Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Anaconda » Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:52 am

Hi solrey:

solrey wrote:Great info! Those corkscrew or spiral formations of economic minerals are totally in line with EU. Beautiful.
As I recall, aren't a large number of mineral/metal deposits distributed in "fingers" or "veins" in a Lichtenburg type pattern as well?
It would seem that most all deposits mimic various patterns of electric discharge, then. ;)

Excellent, everywhere we look we see confirmation of EU. :D

To put the corkscrew or spiral formations in a better context, here is an extended passage from Stanley Keith's work:

In porphyry metal districts where strong strike-slip dynamics have been operative, torque forces may result in a more tight, spiral effect of the differentiation path. In such systems, the ore stages are emplaced extremely rapidly (within 0.5 million years) and within the precision of the geochronologic technology. Examples include the spectacular spiral, crystal cave system within the Braden pipe at El Teniente, Chile; the possibility of rotated intrusions within the Grasberg diatreme in Irian Jaya, Indonesia; the Anna Lee auriferous corkscrew in the kinematic center of the Cripple Creek diatreme in central Colorado; and apparent spiral dynamics associated with the giant Ashanti and the emerging Ntotoroso gold fields in Ghana.

In all cases, the tornadic, spiral patterns in porphyry metal systems inventoried to date are associated with world-class, giant, rapidly evolved, porphyry metal systems associated with ‘super-wet' intrusive sequences emplaced into deep-seated, kinematically active, strike-slip faults that comprise elements of the global crack system. One final observation is that within the last 150 million years, giant porphyry metal and petroleum accumulations seem to occur in or near deep-seated cracks within 45 degrees of the equator.

Could these "apparent spiral dynamics" be related to "Birkland" Currents and electrical plasma dynamics?

Notice, that these mineral formations are thought to develope rapidly:

...emplaced extremely rapidly...rapidly evolved...

This swift formation of economic mineral deposits with spiral dynamics evident in their structure is in keeping with Electric Universe theory's suggestion that many of the Earth's geologic processes happen in a much shorter time frame than allowed for in the conventional Uniformitarianism theory.

And it's interesting that a unified theory of geological dynamics and cosmological dynamics seem to be supported by actual scientific observations.

Plasma, electrical dynamics, seem to play a much larger role here on Earth and in the Cosmos than most scientists realize.

Could this "electrical" dynamics also act as a catalyst for hydrocarbon formation?

seasmith wrote:
If "electrical stresses [that] may produce oil in the earth" is a perfectly valid and interesting question for a team of geochemists and plasmacologists, that I dont think has been settled yet.

Yes, you are right the issue hasn't been settled, yet, because the conventional approach doesn't allow for EITHER abiotic oil formation or significant electromagnetic forces in the Earth's crust. And, as far as I know, geologists that support Abiotic Oil theory haven't collaberated with geologists that support electromagnetism as an active force in the crust of the Earth.

Hopefully, such collaberation will take place, so Man can reach a better scientific understanding of the world and, ultimately, the cosmos.
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Anaconda » Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:44 am

(Note: I prefer not to link pdf files because the viewer is forced to reconnect to the original website, as opposed to simply back-spacing out of the link.)

However, here, I have referenced the "Cracks of the World" presentation and related several ideas to this concept. So, it seems important to present the pdf file version of this link where interested readers can view the authors' conception of the structure of the "Cracks of the World" as presented by schematics in the pdf version:

Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:31 pm

Re PDF files: right-click on the link and 'save as'. That way you don't have to leave this site.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Anaconda » Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:53 pm

Another observation this thread has touched on several times is the close association between volcanic activity and the presence of hydrocarbons. It has been observed that pillow lava (lava deposited underwater) has been found to contain solid bitumen (bitumen is a type of hydrocarbon). How lava at a very high temperature could contain hydrocarbons derived from organic detritus is never explained, but is assumed (where have we seen that before) to happen (see link below):

From abstract:
Andesitic pillow lavas containing biogenic, solid bitumen (SB) are a constituent of a Neoproterozoic volcanosedimentary sequence (Teplá-Barrandian unit, Bohemian Massif) in the Mítov area of the Czech Republic. A black shale formation that is crosscut by these andesitic basalts is 565 Ma old. Carbon disulfide extracts of two powdered samples of SB contain 0.2 and 0.3 ppm of C60 [a type of "buckyballs"], respectively, as determined by high-pressure liquid chromatography.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 70629680d6

"Buckeyballs" or fullerenes are atoms of carbon that have a specific structure in the form of a sphere or geodesic shape. These carbon formations are relatively rare on Earth, but are known to form as the result of electromagnetic processes, specifically, fulgurites, formed when lightning hits the ground, fullerenes have also been found in outer space (see below link):

At first they [buckyballs] were considered laboratory-created freaks. Then some of them turned up in outer space. Now they're being sent to ORNL from the frozen reaches of northern Russia. What's going on here?

More recently, C60 and C70 [fullerenes] have also been found in a sample of glassy rock from the mountains of Colorado. Known as a fulgurite, this type of rock structure is formed when lightning strikes the ground.


[Scientists] examined a sample of shiny black rock, known as shungite, from northeastern Russia. Shungite is a rare, carbon-rich variety of rock believed to have been formed between 600 million and 4 billion years ago, although how it was formed is debatable.

Because the shungite sample may be volcanic in origin, you can imagine conditions, like those in a volcano, that would be hot enough to form fullerenes and, at the same time, have little or no oxygen or nitrogen present. But right now, no one is sure exactly how these fullerenes were produced.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev ... main1.html

Couldn't it be that electromagnetism plays a significant role in volcanic processes, particularly on an early Earth or an Earth subject to infusions of intense electromagnetic energy?

Does Science even know for sure that shungite is the result of volcanic activity?

Could it be that shungite is a product of large electrical discharges?

So, what do we have, here?

Hydrocarbons have been found in meteorites and so have fullerenes or "buckyballs". Hydrocarbons and fullerenes have been found in pillow lava, together. Science knows that fullerenes are a product of electrical processes because of the fulgurites formed as a result of lightning striking the ground. It would seem to be a logical deduction that hydrocarbons also form as a result of electrical energy being applied to specific chemical elements.

How did hydrocarbon get embedded in lava? That is the question one has to ask himself, isn't it?

It would seem that lava because of its high temperature at the time of its emission from the bowels of the Earth would be far too hot for oil formed from squashed plants (or micro-organisms like algae) to get embedded into the lava.

But it's the association between hydrocarbons and volcanic activity that is important to remember and the simultaneous presence of "buckyballs" or fullerenes that suggest that electromagnetic processes play a role.
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Anaconda » Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:27 pm

This line of evidence is very fruitful for Electric Universe ideas playing a substantial role in the geophysics of Earth.

An extended passage from Stanley Keith was quoted, at the end, this statement was made:

One final observation is that within the last 150 million years, giant porphyry metal and petroleum accumulations seem to occur in or near deep-seated cracks within 45 degrees of the equator.

Why is that significant?

Because Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology is clear that "bodies" in the Universe tend to be more electromagnetically active in their equitorial regions (see link below):

Both the Earth and Saturn have similar torroidal magnetic fields and flat equatorial current flows. Probably all the planets are similar.

The sun's electrical activity is highest at lower latitudes. Hence the poles are cooler.


The above quotes along with the quote from Keith noting most mineral deposits within 45 degrees of the equator suggests the reason for this is that electromagnetic energy is most active around the equator, not just in toroidal current rings above the Earth (the Van Allen radiation belts), but also within the crust, itself, which when one thinks about it is quite logical and in keeping with the overall scientific evidence.

Does this line of evidence speak well for electromagnetic processes being integral to economic mineral deposits including oil and most other geophysical processes?
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby electrodogg1 » Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:57 pm

There are huge petroleum reserves above the Arctic circle in Alaska, Russia and nations are negotiating now on who can explore where in the Arctic Ocean.

Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:20 am
Location: La Quinta, California

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby seasmith » Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:48 pm

Anaconda wrote:
Could this "electrical" dynamics also act as a catalyst for hydrocarbon formation?

seasmith wrote:
If "electrical stresses [that] may produce oil in the earth" is a perfectly valid and interesting question for a team of geochemists and plasmacologists, that I dont think has been settled yet.

Hi Anaconda,

That comment was made specificly in response to Velikovski's theory of manna (and t'bolts) from the skys.

Telluric currents [ever-present and of unknown form and magnitude, at depth], without doubt
serve as catalyst, and maybe conduit, for the hydrocarbon formations.

Brevity doesn't always produce clarity; my fault...

Posts: 2710
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Anaconda » Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:29 pm

Hi electrodogg1:

electrodogg1 wrote:There are huge petroleum reserves above the Arctic circle in Alaska, Russia and nations are negotiating now on who can explore where in the Arctic Ocean.

A perfectly valid point to raise.

Yes, it would seem that is true.

It also seems that there is electrical activity in the area of the poles (see link below):

Once thought to be a region devoid of any appreciable amount of plasma, the polar caps have now been shown to be filled with supersonic outflows of plasma from the Earth, headed toward the regions where plasma energization creates severe space plasma storms.

http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/sppb/pr ... plume.html

This "outflow" would suggest that there is significant electromagnetic activity at the poles, not to mention the aurora activity and the axial alignment of the magnetic poles.

And, the case can be made that there are telluric currents all over the Earth's surface.

But, I'll add this thought, too: It may well turn out that huge oil deposits exist in locations closer to the equator that haven't been discovered because they are in ultra-deep water and require ultra-deep drilling for production.

I'll acknowledge there are many unknowns when it comes to oil. But there is only one way to find oil...you have to look for it.
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Anaconda » Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:12 pm

Perhaps, an example of an area that could have large oil deposits: Blanco Transform Fault Zone (see link below):

http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/vol_ext ... ult%20Zone

The Blanco Transform Fault Zone runs up from the San Andreas fault, which is also a transform fault (see link below):


And has numerous oil & gas seeps along its length (see link below):


This type of geologic formation is just beginning to be explored.

Even so, countries are locking up deep water areas around islands and other territories that may have deep water oil deposits (see link below):

Record prices drive secret underwater land-grab as old enemies capitalise on colonies.

A fevered scramble for control of the world's seabed is going on - mostly in secret - at a little known office of the United Nations in New York. Bemused officials are watching with a mixture of awe and suspicion as Britain and France stake out legal claims to oil and mineral wealth as far as 350 nautical miles around each of their scattered islands across the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans. It takes chutzpah. Not to be left out, Australia and New Zealand are carving up the Antarctic seas.

The latest bombshell to land on the desks of UN's Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf is a stack of confidential documents from the British Government requesting an extension of UK territorial waters around Ascension Island, St Helena and Tristan da Cunha.

The three outposts between them draw big circles in the Mid and South Atlantic, covering unexplored zones that may one day offer deep reserves of crude oil and gas.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... eabed.html

It would seem that governments are acutely aware of the potential for ultra-deep water, ultra-deep drilling. Do you think they don't know that it is Abiotic Oil theory that presents the best reason to think oil and other hydrocarbons exist in these remote locations?
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby ElecGeekMom » Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:06 am

If we are going into an ice age, I wonder how far the level of the oceans will fall. That would have an impact on how the oil companies drill in ultra-deep locations, I would imagine.

If I were one of them, I would probably position my resources to be able to take advantage of such opportunities--especially if sources like shale in Canada were covered with many miles of ice and snow.

The chances of a "snowball-earth" event are minimal, but life could become pretty untenable in Canada and the northern US. Maybe offshore drilling would be the next big frontier.
Posts: 327
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 9:01 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby solrey » Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:03 am


If we are going into an ice age, I wonder how far the level of the oceans will fall.

During the last ice age, sea levels were about 130 m lower than today. That was around 20,000 years ago. That amounts to an average annual increase of merely 3mm/yr.

If we were to move into a full blown ice age over the next few decades, thermal contraction of the oceans would be only about 0.2 mm/1C in temperature change, until the system achieves thermal "equilibrium", however long that would take. If 100% of the oceanic evaporation that fell as snow on the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets remained there instead of some of it melting , that would produce a decrease of about 8 mm/yr.

Even if the oceans were 130 m lower, as they were during the last ice age, that wouldn't really matter much for deep ocean drilling since the depths are in the range of thousands of meters. It might make certain areas of offshore drilling more accessible, though. Plus it would take thousands of years at a steady decrease to get to that point anyways. I hope we come up with better ways of producing energy by then. ;)
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla
User avatar
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Total Science » Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:33 pm

"The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time." -- Fred Hoyle, astrophysicist, 1982

No successful oilwell on Earth has been drilled based upon the biogenic hypothesis.

I can't name one oil company that drills for oil in natural history museums or on paelontological sites where dinosaurs roamed.

"The capital fact to note is that petroleum was born in the depths of the Earth, and it is only there that we must seek its origin." -- Dmitri Mendeleyev, chemist, 1877

"It may be supposed that naphta was produced by the action of water penetrating through the crevices of the strata during the upheaval of mountain chains because water with iron carbide ought to give iron oxide and hydrocarbons." -- Dmitri Mendeleyev, chemist, 1877

"Whether naphta was formed by organic matter is very doubtful, as it is found in the most ancient Silurian [Ordovician] strata which correspond with the epochs of the earth's existence when there was very little organic matter; it could not penetrate from the higher to the lower (more ancient) strata as it floats on water (and water penetrates through all strata)." -- Dmitri Mendeleyev, chemist, 1877

"Do these fuels result always and necessarily in one way from the decomposition of a pre-existing organic substance? Is it thus with the hydrocarbons so frequently observed in volcanic eruptions and emanations, and to which M. Ch. Sainte-Claire Deville has called attention in recent years? Finally, must one assign a parralel origin to carbonaceous matter and to hydrocarbons contained in certain meteorites, and which appear to have an origin foreign to our planet? These are questions on which the opinion of many distinguished geologists does not as yet appear to be fixed." -- Marcellin Berthelot, chemist, 1866

"One can, then, conceive the production, by purely mineral means, of all natural hydrocarbons. The intervention of heat, of water, and of alkaline metals -- lastly, the tendency of hydrocarbons to unite together to form the more condensed material -- suffice to account for the formation of these curious compounds. Moreover, this formation will be continuous because the reactions which started it are renewed incessantly." -- Marcellin Berthelot, chemist, 1866

"The hydrogen gas evolved from volcanoes, or from chasms in the earth during earthquakes, is generally combined with sulphur or carbon; it is probably formed by the decompostion of water, when it finds access to subterranean fire." -- Robert Bakewell, geologist, 1813

"Petroleum is the product of a distillation from great depth and issues from the primitive rocks beneath which the forces of all volcanic action lie." -- Alexander Von Humboldt, naturalist, 1804

"The ancients possessed a plasma cosmology and physics themselves, and from laboratory experiments, were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by Peratt's petroglyphs." -- Joseph P. Farrell, author, 2007
Total Science
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:10 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Anaconda » Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:33 pm

Well, it's good to see that this experiment has gotten wide-spread attention, including the New York Times, but the usual suspects are out there spreading misinformation (see link below):

New York Times, July 31, 2009 -- Fossil Fuels Without the Fossils? New Research Says It's Possible

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/07/31 ... a-796.html

"I don't think anybody in the research field doubts that methane could be formed this way," said Wayne Ahr, a petroleum geologist at Texas A&M University. "The problem is if it existed in commercial quantities, it seems someone would have found it by now."

Barry Katz, a geochemist at Chevron Corp., agreed.

"I don't disagree with the idea," Katz said. "I disagree with the idea of commercial quantities. There's no question that it's coming out of the system. However, it's not coming out in commercial quantities."

And while the oil and gas industry is not necessarily looking for hydrocarbons in the same rocks that mantle-derived methane and ethane would have formed in, the resource has not been encountered on a commercial scale during any petroleum exploration or scientific drilling in other rock types, Katz said."

This is an out-right lie.

Plain and simple.

The oil industry is looking for oil and has found oil in sedimentary basins (oil TRAPPING geological structures) above deep faults within the Earth's crust, in fact, the oil industry spends large amounts of time and money to fully understand these deep fault networks both in structure and in the geological timing of their development.

There is no scientifically verified process for low chemical energy potential molecules (biological detritus) to convert to high chemical energy potential molecules (oil), and the second law of thermodynamics prevents such process from taking place in the low pressure and temperature shallow crust (see link below):

A fundamental attribute of modern Russian petroleum science is that it conforms to the general, fundamental laws of physics and chemistry. Although such constraint may seem an obvious requisite for any scientific assertion, the 18th-century hypothesis that petroleum might somehow evolve spontaneously from biological detritus in the near-surface depths of the Earth stands, contrarily, in glaring violation of the most fundamental, and irrevocable, laws of nature: the second law of thermodynamics.

This article discusses the reasons which led physicists, chemists, thermodynamicists, and chemical, mechanical, and petroleum engineers to reject, already by the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the hypothesis that highly-reduced hydrocarbon molecules of high chemical potentials might somehow evolve spontaneously from highly-oxidized biological molecules of low chemical potentials, and reviews briefly the fundamental scientific reasons for the failure of the 18th-century hypothesis1 of a biological origin of petroleum.


It shall be noted that the authors of the, above, quoted passages don't consider electromagnetic energy in the crustal environoment in their discussion.

Both oil industry experts quoted, above, speak of a lack of "commercial quantities", but that's not accurate, as ALL oil is abiotic in origin.

Also, if this process happens, which it does, as the experts in the New York Times article readily admit, then what is the physical limitation for abiotic oil formation from primordial chemical compounds, so as to be not wide-spread and robust?

"One can, then, conceive the production, by purely mineral means, of all natural hydrocarbons. The intervention of heat, of water, and of alkaline metals - lastly, the tendency of hydrocarbons to unite together to form the more condensed material - suffice to account for the formation of these curious compounds. Moreover, this formation will be continuous because the reactions which started it are renewed incessantly." -- Marcellin Berthelot, chemist, 1866

Marcellin Berthelot "is considered as one of the greatest chemists of all time."


"The fundamental conception that underlay all Berthelot's chemical work was that all chemical phenomena depend on the action of physical forces which can be determined and measured."

Sadly, the powers that be in the oil industry didn't want to hear that.

"When he began his active career it was generally believed that, although some instances of the synthetic production of organic substances had been observed, on the whole organic chemistry remained an analytical science and could not become a constructive one, because the formation of the substances with which it deals required the intervention of vital activity in some shape. To this attitude he offered uncompromising opposition, and by the synthetic production of numerous hydrocarbons, natural fats, sugars and other bodies he proved that organic compounds can be formed by ordinary methods of chemical manipulation and obey the same principles as inorganic substances, thus exhibiting the "creative character in virtue of which chemistry actually realizes the abstract conceptions of its theories and classifications-- a prerogative so far possessed neither by the natural nor by the historical sciences."
(See Wikipedia article linked, above, under Berthelot's name.)

To this day, in spite of the vast majority of the scientific evidence oil geologists still cling to this "vitalism", which has been proved false over and over.

The reader needs to focus on the "commercial quanities" assertions made by the experts because that is the current fall-back position of the oil industry: There simply is too much evidence to deny that oil is formed by abiotic means from primordial mineral compounds.

So, instead, the public stance of oil geologists is to state the lack of "commercial quantities".

This assertion achieves two goals: First, it assumes that all current oil supplies are derived by the "fossil" theory without challenge, which avoids the proposition and overwhelming supporting scientific evidence that ALL oil is abiotic in origin because it avoids the embarrassing fact that no quantified chemical process has been identified that produces "fossil" derived petroleum whether in the laboratory or in the field (see link below):

Of the lies told to try to defend the childish notion of a “Biological-Origin-of-Petroleum” [BOOP], none are more egregious or more blatant than the claims that “the (spontaneous) generation of oil from organic matter at low pressures has been demonstrated in the laboratory.” All such claims are entirely fraudulent, without a single exception. There has never been observed a spontaneous generation of natural petroleum (crude oil) from biological matter at low pressures in any laboratory, anywhere, ever.

Typically, these lies are pronounced without even a pretense of offering any demonstration, or legitimate evidence, of such extraordinary assertions. Indeed, anyone hearing or reading such claims should immediately demand evidence of such.

http://www.gasresources.net/EssayforWeb ... pounds.htm

And in a seperate paper:

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.

Often times oil industry experts will claim bio-markers "prove" oil is derived from organic detritus (see link below):

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.


So-called "diagenesis" and "catagenesis", the supposed two-step process of "fossil" theory oil formation is only a vague qualitative description with zero supporting scientific evidence it actually happens. It is simply ASSUMED it happens.

As there is no direct scientific evidence for the "fossil" theory, oil geologists at best are only left with indirect inferences it happens, and all those inferences have been credibly falsified ("bio-marker", "odd-even", "optical activity", and "carbon isotope ratios", see above link disposal of biological claims).

In public statements such as in the New York Times article, oil geologist spokesmen never want to respond to this direct challenge of the "fossil" theory.

(And they rarely have to because of the reporter's limited knowledge and space limitations of the story, and the fact that reporters rarely go into the interview prepared to challenge the oil industry spokesmen's scientific basis for his opinion.)

Second, by asserting there are no "commercial quantities", oil industry spokemen avoid discussion of where oil is being found right now, in places like the ultra-deep water, ultra-deep below the bottom of the seafloor of the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Brazil, off the West African coast, and other places. And, how oil located in these ultra-deep water, ultra-deep below the seafloor subsalt, high temperature, and high pressure oil deposits specifically contradict the so-called "oil window" corollary of the "fossil" theory and how, in fact, these oil formations specifically support the Abiotic Oil theory.

Granted, a knowledgable reporter could ask the right questions in a sit-down interview, but these reporters rarely have the factual preparation needed for the right kind of questions, and, rather, the reporters mostly "lap-up" whatever the spokesmen have to say without follow up questions.

Indeed, these statements by the oil spokesmen are usually just like the ones in the New York Times story, short and parrot the oil industry party-line without having to respond to contradicting scientific evidence.

How many times have you read a lengthy sit-down interview of an oil geologist with a well informed and prepared journalist who is ready to challenge the oil geologist about the basic scientific premise supporting "fossil" theory? Rather, what you read in the discussions of Abiotic Oil theory on the internet by those that want to dismiss Abiotic Oil theory are monologues by oil geologists or their supporters, which use all the strategies and tactics available to avoid answering the hard scientific facts and evidence, such as strawman arguments, avoiding the best evidence of Abiotic Oil theory, and misstating the scientific evidence and even going into personal attacks.

Of course, subscribers to Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe have also seen those strategies and tactics.
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Anaconda » Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:08 pm

"I have gone to the best geologists and the best petroleum researchers, and I can give you the authoritative answer: No one knows." Edward Teller on how living matter is converted into petroleum (Teller,1979)

Of course, Edward Teller is more famously known as a physicist and "father of the hydrogen bomb."

Some readers may say to themselves, sure, methane and ethane can be abiotically formed in the deep crust/mantel region, but that says nothing about petroleum or oil.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -- Arthur Schopenhauer, philosopher

"No one doubts that inorganic hydrocarbons may occur in association with hydrothermal systems." -- Michael D. Lewan, geologist, 2005

"I don't think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic source of hydrocarbons." -- Michael D. Lewan, geologist, 2002

"I don't think anybody's arguing that gas couldn't be generated from the mantle." -- Barry J. Katz, geologist, 2002

The same Barry Katz quoted in the New York Times article and an oil geologist for Chevron, a leader in offshore oil drilling in ultra-deep water, ultra-deep below the sea bottom (Chevron operates the Tahiti oil field in the Gulf of Mexico, with the deepest oil well over 26,000 feet below the sea bottom.)

The reference to hydrocarbons essentially covers all petroleum (methane can be formed from organic detritus).

Certainly, one of the authors of the experiment reported in the New York Times, Vladimir A. Kutcherov feels hydrocarbons includes Petroleum:

"The modern theory of the abiotic deep petroleum origins recognizes that petroleum is a primordial material of deep origin which has been erupted into the crust of the Earth. In short, petroleum is not a 'fossil fuel' and has no intrinsic connection with any biological detritus 'in the sediments'." -- Vladimir A. Kutcherov, geologist, August 2008

But while abiotic hydrocarbons are "accepted as being self-evident", it is this fall-back position of no "commercial quantities" that has developed into the "last ditch" position of oil geologists, but it doesn't stand up under close scrutiny.
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Anaconda » Thu Aug 06, 2009 12:06 pm

The association between abiotic hydrocarbons and electromagnetism in the Earth's crust and shallow mantel was not an association that "lept off the page" upon my initial research of Abiotic Oil theory, rather, the two basic dynamic components other than the feedstock minerals, molecules, and chemical elements of hydrocarbons were temperature and pressure.

No abiotic oil researcher that I came upon during my researches made an explicit connection between electromagnetism and abiotic hydrocarbon formation.

It was only after coming into contact with Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe theory that seemingly enigmatic anomalies began to make sense as it become apparent there was an association between electromagnetism and abiotic hydrocarbon formation in the Earth's crust and shallow mantel.

Besides catalyst minerals, heat, and pressure, it seems electromagnetism acts as a catalyst and energy source for the chemical bonding of hydrocarbon molecules. Originally, I identified thermo-molecular bonding as the prime driver of hydrocarbon formation in a high pressure environment, but it now clearly is an electro-thermo-molecular bonding process.

It is now generally recognized that electromagnetism has a fundamental role in molecular formation as demonstrated in the laboratory. Numerous threads on this forum speak to the power of electromagnetism on molecular formation.

In review, this thread has already touched on a number of evidences of the association of electromagnetism and hydrocarbon formation:

-- Mineral catalysts identified with hydrocarbon formation that also are associated with electrical dynamics and the ability of minerals to form batteries and generate electricity.

-- The spin of the Earth and possible higher concentrations of hydrocarbons in the latitudes around the equator reflecting higher electromagnetic activity around the equator.

-- The prevalence of "corkscrew" and "spiral" economic mineral deposits.

-- The association of "buckyballs" or fullerenes and hydrocarbons both in pillow lava and meteorites.

Yet, there maybe more associations:

Diamondoids or nanodiamonds have been found in deep oil deposits (see links below):

The carbon materials are present in all crude oil, Qureshi said, although their concentration may vary. "In the best case, you'd have up to teaspoons of them per gallon, or cupfuls per barrel of oil," he said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... U64021.DTL

Diamondoids are found in only trace levels in most oils, varying anywhere from a few parts per million to thousands of parts per million. Gallons of crude oil can yield anywhere from milligrams to grams of diamondoid, Carlson said.

The diamondoids are formed in the extreme heat and pressure found in crude oil buried at great depths, so petroleum deposits exposed to hotter temperatures should be enriched in the molecules, Carlson said, adding that gas condensates found in deposits rich in natural gas seem to be the best sources for diamondoids.


This discovery of diamondoids in oil with greater concentrations in oil pumped from greater depths in the Earth's crust also suggests that oil is abiotic because if diamondoids only form in the same environment as diamonds which requires high heat and pressure then it is likely that the oil formed at these great depths as well, excluding the possibility of organic detritus getting to these great depths.

And there are suggestions that meteorites with hydrocarbons may also have diamondoids.

It is my suspicion that electomagnetism not only facilitates the formation of "buckyballs", but also the formation of diamondoids. The general consensus is that ultra-high heat and pressure are necessary for the formation of diamonds and their little siblings diamondoids, but there are physical suggestions that electromagnetism may also play a role.

Also, oil deposits are known to create magnetic signatures that can be detected, observed, and measured (see link below):

In thinking over this situation it occured to me to inquire whether any relation could be detected between the behavior of a compass needle and the distribution of hydrocarbons...Nevertheless, on glancing at Mr. Bauer's map of the magnetic declination in the United States for January 1, 1905, with this idea in mind, I saw that the irregularities of the curves of equal declination were marked in the principle oil regions. When this map was compared with one prepared by Mr. David T. Day showing in detail the known hydrocarbon deposits of the United States the coincidences recognized became more striking and other agreement became evident.

http://books.google.com/books?id=mKkPAA ... q=&f=false

(schematic of magnetic anomaly of Pennsilvania oil fields on page 22 of Google book)

It is known today, that oil companies use magnetic signatures to detect oil deposits.

Why would oil deposits cause magnetic anomalies?

Could it be that iron was present as a trace element as a result of being a catalyst in hydrocarbons formation and that electromagnetism facilitated this catalytic formation process? Experiments in the laboratory have been conducted that demonstrate iron or ferreous metals will combine with calcium and water to form higher level hydrocarbons in the presence of heat and pressure, this likely is also facilitated by electromagnetic energy.

Also, it has been discovered that electromagnetism thins oil and makes it more runny. Could this mean that in a high electromagnetic energy environment oil is not only facilitated to form by an electro-thermo-molecular process, but that it also is facilitated to flow more easily toward the surface and become trapped in geological structures closer to the surface (see link below)?

Oil drillers often heat crude oil or dilute it with gasoline to make it runny enough to flow through pipelines to refineries. Now, physicists find that a few seconds to minutes of exposure to a modest magnetic or electric field, instead of the standard treatments, sharply reduces crude oil's viscosity for hours at a time.

The new oil-thinning technique could reduce the difficulty and cost of pumping crude oil, particularly from offshore rigs that feed pipelines passing through deep, cold waters, the scientists say.

Rongjia Tao and Xiajun Xu, both of Temple University in Philadelphia, observed that either a magnetic or electric field reduced the viscosity of crude oil that's rich in paraffin wax. Another kind of crude oil rich in asphalt thinned from exposure only to electric fields, the researchers report in the September-October Energy & Fuels.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Electroma ... 0154079995

Electromagnetism seems to be a key ingredient to understanding the geophysics of hydrocarbon formation and transport within the crust of the Earth and the overall geophysics of Earth.
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am


Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest