"Whether naphta was formed by organic matter is very doubtful, as it is found in the most ancient Silurian [Ordovician] strata which correspond with the epochs of the earth's existence when there was very little organic matter; it could not penetrate from the higher to the lower (more ancient) strata as it floats on water (and water penetrates through all strata)." -- Dmitri Mendeleyev, chemist, 1877
"It may be supposed that naphta was produced by the action of water penetrating through the crevices of the strata during the upheaval of mountain chains because water with iron carbide ought to give iron oxide and hydrocarbons." -- Dmitri Mendeleyev, chemist, 1877
T. Anthony Michael: BP Oil Spill Global Catastrophe Reaches Epic Proportions.
Let’s let the real experts tell us the real story about where oil and gas really come from. Highly esteemed Russian researcher, Dmitri Mendeleev, is described as follows by Wikipedia. Perhaps we ought to listen carefully to him. “Mendeleev made other important contributions to chemistry. The Russian chemist and science historian L.A. Tchugayev has characterized him as “a chemist of genius, first-class physicist, a fruitful researcher in the fields of hydrodynamics, meteorology, geology, certain branches of chemical technology (explosives, petroleum, and fuels, for example) and other disciplines adjacent to chemistry and physics, a thorough expert of chemical industry and industry in general, and an original thinker in the field of economy.” Mendeleev was one of the founders, in 1869, of the Russian Chemical Society.”
Here’s what Dmitri has to say about the abiogenic source of hydrocarbons in his tract entitled THE ORIGIN OF PETROLEUM:
“The capital fact to note is that petroleum was born in the depths of the Earth, and it is only there that we must seek its origin.” (D. Mendeleev, 1877){{ref|Mendeleev}} Mendeleev, D., 1877. L’Origine du pétrole. Revue Scientifique, second series, VIII, p. 409–416
certainly hypothesized to be there
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteI am strong follower of abiotic origin of hydrocarbons and there is no doubt even that hydrocarbons has been formed in the deep origin of earth without any involvement
of organic matter from the surface of the earth. but we can not ignore the strong past experience of link between the organic rich source rock and reservoir. we can not
ignore the strong chemical analysis of its link with the living organism and can be nicely justify in abiotic theory.
2. If we want to prove the abiotic origin of hydrocarbons we must respect these strong evidences. according to me there is no need to ignore these evidences by the
followers of biotic theory but these evidences are strong evidences against the fossil oil theory.
3. There was huge abiotic hydrocarbons lakes,rivers and ocean on the surface of the earth in past geological time like Titan.http://www.universetoday.com/12800/titan-has-hundreds-of-times-more-liquid-hydrocarbons-than-earth/ and out of these hydrocarbons heavy molecular weight ,sticky and waxy material has been reburied after mixing
with the organic matter from the surface and organic matter has nothing to produce the oil and just has been mixed in pre generated abiotic hydrocarbons.sediments
that has been formed without any involvement of these abiotic hydrocarbons are Dry Holes only and we are getting nothing near there in spite of well established sediments
4. source rock is a mixture of mud+organic matter+pre generated abiotic hydrocarbons and organic matter has nothing to produce the oil.
5. this theory can help to find new location of hydrocarbons under testable conditions.
6. this theory has respect for the all valid evidences by the both current biotic and abiotic origin of hydrocarbons.
regs
sureshbansal342@gmail.com