Russian scientists have discovered oil seeping from bedrock aka volcanic igneous rock. This means there is no sedimentary so-called "source rock": Scientists find oil fissure in Lake Baikal's bedrock
NOVOSIBIRSK, August 7 (RIA Novosti) - Scientists have located a crack in the bedrock of Siberia's Lake Baikal from which crude oil seeps into the lake, and have discovered a range of organisms living in the oil, an expedition member said on Thursday.
Researchers, who are currently examining the processes through which microbes in the world's deepest lake digest petroleum that naturally enters the water, conducted deep water dives on Monday and Wednesday to locate the oil source.
Dr. Mikhail Grachyov, an expert on the molecular evolution of Baikal's animal and plant life, said the source was found at a depth of around 850 meters (2,800 feet) to the south of Barguzin Bay, and that samples of the oil had been taken.
"It turns out that a large number of organisms live in this oil. This will require a huge amount of study," he told RIA Novosti.
"We will study everything - the oil, the means through which it is broken down, the microbes, physical characteristics, and so on. This is necessary both for fundamental science and for practical goals."
Research into Baikal's oil may provide new insights into the origins of petroleum, he said.
The consensus view among scientists is that crude oil is formed by decayed plant matter accumulating on the bed of a body of water and being subjected to heat and compression under heavy sediment over a period of millions of years.
However, several Russian scientists going back as far as Dmitry Mendeleyev have suggested an 'abiogenic hypothesis,' according to which petroleum was formed from carbon deposits originating deep in the Earth's mantle.
Baikal is the world's oldest lake, with an age estimated at 25 million years. Scientists taking part in the current expedition, during which 160 deep water dives are planned over the next two years, have stressed that research is not aimed at exploiting possible oil and gas reserves, but at protecting Baikal's unique ecosystem. ...
Baikal, a UNESCO World Heritage site, holds around 20% of the planet's freshwater.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
9 comments:
44 MAGNUM WITH SMOKE BILLOWING FROM THE BARREL: Evidence for Abiotic Theory
(Great catch OilIsMastery.)
Oil from bedrock at the bottom of Lake Baikal:
"Scientists have located a crack in the bedrock of Siberia's Lake Baikal from which crude oil seeps into the lake..."
Bedrock!
Dr. Mikhail Grachyov, ... said the source was found at a depth of around 850 meters (2,800 feet) to the south of Barguzin Bay, and that samples of the oil had been taken."
Evidence for Abiotic Oil?
It's a "smoking gun" alright.
Frankly, one in a whole series of "smoking guns."
It's starting to look like the "magnificent Seven" guns ablazing.
Of course, the article duly trots out "fossil" theory for oil's origin, while noting:
"However, several Russian scientists...have suggested an 'abiogenic hypothesis,' according to which petroleum was formed from carbon deposits originating deep in the Earth's mantle."
Let's be crystal clear, here: Many more than "several Russian scientists" are convinced of the existence of Abiotic Oil -- practically the entire Russian scientific community -- based on over 50 years of coordinated scientific research across all scientific disciplines.
And, Russia having once been an "oil poor" country, now is the largest oil producer in the world.
So, to say, "several Russian scientists," is entirely misleading at best.
You would have thought a Russian publication, Russian New & Information Agency, would have given more credit to Russian scientific achievement, but no matter.
When you study the geology of the Lake Baikal region, several things leap out at you:
Lake Baikal sits at a great rift & volcanic system.
Time and again, the Oil Is Mastery website has noted the association between rift (fault system) & volcanic areas and large deposits of oil.
(I'm not suggesting drilling for oil in Lake Baikal -- just that this discovery is a very strong piece of evidence proving Abiotic Oil.)
Please review Geology of Lake Baikal.
A quote from the above linked article is instructive:
"The major geologic feature of the Baikal Territory is that it incorporates the borderline of the great tectonic structures - the Siberian platform and its framing and the Sayano-Baikalsky folded belt. Tectonic movements along this border never cease and are manifested by earthquakes and by fluctuations of separate parts of the shores. Annually, the ground seismic stations register up to 2,000 earthquake tremors..."
Also, the diagram accompaning the article clearly depicts the rift system undergirding Lake Baikal and lists tectonic features.
And as OilIsMastery points out, at 2800 feet deep in Lake Baikal there is no sedimentary strata, just bedrock in one of the most active seismic areas in the world.
If you want more geology, go here and here.
The first link, of the two, is a USGS review with one map noting the volcanic activity in the area of Lake Baikal.
Abiotic Oil -- the evidence keeps mounting -- as it generally does for a theory that reflects reality.
Will any "fossil" theory geologist step up to contest this additional evidence for Abiotic Oil?
If so, then:
As Clint Eastwood said, pointing his 44 magnum, "make my day."
Thanks Anaconda. It's pretty fun to watch all the evidence pile up...=)
To OilIsMastery:
You're right; it's fun.
When I started reseaching Abiotic Oil, I was intrigued, but still, I thought, "how could the whole geological community be so wrong?"
With a few notable exceptions.
I kept expecting the evidence to be at least ambiguous, with some serious dead ends for Abiotic Theory, which would explain the geological community's reluctance to accept Abiotic Oil Theory.
After all, I believed in "fossil" theory for all my life, and even after considerable research, the "objections" to Abiotic Oil from the geological community carried considerable weight in my mind.
So initially, I was like most everyone else, willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the "learned men of geology."
But repeatedly, after I teased apart the objections raised, many were clearly not good faith objections, but distortions and half-truths; it was hard not to conclude many were intentional efforts to dismiss Abiotic Oil without analyzing the science presented on Abiotic Theory's behalf.
That surprised me greatly for I held the sanitized ideal that scientific debate and discussion was conducted at a "higher level" than run-of-the-mill political debate where many times reaching the "truth" is the last item on the agenda.
Sadly, I was disabused of that naive ideal after repeatedly seeing the reality played out in the Abiotic Oil debate.
And, the more I research and debate Abiotic Theory, the more it becomes apparent, that the "benefit of the doubt" given to the "learned men of geology" is what they count on.
Not the hard science, but the "political sway" that surrounds all interactions between men.
Right here on the Oil Is Mastery website, the above senario has been played out. "Learned men of geology" have come expecting their "word" to be taken as "bond."
They expect, "geologists say," to be the final word.
Sorry, that inheritance has already been forfeited and no longer holds court.
Because when challenged on scientific facts and evidence their word has been proven less than stellar, and their 'feet made of clay'.
Pardon me for my digression:
It's fun because I've been continually rewarded by seeing 'new evidence' for Abiotic Theory. And, time after time, when challenged, even on a less than good faith basis, abiotic science has proved out.
Abiotic Theory keeps proving out.
New evidence keeps being found.
How many times does a man get to take up the shield of truth, on an issue that literally impacts the entire human civilization?
And be in the position of David against Goliath, yet having the 'armor' of truth block the slings and arrows hurled by those braced in the cave of ignorance?
I would rather have these men come to reason by their own accord: "Come, let us reason together."
But, regrettably, it seems at times, man must be freed from his ignorance, by the punishing power of exposure to ridicule and shame among his fellow man.
Such is the human condition.
I hope all men deep down thrill to the idea of being instruments of truth in a just cause for the advancement of man's condition here on Earth.
And for those that believe "hiding a truth" is valid to bring man to a "higher truth" -- they are inevitably wrong -- for the "ends justify the means" is a recipe for dogma and dictate that has been a seed of man's inhumanity to man for millenia.
Surely, we can dispense with such barbarity.
Come, let us reason together as friends on the field of peace and tranquillity.
PANDORA'S BOX
How can man be wrong?
Let me count the ways: fear, bias, prejudice, hate, envy, greed, love (of power), vanity, slander, and lying.
A regular Pandora's box.
Of course, a compensating gift is hope, and I would add, reason.
For what Abiotic Theory has shown, with its proof from the stars, planets, and moons, is that as the stars were born eons ago, so was reason.
The ability of man to make sense of his world.
Surely, there is truth in the idea, that in the beginning was reason.
The physical and chemical laws that govern the stars, burst forth at the same instant the stars, themselves, were born.
As far as we know, there was never a time, after the birth of the stars that these "laws," the governing relationships of the material universe were not in force.
And, as long as man has been, it has been man's quest to understand these "governing relationships" of his world.
Man's tool has been his intellect governed by reason.
The same reason that was born at the instant the first star was born.
It is an incalculable gift.
May man use it as intended:
Wisely.
To OilIsMastery:
In further research on the Lake Baikal story, it's apparent you are to be commended for getting the original and unedited version of the news article you link to in the post.
This news article is available on the net, but has been edited or redacted to eliminate the references to Abiotic Oil.
The closest to Abiotic Oil (that I was able to find in the versions of the article available on the net) is this quote from the article: "Research into Baikal's oil may provide new insights into the origins of petroleum, [Dr. Mikhail Grachyov] said."
Without the other references to Abiotic Oil, that quote is cryptic and frankly, not very informative.
(The reader would have to "read between the lines," something Abiotic Oil researchers have to do on a regular basis.)
So good job, OilIsMastery for getting the unedited news article for readers of the Oil Is Mastery Website.
One final question: Why was the news article edited to eliminate references to Abiotic Oil?
You tell me.
This is interesting too. Here we have a physics and math PhD named Oleg Sorokhtin propose biogenic and abiogenic hypotheses simultaneously:
"Oleg Sorokhtin also said that abiogenous methane is likely to be found on the lake bed. The gas evolves from oxidation of material from the earth's interior rising through the split between continental plates. Mantle rock contains liquid iron, causing the emissions of methane, which is involved in the carbon cycle."
Drilling oil there would be a "crime".... almost as if it is so plentiful that it is actually a nuissance in some places, and 4 metric tonnes is oozing out per year which is something that ought not really happen in biogenic theory.
To OilIsMastery:
You're right the follow up story is interesting.
"Oleg Sorokhtin, Ph.D.(Physics and Mathematics), of the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of Oceanology," is not even a geologist.
Obviously, by affiliation, Dr. Sorokhtin expertise is in oceanology.
Yet, here, they have Dr. Sorokhtin passing judgment on the origin of the oil.
Also, in the original article, "Dr. Mikhail Grachyov... said the source was found at a depth of around 850 meters (2,800 feet) to the south of Barguzin Bay..."
This is a specific point source, not some generalized oozing from the lake bed sediments.
Compare and contrast Dr. Grachyov's description of a specific point source (location) for the oil, with Dr. Sorokhtin's generalized explanation of "sediments" and it doesn't add up right.
Then consider this quote from the article:
"Oleg Sorokhtin also said that abiogenous methane is likely to be found on the lake bed. The gas evolves from oxidation of material from the earth's interior rising through the split between continental plates. Mantle rock contains liquid iron, causing the emissions of methane, which is involved in the carbon cycle."
But what's note worthy is that abiotic theories, which involve iron, also include the formation of oil (the higher hydrocarbons), not just methane.
See, Keith's Hydrothermal Hydrocarbon theory, discussed, here, at comment #5.
Also, see here, where again in a theory involving iron ( this time expaining why Middle East oil fields may produce forever); crude oil is formed as well as methane.
(of course, even J.F. Kenney's synthesis in the laboratory of hydrocarbons consistent with natural petroleum used iron as one of the three elements along with water and marble)
So, it would seem, Dr. Sorokhtin is incorrectly describing an abiotic theory involving iron.
Also, Dr Sorokhtin, goes on to say, "As for the presence of oil, I don't think there's much of it under the lake. The fact itself is very interesting. But we should stop when we find proof that oil is there."
No one said to drill for oil. Rather, the idea was to fully and scientifically investigate the origin of the oil found emanating from the "crack" at the bottom of Lake Baikal.
Is it just me or does it sound like, Dr Sorokhtin is the official, "move along, there's no story, here," minder?
Maybe, I'm taking this too far, but is it possible the Russians have been "reached" and have been told, 'fossil' theory is good for you, Russians, if you want high oil prices."
I know... I know... Don't read too much into it.
But if somebody told you: "Don't screw up the 'goose that laid the golden egg'." What would you do?
This is the funny part:
"Petrogenesis, the formation of oil from organic matter, is a very complicated process from the technological point of view, and takes 25-30 million years."
Apparently it's such a "very complicated process from the technological point of view" that noone on earth has yet been able to describe it scientifically or duplicate it in a lab.
25-30 million years?
Not according to Larry Cathles:
"We're dealing with this giant flow-through system where the hydrocarbons are generating now, moving through the overlying strata now, building the reservoirs now and spilling out into the ocean now."
Post a Comment