Oil is NOT a fossil fuel...

[Zohaar818]

http://www.waytorussia.net/WhatIsRussia/FamousRussians.html

 

One for Uncle Al...

 

The Noble Prize Laureates

 

In medicine:

Pavlov -1904

Mechnikov -1908

In literature:

Bunin -1933

Pasternak -1958

Sholohov -1965

Solgenicin -1970

Brodskiy -1987

In chemistry:

Semenov -1956

Prigigin -1977

In physics:

Cherenkov, Tamm, Frank -1958

Landau -1962

Basov, Prohorov -1964

Kapica -1978

Alferov -2000

In economics:

Kuznets -1971

Leontev -1973

Kantorovich -1975

For peace:

Saharov -1975

Gorbachev -1990

 

The cultural bias that lies behind some of your comments about Russians speaks volumes about the nature of your mindset..it is a product of Cold War conditioning and prejudice..a manifestation of some feelings of racial superiority or nationalist fervor...it is about as enlightened a view of the world..and about as realistic..as any redneck's from Cousinschtupp Arkansas. Either post the science to rebut or support the claims made or consider yourself outed as a second class mind...and an uncultured one at that...who has nothing but acrimony to contribute to this thread.

 

 

-Zohaar

[Tormod]

Either post the science to rebut or support the claims made or consider yourself outed as a second class mind...and an uncultured one at that...who has nothing but acrimony to contribute to this thread.

 

No offense, Zohaar, but if you want to avoid debates about "grades of mind" it is a good idea not to ask for it.

[C1ay]

Either post the science to rebut or support the claims made or consider yourself outed as a second class mind...and an uncultured one at that...who has nothing but acrimony to contribute to this thread.

 

 

-Zohaar

Why? You haven't supported your own claim yet. According to you, no oil comes from fossils. Now, prove that ALL oil comes from other sources and that none of it comes from fossils. We're waiting.....

[Zohaar818]

Why? You haven't supported your own claim yet. According to you, no oil comes from fossils. Now, prove that ALL oil comes from other sources and that none of it comes from fossils. We're waiting.....

 

Still waiting to have these questions answered by anyone supporting the old standard theory.

Your theory cannot account for it, nor is there dispute about the facts [points] below.

 

The abiogenic theory does answer these questions, and I have posted the science to back it up..science which is not being dismissed here for any other reason t han that it is supposedly of Russian origin despite the fact it is being championed by American professors in Institutions like Cornell University.

I posted the science which explains these points and the science posted contravenes accepted theory of bio -matter producing all the trillions of cubic feet of petroleum known to be extant and which surpasses the amount that all previous life on earth could account for.

In my experience once a theory has been shown to be inadequate in explaining observed phenomena one must alter or discard that theory and find one that does fit or answer the evidence.

Y our theory cannot explain or account for these 6 points..which is proof enough that the science behind your theory, the assumptions you are working under must be wrong.

My science may not be entirley right but it is much 'righter' than yours in that it does provide a coherent and provable alternative theory which explains why:

 

(1) Petroleum and methane are found frequently in geographic patterns of long lines or arcs, which are related more to deep-seated large-scale structural features of the crust, than to the smaller scale patchwork of the sedimentary deposits.

 

(2) Hydrocarbon-rich areas tend to be hydrocarbon-rich at many different levels, corresponding to quite different geological epochs, and extending down to the crystalline basement that underlies the sediment. An invasion of an area by hydrocarbon fluids from below could better account for this than the chance of successive deposition.

 

(3) Some petroleums from deeper and hotter levels lack almost completely the biological evidence . Optical activity and the odd-even carbon number effect are sometimes totally absent, and it would be difficult to suppose that such a thorough destruction of the biological molecules had occurred as would be required to account for this, yet leaving the bulk substance quite similar to other crude oils.

 

(4) Methane is found in many locations where a biogenic origin is improbable or where biological deposits seem inadequate: in great ocean rifts in the absence of any substantial sediments; in fissures in igneous and metamorphic rocks, even at great depth; in active volcanic regions, even where there is a minimum of sediments; and there are massive amounts of methane hydrates (methane-water ice combinations) in permafrost and ocean deposits, where it is doubtful that an adequate quantity and distribution of biological source material is present.

 

(5) The hydrocarbon deposits of a large area often show common chemical or isotopic features, quite independent of the varied composition or the geological ages of the formations in which they are found. Such chemical signatures may be seen in the abundance ratios of some minor constituents such as traces of certain metals that are carried in petroleum; or a common tendency may be seen in the ratio of isotopes of some elements, or in the abundance ratio of some of the different molecules that make up petroleum. Thus a chemical analysis of a sample of petroleum could often allow the general area of its origin to be identified, even though quite different formations in that area may be producing petroleum. For example a crude oil from anywhere in the Middle East can be distinguished from an oil originating in any part of South America, or from the oils of West Africa; almost any of the oils from California can be distinguished from that of other regions by the carbon isotope ratio.

 

(6) The regional association of hydrocarbons with the inert gas helium, and a higher level of natural helium seepage in petroleum-bearing regions, has no explanation in the theories of biological origin of peroleum.

 

And take note again of point 6. Any argument about that? Any explanation under current 'it's all from fossils' theory? If not then ipso facto your theory is flawed and needing revision.PERIOD.

To think otherwise is to remain in denial or steadfastly hold to principles more likely founded in cultural bias than science.

 

If someone here has an argument to make or incontravertible science to bring to the table consistent with your theory that explains these 6 points, especially point 6, I will happily withdraw my assertion.

If you can't, then I suggest to the old fossil theorists and those who are anti-russians on principle here that they happily cease and desist from attacking the messenger.

 

-Zohaar

[Tormod]

And take note again of point 6. Any argument about that? Any explanation under current 'it's all from fossils' theory? If not then ipso facto your theory is flawed and needing revision.PERIOD.

 

I guess the lack of interest is that most posters have said "okay, old news" and also that we think the fossil fuel theory still remains even if there is a possibility that there are other ways for oil to appear in nature. No theory is without flaws of any kind.

 

To think otherwise is to remain in denial or steadfastly hold to principles more likely founded in cultural bias than science.

 

Fine.

 

If you can't, then I suggest to the old fossil theorists and those who are anti-russians on principle here that they happily cease and desist from attacking the messenger.

 

Fine.

[Zohaar818]

Again, the science....[since you asked]...for those who don't read posted links...

 

With recognition that the laws of thermodynamics prohibit spontaneous evolution of liquid hydrocarbons in the regime of temperature and pressure characteristic of the crust of the Earth, one should not expect there to exist legitimate scientific evidence that might suggest that such could occur. Indeed, and correctly, there exists no such evidence.

 

Nonetheless, and surprisingly, there continue to be often promulgated diverse claims purporting to constitute "evidence" that natural petroleum somehow evolves (miraculously) from biological matter. In this short article, such claims are briefly subjected to scientific scrutiny, demonstrated to be without merit, and dismissed.

 

The claims which purport to argue for some connection between natural petroleum and biological matter fall into roughly two classes: the "look-like/come-from" claims; and the "similar(recondite)-properties/come-from" claims.

 

The "look-like/come-from" claims apply a line of unreason exactly as designated: Such argue that, because certain molecules found in natural petroleum "look like" certain other molecules found in biological systems, then the former must "come-from" the latter. Such notion is, of course, equivalent to asserting that elephant tusks evolve because those animals must eat piano keys.

 

In some instances, the "look-like/come-from" claims assert that certain molecules found in natural petroleum actually are biological molecules, and evolve only in biological systems. These molecules have often been given the spurious name "biomarkers."

 

The scientific correction must be stated unequivocally: There have never been observed any specifically biological molecules in natural petroleum, except as contaminants. Petroleum is an excellent solvent for carbon compounds; and, in the sedimentary strata from which petroleum is often produced, natural petroleum takes into solution much carbon material, including biological detritus. However, such contaminants are unrelated to the petroleum solvent.

 

The claims about "biomarkers" have been thoroughly discredited by observations of those molecules in the interiors of ancient, abiotic meteorites, and also in many cases by laboratory synthesis under imposed conditions mimicking the natural environment. In the discussion below, the claims put forth about porphyrin and isoprenoid molecules are addressed particularly, because many "look-like/come-from" claims have been put forth for those compounds.

 

The "similar(recondite)-properties/come-from" claims involve diverse, odd phenomena with which persons not working directly in a scientific profession would be unfamiliar. These include the "odd-even abundance imbalance" claims, the "carbon isotope" claims, and the "optical-activity" claims. The first, the "odd-even abundance imbalance" claims, are demonstrated to be utterly unrelated to any biological property. The second, "carbon isotope" claims, are shown to depend upon measurement of an obscure property of carbon fluids which cannot reliably be considered a measure of origin. The third, the "optical-activity" claims, deserve particular note; for the observations of optical activity in natural petroleum have been trumpeted loudly for years as a "proof" of some "biological origin" of petroleum. Those claims have been thoroughly discredited decades ago by observation of optical activity in the petroleum material extracted from the interiors of carbonaceous meteorites.

More significantly, recent analysis, which has resolved the previously-outstanding problem of the genesis of optical activity in abiotic fluids, has established that the phenomenon of optical activity is an inevitable thermodynamic consequence of the phase stability of multicomponent fluids at high pressures. Thereby, the observation of optical activity in natural petroleum is entirely consistent with the results of the thermodynamic analysis of the stability of the hydrogen-carbon [H-C] system, which establish that hydrocarbon molecules heavier than methane, and particularly liquid hydrocarbons, evolve spontaneously only at high pressures, comparable to those necessary for diamond formation.

 

There are two subjects which are particularly relevant for destroying the diverse, spurious claims concerning a putative connection of petroleum and biological matter: the investigations of the carbon material from carbonaceous meteorites; and the reaction products of the Fischer-Tropsch process. Because of their importance, a brief discussion of both is in order.

 

 

1.1 The carbonaceous meteorites.

 

The carbonaceous meteorites, including particularly the carbonaceous chondrites, are meteorites whose chemical composition includes carbon in quantities ranging from a few tenths of a percent to approximately six percent, by mass.1-5 The age of the carbonaceous meteorites is typically 3-4.5 billion years; and their origins clearly abiotic. The mineral structures in these rocks establish that the carbonaceous meteorites have existed at very low temperatures, much below the freezing point of water, effectively since the time of their original formation. Such thermal history of the carbonaceous meteorites eliminates any probability that there ever existed on them life, or biological matter.6 The evidence obtained from scientific investigations of the carbon material in carbonaceous meteorites has destroyed many claims which assert a biological connection between natural petroleum and biological matter.

 

Significantly, much of the carbon material of the carbonaceous meteorites consists of hydrocarbons, as both solids and in liquid form.1, 5, 7, 8 However, the petroleum material contained in carbonaceous meteorites cannot be considered to be the origin of the natural petroleum found in the near-surface crust of the Earth. The heating which inevitably accompanied the impact process during the accretion of meteorites into the Earth at the time of its formation would almost certainly have caused decomposition of most of their contained hydrocarbon molecules. The carbonaceous meteorites provided the Earth with its carbon (albeit much of it delivered in the form of hydrocarbons) but not its hydrocarbons or natural petroleum. (The processes by which hydrocarbons evolve from the native materials of the Earth are described, and demonstrated, in the following article.)

 

 

1.2 The Fischer-Tropsch process.

 

The Fischer-Tropsch process is the best-known industrial technique for the synthesis of hydrocarbons, and has been used for more than seventy-five years. The Fischer-Tropsch process reacts carbon monoxide and hydrogen at synthesis conditions of approximately 150 bar and 700 K, in the presence of ThO2, MgO, Al2O3, MnO, clays, and the catalysts Ni, Co, and Fe. The reactions are as follow:

 

When a Ni-Co catalyst is used, the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis proceeds according to the reaction:

When a Fe catalyst is used, the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis proceeds according to the reaction:

The yield of the Fischer-Tropsch process is approximately 200 g of hydrocarbons from 1 m3 of CO and H2 mixture. During World War II, the production of liquid fuels by the Fischer-Tropsch process was used extensively in Germany; approximately 600,000 t of synthetic gasoline were synthesized in 1943.

 

The reaction products of the Fischer-Tropsch process are only metastable in the thermodynamic conditions of their synthesis; at pressures of approximately only 150 bar and 700 K, the destruction of liquid hydrocarbons is inevitable. During the industrial Fischer-Tropsch process, the reaction products are promptly cooled and moved to conditions of lower pressure. The natural environment does not mimic the highly-controlled, and highly-regulated, industrial, Fischer-Tropsch process. The Fischer-Tropsch process cannot be considered for the generation of natural petroleum.

 

 

2. The specious "biomarker" claims: The irrelevancy of the presence in petroleum of porphyrins, - and similarly of isoprenoids, pristane, phytane, clorins, terpines, cholestane, etc.

 

One may read, in almost every textbook published in the English language purporting to deal with the subject of petroleum geology, diverse claims made that the presence of certain molecules found in natural petroleum constitute "evidence," or even "proof," that the petroleum evolved from biological matter. Such molecules, claimed as evidence of a biological connection, include such as porphyrins, isoprenoids, pristane, phytane, cholestane, terpines, and clorins. Closer investigations have proven such claims to be groundless. Pristane and phytane are simply branched alkanes of the isoprenoid class. Cholestane, C27H48, is a true, highly-reduced hydrocarbon, but is not to be confused with the oxidized, biotic, molecule cholesterol. Cholestane and cholesterol have similar geometric structures, and share similar carbon skeletons; there the similarity ends. Cholestane is a constituent of natural petroleum; cholesterol is not. Significantly, the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis produces isoprenoids, including phytane and pristine.

 

Material of truly biogenic origin, such as fossil spores or pollen, is indeed often observed in petroleum, - and too often mislabeled as "biomarkers," supposedly indicating a connection between the natural petroleum and biological material. Careful investigation has established that such material has been leached into solution by the crude oil from buried organic matter in the (typically sedimentary) reservoir rocks from which the oil has been taken.9, 10

 

Contrarily, the indisputably biological material, such as spores and pollen, found in petroleum can be considered as "abiomarkers" of petroleum origin. For examples, crude oil found in reservoir rocks of the Permian age always contain not only spores and pollen of the Permian age but also spores and pollen of older ages, such as, for example, the Carboniferous, Devonian and Precambrian in petroleum investigated in Tatarstan, Russia. In the same region and in other portions of the Volga-Urals geological province, crude oils in the Carbonaceous sediments are characterized with concentrations of spores of Carbonaceous-through-Precambrian ages, and crudes in the Devonian sandstones with spores of Devonian-through-Precambrian ages.9, 11

The types of porphyrins, isoprenoids, terpines, and clorins found in natural petroleum have been observed in material extracted from the interiors of no fewer than fifty-four meteorites, including amphoteric meteorites (Chainpur, Ngavi, Semarkona), bronze chondrites (Charis, Ghubara, Kulp, Tieschitz), carbonaceous chondrites of all four petrological classes (Alais, Bali, Bells, Cold Bockeveld, Eracot, Felix, Groznaia, Haripura, Ivuna, Kaba, Kainsaz, Karoonda, Lance, Mighei, Mokoia, Murchison, Murrey, Orgueil, Ornans, Pseudo, Renazzo, Santa Cruz, St.Capraix, Staroye Boriskino, Tonk, Vigarano, Warrenton), enstatite meteorites (Abee, Hvittis, Indarkh), hypersthene chondrites (Bishunpur, Bruderheim, Gallingebirge, Holbrook, Homestead, Krymka), iron meteorites (Arus (Yardymli), Burgavli, Canyon Diabolo, Odessa, Toluca), aubrite meteorites (Norton County), and ureilite meteorites (Dyalpur, Goalpara, Novo Urei).9, 12, 13

 

The observations of such molecules in meteorites thoroughly discredited the claims that their presence in natural petroleum might somehow constitute evidence of a biological connection. Because especially strenuous (and especially erroneous) claims are often made particularly about the porphyrins observed in natural petroleum, those molecules will be discussed in modest detail.

 

Porphyrins comprise a class of molecules designated cyclic ionopheres, a special class of polydentate ligands for metals. Porphyrins are heavy, approximately planar, chelating molecules, found in both biotic and abiotic systems. Several porphyrin molecules are of special biological significance: vitamin B12; chlorophyll, the porphyrin which is the agent of the photosynthesis process in plants; and the heme molecule, the porphyrin component of the protein hemoglobin which is responsible for the transport of oxygen in mammalian blood. As an example of the high molecular weight of porphyrins, hemoglobin has the empirical chemical formula, [C738H1166O208N203S2Fe]4. Neither vitamin B12, nor chlorophyll, nor heme (nor hemoglobin), nor any biotic porphyrin has ever been observed as a component of natural petroleum.

 

The porphyrin molecules found in natural petroleum possess different side-groups than do those of chlorophyll or heme. The central chelated metal element in chlorophyll is always magnesium; in heme, it is iron. In porphyrin molecules found in natural petroleum, the central chelated metal element is typically vanadium or nickel.

 

As stated, porphyrin molecules evolve both biologically and abiologically. During the 1960's and 1970's, porphyrin molecules, which are the same as those found in terrestrial natural petroleum, were observed in the hydrocarbon fluids extracted from the interiors of carbonaceous meteorites.

The observations of petroleum-type porphyrins in the hydrocarbon fluids extracted from the interiors of carbonaceous meteorites destroyed, a fortiori, the claims that such molecules constitute "evidence" for a connection of petroleum with biological matter. Additionally, after the observations of porphyrins in carbonaceous meteorites, those petroleum-type porphyrins were synthesized abiologically in the laboratory under chemical and thermodynamic conditions specially set to mimic the abiotic conditions in meteorites.8, 14

 

The "porphyrin evidence" claims were destroyed by the investigations of carbonaceous meteorites approximately thirty years ago, and are well known throughout the community of scientists working in the field of petroleum. Every compound designated as a "biomarker," and not otherwise identified as a contaminant, has been either observed in the fluids extracted from the interiors of meteorites, or synthesized in laboratories under conditions comparable to the crust of the Earth, - or both.

Such scientific facts, and the general knowledge of same, not withstanding, every textbook published in the English language purportedly dealing with the subject of petroleum geology, including the ones cited above, continues to repeat the old discredited claims that the presence of (abiotic) porphyrins in natural petroleum provide evidence for its origin from biological matter.15-17 Such assertions, thirty years after having been demonstrated scientifically insupportable, must be acknowledged to be intellectual fraud, pure and simple.

 

 

3. The "odd-even" abundance claims, - involving the small imbalance of the relative abundances of linear hydrocarbon molecules containing an odd number of carbon atoms, compared to homologous ones containing an even number.

 

The claims concerning the imbalance of linear molecules containing odd and even numbers, respectively, of carbon atoms is another of the genre of "the constituents of natural petroleum 'have the same properties as' the constituents of biological systems, in such-or-so a way, and therefore petroleum must have evolved from biological matter." No intelligent teenage student at, for examples, a Russian, German, Dutch, or Swiss gymnasium, would accept such reasoning. Nonetheless, such claims are commonly put forth in English-language textbooks purporting to deal with petroleum geology. Such claims are herewith shown to be without merit and insupportable.

 

 

Fig. 1 Symbolic representation of a molecule of normal octane, n-C8H18.

(see http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm)

 

Natural petroleum is a mixture of hydrocarbon molecules of several classes. The most common class of molecules in petroleum is that of the normal alkanes, or n-alkanes, which have the chemical formula CnH2n+2 and a chain-like structure (as noted in the first article). For example, n-octane, C8H18, has the structure shown schematically in Fig. 1. Correctly, the carbon atoms do not lie exactly along a straight line; a picture of n-octane which more accurately represents its geometric properties is shown in Fig. 2, where n-C8H18 is drawn as a "stick-&-ball" model. Nonetheless, in both figures, the linear chain-like aspect of the n-alkane molecule is shown clearly.

 

Similarly as for cyclohexane as described in the first article, the hydrocarbon n-C8H18 is geometrically related to one or more biological molecules by substitution of some of the hydrogen atoms by OH radicals. Specifically, if one of the hydrogen atoms on each carbon atom in n-C8H18 were replaced by an OH radical, the resulting molecule, n-C8H18O8, would be a carbohydrate, as shown in Fig. 3, a simple sugar related to fructose (and whose chemical potential is approximately 2,500 cal lower than that of n-octane).

 

Fig. 2 Stick & ball representation of a molecule of normal octane, n-C8H18.

(see http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm)

 

In a distribution of linear hydrocarbon molecules which comprise natural petroleum, the chain-like n-alkanes manifest a slight imbalance of abundances which favors molecules possessing an odd number of carbon atoms, as compared to those with an even number. Similarly, a distribution of linear biological molecules, such as the chain-like carbohydrates, manifests also a similar slight imbalance of molecules possessing an odd number of carbon atoms, again as compared to those with an even number. From this modest, and somewhat arcane, similarity of odd-to-even abundances, assertions have been made that hydrocarbons evolve from biological matter. Of course, the second law of thermodynamics prohibits such, which fact should obviate any such assertion.

 

Simple investigation of hydrocarbons generated from abiotic matter manifest also such odd-to-even imbalance of molecular abundances for the linear molecules. The reaction products of the Fischer-Tropsch process manifest the same odd-to-even abundance imbalances of linear molecules as do both natural petroleum, as well as biological molecules.

 

A specific example of the inevitable genesis of hydrocarbon molecules which manifest such odd-to-even abundance imbalances of linear molecules was demonstrated by Zemanian, Streett, and Zollweg more than fifteen years ago. Zemanian et al. demonstrated the genesis of heavy and liquid hydrocarbons at high pressures and temperatures from a mixture of methane and propane. Particularly, Zemanian et al. measured the relative abundances of the linear chain hydrocarbon molecules. Their observations, of the imbalance of abundances, and slight excess, of chain molecules with odd numbers of carbon atoms are quoted here (pp. 63-64):18

Fig. 3 The simple carbohydrate, n-C8H18O8.

(see http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm)

"These results are also notable when one considers the even-to-odd carbon number ratio of petroleum.

One of the arguments for a biological origin of petroleum has been that these fluids generally show a small marked prevalence of odd numbered hydrocarbons. It is also well known that living organisms produce primarily odd numbered carbon [or carbohydrate] chains. Abiological processes have been presumed to produce even and odd numbered hydrocarbons in roughly equal concentrations. The results of this work demonstrate that presumption to be false. Both biological and abiological hydrocarbon chemistries favor reactions involving two carbons over single carbon reactions [leading to preferred reactants of odd-numbered chain molecules]."

 

It deserves note that the "odd-even abundance-imbalance" claim, as "evidence"[sic] of a biological origin of hydrocarbon molecules, was rejected by competent physicists and statistical mechanicians, almost immediately when it was introduced. The odd-even abundance imbalance is simply a result of the directional property of the covalent bond together with the geometry of linear molecules.

 

 

4. The phenomenon of optical activity in natural petroleum: Evidence of an abiotic, high-pressure genesis.

 

Perhaps for reason of its historical provenance in fermented wine, the phenomenon of optical activity in fluids was for some time believed to have some intrinsic connection with biological processes or materials.20, 21 Such error persisted until the phenomenon of optical activity was observed in material extracted from the interiors of meteorites; some of which material had been believed previously to be uniquely of biotic origin.

 

From the interiors of carbonaceous meteorites have been extracted the common amino-acid molecules alanine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, glycine, leusine, proline, serine, threonine, as well as the unusual ones a-aminoisobutyric acid, isovaline, pseudoleucine.22-24 At one time, all had been considered to be solely of biotic origin. The ages of the carbonaceous meteorites were determined to be 3-4.5 billion years, and their origins clearly abiotic. Therefore, those amino acids had to be recognized as compounds of both biological and abiological genesis. Furthermore, solutions of amino acid molecules from carbonaceous meteorites were observed to manifest optical activity. Thus was thoroughly discredited the notion that the phenomenon of optical activity in fluids (particularly those of carbon compounds) might have any intrinsic connection with biotic matter. Significantly, the optical activity observed in the amino acids extracted from carbonaceous meteorites has not the characteristics of such of common biotic origin, with only one enantiomer present; instead, it manifests the characteristics observed in natural petroleum, with unbalanced, so-called scalemic, abundances of chiral molecules.25

 

The optical activity commonly observed in natural petroleum has been for years speciously claimed as "proof" of some connection with biological detritus, - albeit one requiring both a willing disregard of the considerable differences between the optical activity observed in natural petroleum and that in materials of truly biotic origin, such as wine, as well as desuetude of the dictates of the laws of thermodynamics.

 

Optical activity is observed in minerals such as quartz or Iceland spar, as well as in oil, and among biological molecules. The optical activity observed in petroleum is more characteristic of the same in abiotic minerals, such as naturally occurring quartz, which are polycrystalline minerals, with a scalemic distribution of domains of left- and right-rotational properties. The chiral molecules in petroleum manifest scalemic distributions, and significantly lack the homochiral distribution which characterize biotic optically active matter. The optical activity in natural petroleum is characterized by either a right (positive, or dextrorotary) or left (negative, or levorotary) rotation of the plane of polarization. By contrast, in biological material left (levorotary) rotation dominates.

 

The observation of optical activity in hydrocarbon material extracted from the interiors of carbonaceous meteorites, and typical of such in natural petroleum, discredited those claims.2, 26 Nonetheless, the scientific conundrum as to why the hydrocarbons manifest optical activity, in both carbonaceous meteorites and terrestrial crude oil remained unresolved until recently.

 

The chiral molecules in natural petroleum originate from three distinct sources: contamination by biological detritus in the near-surface strata from which the oil has been taken; the biological alteration and degradation of the original oil by microbes which consume and metabolize oil; and the chiral hydrocarbon molecules which are intrinsic to the petroleum and generated with it. Only the last concerns the origin of petroleum.

 

The genesis of the scalemic distribution of chiral molecules of natural petroleum has recently been shown to be a direct consequence of the chiral geometry of the system particles acting according to the laws of classical thermodynamics. The resolution of the problem of the origin of the scalemic distributions of chiral molecules in natural petroleum has been shown to be an inevitable consequence of their high-pressure genesis.19 Thus, the phenomenon of optical activity in natural petroleum, contrary to supporting any assertion of a biological connection, strongly confirms the high-pressure genesis of natural petroleum, and thereby the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins.

 

 

5. The carbon isotope ratios, and their inadequacy as indicators of origin.

 

The claims made concerning the carbon isotope ratios, and specifically such as purport to identify the origin of the material, particularly the hydrocarbons, are especially recondite and outside the experience of most persons not knowledgeable in the physics of hydrogen-carbon [H-C] systems. Furthermore, the claims concerning the carbon isotope ratios most often involve methane, the only hydrocarbon which is thermodynamically stable in the regime of temperatures and pressures of the Earth's crust, and the only one which spontaneously evolves there.

 

The carbon nucleus has two stable isotopes, 12C and 13C. The overwhelmingly most abundance stable isotope of carbon is 12C, which possesses six protons and six neutrons; 13C possesses an extra neutron. (There is another, unstable isotope, 14C, which possesses two extra neutrons; 14C results from a high-energy reaction of the nitrogen nucleus, 14N, with a high-energy cosmic ray particle. The isotope 14C is not involved in the claims about the isotope ratios of carbon.) The carbon isotope ratio, designated d13C, is simply the ratio of the abundance of carbon isotopes 13C/12C, normalized to the standard of the marine carbonate named Pee Dee Belemnite. The values of the measured d13C ratio is expressed as a percentage (compared to the standard).

 

During the 1950's, increasingly numerous measurements of the carbon isotope ratios of hydrocarbon gases were taken, particularly of methane; and too often assertions were made that such ratios could unambiguously determine the origin of the hydrocarbons. The validity of such assertions were tested, independently by Colombo, Gazzarini, and Gonfiantini in Italy and by Galimov in Russia. Both sets of workers established that the carbon isotope ratios cannot be used reliably to determine the origin of the carbon compound tested.

 

Colombo, Gazzarini, and Gonfiantini demonstrated conclusively, by a simple experiment the results of which admitted no ambiguity, that the carbon isotope ratios of methane change continuously along its transport path, becoming progressively lighter with distance traveled. Colombo et al. took a sample of natural gas and passed it through a column of crushed rock, chosen to resemble as closely as possible the terrestrial environment.27 Their results were definitive: The greater the distance of rock through which the sample of methane passes, the lighter becomes its carbon isotope ratio.

 

The reason for the result observed by Colombo et al. is straightforward: there is a slight preference for the heavier isotope of carbon to react chemically with the rock through which the gas passes. Therefore, the greater the transit distance through the rock, the lighter becomes the carbon isotope ratio, as the heavier is preferentially removed by chemical reaction along the transport path. This result is not surprising; contrarily, such is entirely consistent with the fundamental requirements of quantum mechanics and kinetic theory.

 

Pertinent to the matter of any claim that a light carbon isotope ratio might be indicative of a biological origin, the results demonstrated by Colombo et al. establish that such a claim is insupportable. Methane which might have originated from carbon material from the remains of a carbonaceous meteorite in the mantle of the Earth, and possessing initially a heavy carbon isotope ratio, could easily have that ratio diminished, along the path of its transit into the crust of the Earth, to a value comparable to common biological material.

 

Galimov demonstrated that the carbon isotope ratio of methane can become progressively heavier while at rest in a reservoir in the crust of the Earth, through the action of methane-consuming microbes.28 The city of Moscow stores methane in water-wet reservoirs on the outskirts of that city, into which natural gas is injected throughout the year. During summers, the quantity of methane in the reservoirs increases because of less use (primarily by heating), and during winters the quantity is drawn down. By calibrating the reservoir volumes and the distance from the injection facilities, the residency time of the methane in the reservoir is determined. Galimov established that the longer the methane remains in the reservoir, the heavier becomes its carbon isotope ratio.

 

The reason for the result observed by Galimov is also straightforward: In the water of the reservoir, there live microbes of the common, methane-metabolizing type. There is a slight preference for the lighter isotope of carbon to enter the microbe cell and to be metabolized. The longer the methane remains in the reservoir, the more of it is consumed by the methane-metabolizing microbes, with the molecules possessing lighter isotope being consumed more. Therefore, the longer its residency time in the reservoir, the heavier becomes the carbon isotope ratio, as the lighter is preferentially removed by methane-metabolizing microbes. This result is entirely consistent with the fundamental requirements of kinetic theory.

 

Furthermore, the carbon isotope ratios in hydrocarbon systems are also strongly influenced by the temperature of reaction. For hydrocarbons produced by the Fischer-Tropsch process, the d13C varies from -65% at 127 C to -20% at 177 C.29, 30 No material parameter, the measurement of which varies by almost 70% with a variation of temperature of only approximately 10%, can be used as a reliable determinant of any property of that material.

 

The d13C carbon isotope ratio cannot be considered to determine reliably the origin of a sample of methane, - or any other compound.

 

 

6. Conclusion.

 

The claims which have traditionally been put forward to argue a connection between natural petroleum and biological matter have been subjected to scientific scrutiny and have been established to be baseless. The outcome of such scrutiny comes hardly as a surprise, given recognition of the constraints of thermodynamics upon the genesis of hydrocarbons.

 

If liquid hydrocarbons might evolve from biological detritus in the thermodynamic regime of the crust of the Earth, we could all expect to go to bed at night in our dotage, with white hair (or, at least, whatever might remain of same), a spreading waistline, and all the undesirable decrepitude of age, and to awake in the morning, clear eyed, with our hair returned of the color of our youth, with a slim waistline, a strong, flexible body, and with our sexual vigor restored. Alas, such is not to be. The merciless laws of thermodynamics do not accommodate folklore fables. Natural petroleum has no connection with biological matter.

[UncleAl]

You can spam all the revisionsit tripe you like to the limits of tolerance of the Moderator. If you shoot a microliter of petroluem into a gas chromatograph or a liquid chromatograph it is screamingly obvious it is neither an equilibrium thermodynamic product (e,g, SASOL) nor a non-equilibrium kinetic branch. 95+% of the linear alkanes are even-numbered. They were made by acetyl-CoA oligimerization - that's life.

 

The geological strata containing petroleum are severely segregated in geological age and diagenic history. The presence of porphyrins is not indicative of biological origin in any rock, but pristanes and other polyisoprenoids with consistent resolved chiral configurations are conclusive of life. There is no way of randomly assembling them. C-12/C-13 isotope ratios are conclusive. Solar system natural abundances, terrestrial natural abundances, and isotope segregation by metabolism and diagenesis are consistent and loud.

 

Your references are odious. They are political manifestos of Scientific Socialism. You are demanding that god exists because the bible says he does, and god wrote the bible and he never lies.

 

Cite ONE instance of a substantial petroleum deposit unassociated with sedimentary rock. The planet is overflowing with granite and basalt. Not ONE instance of a petroleum deposit in igneous rock exists. The nutcase who drilled into am ancient meteor crater in Sweden discovered small amounts of his own lubricants and drilling mud additives.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. You have no empirical support for your outrageous contention. Whole libraries are filled with Lysenko's genetics spew and the inevitablity of Scientific Socialism that supported his rants in Stalinist USSR. Collectivized farmers who planted Lysenko's "modified" wheat seed starved when the usual Russian winter temperatures destroyed their crops.

 

Go drill for oil in granite. There rest of us will look in sandstone and under halite domes.

[Harzburgite]

Zohar I am still interested in your response to my post #23. Thanks.

[Harzburgite]

Not ONE instance of a petroleum deposit in igneous rock exists.

You do your arguments a disservice by inaccuracy. Here is just one example of many where oil is found in basement granite. http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2005/02feb/vietnam.cfm

 

Go drill for oil in granite. There rest of us will look in sandstone and under halite domes.

Am I grateful you aren't running the exploration department of any oil company I might have an interest in! Seems you just eliminated most of the Middle East from the equation.

[Zohaar818]

Your references are odious. They are political manifestos of Scientific Socialism. You are demanding that god exists because the bible says he does, and god wrote the bible and he never lies.

 

 

 

Whatever gave you the idea that I was a creationist? Can i help it if they have an argujment with convetional science that convventional s cience doesn't have an answer for..such as point six above, which i posted twice and to which you still do not provide an answer...or a theory to account for it:

(6) The regional association of hydrocarbons with the inert gas helium, and a higher level of natural helium seepage in petroleum-bearing regions, has no explanation in the theories of biological origin of peroleum.

 

You don't mention it at all but would rather debate what you call the dubious science..and of course you can only use what you learned at school as your knowledge base..and your obvious prejudice against Russian scientists.

What grounds you have for dismissing Russain scientists I have no idea of knowing..it really doeas sound like bigotry to me...

 

As for the science..I am not a petrochemist..are you? I find it interesting that you take such hostility to a position or a theory unless it impacts upon you personally..so either you don't like my writing style, or my name..or you have a vested interest in the oil biz..cuz if it was just about filling your tank I doubt you'd be so impolite in your postings.

You've gone beyond ridicule to insult several times and that speaks of a mind under stress.

Can't imagine for the life of me why you should be so stressed given the content of my posts to date...it's just a debate about the origins of petroleum......not for love, and glory...you don't win a cookie or anything...

And to be clear I am not a socialist or a communist, neither leftist nor rightist in my politics and I have no agenda to promote..I am an analyst..Period.

It is not I who found carbon 14 in diamonds, which under theory is impossible..but no one disputes that c14 was found in diamonds...

It was not me who found oil 30,000 meters below the surface, twice as far down as any bio-sediment has ever been found..but that it was found is not in dispute..

I come from a perspective of being fascinated with anomalies that give lie to accepted theories...POINT # 6 seems to me a glaring anomaly which no one has addressed..and until you do I stick by the posts submitted to date.

 

For further reading :

http://www.prouty.org/oil.html

[Chacmool]

This is a fascinating topic, and I'm following this thread with great interest. Unfortunately I can't make a useful contribution, because my knowledge of chemistry and geology is vastly insufficient.

 

However, I would like to request you to keep your posts a bit shorter in order to make them easier to follow. It would also be nice if you could take the large number of issues already raised and deal with them individually from the different points of view.

 

I'm looking forward to some more interesting reading! ;)

[Tormod]

Whatever gave you the idea that I was a creationist?

 

It was an allegory, Zohaar. Don't take it literally.

[Boerseun]

It was not me who found oil 30,000 meters below the surface, twice as far down as any bio-sediment has ever been found..but that it was found is not in dispute..

I have been following this thread with the usual level of amusement and entertainment I get out of Uncle Al's posts.

 

For all the science and chemistry and bigotry and self-righteousness in Uncle Al's postings, I can only say:

 

Uncle Al, you rock. I am not worthy.

 

However - for all my limited knowledge in geology etc., I have never read of anybody drilling 30,000 meters deep? Is this true? This should be tickling the moho discontinuity? This is like 30 kilometers below the surface... imagine the air pressure alone down there.

I know - this is totally off the topic, but Zohaar - can you maybe pop me some references on this?

[C1ay]

However - for all my limited knowledge in geology etc., I have never read of anybody drilling 30,000 meters deep? Is this true?

Actually that silly claim reminded me of this news article reporting, " The deepest hole drilled through the sea bed so far reached 2,111m." I also remember seeing a story that the chinese are going to attempt a 5000m hole and the russians claim to have drilled a hole to 12,000 meters (unconfirmed). Maybe Zohaar meant feet instead of meters.

[UncleAl]

You do your arguments a disservice by inaccuracy. Here is just one example of many where oil is found in basement granite. http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2005/02feb/vietnam.cfm

"A system of Cenozoic sedimentary basins defines the 1 million-square-kilometer Vietnamese continental shelf area," "Oligocene-Early Miocene lacustrine shales and deltaic coals and coaly claystones constitute the main source rocks, showing potential for both oil and gas generation."

 

" Clastics -- delta plain, fluvial channel, submarine slope fan and turbidite sandstones -- make up the most common reservoirs. However, exploration has found fractured granite basement to be an important oil-bearing reservoir type."

 

"The oils in the basement are virtually identical to the oils in the sandstone sitting around the basement," Dow said. "This is the key -- they migrate updip through faults into the basement, in horst blocks," he said."

 

Try reading the whole thing rather than only the parts that support your delusions.

 

Uncle Al says, "Mystics are baffled by the obvious yet possess a complete understanding of the nonexistent."

[Harzburgite]

Try reading the whole thing rather than only the parts that support your delusions.

Well, lets set aside your gross rudeness for the moment. You made this statement in an earlier post: "Not ONE instance of a petroleum deposit in igneous rock exists." That is a clear cut, absolute statement. You do not qualify it in relation to source rocks versus reservoir rocks: no, you say simply "Not ONE instance of a petroleum deposit in igneous rock exists."

And, that, as we see from the article, is simply wrong.

As for reading the article, I did not even bother. I am passingly familiar with the province and included the link for the benefit of those who are not.

I notice you make no attempt to address my comment on your simplistic perception of what constitutes a reservoir rock or trap.

You appear to think ("my delusions") that I am a supporter of an abiogenic origin for petroleum. On the contrary I am highly suspicious of the notion, my respect for Gold not withstanding. You might have understood this if you had cared to read my posts rather than react.

Al, you may well be knowledgable and intelligent. In my book that imposes a responsibility for accuracy and directness. Your posting methodology appears more to revolve around obfuscation and rhetoric. I trust we can remain focused on facts in any future discussion.

[Zohaar818]

Actually that silly claim reminded me of this news article reporting, " The deepest hole drilled through the sea bed so far reached 2,111m." I also remember seeing a story that the chinese are going to attempt a 5000m hole and the russians claim to have drilled a hole to 12,000 meters (unconfirmed). Maybe Zohaar meant feet instead of meters.

 

 

You are right, I did mean feet. I apologize for the confusion.

I was hastily recalling what i had read in the above articles and , living in europe, did not make the conversion in my head...here's the paragraph i refer to:

 

"The deepest fossil ever found has been at about 16,000 feet below sea level; yet we are getting oil from wells drilled to 30,000 and more. How could fossil fuel get down there? If it was once living matter, it had to be on the surface. If it did turn into petroleum, at or near the surface, how could it ever get to such depths? What is heavier Oil or Water?" Water: so it would go down, not oil. Oil would be on top, if it were "organic" and "lighter."

 

Having said that, here's a link about drilling depths and finding oil...

 

The "Deepwater Pathfinder" is drilling an exploration well in Walker Ridge 285. This well will be the deepest ever drilled in the Gulf of Mexico in terms of total depth - the water depth is 6,654 feet (2,016 meters), with a planned total drilling depth of around 31,000 feet (9,400 meters). The drill ship's dimensions were impressive too, allowing it to drill in up to 7,500 feet of water.

http://www.hydro.com/en/press_room/news/archive/2002_05/hunting_oil_mexico_en.html

 

 

And then this article which I hope will add some fuel to the fire going on in this thread..

http://www.energybulletin.net/2093.html

 

Published on 13 Sep 2004 by Press Release. Archived on 13 Sep 2004.

 

Methane in deep earth: A possible new source of energy

by DOE/Lawrence Livermore National Laborato

 

 

LIVERMORE, Calif. -- Untapped reserves of methane, the main component in natural gas, may be found deep in Earth's crust, according to a recently released report* in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). These reserves could be a virtually inexhaustible source of energy for future generations.

 

The team of researchers from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory, Harvard University, Argonne National Laboratory and Indiana University, South Bend, through a series of experiments and theoretical calculations, showed that methane forms under conditions that occur in Earth's upper mantle.

 

Methane is the most plentiful hydrocarbon in Earth's crust and is a main component of natural gas. However, oil and gas wells are typically only drilled 5 to 10 kilometers beneath the surface. These depths correspond to pressures of a few thousand atmospheres.

 

Using a diamond anvil cell, the scientists squeezed materials common at Earth's surface -- iron oxide (FeO), calcite (CaCO3) (the primary component of marble) and water to pressures ranging from 50,000 to 110,000 atmospheres and temperatures more than 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit -- to create conditions similar to those found deep within Earth. Methane (CH4) formed by combining the carbon in calcite with the hydrogen in water. The reaction occurred over a range of temperatures and pressures. Methane production was most favorable at 900 degrees Fahrenheit and 70,000 atmospheres of pressure.

 

The experiments show that a non-biological source of hydrocarbons may lie in Earth's mantle and was created from reactions between water and rock -- not just from the decomposition of living organisms....

 

NOTE THAT THIS IS AMERICAN RESEARCH, posted and freely available on-line for almost a year...and Lawrence of Livermore labs, as far as I know, is not a creationist organization, nor is it an organ for socialist propaganda...

Founded in 1952, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is a national security laboratory, with a mission to ensure national security and apply science and technology to the important issues of our time. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is managed by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration.

I heartily recommend the scientists and the doubters to check this article out and then perhaps we can discuss the issue

 

-Sincerely

-Zohaar