sureshbansal342, May 2, 2012, wrote:[Anaconda,]but my point is how will you justify the strong chemical test evidence that oil is an organic in origin ?
sureshbansal342, May 3, 2012, wrote: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.
sureshbanal, May 3, 2012, wrote: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)
J. F. Kenney et. al. wrote: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.
http://web.archive.org/web/200906030303 ... Claims.htm
J. F. Kenney et. al. wrote: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).
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)
http://web.archive.org/web/200905260347 ... /index.htm
V. A. Krayushkin, et. al. wrote: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.
(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)
Szatmari wrote: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.
Szatmari wrote: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.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4653669/Petro ... r-Szatmari
Szatmari wrote: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.
bdw000 wrote:"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.
bdw000 wrote: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.
Szatmari wrote: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.
webolife wrote:... 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)
gottikh, et. al. wrote: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.
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:
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/abstr ... ivanov.htm
Ivanov, et. al. wrote: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.
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:
sureshbanal342 wrote: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.