Saturday, June 7, 2008

Oil: At Least 3.2 Billion Years Old

Ancient oil points to 'cradle of life'

Australian scientists have discovered the world's oldest oil in rocks that date back 3.2 billion years.

The find suggests that oil-forming micro-organisms were widespread very early in the Earth's history.

The researchers say that oil-forming bacteria may have been among the earliest inhabitants of our planet and that the sulphur-springs that formed the rocks studied by the researchers may have been the "cradle of life on Earth". ...

The scientists are now looking for molecular fossils that might be present in the oil.

Dr Birger Rasmussen, of the University of Western Australia, and Dr Roger Buick, of the University of Sydney, have published details of their work in the journal Geology.
3.2 billion year old oil has been found in Archean rock which predates the vast majority of marine sediments. According to Wikipedia, and we all know how worthless that can be, "the majority of Archean rocks which exist are metamorphic and igneous rocks. ... The question of whether or not plate tectonic activity existed in the Archean is an active area of modern geoscientific research."


Anaconda said...


Eugene Coste,
Canadian Mining Institute Journal: The Volcanic Origin of Natural Gas and Petroleum, (1903).

(OIM) Post, Scientists Prove Hydrocarbons Are Abiogenic, February 2, 2008, Comment #3, Diamonds and Oil (Cont.), 3/26/08, Comment #4, More on the Diamond Story, 3/28/08, Comment #8, The Origin of Life?, 4/22/08

The bias that geologists have for "fossil" theory clouds their interpretation of the geologic evidence; they interpret everything through the biased prism of "fossil" theory, even when the evidence points in an entirely different direction.

This article points out the problems. First, geologists assume "The find suggests that oil forming micro-organisms were widespread very early in the Earth's history."

Why do geologists assume in this instance that oil comes from micro-organisms? What evidence in this particular context points to micro-organisms proceeding the presence of oil? This writer suggests there is no evidence, just geologists' bias for "fossil" theory.

But there is evidence that petroleum proceeded life.

First, let's look at the report:

"The researchers found oil preserved within fluid inclusions...similar to gas bubbles trapped in ice cubes."

"The tiny droplets of oil they found were extracted from rocks formed in an ancient sulphur spring that left behind huge deposits at a site in Austrailia."

"...and that sulphur-springs that formed the rocks studied by the researchers may have been the 'cradle of life on Earth'."

This writer reported on 3/26/08, and 3/28/08, here, in the above referenced comments that oil had been found in the inclusions in diamonds, even refering to "tiny bubbles."

This would mean the oil was trapped where and when the diamond was formed. We know diamonds are only formed in the Earth's mantel about a hundred miles deep, completely without any micro-organisms involved. Are these geologists in this story even aware of this salient fact?

The "researchers" found the oil associated with a sulphur spring creating huge deposits.

This is similar to Eugene Coste's work, asserting that oil is a product of 'solfataric' volcanic 'vent' like action. And oil is strongly associated with sulphur to this day. "Sour" oil has high sulphur content.

So, here, are three examples of association between oil and sulpher: the first example, is observable, today, and is an industrial nuisance, "sour" oil is more costly to refine; the second, was reported a century ago, in a well-documented scientific paper, cataloging examples of associations between oil and sulphur, including mentions of large deposits; the third, is contained in this BBC article, reporting that ancient oil, 3.2 billion years old, was found in association with a "sulphur-spring that left behind huge deposits."

All this is consistent with abiotic oil theory, as described by Coste and commented on by this writer.

When the reader considers the "oil inclusions," or "tiny bubbles" documented in diamonds, and oil's associations with sulphur and 'solfataric' vents, which, of course, is exactly what a "sulphur-spring" is, then what say you: Is there more evidence to believe oil proceeded life, or as the "fossil" theory geologists would have it -- that bacteria was "born" producing oil?

Is it possible that oil along with its associated minerals is the "cradle of life"?

And, that the bacteria was what actually sprang out of that "primordial soup" so many billions of years ago on the broad plains of Austrailia?

Again, what theory makes the better case in this instance: Abiotic or fossil?

You make the call.

Anaconda said...

The Eugene Coste paper is available by direct link immediately over at the left-hand column under his name.