Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

[bdw000]

Dear Anaconda, yes i agreed with your evidence that oil has deep origin in the earth and not a fossil oil. i also believe in it . there is no doubt about it. but my point is how will you justify the strong chemical test evidence that oil is an organic in origin ?

I am no expert. I have read some articles and one book on the subject, THE DEEP HOT BIOSPHERE by Gold. If I remember correctly, Gold's idea was that methane comes up from the deep crust, and that bacteria at some level perhaps could be "feeding" on it, and that their waste products are what we call petroleum. Heat and pressure are of course probably part of the equation, either before or after the bacteria get hold of the methane.

So "abiotic" in this discussion does not mean, for me, "totally devoid of life," but simply that petroleum is not produced by decaying organic matter. "Abiotic" is perhaps a misnomer, designed simply to signal opposition to the standard "biotic" theory. The point I guess is that the methane, the ultimate source for the production of petroleum, is "abiotic."

If bacteria are involved in any way there will obviously be lots of tests that will detect some sort of "organic" presence. But that does not mean that the methane that starts the whole process has a "biotic" origin.

In this sense it seems fair to me to call the process both "abiotic" and "biotic." The point is that oil does not take hundreds of millions of years to produce. Arguing about semantics of poorly chosen labels probably will not get you anywhere. Don't pretend that some label actually defines reality. The ideas are what are important, not the label.

[webolife]

I agree almost 100% with bdw000's previous post.
That being said, I came to this thread with that view [having read much of T. Gold], and have moved some from there toward's the "abiotic" perpective... methane, dolomite, nanodiamonds, deep crustal plumes and Kudryavtsev's rule, and the absence of relevant biomarkers push me toward the abiotic... the marine/plankton conversion and sedimentary connections in general still make sense for biotic. Either way I have been convinced for some decades that the conversion/production is either catastrophic rather than a slow gradual uniformitarian process, or that it is an ongoing natural relatively non-depletable one.

[sureshbansal342]

Dear Anaconda, yes i agreed with your evidence that oil has deep origin in the earth and not a fossil oil. i also believe in it . there is no doubt about it. but my point is how will you justify the strong chemical test evidence that oil is an organic in origin ?

I am no expert. I have read some articles and one book on the subject, THE DEEP HOT BIOSPHERE by Gold. If I remember correctly, Gold's idea was that methane comes up from the deep crust, and that bacteria at some level perhaps could be "feeding" on it, and that their waste products are what we call petroleum. Heat and pressure are of course probably part of the equation, either before or after the bacteria get hold of the methane.

So "abiotic" in this discussion does not mean, for me, "totally devoid of life," but simply that petroleum is not produced by decaying organic matter. "Abiotic" is perhaps a misnomer, designed simply to signal opposition to the standard "biotic" theory. The point I guess is that the methane, the ultimate source for the production of petroleum, is "abiotic."

there is no doubt that petroleum is not produced by decaying organic matter.we have observed hydrocarbons at Titan and almost all universe and we have not observed any life there yet. there is not any reason that hydrocarbons on earth has been formed with another method than that of rest of universe.

If bacteria are involved in any way there will obviously be lots of tests that will detect some sort of "organic" presence. But that does not mean that the methane that starts the whole process has a "biotic" origin.

we have very strong evidence that oil has biotic origin that can not be ignored and regarding involvement of bacteria the end result is earth itself is a living thing and producing hydrocarbons like all other living things because oil has both deep and biotic origin.

In this sense it seems fair to me to call the process both "abiotic" and "biotic." The point is that oil does not take hundreds of millions of years to produce. Arguing about semantics of poorly chosen labels probably will not get you anywhere. Don't pretend that some label actually defines reality. The ideas are what are important, not the label.

[sureshbansal342]

I agree almost 100% with bdw000's previous post.
That being said, I came to this thread with that view [having read much of T. Gold], and have moved some from there toward's the "abiotic" perpective... methane, dolomite, nanodiamonds, deep crustal plumes and Kudryavtsev's rule, and the absence of relevant biomarkers push me toward the abiotic... the marine/plankton conversion and sedimentary connections in general still make sense for biotic.

there is no doubt that chances are high to get oil near sediments are high but no connection to produce the oil because i have found the other connection between the both and these sediments has no involvement to produce it.i have solved this mystery.I have observed that kerogen has not been formed with decaying organic matter from surface, the basic point of current biotic theory
Either way I have been convinced for some decades that the conversion/production is either catastrophic rather than a slow gradual uniformitarian process, or that it is an ongoing natural relatively non-depletable one.

[Lloyd]

* Cardona has found that petroleum likely rained down on Earth and other bodies from Saturn several times, when Saturn flared before entering the Solar System. The petroleum rained down along with water and a lot of detritus that formed many layers of rock on the continents. The origin was abiotic, but it does seem possible that oil continues to form. The rains of petroleum is similar to Velikovsky's idea regarding Venus, but I don't know if he concurs regarding Venus as a source too.

[sureshbansal342]

* Cardona has found that petroleum likely rained down on Earth and other bodies from Saturn several times, when Saturn flared before entering the Solar System. The petroleum rained down along with water and a lot of detritus that formed many layers of rock on the continents. The origin was abiotic, but it does seem possible that oil continues to form. The rains of petroleum is similar to Velikovsky's idea regarding Venus, but I don't know if he concurs regarding Venus as a source too.

hydrocarbon rich rain is ok, but these hydrocarbons has been mixed with ocean water by seepage of hydrocarbons only and after that there was hydrocarbon rich rain after mixing it with ocean water and has been converted in coal on continents.

[Anaconda]

[Anaconda,]but my point is how will you justify the strong chemical test evidence that oil is an organic in origin ?

here i considered organic as we have observed porphyrins,spores,chlorine..... etc linked with living organism in crude oil that is why i considered it as organic.

I am not satisfied with him that it has abiotic origin while we have strong evidence of its biotic in origin.I need the justification of this point.please, please justify it.

There is scientific evidence which falsifies claims that "porphyrins,spores,chlorine..... etc" are so-called "biomarkers".

So-called "biomarkers" have been identified in petroleum, but all have been found in meteorites as well:

Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum, J. F. Kenney, V. A. Krayushkin, I. K. Karpov, V. G. Kutcherov, I. N. Plotnikova (2001)

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.

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).

http://web.archive.org/web/200906030303 ... Claims.htm

Here is a quoted passage from another scientific paper which contradicts the so-called "biomarker" claims.

The Drilling & Development of the Oil & Gas Fields in the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin, V. A. Krayushkin, T. I. Tchebanenko, V. P. Klochko, Ye. S. Dvoryanin, J. F. Kenney (2001)

Bacteriological analysis of the oil and the examination for so-called “biological marker” molecules: The oil produced from the reservoirs in the crystalline basement rock of the Dnieper-Donets Basin has been examined particularly closely for the presence of either porphyrin molecules or “biological marker” molecules, the presence of which used to be misconstrued as "evidence" of a supposed biological origin for petroleum. None of the oil contains any such molecules, even at the ppm level.

http://web.archive.org/web/200905260347 ... /index.htm

(The above links may take a while to fully connect because they are from a "cache, way back" depository.)

Dear Anaconda, yes i agreed with your evidence that oil has deep origin in the earth and not a fossil oil. i also believe in it . there is no doubt about it. but my point is how will you justify the strong chemical test evidence that oil is an organic in origin ?

I am no expert. I have read some articles and one book on the subject, THE DEEP HOT BIOSPHERE by Gold. If I remember correctly, Gold's idea was that methane comes up from the deep crust, and that bacteria at some level perhaps could be "feeding" on it, and that their waste products are what we call petroleum. Heat and pressure are of course probably part of the equation, either before or after the bacteria get hold of the methane...

First, let's remember methane is the simplest form of hydrocarbon, four hydrogen atoms and one carbon atom. Second, when bacteria "feed" on methane, the bacteria are extracting energy from the methane molecule. By extracting energy, the bacteria are 'breaking down' the molecular chemical bonds, so other molecules and/or atoms will result, say, for example, carbon dioxide. The reactants have less energy potential after being "fed upon", not more energy potential, which would be needed in order to form long-chain hydrocarbons such as petroleum.

Natural petroleum has the same composition or ratio of hydrocarbon chain lengths as Fischer-Tropsch synthetic hydrocarbon production.

Petroleum Formation by Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis in Plate Tectonics, by Peter Szatmari (1989)

COMPARISON OF NATURAL AND SYNTHETIC OILS
Several constituents of petroluem indicate that it may have formed by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. Crude oils, like oils produced by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, are mixtures of a very large number of hydrocarbon compounds whose chain length ranges from one (methane) to many carbon atoms. In petroleum, as in the products of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, the number of molecules systematically decreases with increasing number of carbon atoms, reflecting the probabilities of chain growth and chain termination that characterize any polymerization process (Schulz-Flory distribution) (Figure 1). Early studies by Robinson (1963) and Friedel and Sharkey (1963, 1968) indicate that the distribution of normal and isoparaffins in crude oil follows the chain-growth and chain-branching probabilities of the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.

Like natural petroleum, this synthetic [Fischer-Tropsch] oil consists of gas, gasoline, diesel oil, and wax fractions, all rich in saturated aliphatic hydrocarbons and enriched in the light 12C isotope.

Friedel and Sharkey (1963, 1968) found that the two parameters of the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis -- the probability of chain lengthening and that of chain branching -- accurately predict the abundance of isomers in Saudi Arabian oil, suggesting that it formed by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and not by thermal breakdown of fossil organic matter.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4653669/Petro ... r-Szatmari

"Abiotic" is perhaps a misnomer, designed simply to signal opposition to the standard "biotic" theory. The point I guess is that the methane, the ultimate source for the production of petroleum, is "abiotic."

No, bdw000, abiotic is not a misnomer because bacteria "feeding" on methane is not the source of the petroleum. Thomas Gold did much to promote the idea that petroleum was abiotically formed in the Western scientific community, but there is substantial evidence Gold plagiarized his ideas from the prior Russians' work without giving them credit, and specifically, Gold's reliance on the idea of bacteria contributing to methane's conversion to long-chain alkanes (petroluem) is alleged to have come from C. W. Hunt, who presented the idea at a conference in Russia, where Thomas Gold was also present. And, then, subsequently, Gold came out with his "Deep Biosphere" book where he claimed deep bacteria supposedly caused methane to form into petroleum.

Very few, if any, Abiotic Oil Theory subscribers support the "deep bacteria" formed petroleum from methane idea of C. W. Hunt via Gold's plagiarism.

If bacteria are involved in any way there will obviously be lots of tests that will detect some sort of "organic" presence. But that does not mean that the methane that starts the whole process has a "biotic" origin.

Well, so-called "fossil fuel" supporters sure have been trying to "detect some sort of 'organic' presence" in petroleum for years without much luck.

Another claim by "fossil fuel" supporters is that carbon isotope ratios show petroleum to be from "organic detritus", this has also been proven to be false.

These data indicate that enrichment in the 12C isotope comparable to that in living organic matter also occurs during the inorganic Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and therefore cannot be used to differentiate carbon compounds synthesized in living organisms from those synthesized inorganically.

... the marine/plankton conversion and sedimentary connections in general still make sense for biotic.

No, because there is no science supporting those suppositions. So-called "fossil fuel" theory is simply an a priori assumption which has no laboratory support or chemical formation pathway description. Only 1% of organic detritus fails to be broken down by various organisms before sedimentary burial. Given that oil fields like Burgan in Kiwait have produced billions of barrels of oil from a relatively small geographic area, there is no credible explanation of how such dispersed hydrocarbons ("marine/plankton") would concentrate so much in one small geographical area. The same could be said of the Ghawar oil field in Saudi Arabia, which has produced a 19 mile cube of petroleum in its over 50 year production history.

webolife is right to consider "the 'abiotic' perpective... methane, dolomite, nanodiamonds, deep crustal plumes and Kudryavtsev's rule, and the absence of relevant biomarkers".

But if webolife agrees "almost 100%" with bdw000's comment, then he has failed to appreciate the overwhelming scientific evidence which supports the Fischer-Tropsch Type formation of petroleum presented on this board.

In fact, the overwhelming scientific evidence of 'abiotic markers' in petroleum is substantial.

Paper presented at the International Geological Congress Oslo 2008

About the deep source of the hydrocarbon's reduced systems and origin of the Romashkin oil field

Rimma Gottikh, VNIIGeosistem (Russian Federation)
Bogdan Pisotskiy , Institut of Problem of Oil and Gas (Russian Federation)
Irina Plotnikova, Kazan State University (Russian Federation)

The study of deep origin of huge Romashkin oil field is based on research of microelement composition of oil and on deep structure of the crystalline basement and of the earth's crust. The study is focused on the basement and sedimentary rocks penetrated by wells on the Romashkino oil field (South Tatarstan Arch of the East European Platform) and on the oil from Romashkino and another oil fields of Volgo-Ural region. The acquired geochemical and thermodynamic characteristics of the reduced fluids and their differentiation products from the crystalline basement and the sedimentary cover indicate that these were formed outside of the sedimentary cover and that the migration was directed upwards.

The first results of the analysis of have shown that levels of many chalcophilic trace elements in oil considerably exceed their levels in sedimentary rocks and in the upper part of the Earth's crust. The oils of Tatarstan are characterized by the presence of palladium and iridium. The distribution of elements of the platinum group is similar to the ratio of these elements in the basic-ultrabasic intrusion. The level of elements of the platinum group in oil considerably exceeds their contents in sedimentary rocks and in the upper part of the Earth's crust. The distribution of chalcophilic trace elements is similar to the ratio of these elements in the volcanic gases. Studying of isotope structure of oil has shown that oil from various horizons and areas is characterized by different evolution of isotope composition. It has been found that asphaltenes have a distinct, positive europium-produced anomaly and a ratio of Eu/Sm reaching 1.16 that is obviously not characteristic of the upper crust formations. Thus, the source of these microelements can only be found in the lower crust or upper mantle. Strontium isotopic ratios provide another piece of evidence that oil has no relation to the «producing» sedimentary material. Devonian aphanite limestone from the sea area is characterized by the 87Sr/86Sr ratio of 0.7082, and oil from the Nurlat and Abdrakhmanovo areas - by 0.7102 and 0.7100, respectively. However, the biogenic concepts suppose that the oil should have inherited some sea-related matter.

Strontium isotopic systems and neodymium in petroleum and carbonic rocks were evolved in different ways. Strontium isotopic ratios provide that oil has no relation to the producing sedimentary organic material of Domanic horizon. Diagrams of eNd?87Sr/86Sr, have shown that microelements found in petroleum might have their sources in magmas of varying composition, in active zones of the lower-crust substratum and in the mantle. Geophysical data have also confirmed that gas systems reached the upper mantle and earth's crust to undergo polymerization and polycondensation.

http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1344404.html

See the following abstract of a scientific paper.

Inorganic Geochemistry of Oil: First Results of the Study Using the ICP-MS Method of the East-European and West-Siberian Oil Deposits:

The elemental distribution in the crude oil from all studied deposits does not match such of any known crustal rock. The experimental data presented should be taken into consideration during origin of oils is being discussed.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/abstr ... ivanov.htm

Something else. sureshbansal342's ideas have been attributed via webolife and my agreement with one of webolife's comments regarding sureshbansal342's ideas that they are related to the "Gaia" hypothesis.

I did some research. It is wrong to state sureshbansal342's ideas are related to the "Gaia" hypothesis because there is no claim in the "Gaia" hypothesis that Earth is "living" or an organism, in, and, of, itself. Rather, it is that Earth has evolved to where the continued maintanance of the Earth's livability depends on life forms sustaining the environment, in other words, the Earth's habitability now has come to depend on the living organisms which have evolved on Earth.

In other words, sureshbanal342's idea:

according to me one of the best possibility is earth itself is a living thing and crude oil is a result of metabolism activity of earth because all living thing produces hydrocarbons and even all other minerals are also same like iron,mn,zn,nickel,moly etc.

Has no relation with any wide-spread "theory" or hypothesis, but is his own idea that has absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up.

[Anaconda]

sureshbansal342, also mentioned plant "spores" as evidence for an organic origin, which, needs to be noted, contradicts his other statements where he acknowledges deep faults, fissures, and fractures are the source for the oil.

i agree with Anaconda's evidence that oil has been generated in deep origin beneath the earth surface without any involvement of organic matter from surface.

Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum, J. F. Kenney, V. A. Krayushkin, I. K. Karpov, V. G. Kutcherov, I. N. Plotnikova (2001)

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.

Of note, also, is that fossil spores or pollen of a cetain geological age are found only to that depth in the geological column. Permian age spores or pollen will not be found in older and deeper strata in the geological column, whereas, spores or pollen from older and deeper strata will be found in younger and shallower strata because the spores or pollen from older strata mixes into the oil, which is an excellent solvent, and then the oil along with the spores or pollen is carried through vertical conduits to younger and shallower sediments.

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.

http://web.archive.org/web/200906030303 ... Claims.htm

[webolife]

Anaconda,
I appreciate your thorough answers, explanations and references, which have come a long way in the ongoing shaping of my view. However, I see earth history more catastrophically than you, so I have no problem with the relatively rapid deterioration of organic detritus. On the contrary, I see this as a good evidence for the even more rapid and large scale sedimentation process that would have accompanied a catastrophic epoch flood event or series of events. So that objection does not strongly affect my view of a possible biotic involvement.

[Anaconda]

[Anaconda,]However, I see earth history more catastrophically than you...

Are you sure I see Earth history less catastrophically than you, webolife?

Let's be clear, if coal is abiotic (obviously, it's a controversial conclusion, inspite of the bituminous coal evidence and the heavy metal evidence), a large amount of energy would be needed to extrude the massive amounts of coal found spread-out over vast expanses near the surface all over the world.

And there is a substantial body of evidence to support a mechanism to introduce large amounts of energy into the Earth's crust & mantle:

I subscribe to Dr. Anthony L. Peratt's theory that a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora enveloped the Earth and most likely has enveloped the Earth many times in the Earth's past.

Here are the peer-reviewed scientific papers which support my position:

Dr. Peratt laid out the scientific evidence for such a High-Current, Z-Pinch in two scientific papers published in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE:

Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity (I & 2) by Dr. Anthony L. Peratt:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14145750/Anth ... -Antiquity

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16839562/Char ... ntiquity-2

Dr. Peratt's reputation & understanding of plasma phenomenon both in the laboratory and in the field is unmatched.

The process Dr. Peratt describes based on his laboratory work with plasma phenomenon & field work cataloging petroglyphs is exhaustive.





Per Anthony L. Peratt:

The discovery that objects from the Neolithic or Early Bronze Age carry patterns associated with high-current Z-pinches provides a possible insight into the origin and meaning of these ancient symbols produced by man. This paper directly compares the graphical and radiation data from high-current Z-pinches to these patterns. The paper focusses primarily, but not exclusively, on petroglyphs. It is found that a great many archaic petroglyphs can be classified accoridng to plasma stability and instability data. As the same morphological types are found worldwide, the comparisons suggest the occurance of an intense aurora, as might be produced if the solar wind had increased between one and two orders of magnitude, a millennia ago.

And, it turns out that Science has observed & measured stars that have powerful electromagnetic current sheets radiating out from their equators:



From: "Spiral Dance in a Planetary Nursery" courtesy of Sabaru Telescope They call it a "protoplanetary disc" as the star AB Aurigae seems to display the outline of it's own "ballerina skirt" also known as the heliospheric current sheet.

This would seem to offer observational confirmation that aurora current sheets can exist which are orders of magnitude stronger than the present heliopheric current sheet.

And these plasma, electric current sheets would introduce huge amounts of electromagnetic energy into the Earth's crust and mantle, plus, this energy level given off by the Sun likely was repeated numerous times in Earth's past.

Regardless of the exact age of the Earth (I agree no one knows), it does appear that abiotic coal formation epochs were repeated across the great expanse of Earth's history. These abiotic coal epochs were catastrophic in effect and extent. And, beyond the extruding of coal up to the surface, likely, there were many secondary electrmagnetic effects and phenomena. It seems quite possible that coal balls are one of those effects.

Another, physical effect would be an increased volcanism at perhaps catastraphic activity levels.

At times in Earth's history, the surface was a very inhospitable place to be.

[Anaconda,]However, I see earth history more catastrophically than you...

Are you sure I see Earth history less catastrophically than you, webolife?

[sureshbansal342]

Dear Anaconda,
you;
There is scientific evidence which falsifies claims that "porphyrins,spores,chlorine..... etc" are so-called "biomarkers".

So-called "biomarkers" have been identified in petroleum, but all have been found in meteorites as well:

me;
this is a strong evidence that some type of carbonaceous meteorites contains amino acid and biological chemistry are seeds of planets and has been germinating in asteroids and last in big planets. this is the prime property of any seed that has been converting in trees and plants.
YOU; Deep becteria
me; from where it originate and formed ?

you;Something else. sureshbansal342's ideas have been attributed via webolife and my agreement with one of webolife's comments regarding sureshbansal342's ideas that they are related to the "Gaia" hypothesis.

I did some research. It is wrong to state sureshbansal342's ideas are related to the "Gaia" hypothesis because there is no claim in the "Gaia" hypothesis that Earth is "living" or an organism, in, and, of, itself. Rather, it is that Earth has evolved to where the continued maintanance of the Earth's livability depends on life forms sustaining the environment, in other words, the Earth's habitability now has come to depend on the living organisms which have evolved on Earth.
me; you may be correct.As i have earlier stated that i am not educated scientist and facing big language problem also. one of my friend told me that my idea is similar with Gaia hypothesis and i am using it. but my idea is earth itself is a single living thing like a tree and producing hydrocarbons like all other living things. from reverse .

you; sureshbansal342, also mentioned plant "spores" as evidence for an organic origin, which, needs to be noted, contradicts his other statements where he acknowledges deep faults, fissures, and fractures are the source for the oil.
me; spores , in petroleum doesn't mean it has been produced from plants , because i have very strong evidence that sediments has no involvement to produce oil but spores in petroleum mean earth itself is a living thing like a tree.

ME; IN BRIEF , I AM FACING BIG LANGUAGE PROBLEM AND THUS COMMUNICATION GAP ALSO. OTHERWISE I AM VERY MUCH CONFIDENT. PERSONEL MEETING AND DISCUSSION IS A GOOD SOLUTION AS MY THEORY STARTS FROM REVERSE ONLY. BEST SOLUTION TO CHECK MY THEORY IS I CAN PREDICT MANY NEW LOCATIONS WITHOUT ANY MISTAKE. I CAN IDENTIFY THAT WHICH SEDIMENTS ARE GOOD FOR FINDING OIL BECAUSE I HAVE CONCRETE EVIDENCE THAT THESE SEDIMENTS HAS NO INVOLVEMENT TO PRODUCE OIL. EVEN THAT I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS AN ANOTHER LINK BETWEEN THE TWO AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE NOT GETTING OIL NEAR ALL SEDIMENTS.THERE IS A PARTICULAR REASON FOR THIS.

[Sparky]

Suresh Bansal:

WE ARE NOT GETTING OIL NEAR ALL SEDIMENTS.THERE IS A PARTICULAR REASON FOR THIS.

Do you have another platform to communicate your ideas from? An online book, website of yours, published articles, etc...?
This forum is limited in the number of people that will read your posts.

I do not understand why you are so vague/secretive. Why not just explain as best as you can what you have discovered? Maybe someone can do something good with that information.

[Chromium6]

Coal and petroleum created throughout the universe, study finds
February 18, 2012 Robert Felix

New discovery validates my theories.

“Carbon Rain.” That’s the title of chapter 12 in Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps, wherein I propose that carbon rains from the sky at extinctions. That’s why we find dinosaurs buried in coal.

And that’s why we find oil on Saturn’s moon Titan.

Close up toward south polar region of Saturn's largest moon, Titan, showing a depression within the moon's orange and blue haze layers near the south pole. NASA’s Cassini spacecraft snapped the image on 11 Sep 2011.

Now comes this controversial study published in the journal Nature on 27 Oct 2011.

“An analysis of the spectral emissions from distant stars suggests that compounds of unexpected complexity – some resembling coal and petroleum – exist throughout the universe and are being made by stars,” says writer Kate Melville.

By analyzing the emissions of star dust formed in exploding stars, scientists have found that “stars are making these complex organic compounds in time frames of only weeks.”

Not through some long, drawn-out process taking thousands of years, mind you, but in a mere matter of weeks!

According to Professors Sun Kwok and Yong Zhang of the University of Hong Kong, not only are stars producing this complex organic matter, they are also ejecting it into interstellar space. “Theoretically, this is impossible, but observationally we can see it happening,” said Kwok.

The compound’s chemical structures resemble those of coal and petroleum, says Kwok.

Although coal and oil are thought to arise only from living organisms, the tell-tale spectra show complex organic compounds can be synthesized in space even when no life forms are present, says Kwok.

See entire article:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/201109 ... _sys.shtml

Thanks to Ronald Baker for this link

“This reminded me of your book,” says Ronald.

See also “Lakes of oil on Saturn’s Moon Titan”
http://iceagenow.info/2011/10/lakes-oil ... oon-titan/

And “Raining Methane on Titan”
http://iceagenow.info/2012/01/raining-methane-titan/

http://evolutionaryleaps.com/2012/02/co ... udy-finds/

[sureshbansal342]

Coal and petroleum created throughout the universe, study finds
February 18, 2012 Robert Felix

New discovery validates my theories.

“Carbon Rain.” That’s the title of chapter 12 in Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps, wherein I propose that carbon rains from the sky at extinctions. That’s why we find dinosaurs buried in coal.

And that’s why we find oil on Saturn’s moon Titan.

Close up toward south polar region of Saturn's largest moon, Titan, showing a depression within the moon's orange and blue haze layers near the south pole. NASA’s Cassini spacecraft snapped the image on 11 Sep 2011.

Now comes this controversial study published in the journal Nature on 27 Oct 2011.

“An analysis of the spectral emissions from distant stars suggests that compounds of unexpected complexity – some resembling coal and petroleum – exist throughout the universe and are being made by stars,” says writer Kate Melville.

By analyzing the emissions of star dust formed in exploding stars, scientists have found that “stars are making these complex organic compounds in time frames of only weeks.”

Not through some long, drawn-out process taking thousands of years, mind you, but in a mere matter of weeks!

According to Professors Sun Kwok and Yong Zhang of the University of Hong Kong, not only are stars producing this complex organic matter, they are also ejecting it into interstellar space. “Theoretically, this is impossible, but observationally we can see it happening,” said Kwok.

The compound’s chemical structures resemble those of coal and petroleum, says Kwok.

Although coal and oil are thought to arise only from living organisms, the tell-tale spectra show complex organic compounds can be synthesized in space even when no life forms are present, says Kwok.

See entire article:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/201109 ... _sys.shtml

Thanks to Ronald Baker for this link

“This reminded me of your book,” says Ronald.

See also “Lakes of oil on Saturn’s Moon Titan”
http://iceagenow.info/2011/10/lakes-oil ... oon-titan/

And “Raining Methane on Titan”
http://iceagenow.info/2012/01/raining-methane-titan/

http://evolutionaryleaps.com/2012/02/co ... udy-finds/

I agreed that today coal was liquid hydrocarbon in past. i agreed there was hydrocarbon rich rain on earth in past. but these hydrocarbon has been reached on ocean floor by seepage of hydrocarbons from beneath the crust of earth as oil has deep origin in the earth.
Anaconda, we have observed spores (linked with living organism) in crude oil and that has deep origin only sounds us that earth itself is a living thing and producing hydrocarbons like other living things. because oil has deep origin only and these spores has not come from any plants or trees but linked with earth itself.
there is not only one or two point . i have many points and putting all together i have concluded it but all are reverse theories from Z to A.
Another example from reserve is DO the continents wind back in smaller globe. I have fine example of log of log of tree covered with thick bark. with our past experience we know continents of bark of tree can wind back in smaller log or young log. means tree is a living thing that is growing and expanding.
http://img861.imageshack.us/i/treebarkcontinents.png/ continents on bark

DNA Precursors In Meteorite Confirmed As Extraterrestrial

[sureshbansal342]

please also observe this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7i5CY6XNo&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3lG3FX9D68