All that is needed for oil is carbon and hydrogen. Most crude oil also has some other contaminants like sulfur which must be removed in the refining process. Fossils contain all of those elements. I'm not sure where you got this information, but either someone misinformed you or you have oversimplified what they were trying to say.
Why are people Downvoting you with no response? This is true. Oil and all of its derivatives are just that, hydrocarbons. I’d love the source of the “chemists” that have shown this firmly established chemistry is false.
I'm not an expert on the subject, but I think you have understood the statement backwards.
It's not that 'all that is needed is carbon and hydrogen', it's that decaying plant and animal matter contain other elements that are not found in oil.
As a (hypothetical) example, if a certain percentage of decaying animal matter is calcium from bones, why don't we see that same percentage of calcium in the oil? (Or at least, why is there not enough calcium to account for the bones, etc.)
This is answered if you’d like, by the fact that oil
IS in fact pretty unique to where it’s coming from due to the variables in what creates it and the reservoir itself. Oil refineries themselves aren’t all uniform, they are unique to their feedstock, even if the principles are the same. Sour oil for instance, is crude oil with very high levels of sulfur, and a refinery that refines a more standard crude would face catastrophic difficulties in refining it.
Either way, the hydrocarbon is the only bit that matters, the other trace elements don’t occur in large quantities, and part of the refining process itself implies things like calcium are “processed” out and left for the “bottom of the barrel” which is fuel that giant ships run, and it’s most certainly got all sorts of random components in its general makeup.
I'm not sure if you don't understand the issue, or you are trying to be evasive.
The answer does not lie in 'what was processed out', but what is in the raw crude that comes out of the ground. Is there calcium (for instance) in the crude? And if not, how could it have been made from animal matter?
I’m not sure you understood my reply. I was playing devils advocate for the most part. The entire argument being presented is still operating on the assumption that crude oil is just old dinosaur bones. Or something? I guess I don’t know why anyone would think that the forces and processes involved with how this stuff forms would leave all the calcium from animal bones right there in the mix, unless it’s still a misunderstanding. This stuff was comprised almost entirely of plant life anyways, not things that had bones.
All that is needed for oil is carbon and hydrogen. Most crude oil also has some other contaminants like sulfur which must be removed in the refining process. Fossils contain all of those elements. I'm not sure where you got this information, but either someone misinformed you or you have oversimplified what they were trying to say.
Why are people Downvoting you with no response? This is true. Oil and all of its derivatives are just that, hydrocarbons. I’d love the source of the “chemists” that have shown this firmly established chemistry is false.
I learned this long ago, but it happens to be in this video as well.
I'm not an expert on the subject, but I think you have understood the statement backwards.
It's not that 'all that is needed is carbon and hydrogen', it's that decaying plant and animal matter contain other elements that are not found in oil.
As a (hypothetical) example, if a certain percentage of decaying animal matter is calcium from bones, why don't we see that same percentage of calcium in the oil? (Or at least, why is there not enough calcium to account for the bones, etc.)
This is answered if you’d like, by the fact that oil IS in fact pretty unique to where it’s coming from due to the variables in what creates it and the reservoir itself. Oil refineries themselves aren’t all uniform, they are unique to their feedstock, even if the principles are the same. Sour oil for instance, is crude oil with very high levels of sulfur, and a refinery that refines a more standard crude would face catastrophic difficulties in refining it. Either way, the hydrocarbon is the only bit that matters, the other trace elements don’t occur in large quantities, and part of the refining process itself implies things like calcium are “processed” out and left for the “bottom of the barrel” which is fuel that giant ships run, and it’s most certainly got all sorts of random components in its general makeup.
I'm not sure if you don't understand the issue, or you are trying to be evasive.
The answer does not lie in 'what was processed out', but what is in the raw crude that comes out of the ground. Is there calcium (for instance) in the crude? And if not, how could it have been made from animal matter?
I’m not sure you understood my reply. I was playing devils advocate for the most part. The entire argument being presented is still operating on the assumption that crude oil is just old dinosaur bones. Or something? I guess I don’t know why anyone would think that the forces and processes involved with how this stuff forms would leave all the calcium from animal bones right there in the mix, unless it’s still a misunderstanding. This stuff was comprised almost entirely of plant life anyways, not things that had bones.