Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

[Anaconda]

Hi starbiter:

Starbiter asked:
What is your problem with comet oil?

I have no problems with comet oil, on the contrary, I was the one who brought up hydrocarbons found in meteorites, in the first place.

And I already responded to one of your comments, explaining that comet oil would be possible, but that the oil deposits in the Middle East are not consistent with comet oil because the deposits are too large & concentrated (19 cubic miles of oil pumped from Ghawar so far) and there are fracture zones in the basement (bedrock) directly under the Ghawar oil field in Saudi Arabia which provide scientific evidence for where the oil emanates from, as there are fracture zones in the basement under the other Middle Eastern oil fields.

I'm confused by starbiter's statements.

On the one hand,

Starbiter stated:
I never suggested word for word acceptance of Dr. V. Skepticism is healthy.

However, Starbiter's comments, when all is said and done, strongly suggest he does, indeed, accept word for word Velikovsky.

Seemingly, on the other hand, this is starbiter's actual position:

This fits Worlds in Collision like a glove.

I'm having a hard time reconciling, "Skepticism is healthy", and, "This fits Worlds in Collision like a glove", particlularly when the scientific evidence for the source of large Middle Eastern oil fields doesn't fit "like a glove" for comet oil. It seems that Starbiter is determined to fit a square peg in a round hole to protect his belief system.

There are significant evidentiary contradictions that Starbiter seems unwilling to be cognizant of, or acknowledge.

I presented Stanley B. Keith's statement:

For example, petroleum resources in the largest hydrothermal mineral deposit [Abiotic Oil] in the world, the Ghawar field of Saudi Arabia (Cantrell et al., 2002), may be related to deposition of‚ regional-scale hydrothermal dolomites in a north-northeast-trending dextral slip zone that is 175 miles long and 30 miles wide. This zone is but one element of the previously mentioned north-south segments in the global fracture system.

Starbiter responded:
This comment from your post got my attention. Please notice the dolomite reference above. The reference to "hydrothermal dolomite" is interesting. The link below discusses the problem with hydrothermal dolomite. The link below could be bull shit, but it seems reasonable.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 182d55f23f

The above abstract is a good discussion of Dolomite. As are the two other links Starbiter provided on Dolomite.

What these links point out is how little science knows about dolomite's physical behaviors. The "sciencedirect" abstract points out that definitions need to be tightened up. This seems entirely reasonable. I've read the New Scientist article on Dolomite before it went behind a paywall. The article states 80% of North American oil is found in association with Dolomite. The article also discusses the history of dolomite and relates just how little is known about this mineral in terms of how it acts in the geological environment. The Dolomites are a mountain range in Italy made up of Dolomite, yet geology doesn't have a mountain building process that would account for the formation of the Dolomites from the mineral Dolomite. In fact, even sedimentary processes aren't understood well, as geologic sedimentary build-up of Dolomite in sea water is commonly asserted, but no sedimentary build-up of Dolomite in sea water has been documented to happen, today, in the field.

Dolomite has a very high melting point and many deposits of Dolomite appear to have been deposited by flowing magma -- yet, this has never been observed & measured in the field.

There are many questions about Dolomite that need to be answered, which the links to a good job to point out and discuss, but the links provided report nothing to suggest that dolomite isn't either a reactant or catalylist for Abiotic Oil formation.

On the contrary, the scientific evidence does point to oil formation and Dolomite being closely associated.

Starbiter states:
A large portion of the oil on the planet is inside of sand deposits. This works with comet oil during an Earth Venus encounter.

This is a conclusionary statement with no supporting rational or evidence for why oil sands would actually be comet oil as a result of an Earth / Venus encounter.

Actually, the best evidence is that oil sands are also the result of internal Abiotic Oil formation. The oil sands deposits in Venezuela are situated over a fault network where two tectonic plates come into contact and there are rare Earth minerals (valandium) in the oil that is rare in the crust but common at depth in the deep crust/shallow mantle.

As far as the Canadian oil sands are concerned, it could be comet oil, but then again, the huge amounts would tend to weigh against that conclusion.

Starbiter wrote:
Concerning your comment on the acceptance of Worlds in Collision by the EU insiders, I think you have it wrong. I've spoken with many insiders. The majority I have spoken with are comfortable with the observations in "Worlds in Collision".

No, this is what I stated:

In regards to the issues raised by Velikovsky in his book, let me say, I don't follow Velikovsky word for word and as I understand it, neither do the leaders of Electric Universe. Velikovsky is a jumping off point and his work is valuble for starting the discussion and has stood the test of time for being a pioneering voice.

The 'Electric Universe' leaders don't follow Velikovsky "word for word".

Being comfortable with observations in "Worlds in Collision" is not the same as following Velikovsky "word for word".

Yet, Starbiter offers more which suggests he does follow Velikovsky "word for word":

Starbiter: ...I re-read WiC [Worlds in Collision] and the rocks fit the stories to a T.

As I stated before, Velikovsky was a pioneer and rocks do have a story to tell, but the evidence has to be considered and while comet oil is entirely possible, likely infact, the deposits of oil in question, whether Middle Eastern or heavy oil sands in Canada and Venezuela are not consistent with "comet oil".

[starbiter]

Hello Anaconda: The oil under discussion may be abiotic. On the other hand you seem to dismiss the possibility of the oil being from a comet, based on the quantity. How can we know the the limits of comet oil? Especially a comet the size of Venus, or possibly Mars, Saturn, or Jupiter. The fact that half the worlds oil is associated with dolomite and sand is a convenient coincidence, considering they were both available during the observation of bitumen by our ancestors. If the chemistry of the oil precludes a comet origin, then i'll gladly agree with you. But lacking that, i think the comet model is still in play.

I missunderstood your comment on EU insiders. Non of the folks i know agree with Dr. Velikovsky word for word. Most of the problems seem to revolve around the dates. This topic bores me. Even the Velikovsky books on the subject. And there will never be resolution. The loudest or longest surviving will probably win. On the other hand, the observations of the witnesses seem to be widely accepted, with some exceptions. The predictions based on these observations have been verified to a degree that defies any odds. I mentioned a problem with splintered trees on the dune thread. But other than this, i can't think of a problem with Worlds in Collision. This is your chance. What do ya got.

The rocks and mountains i've looked at didn't make sense until i re-read Worlds in Collision. The physical evidence matches the message of our ancestors. It fits like a glove. I'm trying to communicate the best i can. I am just using a scalable process to explain my observations made in the field.

michael steinbacher

[Anaconda]

starbiter:

It seems, you want it both ways. You say you subscribe to Abiotic Oil, but hold out for your "pet" comet oil hypothesis. It seems, considering the totality of your last comment, that saying you supported Abiotic Oil was more a convenience, so I wouldn't question "comet" oil.

Your view of comet oil isn't supported by the scientific evidence.

starbiter wrote:
On the other hand you seem to dismiss the possibility of the oil being from a comet, based on the quantity.

No, it's not just the quantity, but also the structure of the basement below the oilfields, the rare earth metals that are in the oil, and the depth of the oil reservoirs, and a number of other factors, a totality of the evidence if you will.

starbiter goes on:

How can we know the limits of comet oil?

Excellent point. We don't. Comet oil, beyond it being possible, and small amounts of hydrocarbons being observed emanating from comet tails, is speculative.

I've offered empirical observation & measurement and analysis & interpretation that supports Abiotic Oil.

starbiter wrote:
Especially a comet the size of Venus, or possibly Mars, Saturn, or Jupiter. The fact that half the worlds oil is associated with dolomite and sand is a convenient coincidence, considering they were both available during the observation of bitumen by our ancestors.

starbiter, it seems you support a scenario where most oil comes from comets. The scientific evidence doesn't support that subscription in my opinion...it's novel -- and it's clear you take it much further than Velikovsky -- since you so readily incorporate more than just Venus as possible comets. starbiter, you are free to believe anything you want, if this topic bores you then just drop it.

Of course, there is another possible reason starbiter wants people on this website to believe most of the world's oil is from comets: If such was the case, then for all practicable purposes, oil would be finite, just as the "fossil" theory is a finite theory.

As I previously wrote, I have no interest in discrediting Velikovsky, but neither should somebody take Velikovsky and manipulate his ideas for their own purposes -- starbiter, I'm disappointed you engage in speculation beyond what Velikovsky ever suggested, then you provide no evidence other than vague references to Velikovsky.

starbiter, using Velikovsky to promote your own views or views you want to promote via an issue Velikovsky made only passing reference to is improper.

[Aardwolf]

Something that may be relevant to this thread;

This is a quote of a citation taken from Wikipedia regarding the Kola Borehole which is the deepest hole ever drilled.

"The rock there had been thoroughly fractured and was saturated with water, which was surprising. This water, unlike surface water, must have come from deep-crust minerals and had been unable to reach the surface because of a layer of impermeable rock.[8]

Another unexpected discovery was the large quantity of hydrogen gas, with the mud flowing out of the hole described as "boiling" with hydrogen.[9]"

The water and hydrogen were found deeper tham 5km. Their explanation is that it was trapped there for billions of years but IMO it's far more likely it was recently produced by the Earth, and if it can produce these base materials why not more complex hydrocarbons as well; under the right circumstances.

[webolife]

Of interest to me in that Wiki article is the mention that at the bottom of that 7.5 mile deep hole the rock formations changed to Archaean. This generally would indicate that rocks above that level were fossiliferous.
Assuming this to be the case, where does this fit in the picture of abiotic oil formation? Do your dolomite and salt capped oil formations occur below the Archaean boundary? The subterranean water also interests me, as I've long pondered the possibility that much of earth's surface water originated there.

[Anaconda]

Aardwolf & webolife:

Yes, the Kola Borehole, deepest hole ever drilled, is very relevant to this topic (for the ease of readers, below are two links to the Kola Borehole):

"Ultra deep wells bring a range of unexpectedness - basically [a] change of views of structures and geochemical processes in Earth." -- Yuri Galant, geologist, August 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-deepest-hole

(The reader comments for the Damn Interesting article are notable for the sweep of ideas if nothing else.)

From Damn Interesting article:
Before the superdeep borehole project was undertaken, practitioners of Geology had reached a number of conclusions regarding the Earth’s deep crust based on observations and seismic data. But as is often the case when humans venture into the unknown, Kola illustrated that certainty from a distance is no certainty at all, and a few scientific theories were left in ruin. One scientist was heard to comment, “Every time we drill a hole we find the unexpected. That’s exciting, but disturbing."

What scientists found surprised them because the empirical observations & measurements didn't conform to expectations (we at 'Electric Universe' are used to that):

A further passage from Damn Interesting:
To the surprise of the researchers, they did not find the expected transition from granite to basalt at 3-6 kilometers beneath the surface. Data had long shown that seismic waves travel significantly faster below that depth, and geologists had believed that this was due to a “basement” of basalt. Instead, the difference was discovered to be a change in the rock brought on by intense heat and pressure, or metamorphic rock. Even more surprisingly, this deep rock was found to be saturated in water which filled the cracks. Because free water should not be found at those depths, scientists theorize that the water is comprised of hydrogen and oxygen atoms which were squeezed out of the surrounding rocks due to the incredible pressure. The water was then prevented from rising to the surface because of the layer of impermeable rocks above it.

This passage seems to suggest that conclusions about deep geologic structure and motion based on assumptions dictated by the velocity of seismic waves is much more problematic than most seismologists will acknowledge.

From the Wikipedia entry for Kola Borehole (and quoted by Aardwolf):

The rock there had been thoroughly fractured and was saturated with water, which was surprising. This water, unlike surface water, must have come from deep-crust minerals and had been unable to reach the surface because of a layer of impermeable rock.

Another unexpected discovery was the large quantity of hydrogen gas, with the mud flowing out of the hole described as "boiling" with hydrogen.

Aardwolf, this second quote from the Wikipedia entry is interesting because it seems to confirm a claimed scientific proposition:

To understand why hydrogen is so important, one must know that hydrogen nucleii (without electrons) under mantle-depth pressures are able to penetrate metal atoms and thus transmute and densify them. Pressure reduction leads to escape of hydrogen and de-densification. Conceptually, density changes with consequential volume changes at sub-crustal levels can be set in motion by polar shift, erosion, sedimentation, volcanic exhalation, meteoritic or other mass shifting events and explain the frequent events of endogeny at those levels.

See link below:

http://eearthk.com/Articles03.html

Yes, Aardwolf, it does appear that the water (or its constituent elements) is either primordial, that is to say, it has been present since the formation of the Earth, or was "produced" by the Earth more recently. As stated above there is also scientific evidence that hydrogen can exist within the lattice of metals if there is enough heat and pressure -- this proposition seems to be born-out by "large quanity of hydrogen gas" emanating out of the mud from the Kola Borehole.

webolife wrote:
Of interest to me in that Wiki article is the mention that at the bottom of that 7.5 mile deep hole the rock formations changed to Archaean. This generally would indicate that rocks above that level were fossiliferous.

The second linked article, Damn Interesting, makes an interesting reference to this issue:

Another unexpected find was a menagerie of microscopic fossils as deep as 6.7 kilometers below the surface. Twenty-four distinct species of plankton microfossils were found, and they were discovered to have carbon and nitrogen coverings rather than the typical limestone or silica. Despite the harsh environment of heat and pressure, the microscopic remains were remarkably intact.

This seems to contradict what I previously stated about the lack of "microbial" life deep in the Earth, so there you go -- evidence that needs to be acknowledged and taken into consideration. Could these fossils have been embedded when the rock was closer to the surface? It's a possibility, but at this point, I'd characterize this piece of evidence as a "loose end" that needs to be tied-up.

webolife wrote:
Assuming this to be the case, where does this fit in the picture of abiotic oil formation? Do your dolomite and salt capped oil formations occur below the Archaean boundary?

In regards to the Archaean boundary, there is an interesting report of "oil" being found within the Archaean boundary:

Archean oil; evidence for extensive hydrocarbon generation and migration 2.5-3.5 Ga, authored by Roger Buik, et al.

Archean sedimentary rocks from the Pilbara Craton, Australia, contain evidence for petroleum generation and migration in the form of bitumen nodules produced by radiogenic immobilization of fluid hydrocarbons around detrital uraninite, thorite, and monazite grains. The nodules are preserved in sandstones at several stratigraphic levels in the Fortescue Group ( approximately 2.75 Ga) and Lalla Rookh Formation ( approximately 3.0 Ga), both nonmarine successions, and in deltaic sediments of the Mosquito Creek Formation ( approximately 3.25 Ga).

I hope this answers part of your question (let me know if this evidence raises more questions).

The most ancient evidence comes from the Warrawoona Group (>3.46 Ga), where hydrocarbon droplets were apparently formed in situ from kerogenous sediments by flash maturation during early hydrothermal silicification. Bituminous relics of petroleum are also commonly preserved in shallow-marine sandstones of the Black Reef Formation ( approximately 2.59 Ga) and the Witwatersrand Supergroup ( approximately 2.85 Ga) from the Kaapvaal Craton, South Africa, along with subeconomic methane accumulations.

See link below for AAPG abstract:

http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi ... ct/82/1/50

Which raises a question: Which came first hydrocarbons or life (see link below)?

Which Came First, the Fossil or the Fuel? authored by Simon A. Cole

http://www.jstor.org/pss/285660

For no science is the power to make the world, rather than passively observe it, more apparent than for petroleum geology, a science which quite literally writes the history of the world.

webolife, your comment suggests that, as you understand it, there was no life in the Archean eon, but the scientific evidence suggests there was "petroleum". If so, wouldn't this be irrefutable evidence of "oil" being abiotic as no "life" was present to generate the oil?

Further from, Which Came first, the Fossil or the Fuel?:
And no scientific fact shapes the world we live in more than that serendipitous origin story in which, over millions of years, the organic matter of ancient ferny swamps decays into oil, gas, and coal.

(* Note, I hold that electromagnetism as the dominant force in the Universe is the most important scientific fact, but the quote makes its point: Oil is the most economically important derivative material of the electromagnetic force that drives the Universe.)

This is why it's very important to determine the provenience of oil and to communicate that origin to the general public: Oil is abiotic and there is no "peak" oil crisis on the econonic horizon (within 30 years), as anything farther out than 30 years has no impact on economic decisions or pricing, today. How much "angst" is being wasted on "peak" oil concerns which will not happen for at least 30 years, and possibly not within the next 1000 years?

"It’s at least plausible that the 3.2 billion year old oil we found did in fact have an abiotic origin." -- Roger Buick, astrobiologist/geoscientist, July 2008

And, of course, if the oil proceeded "life" then oil must be abiotic. And, there is some evidence to suggest that "life" evolved from oil (complex hydrocarbons having similar structure to constituent parts of primitive life) and then attained life sustaining energy from consuming the already present Abiotic Oil.

webolife wrote:
The subterranean water also interests me, as I've long pondered the possibility that much of earth's surface water originated there.

Yes, as I noted in regards to Aardwolf's comment, I subscribe to the proposition that almost all water is a product of Earth's internal dynamics.

As this comment suggests, the formation of hydrocarbons, oil, touches on some of the most important questions of Man, one of them being: How did life come to pass on planet Earth?

As always, comments and feedback are welcome

[webolife]

The words "kerogenous", "migration", and "flash maturation" stand out strikingly to me.
The kerogenous hydrocarbons are of insufficient quantity and extent to account for oil fields, IMHO. These could be biotic, since sedimentary rock kilometers deep in the earth's crust has been found to contain live bacterial forms, however the implication of kerogenous is certainly a lean toward abiotic. Presence of microfossils in the Archaean is [controversial] at various locations, however, migration of biotics from above the Archaean boundary is also a possibility. But flash maturation speaks to me of [possibly catastrophic?] electrical activity, regardless of whether the hydrocarbons have any linkage to biotic activity.

[Aardwolf]

As stated above there is also scientific evidence that hydrogen can exist within the lattice of metals if there is enough heat and pressure -- this proposition seems to be born-out by "large quanity of hydrogen gas" emanating out of the mud from the Kola Borehole.

The problem I have with this proposition is that how is it possible under standard theory for the hydrogen to get there in the first place? How could free hydrogen have been trapped in the earths metal billions of years ago? Also, while I have no doubt that the process is possible, would the drilling have caused such a rapid freeing of the trapped hydrogen, enough for it to be boiling out of the hole at such a rate? It sounds more like they released a pocket of free hydrogen and the "experts" need a mechanism to explain it because of the issue mentioned in my first point.

[Novaya]

For a scientific and geophysical approach to abiotic origins of oil check out these four titles:

http://www.polarpublishing.com

Environment of Violence: Readings of Cataclysm Cast in Stone by C. Warren Hunt.

The evidence for geologically violent events in the recent and distant past give pause for thought to an observant person. This evidence is before our eyes but remains largely unrecognized - even among professional geologists. This book was written to describe personal observations of these phenomena gathered during the author's fifty years in field geology.

Expanding Geospheres: Energy and Mass Transfers from Earth's Interior
Editor: C. Warren Hunt;
Contributing authors: C. Warren Hunt, L. G. Collins, E. A. Skobelin.

Growth of the earth episodically throughout geological time is abundantly evident. The three authors of this book give new spins to many geological phenomena that can better be explained by earth expansion than by existing, widely accepted theories, such as plate tectonics.

Hydridic Earth: The New Geology of Our Primordially Hydrogen-Rich Planet by Vladimir N. Larin.

In the late sixties the author discovered that hydrogen under pressure mobilizes otherwise rigid crystalline, rock-forming elements. This book explores the profound geological consequences of the phenomenon, essentially creating entirely new geological theory.

The Tectonics of Geoid Changes: Major Deformation and Failure of the Earth's Crust: An Alternative to Plate Tectonics by Peter James.

Develops his geomechanical theory of tectonics on the evidence of paleopoles and paleoclimates, demonstrating that geosyncline development is an equatorial phenomenon.

-----------

This would explain the water and bubbling hydrogen found at the Kola Borehole.

[starbiter]

Hello Anaconda:You wrote,



"Of course, there is another possible reason starbiter wants people on this website to believe most of the world's oil is from comets: If such was the case, then for all practicable purposes, oil would be finite, just as the "fossil" theory is a finite theory."


Sorry i didn't get back sooner. I've been busy as an agent provocateur for the Saudis trying to increase the price of oil. You found me out.

Lets talk about Oil Shale. There's 1.5 trillion barrels of the stuff, just in the US.

http://dailyreckoning.com/oil-shale-reserves/

"Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels of oil – or more than five times the
stated reserves of Saudi Arabia."


Me again,
The shale is quite impermeable. That would require Deep Earth Oil to percolate up to the shale before it became a rock. And if 1.5 trillion barrels percolated up, you'd think they would drill down past the shale to extract the column of oil connecting the Deep Earth Oil to the shale. There should be a vertical river of oil .

On the other hand, if the shale started out as a fine particulate sediment on the surface of the Earth, while oil fell from the sky, we might have a simple process. But that would require trillions of barrels of oil to fall from the sky. Why would i say something like this.

From WiC,

Popol-Vuh, the second book of the Mayas, narrates: "It was ruin and destruction... the sea was piled up... it was a great inundation... people were drowned in a sticky substance raining from the sky... The face of the earth grew dark and the gloomy rain endured days and nights... And then there was a great din of fire above their heads" The entire population was annihilated.

The Manuscript Quiche perpetuated the population of Mexico perishing in a downpour of Bitumen and of a sticky substance... The earth was obscured and it rained day and might. They tried to climb trees to escape the oil.

In Siberia...God sent a sea of fire upon the earth.

The East Indies..."water of fire' rained from the sky; with very few exceptions, all men died.

From Exodus,.. There were "thunder [correct:loud noises] and barad, and the fire ran along upon the ground"

The Egyptian Ipuwer describes the consuming fire. The gates, columns and walls are consumed by fire. The sky is in confusion. The papyrus says that this fire almost "exterminated mankind".

From the Midrashim, Naptha [oil] together with hot stones, poured down upon Egypt. "It was a stream of hot naptha"
"Water which quencheth all things the fire wrought yet more mightily".

All of the places mentioned have oil deposits.

From Anaconda,

'As I previously wrote, I have no interest in discrediting Velikovsky, but neither should somebody take Velikovsky and manipulate his ideas for their own purposes -- starbiter, I'm disappointed you engage in speculation beyond what Velikovsky ever suggested, then you provide no evidence other than vague references to Velikovsky."

Me again,
How is what i propose beyond what Velikovsky ever suggested? He claims oil rained down day and night, And people drowned in the stuff. It ran along the ground. Sounds like a bit more than what a meteorite might produce.

From Anaconda,

"starbiter, it seems you support a scenario where most oil comes from comets. The scientific evidence doesn't support that subscription in my opinion...it's novel -- and it's clear you take it much further than Velikovsky -- since you so readily incorporate more than just Venus as possible comets. starbiter, you are free to believe anything you want, if this topic bores you then just drop it".

Me again,
I feel most oil MAY come from comets.
And i'm not bored. But thanks for the advice.

From Anaconda,
starbiter, using Velikovsky to promote your own views or views you want to promote via an issue Velikovsky made only passing reference to is improper.

Me again,
To claim Velikovsky made passing reference to these issues shows a lack of familiarity with Velikovsky, considering the above, and his amazing, at the time, prediction of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere of Venus, in my opinion.

agent provocateur michael

[Anaconda]

Hello starbiter:

starbiter wrote:
Lets talk about Oil Shale. There's 1.5 trillion barrels of the stuff, just in the US.

Yes, and most is at a substantial depth below the surface. Such depth that it would be very unlikely for it to be buried to that depth in the time since the era (circa 7,000 to 2,000 B.C.) from which Velikovsky drew the statements supporting your contention.

But in your own way, you bring up a valid point: The presence of shales with hydrocarbons embedded in them is also argued as evidence of biological detritus being the origin of oil. But there are ready abiotic physical explanations for shales embedded with hydrocarbons.

Here is an abiotic explanation for oil shale:

"We suggest a third possibility–the generation of methane and heavier hydrocarbons through reactions that occur during cooling, fractionation, and deposition of dolomitic carbonates, metal-rich black shales, and other minerals from hydrothermal metagenic fluids.” — Keith & Swan, Hydrothermal Hydrocarbons

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum ... /keith.htm

Notice in the above quote that Keith & Swan state that Abiotic Oil formation would also entail formation of oil shales.

Keith & Swan address oil shale in another scientific paper, Peridotites, Serpentinization, and Hydrocarbons:

If the brines breech the hydrosphere they may produce “white smokers” (tuffa vent mounds/pinnacle reefs) along faults and enrich shales with exhalative metal and hydrocarbon…Type I kerogen in black shale vents from Mg peridotite-sourced brines whereas Type II kerogen in black shale vents from quartz alkalic peridotite-sourced brines.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum ... /keith.htm

Again, take note that Keith & Swan provide an abiotic explanation for oil shale formation.

(Starbiter, it would be good of you to read and study the two above scientific papers, I would also suggest you review the entire thread to inform yourself of the totality of the scientific evidence for Abiotic Oil.)

Also, there is evidence that natural oil seeps (where oil flows up onto the surface) cause oil (or the seeps are in the shallow bodies of water to begin with) to run into shallow lakes and other bodies of water and then the oil sinks to the bottom and builds up over time with the more volatile light oils dissipating to the atmosphere, but with the heavy hydrocarbons (C215H330) remaining at the bottom of the bodies of water eventually to be covered over with other sediments, or new layers of heavy hydrocarbons (This build-up process could repeat hundreds of times). This would explain why these oil shales tend to be layered and thicker toward the center of the ancient lake bed or body of water. This is typical for the Green River oil shale formation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation

The Green River oil shale formation is thought to be from ancient geologic lakes. This build-up of heavy hydrocarbons would happen over thousands, if not millions of years, although dating is problematic.

So, these are two seperate abiotic explanations for the formation of oil shale, both at depth where less evidence for ancient lake beds exists and in areas where substantial evidence exists for ancient lake beds, such as the Green River Formation.

(These lake beds where heavy hydrocarbons built-up over prolonged time spans is probably where the idea for the two-step, so-called "diagenesis & catagenesis" process for the "fossil" theory for oil formation came from. Observers wrongly assumed that the oil shale, called kerogens (heavy hydrocarbons, primarily C215H330), formed from organic detritus, instead of being deposited in the lake or body of water as fully formed heavy hydrocarbons to start with. So-called "diagenesis" is where the kerogen supposedly formed from organic detritus and then in so-called "catagenesis", the kerogen breaks down into light hydrocarbons. Problem is that organic detritus, of which the original amount, only 1% survives immediate decomposition, is a low potential chemical energy substance and kerogen, C215H330, is a high potential chemical energy substance, and in the relatively low heat and pressure environment of shallow sedimentary burial there would not be sufficient energy to convert low potential energy compounds to high potential energy compounds. This is the first and fatal falsification for the "fossil" theory of oil formation.)

[starbiter]

Hello Anaconda; Shale is a sediment. By definition, it was on the surface. It was mud.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale


Shale is a fine-grained, clastic sedimentary rock composed of mud that is a mix of flakes of clay minerals and tiny fragments (silt-sized particles) of other minerals, especially quartz and calcite. The ratio of clay to other minerals is variable.[1] Shale is characterized by breaks along thin laminae or parallel layering or bedding less than one centimeter in thickness, called fissility.[1] Mudstones, on the other hand, are similar in composition but do not show the fissility.

I'm already comfortable with abiotic oil. I've read quite a bit.

If the shale was converted to rock by plasma, it would probably be a surface process, during catastrophic conditions. The oil would have sunk into the sediment, then the sediment would be affected by electricity creating a rock. An impermeable rock.

The sediments in Louisiana run 48,000 ft deep, [9 miles] according to a geologist with a masters degree i met at a BLM office. So something being covered by thousands of feet is not a problem. The conditions described in WiC could cover the shale very quickly. Dust, sand, and flooding.

The material that is shale now may have started at the surface, been covered to a great depth, remaining loose sediment, then injected with oil, then converted to rock, as you propose. But when you listen to the descriptions of the witnesses about the oil that almost wiped out mankind, raining for days and nights [plural], i still prefer a comet model.

Anaconda said,


"It is without dispute that hydrocarbons from meteorites have been found on Earth. The question becomes how much of the hydrocarbons on Earth are from meteorites? Well, that would depend on how many meteorites with hydrocarbons fell to Earth (not all meteorites have hydrocarbons embedded in them) and how concentrated the meteorite showers fell and so forth. There are a lot of unknowns which prevent a definite answer. This discussion has primarily focussed on ultra-deep oil in large reservoirs. Ultra-deep oil concentrated in large reservoirs is less likely to be from meteorites."

Me again,

If Venus was the agent, it could have contained as much oil as the earth. It's the same size. Most of the oil removed from the earth has been shallow. It was easier to get at. We're getting to the deeper deposits now. If the surface of Venus was electrically excavated to a considerable depth, much oil could have been released. Other oil could have formed in the coma.


I noticed you didn't mention the descriptions of the survivors from WiC. They seem to describe something more than your description, "But I would suggest that it is a lessor than a greater amount".


No one claims Venus was the only comet. There might have been earlier comets. I invoke comets, not just Venus.

michael

[Aardwolf]

The shale is quite impermeable. That would require Deep Earth Oil to percolate up to the shale before it became a rock. And if 1.5 trillion barrels percolated up, you'd think they would drill down past the shale to extract the column of oil connecting the Deep Earth Oil to the shale. There should be a vertical river of oil .

Maybe they dont need to drill deep to find it. I assume you are refering to the Green River Formation. According to Utah History To Go;

"Before 1890, gold prospectors traveling down the San Juan River in southeastern Utah noticed oil seeps along the river's steep embankments. In that same period two Salt Lake City businessmen found oil dripping from the crevices of rocks on the Green River, and ranchers and other residents of the Uinta Basin came across similar occurrences near Vernal."

and

"Most oil development has occurred in the eastern third of Utah, running from the Uinta Mountains to the San Juan River."

which would pass it straight through the middle of the formation. Utah in total has produced circa;

" 900,000,000 barrels of oil "

I suspect the whole area of Utah, Wyoming & Colorado that incorporate this shale were (and still are) saturated with oil which could easily find its way up through the many faults in the area (there were 4 recorded earthquakes in the region in the last week alone). This then mixed with material closer to the surface and formed the shale.

[Anaconda]

Hello starbiter:

starbiter wrote:
Shale is a sediment. By definition, it was on the surface. It was mud.

Read my prior post carefully, nowhere in the post do I state or suggest that shale is not a sediment. Neither do the two papers by Keith & Swan suggest that shale isn't a sediment. But "mud" can be caused anywhere water mixes with clays and silts or other minerals where pulverized rock is located. Your assumption is that "mud" must be created at the surface, but in fact "mud" can be created below the surface and then extruded to the surface. For example, mud volcanoes:

The term mud volcano or mud dome is used to refer to formations created by geo-excreted liquids and gases, although there are several different processes which may cause such activity. Temperatures are much cooler than igneous processes. The largest structures are 10 km in diameter and reach 700 metres in height.

About 20% of released gases are methane, with much less carbon dioxide and nitrogen emitted. Ejected materials often are a slurry of fine solids suspended in liquids which may include water (frequently acidic or salty) and hydrocarbon fluids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mud_volcano

This would be a third way that oil shales could be formed: Active mud volcanoes, with a component of heavy hydrocarbons (C215H330) extrude, or force "mud", in this case mud with a content of heavy hydrocarbons, to the surface which then collects in low lying basins -- no lake or body of water would even be required because the "slurry of fine solids suspended in liquids which may include water and hydrocarbon fluids" would build its own shale layers.

To add to my previous "lake example":

Heavy hydrocarbons, C215H330, is the principle component of kerogen, which settles into a lake bed or body of water, it would integrate with the mud at the bottom of the body of water. Yes, shale starts out as mud. But mud can be created in anyplace where water mixes with clays and silts or where pulverized rock is located.

A key idea is that mud can be created anyplace water mixes with pulverized rock.

Chemical reactions deep in the Earth involving various minerals would tend to "pulverize" the minerals and cause thorough mixing. Add water to the mix and you have mud. Active faults which are periodically "reactivated" would also cause a "grinding action" further adding to the "pulverization" effect.

I do agree with starbiter's idea that "oil would have sunk into the sediment". How the oil laden sediment is turned to stone has various possibilities. Obviously, the oil can't be embedded into the sediment after it is turned to stone.

Starbiter is right to note that shale is impermeable, because this makes it much harder to suggest, as the "fossil' theory does, that at relatively low heat and pressure, as hypothesized in the "oil window" corollary to the "fossil" theory, that oil would be able to escape the shale, rather, it's embedded within the shale and can't escape. Laboratory and industrial "cracking" of shale into lighter hydrocarbons (commerical light oil) takes much more energy (heat) than is present in the sediments as theorized by the "catagenesis" process. So, here is a second and fatal falsification of the "fossil" hypothesis of oil formation from organic detritus.

As far as vertical travel goes, there is evidence that hydrocarbons can use carbonate "dikes" or fractures in shale layers for vertical travel upward through layers of older shale:

The Kreyenhagen shale of Coalinga and the older Moreno shale contain many sandstone dikes. An Eocene sandstone lies between these two formations, and oil accumulating in this sandstone from the shale beneath could be transferred to the Miocene sandstone above through sandstone dike conduits in the Kreyenhagen shale.

http://search.datapages.com/data/doi/10 ... 0102C1865D

In geology, dikes are molten or fluid materials that are intruded into older geologic formations:

An intrusive dike is an igneous body with a very high aspect ratio, which means that its thickness is usually much smaller than the other two dimensions. Thickness can vary from sub-centimeter scale to many meters, and the lateral dimensions can extend over many kilometers. A dike is an intrusion into an opening cross-cutting fissure, shouldering aside other pre-existing layers or bodies of rock; this implies that a dike is always younger than the rocks that contain it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dike_(geology)

I would suggest that either oil or "kerogen mud" can be intruded into older geologic formations. The geologic process of "diking" may occure horizontally as well as verically causing a "sheet" effect. This may account for the Bakken oil formation in the northern great plains of North America where oil is "honeycombed" in a lattice of dolomite which exists in sheet layers stacked on top of each other seperated by impermeable layers:

Besides being a widespread prolific source rock for oil when thermally mature, there are also significant producible reserves of oil within the Bakken formation itself. Oil was first discovered within the Bakken in 1951, but efforts to produce it have historically met with difficulties. An April 2008 USGS report estimated the amount of technically recoverable oil within the Bakken Formation at 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m3), with a mean of 3.65 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation

The mention of so-called "source rock" in the above passage is a misnomer or artifact of the "fossil" theory. Likely, the "source rock" are shales that as Keith & Swan propose are a co-product along with "sweet light oil" of Abiotic Oil formation. This oil was likely intruded into the layers of rock under tremendous pressure or intruded into more porous layers of rock, possibly sands or volcanics.

Keith & Swan provide an explanation for "sweet light oil":

Petroleum condensate [consisting of] magnesian sweet, low-sulfur paraffinic-naphtheric...[with]...Type I kerogen in black shale vents from Mg peridotite-sourced brines...

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum ... /keith.htm

This is why the Bakken oil formation is honeycombed with dolomite, as dolomite is mostly magnesium.

Also, I would suggest consideration of volcanics where layers of porous materials are layed down by volcanic eruptions that then can get burried by subsequent events and then "kerogen mud" can be intruded or pressurized into the porous layers at a later date.

Intriquingly, it's possible there are "master" source "cracks" that underly the Bakken oil formation where the abiotic oil flowed up through via vertical conduit cracks and fissures and then the oil along with the dolomite was intruded into the sheet layers of the Bakken. Whether there are large "mother" oil reservoirs that feeded the Bakken formation which have yet to be found is also an intriquing possibility...

[Lloyd]

Anaconda said: The Green River oil shale formation is thought to be from ancient geologic lakes. This build-up of heavy hydrocarbons would happen over thousands, if not millions of years, although dating is problematic.

* I'll say dating is problematic. If you read this website and forum you'll come across gobs of problems with conventional dating. Much or all of the sedimentary rock of the continents may have been laid down by the Great Flood about 5,000 years ago. See the thread about Rock Strata Formation for example.
* I just read lately that oil and coal tend to occur in basin areas where rock strata are basin or bowl-shaped. Some basins lie above rifts, like the Michigan basin.
* Here's an example. This site, http://www.emr.gov.yk.ca/oilandgas/oilg ... ments.html, says:

Yukon contains eight structural and sedimentary basins suitable for the formation and preservation of hydrocarbons. Seven of these basins occur within the sedimentary rocks of ancestral North America, and one occurs within the suspect terranes southwest of Tintina Fault. Five of the basins occur in northern Yukon, and two are located in southern Yukon. Geology within the basins northeast of Tintina Fault is essentially the same as that in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.

* You can find a lot of sites like that by going to Google, then to Images, then entering the words: geologic basin oil coal. I found this out a day or 2 ago when I did a similar search for: microscope shale. It brought up some images of shale and other things under the microscope. One of the other things was coal.
* The book, Mrs. O'Leary's Comet, suggested that the Chicago fire was caused by acetylene and similar hydrocarbons from Biela's comet. Some of this website's TPODs discussed some of the info from that book, suggesting that some of the effects of that comet and fires involved electrical effects.
* I think it was C. Warren Hunt, or else an associate of Donald Patten, who suggested that much of the ice from the ice age melted as a result of fires from hydrocarbons from comets. A recent TPOD by Gary Gilligan suggests that after the great catastrophic event/s of about 5,000 years ago, there was a period of about 3,000 years in which space debris continued to plague the inner solar system, which may have included many comets.
* Comets may not be the main source of hydrocarbons on Earth. Carbonates could be a source. Maybe that's been discussed. But, early in this thread, I quoted what Louis Kervran suggested could have been an internal source that involved transmutation. Electrical forces are and or were strong within the Earth. The Mojo layer is said to be a plasma layer. Electricity is able to transmute elements. It seems that Kervran may have suggested that silicon transmutes into carbon. Hydrogen is a common transmutation product or ingredient.