Saturday, February 2, 2008

Scientists Prove Hydrocarbons Are Abiogenic



Lost City Pumps Life-essential Chemicals At Rates Unseen At Typical Deep Ocean Hydrothermal Vents

ScienceDaily (Feb. 1, 2008) — Hydrocarbons -- molecules critical to life -- are being generated by the simple interaction of seawater with the rocks under the Lost City hydrothermal vent field in the mid-Atlantic Ocean.

Being able to produce building blocks of life makes Lost City-like vents even stronger contenders as places where life might have originated on Earth, according to Giora Proskurowski and Deborah Kelley, two authors of a paper in the Feb. 1 Science. Researchers have ruled out carbon from the biosphere as a component of the hydrocarbons in Lost City vent fluids.

Peak Oil Theorists are retarded.

8 comments:

Anaconda said...

The mid-ocean venting of hydro-carbons is important as it demonstrates this process is common and ongoing on the sea floor.

There are reports that large episodic bursts of methane rise from the sea floor off Florida's Atlantic coast, in large enough quanities, that ships of considerable displacement have had their buoyancy critically diminished when one of these bursts rise directly below the ship.

How extensive are these out-gassing episodes across the seabed, away from the mid-ocean vents? Are petroleum deposits possibly associated with these methane out-gassings?

Technology that increases the ability to visualize the deep geologic formations is the key.

At one point the ability to visualize was limited to pans of porous sedimentary formations. At the time this was considered excellent because it did lead to discoveries of oil and it was better than no visualization, which was the industry norm early on.

Now, the technolgy is advancing so that the visualization process can reach much deeper with higher resolution. Unless, I am mistaken, the visualization technology can reach down past simple sedimentary pictures, and into the upper reaches of the folding and blocking of the tectonic plates. Massive geologic structures are emerging in the visualization process that have the possiblity of holding large quanities of petroleum, if abiotic oil theory is valid.

So far, the results of exploration of these areas are encouraging. Oil has been found in the Gulf of Mexico, and also 180 miles off the coast of Brazil and the West African Nigerian delta.

How much more extensive are these underwater oil producing geologic formations?

Question: If the oil industry continues to discover oil consistent with abiotic oil theory and the advancement of visualization technology confirms oil is trapped in these "super" block and fold geologic formations, again, consistent with abiotic oil theory, when will the industry inform the general public of this geophysical reality?

Already, Chevron has announced their deep-drilled oil discoveries in the Gulf, with their Human Energy ads. Relating that the oil is five miles under the surface of the sea.

But the Chevron ads are only an inference. Deep well oil is consistent with only one theory: Abiotic.

So far, the most fervid "fossil" fuel theory proponents, the peakers, simply haven't offered an explanation for the deep oil currently being found.

As you pointed out, their previous arguments for "fossil" fuel origin explicitly ruled out deep oil discoveries.

That leaves the field open for those having a theory consistent with the uncontested presence of deep oil.

Anaconda said...

DIAMONDS and OIL

Speaking of what comes out of the Earth, diamonds come out of the Earth, and it turns out diamonds are formed deep in the mantel about a hundred miles deep.

Diamonds are formed when carbon is subjected to ultra high pressure and temperature present in the mantel. Diamonds then reach the surface through kimberlite and lamproite valcanic pipes.

Once diamonds were exceedingly rare, and are still marketed with that idea in mind, but now, it has been found that diamonds aren't as rare as once thought.

Diamonds are now man-made on an industrial scale, duplicating the ultra high pressure and heat existent in the mantel.

In a similar vein, laboratory experiments, using ultra high pressure and temperature consistent with conditions in the mantel, have created the alkane series: methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, and hexane. These are volatiles, present in crude oil, with the raw material of marble, water, and ironoxide.

Is it possible that the process, which creates diamonds deep in the Earth, also creates petroleum?

Abiotic oil theory says, yes.

Anaconda said...

DIAMONDS and OIL (Cont.)

Do you know what makes the above comparison more interesting?

Hydro-carbons have been found in the inclusions in raw diamonds.

Anaconda said...

MORE ON THE DIAMOND STORY

San Francisco Chronicle, 12/03/02
Also, reported in the journal Science.
Miniature Diamonds Found in Oil.
Scientists at ChevronTexico Corp. found microscopic diamonds in crude oil.

So, here we have it, hydrocarbons are found in the inclusions of diamonds and also as tiny bubbles, and now it turns out that microscopic diamonds are found in crude oil. The relation of diamonds and oil is strong.

There is no dispute about where diamonds are formed deep in the mantel under conditions replicated by man in the lab and industrial process. But tell me, how do mircoscopic diamonds appear in oil under a fossil theory of the origin of petroleum?

I don't know, but peakers and oil geologists always seem to stretch out the theory like saltwater taffy.

Now, consistent with abiotic theory, the presence of microscopic diamonds is not hard to explain. Oil rises from the deep mantel where diamonds also form. These microsopic diamonds are carried along with the oil to the reservoir or oil trap, where the oil rests until it is pumped out of the ground. If oil and diamonds are totally unrelated as fossil theorists claim: Oil created from organic detritus near the surface, and diamonds deep in the bowels of the earth, in totally seperate chemical processes and locations; how come they are literally found one inside the other and vice versa?

Abiotic oil theory has scientific elegance fossil theory just can't match.

Anaconda said...

References:
Presentation at Origin of Petroleum Conference, in conjunction with AAPG confernce,
Petroleum: To Be Or Not To Be Abiotic,
M.R. Mello, J.M.Moldovan, June 2005

Space Daily
Diamondoids Can Be Refined From Crude Oil,
Charles Choi (UPI), May 7, 2004

Diamondoids,
G. Ali Mansoori, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago

Chevron
Molecular Diamond Technologies
(All references can be Googled)

The Evolution of Multicomponent Systems at High Pressures:VI,
National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A.)
J.F. Kenney, Gas Resources Corp., et al., 2002 (can be linked form this site)


DIAMONDOIDS: PROOF ON THE MOLECULAR LEVEL, OF ABIOTIC OIL

Yes, fossil theory proponents have a theory that "explains" the presence of diamonds in crude oil. And sure enough, they stretch fossil theory like saltwater taffy to shoehorn the presence of diamonds in petroleum.

Turns out that these microscopic diamonds are present in oil on a molecular level, first discovered and isolated from Czechoslovakian petroleum in 1933. They formally are called "diamondoids" and exist in petroleum in various concentrations and molecular complexity, with the highest concentration and most complexity in crude oil recovered from the deepest wells.

The presence of diamondoids would seem to confirm oil as abiotic, but Mr. Mello and Mr. Moldovan strongly disagree: "Another irrefutable proof of the biogenic origin of petroleum is the character of diamondoids in all petroleum liquids." The gentlemen go on to acknowldge the presence of diamonds in oil as incompatible with the fossil origin of oil, "One might expect an ultrastable hydrocarbon "non-biomarker" in oil, such as diamondoid, to have an abiotic origin." But they claim it's "proven by carbon isotopic composition" that diamondoids were formed by biogenic processes.

These gentlemen know that diamondoids are "the silver bullet," the "smoking gun" that proves petroleum's abiotic origin.

So they set their sights, not only to disprove diamondoids are proof of oil's abiotic origin, but to appropriate diamondoids presence in oil, for their own theory to prove fossil origin is right.

Their audacity is stunning, but if you're going to defend the big lie, you have to go all the way. Because, it's not a maybe proposition: Since diamondoids are present in all oil, even if only in trace amounts, if it comes from the mantel, then there's only one way it got in with the oil, if it was carried up with the oil from the mantel; where they were both created together, under the same conditions

The gentlemen have a problem: They acknowledge diamonds are formed only one way: Deep in the earth under ultra high pressure and temperature. Diamondoids are diamonds on a molecular level, as Chevron scientists confirmed. While diamondoids are only found in trace amounts, at the simplist "cage" structure in most oil, Chevron detected, in 2002, in certain oil, increased levels of diamondoids and increased complexity. Scientists, "Discovered 20 new flavors of diamondoids in crude oil from the Gulf of Mexico -- some with up to eleven cages stuck together. The molecules had the rididity and stability of diamonds." Diamondoids can be synthesized in laboratories, but it's very difficult and expensive because ultra high pressure and temperature is required. Diamondoids behave just like their larger brethren, diamonds, in that only one environment is known to create them, one of ultra high pressure and temperature. NO ONE DISPUTES that diamonds can only created in the lab or in the mantel with ultra high temperature and pressure.

Mr. Mello and Mr. Moldovan have no explanation for how diamondoids are created in the lower pressure and temperature of the sedimentary crustal environment, other than to say: "Diamondoid derivation [comes] from enzymatic ally-created lipids with subsequent structural rearrangement during the process of source rock maturation and oil generation."

Of course, that "maturation and oil generation" have never been proved in any recognized scientific way, i.e., theoretical mathematical formula, or a chemical and physical recognized process conforming to constraining laws of chemistry and physics.

In other words: A pure tautology: Needless repetition of an idea or statement, without ever offering proof for the first assertion.

Further, for the scientists at Chevron, "fusing even a few such cages together proved extraordinarily difficult, and efforts at creating larger diamondoids failed."

In other words, only from "deep oil" could these "20 flavors" be gleaned.

Diamondoids have received much attention because of their unique properties, suitable for nanotechnology and other applications.

What does this show?

Mr. Mello and Mr. Moldovan hang their hats on a statistical assertion for which they have absolutely no proof.

What do we know?

That diamonds are created ONLY ONE WAY: Whether in the lab or in the field, ultra high pressure and ultra high temperature.

Diamondoids have the exact same properties as diamonds, in fact they are diamonds, just at the molecular level. And, that they are created ONLY ONE WAY in the laboratory, under conditions mimicking the ultra high pressure and ultra high temperature found in the mantel, with difficulty at that.

Does it lead to reason then, that the only way diamondoids are created in the earth is in conditions of ultra high pressure and temperature found in the mantel? And, does it then make sense that diamondoids are found in higher concentrations and with increasing molecular complexity in the deepest oil found, deeper than the 15,000 foot "oil window" that fossil origin theorists claim oil can't be formed beyond, and will breakdown into methane should it somehow migrate that deep? Also, Chevron scientists have found diamondoids can absorb substantial heat without breaking down.

Does it make sense that petroleum and diamondoids are made in tandum and migrate up from the mantel together, in that they are created in exactly the same conditions present in the mantel?

Remembering that lab experiments, by J.F. Kenney have mimicked the conditions in the mantel and created the alkane series of hydrocarbons from marble, ironoxide, and distilled water: Methane, ethane, n-propane, 2-methylpropane, 2-dimethylpropane, n-butane, 2-methylbutane, n-pentane, 2-methylpentane, n-hexane, and n-alkanes through C10H22, ethene, n-propene, n-butene, n-pentene, in distributions characteristic of natural petroleum.

Fossil origin proponents have a huge inconsistency and a crator sized smoking hole in their theory.

And, abiotic origin theory continues to display its scientific elegance.

TV de LCD said...

Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the TV de LCD, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://tv-lcd.blogspot.com. A hug.

Anaconda said...

EARTH, TITAN, AND MARS, THE ABIOTIC LINK

References,
Titans Mysterious Methane Comes From the Inside, Not the Surface,
SpaceRef.Com, November 30, 2005

Methane Doesn't Necessarily Mean Life on Mars, Says Dartmouth Study, June 7, 2005
(Both articles can be Googled, and are available on a direct link at the left hand side under, Hydrocarbon Moon: The Myth of Fossil Fuel)

Feature: "Baked Alaska" Mud Volcano discovered in North Atlantic, February 26, 1997
(available on Google)

"Mud" volcanoes are common on earth. They exist on land, and on the seafloor. Mud as a name is slightly misleading because most emit hydrocarbons in the form of methane and petroleum. Yes, there is mud and water, but the hydrocarbons are their distinctive signature (some even catch fire like a big torch). Because of this fact, it has been argued that they are evidence of abiotic oil. Needless to say, "fossil" theory advocates have taken great exception to this line of argument because they say mud volcanoes simply emit fluid from sedimentary deposits of oil -- which they claim derive from organic detritus.

Never mind that mud volcanoes are also found on the seafloor away from any obvious sedimentary deposits consistent with "fossil" theory.

Of course, now, we have evidence of methane on Saturn's moon Titan and according to scientists, this methane likely has to come from within Titan's surface or by now it would be dissipated. Cryogenic vents are theorized to carry the methane to the surface. These vents are theorized as being similar to mud volcanoes, here, on earth. Again, lending credence to the idea that oil is abiotic.

But "fossil" theory advocates are quick to point out that Titan is in the outer part of the solar system and not necessarily like the four rocky inner planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars.

But on Mars, methane has been detected and while some hold out hope the methane is a signal of past life or even present life, most scientists are doubtful.

The canals of Mars were the first feature of the red planet visible through early telescopes. And, indeed, on closer inspection, there are deep canyons and dry river beds running over great swaths of the planet' surface.

This gave cause that large amounts of water once existed on the surface, hence, the hope for evidence of life. There are also great shield vocanoes on Mars.

Mars is a dead planet. The core is solid and thus its magnetic field is almost none existant. Mars has little protection from the solar wind bombarding its thin atmosphere. But could it be that as opposed to water carving Mars' massive features, instead it was liquid methane, much like Titan? On Titan methane emission to the surface is spoken of as a cryogenic event, taking place under conditions of great cold. Could it be that Mars was subject to similar processes? That these large shield volcanoes, and numerous smaller "mud" volcanoes, could have spewed large amounts of methane onto the surface? And that the planet had enough internal pressure and was cold enough that Mars could have supported liquid methane on its surface? And that over time, the liquid methane turned to gas on the surface, and with a withered magnetic field, the solar wind encouraged liquid methane to turn to gas and be stripped away.

Is that why Mars has signs of huge amounts of liquid carving its features, but today, is dry as a bone? Wouldn't water turn solid in Mars' frigid temperatures, so that there would be some remnant today.

While there is talk of water at the poles or below the surface, the evidence is sketchy at best.

So, there are "mud" volcanoes on Earth, almost assuredly on Titan and solid evidence of the possibility of massive amounts of liquid methane on Mars.

Titan and Mars did not have organic detritus. Mars is a rocky inner planet like Earth. Do not forget the copious quanities of methane hydrate on the seafloor and in the permafrost up north. Methane and hydrocarbons are ubiquitous in every corner of Earth in one form or another.

Yes, Earth is an oil planet!

Anaconda said...

EARTH DAY, April 22, 2008
THE ORIGIN OF LIFE?

Reference,
Dismissal of Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum,
J.F. Kenney, 2001
(available on direct link at left side column, under, The Science of Abiogenic Petroleum Origin)

"Fossil" theory advocates place great emphasis on bio-markers. These so-called bio-markers: Porphyrins, isoprenoids, and pristane, among others, are related to bio-chemicals, therefore, the argument goes, they are bio-chemical remnants, at the molecular level, of the organic detritus that turned into crude oil. Proving the "fossil" theory indisputably correct.

A fair enough summary of the argument?

J.F. Kenney dissects this argument, pointing out that while there are similarities, the differences are key and does this by pointing to the differences in molecular structure, and by examining the interior of meteorites, where these same chemicals have been found, presumably not the detritus of life. And, also, that these same chemicals can be created in the lab in experiments designed to mimic the interior of meteorites, demonstrating that abiotic processes can generate these same chemicals.

Another interesting distinction, the porphyrin molecules, that "fossil" advocates argue are remnant of organic detritus, are not the same as the chlorophyll and hemoglobin molecules, "fossil" advocates point to.

The chelating element in chlorophyll is always magnesium; in hemoglobin (heme), it is iron. But in petroleum it's typically vanadium and nickel (chlorophyll and heme have never been found in petroleum).

The argument of "fossil" advocates is interrupted, if you will, by the molecular distinctions, and the abiotic natural sources (meteorites) and lab processes able to replicate these molecules.

But what if "fossil" theory advocates have been so busy arguing these "bio-markers" prove "fossil" theory, that they have overlooked something much more extraordinary?

That Petroleum, instead of being a product of organic detritus, rather, the reverse is true: Life evolved from primordial deposits of petroleum?

Lets take a brief look at the evidence. For many years methane has been suspected of having some role in the origin of life. But the complex organic molecules of life are really closer in molecular skeletal structure to petroleum. The mantel of the Earth has a far more complicated interaction among its component part than was long suspected. Chemical interactions are happening all the time. It's akin to a natural abiotic laboratory. Chlorophyll and heme hypothetically, evolved out of petroleum by randomly substituting magnesium for vanadium or iron for nickel.

Wouldn't that kind of evolution explain the similarities just as well, if not better?

Scientists have suggested meteorites as source material for the spark of life. Could it be that the source material for the spark of life is much closer to home?

Underground bacteria evolved first, or oil seeps provided surface access, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Wouldn't it be ironic that the substance that life evolved from turned out to be the elixer that the most evolved form of life has used to create its advanced civilization?

Man is of Earth, its only Natural.