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 sureshbansal342 » Thu May 10, 2012 1:10 am

Sparky wrote: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.

1) i am uneducated scientist and facing language problem with communication gap. i am facing problem to understand the exact question and exact reply of others.
2) i am not professional in computer operation and making web etc.
3) i am facing to write technical language.
4) the best method is practical experiments. i can show why some sediments are good to drill near there and why we are not getting oil near all sediments. with these experiments i can show it.
5) why we are getting oil near sediments if these sediments has no involvement to produce oil and what is the link between the reservoir and sediments. because i have observed the another link between the reservoir and sediments and no involvements to produce the oil.it is important to know this link for easy finding of oils.
sureshbansal342
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby webolife » Thu May 10, 2012 12:17 pm

In plain language, Suresh, what is your link?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby sureshbansal342 » Fri May 11, 2012 12:48 am

webolife wrote:In plain language, Suresh, what is your link?
Dear Webolife, here i want to show some visual and intelligent evidence that how earth has formed like a tree and how crust and continents has been formed like a bark of tree. this is just a similarities between the two. here i want to show that there are many many others visual and intelligent evidences also in my mind and putting all together i have concluded that earth itself is a living thing like a tree and has been covered with crust (bark).I believe in plate tectonics but biological process in the earth is responsible for the motion of plates. same type of plates are forming in the log of tree and moving and making knots and other things like mountains etc.

http://img856.imageshack.us/i/corecrust.png/ --- Core Crust

http://img98.imageshack.us/i/mountainformation.png/ --- Mountain Formation

http://img856.imageshack.us/i/platetectonics.png/ --- Plate Techtonics

http://img861.imageshack.us/i/treebarkcontinents.png/ --- Bark & Continents

http://img856.imageshack.us/i/resinlava.jpg/ --- Resin Lava

yes, in agreed these are visual and intelligent evidences only but generation of hydrocarbons in the deep origin of earth that is biotic also from source kitchen is a valid scientific evidence that earth itself is a living thing.I have other many visual and intelligent evidences also but not possible to discuss all in this board. for example we have observed mines of iron,mn,nickel.cu etc in the log of tree particular bark also and same we are finding in the crust of earth also. i mean presence of all same minerals in all living things and earth and other cosmic bodies including hydrocarbons.

WHY my theory is more correct than current biotic and abiotic theories.

1. my theory covers all valid evidences

2. we are getting oil near sediments (we can not ignore this evidence as still most of drillers are using this method) YES, THERE IS SMALL AMENDMENTS ACCORDING TO ME. CHANCES ARE HIGH TO GET OIL NEAR SOME PARTICULARS SEDIMENTS, NOT ALL.DEAR ANOCONDA, PLEASE CLEAR ME THIS POINT ACCORDING TO YOU.

3. FROM CHEMICAL EVIDENCE IT IS BIOTIC IN ORIGIN.

4. WE CAN DRAW OIL IN LABS AT CERTAIN TEMPERATURE FROM OIL SHALE.

5. IT HAS DEEP ORIGIN AND THERE IS NO INVOLVEMENT OF FOSSILS/SEDIMENTS TO PRODUCE IT. WE HAVE OBSERVED HYDROCARBONS AT ALMOST WHOLE UNIVERSE,TITAN ALSO.AND OTHER SO MANY EVIDENCES THAT OIL HAS DEEP ORIGIN ONLY BENEATH THE CRUST.

WHY CURRENT BIOTIC AND ABIOTIC THEORIES ARE NOT CORRECT.
THEY DO NOT RESPECT THE VALID EVIDENCE OF EACH OTHERS .
sureshbansal342
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Sparky » Fri May 11, 2012 9:50 am

Suresh, I understand how you might consider the Earth as a living being. It all comes down to what "life" is and how it is defined.

There are a limited number of elements that are natural, so "living" and non living matter must use these. There also seems to be certain structures in nature that appear in both living and the nonliving.

Usually, a rock is described as non living. The bacteria on and possibly in the rock are "alive". If the rock is covered with moss, it is not considered as "Alive", though it is covered with a living form.
There appears to be a difference between chemical compounds and those same compounds, formed into a animal's cell. The simplest cell is extremely complex. To me, those proteins and RNA that make up the cell and provide vital functions for it are complex. Compared to natural nonliving chemical compounds, which are relatively simple, life forming compounds and their environment is very complex.

I understand that when you view the Earth as a whole, you see complexity. But is this complexity that you see "Life"?
I guess there is an argument for such, just as a virus, inside a cell could argue that it is living in a chemical stew that it using for it's own agenda.
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby sureshbansal342 » Sat May 12, 2012 5:40 am

Sparky wrote:Suresh, I understand how you might consider the Earth as a living being. It all comes down to what "life" is and how it is defined.

There are a limited number of elements that are natural, so "living" and non living matter must use these. There also seems to be certain structures in nature that appear in both living and the nonliving.

Usually, a rock is described as non living. The bacteria on and possibly in the rock are "alive". If the rock is covered with moss, it is not considered as "Alive", though it is covered with a living form.
There appears to be a difference between chemical compounds and those same compounds, formed into a animal's cell. The simplest cell is extremely complex. To me, those proteins and RNA that make up the cell and provide vital functions for it are complex. Compared to natural nonliving chemical compounds, which are relatively simple, life forming compounds and their environment is very complex.

I understand that when you view the Earth as a whole, you see complexity. But is this complexity that you see "Life"?
I guess there is an argument for such, just as a virus, inside a cell could argue that it is living in a chemical stew that it using for it's own agenda.
Sparky,due to language problem and non technical I am not able to under stand the exact meaning of your reply. but i am trying to reply you what i understands.
let us try from back side. we have sufficient evidence that crude oil is a biotic in origin but no involvement of fossils and any other organic matter from surface of earth because we have strong evidence of its deep origin also. so it sounds us earth itself is a living thing that is producing hydrocarbons having deep origin in the earth. supported by other visual and intelligent evidence.
2. i have a very special idea to prove it more scientifically but i have no facility of labs and help of modern scientist, particular genetic people for which i am seeking some help also.I am confident also about these experiments and test.
3. you; Usually, a rock is described as non living. The bacteria on and possibly in the rock are "alive". If the rock is covered with moss, it is not considered as "Alive", though it is covered with a living form.
There appears to be a difference between chemical compounds and those same compounds, formed into a animal's cell. The simplest cell is extremely complex. To me, those proteins and RNA that make up the cell and provide vital functions for it are complex. Compared to natural nonliving chemical compounds, which are relatively simple, life forming compounds and their environment is very complex.

I understand that when you view the Earth as a whole, you see complexity. But is this complexity that you see "Life"?
I guess there is an argument for such, just as a virus, inside a cell could argue that it is living in a chemical stew that it using for it's own agenda
ME; rock for which we have approach is a part of outer most of crust (bark) of earth.same problem is with outer most bark of tree while tree is a living thing because we know it with experience only and we have approach up to inner layers of log also that contains cellular structure.
sureshbansal342
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Anaconda » Tue May 15, 2012 9:27 am

According to sureshbansal342, the distinction between living and non-living is meaningless: Everything is the product of "life".

sureshbansal342 is entitled to his opinion.

But I suggest claiming everything is "life" fails to appreciate the truly amazing gift of life on planet Earth and ignores a basic distinction for Natural Philosophy: The distinction between living and non-living systems.

Regarding Abiotic Oil Theory, given sureshbansal342's belief regarding Earth's geochemical & physical processes, it appears sureshbansal342 agrees in substance with Abiotic Oil Theory, albeit, under a different label.

The question is whether anybody else, besides sureshbansal342, believes the distinction between living and non-living systems is meaningless?
Anaconda
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby seasmith » Tue May 15, 2012 6:59 pm

*
Methane Emissions from the Arctic Ocean

By comparing the locations of the enhanced methane levels with airborne measurements of carbon monoxide, water vapor, and ozone, the researchers from six institutions pinpointed a source: the ocean surface, in places where there were cracks and openings in the sea ice cover. The cracks were allowing methane in the top layers of the sea to escape into the atmosphere. The team did not detect enhanced methane levels over areas of solid ice.

Kort noted that previous studies had detected high concentrations of methane in Arctic surface waters, but no one had predicted that this dissolved methane would find its way into the overlying atmosphere. Scientists are not yet sure how the methane is produced, but Kort suspects biological productivity in Arctic surface waters may be the culprit.


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/v ... c=eoa-iotd
seasmith
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby sureshbansal342 » Tue May 15, 2012 11:03 pm

Anaconda wrote:According to sureshbansal342, the distinction between living and non-living is meaningless: Everything is the product of "life".

sureshbansal342 is entitled to his opinion.

But I suggest claiming everything is "life" fails to appreciate the truly amazing gift of life on planet Earth and ignores a basic distinction for Natural Philosophy: The distinction between living and non-living systems.

Regarding Abiotic Oil Theory, given sureshbansal342's belief regarding Earth's geochemical & physical processes, it appears sureshbansal342 agrees in substance with Abiotic Oil Theory, albeit, under a different label.
Anoconda, yes i agreed oil has deep origin only beneath the crust of earth but we can not ignore the strong chemical evidence of its biotic origin also. this is not fair if we ignore this strong and valid evidence but i also agree that fossils or any organic matter from surface has no involvement to produce it and it has deep origin only but biotic also.I can disprove or deny all evidence of fossil oil theory . It is good if anybody discuss all evidences of fossil oil theory one by one and i will disprove them.this is good method only.
Anoconda, regarding geochemical and physical processes, my point is at the end biological process in the earth is responsible for these process, one step more advance than you.

The question is whether anybody else, besides sureshbansal342, believes the distinction between living and non-living systems is meaningless?
sureshbansal342
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby sureshbansal342 » Tue May 15, 2012 11:04 pm

seasmith wrote:*
Methane Emissions from the Arctic Ocean

By comparing the locations of the enhanced methane levels with airborne measurements of carbon monoxide, water vapor, and ozone, the researchers from six institutions pinpointed a source: the ocean surface, in places where there were cracks and openings in the sea ice cover. The cracks were allowing methane in the top layers of the sea to escape into the atmosphere. The team did not detect enhanced methane levels over areas of solid ice.

Kort noted that previous studies had detected high concentrations of methane in Arctic surface waters, but no one had predicted that this dissolved methane would find its way into the overlying atmosphere. Scientists are not yet sure how the methane is produced, but Kort suspects biological productivity in Arctic surface waters may be the culprit.


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/v ... c=eoa-iotd
good
sureshbansal342
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby sureshbansal342 » Wed May 16, 2012 1:25 am

sureshbansal342
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby freedomrox » Sun May 20, 2012 8:58 pm

To me, there is no debate, and there can be none. I have spoken with Army Master Sargent Billy Joe-________. He worked the Four Corners as a Shot Guide, USGS Geological surveyor for Oil deposits. He reported that in 1967 under Lyndon Johnson all wells producing at the time be shut down. This is an unprecedented 99.5% of all well production capped. The 1889 Texas Oil boom well depicted in the movie "Giants" did not run out, nor stopped producing. Once it was capped by this Administration's order, the same well was full to the brim again in 1979, and had to release some of it's reserves during the time we were told by Ford and Carter that we had no oil.

You are being lied to. We have all been lied to. Abiotic Oil may be the answer or just a natural process of chemical interactions from the mantle, but the truth is the USA is about to blow from the amount of oil that is not being un-capped, nor exploited, and does not depend on the shale oil that is fracturing the water table of our country.

We do not need the Bakken, nor the recently released report of North Dakota Oil Shale being equal to all the Earth's reserves. The US is swimming in oil already tapped, and is only being held from all of us by political force and mandate.

Period
freedomrox
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby sureshbansal342 » Sun May 20, 2012 11:05 pm

It is not advisable not to draw oil from your reservoirs. if you will draw oil and these can be refiled as it is a ongoing natural process beneath the crust of earth under deep origins. it is not from shale oil but oil shale has been formed from peregrinated heavy hydrocarbons from seepage of oil in past.
sureshbansal342
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby sureshbansal342 » Mon May 21, 2012 11:36 pm

European work is beautiful that crude oil is biotic in origin (chemical test) but they have manipulated that it has been formed from fossils or organic matter from surface.there is no strong evidence that it has been formed from fossils or OM from surface.
Russians work is beautiful that oil has been generated beneath the crust without any involvement of fossils or any organic matter from surface earth but they have manipulated it with its abiotic origin.they have ignored the strong chemical evidence of its biotic origin and is not fair.
so putting all together if we see beautiful work of both with strong evidence it concludes us that oil has deep origin as well as biotic origin also. there is no need it to manipulate it with abiotic origin. there is hard need to observe it that why oil has biotic origin while it has deep origin also. in my opinion it is happening because earth itself is a giant single living organism and crude oil is a result of metabolism of earth like a bark oil.
regarding rest of requirements of any living organism we can not observe because it has been covered with thick bark (crust) and we do not have approach there to observe it. our life span is so short compare to the age of earth that we can not see its growth and reproduction in this short span of time.there are some visual and intelligent evidence supporting it.
sureshbansal342
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Chromium6 » Fri May 25, 2012 6:03 pm

Another report (ibid, p.219) filed in
Scientific American, 221:54, July 1969, raises the
possibility that there may be oil-bearing
formations in the abyssal depths of the ocean.
"Seismic-reflection records made by the
research ship Kane last July [from July 1969]
disclosed the existence of geologic structures
resembling salt domes in sedimentary layers of
the ocean bottom at a depth of 15,000 feet
northwest of the Cape Verde Islands. Salt
domes are widely associated with oil deposits
on land, in shallow seas and on continental
shelves. The Cape Verde structures also
resemble an oil-bearing salt dome discovered
at oceanic depth in the Gulf of Mexico last
summer by the deep-drilling ship Glomar



Challenger." Such discoveries were sobering
surprises for geologists.

Corliss includes another eye-opener
(p.368), from Geological Society of America
Bulletin, 65:1261, 1954, concerning seamounts
in the North Atlantic. "The Atlantis, Cruiser
and Great Meteor seamounts rise from a broad
ridge or plateau which extends from the Mid-
Atlantic Ridge at 37° N. 32° W. southeast to
Great Meteor Seamount at 30° N. 28° W….
About a ton of flat pteropod limestone cobbles
was dredged from the summit area [of the
Atlantis Seamount]. One of the cobbles gave an
apparent radiocarbon age of 12,000 years ± 900
(J. L. Kulp). The state of lithification of the
limestone suggests that it may have been
lithified under subaerial conditions and that
the seamount may have been an island within
the past 12,000 years.

R. Cedric Leonard, on his Atlantis Quest
website, offers several thought-provoking
items of geological evidence concerning land in
the middle of the Atlantic that subsided several
thousand years ago. Nearly all of these reports
come from respected journals. A small, but
vital portion has been included here:

In 1948 Dr. Ewing, one of the bitter opponents
of Atlantis, sailed up and down the Mid-Atlantic
Ridge during the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Expeditions to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Numerous
samples of tremolite asbestos were brought up.
Ewing made this significant comment: "Such rock
is generally considered typical of continents and
not of ocean basins" (Ewing, 1948).

Important also was the discovery of "beachlike
terraces" beneath two miles of ocean water. Ewing
cautiously observed: "It is, of course, extremely
radical speculation to identify these level stretches
more than two miles below the sea surface as
former beaches. Such a theory would require the
obvious but almost incredible conclusion that the
land has subsided two miles or else the sea has
risen by that amount" (Ewing, 1948). However,
subsequent expeditions only strengthened the
"incredible."

According to Ewing, long flat stretches were
detected 2 to 20 miles wide and hundreds of miles
long. These beach-like areas were always covered
with thick sediments, indicating a long period of
deposition, although occasionally separated by
mountainous "higher ground" exhibiting no such
sediments. (The Central Highland of the Ridge
occasionally approaches four-fifths of a mile from
the sea surface.) Ewing observed that deep ocean
basins never have thick sediments—which are the
result of surf action and river deposition—it is
actually shorelines that display thick sediments.
More evidence of just how recently such a
landmass existed turned up during an expedition
the following year.

The follow-up expedition in 1949 turned up
numerous core samples from these terraces. These
cores contained two different strata of beach sand:
the older estimated to be 225,000–325,000 years of
age, and the younger 20,000–100,000 years old
(Ewing, 1949). Another significant fact is that the
deposits were found to be well-sorted by surf
action into the usual pattern of shoreline beaches
familiar to geologists (Miller & Scholten, 1966). His
conclusion was that: "Sometime in the distant past
this sand found deep beneath the ocean must have
been located on a beach, at or near the surface of
the sea" (Ewing, 1949).

During this second Woods Hole Mid-Atlantic
Ridge Expedition Dr. Ewing once again dredged
up continental type rocks. Sample after sample
containing large masses of sial were brought up all
along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. It became obvious
that granite and sedimentary rocks "which
originally must have been part of a continent" were
abundant (Ewing, 1949). Dr. Bruce Heezen,
oceanographer with the Lamont-Doherty
Geological Observatory, observed that this type of
rock indicates "possible sunken land masses"
(Heezen, Tharp & Ewing, 1959).
Geologists have short memories when it comes
to Atlantis. A geologist reviewed the Woods Hole
expeditions of 1948-1949 barely ten years later and
wrote a report on the findings (Cifelli, 1970). I read
his report, word for word and cover to cover: not a
word was written concerning the numerous findings of
continental material (sial) along the Mid-Atlantic
Ridge. Dr. Ewing was puzzled, even dismayed, by
these particular discoveries; yet he was honest
enough to report them. Why were these astounding
facts not included in Richard Cifelli's review? Can
professional geologists be this one-sided?
Still another oceanographic expedition,
Swedish Deep-Sea Expedition of 1947-1948, yielded
core samples containing sand from the Romanche
Deep along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Dr. Otto Mellis
did not publish these findings until ten years later
(Mellis, 1958). Other geologists have guardedly
admitted that the Azore Islands (Central Atlantic)
are composed chiefly of continental material, some
even conceding that there might be enough
continental material (sial) in the mid-Atlantic to
make up a landmass the size of Spain (de Camp,
1970). This is not much smaller than the size I have
been proposing for the island of Atlantis.

References:
Cifelli, Richard, "Age relationships of Mid-Atlantic
Ridge sediments," Special Paper No. 124, Geological
Society of America, 1970.
de Camp, L. Sprague, "Lost Continents," Dover
Publications Inc., New York, 1970.
Ewing, Maurice, "Exploring the Mid-Atlantic Ridge,"
The National Geographic Magazine, Vol. xciv, No. 3,
September 1948.
Ewing, Maurice, "New Discoveries on the Mid-Atlantic
Ridge," The National Geographic Magazine, Vol. xcvi,
No. 5, November 1949.
Heezen, B.C., Tharp, M., Ewing, M., The North Atlantic,
Washington D.C., 1959.
Miller, J. P. & Scholten, R., "Ocean, Lakes, and Shoreline
Features," Laboratory Studies in Geology, No. 225,
1966.
Chromium6
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun May 27, 2012 12:41 pm

Chromium6 said: the seamount may have been an island within the past 12,000 years.
"... Such a theory would require the obvious but almost incredible conclusion that the land has subsided two miles or else the sea has risen by that amount"

No Atlantis
* As I stated in the Extinction thread, Atlantis was seen in the sky, not on the Earth. It was part of the Saturn System. Velikovsky had mentioned the finding of volcanic rock on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge in 1949 or so, that formed in air, in his 1955[?] book, Earth in Upheaval, I think. The seamounts seem to be flat because of erosion by tides etc when the tops were just above sea level. I guess that would be the case whether they're volcanic or coral etc. There may have been a civilization on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, but it wasn't Atlantis. As Cardona explained in his interview last year, when Earth was part of the Saturn System before it entered the Solar System about 10,000 years ago, Saturn would flare whenever it would enter an area in the interstellar medium that had a very different amount of charge than what the Saturn System had. The flares would heat the Earth, rain down water, petroleum, lava etc and would cause tsunamis that would remove the glaciers from the northern hemisphere. After each such flare, the glaciers would build up again over centuries and the ocean levels would fall about 2 miles, I believe. Saturn's last flare was about 10,000 years ago when it crossed the heliopause and entered the Solar System. When the Saturn System broke up about 5,000 years ago, there was another Great Flood etc, but it wasn't as great as the tsunamis during the earlier Saturn flares.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 2829
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest