Friday, August 1, 2008

Oil Doesn't Come From Dead Dinosaurs


Somehow it’s hard to imagine, even over geologic time, that rotting algae and zooplankton found their way more than a mile under water then another mile under the seabed where some oil is now being found. But it’s easy to imagine pools of liquid hydrocarbons falling through cracks in the Earth made by earthquakes, volcanic eruption or meteor impact.

There’s a lot we don’t know about our planet. We don’t have the ability to scour the entire ocean bottom that makes up 2/3 of our planet’s surface. Nor do we have the ability to travel through the Earth’s crust to view with the naked eye what’s going on.

Hydrocarbons on Saturn’s largest moon should be an eye-opener for scientists and may eventually turn the petroleum world upside down. There may be more oil on our planet than we think, which would be unfortunate.
Well at least we know where they stand on the issue...LOL.


Anaconda said...

GREEN ENERGY NEWS: Shock wave Rolls Through Scientific Community

Hydrocarbon lakes on Titan are causing the scales to fall from the eyes of even some in the "Green Energy Movement."

How much more so, in segments of the broader scientific community, that don't have a vested interest in the continuance of the "fossil" fuel myth?

Yes, "myth" is the right word, as even the Green Energy News uses "myth" to describe the idea that oil is made out of dinosaurs.

Were they subconsciously using "myth" to describe the whole "fossil" fuel masquerade?

A lot of people are starting to think so.

OilIsMastery said...

Yeah there is this one as well from TheDailyGreen: Energy Crisis Solved?

Anaconda said...


Since childhood, Americans have been bombarded with the "fossil" fuel idea.

Oil companies, when I was a kid, even had T.V. ads showing cute dinosaurs being sucked underground to make "fossil" fuel.

All very cuddly and cute. Right?

Maybe, but maybe this was a deliberate charade put out to "educate" Americans from earliest childhood that oil was "limited" and, therefore, valuble.

Now, if you asked the oil companies, they would tell you, of course, oil isn't made out of dinosaurs. The ads were a "cute" and harmless way to explain to children in a way they could understand that oil was "made" from ancient life, millions of years ago, and, on the side, there is only so much of it.

After all, even children know there aren't going to be anymore dinosaurs.

And, as popular culture has demonstrated, children love dinosaurs -- big and powerful, even scary, but safely extinct for millions of years.

Dinosaurs & oil: A very powerful association because early childhood memories and "truths" stay with us all through our lives.

And as we grow up and go to school, and, perhaps, are taught in science, politics, or economics classes that oil is made out of organic detritus, algae and the like, we readily accept that explanation because we already were conditioned by our childhood memories -- we know of dinosaurs by their fossil bones.


Fossil fuel is our belief.

And the corollary, oil is finite.

For a lot of people it doesn't even take this much because popular culture is saturated with the "fossil" fuel idea.

It's "on the street."

Everybody knows oil is made out of ancient "fossils."

But ask people: "How do you know oil is made out of fossils?"

You probably will get one of two responses: That's what the oil companies say oil is made from, or that's what Geologists say oil is made from.

If you boil it down, then, it comes to this:

"People say."

Because few people really have an independent knowledge of where or how oil is formed.

They rely on other people for their information.

As we have seen on this website, changing people's minds on a subject they learned as children and has constantly been reinforced through life, can be very difficult.

Even for people steeped in science, their belief is hard to change because their reaction is: "Scientists wouldn't screw up that badly."

They have before.

The key is to change what people associate with oil.

People are facinated by volcanoes because they are "big and powerful, even scary," but for most of us, volcanoes are far away and not likely to hurt or kill us.

We wonder at volcanoes' primordial power and see them as a "window" into the inner workings of our planet Earth.

Many boys made "volcanoes" as children from science kits.

Or in the backyard with a mound of dirt.

Volcanoes are potentially a powerful childhood "memory" and symbol just like dinosaurs.

This is true for adults, too.

Volcanoes are a symbol of the limitless power of the inner "fires" of Earth.

The "energy" of Earth.

Volcanoes & oil.

Like molten lava rising from the depths of the Earth, so, too, does oil rise from the depths of the Earth.

This association needs to be built upon.

Because it's powerful.

Because it's true.

What a wonderful combination.

For adults & children, too.

A good logo for a gas station would be a volcano with oil erupting out of the top.

"Want more power in your tank -- get volcanic gas -- an eruption of power, everytime you hit the gas."

Hey, it's a lot closer to the truth than the old dinosaur myth.

Quantum_Flux said...

Oil reservoirs typically come from the upper mantle since there is such a high correlation between the fault lines and the locations where they are found. In addition, there is experimental evidence that says that the conditions in the crust are sufficient to produce oil abiotically.

But perhaps the rare oil shales that are found to be deposited along ancient swamps, and some of them aren't even located anywhere near fault lines, are made from biological detritus according to this article.

Quantum_Flux said...

J.F. Kenney was saying that oil it takes more heat and pressure to produce oil from highly oxidized organic molecules, but he overlooks the fact that microorganisms will reduce this highly oxidized organic matter in the absense of oxygen.

Kenney was making the correct claim that pressure heating highly oxidized organic matter can't produce oil at the T-P's found in the crust, whereas the error in that claim is in assuming that biotic theory says that at all. In anearobic or anoxic conditions, such as is commonly found in swamps, however, molecules like beta carotene and vitamin D are stable and won't break down so quickly since they only really break down in the presence of oxygen or other oxidizing agents. Furthermore, in anoxic/anearobic conditions, you'd expect highly oxidized peat moss sluge deposits to naturally be reduced by anaerobic microorganisms if not even spontaneously given the chemical equilibrium conditions.

Anaconda said...


Quantum_Flux, it's poor science to mischaracterize a scientific work.

In your second link, "experimental evidence," which you claim stands for the proposition "that says that the conditions in the crust are sufficient to produce oil abiotically."

The paper specifically contradicts your contention:

"The constraints imposed on chemical evolution by the second law of thermodynamics are briefly reviewed, and the effective prohibition of transformation, in the regime of temperatures and pressures characteristic of the near-surface crust of the Earth, of biological molecules into hydrocarbon molecules heavier than methane is recognized."

Focus on the following quote:

"[T]he effective prohibition of transformation, in the regime of temperatures and pressures characteristic of the near-surface crust of the recognized."

I'm surprised you, Quantum_Flux, would so "grossly" mischaracterize the findings of a scientific paper.

Quantum_Flux, you mislable your third link, "oil shales." Reviewing the link, the caption on the linked map reads: "Coal-Bearing Areas of the United States. There is a distinct difference between "coal" and "oil shale," and to conflate the two is misleading at best.

Again, I'm surprised you would be so sloppy.

Actually, what is interesting about the map is the congruence between the coal-bearing areas and oil & gas bearing areas.

Take a look: Appalacia was the area where oil was first discovered in the United States; The East face of the Rockies is well known for oil & gas; Oklahoma, again, oil & gas; the kicker, the Alaskan North Slope, oil & gas; even in Texas there is coal.

There is no suggestion of "swamps" in the linked map.


This is consistent with Abiotic Theory as stated by Nikolai Kudryavtsev who noted: "Thus, where oil and gas deposits are found, there will often be coal seams above them. Gas is usually the deepest in the pattern, and can alternate with oil."

Quantum_Flux says: "[S]ome of them aren't even located anywhere near fault lines."

Yes, but neither are the Siberian Traps, which emanate from the Siberian Craton, or the Canadian Shield, which is also a craton (ancient continental land mass).

It's interesting, as much science supporting Abiotic Oil and Quantum_Flux wants to "hang his entire hat" on one scientific paper -- of which I still haven't been able to analyze the full paper. Do you have some ideas were I can get ahold of the full paper?

It seems, Quantum_Flux, after pointing out the flatout mischaracterization of your second link, and the mislabeling of your third link, that you are reverting to "form" on the strength of one paper, as measured against all the scientific papers for Abiotic Theory.

Does it hurt you so much that geologists have been that wrong about the science?

That reality, kinda "cuts you adrift" doesn't it?

Quantum_Flux, you have to do better than misstate and mislable.

That doesn't win any scientific debates.

Quantum_Flux said...

Sorry about my mistake in mis-stating Kenney there, I should have said .... "In addition, there is experimental evidence that says that the conditions in the upper mantle are sufficient to produce oil abiotically."

Then, as far as mislabling oil shales and coals.... oil shales, according to Sci-Tech dictionary, says this:

"Additional names given to oil shales include black shale, bituminous shale, carbonaceous shale, coaly shale, cannel shale, cannel coal, lignitic shale, torbanite, tasmanite, gas shale, organic shale, kerosine shale, coorongite, maharahu, kukersite, kerogen shale, algal shale, and “the rock that burns.” See also Kerogen."

Is there a difference between coal and oil shale?

Quantum_Flux said...

If you want to get it for free, I can do that for you, just send me an email at and I'll reply to it as with PDF attachment.

Quantum_Flux said...

US Gas Shale Basins (aka oil shales!?)

US Coal Bearing Areas

Quantum_Flux said...

Eh, I guess not since the maps don't quite sync up, maybe there is a difference .... anyhow, how does abiotic theory explain gas shales and coal being found in and around Kentucky or Illinois?

Anaconda said...


Can I assume you haven't read anything more than the abstract to the paper you linked as "this article" in your comment?

If so, then, that's a "thin reed" to base your assertions on.

On to your criticism of the J.F. Kenney scientific paper:

Quantum_Flux states: "[J.F. Kenney] overlooks the fact that microorganisms will reduce this highly oxidized organic matter in the absense of oxygen."

What are your scientific points and authorities supporting the above statement?

What "microorganisms will reduce this highly oxidized organic matter in the absense of oxygen," are you refering to?

Actually, microorganisms in the absence of oxygen assimilate or "eat" hydrocarbons for energy and "breakdown" the hydrocarbons in the process. They don't "create" hydrocarbons, they "destroy" hydrocarbons.

Quantum_Flux states: "whereas the error in that claim is in assuming that biotic theory says that at all. In anearobic or anoxic conditions, such as is commonly found in swamps, however, molecules like beta carotene and vitamin D are stable and won't break down so quickly since they only really break down in the presence of oxygen or other oxidizing agents."

Only for the sake of argument, taking your statement as true, it still leaves out the crucial process: How does this organic detritus convert from a low stored chemical energy potential molecule, such as (your examples)beta carotene and vitamine D, to a high stored chemical energy potential molecule, such as hydrocarbons?

What are your scientific points and authorities?

Quantum_Flux states: "Furthermore, in anoxic/anearobic conditions, you'd expect highly oxidized peat moss sluge deposits to naturally be reduced by anaerobic microorganisms if not even spontaneously given the chemical equilibrium conditions."

What chemical process do you refer to by "naturally be reduced" by anaerobic microorganisms?

What chemical process do you refer to by stating, "if not even spontaneously given the chemical equilibrium" conditions?

Please explain: "chemical equilibrium" conditions."

Quantum_Flux, without further scientific back up, by way of scientific points and authorities, you still haven't overcome the Second law of Thermodynamics: Which states energy systems undergo increasing entropy.

I'm sorry Quantum_Flux, at this point, without scientific back up, you're simply engaging in "word descriptions" that have no basis in scientific reality.

You're doing exactly what geologists do: create "made-up" words for "made-up" processes.

So, I turn around and ask you to please explain diagenesis using mathematical, chemical equations constrained by physical and chemical laws.

Please explain catagenesis using mathematical, chemical equations constrained by physical and chemical laws.

Please provide any supporting experiments and explain how the experiments demonstrate your contention.

This is a reasonable request because, in essence, your above statement: "Furthermore...even spontaneously given the chemical equilibrium conditions," is simply another way to say "diagenesis" and "catagenesis" happens -- actually, you go further, because you leave out any requirement of pressure in your statement.

Which makes you even more scientifically unsupported than the geologists (if that is possible) because even they don't claim pressure isn't required.

But don't feel bad, geologists have never been able to provide any of the proof I'm requesting of you, now.

For the math guy, you claim to be, Quantum_Flux, you are ignoring the mathematics.

That's surprising.

OilIsMastery said...

Glasby made the same error in his mischaracterization of Thomas Gold when he says and I quote, "Thomas Gold's theory [yet another factual error on Glasby's part since it's not Gold's theory] involves ... the formation of higher hydrocarbons from methane in the upper layers of the Earth's crust." He then goes on to use Kenney's work to dismiss Gold whom he has just mischaracterized. Unfortunately for fossil fuel cultists, it's biogenic theory that states petroleum is formed in the crust.

See here: Abiogenic Origin of Hydrocarbons.

Quantum_Flux said...

Highly reduced anything (such as hydrocarbons or Beta-Carotene or Vitamin D) in an anoxic/anaerobic condition is stable since there is no further way of reducing it.

Highly oxidized anything (such as sugars or ferric/manganic oxides) always tend to be reduced in anoxic/anaerobic conditions since they are a source of oxygen and are readily reduced by hydrogen rich acids. Depending on the specific chemistry, you can spontaneously get water soluble metallic compounds due to a change in molecular polarity or alcohols or oganic acids with the aid of microorganisms due to anaerobic degradation of organic molecules.

Quantum_Flux said...

.... and thus you can also get hydrogen sulfides or methane gas in the bottom of the thermocline of unmixed lakes or in swamps, even though the organic sludge started out with a high oxidation state. Kenney skips that reducing step in his analysis of fossil theory.

Anaconda said...


Methane Gas, no problem, it does form in low heat and pressure environments, i.e., "swamp gas."

But higher hydrocarbons is a completely different story.

QF states: "Kenney skips that reducing step in his analysis of fossil theory."

No, Kenney addresses methane creation and demonstrates on a theoretical, mathematical basis, why methane creation doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Kenney specifically addresses the distinction between methane and the high petroleum molecules.

Quantum_Flux said...

First issue is that he claims:

"Although there exist biotic molecules of unusually high chemical potential such as β-carotene (C40H56), vitamin D (C38H44O), and some of the pheromone hormones, such compounds are relatively rare by abundance. They are produced by biological systems only when the producing entity is alive (and at formidable metabolic cost to the producing entity), and the production ceases with the death of the entity. Such compounds are not decomposition products of other biotic compounds and are labile and themselves decompose rapidly."

....I think he is neglecting to mention that it decomposes rapidly due to oxidizing conditions. I don't think it would decompose in cool anaerobic conditions though since it would be more stable. Although, that point is not relevent, I might as well point it out anyway.

The second point is that he says this in his dismissal of fossil theory (shortly after discussing the Fischer-Tropsche equation):

"The foregoing properties of natural petroleum and the effective prohibition by the second law of thermodynamics of its spontaneous genesis from highly oxidized biological molecules of low chemical potentials were clearly understood in the second half of the 19th century by chemists and thermodynamicists such as Berthelot and later confirmed by others including Sokolov, Biasson, and Mendeleev." .... here he is glossing over the fact that fossil theory claims that these 'highly oxidized organic molecules' are reduced in steps by microorganisms consuming the oxygen in semi-stable steps. It doesn't happen all in one giant leap from, say, sugars to octane.

Quantum_Flux said...

Fischer-Tropsch Process

I notice that Kenney leaves out references to the equation:

carbon monoxide + hydrogen --> n-alkanes + water

Anaconda said...

To Quantum_Flux:

Yes, there is a difference between coal and oil shale.

Coal is a concentrated composition of heavy hydrocarbons -- as heavy as C215H330 and lesser atomic weight hydrocarbons down to light hydrocarbons, plus simple carbon -- graphite.

In addition, depending on the coal type: lignite (brown coal), bitumous coal, and anthracite coal, there are various undifferentiated masses of carbon that scientists have a hard time identifying.

The belief is that the carbon masses are carbon molecules of different structure -- somewhere between diamond and graphite that are folded over on themselves so that it's hard to identify the exact molecular structure.

Also, to restate, most coals, besides lignite, which has no hydrocarbons to speak of, are embedded with hydrocarbons of various weights.

Bitumous coal has the most hydrocarbons of any coal type, thus the name bitumous.

"Shale oil" on the other hand, while there are various compositions depending on the specific formation, tends to have ultra-heavy hydrocarbons, the C215H330, and this is only 10% to 15% of the total by weight. The rest is of various other minerals (limestone), or even mud (rock reduced to powder).

That is why "shale oil" is consistent with lake sediment that had heavy oils leach into the water then sink to the bottom, as heavy oil C215H330 is heavier than water.

I would say the main difference between coal and "shale oil" is the level of concentration of carbons and hydrocarbons plus trace minerals in coal versus the much lower concentration of heavy hydrocarbons without the carbon, hydrocarbon spectrum present in most coals.

Remember "shale oil" is 85% to 90% other minerals besides hydrocarbons or carbon.

By the way, lignite or brown coal (the one organic coal) has a completely different composition from the other coals. There are actual molecules of organic detritus, which can be identified as such, the deposits are much smaller. There are few large deposits of brown coal and they tend to be shallow, as opposed to the thick coal beds of the other varieties.

I hope this description is helpful in your distinction of the two different substances.

Anaconda said...

You desired my opinion on the presence of coal in Kentucky and Illinois.

There are faults in those regions, not major faults I grant you, but faults never the less.

Kentucky, as can be seen on the coal map, at least in the Eastern part, is part of the Appalacian region and has coal in the same sence West Virginia has coal.

Illinois has coal because these faults and rather shallow sedimentary stratigraphic profile forced the coal out onto the surface from the faults present beneath.

An aside, there is oil in Ohio, and other states in that region but the deposits are very small -- not commercially viable.

At the turn of the last century (1900), when Pennsilvania started depleting oil, people did look for oil in Ohio and neighboring states and did locate small deposits, but then Spindletop was discovered in Texas (1901) and all interest in the small oil deposits vanished as it became apparent Texas was the place to find large commercial grade deposits.

That's my explanation based on the small amount of information I've come across in earlier researches.

Anaconda said...

Postscript on Illinois coal:


My suspicion is that Illinois coal is not a thick layer of coal, so the reason there has not been widespread coal extraction in Illinois is that the agricultural value of the crops on the surface is more than the coal below, especially when you consider there are other regions where the coal is greater and the agriculture is less, like Wyoming.

Quantum_Flux said...

Thanks again.... if I say something dumb or sloppy, it's usually because I'm still figuring things out. Really, I'm just like a dumb monkey trying to rub two sticks together and make fire for the first time. Anyhow....

(1) Apparently the Fischer-Tropsch reaction is catalytic or metalic in nature.

(2) I actually don't know whether Vitamin D or Beta Caratene would be stable in a cold and anoxic condition, but I was just surmising that it might be stable.

(3) That article I cited....A comparative study of the maturation of ... .... they are making oil by isothermically heating peat up to 200 celcius and 300 celcius in a pressure chamber (figure 5). And then I'm not exactly sure how to interpret the notation on table 3 (maximum n-alkanes going from 29-24-27-25-23!?) and (C21-/C22+ ratio fluctuating and ultimatly increasing ...does that mean that increasing the temperature ultimately destroyed the higher n-alkanes!?). Finally, I don't know how the maximum n-alkanes value increased from 24 up to 27 in the pressure chamber if it was isothermically heated unless they increased the pressure, which they don't quite specify in the report.

Quantum_Flux said...

I sort of suspect there should be inactive fault lines all over the Earth simply due to many historic collisions of the continents, does that seem right to you?

Anaconda said...


Thank you for providing the full scientific paper.

I have read it over once, and taking the paper at face value supports your position.

Vitrinite is an important element for consideration, by seeking a definition of vitrinite, I turned up a description of 'coalification'.

The paper you provided follows the expected course of development in 'coalification as outlined in the reference on vitrinite.

Certainly, it's a different line of research from what I have read so far.

Quantum_Flux you have turned up an important piece of information that may, in deed, alter my opinion.

Lateral lines of research and digestion are needed before I comment further, although, I understand your choosing to put reliance on the paper.

Anaconda said...

Quantum Flux:

There is reference to pressure in the paper you cited and I revieved. This pressure is equivalent to what would "simulate high-pressure environments under geological conditions."

Although, the specific pressure is not stated in the paper.

Isothermic means that the heat was evenly distributed over the "high-pressure reactor."

To be honest, I can't directly challenge the results of the experiment.

But I will offer comments and raise that hopefully will stimulate discussion.

The first that comes to mind is that while a detailed report was made as to the results. There still doesn't seem to be chemical processes that have been reduced to mathematically expressed, chemical equations conforming to physical and chemical laws.

Maybe that will be produced, but so far not to my knowledge.

That in itself does not invalidate the experiment or the results, but it leaves unanswered questions.

The other thing that comes to mind is in regards to observations in the field.

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.

This seems at odds with the experiment. If coal converts to hydrocarbons as reported as a result by the experimenter than wouldn't coal generally be in the deepest level of the stratigraphic column in relation to oil & gas?

Because oil & gas are less dense than coal.

Therefore, oil & gas would rise from the coal and into shallower stratigraphic depth in the column.

Also, many deposits of coal are found at shallow levels (Wyoming strip mine coal), less than 200 feet below ground, where the heat and pressure would never approach a "high-pressure environment under geological conditions," as stated by the experimenter.

Are there questions about the constituents of the various coals used in the experiment?

Would it be possible that rather than building molecules, the experiment distilled pre-existing molecules?

I have nothing concrete to support the above question, admittedly, but for me, it at least needs to be raised.

From the End of Fossil Fuels: "Coal is amazingly pure carbon, often 90% or more, with mineral contents as low as 4%, and ash residues of less than 3%. Curiously, erratic boulders and rock fragments are found in coal, though soils which the vast coal-forming forests supposedly grew upon are fully absent."


"It is claimed that the so-called "fireclays" found underlying many coal beds are the soils upon which the vast forests once grew, but in Nova Scotia there is a coal measure three miles thick, whose structure contains 76 coal seams and 90 fireclay layers. The fireclays are occasionally found without related coal as well."

And this:

"Proceeding into the continually more curious we come across the polystrate (multiple strata) intrusions such as fossil trees. These can penetrate from a carbonate layer--e.g. limestone--into one or more coal layers. This raises the question of how those trees could have stood through successive aeons of forest accumulation and destruction."

Another interesting observation:

"Vein-like Coal. Surely this sort of deposit cannot be considered as "sedimentary". Common sense indicates an injection in a liquid state. Liquid petroleum is found in pockets within such formations, suggesting a common origin of coal and petroleum."

I suppose most of my questions fall along these lines of thought: That the physical observations in the field don't match what the experiment's results would imply.

Does that say the experiment was wrong, faked, or batched?

No, it simply says I still have questions about the experiment.

The experiment will continue to intrigue me, even though I'll say this: "It put me down and set me back."

But hey, that happens in science -- I'd rather have an unpleasant truth, than have a falsity by looking through "rose tinted glasses."

Science is not for the faint of heart.

Quantum_Flux said...

A point of specification ... Isothermic means that the temperature was held constant during the heating process regaurdless of the changes in pressure, volume, or entropy.

It would mean that the pressure tank expands with increases in specific entropy (joules/kg-kelvin) and thereby the pressure would have to decrease as heat is transferred into the system in order to maintain a constant temperature.... meaning that their "pressure tanks" would have to expand like a piston as the peat was being heated (and gas/oil being released from the original solid material). This was probably done with a thermometer/piston adjusting looping control mechanism.

Anaconda said...


The following quote is a description of anthracite coal: "Coal is amazingly pure carbon, often 90% or more, with mineral contents as low as 4%, and ash residues of less than 3%."

As the previous comments have indicated, there is a spectrum of coals with various compositions.

john a. bailo said...,2933,398484,00.html

One theory is that natural hydrocarbons, such as oil or gas, are burning deep in the earth and seeping out through cracks in the area, causing the surface to rapidly heat and generate smoke.

According to the Star, Allen King, a former geologist with the U.S. Forest Service recently stuck a thermometer into the ground and got a reading of 550 degrees — so hot that it melted the glue holding the sole of his boots together.

Anaconda said...

To John A. Bailo:

That's an interesting story.

Hot Ground in Southern California

There is evidence in the geological record in Southern California of hot 'solfataric' activity.

Whether this story is related, who knows, but interesting never the less.

Anaconda said...

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

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."

Certainly, as I pointed out in a preivious comment: "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 all have a high percentage of vitrinite as stated in your cited paper: "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.

Quantum_Flux said...

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 said...

To Quantum_Flux:

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.

Quantum_Flux said...

Yeah, the only coal that experiment was producing was charcoal.

Anaconda said...

You'll pardon me, but I liked the frankness of your earlier response: Grasping a measure of relief from disquieting feelings. I'll share with you, previous, I grabbed a "cold one," in that same spirit. It's natural.

No worries.