tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post5230507508714691973..comments2023-10-29T06:33:26.576-07:00Comments on Oil Is Mastery: Oil: At Least 3.2 Billion Years OldOilIsMasteryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13457713647671999890noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-10877628121814331722008-06-07T21:34:00.000-07:002008-06-07T21:34:00.000-07:00The Eugene Coste paper is available by direct link...The Eugene Coste paper is available by direct link immediately over at the left-hand column under his name.Anacondahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05522474791573134808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2100054477013501859.post-52176981808316270322008-06-07T21:25:00.000-07:002008-06-07T21:25:00.000-07:00GEOLOGISTS GET IT BACK-ASS-WARD, AGAIN (As Usual)E...GEOLOGISTS GET IT BACK-ASS-WARD, AGAIN (As Usual)<BR/><BR/>Eugene Coste,<BR/>Canadian Mining Institute Journal: The Volcanic Origin of Natural Gas and Petroleum, (1903).<BR/><BR/>(OIM) Post, Scientists Prove Hydrocarbons Are Abiogenic, February 2, 2008, Comment #3, Diamonds and Oil (Cont.), 3/26/08, Comment #4, More on the Diamond Story, 3/28/08, Comment #8, The Origin of Life?, 4/22/08<BR/><BR/>The bias that geologists have for "fossil" theory clouds their interpretation of the geologic evidence; they interpret everything through the biased prism of "fossil" theory, even when the evidence points in an entirely different direction.<BR/><BR/>This article points out the problems. First, geologists assume "The find suggests that oil forming micro-organisms were widespread very early in the Earth's history."<BR/><BR/>Why do geologists assume in this instance that oil comes from micro-organisms? What evidence in this particular context points to micro-organisms proceeding the presence of oil? This writer suggests there is no evidence, just geologists' bias for "fossil" theory.<BR/><BR/>But there is evidence that petroleum proceeded life. <BR/><BR/>First, let's look at the report: <BR/><BR/>"The researchers found oil preserved within fluid inclusions...similar to gas bubbles trapped in ice cubes."<BR/><BR/>"The tiny droplets of oil they found were extracted from rocks formed in an ancient sulphur spring that left behind huge deposits at a site in Austrailia."<BR/><BR/>"...and that sulphur-springs that formed the rocks studied by the researchers may have been the 'cradle of life on Earth'."<BR/><BR/>This writer reported on 3/26/08, and 3/28/08, here, in the above referenced comments that oil had been found in the inclusions in diamonds, even refering to "tiny bubbles." <BR/><BR/>This would mean the oil was trapped where and when the diamond was formed. We know diamonds are only formed in the Earth's mantel about a hundred miles deep, completely without any micro-organisms involved. Are these geologists in this story even aware of this salient fact?<BR/><BR/>The "researchers" found the oil associated with a sulphur spring creating huge deposits.<BR/><BR/>This is similar to Eugene Coste's work, asserting that oil is a product of 'solfataric' volcanic 'vent' like action. And oil is strongly associated with sulphur to this day. "Sour" oil has high sulphur content. <BR/><BR/>So, here, are three examples of association between oil and sulpher: the first example, is observable, today, and is an industrial nuisance, "sour" oil is more costly to refine; the second, was reported a century ago, in a well-documented scientific paper, cataloging examples of associations between oil and sulphur, including mentions of large deposits; the third, is contained in this BBC article, reporting that ancient oil, 3.2 billion years old, was found in association with a "sulphur-spring that left behind huge deposits."<BR/><BR/>All this is consistent with abiotic oil theory, as described by Coste and commented on by this writer.<BR/><BR/>When the reader considers the "oil inclusions," or "tiny bubbles" documented in diamonds, and oil's associations with sulphur and 'solfataric' vents, which, of course, is exactly what a "sulphur-spring" is, then what say you: Is there more evidence to believe oil proceeded life, or as the "fossil" theory geologists would have it -- that bacteria was "born" producing oil?<BR/><BR/>Is it possible that oil along with its associated minerals is the "cradle of life"?<BR/><BR/>And, that the bacteria was what actually sprang out of that "primordial soup" so many billions of years ago on the broad plains of Austrailia? <BR/><BR/>Again, what theory makes the better case in this instance: Abiotic or fossil?<BR/><BR/>You make the call.Anacondahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05522474791573134808noreply@blogger.com