Christof Rühl is chief economist at British Petroleum: BP: 'We should see volatility increase'.
Physical peak oil, which I have no reason to accept as a valid statement either on theoretical, scientific or ideological grounds, would be insensitive to prices. In fact the whole hypothesis of peak oil – which is that there is a certain amount of oil in the ground, consumed at a certain rate, and then it's finished – does not react to anything.
Whereas we believe that whatever can be turned into oil strongly depends on technology and technology depends on prices as well.
Therefore there will never be a moment when the world runs out of oil because there will always be a price at which the last drop of oil can clear the market. And you can turn anything into oil into if you are willing to pay the financial and environmental price.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
15 comments:
MIT report debunks China energy myth
OIL LEASES JUMP FOR DRILLING OFF NORWAY COAST
We've already seen that offshore drilling activity is up all around the world, but here's another indicator that offshore is the place to be. Norway sees increase of bidding on offshore oil leases.
StatoilHydro thinks the more the merrier, and obviously other oil companies believe there is crude oil or they wouldn't bid for the leases in the first place.
So, maybe it's a good idea to take a detailed look at the geology offshore of Norway.
The Nowwegian offshore seabed is examined in detail, here.
This is a great combination: Oil companies bidding for seabed leases and a detailed look at what they're bidding on.
TALK OF "PEAK" OIL BRINGS ON GLOBAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN?
Is it a coincidence that when oil prices peaked at $147 a barrel in July, the subprime mortgage meltdown started to heat up?
And what caused the run up in oil prices?
Talk of "Peak" oil, that's what.
So, those same people that where up to their eyeballs in subprime mortagage securities (what security?), where also the same people talking up "Peak" oil, remember Goldman Sachs pushing $200 a barrel oil.
Why were they pushing the idea of oil prices going sky high?
Because they wanted to "make a killing" on the oil futures they were buying.
But you can't have it both ways: The little guy and industry was "hurt" by high oil prices, which in turn stunted the economy, which in turn increased the foreclosure rate on the mortgages.
As big as the "Masters of the Universe" of Wall Street thought they were, their schemes of getting rich, ultimately rested on the backs of the people making the mortgage payments: The little guy.
So their never ending "get rich" schemes, once they turned to bouncing the oil price by fanning the flames of the "Peak" oil hoax became a recipe for financial disaster.
Ironically, it was their desire to "cover" the subprime mortgage mess, and its impending losses, which drove them to "bounce" the price of oil.
So, the financial "wizards" sowed the seeds of their own distress.
The secret of the American economy: The little guy that pays the bills is the engine of great wealth.
The little guys financial pain becomes the "Masters of the Univers's" poison.
Take care of the little guy and the little guy will take care of you.
Will the lesson be learned?
OIL BELOW $88 A BARREL
Reuters reports: Oil below $88 a barrel.
Expectations must change in oil exporting countries or else a vicious downward spiral of demand destruction will create long term damage to oil markets.
Economies are not strong enough to sustain $100 a barrel oil at the present moment.
Oil has a choice: Lead the world to recovery at $75 a barrel, now, or drive the world into world-wide recession by cutting production to maintain $100 a barrel oil, which will finally break, causing a free fall to $50 a barrel oil or less, which will undermine a broad swath of oil investments already made in new exploration and production.
The choice is real and it is immediate:
Short term gain and long term damage versus short term loss and long term health.
The choice is at the feet of the oil producers.
Which choice will they make?
ANSWERING THECOALMAN'S CHALLENGE
Editorial note: TheCoalMan requests that I respond to his questions. Happy to oblige, but in order to ensure maximum readership I am moving my answers to the most current post.
The original line of discussion started at the The Myth of Subduction post. in the comments section.
TheCoalMan's Question:
Great ! You have really been productive in the weekend. (Maybe you should consider getting a life away from the net?)
However, you mostly skidded over the main questions and there is little point in responding before you have addressed these in full. I will respond to all your points AFTER you have addressed these questions. (Remember: Do not just cross-reference into thin air: Explain and argue yourself):
You stated that you did not see the point with the first question,
Try again:
Explain how we estimate the Gibbs free energy of formation in the lab . Do you guys believe that the numbers (from the US Bureau of Standards) tabulated in Kenney et al.,s "interesting" line of arguments, spontaneously established themselves out of nowhere ? (Would not that be against the first law :-) ?)
This one is an absolute must; If you do not address this, which is the simplest possible question, and the most important, it is absolutely guaranteed you have no idea about what you are talking about:
Explain how you can, without any complicated measurements "determine" the relative delta G, between a metastable or stable reactant to a metastable or stable product in any observed spontaneous reaction, i.e., the sign of the free energy of the reaction :-) oops ! Are there some circularity here ?
This one is also extremely important you address yourself:
Show that you know the chemical composition of the different types organic detritus and in particular of oil-prone kerogen; if you do believe that all the millions of different analyses available in the literature and databases are fraudulent; explain what makes you think that. Then explain why researchers all over the world, in all kinds of scientific disciplines, many of which have no connection to the oil industry, should get themselves involved in a conspiracy to deprive the public the knowledge of what kerogen in source rock and oil shales actually is !
This one is extremely important you address (discuss it yourself: (no refs to somewhere else:))
Do you think that oil shales are a conspiracy or actually contain oil; In that case discuss why you think that. Explain why all the available data for oil shales are fraudulent.
This one is also extremely important you address (A full answer please):
Have you ever heard anybody claiming that oil-prone kerogen is made of methane or highly oxidized organic matter ?
These related ones are also extremely important you address (You must have an opinion, right):
Grab the numerous of published detailed laboratory experiments, and explain what is wrong with those experiments.
Then explain what is wrong with the millions of petroleum yield measurements the oil companies have performed.
Then explain how thousands of researches could completely have misunderstood everything, and only Jack Kenney (the guy with 20 , 57 or 65 billion barrels of abiotic oil hidden in his garage) understands what is going on; because his (non-existent) "personnel of investigative scientist" have figured out all such publications are "fraudulent". (Send the clever guy Kenney a request for the names (and payroll records) of all this personnel, hidden in his drawer at the fifth floor.)
And here is the final VITAL QUESTION YOU MUST ANSWER:
How many scientific papers WITH DATA can you list which support:
1) Abiotic commercial oil accumulations.
2) Abiotic formation of something which is similar to most crude oils.
3) That Oil does not form from oil-prone Kerogen OR that OIL does not form oil spontaneously in the lab from oil-prone Kerogen.
Hint: Both you and I can state anything, e.g., the moon is a green cheese; without data which support it, it is maximum an unsubstantiated claim.
Just give references.
ALSO BEFORE I GO THROUGH YOUR STUFF SYSTEMATICALLY, PLEASE ADDRESS THE POINT BELOW:
Anaconda States:
CM, your emphasis on Kenney's estimate of ultimate oil recovery from the Donetsk field doesn't justify your general attack on his qualifications or scientific work.
IF YOU ARE SO COMPLETELY IN FANTASY LAND THAT YOU CANNOT SEE THAT 65 BILLION BBLS IS AN EXTREME SWINDLE, YOU NEED HELP. KENNEY AND Krayushkin MADE UP THE STORY FOR A REASON. YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE A SCIENTIST TO GUESS WHICH REASON.
TOTAL OIL RESOURCES IN UKRAINE EVER IS LESS THAN 3 BILLION BBLS. THE FLANK FIELDS ARE MAINLY PRODUCED; FOUND 18-14 YEARS AGO. THEY CONTAINED VERY LITTLE OIL COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE COUNTRY. MOST OF THE OIL WAS/IS IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PART OF UKRAINE.
THINK OF IT; THE BRAZILIAN SANTOS BASIN IS ALL OVER THE WORLD IN ALL NEWS MEDIA.
ALL OIL COMPANIES TRIES TO GET A PIECE OF THE AROUND 50-60 BILLION BBLS CAKE.
ALASKA IS THE BIG STORY IN THE US CONSIDERING POTENTIAL RESOURCES. EVEN THE MOST OPTIMISTIC GUESSES FOR THESE RESOURCES ARE SMALL COMPARED TO KENNEY'S SECRET OIL IN HIS POCKETS.
THE ENTIRE HISTORIC OIL RESOURCES OF NORWAY ARE AROUND THIS NUMBER !
THE NUMBER IS MORE THAN 80% OF RUSSIA'S COMBINED OIL AND CONDENSATES RESOURCES.
AND THEN YOU ARE GULLIBLE ENAUGH TO BELIEVE A COUNTRY WITH TOTAL HISTORICAL OIL RESOURCES OF AROUND 2-3 BILLION CAN HAVE 65 BILLION BARRELS OF OIL UNKNOWN TO MAN !
ONLY KENNEY ET AL. HAVE EVER HEARD ABOUT IT !
UKRAINE WAS DESPERATE TO GET FOREIGN CAPITAL. HARDLY ANY INTEREST WAS SHOWN BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE MUCH OIL RESOURCES.
AND YOU HAVE BASED YOUR FAITH ON KENNEY'S PRODUCTIONS ! AND KENNEY'S
PRODUCTIONS ARE THE MOST REFERRED BY YOU AND OILISMASTERY. HOW GULLIBLE IS
IT POSSIBLE TO BE ?
YOU ARE BASING YOUR ABIOTIC STORY ON A GROUP OF "SCIENTISTS" WHO HAVE DELIVERED THE LARGEST SWINDLE IN THE HISTORY OF PETROLEUM !
I REPEAT:
YOU ARE BASING YOUR ABIOTIC STORY ON A GROUP OF "SCIENTISTS" WHO HAVE DELIVERED THE LARGEST SWINDLE IN THE HISTORY OF PETROLEUM !
ARE YOU UNABLE TO FIND ANY EVIDENCE FOR THOSE 65 BILLION BARRELS OF OIL ?
IF NOT, SHOULD YOU NOT CONSIDER FINDING A DIFFERENT RESEARCH FIELD, DON'T YOU THINK !
OF COURSE THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE VERSION OF THE STORY; Krayushkin et al., pissed off the people doing the exploration to the extent that they decided to have fun with them and gave them the crazy figures. Krayushkin et al. must in that case have been completely disconnected from the process and been so incompetent they did not understand the they were being duped.
In either case the picture is not pretty for Krayushkin, Jack Kenney and comrades.
DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK A PERSON MAKING UP A CRAZY STORY LIKE KENNEY & Krayushkin's 65 BILLION BARRELS OF OIL, CAN POSSIBLY BE A SERIOUS SCIENTISTS YOU CAN TRUST WILL BE OBJECTIVE AND TRUTHFUL ?
I REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR EXPLANATION; DO YOU THINK THE MARXISTS OR THE OIL MAFIA STOLE THE OIL ? DO YOU THINK KENNEY JUST HAVE HIDDEN THE OIL IN HIS GARAGE,
OR MAYBE IN LAS VEGAS; THE LATTER WOULD BE A SUITABLE PLACE.
For some data: see e.g., Kabyshev et al. (1998) "Hydrocarbon habitat of the Dniepr-Donets Depression" in Marine and petroleum geology, 1998, vol. 15, no3, pp. 177-190 or Ulmishek (2001) "Petroleum Geology and Resources of the Dnieper-Donets Basin, Ukraine and Russia", U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2201-E ). Anybody can check out a story like this: resource estimates and production histories (in addition to the references) are also available on the net on both national and international sites.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To TheCoalMan:
So that is how you want to play.
First, continuously claim I have not answered your questions to your satisfaction so as to justify your failure to answer my questions. Second, put out a bunch of red herrings and straw man arguments distracting from your failure to answer my reasonable questions.
And repeat.
Answer to follow:
To TheCoalMan:
I will answer your questions in good faith, I hope you will respect my time and attention and do the same.
Also, this shoudn't need to be said: It's the readers who need to persuaded, snarky and condesending comments will possibly have a negative impact on their opinion of your arguments.
First, calculating Gibbs free energy in the laboratory is done using a caliometer or a bombcalimeter instrument. Essentially, the idea is to measure the heat release to the surrounding system, whether that be by heat of combustion or by heat of vaporazation. Relevant items of measurement are volume, pressure, and temperatuure.
CM, as I've previously stated, I'm not a scientist. I haven't worked in a laboratory nor in the field. If you think my lack of laboratory experience weakens my credibility or ability to make scientific arguments, you need to expain why that is so for the readers consideration.
If you think the above is relevant to the discussion of Abiotic Oil theory, please tell the readers why. I already asked you to explain why this was important, but you refused my reasonable request. I'm requesting, again, for you to explain why this is important.
Otherwise, it seems to me you are hiding the ball and playing games. That doesn't make you persuasive.
If your point is that it's highly technical and complicated, I'll concede the point, and that for a layman it's hard to challenge or understand the laboratory calculations, although, the concepts are relatively straight forward.
Available energy or potential chemical energy is the energy that a chemical molecule can release upon combustion to do work.
Or in other words, how much work can a given molecule do upon combustion.
On the second half of your question regarding Kenney's calculations, you clearly hold him in contempt and accuse him of engaging in fauldulent behavior.
But even so, you don't directly challenge his figures, but only by implication you attempt to smear Kenney's scientific work.
How honorable is that?
I'll be honest, you come across in these comments as so incredibly condesending that it seems you hold the whole body of scientific work supporting Abiotic theory in contmept, but you don't have the courage to openly discuss the strengths of Abiotic theory or the weaknesses of "fossil" theory.
In regards to Kenney's work:
The implication being that not only are Kenney's calculations fraudulent in this instance, but that his whole body of work is fraudulent.
That is a serious charge, much more serious than simply stating his opinion is wrong or he's made a mistake in his calculations or conclusions.
A serious charge that needs to be supported by substantiated evidence.
Or it's nothing but a wild accusation.
Apparently, you base this on Kenney's estimates of the total production of the Donetsk oil field. And the readers are supposed to take "your say so." But, CM, you offer zero evidence or proof other than your disdain and contempt for his estimates, you don't even offer evidence for Kenney's estimates.
Your typing in upper case letters doesn't give your accusations any added weight, actually my experience is that all capitals tend to annoy readers more than anything else.
It's all on your naked say so.
CM, you need to have back up to have credibility.
That's why I link to news reports and scientific abstracts and full scientific papers when I can get them on the internet.
Linking to supporting documentation is the accepted way to provide backup for your opinions on the internet.
Frankly, with your obvious hostility to abiotic oil theory, even though your geological colleagues acknowledge abiotic hydrocarbons exist (they dispute the amount of abiotic hydrocarbons produced, not its existence), it's that much more important you provide "back up" for your assertions and opinions.
Getting back to the discussion at hand.
CM states: "Do you guys believe that the numbers (from the US Bureau of Standards) tabulated in Kenney et al.,s "interesting" line of arguments, spontaneously established themselves out of nowhere ?"
Answer: No I don't. The figures are provided in a peer reviewed paper, unless, you have evidence that they are incorrect, your implication is again a wild unsupported accusation.
CM: "Explain how you can, without any complicated measurements "determine" the relative delta G, between a metastable or stable reactant to a metastable or stable product in any observed spontaneous reaction, i.e., the sign of the free energy of the reaction :-) oops ! Are there some circularity here?"
Please, don't hold the readers in suspense, tell them why this is so important and why because I can't answer, "it is absolutely guaranteed you, [Anaconda] have no idea about what you are talking about."
I suspect the readers would like to know the significance of your "Gotcha" question.
CM: "Show that you know the chemical composition of the different types organic detritus and in particular of oil-prone kerogen."
Kerogen principally comes in three types: Kerogen I, which supposedly derives principally from lacustrine algae and forms only in anoxic lakes and several other unusual marine environments; supposedly, it is formed mostly from proteins and lipids.
Kerogen II, is supposedly generated from plant remnants like, pollen and spores, plant cuticle, and terrestrial plant resins and animal decomposition resins.
Kerogen II S, has sulfur;
Kerogen III is is formed from terrestrial plant matter that is lacking in lipids or waxy matter. It forms from cellulose, the carbohydrate polymer that forms the rigid structure of terrestrial plants, lignin, a non-carbohydrate polymer formed from phenyl-propane units that binds the strings of cellulose together, and terpenes and phenolic compounds in the plant.
These are general descriptions, there is no chemical description because kerogen is an agglomeration of materials and of course the above description leaves out mention of the heavy hydrocarbons, C215H330, which it must be remembered only average around 15% of the total, the rest is inert minerals.
CM: "If you do believe that all the millions of different analyses available in the literature and databases are fraudulent.."
Did I use the world fraudulent?
No, that's the word you throw around as an accusation.
What I said was this: "Those thousands of "researchers" fool themselves with their own assumptions, failing to realize they have never proved the "first principle," rather, they rely on in their presupposition."
So no I don't accuse them of being fraudulent, rather, I suggest they make an unwarranted asssumption.
Please don't make a straw man argument where there is none.
Although, I will allow there are some researchers that when addressing the Abiotic Oil theory engage in omission and distortion when discussing the theory.
And there are many researchers that seemingly refuse to discuss the strengths of Abiotic theory or the weaknesses of "fossil" theory.
In other words, they refuse to "grab the nettle" of the issues and scientific questions involved in Abiotic oil versus "fossil" theory debate. So far, TheCoalMan that would also describe you, too.
CM: "Do you think that oil shales are a conspiracy or actually contain oil; In that case discuss why you think that. Explain why all the available data for oil shales are fraudulent."
No, I don't think oil shale is a "conspiracy." Rather, it's much the same as the kerogen issue. Geologists have made assumptions, as apparently you have, and then refuse to revise those assumptions when presented with new and additional scientific evidence.
Oil shales contain heavy atomic weight, heavy hydrocarbons, with either the volatiles evaperating off or never being present.
That's why oil shale has to be "cracked," to break long-chain hydrocarbons into short-chain hydrocarbons.
Oil shale most definitely has hydrocarbons in it, but it's not light sweet crude either.
CM: "Have you ever heard anybody claiming that oil-prone kerogen is made of methane or highly oxidized organic matter?"
Frankly, it is stated that kerogen is derived from "highly oxidized organic matter." This process is called "diagenesis."
It doesn't need a longer answer because that's "fossil" theory's answer (if you think my answer is incomplete then suppliment it with whatever you think appropriate.
But if you dispute my answer:
CM, in your opinion what do you believe kerogen is made from?
At this point I'm done playing your game.
CM: "Grab the numerous of published detailed laboratory experiments, and explain what is wrong with those experiments."
I'm not going to jump through your hoops.
Rather:
Cite one published experiment and provide a citation and I'll analyse it.
I've already asked you to substantiate the supposed "diagenesis" process.
Oh, yes, your answer was this:
"There are a lot of molecular models for end-member kerogen macromolecules out there, but even the entire combination of the most advanced analytical equipment can not provide data which gives an unambiguous model for these types of complex highly reduced, highly aliphatic, hydrogen rich macromolecules."
And my response was this:
"Which means in layman's terms: Oil geologists don't know how it happens, it just happens.
That doesn't cut it in scientific terms."
Maybe now you have a different answer with more time to reflect.
CM: "Then explain what is wrong with the millions of petroleum yield measurements the oil companies have performed."
Obviously, this is a rhetorical question delivered in ad hominem fashion.
Again, the scientific papers and abstracts are, here, at the side-bar. You can look at them at your will or not at all, it is not my job to catalog each and every one for your benefit.
That's not "one claim at a time," which was part of your own stated terms of discussion in the first place.
CM stated: "We should take one claim at the time, so that we can keep the discussion focussed."
It seems you failed to follow your own terms.
Besides you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
Finally, you go back to attacking Kenney. And as I stated above, your capital letter rant is tedious and annoying.
You fail to provide any evidence other than your whining rant and ignore the numerous other scientists that have contributed to the substantial body of scientific literature that supports Abiotic Oil theory.
The only scientific work of Kenney's you mention, the "available energy figures," you fail to dipute except by implication.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postscript of this discussion so far.
I ask you gentle readers, did I answer TheCoalMan in goodfaith?
Does acting in goodfaith require TheCoalMan to now answer my questions?
Possibly in a more open, back and forth process, instead of this extremely long, multi-part question format that seems more geared as a "tour de force" that ends discussion, rather than an invitation to further fruitful Socratic dialogue.
And what is the conclusion this website's readers will draw if he fails to engage in goodfaith discussion?
Hopefully, we will see a mature and graceful response from TheCoalMan.
(Feedback from readers would be greatly welcomed.)
To TheCoalMan:
I was left pondering your accusation, quoted in part below, and thinking I didn't remember seeing that figure used by Kenney in any of his written material.
CM states: "IF YOU ARE SO COMPLETELY IN FANTASY LAND THAT YOU CANNOT SEE THAT 65 BILLION BBLS IS AN EXTREME SWINDLE, YOU NEED HELP."
(Personal insults say more about you, CM, than about me.)
So I went back and reviewed the Gas Resources material concerning the Donetsk oil field.
Nowhere in the written material is that number used as an estimate for that field's total reserves.
So, besides your internet SHOUTING which is annoying and doesn't prove anything, where is your evidence that J.F. Kenney stated the Donetsk oil field would produce the figure you cite?
I'm calling your bluff.
If you can't provide the citation for the figure you put in Kenney's mouth, then you are engaged in nothing but a reckless smear job, built out of desperation to discredit Kenney.
In other words, your attempted smear is nothing but a fabrication.
And judging by your repeated attempts to "shout down" Kenney, one is left to ask why the desperation to discredit Kenney?
Of course, the answer is obvious enough, J.F. Kenney's work puts the "hurt" on the central contention of "fossil" theory.
Namely, that organic detritus "transforms" into natural petroleum. Or should I say, that organic detritus converts to kerogen by way of diagenesis and then converts to petroleum by way of catagenesis?
But what you overlook, TheCoalMan, is that Kenney's scientific work is not alone. On the contrary, his work is the American represenative of over 50 years of Russian scientific work on Abiotic Oil theory.
CM, you bit off more than you can chew. And you have revealed your lack of credibility.
Instead of disputing the science, which is entirely acceptable, you have engaged in the slimy low road of smearing an individual without just cause.
Shame on you.
It sounds like the CM has an argument here. I think the thing you need to realize is the crude oil is not a thermodynamically stable form of the hydrocarbons oil is composed of. That's why he stated the question concerning the Gibbs free energy. For abiotic oil to be synthesized in a lab, you would have to put a lot of energy into your beaker of hydrocarbons to get them to turn into crude oil, especially if these hydrocarbons are simple like methane or simple alcohols.
If these same hydrocarbons were in soil or rock for a long time, under lots of pressure, it is still much more thermodynamically stable for them to not assemble as crude oil. From a pure physics standpoint, it is much more believable that living organisms had already done that work and after they die, complex carbon-based molecules breaking down into crude oil in the right conditions.
Does this make abiotic oil impossible? No, but, as a physicist, I would say that it is very, very unlikely to occur, especially in amounts that would make a viable source of energy for human society.
Maxwell, let's be honest. You're not saying that as a physicist, you're saying it as a fundamentalist. By "pure" you mean a priori? Science is based upon observation not a priori religion. As a physicist you should know that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prevents the spontaneous generation of crude oil at pressures below 30 kilobar.
Maxwell:
The thermodynamic stability of hydrocarbons is an important factor. Abiotic Oil theory adresses hydrocarbon stability issues extensively:
"...Any notion which might suggest that hydrocarbon molecules spontaneously evolve in the regimes of temperature and pressure characterized by the near-surface of the Earth, which are the regimes of methane creation and hydrocarbon destruction, does not even deserve consideration." -- Emmanuil B. Chekaliuk, geologist, 1968
Specifically: "...regimes of methane creation and hydrocarbon destruction..."
This is a 1968 quote from a Russian geologist who contributed to the development of Abiotic Oil theory. Clearly, hydrocarbon stability has been a focus of Abiotic Oil theory for decades.
So I do realize hydrocarbon's stability is an issue in the debate over petroleum's origins.
Maxwell stated: "That's why he stated the question concerning the Gibbs free energy."
Quite so.
But stating hydrocarbon's molecular stability is an important factor is only half a proposition; one must state why hydrocarbon's level of molecular stability prevents abiotic formation of hydrocarbons.
Maxwell, you go on to state a reason against Abiotic Oil theory:
"If these same hydrocarbons were in soil or rock for a long time, under lots of pressure, it is still much more thermodynamically stable for them to not assemble as crude oil."
Be careful because your above proposition argues even more strongly against "fossil" theory.
Why?
Because "fossil" theory in essense, argues that hydrocarbons DO "assemble as crude oil" from disassociated hydrogen and carbon.
The difference between "fossil" theory and Abiotic Oil theory is the source of the hydrogen and carbon and the conditions of formation, i.e., the pressure and temperature requirements.
That is a critical distinction.
Also, one varient of Abiotic Oil theory postulates that catalysts like iron can facilitate hydrocarbon formation in a slightly relaxed pressure and temperature regime in a process called serpentization.
Maxwell, you state:
"From a pure physics standpoint, it is much more believable that living organisms had already done that work and after they die, complex carbon-based molecules breaking down into crude oil in the right conditions."
No.
That's an inaccurate statement of "fossil" theory. Organic detritus, "dead" organisms, don't break-down into hydrocarbons. Rather, according to "fossil" theory, itself, dead organisms, low potential chemical energy molecules, "build-up" to heavy atomic weight hydrocarbons, C215H330, in the so-called "diagenesis" process and then break-down into lighter atomic weight hydrocarbons in the so-called "catagenesis" process.
Maxwell, your scientific reasoning completely leaves out mention of "diagenesis," which is the same issue, TheCoalMan, failed to address.
And I pointed out in my responses to TheCoalMan.
"Diagenesis" is an assumption, not a quantifiable, scientically recognized process.
One can't assume "diagnesis" specifically because it does go against, recognized physical constraints which you, yourself identify: Thermodynamically, crude oil won't assemble in the crustal environment (paraphrasing).
So, with all due respect, Maxwell, your concluding statement: "Does this make abiotic oil impossible? No, but, as a physicist, I would say that it is very, very unlikely to occur, especially in amounts that would make a viable source of energy for human society," is more applicable to "fossil" theory than Abiotic theory.
Because Abiotic theory does adress the critical variables, pressure and temperature, in a quantifiable manner, while "fossil" theory does not.
Abiotic theory addresses the factor of pressure in hydrocarbon stability, while "fossil" theory has specifically denied pressure's role in maintaining hydrocarbon stability in environments of high temperature.
And "fossil" theory denies pressure's role in maintaining hydrocarbons' molecular stability even though mineralology has long recognized the role pressure plays in molecular stability in mineral formation and destruction.
And field observations back up Abiotic Theory, as reported off the coast of Brazil and in the Gulf of Mexico, where deep, hot oil has been found.
Oil is found to exist in regimes of high temperatures if there is co-existant regimes of high pressure.
The field observations back-up Abiotic theory, that's why TheCoalMan was so determined to dispute the field observations.
The existance of deep, hot crude oil validates Abiotic Oil theory.
Postscript:
Maxwell:
For "fossil" theory to have any credibility, the so-called "diagenesis" process must be addressed in a direct and detailed manner.
This can't be over emphasized.
May I suggest that this is why "fossil" theory advocates are so reluctant to discuss "diagenesis."
Because they have no answer to the objections that "diagenesis" violates recognized fundamental physical constraints.
Maxwell, you are a physicist, so surely, you recognize the issue must be directly adressed or the "fossil" theory proposition fails.
Maxwell:
Understanding that scientists and those trained in the sciences have little patience for those who aren't, I thought it might be significant to provide scientific documentation. This scientific paper entitled: Generation of methane in the Earth's mantle: In situ high pressure–temperature measurements of carbonate reduction (2004), was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
As stated in the paper's abstract:
"The study demonstrates the existence of abiogenic pathways for the formation of hydrocarbons in the Earth's interior and suggests that the hydrocarbon budget of the bulk Earth may be larger than conventionally assumed."
As further stated:
"Of particular interest are the stability and formation of reduced species such as methane and heavier hydrocarbons."
Maxwell, this paper directly addresses your concern that my analysis, therefore, Abiotic Oil theory's analysis in general did not devote attention to molecular stability of hydrocarbons.
Another quote from the above paper makes that clear:
"Many factors are known to control the stability of carbon-bearing phases in the C-O-H system, including pressure, temperature, C/H ratio, and oxidation state, and it has long been appreciated that the relevant species in this system are C, O2,H2, CO, CO2,CH4, and H2O."
Another quote:
"The importance of pressure is straightforward as it increases by ≈1 GPa (10 kbar) for every 30 km of depth in the Earth. Kimberlite eruptions, for example, typically come from depths near 150 km (5 GPa). Higher-pressure work has been completed on the effects of various species in the C-O-H system on the melt characteristics of mantle minerals, but these results do not directly assess the stability of carbon-bearing phases."
Finally:
"We report here in situ high pressure and temperature experiments to show that methane readily forms by reduction of carbonate under conditions typical for the Earth's upper mantle. The results may have significant implications for the hydrocarbon budget at depth in the planet."
Maxwell, it would seem that your comments fail to accurately reflect the state of scientific research at the present time.
Anaconda,
The combination of absurdities, mud-slinging at all the serious scientists who have worked with the topic of petroleum formation, the "Hitler learned it All from the Muslims" and the "scientists" actually believe that dinosaurs and pond scum magically..." quality arguments of you and Oilismastery have been polluting the net for a long time. It can either be ignored or confronted. So I decided to do a little confrontation.
Whether you two (Oilismastery & Anaconda) are "clever guys" who get a kick out of making up these absurdities and enjoy the response from the few gullible's who buy in, or you really are completely blank slates in anything more complex than the alphabet is difficult to decide.
However, it does not matter. My purpose was to confront your nonsense, discuss it; force you to tell the reader what you know (or don't know) . You have given me more than I expected. Your knowledge of the subject was probed for all to see.
At the same time, I have below placed some real-world discussion on some of the major "abiotic oil spins" onto the net.
Apart form your spin, you did not produce a single data point for any of your claims. Anybody, but you (and maybe OilIsmastery) will understand and see that; and that was what I was fishing for.
You see Anaconda. If you want to participate in anything in society, it is required that you obtain a minimum amount of basic knowledge in the relevant field. You and Oilismastery are like jet pilots who do not understand what the wings on the plane are for; reading your productions is as surreal as listening to 5 year old kids discussing sex.
As others have told you before (On http://geology.about.com: Geology Guide says):
"I’m tempted to say that the second law of thermodynamics is the last refuge of a scoundrel. It’s certainly a touchstone for a lot of quackery. Whoever it is runs the Oil Is Mastery blog argues in the tendentious, lawyerly fashion familiar from the creationists and warming deniers, with an equally tenuous grasp of science and logic and the same petulance of a thwarted child simmering underneath. Thanks for the classic example of what I’m taking about. "
(And it must have touched a nerve since "scoundrel" suddenly becomes a part of your vocabulary.)
Every single point you have made in response to my initial post shows even clearer that my statement "A Cacophony of ignorance " was straight on the money.
You maybe thinking you are an accomplished "abiotic researcher" since people seldom bother to follow up your endless "replies" in any "abiotic" discussion. Unfortunately for you, people simple do not bother to follow up on a person which is as
obviously void of any real knowledge of the subject as you. You can repeat your one-liners and endless references
to irrelevant news stories or even fabricated stories of other people which enjoy hooking the ultra-gullible's (e.g., Thomas Brown). As I explained initially, I am on a fishing trip :-)
But I promised to respond, so I will.
First: You guys have completely misunderstood what the "serious" "abiotic vs biotic" disagreement is about. All serious geo-scientists completely agree that abiotic hydrocarbons are common.
Silly comments like: "Michael Lewan said it so even the biogenic theorists admit they are wrong and have no clue." does indeed show that someone does not have a clue, and it is not Mike.
We can all agree that most people are venting some methane out of their rear ends;
(It is called farting in layman's terms) however that does not mean that any commercial dry gas accumulations in the world are formed by human gases. THAT ANY ORGANIC MOLECULE CAN BE SYNTHESIZED DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING. THE ISSUE IS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS; NOT WHAT IS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE. AND THAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WITH ALL THE ARGUMENTS YOU HEAR ABOUT ABIOTIC OIL. WHAT IS ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE CAN ONLY BE EVALUATED WITH DATA.
THEREFORE A KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT DATA IS AVAILABLE IS FUNDAMENTAL TO ANY PARTICIPATION IN THE DISCUSSION.
NEITHER ANACONDA NOR OILISMASTERY HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT THE LITERATURE AND THE DATA AVAILABLE; IN A SUBJECT EXTREMLY DATA RICH; BECAUSE OF IT'S ENORMOUS ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE.
The few references on your website to abiotic gas occurrences are completely irrelevant to a claim that the worlds commercial oil and gas resources are "abiotic".
When petroleum scientist reject that COMMERCIAL ABIOTIC OIL ACCUMULATIONS EXISTS,
it simply reflects that nobody have ever seen an example. There may be a few examples of commercial abiotic GAS accumulations, but even that is unclear, and no conclusive data have been obtained so far.
So let us start to the analysis of Anaconda; the "abiotic researchers":
$
$ CM: "I suggest the first topic will be the statement: 'The second law of thermodynamics
$ prohibits formation of petroleum from organic detritus.'."
$
$ You contradict yourself right off the bat.
$
$ CM: "Since there is absolutely nothing of relevance in the "papers" you reference..."
$ But then you say, "You guys constantly refer to him [J.F. Kenney], right."
$
f
I leave it to the reader to figure out what you think you are trying to say her.
$ Yes, and I have referenced his scientific paper on thermodynamics published in the
$ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 2002.
$ on this website, where the paper is permanently available by direct link at the side-bar, and
$ at other websites.
$
$ I discuss the Second Law of Thermaldynamics at the above linked website.
$ Please bring to my attention any issues you have with my discussion of the Second Law of
$ Thermaldynamics and how it constrains
$ against the central contention of "fossil" theory that orgainic detritus turns into petroleum.
$
Anaconda, you never discuss anything. You simply repeat the one-liners again and again without any discussion.
The whole thing is extremely simple. Jack Kenney claim that the second law prohibit formation of petroleum from methane and oxidized organic matter. Sometimes he extend the statement to "prohibit formation from organic detritus" which would mean the second law prohibit formation of oil from essentially any organic matter. And then he try to mock by using examples of dinosaurs and squeezed fish.
Kenney is simply clueless about the research in the field the last forty years. NOBODY think petroleum forms from dinosaurs, pond scum, elephants, methane or highly oxidized organic matter. Kenney is using a tactics of trying to ridicule the other side, by assigning them silly views they do not have. That is also a tactics heavily applied by you and Oilismastery.
The scientific literature is full of evidence that oil mainly forms from REDUCED organic matter: highly aliphatic macromolecules synthesized by algae as main components in their cell walls (protective tissues).
(You will find thousands of references by simple google searches.)
Take some algae concentrates, extract the macromolecules, heat it in an inert atmosphere in a reaction chamber, and it will spontaneously partly decompose into a fluid in most respect similar to crude oil, including tons of biomarkers. Take some fossil algal residue out of a source rock, repeat the experiment and you will get a similar fluid. Check the literature. Kenney's "view" is non-existent and only sneaked into a paper dealing with something completely different; however, no data just claims. Then you will find hundreds of modern detailed studies, packed with data showing the fossil link.
Pick a piece of wood out of a brown coal. Heat it in an inert atmosphere in a reaction chamber, and it will spontaneously decompose partly into a fluid very different from oil, but it does contain tons of methane; that is why coal often give origin to gas deposits.
As clearly demonstrated by your own attempt to say something about kerogen, you do not even have the slightest idea about what the composition of oil-prone kerogen is. (you give the most hilarious self contradictory descriptions (see later) and also are completely ignorant about the scientific literature on the subject.)
Oil-prone kerogen has chemical potential above all of the molecules found in petroleum. Simply do the experiment above, and you have already proven it. For it to happen, the spontaneous reaction must have negative Gibbs free energy; it happens. You do not need to go any further. It follows from the second law of thermodynamics.
Kenney's tactics is simply to make a ridiculous example, and counting on the the audience have no idea what he is saying.
Example:
"Because milk is made of gold, it is theoretically impossible that it can give origin to cheese; because cheese does not contain any gold. "
This is unfortunately the level of the "Scientist" Kenney and his followers like Anaconda and OilIsMastery.
J. Kenney and coworkers are fully aware that the second law of thermodynamics does NOT prohibit formation of petroleum from kerogen. In their web publication "The Evolution of Multicomponent Systems at High Pressures: VI" they state: "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."
Excellent, we actually agree that there do indeed exist organic matter which have high enough chemical potential to be the source of molecules more complex than methane. When Kenney state: "The assertion that natural petroleum (“crude oil”) is a “fossil fuel” ... is a nonsensical, child’s fairy-story, supported by Little-Moron Logic and defended by lies." he is just in his normal loving way having fun with us.
And we all also agree that the source material for crude oil certainly is not pheromones, which Kenney so cleverly mention to further draw the discussion down in the mud. Hence we simply need to see what the type of organic material we find in huge quantities in oil shales and other petroleum source rocks and to check if those materials have high enough chemical potential to spontaneously decompose to form crude oil. And for those of you who have not heard about kerogen: the most common oil generating variety is composed mainly of remains of protective cell-walls of algae: and I am sure you would agree it is not likely protective cellular tissues are made of methane (a low molecular weight gas).
Then notice another statement of Kenney: "With increasing polymerization, the n-alkane molecules manifest increased chemical potential of very approximately 2.2 kcal per added carbon atom, or CH2 unit. " (Believe it or not; Kenney is right; because it is quite easy to can read tables of standard thermodynamic data.)
Hence, extrapolating available thermodynamic data, if kerogen should be able to form natural crude oil, it must be composed of large "polymeric" molecules (with carbon numbers (and CH2 units) much higher than the molecules we observe in crude oil) of highly aliphatic strongly reduced carbon. Bingo ! That is exactly what biochemist and organic geochemist have be demonstrating for decades. To get a feeling for available literature on the subject, google "biopolymer", "highly aliphatic biopolymer", "Kukersite", "Messel Oil Shale", "Kerogen polymer" , "Green River Oil Shales", "Biopolymer molecular model", "Suberin", "Suberan","Cutan","Organic Petrology","TSOP". We can hence safely conclude that the second law of thermodynamics does not prohibit formation of petroleum from kerogen because the kerogen has a range of chemical compositions which Kenney says have high enough chemical potential to generate crude oil ! Thank you Kenney, for bringing that to everybody's attention !
And then we have the silly billy story that kerogen is actually formed from oil; like what Anaconda is claiming.
In this case, the second law of thermodynamics actually prohibits it to happen; the potential of the oil-prone kerogen is higher than any of the oil molecules. But this kind of detail does not shake the faith of the "abiotic oil researchers".
(Have a look at micro-graphs of a torbanite: a variety of "coal" made entirely of algal colonies. You will probably find many nice pictures googling images. Oil seeping into the rock and forming an algal colony mixture !. You are really hilarious Anaconda; we will revisit this later. However, the kerogen of the torbanite will give you an extreme oil yield if pyrolyzed.)
And then Kenney humor us even more: "The personnel of Gas Resources Corporation have examined every such article (about petroleum generation from kerogen [my insert]) that has been brought to their attention during the past two decades. Not one such article has withstood scientific scrutiny. All have been determined to be fraudulent.".
The personnel of Gas Resources Corporation !!! ??? have engaged in scientific scrutiny ??? !!!! and have determined that everybody else are frauds ??? !!!
The world is waiting with anticipation for the crowd of investigative "Gas Resources Corporation" scientists Kenney has hidden in his drawer (at the 5th floor) together with his 20 or 65 billion bbl.'s of abiotic oil (and his copies of "How to fool both the marxist-leninists and the extreme right for dummies" and "The complete idiots guide to duping "competent oil marked analysts" such as Jerome R. Corsi (Ph.D.), Craig R. Smith (respected investor), and Raymond Learsy (oil commodity expert ?)").
The list is endless, but before Jack Kenney can show were the 20 or 65 billion bbl.'s of abiotic oil Kenney and Krayushkin claim they have found (>14 years ago) has disappeared, anything claimed by Jack Kenney without any data or theory, must be taken as a made up story, as all the other demonstrable fabrications he has presented.
$ CM, you attack J.F. Kenney, but the Dnieper-Donetsk basin oil field is a fact —
$ how much oil will ultimately be recovered, can only be estimated.
$
$
Anaconda, are you completely number blind ? Do you know the difference between 10 liter and 10 billion tons ? Nobody is denying that a few petroleum fields were discovered in the given area. The point is that they are completely classical petroleum fields, with no indication of any abiotic component.
As I pointed out earlier:
THE 65 BILLION BARRELS NUMBER IS AN EXTREME SWINDLE (20 BILLION IS SIMILARLY CRAZY). KENNEY AND Krayushkin MADE UP THE STORY FOR A REASON. YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE A SCIENTIST TO GUESS WHICH REASON.
TOTAL OIL RESOURCES IN UKRAINE EVER IS LESS THAN 3 BILLION BBLS. THE FLANK FIELDS ARE MAINLY PRODUCED; FOUND 18-14 YEARS AGO. THEY CONTAINED VERY LITTLE OIL COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE COUNTRY. MOST OF THE OIL WAS/IS IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PART OF UKRAINE.
ALASKA IS THE BIG STORY IN THE US CONSIDERING POTENTIAL RESOURCES. EVEN THE MOST OPTIMISTIC GUESSES FOR THESE RESOURCES (AND ALL PREVIOUS RESOURCES) ARE SMALL COMPARED TO KENNEY'S SECRET OIL IN HIS POCKETS.
THE ENTIRE HISTORIC OIL RESOURCES OF NORWAY ARE AROUND THIS NUMBER !
THE NUMBER IS MORE THAN 80% OF RUSSIA'S COMBINED OIL AND CONDENSATES RESOURCES.
AND THEN YOU ARE GULLIBLE ENAUGH TO BELIEVE A COUNTRY WITH TOTAL HISTORICAL OIL RESOURCES OF AROUND 2-3 BILLION CAN HAVE 65 BILLION BARRELS OF OIL UNKNOWN TO MAN !
Anaconda says: "how much oil will ultimately be recovered, can only be estimated";
Brilliant Anaconda. But if the container is 10 liter, do you think the ultimate recovery can be 5000 liter ?
ONLY KENNEY ET AL. HAVE EVER HEARD ABOUT IT !
I will give some details about these fields below as well :-)
The point is that there is absolutely nothing with these fields that indicate they have anything to do with abiotic fluids. That critical part of the story is completely fabricated, as is the size of the fields.
$
$ Do you dispute that for Kenney's and his associates' work they were
$ awarded the State Prize of Ukraine in the field of Science and Technology in 1993?
$
I can neither reject, nor can I confirm that this is a true story; Remember; It is mentioned in a postscript in the English translation of the paper (translated by Jack Kenney; The man not famous for accuracy and truthfulness). But this one should be easy to figure out and I will make it easy for you. Here is a fully written letter you can send to the Embassy of Ukraine to get full clarifications of the issues:
Dear Sirs,
As an abiotic researcher, as a part of my scientific research, it has come to my attention that the oil fields of the northern flanks of the Dneipr-Donets basin(discovered in the early nineties), used by the main advocates for abiotic oil occurrences (and even reported and provided as proof in the paradigm changing classics "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil." by the famous abiotic petroleum scientist Jerome Corsi & (Craigh Smith)), may in fact be somewhat smaller than what has been reported by your country man Vladelin Kraushkin and the glorious driller and state equation man Jack Kenney. Since these two abiotic authorities form the main basis for my Anaconda's and Oilismastery's research, it is important to clarify this potential discrepancy in the "abiotic theory". The numbers provided by these authorities on abiotic oil, varies from 20 to 65 billion barrels of oil. Your country man, Vladelin Kraushkin report the oil quantities to represent 57 to 65 billion barrels of oil, the first number (57 billion barrels) is calculated using the heaviest oils reported and the second number (65 billion barrels) is calculated using the lightest oils reported. Since your other country men (petroleum scientists and oil related officials) and all international agencies do report that the total sum of all oils ever discovered in your country is between 2-3 billion barrels, and most of that oil has been discovered far away from the northern flank of the Dneipr-Donets basin, and the daily oil production in Ukraine the last 18 years has been declining from just above 100,000 to around 65,000 barrels (in 2005), is is difficult to accommodate Vladilin Krauskins 65 billion barrels of oil estimate. If Ukraine, indeed discovered such an amount of oil (80% of the current proven oil resources of Russia), it appear strange that nobody else in the country (and in the world) knows about it, and that such a low daily oil production could lead to the current estimate of Ukraine's oil resources to just above 700 million barrels. I would much appreciate if you could provide me with the official numbers from the northern flanks of the Dneipr-Donets basin. Also, I would much appreciate an explanation of how all other Ukrainian authorities on the subject operate with so dramatically different and obviously false very small numbers.
Hence, this letter is to alert you that somebody may have stolen more than 62 billion barrels of oil from your country. I have calculated that if a group of undercover CIA agents, each fly out of Ukraine with hidden 16 liter bottles of oil to USA, they could easily manage to steal that amount of oil in the 18 years time window, providing more than 90 million CIA agents made such a flight; every day for 18 years. In that way, they managed to provide USA, free of charge, a total of 9 million barrels of oil a day. Hence, they robbed your country every day with around hundred times (100 times) the amount of oil that you thought you were producing (mostly from fields far away of the northern flank of the Dneipr-Donets basin). That is probably how it was done, and you would not have noticed (providing you did not get the fuel bill for the jet fuel required for the 600,000 transatlantic flights necessary to fly the agents back and forth between Ukraine and USA every day.) ! (Actually I find that scenario more likely, compared to the scenario that Vladilin Krauskin & Jack Kenney simply have been hiding the oil in Kraushkin's garage; I doubt that 10,000,000,000,000.0 liters of oil would fit.) Regarding this oil theft I can ensure your excellency that I will be up, day and night, eight days a week, searching the internet for hints of where CIA has hidden this oil; in their effort to deprive us US citizens from affordable gasoline.
Another issue which has been on my heart, is the State Prize in Science and Technology, which Jack Kenney (the famous abiotic driller with 65 billion barrels of oil hidden somewhere ?) has written as a postscript to his English translation of Kraushkin & comrade's authoritative scientific paper on the northern flank of the Dneipr-Donets basin, that Krauskin and comrades received for making the oil and gas discoveries in the area. Since Ukraine at the time was known to the most corrupt old-boy club communist-era-inherited bureaucratic society of the former CCCP, is it possible that the difficulty in getting confirmation of this important information relates to falsified records from the period ? While, Kenney is the main authority on abiotic oil and the one who have repeatedly informed the west about the giant size (65 billion barrels) of these fields, is it possible that the corrupt authorities at the time, to embarrass Kenney, has hidden the records of this glorious event. Or maybe it has been filed incorrectly (under B for BS?), or maybe even the State Prize given was not for Science and Technology, but rather in the field of Con Artistry; for Krauschin's famous rendition of "Kalinka Kalinka Kalinka Moya". I would appreciate if you could investigate your files so that we can get a confirmation that Kenney is not making up this story as well (as some idiots have been inferring that he and Krauskin did with their 65 billion barrels of abiotic oil story.) And if you would be able to find the records, I can ensure you that nobody will make the inference that Krauskin et al., simply got the price as part of the sequence of old-boy club mutual friend-gifts that was so common in the corrupt days around the Ukrainian independence. (I am very familiar with the fact that the story of how the Russia friendly old-boy club poisoned your president is purely a scam, spread by the opponents of commercial quantities of abiotic oil.)
I very much appreciate you rapid response,
Sincerely yours
Anaconda
Abiotic Researcher Magnifique
PS
Specializing in highly reduced aliphatic organic matter made from highly oxidized organic matter and methane.
DS
Send this one to the Ukrainian embassy, and maybe we will have full clarity in all these important issues within a few days; if we are lucky.
$ CM, your emphasis on Kenney's estimate of ultimate oil recovery from the Donetsk field
$ doesn't justify your general attack on his qualifications or scientific work.
$
Ultimate recovery !!! You are cracking me up. The numbers given by Kenney et al are insane exaggerated fabrications !!!
$ You are over playing your hand, and unless you can cite other reasons
$ why his work should not be considered authoritative, your attack is unjustified.
$
$ In other words, dispute the science.
$
$
If you think pointing out that Kenney is a swindler who has made the most crazy claim of "own" oil discoveries in history is disputing science, I think most people would agree "your science" is missing good old fashioned sanity.
When it comes to the quality of the few of Kenney's papers which have scientific content, those papers are ok. Do notice though they are mainly tiny refinements of Chekaliuk's work, and the best description is: A lot from the "father", hardly anything from the son, and nothing of the holy spirit. It is a fear question, seeing Kenney's other activities, to ask if the papers actually ARE Chekaliuk's previously unpublished works. (The second some math is required, he has to hire people to do the stuff for him.)
$
$ Also, it's presumptive that in any discussion you provide "scientific argument"
$ how organic detritus is converted into petroleum.
$ I look forward to your positive scientific arguments on that topic.
$
To get a feeling for available literature on the subject, google "biopolymer", "highly aliphatic biopolymer", "Kukersite", "Messel Oil Shale", "Kerogen polymer" , "Green River Oil Shales", "Biopolymer molecular model", "Suberin", "Suberan","Cutan","Organic Petrology","TSOP", "Hydrous pyrolysis", "pyrolysis", "Kerogen formation",
"Selective preservation of aliphatic macromolecules","Non-hydrolyzable aliphatic macromolecules". "Laboratory formation of oil","Artificial Oil Formation","Michael Lewan pyrolysis","John Winters pyrolysis",
"Brian Horsfield pyrolysis", "biomacromolecules", "biomacromolecules De Leeuw","TSOP Rock-Eval Pyrolysis": good reference list","flash pyrolysis","pyrolysis polymer","Free radical reactions Kerogen" etc etc
Then get the material and read; Goto a University library. When you have done that, we can have a discussion. This is not a free class in basic petroleum science for Anaconda. Also borrow some basic
texts in math, physics (also continuum physics; you will need that), chemistry, organic chemistry, geology and petroleum geology; you will need that as a platform. Then we can move on to the more interesting stuff of petroleum generation,
mass transport phenomena and multiphase flow in porous compacting media.
$
$ Discussions are a two-way street, so be prepared to offer "proof" for
$ your contentions supporting "fossil" theory, and be ready to offer criticisms on
$ Abiotic Oil theory as well.
$
Anaconda, You are the one who ignores all scientific literature. You appear to be allergic.
I have asked specific questions you need to address on this, but you just ignore them.
The proof is in the literature. EVERYTHING you have claimed has no basis in data.
When you are asked to provide data or references to data, you just spin and do
not provide anything.
$ Now, to your ground rules for debate:
$
$ Limiting debate to you, OilIsMastery and I is counter-productive.
$
$ This isn't a debate about my knowledge or yours or OilIsMastery's for that matter,
$ this is a debate about Abiotic Oil theory, so whoever wants to contribute should be able to do so.
$
You are absolutely wrong. This is an examination of you. You are the one who is running around and making unsubstantiated and often meaningless claims:
The claim: "organic detritus is highly oxidized organic matter" is as informative as saying Water is Cold; yes it may be cold, but sometimes it is hot.
Anaconda, you are simply repeat-parroting a stupid statement
by Kenney. Organic detritus can be highly oxidized; in which case it will naturally not give origin
to oil-prone kerogen. Under anoxic conditions, however, highly reduced aliphatic macromolecules are enriched
in sediments and actually with very little chemical changes forms oil-prone kerogen.
In many source rocks, the biopolymers are beautifully preserved, and you can see rocks which are composed
of 100% algal remains; algal colonies. Do google searches you will find a rich literature.
Do google search on the crazy views of Kenney and You and OilIsMastery, refuting the "fossil" nature
of source rock and oil, you will mainly find Kenney, You, OilIsMastery and a tiny number of workers who have
never presented any data to refute the formation of oil-prone kerogen enriched source rocks.
And Anaconda. NOBODY doubt that abiotic hydrocarbons exist. Nobody though has demonstrated commercial abiotic oil deposits.
$
$
$
$ So far, the door has not been "broken down" with too many participants. There has been only a
$ handful of consistent discussion members, so I say the more the merrier.
$
$ Why limit who can participate?
$
$
For the simple reason, you alone will saturate the pages with spin, as you have
demonstrated in full here. Adding more spinners doe not get anybody anywhere.
$ CM, please... Participate in discussion, absolutely, I welcome your discussion,
$ but it seems a little early for you to be literally taking names and dictating
$ terms at this early point in the discussion.
$
$ If you make a comment on this website, I'll be happly to respond. If you think I'm "playing dirty," point it out.
$
Dirty was not the words I used: I think a called it a "cacophony of ignorance". The evidence for that
is growing exponentially.
$
$
$ If your assertion has merit with readiers that will weaken my credibility.
$
My dear ANACONDA; You do not have any credibility because you fabricate stories, never consult any scientific literature; (apart from the writings of the biggest swindler in the history of petroleum; Jack Kenney; The guy with 65 billion barrels of oil, only he and comrades have heard about) and never provide ANY DATA to support your spin.
$
$
$ I'm also happy to discuss Abiotic Oil on a website of your choice, but would like to do it here to make a record.
$
$ I'm flexible in terms of discussion. Demanding too many rules tends to be a pretext for not debating at all.
$
$ Bottom line, I want to discuss Abiotic Oil theory, that's why I comment on the Oil Is Mastery website with
$ regularity.
$
You do not discuss Anaconda. Discussion require knowledge. You do not have any, apart from fine-reading
News articles and Kenney's inventions. You simply, create the most hilarious conspiracy theories by combining news
articles written by journalists having no idea about the issues.
You must familiarize yourself with the modern petroleum literature, before anybody can take you seriously.
$
$
$ I've been happy to engage in spirited debate and challenge and will continue to do so.
$
$ And if you leave me like "the Black Knight" of Monte Python fame, then so be it.
$
Don't insult "the Black Knight". He had a spine. He did not FABRICATE stories to aid his argument.
$
$ After all, I'm here for the truth, not my ego, although, I'm no better than the next guy,
$ I want to be persuasive to the extent the facts and scientific arguments allow.
$
If you are interested in the truth, than start to truthfully report what scientists say. So far you are light years away from that. In fact as we will see, you claim all petroleum scientists are saying the exact opposite to what they are saying :-)
$
$
$ Now, to your examples of my "tomfoolery."
$
$ Example #1.
$
$ I stand corrected on the fact that sediments exist in Lake Baikal.
$
$ I didn't catch "the Russian to English translation" issue.
$ I missed the sediment profiles you point to. Thank you for pointing that out to me and the readers.
$
$ Your point is well taken.
$ But then you go on and "overplay" this fact that there is sediment in the lake.
$
$
You are really funny ! YOUR ENTIRE STORY WAS BASED ON THE "FACT" THERE IS NO SEDIMENTS, AND THEREFORE NO SOURCE ROCKS.
$
$
$ You assume that because there is sediment in the lake, that means the oil comes from the sediment.
$
$ Or you assume that because there is shale in the lake means oil comes from the shale.
$
$ (This website has hosted discussion and debate about Green River Shale previously, midway through the
$comments.)
$
$ You are so used to assuming that point (oil comes from sediments and/or shales) that "somehow" you don't have to
$ prove that for your contention to have validity.
$
$ Wrong. My one ground rule for debate: Assumptions or presuppositions carry little scientific weight or
$persuasiveness.
$
$ CM: "MAYBE AFTER SEING HOW YOU ARE ABLE TO COMPLETELY FOOL YOURSELF..." CM goes on to say,
$ "YOU MAY TAKE A MINUTE TO CONSIDER THAT YOU HAVE BEEN DOING THAT WITH ALL THE OTHER POINTS YOU
$ HAVE BEEN MAKING..."
$
$ CM, again, I appreciate your pointing out the presence of sediment in lake Baikal, but I point to all the scientific papers
$ available,
$ here, on the Oil Is Mastery website, at the side-bar. I didn't author those scientific papers.
$ Your argument isn't just with me, but with all those scientists as well.
$
Your entire story was based on the "FACT" (NO SEDIMENTS = NO SOURCE ROCK). But the "FACT" turned out to be a NON-FACT since 21000 meters of sediments are present in the rift. That is a THICK SEDIMENTARY BASIN.
THAT WAS MY POINT. AN ENTIRE WEB PAGE BASED ON A NON-FACT; ANY awake reader would have noticed,
since it was spelled out in several of the stories you linked to. Hence, the example proved that you do not
even read the material you link to. Instead, because you were fixated on an incorrect assumption, you got confused and even mocked the worker referring to the sediments as being unspecific !!!!
$ But if you want to make me "your whipping boy" then alright.
$
$ We'll see who gets whipped in the end.
Your self confidence is noticed. Unfortunately it is as unwarranted as your Lake Baikal story, and
temperature rating of pipe story or "MANTLE generation of diamondoids (NOT Diamonds)" fabrication.
$
$ "Fossil" theory maintains it takes "millions" of years for organic detritus to turn into petroleum
$ by way of diagenesis and catagenesis in the "generating kitchen."
$
$
$ So CM, OIM provides the quote below from Larry Cathles after citing several quotes from one of the Lake Baikal
$news
$ articles.
$
$
$ CM: "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.'"
$
You are talking nonsense again. Larry Catles is not talking about generation of petroleum.
That is your incorrect observation. That is a blunt fabrication my dear Anaconda.
There may be some evidence for more than typical flow rates. Full stop. The area is tectonically very active with potential reservoirs at many levels. Seal breaches and high levels of flow focussing etc are common and expected in any petroleum system models.
$
$
$
$ Your point CM? After all Larry Cathles is making the Abiotic Oil argument in that quote.
$
$ Oil is moving up "from depth" now. It's an ongoing process, which is consistent Abiotic Oil theory.
$
Total rubbish. Oil is moving at irregular rates. That is it. Similarly, ground water display transient periods with rapid discharge as e.g., the result of tectonic movements. So according to your logic a water burst is also consistent with "abiotic oil theory". The next thing we are going to hear from you, when water flushes out of a man hole after an earth quake is that that is also according to "abiotic theory".
$
$
$ The larger article from which the Larry Cathles quote comes from makes clear Cathles was referring to Abotic Oil.
$
$
You have a hyper active imagination. Larry Cathles has never made any statement of the sort.
You are simply making up this story;
SHOW TO THE READERS THAT YOU CAN REFER TO ONE PAPER WHERE LARRY CATHLES IMPLICATE ANY ABIOTIC OIL IN ANY OF HIS WORKS REGARDING THE EUGENE ISLAND RESERVOIR.
$
$
$ No, CM, the point OilIsMastery was making is that the first quote is the standard
$ "fossil" theory recitation, but Larry Cathles description contradicts that recitation of "fossil" theory.
$
AGAIN YOU DISPLAY YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AND WILLINGNESS TO MAKE UP A STORY.
LARRY IS SIMPLY DISCUSSING THE HIGH POSSIBLE PETROLEUM FLOW RATE WHICH ARE POSSIBLE IN A GEOLOGICAL SETTING AS FOR THE EUGENE ISLAND AREA. LARRY HAS BEEN WORKING ACTIVELY WITH THEORETICAL MODELS FOR OIL GENERATION FROM KEROGEN, OIL EXPULSION AND MIGRATION FOR MANY YEARS.
SEVERAL COWORKERS ALSO STUDIED THE NATURE AROUND THE MAIN LEAKY FAULT TOWARDS THE FIELD.
ACTUALLY QUITE INTERESTING. YOU SHOULD LOOK IT UP AND MAYBE LEARN SOMETHING.
THE EUGENE ISLAND CASE WAS STUDIED IN DETAIL BY PROPER SCIENTISTS. A COMPLETELY NORMAL
EVENT ALONG A FAULT LOCALIZING PETROLEUM FLOW. THE SMALL BURST (IF REAL AT ALL) WAS A SMALL TRANSIENT EFFECT. AFTER THAT A COMPLETELY SMOOTH AND REGULAR DEPLETION HAS BEEN OBSERVED IN THE RESERVOIR.
$
$
$ What's wrong with pointing out the contradiction?
THE READERS ARE DYING TO HERE YOU EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS WHAT THE CONTRADICTION IS.
$
$
$ Example #2.
$
$ The "oil window"
$
$ This argument was also run by me at this website at the end of the discussion:
$
$ I responded as follows:
$
$ "15,000 feet is an approximation. The key factor for the “oil window” is temperature.
$ Supposedly, the temperatures at depths below about 15,000 feet are high
$ enough (above 275 degrees F) to break hydrocarbon bonds (Heinberg).
$
$ Here is the link to the Bloomberg report of 500 degree
$ Fahrenheit temperatures. April 28 (Bloomberg) — “Brazil’s plan t
$ o become one of the world’s biggest oil exporters hinges on
$ exploiting crude 6 miles below the ocean surface in deposits so
$ hot they can melt the metal used to carry uranium to nuclear plants.”
$
$ Another report: May 6 (Bloomberg) — “Wells drilled 7 kilometers beneath
$ Louisiana into a formation known as the Tuscaloosa Trend encountered
$ temperatures of 485 degrees Fahrenheit, said John Rogers Smith, a petroleum
$ engineering professor at Louisiana State University.” From the same news report: “
$ The U.S. Energy Department predicted temperatures reaching a metal-melting 500 degrees Fahrenheit.”
$ Here is a McClatchy news report: “Temperatures 30,000 feet below the
$ ocean floor can reach 400 degrees Fahrenheit, hot enough to turn oil into natural gas.”
$
$ Commenter if you have a better explanation for the temperatures quoted in the above reports,
$ please provide it. The reports are linked, I’m not fabricating anything.
$ If you believe I’m failing to correctly interpret the reports, fine,
$ I’m happy to stand corrected, if you provide a convincing explanation."
$
$
$ I don't think these articles are talking about the pipe temperature ratings,
$ the articles are reporting about how hot the temperature of the oil deposit are.
$
$
Think again; And even better; READ THE CONTENT OF THE LINKS.
NOT IN A SINGLE OF THESE ARE THE ANY MENTION OF TEMPERATURE OF ANY OIL DEPOSITS.
YOU ARE JUST MAKING THAT UP IN YOUR HEAD !
Let us summarize the previous communication:
I point out that Anaconda's basis for claiming that the "oil window" is a myth is a reference to a reference to a temperature rating of a pipe. Anaconda; NO NO NO, and he makes a link back to the same News flash.
Anaconda. Are you learning impaired or do you have a complete mental blockage. Why do you not read the link !!!
A journalist make some silly statements, and Anaconda conclude that the oil in the Santos basin have reservoir temperatures of 260 degrees Celsius. Anaconda READ THE WHOLE NEWS FLASH ! NOT ONLY THE SILLY TITLE:
The only actual mention of temperature in the news flash is AS I POINTED OUT INITIALLY:
"pipes that CAN carry oil at temperatures above 500 degrees Fahrenheit (260 Celsius".
"PIPES THAT CAN CARRY OIL AT TEMPERATURES ABOVE 500 DEGREES CELSIUS"
That is Anaconda's "SCIENTIFIC" BASIS FOR CLAIMING THAT THE OIL WINDOW IS A MYTH.
I ASK YOU AGAIN ANACONDA: SHOW US THAT YOU CAN GIVE A LIST OF OIL RESERVOIRS AT TEMPERATURES ABOVE 200 degrees Celsius. If you cannot do that; IT IS PROVEN YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT REGARDING THIS; YOU SIMPLY MAKE UP STORIES BASED ON SILLY JOURNALISTIC SPIN STORIES. REMEMBER; IT IS YOU WHO ARE SPREADING THE STORY !
The journalist also state: "in deposits so hot they can melt the metal used to carry uranium to nuclear plants".
The point is my dear Anaconda, anybody who are not a complete technical moron, will realize this is spin unrelated to oil exploration.
Do you think the oil companies build there drilling and production equipment out of lead ? That is really hilarious !
Listen to what the same journalist state in the second News Flash you link to:
"The industry already has the tools to cope with the maximum temperature Petrobras expects as much as 5 kilometers below the sea floor, 60 degrees Celsius (140 degrees Fahrenheit), Gabrielli said.
DID YOU HEAR THAT ANACONDA: 60 degrees Celsius. DO NOT TAKE IT FOR A CORRECT STATEMENT THOUGH; Joe Carroll have no record of technical fluency.
Then we read more:
"The U.S. Energy Department predicted temperatures reaching a metal-melting 500 degrees Fahrenheit."
DID YOU HEAR THAT: PREDICTED ! PREDICTED WHERE DO YOU THINK ? AND PREDICTED BASED ON WHAT DO YOU THINK ? AT THE SEA SURFACE ? AT THE BASE OF THE SEDIMENTARY COLUMN ?
What kind of metal do you think this technical genius (Joe Carroll) is referring to. Do you think oil companies use equipment made of tin. Even lead have a melting point above 260 degrees C (around 327). My dear Anaconda have you ever heard about steel, cobalt, titanium and chromium alloys. Do you think those metals will melt at 260 degrees C. Do you think the the internal combustion engine in your car is melting because the average combustion temperature there is typically more than 800 degrees C ?
THE METAL MELTING COMMENT IS SIMPLY A COMMENT BY A JOURNALIST AS TECHNICALLY CHALLENGED AS YOU.
And then the story continues:
"Lower-than-estimated temperatures in the Tupi exploration wells may mean more of the hydrocarbons are in the form of crude rather than natural gas, said Jeremy Boak, a project manager at the Colorado School of Mines.
Higher temperatures in deep wells can fracture oil molecules and trigger chemical reactions that break crude down into gas, Boak said."
DID YOU HEAR THAT ANACONDA: "Higher temperatures in deep wells can "fracture" oil molecules and trigger chemical reactions that break crude down into gas, Boak said." THE SAME STORY YOU USE AS "EVIDENCE" FOR THAT THE "OIL WINDOW" IS A MYTH ACTUALLY MENTION THE WORRIES REGARDING THE "STILL NOT DRILLED" I REPEAT "STILL NOT DRILLED" HOTTER RESERVOIRS WHERE THEY STILL DO NOT KNOW THE TEMPERATURES:
"Higher temperatures in deep wells can fracture oil molecules and trigger chemical reactions that break crude down into gas, Boak said."
"There are different gradients and some places are just hotter than others,'' Boak said.
"You never know how hot it's going to get down there until you start drilling.''
I ASK YOU AGAIN ANACONDA: SHOW US THAT YOU KNOW OF OIL RESERVOIRS AT TEMPERATURES
ABOVE 200 degree Celsius. If you cannot do that; IT IS PROVEN YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT REGARDING THIS; YOU SIMPLY MAKE UP STORIES BASED ON SILLY JOURNALISTIC SPIN STORIES. YOU HAVE CLAIMED THIS ALL OVER THE INTERNET SO YOU DO HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO DELIVER !
So far you have provided ZERO data points to a story you repeat-parrot all over the net.
So far you have based your spin story on data from ZERO reservoirs.
And finally:
"Louisiana into a formation known as the Tuscaloosa Trend encountered
temperatures of 485 degrees Fahrenheit, said John Rogers Smith, a petroleum "
TELL THE READER WHAT THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE ISSUE: OIL STABILITY.
You see Anaconda, If they drill deeper it becomes even hotter. But why do you think that
NOBODY SAID ANYTHING ABOUT OIL AT THESE TEMPERATURES ?
DO YOU NOT THINK IT IS UNBELIEVABLE YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT THE OIL WINDOW IS A MYTH,
AND THEN YOU DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE DATA POINT TO REFER TO WHERE OIL IS PRODUCED
FROM RESERVOIRS WITH SUCH HIGH TEMPERATURES ?
$
$ But as I stated in my original comment, please provide
$ an explanation for why the article is really taking about pipe temperature rating.
$
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS. YOU ARE AMAZING !!!! READ THE CITATION FROM THE LINK ABOVE !!!
WAKE UP !!!!
$ CM, your argument, here, is weak.
$
$ CM, most oil fields are shallower than 8,000 feet TVD.
$ So its no wonder you haven't seen any extremely hot oil deposits.
$ Have you worked on the super deep Gulf of Mexico oil fields?
$
$ I
YOU COMPLETELY FORGET: YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING UP THE STORY. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO MUST PROVIDE EXAMPLES; IF YOU CANNOT DO THAT; YOU ARE PROVING YOU DO NOT KNOW;
$
$ Or Salkalin island?
GIVE US OIL RESERVOIR TEMPERATURES OFF FROM THE AREA. NAMING AN AREA IS JUST THAT.
I CAN SAY:
or new york city,
or alaska;
AND IT IS JUST WORDS WITHOUT ANY RELEVANCE BEFORE DATA ARE PRESENTED.
$
$ Or off the coast of Brazil?
GIVE US OIL RESERVOIR TEMPERATURES OFF FROM THE AREA. NAMING AN AREA IS JUST THAT.
I CAN SAY:
or new york city,
or alaska;
AND IT IS JUST WORDS WITHOUT ANY RELEVANCE BEFORE DATA ARE PRESENTED.
Have a look at yourself in the mirror Anaconda. Do you see a scientist with theories based on data, or
someone who randomly assemble unrelated news stories ? and refuses to back up anything with actual data.
$
$ Frankly, CM, you are assuming again, because the articles are clear,
$ they aren't taking about pipe temperature ratings, instead they are talking about
$ the temperature of the geological oil reservoir.
READ YOUR OWN LINKS !
Since you appear to be absolutely unaware about the pressure and temperature ranges of
sedimentary basins, the only way you can take away that impression is to tell
the reader what those ranges are. Hence:
1) Inform the reader about the temperature and pressure ranges of sedimentary basins.
2) Explain to the reader what controls the variation. This only requires that you know the most basic physics of heat and momentum transport on a macro (continuum) scale. For the pressures, start with the difference between body and surface forces, since you will get nowhere without those "tools".
If you cannot answer those extremely simple questions, it is crystal clear that none of your "thinking" (or the lack of it), is linked to any kind of basic knowledge about the system you are having so extremely strong opinions about.
IF YOU ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE ANYTHING MEANINGFUL AROUND THIS, YOU WILL
ALSO REALIZE THAT NOTHING YOU ARE REFERRING TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH
THE OIL WINDOW.
THERE ARE NUMEROUS DEEP HOT WELLS DRILLED IN THE WORLD. NONE OF THESE CONTAIN OIL AT TEMPERATURES ABOVE 200 DEGREES. AND WITH OIL IT IS MEANT OIL; MOBILE BUBBLE-POINT BEHAVING FLUID. (YOU WILL ALWAYS FIND IDIOTS LIKE THOMAS GOLD, WHO IMMEDIATELY CALLS ANY TRACE OF A MOLECULE WITH MORE THAN 1 CARBON ATOM FOR OIL.)
SINCE YOU ARE CLAIMING SUCH RESERVOIRS EXIST, AS A "RESEARCHER" YOU HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE THE READER WITH EXAMPLES OF OIL RESERVOIRS WITH TEMPERATURES ABOVE
200 DEGREES CELSIUS; YOU CLAIM THEY EXIST; SHOW EXAMPLES.
IF YOU CANNOT, AS USUAL, ANYBODY CAN SEE YOU ARE IN FABRICATION MODE.
AS A POSTSCRIPT TO THIS: A RECENT STATOIL STATISTICS REGARDING 120,000 PETROLEUM RESERVOIRS (BOTH OIL AND GAS) SHOWED THAT 90% OF THE WORLD RESOURCES ARE ACCUMULATED AT TEMPERATURES BELOW 120 DEGREES CELSIUS. AND IF YOU THINK THIS RELATES TO THAT OIL COMPANIES DO NOT DRILL DEEP ENAUGH, YOU SHOULD INFORM THE READER ABOUT THE DATA YOU HAVE WHICH SHOWS THAT. (YOU CAN FIND NICE STATISTICS IN SPE AND E.G., THE OIL & GAS JOURNAL.) REALITY IS; TEMP ABOVE 180 DEGREES; VIRTUALLY GUARANTEED YOU ONLY FIND GAS; AND THE RESERVOIR QUALITY STATISTICALLY GOES DOWN THE DRAIN.
$
$
$
$
$ Again, with the attack on J.F. Kenney. CM, you are consistent in your approach, you overplay your
$ hand and let your obvious spite toward Kenney show through without
$ sufficient cause for the spite. Which leaves me wonder why?
$
$ Example #3.
$
$ Here is the link on Chevron's scientists and diamondoids.
$
$ A quote from the report: "Although they learned to synthesize adamantane,
$ fusing even a few such cages together proved extraordinarily difficult, and
$ efforts at creating larger diamondoids failed."
$
$ So they don't create diamondoids in the laboratory willy nilly.
Yes they do. And it is quite easy. Adamantane is a diamondoid.
It is true is is more difficult to create the larger variety but adamantane is simple.
And THEY did not invent the "SIMPLE" procedure: the procedures are half a century old.
Here is the most commonly applied method:
Schleyer, P. von R. (1957). "A Simple Preparation of Adamantane". J. Am. Chem. Soc. 79: 3292–3292
NOTICE THE TITLE: "A Simple Preparation of Adamantane"
Read it again, IT DOES NOT SAY A COMPLICATED DIFFICULT PREPARATION METHOD FOR ADAMANTANE.
In FACT IT IS SO SIMPLE THAT ONLY A PERSON VOID OF ANY BASIC CHEMISTRY MAY SCREW IT UP.
$
$ You are wrong there, CM.
$
$ Waqar Qureshi, vice president of ChevronTexaco Technology Ventures, said:
$ ""Diamantane and triamantane can be synthesized in laboratories, but it's
$ very difficult and very expensive. The cost of synthesizing these diamondoids is
$ probably in the tens to hundreds of dollars per gram. But we can extract it for orders of magnitudes lower in cost."
$
In his brilliant coherent logic Anaconda states:
So they don't create diamondoids in the laboratory willy nilly.
Then the genius Anaconda cite:
Diamantane and triamantane can be synthesized in laboratories ...
You are cracking me up. And do the abiotic researcher think that low yield (and therefore high price)
has anything to do with the issue ?
$ You are wrong, again, CM, what you are doing is sugging a patina of a
$ thority for yourself, and then assuming readers will accept your statements without backup.
$
Are you drunk ? Diamondoids are simple to make; read the references I gave above. Notice the title: "A Simple Preparation of Adamantane"
$ The report states: "The diamondoids are formed in the extreme heat
$ and pressure found in crude oil buried at great depths, so petroleum
$ deposits exposed to hotter temperatures should be enriched in the molecules, Carlson said, adding that
$ gas condensates found in deposits rich in natural gas seem to be the best sources for diamondoids."
$
$ Got that, CM, "formed in the extreme heat and pressure,"
$ So your credibility is starting to take a hit.
You are unbelievable. Where have you ever read anything about MANTLE PRESSURES; THE STORY YOU FABRICATED ?
Have it never occurred to you that you do not address anything that has anything to do with the topic ?
You HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA HAVE YOU ? ABOUT WHICH TEMPERATURE; ABOUT WHICH PRESSURE.
In response to me pointing that out you demonstrate that you do not understand a single word of what you are reading; you just randomly throw out incoherent sentences and links to stories which either have nothing to do with what you are claiming, or actually show the exact opposite.
Your Diamodoid story is a good example:
Since you are the only one on earth who have ever made the claim that diamondoids require mantle pressures to form; it should be obvious you made up the story. When someone say high pressures, Anaconda, it is completely unspecific. Sedimentary basins have "high" pressures :-)
However, if you read any on the scientific papers on the subject (not Keith & Adams; they simply misrepresent the papers they reference; therefore I have to force you to read the original papers.)
You will discover that:
Diaomondoids form both from cyclic molecules in oil and also directly from kerogen. Diamondoids are more thermally stable than most other larger molecules in oil, and hence increase in relative abundance with depth. However, as we go deeper, into the temperatures where organic matter is "over-mature", e.g., only dry gas is present, even the diamondoids disappear.
But I will give you the chance to read..
Jeremy Dahl is the first author or co-author on most of the scientific papers on diamondoid formation in sedimentary basins, and their chemistry (including the papers referenced by Keith & Adams). You will find him at:
http://www.kerogen.com
Notice the name :-) Oops ! You will be redirected to the main ULR the company is using.
Warning: You will be entering an area with actual scientists with a large production of
authoritative scientific papers. Goto Jeremy's CV. From there you will find many papers on the subject. Notice that the group specializes in biomarkers as well as the use of diamondoids.
$
$ Again, I'm happy to debate or discuss, but on a freeflow of
$ imformation basis, not as a result of your demands or dictates.
$
$ My suspicion is that all your "requirements" to debate are a pretext not to debate at all.
$ But I hope you prove me wrong.
$
$ I've already pointed out inaccuracies in your broadside.
Nope.
You only managed to point out that even after the broadside, you did not manage to check out your sources.
You also demonstrated your general tactics to try to saturate with stuff unrelated to the points.
You and OilIsMastery had the following as basis for ONE entire web page:
Lake Baikal has no sediments, therefore no source rock, therefore any oil must be abiotic.
You congratulated yourself, did not read any of the stuff you linked to and thought you had found "a smoking gun".
Fact: Lake Baikal has up to 21,000 feet of sediments. Your ONE PAGE babble was based ON THIN AIR.
You can babble around it, but that simple fact do not go away. I encourage any reader to go and have a look
at the hilarious nonsense you and OilIsmastery produced around this.
Then you claim the story you reference did describe actual oil reservoirs. You even linked to the same story.
You did not even bother to read further than the title; the only reference to temperature in the link; temperature rating of pipes.
You simply pointed out you have a learning problem.
Finally the diamondoid story stands exactly the same way. Nobody has ever stated, or demonstrated that MANTLE pressures
are required to form them. You simply fabricated that story. Nothing you pointed out regarding this has anything
to do with that fact.
I suggest the reader go back and re-read my discussion of this above.
$
$ I look forward in pointing out more.
$ October 3, 2008 3:07 PM
$
$ anaconda said...
$ RESPONDING TO THECOALMAN'S FIRST POINT OF DEBATE
$
$ CM's first topic of debate:
$
$ "The second law of thermodynamics prohibits formation of petroleum from organic detritus".
$
$ CM: "Explain the law, and how it relates to other natural laws."
$
$ The basic idea is that energy, or matter dissipates towards an
$ equal diffusion pattern, or state of randomness in a closed system.
$
$ In other words, air won't spontaneously fill a balloon once
$ the air has alreday escaped.
$
$ Or in organic detritus's case, that the energy environment of heat and pressure
$ in the sedimentary/crustal environment is insufficient to cause organic detritus to
$ spontaneously change into natural petroleum.
$
$ In other words, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a closed system, therefore,
$ it is encumbent for “fossil” theory to demonstrate that the crustal environment’s
$ level of heat and pressure, low compared to the mantle’s heat and pressure, is
$ sufficient to cause the low potential chemical energy molecule (organic detritus)
$ to transform to a high potential chemical energy molecule (hydrocarbons). Without added energy to
$ the system, any sytem, molecules will not increase in potential chemical energy, also known as available
$ energy — the energy has to come from somewhere and it has to be in sufficient amount.
$
$ “Fossi” theory has never presented laboratory experimental results which support i
$ ts central contention that the energy of crustal heat & pressure causes “fossil” hydrocarbon formation from organic
$ detritus.
That is simply a crazy ignorant statement (low potential chemical energy molecule (organic detritus) vs high potential chemical energy molecule (hydrocarbons)) as I have repeatedly pointed out.
Oil prone Kerogen form from aliphatic macromolecules (highly reduced carbon) photosynthesized mostly by algae.
The endless "highly oxidized organic matter claim" is just a silly undocumented absurdity. When you start with an absurdity, do not expect the conclusion to be sane.
The chemical potential of oil prone kerogen exceeds the molecules in petroleum.
A classic Kenney lunacy.
Even simple google searches will find you hundreds of scientific articles on the topic.
BUT; YOU HAVE TO GO TO A LIBRARY TO GET ACCESS AND READ THE MATERIAL. ON THE NET YOU WILL ONLY FIND
A FEW FREEBEES UNFORTUNATELY; But still infinitively more than what you will
find on the "abiotic view: unsubstantiated claims without data".
$
$ Please be specific, what other natural laws? I'm not going to catolog all the nature laws.
If you had any idea about the topic, you would immediately have understood what I was fishing for.
In all practical work, the second law will not be used by itself.
$
$ By the way, remember this discussion is a two-way street, so I'm serious:
$ What laboratory experiments have been carried out that explain diagensis, where supposedly, organic detritus,
$ a low potential chemical energy molecule "forms" into kerogen, which is about 85% inert mineral and about 15%
$ C215H330,
$ a high atomic weight, potential chemical energy molecule?
$
$ Oil shale is about the same thing.
$
$ Remember this isn't an examination, it's a discussion.
You are absolutely wrong. It is an examination of you. That is quite OK, since you have been polluting
the net with so much absurdities, we should be allowed to probe your knowledge.
And you are failing miserably. And NO! , kerogen is not 85% inert mineral and 15% hydrocarbons.
Oil prone kerogen is mostly bio-synthesized macromolecules. Type I (well preserved algae) have H/C up to around 1.75,
Type II up to around 1.5 and Type III and IV being much more oxidized. The macromolecules also contain Oxygen,
sometimes sulphur(natural vulcanization) and many other elements in trace quantities.
For the uninformed reader kerogen is organic matter; it being 85% inert mineral and 15%C215H330 Anaconda
is explicitly saying ORGANIC MATTER is 85% INORGANIC MATTER and 15% of ORGANIC MATTER.
Gold is 85% iron and 15% gold, is an equivalent meaningless statement.
REGARDING DIAGENESIS:
Numerous processes cannot be simulated in the laboratory because you cannot speed them up
sufficiently to finnish the experiment in the lifetime of humans, or the process cannot be scaled down to fit in the laboratory.
Most diagenetic processes, are in this category. What happens in shallow sediments is a combination of biochemical and kinetically controlled slow "metastable" jumps. If you try to speed it up, by increasing the temperature, you kill the bacteria, or you make the environment more suitable for bacteria which otherwise would not have flourished. Similarly you simply get other chemical reactions compared to those occurring at the low temperatures in nature. Chemical weathering is one
good example we all are familiar with. We see in nature that it happens (because even granites are metastable at the surface),
but to simulate it in the lab, we have to use strong acids etc to make it happen at a speed high enough for us to
observe significant effects. Then, we immediately bring in the uncertainty that in nature, the rain is not strong sulphuric or
nitric acids; and in fact we do not completely match what we see in nature.
But that does not mean that we understand diagenesis less than any other natural process.
We simply need to redesign the learning process.
We can learn about diagenesis by studying in detail all the stages which exist in the sediment column.
From centimeter to centimeter the material is getting older and have been
exposed to the cumulative effect of everything which happened to the material. You will find hundreds of scientific paper
doing this kind of study in detail. You can also compare the composition of the material, with what you can chemically
separate from recent material, e.g., algal concentrates. Bingo, the same material you can find in enormous quantities in oil source rocks,
have been traced back to protective tissues in algal cell walls. Go to the library. The first thing a "researcher" has to learn
Anaconda, is how to familiarize him/herself with the literature. So far you have skipped it.
Think of the human life. Do you think you can be simulate a human life in the laboratory, by raising the temperature to 100 degrees Celsius :-)
Nope, but only a total idiot can claim that because we cannot simulate it in the lab, we know nothing about it.
Abiotic con-artists like Kenney (and now also repeat-parroted by Anaconda) try to use the argument that if
something cannot be reproduced in the lab, the researchers working with the subject are clueless.
The argument resonates only among those who have no idea about the subject.
$
$ CM: "Explain how we estimate the Gibbs free energy of formation in the lab."
$
$ Here is an explanation of Gibbs free energy.
$
$ In short, Gibbs free energy is a measurement of potential chemical
$ energy in a given molecule. It's also known as "available energy,"
$ which I referenced above.
$
$ Why do I need to know the nuts and bolts of how it's measured in a lab?
Because if you new, you would not have made so many meaningless comments on the topic. You would
have realized your statements are absurd.
$
$ This question implies the assumption your whole kerogen argument rests upon:
$ Namely, that no explanation or proof is needed to show how kerogen forms out of organic detritus.
$
Your mental blockage is impossible to penetrate. Check the literature. There are volumes after volumes.
You simply do not have the basic knowledge of the literature. In such a ignorant mode, you can of course
continue until the end of the universe; you will find references on the net; it will not help you much because
you need to READ the actual science. A university library is a must.
Organic detritus just mean fragmented organic matter my dear Anaconda.
It may or may not be highly oxidized. During anoxic conditions (oxygen deprived conditions), the extremely resistant aliphatic macromolecules which e.g., algae synthesize in for their cell walls, is selectively preserved.
Do the simple kitchen sink experiment: Take some plastic bags and some hay and potato peel and dig it down in your
backyard. After 10 year dig it up. Bingo only the plastic bags are left. Same principle. Only very
specific "biopolymers" are preserved and enriched in oil source rocks. When you look at many oil source rocks
under the microscope, they are packed with algal remains. The chemical composition is not too dissimilar to poly-ethylene. Nature produces many varieties of "polymers", e.g.,
cork is extremely rich in a type of "biopolyester". There exist oil generating coals which are packed with such cork remains. At Kings Bay on Svalbard, such coals where used to produce oil. Put some cork in a reaction chamber, and bingo; it spontaneously form a crude oil like fluid when heated.
$ Because as Kenney states, organic detritus is highly oxidized organic matter.
$ Somehow, according to the presupposition of "fossil" theory,
$ this "highly oxidized organic detritus" turns into kerogen. Sorry, CM, you don't get to
$ "skip over" that part of the process and just assume kerogen "happens."
$
And you simply are unaware of the science. Have you ever considered actually going to
a university library and check it out ? Kenney is simply pulling your leg.
Nobody but the con artist Kenney claim such a silly thing. Everybody claim the opposite, because
millions of data points have been generated that support it.
$ Your sitting on a thin branch with only a "figleaf" in a high wind.
$
You are in ignorance land :-)
$ Kerogen is ultra-heavy hydrocarbons that became embedded with the inert
$ sedimentary material when it was layed down.
$ Kerogen is a product of Abiotic
$ hydrocarbons seeping to the surface.
BOING !!!
OOPS: It seeps up from below. Beautiful algae and spores and pollen and bark and cuticles seeping up from below, all the way from the mantel.
BOING !!!
That brings us to another of your interesting stories: "Gold's coal is created by abiotic oil impregnating brown coal".
It is incredible easy to demonstrate the story is crazy. Also I noticed that you got duped by Thomas Brown that you gave as reference to prove coal is abiotic (on a Huffingtonpost blogg): Listen to what the clever guy Thomas have to say:
"A gold chain was found in a lump of Carboniferous coal by Mrs S.W. Culp of Morrisonville, Illinois in June of 1891. Whilst breaking up coal for heating Mrs Culp discovered the chain still partially imbedded in the coal chunk she had just broken. According to standard dating of geological strata, the chain is approximately 300 million years old. An iron cup was found in coal by an electric plant worker in Arkansas in 1912, the coal having come from Oklahoma and being dated at about 312 million years ago."
Hence one of your reference point to "coal science", is a guy who humor us with proving that coal are recent since it contains iron cups and gold chains :-)
And he also fooled you into believing that Albertite has anything to do with coal.
You grabbed the story, thinking it proves that coal intrude as a fluid. Unfortunately, Anaconda,
if you had bothered to check out what "Albertite" is you would have learned it is a type of bitumen:
in essence simply extremely heavy crude oil. It is chemically completely different from the common humic coals.
It is a homogeneous fluid; compared to coal which is mainly fossil plant remains.
How is it possible to be so gullible anaconda ? Do you never check up any of the spin you read ? Do you have any idea of the meaning of the words you are using or the basis of any of your claims ? )
According to Gold, bituminous coal is created by abiotic oil impregnating brown coal (Gold thought bituminous coal (the normal humic ones) meant that these coals contain a lot of bitumen, and that the shiny layers was bitumen: they are not (and bituminous coals typically do not contain more than 10-15mg hydrocarbons per gram carbon and their composition strongly reflect the plant material present); they are called vitrain and mainly composed of fine-grained wood remains and all the "collinites" filling cell cavities, also have higher plant origin and have chemical compositions as far from oil as it is possible to get. Gold claimed coal typically do not contain fossils, obviously missing out the difference between macro and micro fossils (Time for a new pair of glasses Thomas.). Coals are poor in macro fossils (tree stems and whole leafs etc), but are otherwise composed of microfossils and other micro-sized plant remains and gels thereof. Gold, as an astrophysicist looked at the sky, rather then looking down a microscope at the coal, or consulting the literature.). Gold missed out the fact that oil is rich in hydrogen, and the transition from brown coal to bituminous coal involves a reduction in the hydrogen content of the already hydrogen poor (humic; the common ones) coals. Adding oil, (or asphalt or "tar" if you can manage to flow such viscous goo into the impermeable coals) would all have increased the hydrogen content of the coal. That is exactly the opposite to what is happening; the transition from brown to black coals involves a significant drop in the hydrogen content
but Gold did not even bother to open a textbook on the topic to check if the "theory" would not immediately be crushed by data.
(Gold was maybe also allergic to data, because his life's most important "theory" (the steady state) was crushed by data.)
Oil prone kerogen display a huge drop in hydrogen content in the same temperature range (as brown coal is transformed to bituminous coal), since oil prone kerogen is expelling hydrogen rich petroleum, and large amount of the carbon and hydrogen mass from the kerogen disappears from the source rock during generation; It is called petroleum expulsion :-)
Interesting, since according to Anaconda, the kerogen is formed by oil flowing into the impermeable shales. Ever wondered, Anaconda, why shales are the common flow barriers which facilitate accumulation of oil and gas below them: the petroleum does not manage to flow into them because they are too impermeable. Obviously, elementary fluid dynamics and multi-phase flow in porous media has never been part of the curriculum for the "abiotic researchers".
You can easily show with mass balance (Search for papers with BP authorship's) how one of the source rocks, down-dip from the Anthabasca oil giant, looses more than half it's carbon as it expels around 1.5 trillions bbl.'s of oil (calculated as stock tank oil after separation) in one single area where public data is available (Check out the Canadian Geological Survey's open files; Nordegg Member). This is ONE area of ONE of the several source rocks down-dip from the Antabasca. Nikolai Kudryavtsev (the father of the Russian abiotic theory) used the "lack" of source rocks in this area as support for the abiotic formation of the Antabasca oil sands. Nikolai Kudryavtsev did not have a clue about what he was talking about; his "mass balance" had severe decimal point errors. Such decimal point misplacements (moving values three, four, five, six, seven, eight orders of magnitude in the wrong direction ) are not uncommon when someone does mass balance without data, and without any idea about what is going on; when you combine these two you get really interesting answers. Anybody heard about the 4.5 trillion bbl.'s of recoverable oil in the 1965 Salym field discovery in Western Siberia ? (Even the atomic bomb they detonated in the field did not change the field into more than another huge (in terms of areal extent) low producing field; within a fantastic source rock.)
$
$ CM: "Please explain why Kenney & Kucherov use methane and highly oxidized organic
$ matter as reference points for kerogen. Have you ever heard anybody claiming that
$ oil-prone kerogen is made of methane or highly oxidized organic matter ?"
$
$ Kenney uses highly oxidized organic matter because that's where "fossil" theory states petroleum originates from.
$
$
Hilarious! You must be the most "informed researcher" ever cruising the high seas.
If you are rejecting something, do you not think it would be a good idea to know what it is you want to reject.
All real researchers have demonstrated the opposite. Kenney is just taking the stuff out of the air,
in his normal absurd and incoherent manner.
$
$
$ That is a weak question.
$
$ CM: "[S]how that you know the difference between a simple molecule
$ like octane and mixtures like "biological detritus."
$
$ Octane is a specific hydrocarbon molecule, whereas,
$ "biological detritus" has a multiple of moleucles.
$
$ To to cont.
$ October 3, 2008 5:48 PM
$
$ anaconda said...
$ RESPONDING TO THECOALMAN'S FIRST POINT OF DEBATE (Cont.)
$
$ CM, you keep over playing your hand.
$
$ You keep beating the kerogen drum without ever establishing
$ that kerogen forms from organic detritus.
My dear Anaconda: Kerogen is organic detritus.
(Do you know the meaning of the word detritus?)
A completely generic uninformative term.
If you claims there is any specific chemical or biological meaning to the term detritus, that is fine. You claim many silly things.
You are simply mentally blocked on a silly statement of a few old outdated chemists and Kenney.
None of these have ever shown any data that what they say is not bull shit. Since the 1970's enormous
amount of data has been collected and published that shows they are talking rubbish.
Go to any university library. You will find thousands of detailed articles, full of data; chemical data,
micro-graphs showing the nature of the microfossils which makes up the kerogen, and also
electron micro-graphs showing the micro-fossil nature of the organic matter which makes up both
oil source rocks, gas source rocks and coal.
Of course, if your faith require you to believe an unsubstantiated statement by a few "contrarians" feel free.
So Anaconda: Remember the question ? You are claiming the moon is a flat enchilada; Prove it.
The scientific literature have the proof of what all the varieties of kerogen is. A statement from a few nut-cases does not change that. Naturally, you can grab the old "chemical" definition; insoluble in "normal" organic solvents, and you
have another tool for the ignorants to twist. That definition, though does not address the question we
are interested in.
You see Anaconda: You have no data. Kenney have no data. No "abiotic oil" evangelists have ever provided
any data for anything.
$
$ CM, you just assume it does.
$
$ CM: "...chicken-vegetable casseroles or kerogen; do you think it is
$ very informative to tabulate the "average free energy" of a chicken-vegetable casserole."
$
$ Organic detritus doesn't even have as much stored potential chemical
$ energy, or available energy, as "chicken-vegetable casserole."
Do you think organic detritus mean something specific ?
It can be absolutely anything; hence as you are doing; giving it specific properties
is as ridiculous as saying that:
crushed anything has a color of red and a calorific value of 1234.4.
$
$ Remember, according to "fossil" theory, orgainic detritus becomes kerogen.
$
Naturally, since any type of sedimentary organic matter can be called organic detritus.
Do I get the feeling you think detritus has some specific meaning ? Check an (English) dictionary.
$
$ Your "casserole" is a distraction to deflect from your devastating admission:
$
Yes; devastating for you: see below
$ "There are a lot of molecular models for end-member kerogen macromolecules out there,
$ but even the entire combination of the most advanced analytical equipment can not provide data which
$ gives an unambiguous model for these types of complex highly reduced, highly aliphatic, hydrogen rich macromolecules."
$
$ Which means in layman's terms: Oil geologists don't know how it happens, it just happens.
$
$ That doesn't cut it in scientific terms, bud.
$
I deliberately put that question there to trigger the response you gave me. In a delightful way,
you demonstrated you are a completely blank in organic chemistry, and completely unaware of the
chemical properties of the organic materials we humans are surrounding us with, and using virtually everywhere
in our daily life.
Take the plastic cutting board you use to cut vegetables.
Do you think nobody knows what it is made of ?
Of course, the factory which made it knows it is a high molecular weight poly-ethylene (HMW P) or maybe even an Ultra-high molecular weight poly-ethylene (UHMW P). Do you think any polymer scientist can analyze the material
and determine what it is ? Of course !
However, do you think either the factory or any polymer scientist can establish a unique definite molecular
structure for the material.
NOPE.
That is not possible:
Even the entire combination of the most advanced analytical equipment can not provide data which
gives an unambiguous model for these types of complex highly reduced, highly aliphatic, hydrogen rich macromolecules.
Hence, this detail is perfect fodder for con artists like Kenney to make up scam stories. Most people like
Jerome Corsi and Anaconda, have no idea that they are being duped.
You can estimate all the important information you need about these materials, and you will have a top quality understanding of what the material is; however, the very nature and irregularity of the molecules does not allow anybody to define an absolute fixed structure; because these materials do not have such regularity.
There is actually one interesting experiment one can do. Heat a Type I kerogen and it's structure becomes more and more graphite like (use X-rays); Heat a Type II kerogen and it's structure will be disordered at far higher temperatures than the Type I example. I leave it to the "abiotic oil researchers" to figure out what is going on.
$ CM: "...explain why thousands of researchers are unable to tell the difference between algae
$ and crude oil in source rocks..."
$
$ Your question is inartful, however, it is simple enough, researchers start out with the
$ assumption that the remnents of algae in crude oil is a result of oil being a product of
$ organic detritus. See OIM post, Biomarkers Observed Contaminating Oil and read my comment:
$
Hilarious gibberish. First; the question was telling the difference between algae and oil in source rocks.
But implicitly you acknowledge that there is no problem to tell the difference.
The issue is that it is the simplest thing in the world to tell the difference. Oil is a homogeneous fluid;
algae, spores pollen etc look likes aliens from mars.
Congratulation Anaconda. You have just pointed out that Kenney is a lying idiot. It is he who claims
that source rocks had all the oil in the first place; i.e., they are full of oil. Thousands of scientific
articles by organic geochemist, micro-paleontologists, and organic petrologists have demonstrated that
immature oil source rocks do not contain oil; they contain oil-prone kerogen; 2-20 by weight or 3-30 by volume
of micro fossiliferous material.
You see Anaconda. You UNIVERSALLY HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT WHAT PETROLEUM SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING.
HENCE, HOW CAN YOU CLAIM RESEARCHERS (not "abiotic researchers :-) ) ARE FOOLING THEMSELVES WHEN YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE SAYING.
YOU SAY FOSSIL THEORY SAYS KEROGEN IS FORMED FROM HIGHLY OXIDIZED ORGANIC MATTER. THEREFORE OIL CANNOT FORM FROM IT.
THE REALITY IS THAT FOSSIL THEORY SAYS THE EXACT OPPOSITE, AND PROVES WITH MORE DATA THEN ANY OTHER NATURAL SCIENCE THEORY, THAT OIL-PRONE KEROGEN FORMS FROM HIGHLY REDUCED, ALIPHATIC MACROMOLECULES THAT ARE PHOTOSYNTHESIZED MAINLY BY ALGAE.
$ "THIS IS POWERFUL INFORMATION
$
$ Now, according to scientific reports there are two ways for biocontaminates to be present in crude oil.
$
$ One way, is when oil travels upward in the stratigraphic column it passes through
$ sedimentary layers, where it acts as a solvent so that remnants of organic detritus is incorporated in the oil.
$ This is consistent with reports that oil trapped in shallow sedimentary deposits contains,
$ not only organic detritus from that particular layer of sediment, but also organic detritus
$ from deeper sedimentary layers in the stratigraphic column.
This is OF-COURSE matter. If water flows over dirty ground it gets dirty. Did you figure out that
all by yourself, or did you even here have Kenney to help you out ?
THE INTERESTING AND RELEVANT QUESTION IS WERE IS THE DIRT IN SEDIMENTARY BASINS; The dirt would
in this case be BIOMARKERS. The oil industry has drilled several million petroleum wells.
Since the 1970's, geochemist has analyzed an enormous amount of material from the wells.
The answer is very simple. 99.9999% of the biomarker mass sits in source rocks and coals
and in oils. Other sediments hardly contain anything of the kind.
Kenney (and you) live in a reality distortion field where data must NOT be evaluated or studied for any price.
$
$ A good metaphor is a European espresso machine. The hot water, much like hot oil under pressure,
$ is pressurized though the coffee grinds, much like organic detritus in a sedimentary layer,
$ thus the hot water absorbs the coffee extracts from the grinds.
You see Anaconda; your analogy might have been relevant if the end-result was coffee beans; take Kenney's experimental
fluids and compare to crude oil compositions. Using this analogy, crude oils on average would have been
85 to 90 % contaminants and 10 to 15% "abiotic material". The stock tank oil would have been 100% contaminants.
$
$ Thus oil has biocontaminates.
You see anaconda, because any water can be contaminated, and crude oil certainly pick up and
exchange organic molecules, that point neither proves or disproves anything.
Your scientific conclusion; because fluids exchange matter, the "abiotic oil theory is supported. Brilliant science !
Biomarkers, by themselves would have been shaky data. However, where they occur in large quantities (in source rocks),
how kerogen produce biomarkers on maturation, and the nice systematics documented by numerous studies
have in fact made them very useful information in petroleum exploration.
$
$ The second way, oil is contaminated by organic detritus is that the detritus is from
$ organisms that feed on the oil and then die leaving their remains.
$
$ All organic detritus in crude oil can be explained by processes other than what
$ "fossil" theory postulates."
I am really curious. What does the fossil theory postulate about this do you think ?
Anything you claim about the fossil theory in any of your writings so far complete fantasy.
$
$ Those thousands of "researchers" fool themselves with their own assumptions,
$ failing to realize they have never proved the "first principle," rather, they rely on in their presupposition.
You are the best :-) Anaconda, the "abiotic researcher" claims most actual scientist are fooling themselves with assumptions;
and as we have seen again and again and again: Anaconda does not even have the slightest clue about what they
actually are saying. Have no idea of what there exist of literature and data; (news flash titles is his data base).
That is a straight 10 on a stupidity scale from 1 to 9.
$
$ In other words, they hoist themselves on their own petard.
$
The last time I did my hair with a petard i did fine: if you are familiar with french jokes.
$
$
$ CM, J.F. Kenney must be a real threat to your self-idenity for you to constantly, gratuitously, attack him.
$
$ It reveals your weakness.
You are absolutely right. Kenney is a major threat to me; that is why I have been trying to get him into this discussion. No my dear Anaconda; Kenney is no threat to me. But by his active role in spreading fabricated "abiotic" stories in the name of science; he has ignited a brush fire of stupidity among certain groups of society from the most extreme Marx Leninists on the left to the most extreme right wings on the other side of the aisle; it is time to show the world what this Nigeria-scam type swindler is about.
By the way, have you been trying to contact him as I suggested? His e-mail address can be found on some of his "papers" and also if you go to the WHO-IS record of gasresources.net you will find him as both registrant (with one e-mail) and as technical contact (with another e-mail). If he does not respond, maybe you can find him by contacting some of his collaborators ?
Here is some more info on this "authority" on abiotic oil:
The first appearance of the self-proclaimed petroleum explorationist Jack Kenney on the "abiotic world stage" was in Sweden before the Siljan fiasco. He showed up during a pre-, Siljan deep abiotic gas drilling public meeting. He appeared out of nowhere (from Russia with love ?), claiming from the audience he had 20 years of experience in deep drilling and that this was a good prospect. (A deep driller with special interest in state equations !? That can really come in handy if the drill string gets stuck.) For some unknown reason he managed to land a job on the project in 1991 (Sweden had no petroleum exploration expertise and ability to separate a con artist from the real thing). After "working" on the project for a few months (mid to end 1991) he resigned (according to Kenney because: "it degenerated into an "opera buffa" accompanied by financial chicanery"), and in 1992 he sued the operator for around 3 million dollars (for a few months of "work" (not done)). Kenney lost the case and all he got was his agreed salary. Unfortunately, all the (many small) investors lost big time too in the Siljan "commercial" enterprise.
Hopefully, not too many others have lost their investments on abiotic oil goose chasing in Russia and Ukraine.
Kenney et al., are very productive when it comes to making up silly stories to support their "scientific" views.
In the NPR interview (and other articles on the Kenney website) it is claimed that Soviet initiated a Manhattan type project which lead to the abiotic theory of Kudryavtsev (1951). This theory according to Kenney was the reason Soviet discovered it's giants and became a major oil producing nation. However, it is quite simple to demonstrate how absurd this story is. (Let us skip Glasby's (2006) timing point because that is partly incorrect.) With google earth, scan into the enormous flat arctic plain of western Siberia. Particularly study the area around the Samotlor field, the biggest oil field in Russia (no longer what it was). Now consider yourself out in this wilderness and see were the abiotic theory could give you any hint about where to drill. You see nothing but rivers, mires, thickets and mosquitos during summer, and snow, ice and reindeers during the winter. The area is covered by quartenary sediments for 1000 km in all directions. Thinking the oil and gas is formed in the mantle 100 000 meters below gets you .... absolutely nowhere. The Russian petroleum explorers had 4 tools apart from actually drilling wells. 1) Magnetic surveys, 2) Gravimetric surveys, 3) Refraction seismic experiments, 4) Reflection seismic surveys. In addition, any seeps of oil at the surface would alert that there is oil in the subsurface. The geophysical tools where crude at the time (the CC-26-51D was as good as any western equipment), but the large size of many of the fields made a location possible. Any big bumps on the geophysical data were drilled. This was the state of the art all over the world at the time. The first oil field discovered by geophysical means (not only drilling anticlines with surface expressions) was the Seminole field south of Tulsa Oklahoma which was discovered in 1920. It was discovered by refraction seismics, rather then reflection seismics; the latter soon took over as the main exploration tool.
Give yourself an award of $100,000 if you can figure out a way to apply an abiotic (or biotic) theory in an exploration program at this time in history. Slap yourself in the face if you think "drill deeper" is an application of any abiotic Kudryavtsev rule. The petroleum system concept (source, carrier and trap) is a modern day concept and could not be applied before after many technological breakthroughs which entered full scale on the scene in the nineteen seventies. On the seismic side those technological leaps includes multichannel seismics and CDP stacks, 3-D seismic surveys with true 3-D processing, and when some well-data becomes available; AVO modeling, seismic inversion cubes etc. On the geochemical side there was an explosion in the sophistication of chemical analytical equipment. The computer revolution also gave us basin modeling and other data integration possibilities which earlier had been impossible. The technology gave us the ability to explore with a fidelity which was unheard of in the fifties and sixties. (Still new discoveries has been mainly in old fields and old provinces :-) )
Then we need to listen to the hilarious version of this "Manhattan project" by Rolf Martens (the only one left in the world of ultra pure believers in Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong): "It was in the earlier existing Soviet Union that the modern science on the origins of oil, natural gas and coal was first developed and applied in practice, from the early 1950s on, when that state was still a socialist one (under the loving fatherhood of Stalin [my comment]), and continuing later too. Those revisionists (bourgeois reactionaries flaunting a false flag) who seized power in it in the late 1950s / early 1960s and turned the Soviet Union into a social-imperialist, very reactionary power found no reason not to use the knowledge gained earlier for their own purposes and in "their own" country at least, eventually making it one of the two biggest oil exporters in the world (beside Saudi Arabia)."
It is called repeat-parotting with a touch of delirium. (You have competitors out there Anaconda :-) )
Picture this; The bourgeois reactionaries social-imperialists flaunting a false flag (of the very reactionary power), running around in Western Siberia with their abiotically calibrated dowsing rods. But notice Rolfe says: "origins of oil, gas and coal". Coal ! Even Rolfe was duped by both Gold and jack Kenney (Anaconda is not alone) (the guy with 65billion bbl.'s in his pocket) by the overall story; did his mummy and Marx, Stalin and Lenin not tell him not to lie ?
Then we have the 99.9% untrue story of Jack Kenney that petroleum scientists / petroleum explorationists in the former USSR in general believe commercial petroleum deposits have originated from abiotic hydrocarbons. For the general western reader this is naturally a claim difficult to reality check.
As Glasby (2006) (Abiogenic Origin of Hydrocarbons: An Historical Overview, Resource Geology, vol. 56, no. 1, 85–98, 2006) put it: "Many articles have been published in the Russian journal, Petroleum Geology, on the geology of the Caspian, western Siberian and Dnieper-Donets oil fields and English abstracts posted on the internet (http://www.geocities.com/internetgeology). However, no reference has been made to the abiogenic theory of hydrocarbon formation in any of these articles. This would suggest that the abiogenic theory has much more limited support in Russia and the Ukraine now than in Soviet times, particularly with respect to the commercial exploration for oil and gas."
Then have a look at "www.geotimes.org/nov02/NN_oil.html". There you will read: "Alexei Milkov of the Deep Ocean Exploration Institute at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and a graduate of Saint-Petersburg State University in Russia, “I’ve never met an industry geologist that uses abiogenic theory to find oil and gas fields, and that includes Russian industry geologists."
Many of the pioneers in the understanding of petroleum formation, and how that theory could be used in practice in exploration, in fact were Russian scientists, the most famous is probably Nikolai Lopatin and his (1971) time-temperature-index (TTI) for evaluating source rock maturity. Do google searches on all the Russian petroleum region names (e.g., Western Siberia, Volga Ural, Timan Pechora, Yamal penninsula etc etc) , in combination with keywords such as source rock, source rock quality, Bazhenov, Domanik, maturation, oil generation, petroleum generation, kerogen, Salym field, etc, and see what the Russian scientists write about it. Of course, in Kenney's vocabulary only the +-8 collaborators of him can be classified as "competent scientists"; the rest of the world are classified by Kenney as "moral weaklings" and "fraudulent liars".
Jack Kenney has the last years produced two new very interesting "articles" under the "petroleum science umbrella" ("The Fraudulence of Claims of Spontaneous, Low-Pressure Generation of Petroleum" and "An Example of the Little-Moron Logic & Mendacity of BOOP: The Carbon Isotope Ratio Nonsense." ). While these two "articles" do not have any natural science content (apart from some unsubstantiated claims & misrepresented references), they are loaded with content of great interest to behavioral scientists. Jack Kenney (the guy with 20 or 65 billion bbl.s of oil hidden in his pocket) in these masterpieces, describes 99.9% of any recent scientist from east or west (thousands of scientists in all natural science disciplines), working or having worked with the "origin of petroleum" as: "moral weaklings", "Transparen(ly) lying to defend little-moron logic in the service of imbecility". According to Kenney: petroleum scientists are giving the world: "a nonsensical, child’s fairy-story, supported by Little-Moron Logic and defended by lies".
We also hear that "Of the lies told (by the worlds petroleum scientists[my comment]) to try to defend the childish notion of a “Biological-Origin-of- Petroleum” [BOOP], none are more egregious or more blatant than the claims that “the (spontaneous) generation of oil from organic matter at low pressures has been demonstrated in the laboratory.". "In short, whatever petroleum might be observed emanating from a rock upon heating has been inside the pore spaces and fissures of the rock all along. The effect of heating is simply to cause the fluid to move out of the rock, a phenomenon called often thermally-induced out-gassing."
Remember Krayushkin et al. (with Kenney part of the team) acknowledged you can tell the difference between an algae and oil. But now Kenney is telling us that the oil was there all along, and the researchers are unable to tell the difference. Wow !. Kenney also forgets that most experiments have been done on kerogen concentrates, i.e., the minerals are removed with HF and HCl mixtures; then strong organic solvents have been applied which removes anything you can call oil, i.e., not strongly polymeric. Those are the materials heated: and yammy oil is formed and the kerogen changes to a carbonaceous residue in most of the experiments. Google searches such as "polymer pyrolysis", "Oil shale retorting", "Kerogen pyrolysis", "Flash pyrolysis", "Hydrous pyrolysis", "Petroleum generation","Artificial oil generation", will give you some links to all the "fraudulent childish lies" Kenney is referring to.
I encourage you to read some of these papers anaconda. And then tell the readers what is wrong with them. WE ARE ALL WAITING WITH GREAT EXPECTATIONS.
The spin continues with the manipulated story that Kenney et al.,made abiotic oil in the lab; according to Jack Kenney on NPR: "oil you can poor onto your tank". Unfortunately, the data presented (if one can believe them) shows they made a dry gas: maximum a few bbl.s of very light condensate per million standard cubic feet of gas. Good luck if they want to poor it onto their tanks !
Here is a good exercise for you Anaconda. Take Kenney's experimental fluid and see if you can reconstruct approximately
it's composition in terms of mole proportions. Then go to http:www.npd.no and search for gas compositions of the giant Troll gas field.
Compare them and report your findings.
$
$ CM: "...as in the flank Dnieper-Donetsk basin fields..."
$
$ Actually Kenney reports of the Dnieper-Donetsk basin oil fields:
$
$ "Bacteriological analysis of the oil and the examination for so-called “biological marker”
$ molecules: The oil produced from the reservoirs in the crystalline basement rock of the
$ Dnieper-Donets Basin has been examined particularly closely for the presence of either
$ porphyrin
$ molecules or “biological marker” molecules, the presence of which used to be misconstrued
$ as
$ "evidence" of a supposed biological origin for petroleum. None of the oil contains any such
$ molecules, even at the ppm level. There is also research presently under progress which
$ has
$ established the presence of deep, anaerobic, hydrocarbon metabolizing microbes in the oil f
$ rom the wells in the uppermost petroliferous zones of the crystalline basement rock in the Dnieper-Donets Basin."
$
$ In conclusion you should ask more specific questions so a more focussed discussion can be conducted.
$
My dear Anaconda there are bacteria's in the "deep biosphere" but they are few, and for temperatures above around 70 degrees Celsius they have close to zero activity. The Gold numbers are extreme unsubstantiated over-estimates. Search for modern literature on the topic.
But let us have a real look at the Dnieper-Donetsk nut-case story:
Krayushkin el al., also gives us the story that this oil was found by application of the abiotic theory. According to Krayushkin: "For the first 45 year period of the geological study of the Northern Monoclinal Flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin, its sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous rock had been condemned as possessing no potential for petroleum production for reasons of the complete absence of any "source rock" (so-called) and the presence of active, strongly-circulating artesian waters." When Krayushkin applied the abiotic theory: bingo ! (By the way: how did they apply the abiotic theory ? Using a specially abiotically calibrated dowsing rod ?)
That someone made a silly statement 45 years ago does not mean anything and does not prove or disprove any theory. (The Norwegian Geological Survey insisted there was no chance for oil and gas on the Norwegian shelf !) In the 1990+, the source rocks in the Dnieper-Donets Basin were well established. The reason the fields were discovered, and that there was a high drilling success rate was something completely different to any abiotic theory.
The (mostly gas) fields in the area were discovered because all the reservoirs lighten up as christmas trees on the seismics; drill what you see; amplitude anomalies that conform to mappable reservoirs; and all the fields are at classical locations for gas and minor oil in a sedimentary basins. (Amplitude anomalies occurs in this case because the presence of even small amounts of a fluid with significantly lower density than the pore-water, strongly decreases the acoustic impedance of the rock. Hence, if the signal is not phased/interferred out as your seismic pulse is being convolved with the sediment package you, "see the fluids" sort of.) 1950 vintage seismics are much too coarse and noisy to resolve this kind of small structures. 1990 vintage seismics is a completely different world; and as I will show later, image nicely both reservoirs and fluid content.
The source rocks are sitting kilometers down-dip to the south. Petroleum charge was never considered a risk since the biggest gas field (the Shebelinka field (1950+ discovery)) sits directly above the source rocks slightly further out in the basin. Furthermore, Krayushkin et al., do not present any data that could indicate that the fluids are abiotic. As mentioned above, the basin locations of the fields are exactly where any oil company in the world would focus in on. You will not find any similar basin location anywhere in the world (were the petroleum industry has been exploring), were any possible reservoir configuration on such locations has not been drilled.
When reading some other spin around this story remember: At the time (just after it's independence) Ukraine was the most corrupt nation of the western hemisphere; and just some years ago; the old-boy club poisoned the country's president. If any abiotic theory was involved in finding the northern flank Dniepr-Donets fields, it must have been in a back-street Russian Kiev bar, after a lot of Vodka, and Balalaika. The national petroleum industry in Ukraine has been completely "restructured" after this time for a reason.
For the reader to see a seismic section through one of the basin flank fields in the area, search for:
Stovba et al., (1996) ("Structural features and evolution of the Dniepr-Donets Basin, Ukraine,
from regional seismic reflection profiles" Tectonophysics 268 (1996) 127-147). On Figure 12, the amplitude anomalies are very clear (your five year old kid can pinpoint them), and they several places conform to likely reservoir locations; do not get fooled by noise and processing artifacts. (An explorationist would have sequences of sections available, enabling him/her to create 3-D models of the reservoirs and to see how the anomalies appeared in 3-D.) Remove $100,0000 from your salary if you need some vague/abstract abiotic theory to find these fields. If you are interested, you can also find cross sections in this paper so you can locate (approximately) the example given by Krayushkin et al.,(Fig. 2) and see for yourself where the Krayushkin et al.,s example (the Yuliyevskoye oil and gas field) is located relative the classical gas kitchen area (Hint: Consult Fig. 3 for location and then Fig 13a & 14a (note error in vertical scale when matching)). The example of Krayushkin et al. (their Fig. 2) is (deliberately ?) truncated so that you cannot see the deep gas kitchen down to the south.
Krayushkin makes a point that some of the petroleum (actually a small unknown quantity: the production is commingled) sits in fractured basin. This is common on this kind of basin shoulders (we still have more than 3000 meters of sediments above the basement and most of the petroleum sits in these sediments). He also claim the fractured basement is more productive than the overlying sands, but this is not demonstrated for the simple reason it is impossible to demonstrate, because the production is commingled and (according to Krayushkin, and in him we trust) the compositions are the same !
Turn a glass of water upside down inside a bowl of water. Blow air (gas) into it from below with a straw. Notice how the interface between the air and water will move downwards. Consider that the glass was filled with porous rock. It makes no difference if the rock is porous sandstone or fractured granite. The base of the petroleum column will migrate downwards into any sufficiently porous rocks below as more petroleum is filled into the cul de sac of the reservoir (or glass of water). This is one common scenario (e.g., in Venezuela). The other common scenario is when the top-seal of the fractured basement reservoir is the primary unconformity on top of the basement. In this case the petroleum must come in from below (down dip), entering through areas exposed by faults, as Wally Dow has outlined in the case of the Tiger field and a likely scenario also for the small basement reservoirs of some of the Dniepr-Donets shoulder fields. When petroleum flow upwards along a carrier volume (as it normally does, there exist no "migration police" which stops the petroleum to flow into any sufficiently porous rock just because it is a granite rather than a sand. The petroleum industry has for many years employed petroleum flow simulators, both on the reservoir and basin scales. Commercial three-dimensional petroleum generation and multicomponent/multiphase flow models are employed to risk prospects (Do Google Searches: "3D Basin Modelling" , "3D Basin Modeling"). The idea that basement reservoirs provides any indication that the petroleum came from the mantle is only promoted by people without knowledge of flow in porous media and without knowledge of the routine technologies employed by the petroleum industry.
Also notice on Fig 2 of Krayushkin et al: The lower contact of the petroleum is a horizontal contact (if it is not another case of Krayushkin's imagination), i.e., it's geometry is controlled by gravity and not permeability (capillarity / pore size distribution & connectivity): It is a contact towards free moving water (at least on a geological time-scale) (no drive mechanism given for the reservoirs); the fractured basement is a porous unit where the water is hydrologically connected to the water in the sediments probably mostly down-dip to the south.
What did actually Krayushkin et al., do to test the hypothesis that the fluids were abiotic. Here, the story becomes very interesting. In effect, they did nothing. And that is the bottom line. Kenney & Krauskin have cleverly rejected any type of data as support for anything, so there is nothing in the fluids which can indicate anything, hence they do not report anything, apart from that the oils did not contain biomarkers (Big surprise in a gas dominated area !).
Carbon isotope data is "the Carbon Isotope Ratio Nonsense" because it is possible to fractionate isotopes. (You can, but not at the scale required; the data referenced by e.g., Gold does not represent significant mass (from free gas columns), but rather trace quantities degassed from cutting cans. The example given by Kenney, is completely irrelevant since if the experimenter had tried to scale the experiment, he would immediatley have overwhelmed his "column".) Kenney, the moment he deviates from the most specific basic thermodynamics, he spins into fantasy land. The example is the simplest possible, Anybody know the principle from our daily life. Any filter has to be changed. After a limited amount of water, the Brita filters are exhausted and must be changed. The air filters in your house needs replacement after they get clogged up with dust. Even your neighbors cat knows that, since it knows that after a while, it's litter box need to be changed. The basic thermodynamics Kenney works with is much too simplistic for real systems. Anything, including sediment columns have limited capacity to fractionate matter, including isotope fractionation. If you percolate methane through an "active" column, initially you may get an isotope effect. However, rapidly as you percolate more methane, the column gets "overloaded" and the only effect left is a small retardation of the molecules which are partitioned preferentially into the stationary phases.
Jack Kenney is simply grabbing a what would be called an early time, transient effect and is clueless enough to think that the effect can be sustained.
They reject the use of biomarkers, because they can be created abiotically (of course; you can synthesize anything, but in the huge quantities observed and with the systematics to the observed types of organic matter in the source rocks ?). Helium they use as argument if it is present (as in these fields), but they do not analyze it so that everybody can see the helium is from Uranium and/or Thorium and not from the mantel. Also note that the age of the presumed Devonian source rock and the geohistory discussed by Kabyshev et al., (1998) is just right for a good helium yield; see discussion under the Gold discussion above.)
But why not reporting the actual composition of the oils; a 25°API oil (density 0.9042) is certainly not composed of mainly light n-alkanes :-) Are these heavier oils strongly biodegraded ? They do report the micro fossils the oils contain, without any discussion; where did the Devonian (and Riphean/Vendian) fossils come from. (Kabyshev et al., (1998) and Ulmishek(2001) do state the main source rock in the area is Devonian.) The sediments on the basin shoulder are Carboniferous, but there are huge quantities of Devonian sediments some thousand meters down-dip to the south Stovba et al., (1996) (Fig 13a & 14a).
The example of Krayushkin et al. (Fig. 2) is truncated so that you cannot see the deep gas kitchen down to the south. They try to give the impression to the reader that the oil and gas must have come up from the basement. In that case, checking the oils in the basement for microfossils would have been an obvious thing to do, to confirm that the basment reservoirs did not contain any micro fossils.
"Strangely" they only analyzed the oils in the Carboniferous sediments for micro-fossils. Obviously they did not take the chance to analyze the oils in the basement for that. They only analyzed the sediment hosted oils, to ensure any microfossils in the basement hosted oils would not seriously question their story. (Lack of micro fossils would not have got them anywhere either, since micro fossils have a nasty tendency to come and go; something the biotics would have dumped in their head with endless number of examples.)
And why do they only see Devonian and late Precambrian fossils ? Sediments of those ages are not present between the basement and the sediment reservoirs (Krayushkin et al. Fig 2). Do they think that the Carboniferous sediments are composed entirely of re-sedimented Devonian & Precambrian sediments, so that they only see Devonian and Precambrian fossils from the Carboniferous sediments. Of course, it is not completely impossible; just unlikely, but a simple check of all the cuttings from the Carboniferous sediments outside the petroleum columns would have checked that story. The most likely explanaton is that the Devonian microfossils comes from the Devonian source rocks down-dip to the south.
(It is actually interesting they find Riphean/Vendian fossil assemblages in the oils. Sediments of that age have never been penetrated in the basin. Riphean/Vendian (late Precambrian) sediments are known from basins further north, but due to the very thick Devonian at the basin center, it is hard from the seimics to prove that not some of the lower package is actually older than Devonian.)
The only "evidence" Krayushkin et al. present to indicate that these petroleum fields are abiotic is hence that someone 45 years ago claimed: "absence of any "source rock" (so-called) and the presence of active, strongly-circulating artesian waters". I have I friend who has an aunt in a fishing village in Northern Norway. In 1952 she thought the fishing season would be bad. It turned out to be good. Hence Krayushkin et al., would have used this story to prove that the fish in Northern Norway is abiotic. And Jerome Corsi (Remember the "Swift-Boat" and "Not fit for command" author (who based much of the book ""Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" ($26.95 On Sale $19.95) " on Krayushkin et al.'s surreal story)) would have written a book about how the "fraudulent liberals in Northern Norway spread lies to deprive Europe from cheap unlimited abiotic fish".
One additional observation can however, be made from this story; Krayushkin et al. actually acknowledges that it is possible to tell the difference between an algae and oil !! :-). That story changes in Kenney's later hilarious ramblings about source rocks:
"they just contain oil which comes out of the rock when you heat it.
It is called "thermally-induced out-gassing". No petroleum formed from kerogen ! "
You sea Anaconda, you are free to believe Kenney's unsubstantiated ramblings. However,
the scientist all over the world, with this as speciality, report and demonstrate with data,
that oil-prone kerogen are in essence micro-fossil concentrates. No Oil in immature source rocks.
Only fossils. Take the material and heat it in an inert atmosphere: bingo oil full of biomarkers.
Back to the Donets fields. The initial abiotic advocates (e.g., Nikolai Kudryavtsev) can be excused for being bewildered by petroleum in fractured basement, because they never had data to see either how the entire sedimentary basin they we exploring looked like in 3-D. They were also normally unaware of how the specific reservoir they had drilled was interacting with the rest of the basin. Post 1970 petroleum explorationist with digitally processed multichannel 2-D and 3-D seismic data rapidly realized what was going on. Today there is no such excuse. Compare my kitchen sink glass of water scenario with the real geological scenarios on the northern flank of the Dniepr-Donets basin you can unravel from Stovdas paper, or to the Tiger field. Productive basement reservoirs, normally have near vertical fracture networks. Hence, often horizontal wells are required for good drainage; that has been, and partly still is the primary reason why such reservoirs are not on many explorationists favorite list. Also, the number of dry basement penetrations at locations like the Tiger or the Dniepr-Donets shoulder fields, compared to productive penetrations is a big number. And all these wells were drilled (some by accident :-) ) by the petroleum companies employing a traditional biotic petroleum system model, and not by any companies employing any abiotic model (if anybody can find one).
The Kenney Comrades also mention Helium to lure the uninformed into the belief that Helium indicates "abiotic oil".
The helium story is actually quite funny, safely based on ignorance among those preaching it:
Thomas Gold state that "Helium has no affinity chemically with biological stuff". He is right if he means that helium is not part of the life cycle, but that is not the relevant question. The relevant question is: where in the crust or more specifically in sedimentary basins do we have high concentrations of Uranium, the main source of He in the crust ? Any first year student in petroleum geology can answer that question. Gold did not know, and did not bother to consult the literature or simply ask a geologists. Instead he spun into a hilarious discussion about that the helium could have not been formed in the reservoir it was found, but rather must have come from below ! Did he figure out that all by himself ? :-) The answer to the question is: The highest concentrations of Uranium in sedimentary basins are found In good oil source rocks; oil-prone kerogen + Uranium is true !
In all petroleum wells a set of logs are routinely run. One of these logs, the gamma ray log, monitor radioactivity (gamma rays :-) ); and indirectly pinpoint where the crustal helium is being fabricated (alpha + elec). Hence, the petroleum industry (employing most of the worlds geologists) has around a million of radioactivity profiles through all parts of the sedimentary basins all over the world. A very common feature of good oil source rocks (particularly black shales) is their high uranium content, and gamma ray anomalies are one of the characteristics of such rocks. In fact, speciality Carbon Logs (Carbolog (R)) have been designed using the combination of the gamma and density logs. Nothing is universal in nature, but the association of high uranium content and high concentrations of oil-prone kerogen is as common as it gets in shales. In Sweden, during the time they generated oil from the Cambrian alum oil shale (the kerogen composed of the same algae as in the Kukersite in Russia and Estonia; a cousin of one of the algae they found in the Dniepr-Donets shoulder fields), Uranium was a major commercial byproduct.
Uranium and oil prone kerogen occur together because accumulation of both are favored by strong anoxic conditions (required e.g., to prevent bacteria from eating up all the organic goodies). When Nikonov (1973) noted the strong association of helium to petroleum he also noted that this association is stronger when oil is present together with the gas (Nikonov, V. F., 1973. Formation of helium-bearing gases and trends in prospecting for them. Internat. Geology Rev. 15, 5, p. 534). Hence, this association between petroleum and helium is in fact excellent supporting evidence for that the petroleum comes from organic rich oil-prone source rocks. Still without any meaningful line of arguments, the abiotics claim the opposite. Thomas Gold is right when he state that helium has no affinity chemically with biological matter but that is irrelevant. Telephone books and telephones occurs together in telephone booths. The telephone book is made from trees and the telephone is made from metal and plastic, i.e., they do not have any "chemical affinity". But they occur intimately together because they are there together for another reason.
In the petroleum industry, it is not uncommon to model helium formation (Existing He + 4He both from 238U & 235U and 232Th and 3He from neutron activation of 6Li (the neutrons being produced by U and Th)) and helium transport in integrated petroleum formation and migration simulations (see e.g, Bethke et al., 2001 ("Basin Modeling with Basin2: Release 5 (and the modifications every worker do them-self)). Hence, the industry is fully aware of which factors are at play and under what conditions one gets high helium contents in petroleum: long residence of the source before petroleum expulsion etc; it takes a long time to produce helium 4 in large quantities. The relationship between predictions and observations are ok (see e.g., the summary of A. A. Brown's presentation in .Katz et al., (2008) (AAPG abiotic meeting in Calgary).)
$
$ But I have a question for you: Why are the oil companies spending so much money on looking
$ for oil where there shouldn't be any oil (at the bottom of the ocean). My first comment on the post.
Very easy to answer. No oil company spend any money on looking for oil where there should not be.
Only you are claiming such a thing. The link is as all your links: towards something unrelated.
Feel free to explain to the reader what you think you are talking about. (Did you actually read what you wrote yourself ?)
$
$ And would you care to explain away all these Abiotic Oil papers. at a conference sponsored by StatoilHydro.
$
$ No, I wouldn't expect you to answer all that.
I can explain that : -) If you think this indicate Statoil is working with abiotic exploration models I have to disappoint you.
StatoilHydro (The merge of Statoil, Norsk Hydro and Saga Petroleum) is the biggest employer of
geologists in Norway. The single session you refer to was one of 400 sessions, most of which had nothing to do
with economic geology. Furthermore, StatoilHydro being controlled by the Norwegian state, do for that reason
sponsor numerous events of "national importance such as the : International Geological Congress. The other
nordic countries do not have much spare cash to show off. Notice that Store Norske Kullkompani (Big Norwegian Coal company)
also sponsored the conference, so now you can make up the story that the Norwegians have understood that coal is abiotic as well :-)
Of other interesting events Statoil(hydro) has been sponsoring, is the yearly pizza-making competition downtown Stavanger.
Maybe Statoil is considering drilling in pizza as well; for olive oil ?
$
$ So let's discuss specific issues.
$
$ I'm game if you are.
$
$ Your fun to ride hard and put away wet.
$
$
$
So where do we go from now ?
If you think you can address the questions above I will be more than willing to follow up.
From your perspective, answering the questions will give you the possibilities to the
reader to prove that I am wrong; that I am the clueless who do not understand anything BUT REMEMBER. Answer the questions with your own words. That is the only way to initiate a real discussion, providing you think you can provide any insight.
No more endless sequences of the same one-liners and references to other places without scientific data.
And if it takes some time for me to respond; Don't worry, I will be back in a week or two or three.
The Coal Man
Postscript:
The petroleum system theory; how petroleum is formed, transported and accumulated is accepted and applied all over the world by any serious exploration company.
No other theory, because of it's enormous economic importance, has been more intensively theoretically/quantitatively tested then the petroleum system model; source, carriers, reservoirs. We know the theory reproduces quantitatively what we see. Any abiotic oil theory so far is not even on the outskirts of the ballpark.
Jack Kenney, Vladelin Kraushkin & Krutcherov lives in a reference sphere comparable to medieval times: working with simplistic cartoons disconnected from any meaningful calculations; while in the meantime, the oil industry has developed full 3-D computational models, where e.g., simple equilibrium calculations (the only thing Kenney et al have ever considered) are performed millions of times, at millions of locations during simulations. Notice though that in most of the temperature range in sedimentary basins, there are few equilibrium states; the equilibrium calculations are mostly for calculating potentials, and the networks of equations ultimately solved are equations of change rather then equations of state. Kenney & Krutcherov have simply fallen asleep at a level corresponding to pre-1970ths; they are outdated relicts totally unaware of the technical and scientific revolution that occurred in the subject starting at that time. And the really sad thing is that they are giving a bad reputation to the majority of brilliant and innovating Russian petroleum scientists. Their total ignorance of the current science, caused their attempts to publish in international scientific journals to fail. They responded with the most extreme public claims, and the extreme swindle stories like the
1) 65 billion barrels of non-existing abiotic oil. (The oil deposits are classical deposits(max a few hundred million barrels), discovered by traditional geophysical methods, the fluids are most likely derived from the Devonian source rocks sitting kilometers down-dip from the reservoirs.)
2) Claiming that "any modern Russian abiotic theory" was the cause for Russia's oil discoveries.
3) Claiming that they made abiotic oil in the lab, oil you poor onto your tank; they made a dry gas.
4) Pretending that Gas Resources Inc. is a company with a big staff apart from Kenney.
etc
No abiotic theory has been developed to any level were it can be tested. Nobody disagree hydrocarbons can be stable under mantle conditions, but nobody has formulated any testable model for how anything but the smallest molecules can survive the trip up into a PT regime they can survive for geological time. Any back of the envelope calculations indicate it is not possible. Hence, currently, only relatively dry gas can possible be considered.
Have a look at the different commercial petroleum system simulators the oil companies are using you already found by googling basin modelling.
Then compare that to Kenney's little world of swears and profanities.
Only geophysical data pinpoint likely reservoirs, and only the drill bit actually find oil and gas.
The petroleum system model sets the framework for all modern petroleum exploration, and is proven
and tested and retested on a daily basis. However, it is important to realize that any overall theoretical model can only be used to generate plays and to risk prospect. Only geophysical methods can be used ro actually locate and map prospects.
(Surface geochemistry is still the dark side of the moon (you said it Senftle; not me)). The second you have drilled though, geochemical methods becomes very important tools to generate data that can be integrated into the workflow.
Abiotic oil theory is an idea, that no data ever have indicated has any relevance. Some abiotic gases has been detected, and in some places Fischer-Tropsch likely has produced some slightly heavier hydrocarbons; however nothing which is remotely similar to 99.99% of the crude oils discovered and produced worldwide.
Response to the Coal Man:
As I indicated previously, I will take the discussion to the most recent post for maximum readership.
Please click the link below for my response.
Oil falls Below $70
Simple, very simple:
“The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time.” — Sir Fred Hoyle, 1982
Post a Comment