Wednesday, July 30, 2008

An Introduction To Geology

I just stumbled upon An Introduction To Geology by British geologist Robert Bakewell (1768-1843). Originally published in 1813, it is the first textbook on geology in the English language, and was described by Davis Young (author of Mind Over Magma: the Story of Igneous Petrology) as "The first modern textbook on geology". On page 276, titled Volcanic Products, I discovered the following passage:

The substances ejected through fissures in the earth, or volcanoes, belong to the four grand divisions of the mineral kingdom,--the inflammable, saline, metallic, and earthy.

The inflammable substances are sulphur, carbon, and hydrogen. The inflammable quality of sulphur prevents its being found in lava in a solid form; during volcanic eruptions it is evolved in a gaseous state combined with hydrogen. It is also sublimed from the fissures of extinct or dormant volcanoes, and forms thick incrustations on the sides of craters. Almost all the sulphur of commerce in Europe is procured from the craters of dormant volcanoes in the south of Italy, Sicily, and the Lipari Islands. When the combustion of sulphur in volcanoes takes place where there is access to atmospheric air, it forms sulphurous acid gas, and sulphuric acid.

Carbon combined with hydrogen, forming bitumen, is found in volcanic rocks, and also in some basaltic or trap rocks. The volcanic tufa in the vicinity of Clermont, in France, contains so much bitumen, that in warm days it oozes out, and forms streams of bitumen resembling pitch, which is more remarkable, as this tufa must have been erupted some thousand years. Bitumen has been observed oozing out of the lava of Etna. The moya ejected from the volcanoes in the Andes, in aqueous or muddy eruptions, contains so much bitumen or carbon, as to be inflammable. As bitumen exists in many volcanic rocks, the black smoke which issues during an eruption may proceed from its combustion, though it has been generally supposed to consist of minute volcanic sand, called ashes. Carbon also combines with hydrogen in a gaseous state, and forms carburreted hydrogen gas.

The hydrogen gas evolved from volcanoes, or from chasms in the earth during earthquakes, is generally combined with sulphur or carbon; it is probably formed by the decompostion of water, when it finds access to subterranean fire.
Abiotic petroleum origin 1; fossil fuel cult 0.


Anaconda said...


The passage provided in this post highlights the problem with the geology profession.

In a herd mentality as strong as any ungulate's (animals of the hoof), they embrace notions that go against not just the weight of scientific evidence, but against the direct field observations of their scientific peers. Geologists ignore or never learn of physical observations made by their scientific forebears.

How can a 'science' still be called a science when its practitioners so willfully ignore evidence and even disgrace the memory of their "fathers" in that scientific discipline?

This passage is a case in point: These are physical observations -- documented -- no speculation, no guessing games -- the basic building blocks of scientific inquiry.

Yet, how many of today's geologists are even aware of these observations?

Here's an example:

"... however, as someone who spends a significant amount of time doing hydrocarbon exploration in volcanic and granitic rocks for a large oil company, I have to point out, as BrianR did, that in every case that I am aware of, the hydrocarbons found in these rocks is generally sourced from an overlying or laterally adjacent organic source rock. This is certainly the case in the Argentina, where there is significant production from basement rocks.

Furthermore, we only find hydrocarbon in these rocks when there are extensive fracture networks, which is why oil and gas can migrate in these "impermeable" rocks. Nearly all of the storage volume and permeability pathways in most igneous rocks are from fracture networks.

Finally, the timing of hydrocarbon migration is, in all cases that I know of, several million years after eruption/emplacement.

One more quick point - people throughout the past have generally kicked around the idea of abiotic oil, and in some cases have tested their ideas...

If oil can be readily found in volcanic zones, why aren't companies drilling on the flanks of volcanoes?

Also, there have been several geothermal wells drilled around the world. Why is it that none of these have produced hydrocarbon?"

-- Cameron Snow, PhD, 2008

This geologist has a blog called Oil! with a web address including petrophysicist.

Remember the following quotes from the passage in the post are observations, not speculation:

"Carbon combined with hydrogen, forming bitumen, is found in volcanic rocks..."

"The volcanic tufa in the vicinity of Clermont, in France, contains so much bitumen, that in warm days it oozes out, and forms streams of bitumen resembling pitch, which is more remarkable, as this tufa must have been erupted some thousand years."

"Bitumen has been observed oozing out of the lava of Etna. The moya ejected from the volcanoes in the Andes, in aqueous or muddy eruptions, contains so much bitumen or carbon, as to be inflammable. As bitumen exists in many volcanic rocks..."

-- Robert Bakewell, 1813

Bakewell was not alone, the early geolgists repeatedly made observations where hydrocarbons were seen in close association with volcanic activity.

Here is a map of Indonesia showing all the vocanoes and oil wells, the association is remarkable.

"Tectonically, this region -- especially Java -- is highly unstable... The country has numerous mountains and some 400 volcanoes, of which approximately 100 are active. Between 1972 and 1991 alone, twentynine volcanic eruptions were recorded, mostly on Java." -- Indonesia Geology

And there are oil deposits found flanking volcanic vents in New Zealand, see here
and here.

And George F. Becker reported:

"On August 12, 1805, [Alexander von] Humboldt and Gay-Lussac witnessed a great eruption of Vesuvius; and at times they found the prevailing smell bituminous. Humboldt had noted in literature three cases in which a pleasant smell (Wohlgeruch) attended eruptions."

"In 1856 Ch. Sainte-Claire Deville found [hydrocarbons] on the flank of Etna near Aci Reale as gaseous emanations."

"Since Deville's first investigations hydrocarbons have been found at Vesuvius, Etna, Santorin, Terceira Island (in the Azores), and at Pelee..."

"Silvestri actually found bubble-like pockets in the lava of Etna containing solid paraffins and liquid oil."

"The association of lava and bitumen in that region is very close, and the basaltic tuffs, peperites, which in many cases form volcanic necks, are heavily impregnated with hydrocarbons."

-- Becker, 1909

Can there now be any doubt that hydrocarbons are associated with volcanic activity?

Yet Cameron Snow, PhD., is oblivious to these observations.

It's stunning that a PhD. could be so ignorant of observations made by members of his own profession, yet, it seems entirely in keeping with geologists' selective knowledge.

Frankly, when "fossil" oil geologists do comment, it has a rote quality to it, with little suggestion they have real understanding and grasp, other than repeating stock phrases.

It's shameful that Snow or any other oil geologist could run around and make statements which betray such stunning ignorance or worse.

The facts are these:

Hydrocarbons emanate from volcanic activity.

Cameron Snow, PhD., and the professors that failed to teach him the basics are a disgrace to their historical peers.

If somebody can be so ignorant of basic scientific observations, can you take their word about any other related issue?

Anaconda said...

Let's get this quote correct:

"On August 12, 1805, [Alexander von] Humboldt and Gay-Lussac witnessed a great eruption of Vesuvius; and at times they found the prevailing smell WAFTED FROM THE CRATER bituminous. Humboldt had noted in literature three cases in which a pleasant [bituminous] smell (Wohlgeruch) attended eruptions."

-- George F. Becker, 1909

BrianR said...

wow ... I'm surprised Anaconda ... you're getting pretty nasty, attacking specific people and accusing them of such ignorance and shameful behavior. Actually, I'm really surprised ... I found your previous writings to be relatively free of that kind of stuff. Sure, you often attacked geologists, in general, but now going after a particular one.

OilIsMastery said...

BrianR, what is your reaction to the science?

Quantum_Flux said...

From the eruptions blog, I found this article LA-Ecuador-Volcano

Apparently, there are oil pipelines in the area, but the volcano eruption poses no threats according to the experts. It baffles me how people don't see a relation between volcanic activities and bitumin, or diamondoids in the oil and abiotic oil origins.

BrianR said...

OilIsMastery ... I love reading old papers and books in geology, fascinating stuff. I'd like to see additional accounts of bitumen from Etna and the Andes. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just curious about more specific studies (e.g., where exactly, some geochemical tests/results, etc.).

It should be noted that Bakewell also associates bitumen with coal (and he associates coal with a biogenic origin) (pg. 109):

"[Brown coal] contains, besides charcoal and bitumen, various vegetable principles, and the branches of trunks of trees partially decomposed, which mark the origin of this kind of coal."

Additionally, on pg. 118, Bakewell states:

"The conversion of vegetable matter into true mineral coal has been admirably elucidated by the experiments of Dr. Macculloch on wood in different states of bituminization ... These substances, which have been subjected to the action of water only, all yield bitumen by gentle distillation"

And there are other passages about the "vegetable" origin of coal and bitumen in there. So, it seems to me that Bakewell is saying bitumen can have a biogenic AND an abiogenic/volcanic origin (depending on the association).

In other words, while one might want to cite this book for evidence of volcanic bitumen, one could NOT cite it as evidence for the non-existence of biogenic bitumen.

Anaconda said...

To BrianR:

To your point: Cameron Snow is a PhD. in geology. Snow's geological knowledge is supposed to be consummate in his field of scientific discipline.

Snow made statements that are flat out wrong in my opinion.

When referring to specific quotes of an individual, it's encumbent to attribute them by name and training. To do otherwise is irresponsible.

Naming the person is a duty to scientific discussion and solid argumentation, which requires as much documentation as possible.

I note you don't like my characteriaztions of Snow's statements.

BrianR, I have read your response, but you don't address the validity of Snow's statements? Are his statements right or are his statements wrong?

That's as neutral as possible.

Also, I supplied additional statements from other scientists (available at the side-bar under George F. Becker.) and provided physical observations from today (association of oilfields and volcanoes) and previously cited this 2002 abstract, Methane Emissions from the mud volcanoes of sicily (Italy).

In other words, a whole line of scientific points and authority, which you haven't addressed.

You are right -- scientific debate isn't 'beanbag'.

Careers and reputations can rise and fall on questions of scientific fact and theory.

I stand on my statements and characterizations.

Dispute them if you wish.

Quantum_Flux said...

Well, aren't most bio-molecules highly oxidized when compared to minerals such as FeO and CaCO3, and water.... doesn't that mean that vegetables require even more heat and pressure to form hydrocarbons than at {30 kPa, 1200K}?

OilIsMastery said...

To BrianR, in response to "I'd like to see additional accounts of bitumen from Etna and the Andes"

You would? Then read Von Humboldt, Becker, and Coste.

And in response to "one could NOT cite it as evidence for the non-existence of biogenic bitumen."

I wouldn't cite this paper for that. I would cite the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences like any other scientist would: The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum.

Anaconda said...

POSTSCRIPT: objection and response

Editorial note: In an effort at fair dealing (raising known objections) the following is offered.

Objection: Hydrocarbon emanations from volcanic activity don't prove an abiotic source because organic detritus derived hydrocarbons could be incorporated into the volcanic area and thus are expelled because of the magma raising to the surface.

Response: volcanic vents have erupted numerous times in the past, i.e., Vesuvius and Etna, and the new eruption uses the same volcanic vent. This would mean that any organic detritus derived hydrocarbons would be "burnt out" of the throat of the volcanic vent long before the new eruption.

There is no dispute that volcanic materials come from deep below, not from shallow crustal sources.

So hydrocarbons erupting in association with undisputed volcanic materials in a well established volcanic conduit do not "gain their association" during the "midpoint," but rather much deeper in the volcanic system, thus consistent with abiotic origin and eliminating crustal derived hydrocarbons as a viable possibility.

"The association of lava and bitumen in that region is very close, and the basaltic tuffs, peperites, which in many cases form volcanic necks, are heavily impregnated with hydrocarbons."

-- George F. Becker, 1909

"...which in many cases form volcanic necks, are heavily impregnated with hydrocarbons."

These are not 'outliers' but rather directly involved with the magma, i.e., 'volcanic neck'. This is not an environment that organic detritus derived hydrocarbons would meander into.

Hopefully, this soliloquy adds to the discussion.

Anaconda said...

To Cameron Snow, PhD.:
Your best course of action is to defend your statements by scientific evidence not sputter about legal action.

BrianR said...

Anaconda ... calling a specific person a "disgrace" to their field is really quite bizarre. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to accomplish. Perhaps you should start going on every geology blog/website and start trashing people ... you know, just because they are geologists and you are bursting with this animosity, bordering on hatred, for such "ignorant" people.

Quantum_Flux said...

You can't seriously expect to file libel for somebody quoting what you wrote on the same blog in which you wrote it. Anaconda is not providing any more information on you than you yourself have already provided about yourself, on here nonetheless.

Now, I don't know if you are necessarily ignorant of what early western oil geologists believed about the link between volcanism and bitumen, or if you've seen some form of evidence disproving that link, however, oil_is_mastery and anaconda both seem to present a lot of information confirming that link.

Maybe the libel is in calling you ignorant of the evidence, or that your formal education didn't include that information but instead focused only on fossil theory? Also, perhaps if that is the case, then maybe I shouldn't take your words for granted like I don't take anybody else's words for granted anyhow, Ph.D or not. You've got to understand, however, that this is a blog and that the rules of libel don't necessarily hold up in court when everybody is anonymous, I don't know who you are, and if Dr. Snow is your real name or even if you have a Ph.D or not. You are no different than, say, any of the other shmoes who can call themselves a physicist and utilize a real or a fake name.

On an unrelated note, how exacty does fossil theory console itself with the presence of diamondoids in the oil, Dr. Snow?

Quantum_Flux said...

Also, if you don't want people linking to your private blog, then I suggest you don't make it open to the public.

BrianR said...

By the way ... you guys need to do a bit more research on your volcanic oil field examples (linked to above by Anaconda).

(1) Those who have actually worked on the Maui field conclude that the hydrocarbons (gas in this case) are sourced from the Upper Cretaceous Pakawau Group, which consist of coals interbedded with carbonaceous shales (see Funnell et al., 2004 [Proceedings of the New Zealand Petroleum Conference] and the many references therein). Furthermore, it's not on the "flank" of a volcano, it's in a backarc sedimentary basin, which, by definition, are positioned adjacent to a volcanic arc.

(2) Pohokura, also in the Taranaki sedimentary basin (as stated in your link) is part of the same petroleum system as the Maui field (and the other 10 or so producing fields in the basin). Refer to King & Funnel, 1997; Proceedings of the Petroleum Systems of SE Asia and Australasia Conference: Indonesian Petroleum Association; and references therein.

If you can find me an actual research paper (i.e., not a blog post or random unreviewed article) that discusses an abiogenic origin for the Maui and Pohokura fields specifically, then you ought not cite the mere existence of these fields near an arc as evidence for a conclusion about their abiogenic origin.

The map of Indonesia that you guys love so much also shows oil/gas fields in sedimentary basins adjacent to the volcanic arc. In the case of Sumatra, those fields are in a retroarc foreland basin position (i.e., behind the arc). Backarcs, forearcs, and retroarc forelands are all basins associated w/ the development of subduction-related volcanic arcs. Point being is that, at least on the scale of that map, where are the wells that actually penetrate a volcano? Not the adjacent sedimentary basin, but the volcano itself. I don't know much about that area ... I'm open to learn more, Give me names of specific fields.

But, my guess is that instead of pursuing that ... you'll cite Kenney 2002, call me "ignorant", and be done with it.


Quantum Flux ... even if the "rules of libel" don't apply to the blogosphere ... I think it's out of line to attack someone and call them, their professors, and an entire field of study a "disgrace". Even if it's not illegal, what does it accomplish?

Anaconda said...

To Dr. Snow:
You came on this blog with your PhD. and expected to throw out some stock phrases and pat answers and win the argument?

That was stupid.

Rather, you were challenged on specific scientific questions, which for the most part, when confronted, you ignored.

If that's not arrogance I don't know what is.

I'll concede, you "bit off more than you could chew."

I'll also concede my characterizations were harsh, and, perhaps, not in the best taste.

But you still haven't challenged my scientific points and authorities for why I think your statements were ignorant and wrong.

Dr. Snow says: "The one I take the most offense to is the one about professors failing to educate me - generally we stop teaching things in science when they are proven wrong..."

So, now is your chance to prove Abiotic Theory wrong.

But I'll bet you won't offer up a stitch of scientific evidence to oppose Abiotic Theory.

" most of the ideas you are espoused to have been [wrong]. With your views we'd still be teaching students that the world is flat.

None of the comments you directed at me were "science."

Arrogant people ask questions, alright, but don't deign to answer when tough questions are thrown back at them.

Actually, BrianR, it's Dr. Snow who freely admits on his personal blog: "This blog hatred of stupid people."

I have to admit, I don't like arrogance -- I respect confidence -- but confidence backs itself up with performance.

Dr. Snow says: "You clearly lost the debate..."

The readers of this website will be the judge of that.

Dr. Snow says: "I was just hoping your address would be in my neighborhood so we could have a little face-to-face, if you know what I mean."

I rather you had the balls to back up your statements with scientific facts and arguments.

So far, all I see is a lot of puffing and distraction from the fact that your statements were wrong.

And, yes, your geology professors are a disgrace for not teaching you both sides of a scientific debate that is central to your profession.

But there really isn't a lot of science supporting your side of the debate, is there?

Explain diagenesis using mathematical and chemical equations constrained by chemical and physical laws.

Explain catagensis using mathematical and chemical equations constrained by chemical and physical laws.

Please provide any laboratory experiments that support your position, and explain how the experiments prove either of the two so-called "processes," diagenesis and catagenesis actually occur.

That would prove you are a man of science.

Quantum_Flux said...

Well, it doesn't really accomplish anything except causing trouble, but it's still not the same as libel though.

Anyhow, has anybody ever discovered oil shales independent of being located within a proximity of volcanism or fault lines Brian?

BrianR said...

Quantum Flux says: "Anyhow, has anybody ever discovered oil shales independent of being located within a proximity of volcanism or fault lines Brian?"

You are going to have to be way more specific. Quantify 'proximity' (10 m? 1 km? 10 km? 100 km?). Only active volcanoes? Only active faults? What size faults? From the biggest plate boundaries down to cm-scale offset of microfaults?

Quantum_Flux said...

World Volcanism

Known World Oil Reserves

Question.... were these map layers made by utilizing fossil theory?

Quantum_Flux said...

(1) According to Anthropogenic Changes: Resources, the following is a classification of coal:

Peat: 50% Carbon (C); not yet coal

Lignite: from peat (soft dark-brown coal) (70% carbon)

Bituminous Coal: from lignite at higher T (100-200oC) (85% C)

Anthracite Coal: from bituminous coal at even higher T (200-300oC); formed at 8-10 km depth (95% C); burns most efficiently and clean

Graphite: at even higher T and P

(2) And for oil/natural gas, it has this to say:

oil window: oil and natural gas exist only under certain T and P conditions. At T>160oC, any remaining oil breaks down to form gas and at T>250o the remaining organic matter transforms into graphite. Under normal conditions, oil exists at depths only down to 6.5km.

require a long (geologic times) process to form, involving burial and increase in T and P

In the 1970ies, when the U.S. oil production passed its peak (Hubbert's Peak, the U.S. lost its position as largest producer

predictions place Hubbert's Peak of world oil production around 2005 .... wtf!? This class was taught in 2007 dammit!

Quick summary facts on that site:

fossil fuels are non-renewable

U.S. oil production peaked in 1970ies

U.S. has to import 50% of its oil
peak in global oil production by 2005

oil consumption now exeeds rate of discovery by factor 3

oil reserves exhausted within 50 years

gas reserves probably within 100 years

coal reserves probably within 300 years

Cam Snow said...

I will admit defeat, if you will remove all references to my name from this site.

Also, I don't know which of you did this, but whoever emailed me at my work address, please stop now.

Quantum_Flux said...


BrianR said...

Quantum Flux ... you asked me a question about oil shales, I responded asking for clarification.

I'll ask them again: Quantify 'proximity' (10 m? 1 km? 10 km? 100 km?). Only active volcanoes? Only active faults? What size faults? From the biggest plate boundaries down to cm-scale offset of microfaults?

Quantum_Flux said...

Does a 50km radius sound allright?

Quantum_Flux said...

Also, while you're at it, has anybody really produced a lab reaction that makes anthracite out of peat, and if so what are the P-T values?

BrianR said...

Quantum Flux says: "Does a 50km radius sound allright?"

I don't know ... you tell me. What are you getting at? Is this for active volcanoes? Active faults? Both? Just for oil shale?

BrianR said...

I didn't see the comment above just before. Yep, I'm with Cameron ... I'm done with you guys. Why would someone have to resort to flooding his e-mail? I don't have the time or energy to deal with that stuff. Good luck to you all.

Quantum_Flux said...

Active and inactive, faults and volcanoes .... confirmed oil shales.

Quantum_Flux said...

Well, oil_is_mastery and anaconda, it appears that biological detritus can be reduced to peat, which can be reduced further to humic material and then to sapropel by carbon reducing microorganisms.... which then can be matured isothermically at temperatures of 250 & 300 degrees celsius for 48 hours and thereby producing C23-C29 n-alkanes and even anthracite coal at RM 2.66%.

Now both processes do work, so it is true that fossil theorists are correct, and none of this is against thermodynamics or anything. This would explain why a place like volcanoeless Maine has so many oil shales.

But it is also true that oil is generated abiotically in the upper mantle of the Earth as well. I still think that Westerners need to pull their heads out of their asses and drill deeper since fossil hydrocarbon production is probably dwarfed by mantle hydrocarbon which contains diamondoids though.

OilIsMastery said...

BrianR, you seem much more interested in Cameron Snows's melodrama than you do in the modern theory of deep petroleum origin. Cameron Snow was so afraid to debate he ran away as soon as he saw the first question mark, then he came back to throw a temper tantrum and whine about libel. He was so embarrassed he ended up deleting all his comments. I'm not surprised you're afraid to debate either. If I had no scientific ground on which to debate and no scientific links supporting biogenic origin I would probably run away from the debate also.

BrianR said...

OilIsMastery ... you are 100% correct ... I, and every other geologist (as Anaconda states), are a disgrace and ignorant. I'm sorry I ever came to this blog and wasted your time with my stupidity and ignorance. I look forward to seeing your work in the published literature.

OilIsMastery said...

"I look forward to seeing your work in the published literature."

You're going to have to first read and grasp Von Humboldt, Mendeleyev, Coste, Kudryavtsev, and Kenney before you are ready to deal with what I have to say.

Anaconda said...


Editorial note: BrianR, thank you for bringing this paper to my attention. You are right, it's a far more detailed look at the Maui oil field than what I linked to.

In regards to your request of scientific papers on the Maui oil field with an abiotic interpretation -- there were none that I could locate.

I will provide the abiotic interpretation to the best of my ability.

Here is the paper Maui oil field, Funnell, 2004

The genesis of the paper as stated in the abstract:

"...[T}he history of generation, migration and charge is poorly understood."

This suggests that the Maui field doesn't conform to standard theories of oil field formation, which is a good start for Abiotic Theory to step into the void.

"Multi-1D or pseudo-3D models when combined with a map-based analysis reconstruct the distribution and
timing of hydrocarbon generation and primary expulsion from Late Cretaceous coals, responsible for sourcing the Maui Field. Fluid inclusion data record a complex fill and column height history for the Maui area."

It must be stated that the author of this paper never considers an Abiotic explanation and therefore all his conclusions rely on "fossil" theory assumptions.

It has been often repeated, here, on Oil Is Mastery, that a major failing of "fossil" theory is that the assumptions, aka presuppositions, are never proved or even questioned for that matter.

Abiotic Theory doesn't make that crucial mistake.

Distribution and timing of hydrocarbon generation and expulsion into the reservoir rock is the primary focus of this paper.

This quote states the first disputed assertion where Abiotic Theory rejects the assumptions of "fossil" theory:

"The oils can be identified by their high pristane:phytane ratios, abundant hopanes and land-plant-derived triterpane
distributions as being sourced from Late Cretaceous coals. The latest structural re-interpretation of the timing
and movement on key fault segments is combined with volumetric assessment of hydrocarbon kitchens to predict the hydrocarbon volumes likely to be accessed by Maui through time."

Funnell relys on the assumption that so-called biomarkers identify the source of the oil. As Abiotic Theory has shown, biomarkers don't identify the source of the oil, but rather shows that the oil has "travelled" through that sedimentary layer and picked up bio-contaminates from the terrestrial medium because oil is a strong solvent.

Please see Kenney's dismissal of biomarkers

(Note to BrianR, that is the problem with your non-responses to specific scientific points and authorities of Abiotic Theory. It's appropriate to cite Kenney's work to support the contention that so-called biomarkers aren't indicative of the ultimate source of the oil because until you present reasons to reject the validity of Kenney's work, you are in no position to dispute it.)

The following quote is indicative of Funnell orientation:

"Significant factors in the charge of the Maui Field include; complex structural development since the Late Miocene, charge from separate hydrocarbon kitchens, migration pathways interrupted by volcanic intrusions and active faulting, and sequential filling of stacked reservoir compartments. We discuss important implications from this work for the continued exploration for oil on the Western Stable Platform, Taranaki Basin."

There is alot of terms in that paragraph: let's break it down.

The term "charge" means oil flowing into the reservoir trap.

Hydrocarbon "kichens" is another assumption that "fossil" theory has never proved, in fact, the "kichen" is the heart of "fossil" theory's scientific weakness. That's where I laid down the challenge in the previous comment on Diagenesis and Catagenesis. Again, because BrianR or anybody else have never responded to that Abiotic challenge to the "kitchen" there is nothing they can say now -- chickens are "coming home to roost."

The "kichen" is a made-up word for a made-up process that has ZERO scientific support for it's factual reality.

"Migration" is a term which I replace with "travel." Why? Because one Abiotic Theory must set up it's own terms. As long as "fossil" theory's terms are used, Abiotic Theory will be at a disadvantage.

But also and more important, "migration" suggests oil going from point A, an origin point, to point B, a repose point, in the crustal medium.

That is false.

Oil doesn't have an origin point in the crustal medium. Oil's origin point is in the mantle and oil is "transported" to the crust then the oil "travels" from the bottom of the crust upward until the oil reaches repose or escapes to the surface.

In terms of this paper and the volcanic connections, this paper states: "[travel] pathways interrupted by volcanic intrusions and active faulting", so there is acknowledgement that both active faulting and volcanic activity is important to the history of this oil field -- I argue that these two physical features are the essential genesis of the Maui oil field.

There is more evidence for the Maui oil field being Abiotic in origin by way of tectonic faults and volcanic action than anything else..

The oil field sits right obove the fault system, which can be seen quite clearly on diagrams in the Funnell paper. And these "active faults" trend directly towards the volcano.

Yes, that's right the oil is above faults that lead right to the mouth of the volcano.

Also "sequential filling" is a term used in this paper which means an "echelon" structure of repeated anticlinal folds which actually suggests there was great pressure from below that pushed up the entire geologic formation.

Pressure required, which "fossil" theory oil would not have a sufficient amount of to "push up" an echelon structure, but by Abiotic Theory's very nature of mantle oil raising up under great pressure would be able to "push up" an entire echelon structure and explains why multiple chambers have oil in them.

"...[S]urprisingly little has been published on the overall Maui petroleum system, or more specifically on petroleum migration [travel] and charge of the Maui Field."

Again, this leaves a void for Abiotic Theory to fill.

"A number of possible charge scenarios were suggested by Thrasher (1990), including charge of oil and gas from the Maui sub basin in the east across the Cape Egmont Fault (CEF) (Figure 1). This scenario involves early oil charge across the CEF during Middle and Late Miocene contractional deformation followed by a later gas charge during re-activated normal movement on the fault."

Of course, it never occurs to Funnell that the fault is the central reaon for the oil's presence, and, in fact, the fault is the "source fault" for the oil field in the first place, and that the volcanic mountain to the North East and the oil are both emanations of volcanic activity focussed on a central fault.

The Cape Egmount Fault.

"An alternative hypothesis was proposed by Haskell (1991) who argued that the Maui accumulations are dynamic and ongoing with southerly migration of hydrocarbons from the Northern Graben and spillage of oil from the A-area into the B-area (Figure 1), with migration based on present structural trends."

Now, they're getting warmer! (closer to Abiotic Theory, but not there)

At least it's a desription that is consistent with Abiotic theory.


Because "the Maui accumulations are dynamic and ongoing with southerly [travel] of hydrocarbons from the Northern Graben and spillage of oil from the A-area into the B-area (Figure 1), with [travel] based on present structural trends."

The key words, "dynamic and ongoing."

The above descriptive words are entirely consistent with Abiotic Theory.

Please review the diagram (1) which shows the fault system -- it's remarkable for being consistent with Abiotic Theory.

"Fluid inclusions" are also a dead giveaway for Abiotic Oil.

The following quote is the basis for all Funnell's assumptions and analysis:

"Similar to other oils in the south Taranaki Basin, the biomarker distributions in Mauioils are dominated by the gymnosperm-derived diterpane isopimarane and exhibit high pristane: phytane ratios, relatively low levels of cheilanthanes, abundant hopanes and higher-plantderived terpanes, and relatively depleted steranes dominated by the C29 members (Killops et al. 1994). On this basis it appears that the oils from the Maui Field (Maui-1 and Maui-3 D sands, and Maui B-1 F sand) are related to Maui-4 and Moki-1 oils, suggesting a similar Late Cretaceous coaly source and, possibly kitchen, for all three fields (Killops et al. 1994). Compositional and isotopic data for gases from the Maui Field have been reported by Lyon et al. 1996), and Hulston et al. (2001)."

This series of assumptions based on the discredited "biomarker" analyis leaves the paper hopelessly in error.

Abiotic Theory explains this oil field, yes, BrianR, on a volcanic flank. The sedimentary basin acts as a roofrock conduit structure and a trapping structure.

Per fluid dynamic theory, the oil FROM THE MANTLE raises toward the surface and while magma does raise in the source point of the hot spot (the volcano), the magma away from the hotspot stalls and sinks (because the magma cools and becomes more dense); meanwhile, the liquid, less dense oil continues rising away from the central (hotspot) source point.

The oil then seeks access (by oil's unique physical properties of being a less dense liquid) to the conduits in the fault system and then after rising through the fault system then travels through the sedimentary levels and finally into the trapping structures.

At this point, I will conclude by saying, Funnell's conclusions are not supported by his presuppositions because those presuppositions have been proven invalid.

Until you, BrianR, or anybody else can show validity of the so-called biomarker "proof" of fossil theory, then Funnell's analysis fails because it rests on a unproven assumption.

Like the rest of "fossil" theory.

And so far, I've yet to find anyperson who can defend the basic assumptions of "fossil" theory when pressed by an educated interlocutor.

All basic tenents of "fossil" theory have been challeged here and at J.F. Kenney's Gas Resources.

BrianR, your "chickens have come home to roost" because you have chosen to never address the specific scientific points and authorities, the proofs, which invalidate "fossil" theory.

Until somebody can succussfully rebutt Abiotic Thoery's scientific proofs, the conclusion is evident.

"Fossil" theory is a psuedo- science that relies on non-scientific arguments.

"Geology is the prisoner of several dogmas that have had widespread influence on the development of scientific thought." -- William R. Corliss, 1975

"It is a singular and notable fact that, while most other branches of science have emancipated themselves from the trammels of metaphysical reasoning, the science of geology still remains imprisoned in 'a priori' theories." -- Sir Henry H. Howorth, 1895

Oil is abiotic and the Maui oil field is another "proof" in a long series of proofs that "fossil" theory has never rebutted.

Clearly, when both theories start at an "equal" starting line and the scientific points and authorities are stacked up against each other:

The race is no contest.

"Fossil" theory never gets out of the gate.

It's a tragedy that geology got so hung up on "fossil" theory because it discredits the entire field and that is sad.

Anaconda said...


The other other oilfield, Pohokura, in New Zealand, and the indonesian oilfields on the flanks of valcanoes are subject to the same principles discussed in my previous comment.

The sedimentary basins are DIRECTLY NEXT TO the volcanoes, and are part of the same fault network. Therefore, while magma at the center of the hotspot reaches the surface to form a volcano, magma away from the central hotspot cools and stalls and/or sinks while oil being a liquid and less dense continues rising toward the surface working its way through the fault network adjacent to the volcano and then continues working up through the sedimentary basin by passing through "roofrock" and finally stops in respose in a reservoir trap or reaches the surface.

Oil doesn't originate in the sedimentary layers.

That is why oil is always associated with "source faults" that are in relation with the volcano.

Anaconda said...

Postscript on the Cameron Snow controversy:

I can only speak for myself: I didn't even know Snow had an e-mail address.

But how do we know anybody flooded his e-mail, I'm sorry, but from the way Snow acted -- who knows what the truth is.

I won the bet: Snow didn't offer a stitch of scientific evidence to back up "fossil" theory or disprove Abiotic Theory.

Why did I know that would happen?

At this point, I'm indifferent to BrianR's course of action.

Repeatedly, he was asked to defend or discuss specific scientific points and authority supporting Abiotic Theory and disproving "fossil" theory.

BrianR, never did respond to a specific point that disproved "fossil" theory.

Yes, he liked to act like a "professor" who never responds to a pointed question by a student.

The arrogance dripped off his keyboard, too. Expressed in different ways than Snow, but the same arrogance.

"I will ask questions, but I wan't deign to answer tough questions thrown back at me."

That's arrogance folks, plain and simple.

BrianR, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Anaconda said...

As they say down in Texas: "All hat and no cattle."

BrianR said...

Anaconda says: "BrianR, your "chickens have come home to roost" because you have chosen to never address the specific scientific points and authorities, the proofs, which invalidate "fossil" theory."

You are so right, I am glad my chickens have come home ... I am ignorant and a disgrace (oh, and arrogant now too).

Since you've debunked Funnell's work so masterfully, you ought to send him a note or give him a call telling him about his hopeless errors:

He'd surely like to know that his research team has been wasting their time:

Now that you've exposed me as ignorant and have thoroughly 'sent me packing', you ought to engage with the chemists, physicists, and modelers who actually do this work. They may have answers to your questions where I have so horrendously and miserably failed. You guys are the leaders of a revolution! It's very exciting to watch ... even as I'm left in the dust.

OilIsMastery said...

To Anaconda, in response to "I can only speak for myself: I didn't even know Snow had an e-mail address."

Likewise. Why would I email someone who is afraid to debate, afraid to answer direct questions, and afraid of science itself?

"But how do we know anybody flooded his e-mail, I'm sorry, but from the way Snow acted -- who knows what the truth is."

Good point. This is behavior reminiscent of a high school prom queen and not befitting a scientist in my opinion.

Anaconda said...

No, BrianR, you were always arrogant from the first 'snarky' response to my original comment on your blog.

In that sense, you and Snow are two peas in a pod.

This last comment just confirms what I already knew.

OilIsMastery said...

Also, BrianR's claim that we flooded Mr. Snow's email is based upon prejudice and speculation and indicative of exactly how seriously he takes the scientific method.

Anaconda said...

To OilIsMastery:
My suspicion is that BrianR was always looking to "defeat" Abiotic Theory.

He knows Abiotic Theory is a "gut shot" at the established geology community that he aspires to join.

So, BrianR was probing for weaknesses to expose. I suspect he was surprised when we didn't fold up upon his first early retorts (such is his overweening pride).

But BrianR misjudged the competition and soon realized we had the scientific backup to withstand some stock phrases and pat answers.

That's when he supplied some scientific papers, requesting analysis hoping to overwhelm us, using science as a weapon.

Again, he was surprised and probably dismayed that we analyzed "his" papers, being able to see through "fossil" orientation and point out the assumptions and fallacies, and then turn around, and analyze the papers according to Abiotic Theory.

This created consternation on BrianR's part.

You see, arrogance is blind, it expects to win and has little insight into it's own appearance to others.

After you, OilIsMastery, came up with the Travis Mounds post that led to an exposition of Abiotic Theory, that's when he put out his gambit, the "Abiotic Problem" -- shale oil.

But again, to his consternation, there was an Abiotic Theory answer for that issue.

Now, he was "burned" because instead of folding, we extended Abiotic Theory.

That wasn't BrianR's goal getting into this.

Yes, he got more than he bargained for.

I don't believe BrianR ever wanted to 'treat' on an equal basis where he would freely discuss the weaknesses of "fossil" theory.

That was never his objective, he only read enough to try and defeat Abiotic Theory, never with the open mind and intent to see if it was a reality. But he never found anything to use against Abiotic Theory because it all checks out.

Why do you think he never would actually discuss the weaknesses of "fossil" theory even after repeated requests?

That was a dead giveaway.

Of course, BrianR wanted to appear reasonable, but being blind to his own arrogance, that was hard to hide.

His arrogance shows through.

Finally, BrianR thought he had a "tag team" with Doctor Snowjob, but Snowjob quickly melted and got run out of the park when his stock phrases and pat answers got showed down his throat.

BrianR was alone, again.

And, not achieving his goal, in fact, he was facilitaiting this website's goal:

Proving Abiotic Theory.


So, he challenged on what he thought was a weak spot, the mechanism of petroleum's transport to the crust. He knew we had the word description (that doesn't mean much, after all, that's really all "fossil" theory is -- a made-up word description that sounds "plausible) and a few elements, but he also knew we were groping with no visualization and no scientific principle to back it up. And not likely to present an image because no artists work for Abiotic Theory.

But then you, Oil Is Mastery, "blew him out of the water" with your post on the fluid dynamic model and how it fit "hand-in-glove" with Abiotic Theory.

Literally, he was left sputtering, "nitpicking" the words.

Man, that must of left him with a warm, tingling feeling in the pit of his stomach.

Of course, he wouldn't articulate the significance of that breakthrough, but neither could he contradict it in the slightest.

The fluid dynamic model simply fits too tight.

Then you posted Bakewell, which added more weight to the volcanic association of hydrocarbons which built on the fluid dynamic model -- perfect timing.

Then I remembered Snow's previous statements which were so at odds with the scientific observations, it was striking.

Snow's "kind" know that allowing the association of hydrocarbons and volcanic action to stand is not a "game changer" -- but a "game ender" -- so, even though the science is impeccable, unimpeachable, and from their own scientific discipline's forebears, they spew crap all over themselves in an attempt to break the link between volcanism and hydrocarbons.

That association between volcanic action and hydrocarbons in the public imagination would be the end of "fossil" theory.

And they know their shit is crap -- how could they not?

It is a disgrace to the scientific integrity of their forebears.

These people were at least in goodfaith, such can't be said today.

So I let Doctor Snowjob have it.

As he richly deserved and he performed according to his arrogant barggart nature:

Threaten, call names, and then crumble like a "cheap" suit.

That's a bully for you.

Of course, BrianR was mortified that his erstwhile partner was getting his clock cleaned and by extention, so was the geology community he aspired to join.

That wasn't supposed to be part of the bargain.

But he had one last shot.

The Maui oil field was explained in detail by "fossil" theory.

Surely, this would silence Abiotic Theory.

As BrianR said, he expected to see a link to the Second Law of Thermodynamics paper -- and that's it.

BrianR misjudged the competition, again, and, misjudged Abiotic Theory, too.

Which proves he never understood Abiotic Theory's power.

What a closed-minded man that he never took the time to really understand it.

Certainly, BrianR didn't expect to see that paper ripped to shreds.

But the secret of destroying that paper was in its very detail.

"Fossil" theory stands on "feet of clay."

When "fossil' theory stretches out its legs as it did in the Funnell paper, in all its false majesty and junk-science -- "fossil" theory can be cut to ribbons.

That's why a bully like Snow has to run and hide.

And an acolyte with overweening pride can't answer direct questions.

That's how pathetic "fossil" theory is.

It's this kind of corrosive attitude -- where protecting "their truth" is more important than the real Truth -- that hurts science.

How sad, how very sad.

BrianR said...

Anaconda ... I'm an acolyte! I love it! I had to look that one up. You should write novellas. Keep 'em coming.

Now that I'm defeated and slithering away in a cloud of shame, and when you're done recounting the drama with your prose (hopefully not soon!), don't forget to scold Quantum Flux for this statement from above:

"Now both processes do work, so it is true that fossil theorists are correct"


BTW, what did Funnell say about your analysis of his junk science? I'm sure he's smarter than me, he could probably answer some of your questions, but then again, it appears he is one of the deluded. If you guys could just get their clients to hire you to work on the Taranaki fields instead you could really make some headway.

Anaconda said...

Follow up postscript:

There is a point of order that needs to be addressed regarding the Maui Oil field discussion.

This statement quoted from the paper needs to be looked at again:

"...[T]he Maui accumulations are dynamic and ongoing with southerly [travel] of hydrocarbons from the Northern Graben and spillage of oil from the A-area into the B-area (Figure 1), with [travel] based on present structural trends."

Focus on "the Maui accumulations are dynamic and ongoing with southerly [travel] of hydrocarbons from the Northern Graben..."

Definition: A graben is an elongated, relatively depressed crustal unit bounded by faults on both sides. A graben is caused by a divergent movement of the plate. The plate widens and becomes faults, which results in a downlift of the crust between two of the faults. Graben

So, the oil travels from the graben which is a deep structure, part of the actual fault system on a "dynamic and ongoing" basis.

The above description is totally consistent with Abiotic Theory.

The description is even consistent with the oil rising from the graben -- in other words, "rising from the basement rocks," into the sedimentary 'roof rock' that forms as a series of impermeable layers seperated by more porous sands that act as a conduit and then at the point of repose as the reservoir trap.

Sounds Abiotic to me.

Prose? Prose only assists the science; there is no substitute for basic scientific observation and analysis.

I take Science Digest seriously as a peer reviewed journal, and the paper Quantum_Flux correctly cited.

Please allow me to review the scientific paper in total because, as I respect Quantum_Flux's diligent search and the paper's abstract, I want to read the complete work.

That's scientifically responsible and the correct course of action.

It's a duty owed to the scientific method and my own search for the truth.

BrianR says: "If you guys could just get their clients to hire you to work on the Taranaki fields instead you could really make some headway."

That is the ultimate question, isn't it?

What will happen to this oil field?

Will it recharge in accordance with Abiotic Theory or will it deplete in accordance with "fossil" theory?

If the oil field does recharge or can be rehabilitated by advanced technology, perhaps, deeper drilling, at what rate would the oil field "refill" from deep below?

How active is the geologic fault system that trends to the North East right into the mouth of the volcano?

Are there other untapped oil fields in the vicinity?

There are a few Kiwi who want to know the answers to those questions.

Big money is riding on the outcome.

So, serious thought does need to be given to the scientific evidence.

I'd say the evidence stacks up in favor of Abiotic Oil and additional investments would give a strong return in that oil basin.

As you suggest, capital investment is where the "rubber meets the road" for the investor and those assigned to "hit paydirt" for the investors.

Abiotic Theory gives the investor the best chance to hit oil.

It's up to men's minds to decide what they think of the science and the reasoning supporting the science.

It's nothing new for man to struggle to see the obscured reality.

Volcanoes and oil are like bread and butter.

They go good together.

OilIsMastery said...

Graben =)

Anaconda said...

Thank you, OilIsMastery.

Anaconda said...

To BrianR:
Interestingly, while you tried to disparage my "prose," you failed to deny my central assertion: You were never interested in a good faith discussion of the weaknesses of "fossil" theory.

It's true you never directly admitted your goal was to "defeat" Abiotic Theory. And that's why I used the words "suspicion" and "suspect" to describe my belief as to what your motives were for engaging in discussion.

Rather than "prose" for its own sake, what I was doing was laying out a chain of circumstantial evidence for the basis of my "suspicion," and also so readers could draw their own conclusions.

The central piece of circumstantial evidence was that "[BrianR] never would actually discuss the weaknesses of "fossil" theory even after repeated requests[.]"

But I could be completely wrong about what your reasons were for engaging in discussion.

Divining motive and intent are the hardest of tasks because men rarely advertise what their real reasons are for any given course of action.

Of course, there is an easy way to prove me wrong and show that you are a "man of science" willing to go wherever the evidence leads:

In good faith, discuss the weaknesses and strengths of both competing theories, Abiotic Theory and Fossil Theory.

It's your decision to make.


For others, who may come across this discussion, your motives are irrelevant:

Scientific challenge and discussion doesn't rely on motive or intent (that's why even though I had suspicions about BrianR's "goodfaith" that didn't matter).

The important consideration is the discussion and airing of issues. Although, it's helpful when both parties to a discussion are acting in good faith, but it's not necessary.

Because no matter how hard one may try to present weaknesses of their own scientific position, a key requirement of the scientific method, a seperate party (the other) -- for whatever reason -- is likely to make objections in new and forceful ways.

It's the discussion of strengths and weaknesses of both competing theories that "advances the science."

Isn't that in the end what science is all about: Increasing man's knowledge about the world around him by applying his reason to the mysteries that remain to be solved?

Yes, "Unsolved Mysteries" are what drive science and captures the imagination of the public at large.

Anaconda said...

Postscript on Discussion:

Objection: Anaconda stated: "For others, who may come across this discussion, your motives are irrelevant: Scientific challenge and discussion doesn't rely on motive or intent (that's why even though I had suspicions about BrianR's "goodfaith" that didn't matter)."

And, "[Good faith,] it's not necessary."

So why bring up BrianR's alleged lack of good faith or failure to discuss the weaknesses of "fossil" theory if it's irrelevant?

Response: Because BrianR was expressing righteous indignation against my characterizations of Snow and the geology community as a whole, as an excuse the quit the discussion.

If a party to a discussion isn't engaging in good faith, it's disingenuous to turn around and complain the discussion isn't going to one's liking.

And, my suspicion was that the real reason BrianR was quitting the discussion was because he wasn't making any progress on his real objective, namely, to defeat Abiotic Theory.

Rather, BrianR was facilitating the proof of Abiotic Theory and in the process allowing the geology community to be held up to ridicule.

I can understand why he wouldn't want the geology community to be held up to ridicule.

(But it's the geology community's scientific positions, as expressed by Snow, which hold up the geology community to ridicule.)

I was simply articulating the obvious.

But he didn't want to say his real reasons for quitting, so with righteous indignation as his justification, he "stomped out" of the discussion.

Trying to make me look unreasonable and mean spirited in the process if he could manage that.

So, at that point, I thought it was important for me to outline what I thought were his motives and intent for engaging the discussion in the first place.

So as to clarify the record and dismiss his "belly aching" for what it real was:

The whining of a loser.

And, BrianR knows there's one way to prove me wrong.

OilIsMastery said...

Anaconda, I don't think they'll be back. They are afraid of scientific debate. This isn't a drama website anyway.

BrianR said...

Anaconda ... you're still talking about this?

I've already admitted defeat. I'm ignorant and a disgrace. You've exposed me ... it's clear now that I had no chance against your scientific and rhetorical skills. Bravo.

Anaconda said...

Wrong again, BrianR, it's the science supporting Abiotic Theory that you have no answer for; that should tell you something.

Anaconda said...

VITRINITE ABSORBS HYDROCARBONS: Unreliable indicator that heat builds hydrocarbons in coal

(A response to the scientific paper cited by Quantum_Flux.)

Quantum Flux:

I submit the key to the riddle of the 'coalification' paper you cited is the chemical composition of the "Peat," "Brown" coal, and "subbitumous" coal, prior to the experiment.

Kenney states in his paper that graphite coal can be made from "biological detritus."

Perhaps, that is why Kenney rarely mentions coal. (Of course, Kenney is interested in oil.)

As Kenney states below:

"The chemical potential of water vapor at STP is -54.636 kcal/mol. The thermodynamic Affinity for the “charcoal burner’s reaction,” (6), to produce amorphous carbon, or graphite, is 109.10 kcal. Therefore, the genesis of coal from biological detritus in an oxygen-poor environment is permitted by the second law."

And this is an interesting quote:

Not only does the hypothesis of a biological origin of petroleum assert processes which are glaringly in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics, but such stands in violation also of the fundamental law of the conservation of mass for chemical processes. Even if somehow the evolution of highly-reduced hydrocarbon molecules of high chemical potentials might somehow (miraculously) evolve from highly-oxidized biological molecules of low chemical potentials, the law of the conservation of mass would require that, for every ton of oil so generated, 8-10 tons of coal would necessarily also be generated, and likewise for every ton of natural gas, 12-15 tons of coal.12-14 Such deposits of coal are not observed with deposits of natural petroleum."

It should be pointed out: "Coal usually is the most shallow of the hydrocarbons, when it exists in a stratigraphic profile with oil & gas. Gas can exist above or below oil, although observers say gas is below oil more often than not."

There never is coal found in such abundance below an oil deposit as would explain the "miraculous" (Kenney's word) production of oil from coal deposits.

But returning to my opening paragraph. The description of the three samples was non-scientific, in that no elemental chemical composition assay was carried out on the samples before the experiment.

The scientific paper that I cite below stands for the proposition that vitrinite absorbs hydrocarbons, therefore, one can't conclude hydrocarbons weren't present before the experiment started.

Adsorption of petroleum compounds in vitrinite: implications for petroleum expulsion from coal

What is interesting is that the three samples, as stated in your cited paper, all have a high percentage of vitrinite: "These samples are particlularly rich in vitrinite (81 - 87%)."

Vitrinite seems not to have an elemental chemical composition assayed for it.

This is a recurring pattern in "coal" scientific work:

No elemental chemical molecular description.

Getting back to the Adsorption of petroleum compounds in vitrinite abstract.

"Coals are known to be often associated with gas and condensate accumulations. Yet experimental evidence suggests that they generate as much heavy compounds as conventional type II kerogen. The concepts brought forward to date to explain this contradiction are rather unspecific and not quantifiable."

Further: "This paper investigates the role of adsorption in nanopores of vitrinite and suggests quantifiable processes of retention. We combined computer process models of nanopore adsorption and absorption with a generic ten-component generation and cracking scheme in order to model generation, retention and cracking of petroleum component groups in vitrinite."

So it would seem that even "coal scientists" acknowledge that vitrinite absorbs hydrocarbons and then expells the hydrocarbons upon heating.

Quantum_Flux, there is your answer:

The experiment you cite simply measures the expulsion of hydrocarbons from vitrinite, not the creation of hydrocarbons.

I might add, that the "paper" you cited was published in the International Journal of Coal Geology. I suspect the "Journal" is not rigorous if the submitted paper "follows the company line."

In order for this paper to successfully stand for the proposition you propose for it, namely as a proof for "fossil" theory, there would need to be a proper assay to identify all molecules in the samples down to the elemental chemical molecular level BEFORE being put into the "reactor."

Your proposition does not have sufficient scientific support because the scientific paper you cite has flaws that render it unreliable and not a valid support for "fossil" theory.

The paper I cite acknowledges the limits of the knowledge of coal:

"Proper quantitative predictions need more accurate knowledge of multi-component swelling ratios and adsorption systems, vitrinite pore wall polarity at different maturities, and more detailed vitrinite pore size distributions."

This last paragraph quoted above puts the experiment and paper you cite in a "new light" and renders it unreliable, therefore, the paper can't be used to support the "fossil" hypothesis of petroleum formation.

No "gasping" or "scolding," just solid scientific research, analysis, and presentation.

Quantum_Flux's response to the above discussion: (Original comment on Oil Is Mastery post: Oil Doesn't Come From Dead Dinosaurs, August 6, 2008 6:01 PM.

"Wow, thanks a bunch for the clarification Anaconda. That makes excellent sense.

There was probably some graphene coalification from the peat in combination with some peat combustion (CO2 and CH4 gas production) plus the release of unassayed hydrocarbons in the vitrinite due to melting.... yeah, that makes sense. So, this kind of ambiguity is what made fossil theory go for all these years then."

Anaconda regarding Quantum_Flux's response: I appreciate the feedback and further analysis, Quantum_ Flux, you have filled in the analysis by "grasping the scientific nettle," even if that went against your original proposition.

Your scientific integrity stands tall.