in the real world.

[RAFH]

I have been arguing recently over on the RM Dating thread about oil and it seems like it's own topic, so ...

This question goes primarily to Zadok001 taking up where we left off HERE (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=31507#post31507)

Zadok seems like an open-minded guy and it seems he, like me, is not a professional scientist. He wants me to convince him that crude oil does not take millions of years to form.

So ... I'll try. I want to break this up into very tiny baby steps. This exercise is as much as anything an exercise for me to see if I have the ability to convince anyone on these forums of anything at all. I've been doubtful that I can in the past, but I hold out hope.

First, I need to understand where you are at exactly, Zadok. You say that you are agnostic about this subject, i.e. you don't know. So I will start there.

Let's do it this way ... let's take one point at a time and see where we share common ground.

Ready?

1) Let's discover what parts of this piece from Wiki that we agree on ... Origin

According to the biogenic theory, petroleum is formed from the preserved remains of prehistoric zooplankton and algae which have settled to the sea (or lake) bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions. Over geological time, this organic matter, mixed with mud, is buried under heavy layers of sediment. The resulting high levels of heat and pressure cause the organic matter to chemically change during diagenesis, first into a waxy material known as kerogen which is found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in a process known as catagenesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuelThe parts that are important to me here are ...

1) that oil is formed from zooplankton and algaeYes, that's true. But not turkey guts.
2) that this matter is greatly compressedYes, it is, but not to as high pressures as the turkey guts machine.
3) that this causes hight heat and pressureWhoa, hold on there. What is this 'this' you are talking about? Is this 'this' your are referring to part two above? The "this matter is greatly compressed"? Are you claiming it is the high pressure that causes the heat? Because that's not the case, it doesn't heat up because it's compressed, though there is some of that going on, it heats up because it is deep within the crust where the surrounding rocks are quite warm, not really hot, not anywhere near the 900C the turkey guts machine uses, but quite warm, perhaps 200 to 300C.
4) that this high heat and pressure causes chemical changes (diagenesis)Yes
5) more heat causes it to change into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons (catagenesis)more heat than what? You seem to thing that heat is a thing davey, it is not, you don't just add heat, you change the characteristics of the subject matter, you energize it, it's molecules vibrate much faster but under the pressure they are in, they have to vibrate even faster because they can't vibrate as much. But more heat? Are you saying there are two different processes, one addition of heat and pressure and another addition of just heat?

Notice I'm leaving out the part about how long this takes. We don't want to discuss that yet ... we are seeking common ground first.I also notice that you are leaving out a lot more than just time. You do know what a pressure cooker is, don't you davey? It allows you to cook food at high pressure without boiling off the water in it. Because you can do that, you can cook the food significantly faster. You do know this, don't you davey of kids4truth and truthmatters (not at all)? You do know that pressure cookers allow the cook to cook stuff much faster and without losing its water? Do you know why that is davey? Have you ever thought about it? Well, just in case either you or the lurkers don't know that, I'll explain, it allows quicker cooking because of the higher pressure. Same thing happens with the oil, the higher pressures make it possible to pump more heat energy into the oil than otherwise. When you use the pressure cooker, you can cook a roast in a quarter of the time. And that's just a doubling of the pressure. Think of the difference of several times the pressure as well as several times the heat. That mechanical slicing and dicing does a lot of the work as well. Nature doesn't get that advantage either. That helps the heat and pressure work as well because all those bits are sort of predigested, it's like when you chew up a steak instead of swallowing it whole. Ever done that davey, swallow a big chunk of raw meat whole? I suggest you try it and gauge the results. It might help you to understand what that mechanical dicing does.

Do we agree on these 5 points? Or at least that these are highly likely?

Well, as noted above, sort of. But as has been pointed out by others and myself, you leave a lot of stuff out of the picture. Stuff that matters a great deal. As usual, you are using a highly simplified concept of a very complex process and trying to use the common euphemisms as the real thing. Doesn't work davey, as you would know if you knew anything at all. This is just another of your attempts at attacking strawmen. You should realize by now this isn't a very good place to attempt that, we are not your naive little school children or some adult suffering from the same FUNDAMENTIA as you do and who therefore wants to be deceived. But I guess you don't get that, even after having been refuted in everything you tried for over two years. Either you are really stubborn or really stupid to not realize this tactic doesn't work here.

[RAFH]

^^ This

Wow ... okay ... maybe I'm NOT the science police this time 'round.

Now, Dave ...

I'm going to get really radical here. I'm going to concede that crude oil can be generated from the appropriate biomass in say, 5,000 years once it is buried. You with me so far?

First problem

The source rock is usually, generally, almost always some type of shale or mudstone. This stuff is damned-near impermeable (seriously ... I've had core labs measure the permeability of shales ... we're talking microdarcy range permeability ... comparable to the street in front of your house). The viscosity of water is 1 centipoise at standard conditions ... the viscosity of fairly light crudes tends to be on the order of 10-30 centipoise. How long do you think it will take your newly formed crude oil to migrate out of the source rock into reservoir-quality rock?

Second problem

Oil forms in synclines and accumulates in anticline (or the upper end of stratigraphic traps ... or something else that seals the reservoir). The oil has to migrate up-dip in the reservoir rock until it finds the "trap" that keeps it in the reservoir.

The difference in density between fairly light crudes and water tends to be on the order of 0.2 gm/cc. That's not much in the way of buoyancy force. Also, the permeability of reservoir rocks is going to make migration to the "top" of the reservoir a fairly slow process. Most sandstone reservoirs have a permeability on the order of 50-500 millidarcies. If the oil droplets have to move through a couple of miles before they reach the "trap" how long do you think that will take? In a carbonate reservoir like those huge reef fields in the Middle East this process might go fairly quickly, but a carbonate reservoir like the San Andres formation out in West Texas is a different story.

Dave, there are very good reasons why there is no oil found in rocks less that about Miocene age. Part of the reason is that it takes quite a bit of time for oil to form from biomass, period. Another part is that it takes a damned long time for the stuff to accumulate in commercially exploitable quantities.

So, see ... turkey guts in a lab have exactly ZERO relevance to how long it takes to produce natural crude oil under natural conditions out in the real world.

Thanks for the confirmation of what I've been saying all along.

[RAFH]

Hello Dave,
There are many lines of evidence that point to a requirement for geologically significant time scales to produce oil. I'll offer just one right now to kick off the discussion:

- The bottom of the ocean is cold (about 4 C). The geothermal gradient is about 20-25 degrees C per kilometer. So, you've got to bury the organic constituents of your oil a good kilometer or more in order to turn up the heat sufficiently to get things cooking. The fine-grained sediments which serve as oil source rocks accumulate on the sea floor very slowly - mere millimeters per thousand years. Even if you estimate a high sedimentation rate of 1 mm/yr, it's still going to take a million years for the source organic material to get to depth. Of course, for most of that time the organic matter is being chewed up by heterotrophic microbes - another important process in the formation of natural oils. So, the sedimentation rate of organic rich source rocks is well established, consilient evidence that oil takes millions of years to form.

I anticipate that your response might include an objection to the uniformitarian assumption that sedimentation rates in the past were similar to those presently observed. The hydrology of sedimentation is well-established science with few, if any, old-earth assumptions. Small particles settle out more slowly than do larger particles. Most (maybe all) organic-rich source rocks are fine grained. In your flood model, organic matter should be well mixed among sedimentary rock types, but it is not.

Natural oils are very complex chemical cocktails that vary according to ingredients, age, depositional environment, parent rock characteristics, reservoir rock characteristics, and many other variables. Using mass spectrometry and gas/liquid chromatography, we routinely examine the isotopic and molecular composition of oils and categorize and describe them according to their properties. I would wager a handsome sum that any anthropogenic oil would be readily chemically distinguishable from natural oils.

By the way, algae are single-celled photoautotrophs and as such are no more like animals than is an oak tree. Their remains are the primary constituents of oil. Cyanobacterial remains can also contribute to oils. Zooplankton make up a very small proportion of oils in large part because their numbers are so small in proportion to photosynthetic primary producers - just basic ecology.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a graduate student working in isotope and organic geochemistry (with a healthy dose of paleobiology). I spend my days (and too many nights) extracting organic matter from Paleozoic rocks.

Michael

Thanks for the confirmation of what I've been saying all along.

[Pappy Jack]

David B ... There is no such thing as a "completed" thread. Thanks for your input though. Do you have anything to add WRT to OP?

I'm stocking up on peanuts and popcorn, and awaiting Zadok001.

David B (likes VR's idea)
Pass those munchies along the row!

[Febble]

David B ... There is no such thing as a "completed" thread. Thanks for your input though. Do you have anything to add WRT to OP?

I agree entirely, which makes a refreshing change.

However, there is a relativity of completedness just as there is a relativity of wrong, and threads in which you have failed to address questions that go to the heart of the problem with your position are very much more incomplete than threads that are asymptotically approaching kind of consensus.

And yet you attempt to write a "report" on the Suigetsu threads in which you completely ignore the unaddressed questions you have been asked, as well as the direct refutations of assertions you have made.

There is a problem here.

[RAFH]

David B ... There is no such thing as a "completed" thread. Thanks for your input though. Do you have anything to add WRT to OP?

I agree entirely, which makes a refreshing change.

However, there is a relativity of completedness just as there is a relativity of wrong, and threads in which you have failed to address questions that go to the heart of the problem with your position are very much more incomplete than threads that are asymptotically approaching kind of consensus.

And yet you attempt to write a "report" on the Suigetsu threads in which you completely ignore the unaddressed questions you have been asked, as well as the direct refutations of assertions you have made.

There is a problem here.

No Febble, no problem at all. davey is just doing his job, showing the world what he is and how he operates, what he believes and what kind of a person he is.

Whether not he realizes the sort of picture he paints of himself and, by association, all of those that share his views, is open to question. But whatever he realizes isn't really important, what's important is that he does what he does. It's an old and common story. davey's doing no different than the folks that produced that movie, Expelled. In the process, they've show the world how they operate and the kind of people they are. Now they have to either change their silly movie or look at some extremely serious sanctions for the misdeeds they have done in the production of that movie. The funniest part of that is it wasn't the really serious wrongs they did that caught them up, but a simple little bit of copyright infringement. Perhaps they were so focussed on their big moment they forgot to ask permission to use that material. Perhaps, just as they didn't care about misrepresentation of the various scientists they interviewed under false pretenses and then whose words they took out of context, they really didn't care. Doesn't matter. The show's impact has been effectively blunted. They most likely will not get much distribution now, the movie has a taint to it, one that involves very high stakes for copyright infringement and that's one thing Hollywood takes very seriously. Very seriously. They won't touch it with a 1000 meter pole. Plus it's gotten some very bad press from some very high profile and very difficult to paint in a bad way institutions. Say what you will about either the NYTimes or Fox News, they both panned the movie.

So let davey show himself to the world. All we need do is comment on what he shows and provide the rebuttal.

[Ray Moscow]

Why Do You Think Oil Requires Millions of Years?

Primarily because it is found in formations that are millions of years old

No, such formations could not have been formed in a recent world-wide flood.

[Febble]

Why Do You Think Oil Requires Millions of Years?

Primarily because it is found in formations that are millions of years old

No, such formations could not have been formed in a recent world-wide flood.

QFT.

And no, Dave, it's not a circular argument. It's a conclusion arising from the consilience of multiple lines of evidence.

[Lucretius III]

Why Do You Think Oil Requires Millions of Years?

Primarily because it is found in formations that are millions of years old

No, such formations could not have been formed in a recent world-wide flood.


QED
Well that was short and sweet,is this in fact the quickest answer to any of Dave's questions or quickest refutuation of any of Dave's assertions on record ?

[Dave Hawkins]

Thanks to all, but especially to Michael Tuite and Ninewands. However, I think I'll wait for Zadok to weigh in before commenting further. He says that he is going to just focus on my argument, rather than the arguments of others.

[VoxRat]

Thanks to all, but especially to Michael Tuite and Ninewands. However, I think I'll wait for Zadok to weigh in before commenting further. He says that he is going to just focus on my argument, rather than the arguments of others.Good idea. Maybe that way we can keep the discussion from going off the rails in 12 directions at once.

I suggest we lurkers simply keep track of all the unaddressed issues and dodged questions, and present them at the end of this exercise.

[Lucretius III]

Good idea Vox

[Febble]

I think this is an excellent idea. If people are in agreement, I suggest that only ninewands, Michael Tuite and Dave post in this thread, unless one of them invites an additional participant.

If you like, I'll open a peanut gallery thread for lurkers (in which MT, Dave and Ninewands wouldn't post). Dave? Would that suit you?

ETA: opened the peanut gallery. Also, Zadok should be included in this thread, as VoxRat points out.

[VoxRat]

I think this is an excellent idea. If people are in agreement, I suggest that only ninewands, Michael Tuite and Dave post in this thread, unless one of them invites an additional participant.

If you like, I'll open a peanut gallery thread for lurkers (in which MT, Dave and Ninewands wouldn't post). Dave? Would that suit you?

You'd better include Zadok! That was the whole point!

[Febble]

I think this is an excellent idea. If people are in agreement, I suggest that only ninewands, Michael Tuite and Dave post in this thread, unless one of them invites an additional participant.

If you like, I'll open a peanut gallery thread for lurkers (in which MT, Dave and Ninewands wouldn't post). Dave? Would that suit you?

You'd better include Zadok! That was the whole point!


Of course. Yes, and Zadok. I've opened the peanut gallery.

Over to you, guys!

[ninewands]

Thanks to all, but especially to Michael Tuite and Ninewands. However, I think I'll wait for Zadok to weigh in before commenting further. He says that he is going to just focus on my argument, rather than the arguments of others.
I agree Dave. In fact, I'm not really sure I have all that much to contribute to a discussion of oil formation since I don't have much of a background in geochemistry. My expertise is almost entirely in the area of multiphase fluid flow through porous media. In addition, I don't think I've ever seen you in an online "debate"/discussion where someone has just said, "I'm going to be a blank slate, convince me." So I'm going to sit on the sidelines and observe, only weighing in when my specialized knowledge can illustrate a point or correct a glaring error.

This should be entertaining ... but where the heck IS that :POPCORN: smiley?.

[Michael Tuite]

Hello Dave,
Oil is frequently found in reservoir rocks some distance (as much as several hundred kilometers) from the source rock from which it derived. Even under pressure, oil does not move quickly through intermediate rocks of varying permeabilities. This fact alone provides very compelling evidence that oil reservoirs require millions of years to form.

Michael

[Febble]

Oh boy: please can no-one except Dave, Michael Tuite, Zadok, and ninewands if he wants to, post in this thread?

(And mods obviously). It looks like this idea might be difficult to implement, but let's see if we can make it work!

Other posts split to here:

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=1336

[ninewands]

that oil is formed from zooplankton and algae
that this matter is greatly compressed
that this causes hight heat and pressure
that this high heat and pressure causes chemical changes (diagenesis)
more heat causes it to change into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons (catagenesis)

Notice I'm leaving out the part about how long this takes. We don't want to discuss that yet ... we are seeking common ground first.

Do we agree on these 5 points? Or at least that these are highly likely?
Well, it appears that the missing player, so far, is Zadok. I don't expect Dave to reply to my posts in this thread, but I thought I would contribute a little bit of background material on the conditions under which oil and natural gas forms, and what my experience tells me about the points Dave has raised so far.
that oil is formed from zooplankton and algae
Correct. Not controversial at all.
that this matter is greatly compressed
Correct, for certain values of "greatly." The formations in which oil and gas are formed are subjected to increased pressure due to the hydrostatic pressure gradient (approximately 0.4335275 psi/foot (99.97 (gm/cm^2)/meter) below mean sea level) and in very RARE instances, the weight of the material under which it is buried. The overburden pressure is more significant early on in the process while there is still "excess" porosity and becomes less significant as the sediments are compacted and lithified. Despite the low permeability of the source rock, this process is slow enough that the release of the "overpresure" due to compaction is almost universal.
that this causes hight heat and pressure
Again, for certain values of "high" this is correct. The pressure in a "normally-pressured" oil source formation can be expected to be roughly the hydrostatic head to the depth of the reservoir. The deeper it is buried, the higher the pressure. The temperature is not going to be increased due to the increased pressure, but rather the geothermal gradient. When I was working out in the oil and gas fields, I occasionally encountered wells with a bottom-hole temperature above 300F (149C). These wells were ALWAYS quite deep (12-15000 feet below sea level (~3750--4800 meters).
that this high heat and pressure causes chemical changes (diagenesis)
Correct
more heat causes it to change into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons (catagenesis)
Correct, in the sense that more "heat" in the sense the "heat" means more total thermal energy. The temperature of the source rock is the same as the temperature of the tens of thousands of cubic miles of rock around it. The temperature does not increase significantly during the process. Rock that is buried longer is subjected to "increased heat" in the same sense that bread left in the oven longer is subjected to "increased heat."

Now, Dave, subject to those qualifications, which I suspect Zadok will agree are reasonable, if not necesarily accurate (since he is playing the part of the blank slate), I agree ... you have stated the basics of the petroleum-formation process correctly.

[Dave Hawkins]

If Zadok doesn't show pretty soon, I'll address the posts by Michael and Ninewands

[Dave Hawkins]

My starting point today is the following ... Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post

1. that oil is formed from zooplankton and algae
2. that this matter is greatly compressed
3. that this causes high heat and pressure
4. that this high heat and pressure causes chemical changes (diagenesis)
5. more heat causes it to change into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons (catagenesis)


Notice I'm leaving out the part about how long this takes. We don't want to discuss that yet ... we are seeking common ground first.

Do we agree on these 5 points? Or at least that these are highly likely?Ninewands ... Now, Dave, subject to those qualifications, which I suspect Zadok will agree are reasonable, if not necesarily accurate (since he is playing the part of the blank slate), I agree ... you have stated the basics of the petroleum-formation process correctly.
http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=32819#post32819

This is cause for celebration to me. It is quite rare for anyone on these forums to agree with me about anything.

Now I have read through Michael's posts a couple of times and I hear what he is saying. But I don't want to address his points just yet because to me his points fall into the category of "Positive case for millions of years." What I am seeking to do at the moment is simply to find common ground. What things do we agree on? From there we can move on to "What things do we NOT agree on?" and focus on those things one at a time.

So moving on under the general heading of "Finding Common Ground" ... let's see if we have any more points of agreement ...

Adding to points 1-5 above, we can now observe that ...
6) Both the artificial process and the natural process start with biomass as the raw ingredient
7) Both the artificial process and the natural process produce a crude oil, which, with further refinement can be burned as a motor fuel -- See ARTICLE (http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything-oil/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=) (Search page for "D396")
8) Both the artificial process and the natural process use moderately high heat and pressure to produce this crude oil, one in just 20 minutes, the other in an UNKNOWN period of time -- (See above link, search "600 pounds")

I will stop there for now and see if I can get agreement from both Michael and Ninewands. If you don't agree with any of these last 3 points, could you please explain in detail WHY you don't agree? Thanks.

[Dave Hawkins]

Over in the Peanut Gallery, there are those who apparently don't read carefully. For example, Mike PSS says ... Wrong Dave, the artificial process produces ONLY a type of diesel fuel. Crude oil has many other constituents.But the article says The oil can be sold to utilities as is, further distilled into vehicle-grade diesel and gasoline ... not to mention fertilizer and God knows what else, just like natural crude. Also, Mike doesn't realize what I'm referring to by "crude" in the case of the artificial oil. What I'm referring to is the "concentrated organic soup" which, according to the article In 20 minutes, the process replicates what the deep earth does to dead plants and animals over centuries, chopping long, complex molecular chains of hydrogen and carbon into short-chain molecules.If these Peanut Gallery skeptics need further quashing, they should read these words ... "I'm impressed," says Gabriel Miller, a New York University chemistry professor and a consultant to KeySpan Corporation, a gas and electric utility that serves New York. "The fuel that comes out is better than crude, and you don't need a refinery to use it. I think they can bring it deep into commercialization." Miller has recommended that KeySpan burn the oil in its generators.

[Febble]

Dave, don't comment on the peanut gallery! The whole point was to enable you to concentrate on a few posters! The PG participants can't respond.

[Autodidact]

Oops, see peanut gallery.

[Zadok001]

Apologies for the delay, a very busy weekend for me.

I have been arguing recently over on the RM Dating thread about oil and it seems like it's own topic, so ...

This question goes primarily to Zadok001 taking up where we left off HERE (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=31507#post31507)

Zadok seems like an open-minded guy and it seems he, like me, is not a professional scientist. He wants me to convince him that crude oil does not take millions of years to form.

Eh, sort of. I'm assuming no knowledge of crude oil formation period. The proposition "crude oil takes millions of years to form" has the same truth value as "the world was created less than 10,000 years ago". I am equally convinced of each of those statements, which is to say, not at all.

So ... I'll try. I want to break this up into very tiny baby steps. This exercise is as much as anything an exercise for me to see if I have the ability to convince anyone on these forums of anything at all. I've been doubtful that I can in the past, but I hold out hope.

First, I need to understand where you are at exactly, Zadok. You say that you are agnostic about this subject, i.e. you don't know. So I will start there.

That's a correct characterization of my position.

Let's do it this way ... let's take one point at a time and see where we share common ground.

Ready?

1) Let's discover what parts of this piece from Wiki that we agree on ... Origin

According to the biogenic theory, petroleum is formed from the preserved remains of prehistoric zooplankton and algae which have settled to the sea (or lake) bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions. Over geological time, this organic matter, mixed with mud, is buried under heavy layers of sediment. The resulting high levels of heat and pressure cause the organic matter to chemically change during diagenesis, first into a waxy material known as kerogen which is found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in a process known as catagenesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuelThe parts that are important to me here are ...

1) that oil is formed from zooplankton and algae
2) that this matter is greatly compressed
3) that this causes hight heat and pressure
4) that this high heat and pressure causes chemical changes (diagenesis)
5) more heat causes it to change into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons (catagenesis)

This seems to be correct, based on my own brief research.

Notice I'm leaving out the part about how long this takes. We don't want to discuss that yet ... we are seeking common ground first.

Do we agree on these 5 points? Or at least that these are highly likely?

I don't think "highly likely" is appropriate in this context. Based on what I've now read, I would say this is both the (nearly) unanimous position of those educated on the subject. These five steps appear to simply be correct.

Proceed.

[Dave Hawkins]

Thanks. How about Points 6-8 above?

[ninewands]

My starting point today is the following ... Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post

1. that oil is formed from zooplankton and algae
2. that this matter is greatly compressed
3. that this causes high heat and pressure
4. that this high heat and pressure causes chemical changes (diagenesis)
5. more heat causes it to change into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons (catagenesis)


Notice I'm leaving out the part about how long this takes. We don't want to discuss that yet ... we are seeking common ground first.

Do we agree on these 5 points? Or at least that these are highly likely?Ninewands ... Now, Dave, subject to those qualifications, which I suspect Zadok will agree are reasonable, if not necesarily accurate (since he is playing the part of the blank slate), I agree ... you have stated the basics of the petroleum-formation process correctly.
http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=32819#post32819

This is cause for celebration to me. It is quite rare for anyone on these forums to agree with me about anything.
Dave, please take care here. You will note that my agreement with you was subject to some limitations and qualifications. The ONLY points on which I have agreed with you in an unqualified manner are those which are non-controversial, i.e:
1. that oil is formed from zooplankton and algae
and
4. that this high heat and pressure causes chemical changes (diagenesis)


My agreement on your other points are qualified by limits which I hope you will eventually see draw a bright distinct line between laboratory and industrial processes and processes which occur in nature.

Note: Comment about Michael's post snipped ... not germane to this particular discussion.

So moving on under the general heading of "Finding Common Ground" ... let's see if we have any more points of agreement ...

Adding to points 1-5 above, we can now observe that ...
6) Both the artificial process and the natural process start with biomass as the raw ingredient
Yes, subject to your realization that there is a vast difference between the type of biomass from which natural crude oil forms and the lipid-rich meat-processing waste the process in the article uses.
7) Both the artificial process and the natural process produce a crude oil, which, with further refinement can be burned as a motor fuel -- See ARTICLE (http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything-oil/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=) (Search page for "D396")
Here we are going to disagree. While the product from this plant may be an acceptable grade of fuel oil (please note ASTM D396 covers a wide range of distillate fuel oils) it is, in no way, equivalent to naturally occurring crude oil. If it is truly composed of plain hydrocarbons (allowing for all of the following: straight-chain molecules, cyclics and aromatics), it is still merely equivalent to a fraction of what crude oil is.

Remember this graphic from the original thread where you brought this up?

http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/images/chap08_in_barrel_of_oil.jpg

The black portion in the middle labeled "Distillate fuel oil, 9.2 gal." is the fraction of crude oil that is roughly equivalent to the product of this process. See that big fat red one at the bottom? That's missing from the product. See all those narrow stripy bands at the top? There are complex molecules in there that are among some of the most valuable fractions of natural crude because they serve as feedstocks for the chemical industry. They are also missing from the product.

Don't get me wrong, Dave. I think this is a really cool process that has big potential for contributing to some fraction of the energy supply AND helping alleviate a serious solid-waste problem in this country ... but the product is NOT equivalent to crude oil, and it can't replace crude oil in the market because it is not DESIGNED to replace crude oil. It is designed to be a substitute for PART of the distillate fuel oil in the market (notice in the article where they said the company that buys the product blends it with fossil-fuel derived fuel oil to "upgrade" it?). No, Dave. This is something cool if it survives the attempt to commercialize it, but it's not crude oil and I seriously doubt that Mr. Appel would claim it is.
8) Both the artificial process and the natural process use moderately high heat and pressure to produce this crude oil, one in just 20 minutes, the other in an UNKNOWN period of time -- (See above link, search "600 pounds")
Dave, the "turkey guts" process uses nowhere NEAR "moderately high" heat for a process involving organic chemistry. It is, in fact, extreme heat. 500F is 260C, nearly three times the boiling point of water. 900F is 482.22... C. This is significant because back when I was working in the oil & gas business I worked a LOT with analyses of crude oils. Almost without exception the report of the fractional distillation of the the oil ended with:

600° F Sample cracked

This is also significant with regard to the subject of this thread. There is no breakdown of the time involved in the two-step process to produce this product. We were told in the first article that the entire process takes a couple of hours, so, for simplicity's sake, I am going to assume one hour at 500 degrees and one at 900.

A rule of thumb in chemical process design is that the rate of reaction doubles for every 10C that you elevate the temperature. If we say that a typical depth of burial for source rocks to produce crude oil is, say, 7500 feet, it is most likely that the temperature where the biomass is being converted to oil is going to be about 200F, maximum. This corresponds to 93.333... Celsius.

The temperature for the first step of the thermal depolymerization process, which basically amounts to rendering the fat out of the feedstock, is 260C. Subtract 93.333 from that and you get 166.667, call it 160 for the sake of being generous to the process. Assuming my time split estimate is somewhere close to the truth, the rendering step would require 2^16 (65536) hours, or seven and a half years, at source rock temperature. Likewise, the second step would be expected to take 2^((482.222-93.333)/10) = 509,008,926,197 hours, or 58,066,270 years.

So, no, Dave. While the pressures involved are, indeed, moderate, I most emphatically do NOT agree that the "turkey guts to fuel oil process" occurs at "moderately high heat."
I will stop there for now and see if I can get agreement from both Michael and Ninewands. If you don't agree with any of these last 3 points, could you please explain in detail WHY you don't agree?
Done.
Thanks.
You're welcome. :D

ETA: Oops, Zadok posted his response while I was working on mine. I'll just drop back into observer status until my input might help ...

[Zadok001]

So moving on under the general heading of "Finding Common Ground" ... let's see if we have any more points of agreement ...

Adding to points 1-5 above, we can now observe that ...
6) Both the artificial process and the natural process start with biomass as the raw ingredient

Just a comment... The term "biomass" seems loosely defined in this context.

7) Both the artificial process and the natural process produce a crude oil, which, with further refinement can be burned as a motor fuel -- See ARTICLE (http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything-oil/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=) (Search page for "D396")

I think this article actually states something quite different. It specifies the type as D396, which is discussed here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heating_oil). It's commonly known as heating oil #2, and it can be burned directly in heaters.

Earlier in your article, we even get the following:


One hundred fifty barrels of fuel oil, worth $12,600 wholesale, gush into the truck, headed for an oil company that will blend it with heavier fossil-fuel oils to upgrade the stock.


(Emphasis mine.)

That seems to directly imply a distinction between the two substances.

8) Both the artificial process and the natural process use moderately high heat and pressure to produce this crude oil, one in just 20 minutes, the other in an UNKNOWN period of time -- (See above link, search "600 pounds")

I'm mostly using the article you linked to for reference, but I can't find any reference to the oil in question being "crude oil". "Oil" is unfortunately a very fluid term, and your article implies that you are using two different definitions interchangeably.

I will stop there for now and see if I can get agreement from both Michael and Ninewands. If you don't agree with any of these last 3 points, could you please explain in detail WHY you don't agree? Thanks.

My disagreement is simply that I cannot see any reference in this article to the production of crude oil. We've agreed on the natural process that produces crude oil, and we agree that this laboratory process produces oil, but we disagree that this oil is crude. The article seems to disagree with that assessment as well, citing both that fossil-fuel oil is heavier, and that D396 is the same stuff we throw in furnaces.

[Michael Tuite]

Hello Dave,
In the spirit of consensus-building, may I suggest that we agree upon some standard vocabulary? I suggest that we use the term "fossil fuels" to refer to the naturally occurring substance and "bio-fuels" to refer to the man-made stuff, no matter how it is made. Otherwise, I fear a semantic ambush in the inevitable concession that "oil" can be made in geologically insignificant timeframes.

Ninewands has parsed items 6-8 more thoroughly than I would be able. His back-of-the-envelope reaction time calculations are yet another line of reasoning with no inherent "old earth" assumptions that supports the proposition that fossil fuels form over the course of millions of years. Too little heat, even for extended periods, won't be sufficient to transform biopolymers into geopolymers. Too much heat, even for a brief time, will bake out the volatiles and leave you with useless black gunk. The "oil window" requires just enough heat over long periods of time to make something useful. Don't forget, there is a lot of useless organic material in the earth's crust - some too mature, some not mature enough.

Michael

[Zadok001]

Hello Dave,
In the spirit of consensus-building, may I suggest that we agree upon some standard vocabulary? I suggest that we use the term "fossil fuels" to refer to the naturally occurring substance and "bio-fuels" to refer to the man-made stuff, no matter how it is made. Otherwise, I fear a semantic ambush in the inevitable concession that "oil" can be made in geologically insignificant timeframes.

I agree with your goal of standardizing vocabulary, but disagree with your choices of words. After all, what Hawkins is claiming we produce in the lab IS "fossil fuels", and "fossil fuels" are biological in origin. How about "natural" and "artificial" as prefixes?

[Michael Tuite]

"Natural" and "artificial" should be perfectly adequate.

Michael

[ninewands]

I can go for the "natural"/"artificial" terminology.

Dave, are you down with that?

[Dave Hawkins]

Not much time this morning as I have meetings all day (all week actually) ... but a few quick points.

1) I agree with the "natural" and "artificial" terminology
2) I see that while I have pretty good agreement on Points 1-5, I do not on Points 6-8, so this is where I will focus next
3) (Ref. Point 6 above) Both Ninewands and Zadok place great emphasis on the differences in the feedstock. While I agree that they are different, I would ask how different are they really? They certainly are both organic, that is, formerly living cells, so how different can they be? I don't have time to research this today. Maybe someone who knows can comment. Ninewands mentions lipids. Maybe he could elaborate on the details of why he thinks there is such a vast difference between the two.
4) (Ref. Point 7 above) Both Zadok and Ninewands object to what they perceive as my comparison of D396 to natural crude. But if you read carefully, I do not make this comparison. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I wrote "7) Both the artificial process and the natural process produce a crude oil, which, with further refinement can be burned as a motor fuel -- See ARTICLE (Search page for "D396")". Telling you to search for "D396" was intended to get you to the right spot on the page, not make a direct comparison. In my opinion, the "remaining concentrated organic soup" which is the output of the first process--"first-stage reactor breaks down the stuff with heat and pressure, after which the pressure rapidly drops, flashing off excess water and minerals"--is the stuff that is comparable to natural crude oil. Hopefully more light will be shed on this.
5) (Ref. Point 8 above) Ninewands makes some good points about temperature. After more careful reading, I see that the 500 degrees in the artificial process refers to the SECOND heating, which I think would be better categorized as a refining step, rather than the FIRST heating. The temperature of the first stage is not specified. I suppose we could contact the technical people at the turkey plant to get more details about the first stage temperature and also about the exact chemical makeup of the feedstock.

Out of time. More tomorrow morning.

[ninewands]

I'm fine with that Dave, although, 1) my agreement to your points 1-5 is subject to some fairly stringent environmental limits (i.e., conditions that could actually exist in nature), and 2) as I mentioned, I'm primarily in this thread as an observer.

I do NOT want this to turn into a debate or a "pile on Dave" thread. I only want to contribute when I see a glaring error or when there is a point that requires specialized knowledge to keep things clear. I'm pretty sure that's also how Michael sees his role here. So don't put a lot of time and effort in responding to my posts unless you feel driven to do so. As the "teacher" here you should focus your presentation on convincing Zadok and addressing the questions he raises.

[Zadok001]

Not much time this morning as I have meetings all day (all week actually) ... but a few quick points.

1) I agree with the "natural" and "artificial" terminology
2) I see that while I have pretty good agreement on Points 1-5, I do not on Points 6-8, so this is where I will focus next
3) (Ref. Point 6 above) Both Ninewands and Zadok place great emphasis on the differences in the feedstock.

I did no such thing. I commented that the term "biomass" seemed loosely defined. Feedstock's different, almost without a doubt, but I'm not convinced that matters.

4) (Ref. Point 7 above) Both Zadok and Ninewands object to what they perceive as my comparison of D396 to natural crude. But if you read carefully, I do not make this comparison. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I wrote "7) Both the artificial process and the natural process produce a crude oil, which, with further refinement can be burned as a motor fuel -- See ARTICLE (Search page for "D396")". Telling you to search for "D396" was intended to get you to the right spot on the page, not make a direct comparison.

It got us to a spot on the page where a direct comparison occurs:


The oil itself meets specification D396, a type widely used to power electrical utility generators.


You said in your premise, again:


Both the artificial process and the natural process produce a crude oil...


D396 is not crude oil. You agree with that claim, correct? The article clearly states the oil produced is D396 compliant. Therefore, ipso facto, the artificial oil is not crude.


In my opinion, the "remaining concentrated organic soup" which is the output of the first process--"first-stage reactor breaks down the stuff with heat and pressure, after which the pressure rapidly drops, flashing off excess water and minerals"--is the stuff that is comparable to natural crude oil. Hopefully more light will be shed on this.

That claim fails a basic sanity test. Crude oil may be crude, but it's DAMN useful, and damn expensive. Why would you keep going after producing artificial crude, and create "mere" heating oil?

Regardless, I don't see this claim anywhere in the article, or any of the other articles I've seen linked on this forum. I've only heard this part from you. Can you cite me a reference point?

5) (Ref. Point 8 above) Ninewands makes some good points about temperature. After more careful reading, I see that the 500 degrees in the artificial process refers to the SECOND heating, which I think would be better categorized as a refining step, rather than the FIRST heating. The temperature of the first stage is not specified. I suppose we could contact the technical people at the turkey plant to get more details about the first stage temperature and also about the exact chemical makeup of the feedstock.

Do feel free to do so.

I think now is an appropriate time for me to raise an objection, however. You're not doing your job. If I grant you every single word you've said on this thread, without questioning a bit of it, you'll still not have convinced me that the earth is young. You'll have convinced me that oil does not necessarily require millions of years to form, which you no doubt view as a coup of epic proportions, but it doesn't actually move me from neutrality on the subject of the age of the young. An old-earth paradigm is not contradicted by this, but even if it was, it does not positively support a young earth.

[Dave Hawkins]

Zadok ... My short term goal is not to convince you that the earth is young, but merely that natural crude oil does not require millions of years to form. Please slow down and just focus on the items at hand, Items 6-8.

[Zadok001]

Zadok ... My short term goal is not to convince you that the earth is young, but merely that natural crude oil does not require millions of years to form. Please slow down and just focus on the items at hand, Items 6-8.

This experiment of ours is largely interesting because it shouldn't need to trod the same footpaths as the other arguments you've made in the past, because I'm intentionally running ahead. I'm assuming zero pre-existing knowledge, meaning I'm CURRENTLY unconvinced that crude oil requires millions of years to form.

In other words, if we throw everything that's been said in this thread out the window, I'm *already* in your camp on this subject - Crude oil may not require millions of years to form. Sold, hook, line, and sinker.

If you want to discuss this article, we can do that (and I've already discussed your points on that subject, feel free to use that as the next jump-off point), but I'm still willing to simply grant you all the claims you want that tear down "deep time", because I'm starting from a position without a "deep time" preconception. It's the rest of the trip (from neutral to YEC) that's unique to this experiment.

[Dave Hawkins]

Boy am I confused ... Are you or are you not convinced that natural crude oil does not require millions of years to form? I thought I was supposed to be working to convince you of this. Is my job now complete?

[Febble]

Boy am I confused ... Are you or are you not convinced that natural crude oil does not require millions of years to form? I thought I was supposed to be working to convince you of this. Is my job now complete?


A bit of helpful formatting from your friendly E&O mod:

Zadok ... My short term goal is not to convince you that the earth is young, but merely that natural crude oil does not require millions of years to form. Please slow down and just focus on the items at hand, Items 6-8.

This experiment of ours is largely interesting because it shouldn't need to trod the same footpaths as the other arguments you've made in the past, because I'm intentionally running ahead. I'm assuming zero pre-existing knowledge, meaning I'm CURRENTLY unconvinced that crude oil requires millions of years to form.

In other words, if we throw everything that's been said in this thread out the window, I'm *already* in your camp on this subject - Crude oil may not require millions of years to form. Sold, hook, line, and sinker.

If you want to discuss this article, we can do that (and I've already discussed your points on that subject, feel free to use that as the next jump-off point), but I'm still willing to simply grant you all the claims you want that tear down "deep time", because I'm starting from a position without a "deep time" preconception. It's the rest of the trip (from neutral to YEC) that's unique to this experiment.

[Zadok001]

Boy am I confused ... Are you or are you not convinced that natural crude oil does not require millions of years to form? I thought I was supposed to be working to convince you of this. Is my job now complete?

Shouldn't be too confusing - I'm starting from a position unconvinced of anything on the subject. Does natural crude take millions of years to form? I dunno. Maybe. Maybe not. You're showing me evidence meant to convince me "Maybe not", but I'm already there. You're trying to run me through the same gamut you'd put Febble or Oolon through, and just thinking I'll be more pliable, but I'm trying to be a different creature altogether - Starting UNconvinced of YEC AND "deep time", and see where you can lead me.

[ETA - Thank you Febble, that accurately summarizes the important points.]

[Michael Tuite]

Hello Dave,
Natural oils vary significantly in their physical and chemical properties. Perhaps the two most significant determinants of those properties are the nature of the initial organic matter and the thermal history of that material. The feedstock does matter a lot.

For instance, two commonly used biomarkers in petroleum analysis are pristane and phytane which derive from the chlorophyl found in photosynthesizing organisms. These would clearly be absent from the artificial oil manufactured from turkey guts and would make the two substances easily distinguishable. Similarly, the carbon isotope (13 not 14) difference between marine primary producers and terrestrial herbivores would be a dead giveaway that the oils were not derived from the same source.

I need to dig around a bit to see if there is any literature on the chromatographic analysis of animal-derived fuels to get a better sense of what the chemical characteristics of an artificial oil are. I'm not certain, however, who would have much research interest in cooking animal parts at high temperature and analyzing what comes out. Yuck. No doubt someone has.

Nevertheless, there is no ambiguity on this question: Ingredients determine the chemical characteristics of an oil and natural and artificial oils are clearly distinguishable.

Michael

[Dave Hawkins]

Michael ... I'm not certain, however, who would have much research interest in cooking animal parts at high temperature and analyzing what comes out. Yuck. No doubt someone has.
:p

Zadok ... You're showing me evidence meant to convince me "Maybe not", but I'm already there. Wow. That was easy. I wish there were more posters like you. Again, since I've got you convinced that maybe it doesn't require millions of years after all, my focus will be on these three points ... 6) Both the artificial process and the natural process start with biomass as the raw ingredient
7) Both the artificial process and the natural process produce a crude oil, which, with further refinement can be burned as a motor fuel -- See ARTICLE (Search page for "D396")
8) Both the artificial process and the natural process use moderately high heat and pressure to produce this crude oil, one in just 20 minutes, the other in an UNKNOWN period of time -- (See above link, search "600 pounds")Regarding Point 6, Michael concedes ... Natural oils vary significantly in their physical and chemical properties. Perhaps the two most significant determinants of those properties are the nature of the initial organic matter and the thermal history of that material. The feedstock does matter a lot.I agree. Natural oils vary significantly. So if we discover that the "turkey crude" is quite a bit different from "natural crude" ... so what? Your side is already admitting that we will have wide variation among natural crudes anyway, right? So why is this significant? To me the important point is precisely what I stated ... "Both the artificial process and the natural process start with biomass as the raw ingredient" ... which argues strongly that the natural crude quite possibly did not take millions of years. As for my Point 7, I see no disagreement. As for Point 8, we really don't know yet how the two processes compare. I don't have time this week to call a tech guy at the turkey place to ask about pressure and temperature in the first stage.

[Zadok001]

Michael ... I'm not certain, however, who would have much research interest in cooking animal parts at high temperature and analyzing what comes out. Yuck. No doubt someone has.
:p

Zadok ... You're showing me evidence meant to convince me "Maybe not", but I'm already there. Wow. That was easy. I wish there were more posters like you. Again, since I've got you convinced that maybe it doesn't require millions of years after all, my focus will be on these three points ... 6) Both the artificial process and the natural process start with biomass as the raw ingredient
7) Both the artificial process and the natural process produce a crude oil, which, with further refinement can be burned as a motor fuel -- See ARTICLE (Search page for "D396")
8) Both the artificial process and the natural process use moderately high heat and pressure to produce this crude oil, one in just 20 minutes, the other in an UNKNOWN period of time -- (See above link, search "600 pounds")

The article that you posted provides information that contradicts point #7, however, given the nature of this debate, I will assume that's due to a fault in the article, and not in your understanding of it. All three points granted.

I should note that these points still have not changed anything about my initial state. You're showing that oil may not take millions of years to form, and can be formed rapidly. Granting all of that information, this does not seem to support in any way the standard YEC hypothesis. However, you have my faith - Please continue with where this is going.

Regarding Point 6, Michael concedes ... Natural oils vary significantly in their physical and chemical properties. Perhaps the two most significant determinants of those properties are the nature of the initial organic matter and the thermal history of that material. The feedstock does matter a lot.I agree. Natural oils vary significantly. So if we discover that the "turkey crude" is quite a bit different from "natural crude" ... so what? Your side is already admitting that we will have wide variation among natural crudes anyway, right? So why is this significant? To me the important point is precisely what I stated ... "Both the artificial process and the natural process start with biomass as the raw ingredient" ... which argues strongly that the natural crude quite possibly did not take millions of years. As for my Point 7, I see no disagreement. As for Point 8, we really don't know yet how the two processes compare. I don't have time this week to call a tech guy at the turkey place to ask about pressure and temperature in the first stage.

All points granted, from a perspective of neutrality. These points have no impact on the veracity of the YEC claims.

[Michael Tuite]

Hello Dave,
Again, the ingredients determine the characteristics of the oil. "Biomass" is not a sufficiently explicit term to describe the ingredients of natural and artificial oils. Natural oils are made from algae, primarily, along with greater or lesser amounts of bacteria (of differing sorts) and bits of terrestrial plants (depending on the environment). Turkey gut oil is made from, well, turkey guts. Different ingredients, different product. As in cooking, the details matter in chemistry.

May I make a suggestion? Potentially, your argument could be stronger if you dropped the turkey oil argument and focused on algal-derived artificial oils. There's plenty of information on the web about the topic and you wouldn't be stuck comparing apples and oranges.

Michael

[ninewands]

I think Michael has a good idea. There has been a LOT of work done on algae-derived synthetic oils in recent years and I'm sure that quite a lot off information about it is freely available on the web.

Dave, one quick question if I may. Do you think petroleum forms in situ? This is an important question for your thesis that rapidly-formed oil supports the conclusion of a younf earth.

[Michael Tuite]

Hello Dave,
I found this page on algal oils to very helpful and it certainly provides more technical details than the turkey-guts article:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/w7241e/w7241e0h.htm

Michael

[ninewands]

Oops, that younf was supposed to be young.

(Note to self, learn to type ... failing that learn to proofread.)

[Dave Hawkins]

It seems that Zadok has taken the position of agreeing with all 8 of my points and he wants me to move on to convince him of the truth of YEC. Again, I will say that the goal of this thread is not convince a person of YEC, but to convince a person that millions of years is not needed to form natural crude oil, thus supporting the idea that the scientific community should seriously challenge this dogma and explore alternative mechanisms for natural crude oil formation, such as the Global Flood of Noah. It seems that mainstream geologists are afraid of the mere mention of such a possible mechanism, much less a detailed investigation. But science should not be driven by fear and peer pressure. Science should be driven by a dispassionate search for the truth, wherever one may find it.

And if the truth about everything is what we're after, then what is the truth about the chemical composition of turkey guts vs. natural crude oil feedstock?

Michael Tuite is asserting that natural crude feedstock is primarily algae, while the Wiki article on "fossil fuels" says it is composed of "zooplankton and algae." Also, Ninewands has asserted that "there is a vast difference between the type of biomass from which natural crude oil forms and the lipid-rich meat-processing waste the process in the article uses." Apparently, Ninewands believes that algae and/or zooplankton (or both) are lipid-poor. However, careful reading of the link that Michael supplied reveals that algae are not lipid-poor at all. Table 6-1 shows wide variation of about 2 - 38% lipid composition. I could not find the lipid percentage of "turkey guts" exactly. But I found this article (http://www.springerlink.com/content/c52473377651566p/) which gives the lipid percentages for turkey liver of 8.85% and skin of 38.5%. Presumably, things like intestines, kidneys, hearts, etc. would fall somewhere in between these percentages.

My conclusion: not a significant difference in lipid content, contrary to what Ninewands would have us believe.

Don't forget also that we have only compared the algae component of natural crude oil feedstock and have ignored the zooplankton component. Maybe tomorrow I will have time to investigate this. In closing this post, I call your attention to a sentence from Michael's link ... Algal oils possess characteristics similar to those offish and vegetable oils, and can thus be considered as potential substitutes for the products of fossil oil (2).Again, like with the turkey products, we have mention of a substitute for the products of fossil oil, and--significantly--the process of producing algal oil does NOT take millions of years. It simply takes the right process. So we see that not only does a crude oil alternative with a different yet similar feedstock (turkey oil) not require millions of years to form, but also, the very feedstock that Michael claims is the primary component of natural crude ALSO does not require millions of years to form.

I hope by now that you are getting quite used to the idea that crude oil--whatever the feedstock--does not require millions of years to form. In fact, I suspect that if it really sat around for millions of years, something quite nasty would happen to it and it would be rendered useless for making fuel, plastics, etc. We shall explore this more later.

As Tigger famously says ... TTFN!

[Dave Hawkins]

Just in case anyone would happen to think (hypothetically speaking, of course) that ...

a) I need to show that the results of the two processes are similar, not the feedstocks, and
b) I'm saying something like soybeans are a kind of cow, or perhaps
c) That I am somehow dodging the question of how algae can turn into crude in a short time,

I ... a) already have, b) am not, and c) am covering this topic in a logical progression.

(Not that anyone would ever in a million years think these sorts of things, of course ... but just in case)

[Zadok001]

It seems that Zadok has taken the position of agreeing with all 8 of my points and he wants me to move on to convince him of the truth of YEC. Again, I will say that the goal of this thread is not convince a person of YEC, but to convince a person that millions of years is not needed to form natural crude oil, thus supporting the idea that the scientific community should seriously challenge this dogma and explore alternative mechanisms for natural crude oil formation, such as the Global Flood of Noah.

If that's your goal, you have failed spectacularly. I agreed that claim before we started (neutral position evaluates all "may" claims equally), and everyone else is somewhere between completely unconvinced and laughing at you. Here's how our direct debate has proceeded:

1. I position myself as neutral, grant your claims that oil formation may not take millions of years, and ask where that gets us.

2. You claim that oil may not take millions of years to form, and cite an article about rapid artificial formation.

3. [I am absent for two days]

4. You argue that the outputs from the natural processes and the artificial processes are the same, citing D396 in the article.

5. I point out that the article specifies, on two occasions, that the artificial output and the natural outputs are different. First, it states that the natural outputs are "heavier" and are combined with the artificial outputs to alter them. Second, it calls the artificial outputs D396 compliant, which natural crude oil is not. QED.

6. You claim (without citation, backup, or evidence) that the artificial process produces the same stuff as natural crude, but then they continue to work with it until it is no longer natural crude. This is complete speculation.

7. I point out that your new claim is complete speculation, and note that it doesn't matter anyway, because I'm already in your camp - Have been since minute of this debate - Natural crude oil may not take millions of years to form.

That's all well and good, but trying (and failing) to cast doubt on aspects of geology can never support the YEC position without relying on a false dichotomy. Even if, by some miracle of unbelievable proportions, you convinced everyone on this board that oil may not take millions of years to form, you would have made absolutely no progress towards convincing *anyone* of YEC - The two claims are unrelated. You wouldn't even have convinced anyone to abandon "deep time", because "deep time" does not RELY upon ancient oil - And we're back to the smooth pebble analogy.

I also tend to interpret your statements here as tantamount to admission that no positive case for YEC can be presented. That's about what I expected, but hey - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you just don't want to convince anyone of YEC.

[Dave Hawkins]

Zadok ... Let's try this again ... I'm not interested in hearing you assume a position for arguments sake that you truly don't believe.

I'm interested in finding out the details of which of my 8 points you truly do agree with now. Are you interested in sharing this with me? Or not?

If not, I suggest you stop posting here and move to the Peanut Gallery.

[VoxRat]

voluntarily giving you the floor undistracted, is to see if you can or will ever support your claims. If Zadok grants you points, whether or not it's for the sake of argument, it's to try to facilitate just that.

Support your claim, and quit distracting.]

[Michael Tuite]

Hello Dave,
I am going to outline an argument for the necessity of millions of years to form natural oil that does not incorporate any "old earth" assumptions.

1) Natural oils are composed primarily of the biochemical remains of single-celled aquatic photosynthesizing primary producers (algae). The evidence for this lies in the biomarkers present in all natural oils.

2) The "oil window" is a range of temperatures (~60-160 C) in which organic rich rocks produce their maximum yield of hydrocarbons. This is an empirical observation based upon innumerable samples collected and analyzed from cores and temperatures taken in those wells.

3) Based upon the observed geothermal gradient of 25 C per kilometer, the depth of the "oil window" is roughly between 2.4 and 6.4 kilometers depth.

4) According to these folks, http://www.fao.org/docrep/w7241e/w7241e0h.htm, algae can be converted to liquid hydrocarbons at temperatures between 400 and 430 C. 400 C is equivalent to a depth of 16 km.

5) The difference between 400 C and an approximate "oil window" temperature of 100 C is 300 C.

6) As Ninewands has already pointed out, we know from Arhennuis' empirically supported equation that the rate of a chemical reaction doubles with each 10 C increase in temperature.

7) Assuming that the algae cooking process at 400 C takes only a day, how long will the same reaction take at 100 C? The answer is 2^(300/10) or 1073741824 days. That's 2.9 million years.

Just basic chemistry and some observations of the contemporary earth are sufficient to support the proposition that natural oil requires millions of years to form.

Michael

[Zadok001]

Zadok ... Let's try this again ... I'm not interested in hearing you assume a position for arguments sake that you truly don't believe.

I'm interested in finding out the details of which of my 8 points you truly do agree with now. Are you interested in sharing this with me? Or not?

I have shared this with you, but it's irrelevant, because you're arguing a position I'm already on board with. I don't think you have provided evidence to support that position, but IT DOESN'T MATTER, because your claim is a counter-claim, and I'm not working from the presupposition of the original.

Let me lay this out for you again.

Your claim is that oil may not require millions of years to form. Since I am starting from a position without bias, I agree with that claim. I would *NOT* agree with the following claims:

1. Oil requires millions of years to form.

2. Oil is incapable of forming over the course of millions of years (i.e., if the earth is millions of years old, we would not expect to find oil from ancient biomass).

3. Natural crude oil is incapable of forming in a short period of time.

You are making a counter-claim to position 1, which is a position I already disagree with. You win. Next?

[ninewands]

* * *
Also, Ninewands has asserted that "there is a vast difference between the type of biomass from which natural crude oil forms and the lipid-rich meat-processing waste the process in the article uses." Apparently, Ninewands believes that algae and/or zooplankton (or both) are lipid-poor.
I did not say that, Dave. I am well aware that the 15 or 20 species of algae used in researching the potential of algae-based biofuels are quite high in lipids and they contain significant amount of waxy material too.
My conclusion: not a significant difference in lipid content, contrary to what Ninewands would have us believe.
No, what I would have you consider is the fact that there are huge differences between the lipids formed in plant-like organisms like algae and zooplankton, and the fats produced by vertebrate animals like turkeys and pigs. We'd probably have to get a biochemist in here to explain all the gory details.

I would also point out that there is a significant difference in the composition of "TCP-40" and natural crude oils. The image below is a screenshot of a spreadsheet I made showing the difference in the composition of "TCP-40" and various natural crudes. The analysis of the "TCP-40" crude is from a paper that was presented at a meeting in Las Vegas ... I'm afraid I didn't save the link I found, although I might have saved the pdf. I'll have to look on my computer at home. The analyses of the various natural crudes came from an EPA report on crude oil toxicity. I've hidden the image becauses it's HUGE (like 1500 pixels wide).

http://www2.egr.uh.edu/~cwilkin3/oil_analysis.png

I haven't found any analyses of artificial crudes produced using an algal feedstock because most of the research being done is with processes that skip the crude oil stage and go straight to a finished fuel product.

[VoxRat]

I wonder if a little clarification from the participants might be helpful at this point. Dave said, in post #1 of this thread:He wants me to convince him that crude oil does not take millions of years to form. Also: the title of the thread is "Why Do You Think Oil Requires Millions of Years?"
...Let me lay this out for you again.

Your claim is that oil may not require millions of years to form. Since I am starting from a position without bias, I agree with that claim. I would *NOT* agree with the following claims:

1. Oil requires millions of years to form. [Dave also would not agree]

2. Oil is incapable of forming over the course of millions of years (i.e., if the earth is millions of years old, we would not expect to find oil from ancient biomass).

3. Natural crude oil is incapable of forming in a short period of time. [Dave also would not agree]

You are making a counter-claim to position 1, which is a position I already disagree with. You win. Next?So if Dave has convinced Zadok that petroleum may not take millions of years to form, what's left for Dave to do? Only item #2, right? Or are there other questions in play here that I'm missing?

VoxRat (not really participating in the thread, just trying to clarify)

[Dave Hawkins]

I wonder if a little clarification from the participants might be helpful at this point. Dave said, in post #1 of this thread:He wants me to convince him that crude oil does not take millions of years to form. Also: the title of the thread is "Why Do You Think Oil Requires Millions of Years?"
...Let me lay this out for you again.

Your claim is that oil may not require millions of years to form. Since I am starting from a position without bias, I agree with that claim. I would *NOT* agree with the following claims:

1. Oil requires millions of years to form. [Dave also would not agree]

2. Oil is incapable of forming over the course of millions of years (i.e., if the earth is millions of years old, we would not expect to find oil from ancient biomass).

3. Natural crude oil is incapable of forming in a short period of time. [Dave also would not agree]

You are making a counter-claim to position 1, which is a position I already disagree with. You win. Next?So if Dave has convinced Zadok that petroleum may not take millions of years to form, what's left for Dave to do? Only item #2, right? Or are there other questions in play here that I'm missing?

VoxRat (not really participating in the thread, just trying to clarify)
This is one of those rare and delicate moments which I will no doubt savor for years to come that Voxrat and I agree on something.

As for Zadok's remaining point (2) let me say that I have no idea if oil CAN form over millions of years. Perhaps it can. However, I shall be long dead and my species no doubt extinct by the time we find out. I can only speculate about all the hideous misfortunes that could befall an otherwise pristine pocket of oil over millions of years.

Thank you for playing, Zadok, and tomorrow I will address the recent posts by Michael and Ninewands.

[Zadok001]

I wonder if a little clarification from the participants might be helpful at this point. Dave said, in post #1 of this thread:He wants me to convince him that crude oil does not take millions of years to form. Also: the title of the thread is "Why Do You Think Oil Requires Millions of Years?"
...Let me lay this out for you again.

Your claim is that oil may not require millions of years to form. Since I am starting from a position without bias, I agree with that claim. I would *NOT* agree with the following claims:

1. Oil requires millions of years to form. [Dave also would not agree]

2. Oil is incapable of forming over the course of millions of years (i.e., if the earth is millions of years old, we would not expect to find oil from ancient biomass).

3. Natural crude oil is incapable of forming in a short period of time. [Dave also would not agree]

You are making a counter-claim to position 1, which is a position I already disagree with. You win. Next?So if Dave has convinced Zadok that petroleum may not take millions of years to form, what's left for Dave to do? Only item #2, right? Or are there other questions in play here that I'm missing?

VoxRat (not really participating in the thread, just trying to clarify)
This is one of those rare and delicate moments which I will no doubt savor for years to come that Voxrat and I agree on something.

As for Zadok's remaining point (2) let me say that I have no idea if oil CAN form over millions of years. Perhaps it can. However, I shall be long dead and my species no doubt extinct by the time we find out. I can only speculate about all the hideous misfortunes that could befall an otherwise pristine pocket of oil over millions of years.

Thank you for playing, Zadok, and tomorrow I will address the recent posts by Michael and Ninewands.

Can I assume, then, that you have no interest in engaging a neutral party in an effort to present a case for YEC, as per my original intention? That was rather my expectation, so I'm not surprised, but still disappointed.

If not, oh, well. Just another in your endless string of failed arguments.

[ninewands]

Zadok ... Let's try this again ... I'm not interested in hearing you assume a position for arguments sake that you truly don't believe.
Dave, that is not what Zadok has done. What he has said is that he is unconvinced that natural crude oil requires millions of years to form. He is also unconvinced that natural crude oil does not require millions of years to form. What he has asked you to do is to make a positive case that natural crude oil does not require millions of years to form and then to show how that fact supports the argument that the earth is young.
I'm interested in finding out the details of which of my 8 points you truly do agree with now. Are you interested in sharing this with me? Or not?
Dave, if Zadok were to concede all of your points as you have stated them so far you would not be one inch closer to accomplishing the task of satisfying his inquiry.

All you have shown, so far, is that one can produce something sort of similar to distillate fuel oil on an industrial scale by cooking garbage under carefully controlled conditions. This is not new news. The Germans did something similar using coal as their feedstock during World War II.
If not, I suggest you stop posting here and move to the Peanut Gallery.
Hmmmmm .....

[ninewands]

In this post (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=37038#post37038), written yesterday at 4:47PM, Dave wrote:
Thank you for playing, Zadok, and tomorrow I will address the recent posts by Michael and Ninewands.
Nothing today ... makes me wonder if Dave lacks interest in engaging people with direct, relevant expertise in the subject matter of this thread.

[ninewands]

*** crickets ***

[Dave Hawkins]

Hello Dave,
I am going to outline an argument for the necessity of millions of years to form natural oil that does not incorporate any "old earth" assumptions.

1) Natural oils are composed primarily of the biochemical remains of single-celled aquatic photosynthesizing primary producers (algae). The evidence for this lies in the biomarkers present in all natural oils.

2) The "oil window" is a range of temperatures (~60-160 C) in which organic rich rocks produce their maximum yield of hydrocarbons. This is an empirical observation based upon innumerable samples collected and analyzed from cores and temperatures taken in those wells.

3) Based upon the observed geothermal gradient of 25 C per kilometer, the depth of the "oil window" is roughly between 2.4 and 6.4 kilometers depth.

4) According to these folks, http://www.fao.org/docrep/w7241e/w7241e0h.htm, algae can be converted to liquid hydrocarbons at temperatures between 400 and 430 C. 400 C is equivalent to a depth of 16 km.

5) The difference between 400 C and an approximate "oil window" temperature of 100 C is 300 C.

6) As Ninewands has already pointed out, we know from Arhennuis' empirically supported equation that the rate of a chemical reaction doubles with each 10 C increase in temperature.

7) Assuming that the algae cooking process at 400 C takes only a day, how long will the same reaction take at 100 C? The answer is 2^(300/10) or 1073741824 days. That's 2.9 million years.

Just basic chemistry and some observations of the contemporary earth are sufficient to support the proposition that natural oil requires millions of years to form.

MichaelMy response to your points ...
1) I'm not sure why you are ignoring zooplankton and focusing on algae. Everything I read says that both are feedstocks for natural crude.
2) In your discussion of the oil window, are you saying that crude oil can only be formed at these temperatures? The article you referred to discusses at least two methods of oil formation from algae--one is the high temp (400C/1025-2250 psig) method, and the other is a low temp method (~35C)
3) I have no reason to disagree with your approximate temperature gradients here
4) True, for one of the tested reactions. But don't forget this part ... "and operating hydrogen pressures of 1025-2250 psig, in the presence of a cobalt molybdate catalyst." I don't think you can make a simple comparison here.
5) OK.
6) I'm not sure the application of the Arrhenius equation to hydrocarbon chemistry is straightforward. Notice in the article you cited that "The effect of temperature in the reactor was investigated between 340 and 430°C, and reaction times were varied from 0 to 210 minutes." I see no mention of this doubling of rate for a 10C increase in this experiment.
7) Even if all your math and all your assumptions are right, what does the 2.9 million year figure tell you? Are you telling me that this is a good guess for how old the major oil deposits are? I don't think you really believe this because THIS LINK (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_welldep_s1_a.htm) shows the average depth of oil wells (roughly a mile) and remember ... your theory is that the oil formed much deeper and migrated upwards, right? So I think you would have to take the position that the oil formed at 7000ft? 10,000ft? You tell me. Anyway, strata that's even 5000 feet down is far, far older than 2.9 million years according to your side. We're talking about 5000 foot depth strata supposedly being several HUNDRED million years old, are we not?

More later. Sorry I'm so slow, but I got busy again.

[ninewands]

My response to your points ...
1) I'm not sure why you are ignoring zooplankton and focusing on algae. Everything I read says that both are feedstocks for natural crude.
Yes, Dave, but in most ecosystems the quantity of zooplankton is vastly smaller than the amount of algae. For the most part this is because the zooplankton feed on the algae and the proportion of vegetation to herbivores in a healthy ecosystem is enormous. So while little critters like daphnia, rotifers and foraminifera are definitely part of the biomass from which kerogen derives, which in turn gives rise to natural crude oils, they are a relatively small proportion.
2) In your discussion of the oil window, are you saying that crude oil can only be formed at these temperatures?
No, Dave, what Michael said was that within the "oil window" production of liquid hydrocarbons in nature is maximized. Higher temps yield more light ends (i.e., gases like methane, ethane and propane). Significantly higher temps destroy the kerogen rather than producing hydrocarbons from it, yielding "black goop." Lower temps yield more "heavy" hydrocarbons (C30 and up). Temps significantly lower than the "oil window" yield no hydrocarbons at all, leading to "oil shale" deposits like the Green River formation.
The article you referred to discusses at least two methods of oil formation from algae--one is the high temp (400C/1025-2250 psig) method, and the other is a low temp method (~35C)
So? Industrial processes often use more extreme conditions than the natural process they seek to "emulate." Time is money, Dave.
3) I have no reason to disagree with your approximate temperature gradients here

4) True, for one of the tested reactions. But don't forget this part ... "and operating hydrogen pressures of 1025-2250 psig, in the presence of a cobalt molybdate catalyst." I don't think you can make a simple comparison here.
See above about industrial processes versus natural processes. Also, I have to ask you this, Dave. Do you know what a catalyst is? It is a material (in this case, cobalt molybdate) that is added to a chemical process to accelerate the rate of reaction. It does not participate in the reaction, but rather it provides a surface upon which the reaction tends to take place faster under specified conditions. In short, the requirement of a catalyst in this process hurts your argument rather than helping it.
5) OK.

6) I'm not sure the application of the Arrhenius equation to hydrocarbon chemistry is straightforward. Notice in the article you cited that "The effect of temperature in the reactor was investigated between 340 and 430°C, and reaction times were varied from 0 to 210 minutes." I see no mention of this doubling of rate for a 10C increase in this experiment.
Dave, the Arrhenius equation is an empirically derived fundamental law of physical chemistry. It is a statement of the relationship of the thermodynamics of the reaction to the temperature and pressure at which the reaction takes place. It does not vary, however, such factors as catalysis do have an influence on the rate of reaction, so you have to compare similar reactions (that is to say the equation will not be an accurate tool if one reaction is catalyzed (the "algae cooking" process) and one is not (the process by which natural crude forms).
7) Even if all your math and all your assumptions are right, what does the 2.9 million year figure tell you? Are you telling me that this is a good guess for how old the major oil deposits are?
No, Dave ... it's a minimum estimate based upon the difference in temperature between the "algae cooking process" and the process by which natural crude really forms.
I don't think you really believe this because THIS LINK (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_welldep_s1_a.htm) shows the average depth of oil wells (roughly a mile) and remember ... your theory is that the oil formed much deeper and migrated upwards, right?
No, Dave ... that's not a "theory" it is a statement of fact.
So I think you would have to take the position that the oil formed at 7000ft? 10,000ft? You tell me.
All of the above and some even deeper.
Anyway, strata that's even 5000 feet down is far, far older than 2.9 million years according to your side.
Nope ... I can take you about 30 miles offshore from Houma, Louisiana and show you sediments at 12-15,000 feet that are still too young to have oil formed in them. They are Pliocene sands that produce oil that was formed in the Miocene sediments that underlie them. Mostly, the oil leaked up into them via faults around salt domes in the area.
We're talking about 5000 foot depth strata supposedly being several HUNDRED million years old, are we not?
In some places they are. In other places they are younger and in a few places if you drill to 5,000 feet you wind up in stuff that's billions of years old. Hell, I can take you to places in Missouri where you can walk on near-billion-year-old rocks. The relationship of depth to the age of rocks is only valid on a local scale. However, I don't recommend you look for oil in multi-billion-year-old rocks. It ain't there.
More later. Sorry I'm so slow, but I got busy again.
OK.

[ninewands]

4) True, for one of the tested reactions. But don't forget this part ... "and operating hydrogen pressures of 1025-2250 psig, in the presence of a cobalt molybdate catalyst." I don't think you can make a simple comparison here.

(emphasis added)

I missed the bolded part until after the "edit period" had expired ...

Okay ... so we're dealing with a high-temperature, catalyzed hydrogenation process (probably not too different from hydro-cracking in a refinery) here. Dave, you're right ... sort of. The Arrhenius equation will most definitely give an extremely optimistic (from the YEC point of view) time estimate for the formation of natural crude. However, bear in mind that being right, in this instance, is not good for your argument.

As I said i an earlier post, there are very few places in the world where oil reservoirs are found in Miocene and younger rocks. Where the oil is found in rocks younger than Miocene age it has almost always been found that the oil formed in older rocks and "leaked" into the younger rocks through faults or other geologic features that cause the initial reservoir to have a less than perfect trapping mechanism.

[Dave Hawkins]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post

1. that oil is formed from zooplankton and algae
2. that this matter is greatly compressed
3. that this causes high heat and pressure
4. that this high heat and pressure causes chemical changes (diagenesis)
5. more heat causes it to change into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons (catagenesis)

Notice I'm leaving out the part about how long this takes. We don't want to discuss that yet ... we are seeking common ground first.

Do we agree on these 5 points? Or at least that these are highly likely?
Ninewands ...
Quote:
Now, Dave, subject to those qualifications, which I suspect Zadok will agree are reasonable, if not necesarily accurate (since he is playing the part of the blank slate), I agree ... you have stated the basics of the petroleum-formation process correctly.

...

Adding to points 1-5 above, we can now observe that ...
6) Both the artificial process and the natural process start with biomass as the raw ingredient
7) Both the artificial process and the natural process produce a crude oil, which, with further refinement can be burned as a motor fuel -- See ARTICLE (http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything-oil/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=) (Search page for "D396")
8) Both the artificial process and the natural process use moderately high heat and pressure to produce this crude oil, one in just 20 minutes, the other in an UNKNOWN period of time -- (See above link, search "600 pounds")It seems that our differences now center on the word 'biomass' in (6) above, and the nature of the two processes. Ninewands claims that the turkey biomass is much higher in lipids and that these lipids are much different. He also notes that the "algae into oil" experiment used a catalyst which hurts my argument. I agree. However, I saw nothing about a catalyst in the turkey process. Possibly there is one used. We should check. So my to do list for this week includes studying the differences between the chemical composition of turkey guts and algae and zooplankton. Judging from the studies already posted, I suspect that they are quite similar, but I did not compare the lipids. I do have a recent biochemistry textbook, so I will see what I can find there. Or perhaps one of you (or someone in the Peanut Gallery) can find out about this. I will place a call this week down to Carthage and see if I can talk to a plant engineer. In the meantime, I will post this article for you to ponder ... The organic material that is the source of most oil has probably been derived from single-celled planktonic (free-floating) plants, such as diatoms and blue-green algae, and single-celled planktonic animals, such as foraminifera, which live in aquatic environments of marine, brackish, or fresh water. Such simple organisms are known to have been abundant long before the Paleozoic Era, which began some 540,000,000 years ago. [bald assertion in italics]

Rapid burial of the remains of the single-celled planktonic plants and animals within fine-grained sediments effectively preserved them. This provided the organic materials, the so-called protopetroleum, for later diagenesis (i.e., the series of processes involving biological, chemical, and physical changes) into true petroleum.

"petroleum." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 19 Apr. 2008 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-50708>.Here we have a non-YEC source admitting that this biomass was BURIED RAPIDLY, not slowly as Long Agers imagine. And regarding the diagenesis, of course the question is "Later? How much later?"

[Michael Tuite]

Thank you Ninewands for your points regarding Dave's response to my post. It's intro geology field trip season and I haven't had much time at the computer (probably a good thing).

Dave, both the presence of the catalyst and the hydrogen pressures in the artificial oil process work against your preferred oil formation time window. I erred on the conservative side to your benefit.

As for the relative proportions of primary producers to primary consumers, this is just basic marine ecology (look up "food chains" or "food webs").

Oil wells tap reservoirs not source rocks. Oil does tend to move laterally and upward so it is not surprising that source rocks are found in deeper strata and that wells are only a mile or so deep. As I said, I purposely erred conservatively when estimating the time it would take to form the artificial oil in a natural setting. Nevertheless, I maintain that 2.9 million years is a reasonable estimate (within an order of magnitude) and does not include time for migration and accumulation in a reservoir. This is what I conclude from the evidence, not what I "believe."

Michael

[ninewands]

Dave, before we proceed into the minutiae of the process by which natural crude oil is formed, I think it would be a good thing to review your eight talking points and see exactly what it is we agree on and what we do NOT agree on. Since you seem to like the Wikipedia entry on oil formation, I'll rely on your source. In the OP you wrote:
Origin

According to the biogenic theory, petroleum is formed from the preserved remains of prehistoric zooplankton and algae which have settled to the sea (or lake) bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions. Over geological time, this organic matter, mixed with mud, is buried under heavy layers of sediment. The resulting high levels of heat and pressure cause the organic matter to chemically change during diagenesis, first into a waxy material known as kerogen which is found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in a process known as catagenesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuelThe parts that are important to me here are ...

1) that oil is formed from zooplankton and algae
2) that this matter is greatly compressed
3) that this causes hight heat and pressure
4) that this high heat and pressure causes chemical changes (diagenesis)
5) more heat causes it to change into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons (catagenesis)
Now, I'm going to reword your points in a way that I can agree with (my changes are in red). If these changes are acceptable to you let me know:

1) that natural crude oil is formed from zooplankton and algae
2) that this matter is buried in fine-grained sediments and gradually greatly compressed by the weight of the overlying sediments
3) that this compression causes elevatedhight heat and pressure
4) that this high heat and pressure causes chemical changes (diagenesis)
5) moreprolonged exposure to heat causes it to change into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons (catagenesis)

Now, if we can agree that's an appropriate statement of the process by which natural crude oil is formed, THEN we can move on to your talking points 6-8, on which you will find we have substantial disagreement.

[Michael Tuite]

Hello Dave,
Rapid burial sufficient to preserve organic matter in marine sediment amounts to only a few millimeters per year, usually much less. I am confident that this was the authors intent. Knowledge of the early diagenesis of organic matter is based upon both empirical observations of cores and in situ sediments as well as laboratory experiments.

A biochemistry text will be of limited use in your investigation. Biochemists tend to be more interested in how things get built rather than how they get broken down. I would suggest organic geochemistry texts by Engel & Macko or Killops & Killops.

A point of strategy: Don't waste your time delving into the interminable chemistry of lipids. You will not be able to make the case that turkey gut oil is indistinguishable from natural petroleum. Better to expend your efforts on showing how algae-dominated organic matter could be preferentially deposited in fine-grained rocks, heated to the right temperature for the right amount of time, and transported from source rocks to reservoirs.

Michael

[Dave Hawkins]

Dave, before we proceed into the minutiae of the process by which natural crude oil is formed, I think it would be a good thing to review your eight talking points and see exactly what it is we agree on and what we do NOT agree on. Since you seem to like the Wikipedia entry on oil formation, I'll rely on your source. In the OP you wrote:
Origin

According to the biogenic theory, petroleum is formed from the preserved remains of prehistoric zooplankton and algae which have settled to the sea (or lake) bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions. Over geological time, this organic matter, mixed with mud, is buried under heavy layers of sediment. The resulting high levels of heat and pressure cause the organic matter to chemically change during diagenesis, first into a waxy material known as kerogen which is found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in a process known as catagenesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuelThe parts that are important to me here are ...

1) that oil is formed from zooplankton and algae
2) that this matter is greatly compressed
3) that this causes hight heat and pressure
4) that this high heat and pressure causes chemical changes (diagenesis)
5) more heat causes it to change into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons (catagenesis)
Now, I'm going to reword your points in a way that I can agree with (my changes are in red). If these changes are acceptable to you let me know: