Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

[Aardwolf]

If comets did provide hydrocarbons for the earth, where did they get them from?

[Lloyd]

If comets did provide hydrocarbons for the earth, where did they get them from?

* Comets could have gotten hydrocarbons from Saturn or other bodies, if comets were formed during the Saturn System breakup, or during the birth of Venus or Titan from Saturn and or Jupiter. Hydrocarbons can be formed by electrical stress and or transmutation. Below it is shown that Saturn & Titan, comets etc contain hydrocarbons, nitrogen and ammonia etc - and that electric arc processes can form acetylene & other hydrocarbons etc.
* Saturn's Atmosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterre ... tmospheres

The outer atmosphere of Saturn consists of about 93.2% hydrogen and 6.7% helium. Trace amounts of ammonia, acetylene, ethane, phosphine, and methane have also been detected. As with Jupiter, the upper clouds on Saturn are composed of ammonia crystals, while the lower level clouds appear to be composed of either ammonium hydrosulfide (NH4SH) or water.

* Titan's Atmosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_%28moon%29

The atmospheric composition in the stratosphere is 98.4% nitrogen—the only dense, nitrogen-rich atmosphere in the Solar System aside from the Earth's—with the remaining 1.6% composed of mostly of methane (1.4%) and hydrogen (0.1-0.2%).[6] Because methane condenses out of Titan's atmosphere at high altitudes, its abundance increases as one descends below the tropopause at an altitude of 32 km, leveling off at a value of 4.9% between 8 km and the surface.[5][6] There are trace amounts of other hydrocarbons, such ethane, diacetylene, methylacetylene, acetylene and propane, and of other gases, such as cyanoacetylene, hydrogen cyanide, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, cyanogen, argon and helium.[5] The orange color as seen from space must be produced by other more complex chemicals in small quantities, possibly tholins, tar-like organic precipitates.[34] The hydrocarbons are thought to form in Titan's upper atmosphere in reactions resulting from the breakup of methane by the Sun's ultraviolet light, producing a thick orange smog.[35] Titan has no magnetic field, although studies in 2008 showed that Titan retains remnants of Saturn's magnetic field on the brief occasions when it passes outside the Saturn's magnetosphere and is directly exposed to the solar wind.[36] This may ionize and carry away some molecules from the top of the atmosphere. In November 2007, scientists uncovered evidence of negative ions with roughly 10 000 times the mass of hydrogen in Titan's ionosphere, which are believed to fall into the lower regions to form the orange haze which obscures Titan's surface. Their structure is not currently known, but they are believed to be tholins, and may form the basis for the formation of more complex molecules, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.[37]
Energy from the Sun should have converted all traces of methane in Titan's atmosphere into more complex hydrocarbons within 50 million years — a short time compared to the age of the Solar System. This suggests that methane must be somehow replenished by a reservoir on or within Titan itself. That Titan's atmosphere contains over a thousand times more methane than carbon monoxide would appear to rule out significant contributions from cometary impacts, since comets are composed of more carbon monoxide than methane. That Titan might have accreted an atmosphere from the early Saturnian nebula at the time of formation also seems unlikely; in such a case, it ought to have atmospheric abundances similar to the solar nebula, including hydrogen and neon.[38] Many astronomers have suggested that the ultimate origin for the methane in Titan's atmosphere is from within Titan itself, released via eruptions from cryovolcanoes.[39][40][41] A possible biological origin for the methane has not been discounted (see below).[11]

* Hydrocarbons on Comets
http://www.springerlink.com/content/y3k6122m782l0604

Unidentified cometary emission lines as the photoluminescence of frozen hydrocarbon particles
I. A. Simonia1 Contact Information
(1) Abastumani Astrophysical Observatory, Georgian Academy of Sciences, Tbilisi, 380060, Georgia
Received: 12 April 2004
Abstract We discuss the possible nature of unidentified cometary emission lines. We propose a model of the ice particles in cometary halos as a mixture of frozen polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and acyclic hydrocarbons. We describe the general properties of frozen hydrocarbon particles (FHPs) and suggest interpreting some of the unidentified cometary emission lines as the photoluminescence of FHPs. We compare the positions of unidentified emission lines in the spectrum of Comet 122P/de Vico with the positions of quasi-lines in the photoluminescence spectrum of PAHs that were dissolved in acyclic hydrocarbons at a temperature of 77 K and that constituted a polycrystalline solution. We estimate the detectability of FHP photoluminescence in cometary spectra.

* Electric Arc Production of Acetylene
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j51252g236p1804x/
http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-prev ... ze=largest

Production of commercial hydrogen and acetylene from propane-butane and liquid hydrocarbons in an electric-arc plasma reactor
A. L. Mossé1 Contact Information, A. V. Gorbunov1, A. A. Galinovskii1, V. V. Savchin1 and A. V. Lozhechnik1
(1) A. V. Luikov Heat and Mass Transfer Institute, National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, 15 P. Brovka Str., Minsk, 220072, Belarus
Received: 18 April 2007 Published online: 3 December 2008
A fundamentally new structure of a plasma reactor for production of acetylene and commercial hydrogen from gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons has been developed and proposed. In this device, the plasma jet of synthesis gas is submerged in the volume of liquid hydrocarbons to form a gas volume in which the second stage of pyrolysis reactions is realized. Experimental investigations have been carried out.
Translated from Inzhenerno-Fizicheskii Zhurnal, Vol. 81, No. 4, pp. 630–636, July–August, 2008.

* Acetylene from Electric Arc Process
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3674668.html

ELECTRIC ARC PROCESS FOR MAKING HYDROGEN CYANIDE, ACETYLENE AND ACRYLONITRILE
United States Patent 3674668
A lower hydrocarbon having from one to eight carbon atoms is passed through an electric arc, heated therein above about 1,000° F., and immediately mixed with nitrogen or a nitrogen-containing compound, which mixture immediately reacts to form acetylene, hydrogen cyanide and other products, which products are quenched below about 1,000° F.

[Lloyd]

* This is interesting. It says carbon and hydrogen under an electric arc produce acetylene and it's been known since 1859.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-2896800010.html

In 1859, Marcel Morren successfully generated acetylene when he used carbon electrodes to strike an electric arc in an atmosphere of hydrogen. The electric arc tore carbon atoms away from the electrodes and bonded them with hydrogen atoms to form acetylene molecules. He called this gas carbonized hydrogen.
By the late 1800s, a method had been developed for making acetylene by reacting calcium carbide with water. This generated a controlled flow of acetylene that could be combusted in air to produce a brilliant white light. Carbide lanterns were used by miners and carbide lamps were used for street illumination before the general availability of electric lights.

[Aardwolf]

In other words the hydrocarbons were produced by planets. So the Earth has no need for them to be couriered over. It can produce its own.

[webolife]

Lloyd,
Interesting you mentioned Donald Patten, I know the family here in the Seattle area.
His book "The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch" is what introduced me to Velikovsky back in the early 70's.
The book was written before the discovery of seafloor spreading, so many of the geological evidences he [and Velikovsky] interpreted back then became obsolete within just a few years of publishing. His understanding of comets was of the "dirty snowball" variety, so it is possible that that major premise is now also obsolete.
Aardwolf brings up a good point... if electricity plus readily available subterranean carbon and hydrogen are all present together in the Moho, who needs cometary hydrocarbons... not saying they don't exist, just wondering if we need them as major players?

[Anaconda]

Hi webolife:

webolife wrote:
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.

This quote was primarily in response to an abstract of a scientific paper, Archean oil; evidence for extensive hydrocarbon generation and migration 2.5-3.5 Ga, by Roger Buick et. al., that identified extremely old oil (a short passage from the abstract):

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.

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

webolife, you raise an excellent point:

The kerogenous hydrocarbons are of insufficient quantity and extent to account for oil fields, IMHO.

This exposes the fallacy of the whole “shale as source” assertion: Hydrocarbon embedded shales are not the cause of petroleum formation, but, rather, the result of abiotic hydrocarbon formation. The volume of shales in any given petroleum basin never accounted for the volume of oil in that basin, as the volume of oil in any given basin dwarfed the volume of shale in that basin. And, as Keith & Swan state, shale (or the kerogen laden mud) is a co-product with the oil.

So, there are three basic falsifications of the so-called "fossil" theory of oil formation:

1. Organic detritus is an oxidized, low potential chemical energy substance, and kerogen (C215H330) is a high potential chemical energy substance -- there is an insufficient amount of energy (heat) and pressure in the sedimentary environment for so-called "diagenesis" (the conversion of organic detritus to kerogen) to happen at the depths claimed for in the "oil window" corollary of the "fossil" theory.

2. Oil shale, a type of sedimentary stone is impermeable (the kerogen is embedded in the shale) and, again, there is insufficient energy (heat) in the sedimentary environment for so-called "catagenesis" (the conversion of kerogen into oil) to happen at the depths claimed by the "oil window" where the oil shale would be supposedly "cracked" into lighter oil.

3. The volume of shales in any given petroleum basin never accounted for the volume of oil in the basin, as the volume of oil in any given basin dwarfed the volume of shale in that basin.

Where oil shale is found without any accompanying oil, that is because the oil and kerogen mud was exposed to the surface without any trapping structures, so the lighter hydrocarbons dissipated into the atmosphere. And, since oil shale is impermeable, itself, then subsequent Abiotic Oil and its co-product kerogen mud could be blocked and trapped below the older impermeable shale layers before they reach the surface preventing the lighter hydrocarbons from dissipating into the atmosphere.

[Anaconda]

Why have I presented a lot of facts & evidence in regards to oil shale?

Simple, the so-called "fossil" theory of oil formation depends on oil shale, as it is the "source rock" that is claimed as the sedimentary depositional feature where organic detritus supposedly winds its way via "diagenesis" and "catagenesis" into petroleum.

Should the kerogen, heavy hydrocarbons (C215H330), not be formed in "source rocks", then the whole "fossil" theory collapses of its own weight.

Also, "fossil" theory advocates put a lot of weight on the occurence of oil shales because they assume it's hard to explain oil shales, other than their organic detritus depositional hypothesis. Indeed, there is a shallow logic to their assumptions, as oil shales are plentiful the world over, and shales exist in many locations where oil does not and many of these oil shales are evidently laid down in sedimentary rock structures from ancient geologic bodies of water.

But as we have seen, when you scratch below the surface, and examine the facts & evidence, oil shales have a ready explanation: Oil shales are a co-product of the Abiotic Oil formation process. According to Keith & Swan, both geologists with over 30 years experience, oil formation is part of a fractionated hydrothermal hydrocarbon mineral process. Fractionated means that numerous seperate substances are formed, not just the classical "crude oil", but with oil shale, kerogen, heavy hydrocarbons, mixed with clays and silicates (metal salts) and various substances, including rare-earth metals and elements like helium. Some of these minerals which acted as catalysts in the Abiotic Oil formation process remain as by-products:

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. These fluids are proposed to be the product of serpentinization of carbon-rich peridotites under hydrogen-rich, reduced conditions. The association of hydrothermal ore genesis and accessory hydrocarbon has been known for years in economic metal deposits (for example, Gize, 1999). Recent application of mineral industry research to petroleum geology suggests that petroleum accumulations could be considered, at least in part, mineral deposits—products of hydrothermal, geochemically-zoned fluid plumes that possess identifiable paragenetic sequences (Keith and Swan, 2005).

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

Some may rightly ask, "What about oil deposits that don't have oil shales in close association with them?

Good question.

But, again, there is a ready answer: As the fractionated hydrocarbon solution travels upward through vertical conduits before finally being trapped in reservoir sands (or other permeable rock formations) by over-lying impermeable cap stone, the hydrocarbon solution gets pressurized or intruded through various rock formations, many of them layered horizontally, with porous layers intermixed with impermeable layers, and the larger co-products, such as kerogen mud, get strained or filtered out, leaving just the oil (pure light hydrocarbons), but since kerogen "mud" (shale in liquid form, if you will) is a co-product with petroleum and gets filtered out as the abiotic fractionated hydrocarbon solution rises, you can nearly always trace oil deposits back to rocks where the kerogen "mud" was deposited, which then subsequently is turned into black shale. The horizontal, sheet layers where the abiotic hydrocarbon solution has its kerogen "mud" filtered out (sands and porous rock are good filtration systems) can upon later observation by geologists be wrongly interpreted as a surface sedimentary deposit when in fact the kerogen "mud" was deposited not when it was on the surface, but when the horizontal conduit was a subterranean structure which subsequently turned into impermeable oil shale, and later is mis-identified as "source rock".

But the "source rock" is actually "transit or conduit rock" where the kerogen "mud" gets deposited as the abiotic fractionated hydrocarbon solution travels to eventually be lodged in reservoir structures as petroleum,

The petroleum may vary in its balance between light and heavy hydrocarbons depending on the thoroughness of the filtration and other factors. (Some petroleum can be quite heavy, meaning it has a higher proportion of heavy hydrocarbons; this mixture of heavy and light hydrocarbons is appropriately enough called "heavy oil" and is not as commerically valuable as light oil. The commerically most valuble oil is low sulphur "sweet" light oil.)

Another evidence that oil shale is not the result of surface deposition of organic detritus, but rather surface deposition of kerogen "mud", heavy hydrocarbons (C215H330), or subterranean deposition of kerogen "mud" as fractionated hydrocarbon solution, also called 'brine' by Keith & Swan, is that oil shale has rare-earth metals embedded in it, just as oil has rare-earth metals in it: Vanadium is a rare-earth metal, but is plentiful in the deep-crust and shallow mantle, and is found in oil shale, as well as various oil deposits:

Vanadium is also present in bauxite and in fossil fuel deposits such as crude oil, coal, oil shale and tar sands. In crude oil, concentrations up to 1200 ppm have been reported.

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

Other rare-earth metals are also found in oil shale.

Which leads one to ask: How would a surface sedimentary deposition that supposedly has little contact with the deep-crust and shallow mantle have a high percentage of rare-earth metals, plentiful in the deep-crust and shallow mantle?

Of course, the obvious answer is that oil shale is a product of the deep-crust and shallow mantle, not surface sedimentary deposition.

Another question is how do multiple layers of subterranean oil shale form in layers seperated by impermeable layers?

There is considerable scientific evidence that while abiotic oil formation is generally constant, the formation process also has episodic intervals where the chemical reactions are more vigorous and active than other periods. Thus, one conduit system may coagulate or "clog" during a less vigorous interval and then when a more vigorous phase begins pressure builds up and a new conduit pathway with less resistence will be taken by the fractionated hydrocarbon brine as it is pressurized towards the surface, this may turn out to be a pathway above or below the previous conduit pathway that is now clogged.

Also, there maybe constant abiotic chemical reactions producing fractionated hydrocarbon brines, but one conduit pathway, for various reasons gets closed off, flow is then restricted, and, thus, pressure builds and a new conduit pathway is "punched through" by the oil or fractionated hydrocarbon brine towards the surface. Or a new surge of oil (for unknown reasons) is pressurized from below. The Eugene Island oil field in the Gulf of Mexico is a likely example of this phenomenon:

According to a 1999 Wall Street Journal article:

Something mysterious is going on at Eugene Island 330. Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, was supposed to have declined years ago. And for a while, it behaved like any normal field: Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330's output peaked at about 15,000 barrels per day. By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels per day. Then suddenly -- some say almost inexplicably -- Eugene Island's fortunes reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels per day, and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million.

There are other examples of oil wells suddenly producing more oil after starting to decline:

Deep underwater, and deeper underground, scientists see surprising hints that gas and oil deposits can be replenished, filling up again, sometimes rapidly.

Although it sounds too good to be true, increasing evidence from the Gulf of Mexico suggests that some old oil fields are being refilled by petroleum surging up from deep below, scientists report. That may mean that current estimates of oil and gas abundance are far too low.

Recent measurements in a major oil field show "that the fluids were changing over time; that very light oil and gas were being injected from below, even as the producing [oil pumping] was going on," said chemical oceanographer Mahlon "Chuck" Kennicutt. "They are refilling as we speak.

http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm

During the course of my research I have found numerous oil field workers known as "rough necks" in the industry report that oil wells when closed down for maintenance or retro-fitted will have a resurgence of pressure and produce at their original flow rate (these individuals typically post anonymously).

[webolife]

Great posts, Anaconda... before this thread I figured generally about 75% abiotic:25% percent biotic for oil production, and you have fairly well convinced me to slip to about 90-95% abiotic... I am here to be convinced, so I will put up a fight to get sufficient data to change my mind.

[CTJG 1986]

I attempted to make a post on a blog run by a 'peak oil' advocate in which I explained that the discovery of ultra-deep oil deposits beneath the salt barrier seem to falsify the conventional biotic theory, but to be fair if the abiotic theory is correct it doesn't preclude the 'peak oil' hypothesis entirely as there is no evidence to suggest that abiotic oil is "infinite oil" as some "debunkers" falsely claim that the theory and it's followers state.

He refused to post my comment and just dismissed me with this -

Jonny sent in a very long comment about abiotic oil. The short of it is: all the oil produced to date is biotic in origin. All the oil that is left to produce is also biotic in origin. Whether or not abiotic oil is ever proven to exist, here or on other planets, this information will not be of use to this technological civilization. The discussion of abiotic oil is an example of denial fortified with a bit of conspiracy theory.

Edit: Notice the line - "Whether or not abiotic oil is ever proven to exist, here or on other planets"... seems he doesn't even realize that most scientists agree some amount of abiotic oil does exist, the issue for most scientists is in the amount that exists.

Another edit for clarity: "most scientists" - I am referring to those I personally have had discussions/debates with on this subject over the years, not the mainstream scientific community as a whole. Only 2 I have had dealings with have flat out denied the existence of abiotic oil, the rest just maintain the 'not in commercial quantities' theory.

The conspiracy theory part I suppose has to do with the fact I mentioned the big oil companies wouldn't spend billions of dollars to drill down to non-existent oil deposits, or maybe it was the mention of 'ingrained scientific ignorance' (which I stated was only a 'conspiracy' if you believed it to be intentional ignorance - which I do not), regardless I find it funny he calls me a conspiracy theorist given the fact most people consider him as such too - the pot calling the kettle black for sure.

He didn't address a single point I made except in completely and totally dismissing them altogether, but then he is admittedly not a scientist in any form of the word so I saw that coming to be honest. I didn't expect him to even address my comment at all so I will admit he surprised me on that account and I give him some credit for that.

I doubt he even bothered to check the links pointing him to numerous scientific papers from respected geologists and biologists that disagree with the biotic oil theory, they're all just conspiracy theorists too and are trying to stop him from making money off his 'peak oil' and 'end of the oil age' prophecies I suppose.

I posted another comment addressing his post and summarizing my previous post and explaining in greater detail that I didn't dismiss the 'peak oil' hypothesis completely but just that there is scientific evidence that says it may not be true but I doubt he'll allow it or even read it, but I told him to email me with his response if he does so that I don't give his followers any bad ideas... lol.

I don't like to play politics but I thought if I didn't object to his theories outright he might actually allow the comments and open up some discussion there, but I was mistaken. Take two will probably meet with similar results.

If he responds I'll post it here as I'm sure it will be amusing, he loves to talk as if he is the foremost expert on everything but he rarely if ever gives evidence to back up his claims and admits he has no scientific background of any kind but operates on 'experience' from his time in the USSR during it's collapse and the similarities he sees here now.

Note: I do agree with him on some other issues regarding parasitic consumerism and the inevitable collapse of (non)free-market Capitalism in America, hence why I was trying to be respectful and "play politics". It was worth a shot...

[CTJG 1986]

Edit: Notice the line - "Whether or not abiotic oil is ever proven to exist, here or on other planets"... seems he doesn't even realize that most scientists agree some amount of abiotic oil does exist, the issue for most scientists is in the amount that exists.

Another edit for clarity: "most scientists" - I am referring to those I personally have had discussions/debates with on this subject over the years, not the mainstream scientific community as a whole. Only 2 I have had dealings with have flat out denied the existence of abiotic oil, the rest just maintain the 'not in commercial quantities' theory.

I should note that the above observations on my part are admittedly biased by the fact that presumably the large majority of those who reject the notion of abiotic oil in it's entirely are far more likely to ignore rather than participate in such discussions.

So basically I shouldn't have made that redundant statement, but since I can't edit it now I'm just correcting my own ignorance here.

[Aardwolf]

In my experience any site that utilises irrational censorship has some kind of agenda. If they are comfortable with their theories they will happily debate any points you may make. If this does not happen then no amount of logic or proof is going to help matters as they will just shut down anything contrary to their beliefs.

[CTJG 1986]

In my experience any site that utilises irrational censorship has some kind of agenda. If they are comfortable with their theories they will happily debate any points you may make. If this does not happen then no amount of logic or proof is going to help matters as they will just shut down anything contrary to their beliefs.

I agree with you on that but I do like a challenge.

And honestly those are the types of people we need to try to reach regardless of how difficult it may be, and I have had some success in the past at turning extremely ideologically stubborn people away from their existing political belief's using clear reasoning(a.k.a - commonsense) and I think it is possible in the scientific realm as well - especially with the amount of new information coming out these days that backs up those commonsense views.

Mind you it is far from easy but when you need to reach the young people these days online action is the best way to do it. I've gotten three emails from people who read that comment on that site who were interested in knowing more about abiotic oil theory simply because they had never heard of it before even though I was ridiculed because of it there.

As the old saying goes any publicity is good publicity(to some extent). At the very least some people will find out that there is another point of view on some issues that they never knew existed before and that's a start. And it has always been my opinion that with the right tactics censorship doesn't have to be a hindrance.

[Anaconda]

Hi CTJG 1986:

Yes, there is tremendous resistence to Abiotic Oil on "peak" oil websites for the obvious reason that Abiotic Oil takes "peak" oil out at the knees (many "peak" oil websites claim Earth is already past "peak"). I suggest that Abiotic Oil means that "peak" oil is at least 30 years off, over the economic horizon, and maybe many more years off than that, although, as you suggest nobody knows how much oil is present deep in the ground and under the sea bottom or how much Abiotic Oil is currently being produced, yet, indications point to amounts of oil & gas which dwarf the supplies hypothesized by the organic detritus, "fossil" hypothesis.

There is substantial scientific evidence that hydrocarbon formation of oil reservoirs and extrusion onto Earth's surface
were much more vigorous & active periodically in the geologic past -- hydrocarbon formation orders of magnitude larger than today.

CTJG 1986 wrote:
"most scientists" - I am referring to those I personally have had discussions/debates with on this subject over the years, not the mainstream scientific community as a whole. Only 2 I have had dealings with have flat out denied the existence of abiotic oil, the rest just maintain the 'not in commercial quantities' theory.

CTGJ 1986, should you have an opportunity to discuss Abiotic Oil with a geologist, again, below is a line of reasoning which should be discussed with these geologists that subscribe to the 'not in commercial quanities' hypothesis:

As noted, most leading petroleum geologists acknowledge Abiotic Oil exists.

This is the “yes, but” argument. “Yes, there are abiotic hydrocarbons, but they don’t exist in commercial quantities.”

"No one doubts that inorganic hydrocarbons may occur in association with hydrothermal systems.” — Michael D. Lewan, petroleum geologist, United States Geological Survey, 2005

“I don’t think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic source of hydrocarbons.” — Michael D. Lewan, geologist, 2002

“I don’t disagree with the idea [of abiotic gas] ,” Katz said. “I disagree with the idea of commercial quantities. There’s no question that it’s coming out of the system. However, it’s not coming out in commercial quantities.” — Barry Katz, a geochemist at Chevron Corp, 2009

So, we have public acknowledgement of the physical existence of abiotic oil & gas from leading petroleum geologists. But the fall back argument, of course, is that no commerical quantities exist (really a last ditch argument).

But here’s the problem for these petroleum geologists: If abiotic oil & gas are established facts as they acknowledge and the precursor minerals and catalysts are rich & abundant deep in the Earth as Keith and many others have demomstrated, what are the limiting physical conditions or relationships, factors if you will, that keep Abiotic Hydrocarbon production from being robust & vigorous?

There must be limiting factors identifed or the reasonable conclusion is that Abiotic Hydrocarbon production will be “incessant” and constitute tremendous volume.

These “yes, but” petroleum geologists have NEVER identified the limiting factors that prevent robust Abiotic Hydrocarbon production and, in turn, limit it to “trace quantities”.

This issue was identified as early as the 19th century by the great French chemist, Marcellin Berthelot:

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

It doesn’t wash to say, yes, there is Abiotic Hydrocarbon, but it’s produced in miniscule amounts, and then never explain why it would be produced in only miniscule amounts when all logic, physical evidence, and known physical relationships says it would be produced in volumous amounts.

[Anaconda]

Volcanic oil right in the state of Texas:

Bet most readers didn't know that Texas has volcanoes.

Sure enough, Texas has ancient volcanoes called Travis volcanic mounds, named after the county these volcanic mounds were first found in, and they also have oil:

Since their discovery in 1915, hydrocarbon traps in and around "serpentine plugs" have produced about 47 million barrels of oil, and have significant potential for additional small discoveries. Production is from isolated reservoirs within mounds of altered volcanic tuff and associated shoal-water carbonates. A review of the more than 200 volcanic centers and intrusive bodies of South and Central Texas has led to development of stratigraphic and seismic models useful in exploration and production.

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

Notice these volcanoes have "serpentine plugs", this thread has discussed the mineral serpentine before and it's role in hydrocarbon formation.

The so-called serpentine plugs are largely tuff mounds formed by accumulation of volcanic ash (altered to palagonite) on the seafloor around a submarine volcanic vent. Volcanic activity peaked during deposition of the chalk and marl of the upper Austin and lower Taylor Groups (about 80 million years ago). [geologic ages are problematic as has been discussed here on this forum].

The abstract goes on to describe how these volcanic vents rise from faults or cracks in the basement (bedrock) and as has been been previously discussed Abiotic Oil rises up through vertical or horizontal conduits from these cracks. In this case the oil rises up though the volcanic vent which acts as a stem or straw, allowing the oil to rise from great depths:

Central Texas volcanic centers are highly aligned along strike-oriented regional faults and fractures of the Balcones and Luling systems. The magmas in both Central and South Texas were ultramafic and alkaline, suggesting that partial melting occurred at depths of about 40 miles (60 kilometers). The magma rose rapidly to the surface, probably in an extensional stress regime controlled by pre-Tertiary Balcones-Luling faults.

Even though the Travis volcanic mounds initially were first found in the early part of the 20th century, some of the early finds still produce oil to this day.

Thirty-eight oil fields in central Texas are associated with Travis volcanic mounds. These fields range in size from 3000 barrels to 11,500,000 barrels of oil recovered, and occur at depths between 900 feet and 1800 feet...Most of the better wells were located near fractures that are prevalent in the mounds...Over half of the fields are still active including some of the early discoveries...although six fields were discovered between 1913 and 1929...

http://www.bigoilfields.com/oilvolcanos.html

So, some of the early fields are still producing after at least 80 years! And these oil finds are not big to begin with. That suggests the a constant supply of oil at a fixed rate is rising from deeper deposits and rising through the serpentine plug.

The geology of Spindletop (1901):

Spindeltop was the first "gusher" in Texas and started the Texas oil boom. Turns out Spindletop was the top of a large salt dome, which as it turns out is also closely associated with volcanic activity and networks of faults and fissures in the basement (bedrock).

The modern oil industry was born on a hill in southeastern Texas. This hill was formed by a giant underground dome of salt as it moved slowly towards the surface. As it crept, it pushed the earth that was in its path higher and higher. This dome was known by several names, but the one that stuck was "Spindletop". Through the later half of the 19th century, Pennsylvania had been the most oil-productive state in the country. All that changed on January 10th, 1901.

http://www.priweb.org/ed/pgws/history/s ... letop.html

And, thus, the 20th century was ushered in with a boom!

The geology of Spindletop was described by Eugene Coste just two years after the gusher was unleashed: Canadian Mining Institute Journal: The Volcanic Origin Of Natural Gas And Petroleum (1903), Eugene Coste

Mr. Coste lays out the evidence for the volcanic, abiotic origin of Spindletop's oil in convincing fashion.

It must be remembered that it was not professionals in geology, but rather amateurs that found and recognized the oil potential of Spindletop by using geological hunches and knowledge of existing seeps to promote drilling for oil at Spindletop in 1901. (Wallace Thornhill, an Electric Universe theorist, has repeatedly written how it was the "outsider" and even amateurs who historically provided the fresh insight to move a given scientific discipline forward.)

The evidence for Mr. Coste's theory is laid out in the following quotes:

...the "Mounds" of the coast prairie, such as the famous "Spindletop," near Beaumount, which are clearly nothing else but "suffonis" or "salses," hardly extinct yet, grouped along fractured lines(2) and marking in that region the dying out of volcanicity... p.89

...large deposits of these eminently vocanic products sulphur and salt. p.90

...though limited in diameter, [salt domes] were of great depth... p.90

Sulphur and sulphuretted hydrogen gas occur in the intimate association with Beaumont oil. p.91

Crystals of free sulphur also occur in the cap rock overlying Sindletop oil. p.91

Still another interesting phenomenon is the occurance of dolomite. The oil of Spindletop is said to occur in a cavernous mass of this material. p.92

As has been previously pointed out in this thread, dolomite is found in close association with oil in 80% of North American oil deposits. It needs to be commented on at this juncture that the oil was found within the dolomite, is actually intermingled with the dolomite.

To the vocanic solphataric phase of phenomena these mounds, or rather, as we can see vertical chimneys, must surely belong. How else could be explained their hot oil, their hot water, and especially their vertical chimney like masses of sulphur, salt, limestone and dolomite permeated and impregnated with natural gas, oil and hydrogen sulphuret gas? p.92-93

http://books.google.com/books?id=2UcLAA ... &q&f=false

The key words for me are "permeated" and "impregnated" in this last quote.

This description strongly contradicts the idea that salt domes rise up and "punch" a hole through a layer of sedimentary cap rock that is holding oil in a dispersed fashion, but then due to the "punching" effect "traps" the oil next to the salt dome.

Coste's description is much more consistent with oil rising in conjunction with the salt dome.

Coste reports of a "bareness" of oil in close proximity to the Spindletop salt dome. Standard petoleum geology asserts that a salt dome "punches" through a sedimentary layer where oil is dispersed and as a result of the "punch", then, concentrates around the dome. Wouldn't there be residual oil present in non-commercial quanities in the areas surrounding the domes, if the "punch" idea had validity? But yet what is reported is a pronounced "bareness" of oil even in reasonable proximity to the Spindletop salt dome itself.

The notation of no oil outside the salt dome formation supports the concept of a solfataric chimney or "straw" and that oil is carried up along with the other volcanic associates from great depth unconnected to organic detritus dispersed in sedimentary layers in so-called "source rock" as proposed by "fossil" theory. As previously discussed only rock which served as a conduit for vertical (or horizontal travel) of the abiotic oil from its place of origin within the deep faults would appear as "source rock".

Both the Travis volcanic mounds and the "Mounds" created by salt domes are of volcanic origin. The difference is that Travis volcanic mounds are specifically called "volcanic," while the salt domes are not.

But both are examples of "straws" that carry petroleum from great depth to the surface from "source faults" in the tectonic fracture network that runs along the Gulf of Mexico coastline and inland therefrom. And now we know that these faults and fissure emanate oil even out in the great depths of the Gulf of Mexico.

Needless to say, I encourage everybody to read Coste's work, as a 'founding' exhibition of Abiotic Oil Theory. What is remarkable about Coste's work is that he correctly identified petroleum as abiotic and that he came to this conclusion at the turn of the 20th century, date of publication, 1903.

Picture of the Spindletop "gusher" available at the link below this accompanying caption:

"Black Gold" erupted from this well near Beaumont, Texas to a height greater than 150 feet (nearly 50 meters) on January 10th, 1901. It was not brought under control for 9 days, losing one million barrels of oil in the process. A device now called a "Christmas Tree" was invented on the spot to control the flow of oil. Christmas trees are now commonplace in the industry to prevent just such an occurence. An estimated 850,000 barrels of oil was lost. By today's standards, that's a loss of about $17,000,000. Of course, given the huge amount of oil which glutted the market after this discovery, the price of oil dropped from $2 to $.03 per barrel.

http://www.priweb.org/ed/pgws/history/s ... usher.html

A "Volcanic Oil Field?"

Yes, indeed!

[webolife]

Anacaonda,
I am moving ever closer to a full abiotic oil perspective...
Have a question/proposition for you. If the chimneys or "straws" of hydrocarbons emanating from deep earth were mainly of methane [a view I've held since first reading Thomas Gold 5ish years ago], is it possible the petroleum/tars/etc. end products are forming by the interaction of methane with materials closer to the surface?
Evidences that specifically address this question?