Re: The Saudis May Have Enough Oil
Rolf Martens
doIlookDAFT...@validEMAILaddressTOa.NEWS.group says...
>
>
>In article <dqk34...@enews1.newsguy.com>, Eric Gisin wrote:
>> BTW, the Saudis are spending $50 billion to increase production. What
exactly?
>>
> So, how much will their production increase, over the expected
rate of
>decline?
>
> The Boss asked me yesterday (rhetorically) "How high do you
think the
>price will go if the Iranians take a million a day off the market?" I
reckoned
>it wouldn't take an hour to go through 100$/ bbl.
>
>--
> Aidan Karley FGS
> Aberdeen, Scotland,
> Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
And that would actually suit, for intance, the government of
the USA, which is engaging in a policy of making all energy
scarce and expensive, internationally (although of course this
also hurts some of the capitalists in that country).
You, Aidan Karley, who (it seems) actually are engaging in
the extracting of natural gas (at least), perhaps are aware
of the fact that not only Saudi Arabia, but for instance
Scotland too, and even (most likely) Sweden, from which I'm
writing, have plenty of oil and gas? (with likely oil
production costs, true enough, not below $1bl as in Saudi
Arabia, but no more than $10-15/bl anyway - with deep
drilling, above all.) That those important substances by no
means have "biological" origins but stem from vast amounts of
hydrocarbons in the earth's mantle which are continually
surging upwards?
I imagine that lots of people in the oil and gas industries
must know this by now, and know that the "Oil Peak"
propaganda is just rubbish (disseminated out of some very
reactionary motives).
What do you say about this?
I can refer you (and others), in case that website is unknown
to you, to
Gas Resources Corporation, Houston, Texas, USA (J.F. Kenney):
http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm
Very important, I hold, and I have some articles, based in
part on the information there, at my homepage, under "UNITE!
Infos" #241-243en.
Rolf M.
Malmö, Sweden
www.rolf-martens.com
Aidan Karley
wrote:
> but for instance
> Scotland too, and even (most likely) Sweden, from which I'm
> writing, have plenty of oil and gas?
>
> That those important substances by no
> means have "biological" origins but stem from vast amounts of
> hydrocarbons in the earth's mantle which are continually
> surging upwards?
>
> I imagine that lots of people in the oil and gas industries
> must know this by now, and know that the "Oil Peak"
> propaganda is just rubbish (disseminated out of some very
> reactionary motives).
>
long enough for the rust to form on the car. No need to change any of
your personal behaviour because all the necessary changes can be done
by any descendants you have.
> I can refer you (and others), in case that website is unknown
> to you, to
>
colleagues who actually worked on the Siljan Ring wells for my
understanding of what was found. I don't need to go to 3rd or 4th hand
sources - I've got (or rather, had) access to eyewitnesses.
You don't want to change your lifestyle? OK, don't. It won't
hurt my children. But it could hurt your children (if they exist) and
will hurt my step-child and indirect descendants.
Dan Bloomquist
Rolf Martens wrote:
>
> I imagine that lots of people in the oil and gas industries
> must know this by now...
Then you have some kind of imagination. You will never look at the
numbers objectively. You are like a religious fanatic with this abiotic
oil stuff.
> Rolf M.
Best, Dan.
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney
Rolf Martens
doIlookDAFT...@validEMAILaddressTOa.NEWS.group says...
>
>
>In article <cbmBf.154546$dP1.5...@newsc.telia.net>, Rolf Martens
>wrote:
>> but for instance
>> Scotland too, and even (most likely) Sweden, from which I'm
>> writing, have plenty of oil and gas?
>>
> Ohhh, what do I see looming on the horizon? Is it a Goldite?
>
>> That those important substances by no
>> means have "biological" origins but stem from vast amounts of
>> hydrocarbons in the earth's mantle which are continually
>> surging upwards?
>>
> Yes, it's a Goldite.
Actually, it would be more appropriate to call me - a person
who (although in my case, I'm an amateur in these matters)
knows that the abiotic theory on the formation of oil, natural
gas and coal is the correct one - a "Kudryavtsevite", or
perhaps a "Medeleevite".
As you can see in the article at Kenney's website at
http://www.gasresources.net/Introduction.htm,
for instance, it was some Russian scientists, above all
Kudryavtsev, who in the early 1950s (when the Soviet Union
was still socialist) demonstrated the correctness of that
theory, which was then applied in practice in the Soviet
Union too, so that that country eventually surpassed even
Saudi Arabia in oil production.
And it was another Russian, Medeleev (the one with the
periodical system in chemistry), who already back in 1877
first formulated that theory.
Thomas Gold's knowledge of the matter came much later, in the
late 1970s or so. Because of the suppression in the West of
practically all knowledge of the modern, originally Russian-
Ukrainian petroleum science (see Kenney, for instance, on
this), it was Gold who became the best-known advocate in the
West of the correct, abiotic theory. Even you, Aidan, seems
to be unaware of the much earlier history, and practical
success, of that theory.
>
>> I imagine that lots of people in the oil and gas industries
>> must know this by now, and know that the "Oil Peak"
>> propaganda is just rubbish (disseminated out of some very
>> reactionary motives).
>>
> Yeah, right. Just pour more oil into your SUV. The oil will last
>long enough for the rust to form on the car. No need to change any of
>your personal behaviour because all the necessary changes can be done
>by any descendants you have.
Yeah, right indeed. Here you're even dishing out that "need
for everybody to change their behaviour" and revert to
conditions of the 1800s or 1700s, "because we'll soo´n run
out of oil" - precisely the extremely silly and extremely
reactionary propaganda of the present main rulers of the
world, who very much would like a return to the feudal-type
*political* conditions of those earlier centuries. Conditions
in which the rule of a small minority was being questioned
even much less, by the vast majority of people, than it is
today.
However, there are no such "natural restraints" at all which
would prevent industrial, and social, development, prevent
people's living standards from improving, all over the
world, or even force them to deteriorate. Technically, it's
not difficult at all for mankind to use more and more of
cheaper and cheaper energy - a condition for all development.
There's that quite superior energy source, nuclear energy, to
begin with, and also vast quantities of oil and natural gas.
The problems concerning this are *political*, the rule of
that small minority of people who are exploiting and
oppressing practically everybody and who are also saying
"we'll soon run out of oil" - so as to get people to
"accept" a return to the 1800s or 1700s, or, in the case
of the poorer, underdeveloped countries today, to "accept"
their remaining in such conditions.
The proposition "we'll soon run out of oil" is based on that
"theory", of course, that oil, natural gas "have biological
origins". It seems that you actually believe that this is
true?
But it isn't, of course. That "bio-origins theory" has long
since been completely refuted. It even - see Kenney on this -
stands in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics.
Oil absolutely cannot be formed out of dead biolocial matter,
at those conditions of temperature of pressure which reign
close to the earth's surface. It comes from vast deposits
of hydrocarbons in the upper regions of the earth's mantle.
I though that you must be aware of this.
>> I can refer you (and others), in case that website is unknown
>> to you, to
>>
> You can refer me to whatever you want; I'll refer to my 3
>colleagues who actually worked on the Siljan Ring wells for my
>understanding of what was found. I don't need to go to 3rd or 4th hand
>sources - I've got (or rather, had) access to eyewitnesses.
Yes, the Siljan Ring project in 1986-1991 here in Sweden, the
country from which I'm writing this, is a good example. You
can see in the writings both of Gold and of Kenney, for
instance, that it did demonstrate the existence of oil and
natural gas at a depth of 6,500-6,700 in granite - impossible
if these substances had had biological origins. There was
a lot of howling against that project before it started -
"absolutely nothing could be found at such depth in granite" -
and also after oil and gas were actually found, there were
some silly lies by some people, saying either "no, the oil
must have come from the drilling fluid", or else "it must
have migrated from somewhere" (which clearly would have
been impossible).
What silly lie about this is it that you have heard, then?
The one about "the drilling fluid"? But there was, and is,
clear evidence, stemming from analysis of that oil with
several methods, that it actually came from deep down in
the granite, and certainly not from any drilling fluid
contamination. See several articles by Gold, Kenney and
others on this.
Precisely the Siljan Ring project proved, in a "Western"
country, the correctness of the abiotic theory. Only for
(arch-reactionary) political reasons was it soon abruptly
terminated, and later absolutely never spoken or written
about publicly, here in Sweden. Those many indications
which there were, already before that project was started,
of a very large oil and gas deposit under the Siljan Ring,
and those very promising results, further indicating this,
that it brought, still remain. But is there as much as
a whisper, on the part of the politicians or media, here in
Sweden, that perhaps this thing might be worth looking into
once more? No. This speaks volumes about the character of
the present system of society - in Sweden and internationally.
> You don't want to change your lifestyle? OK, don't. It won't
>hurt my children. But it could hurt your children (if they exist) and
>will hurt my step-child and indirect descendants.
>
>--
> Aidan Karley FGS
> Aberdeen, Scotland,
> Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
So, you're telling them that they "need to return to the
living conditions of the 1800s or 1700s"? Please give them
my regards, and pass on a message from me that you really
have got some important things upside-down: They certainly
don't need to do that which you're saying. I recommend
instead that both you and they try to inform themselves on
matters of science, such as the one concerning the origins
and abundance of oil (there's always the Internet!) and
on some matters concerning present-day society - so as to
get a more realistic, and considerably more optimistic, view
of what are the prospects for the future!
Hoping that your professionalism - that of someone actually
engaging in the extraction of natural gas (and of oil perhaps)
- will eventually get the upper hand over your (very
misplaced) belief in that stupid retrogression propaganda
of today's "big shots" in the world!
Once again: Have you read Gold and/or Kenney? If so, what
do you say about their propositions? And if not, will you do
it? Even amateur I can easily see that they're right.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Bob Downie
>
>Actually, it would be more appropriate to call me - a person
>who (although in my case, I'm an amateur in these matters)
>knows that the abiotic theory on the formation of oil, natural
>gas and coal is the correct one - a "Kudryavtsevite", or
>perhaps a "Medeleevite".
>
Perhaps a professional can add a reply to this by use of a simple
thought experiment.
The oldest historical method of oil exploration was to observe oil seeps
at surface and to drill nearby, thereby intersecting the oil-bearing
strata at shallow depth. This technique was responsible for the
discovery of significant volumes of oil and gas. The technique is still
widely used to the present day, though the technology is much advanced
with aerial and satellite imagery and geochemical sampling added to
simple visual observation.
So far, and correct me if you know I'm wrong on this, all areas of the
world with significant oil seeps are associated with areas of
sedimentary rocks and, more importantly, organic-rich rocks that can be
implicated or proven as the source of the oil.
Now if those pressing for commercial reserves of abiotic oil are correct
in their assumptions, one would predict the presence of significant
hydrocarbon seeps overlying areas of non-sedimentary ("basement") rocks.
As these do not exist one can reasonably infer that commercial
quantities of abiotic also do not exist. I do note that trace quantities
of hydrocarbons occur in non-sedimentary rocks.
I would be very interested if any exponent of the abiotic theory could
point be in the direction of an area of non-sedimentary rocks where
oil-seeps abound. As active exploration geologist I will be the first to
take out an exploration licence.
There is no conspiracy. Oil is a finite resource.
--
Bob Downie
Downie GeoScience Ltd.
please remove #n0spam# to reply directly
Rolf Martens
But the facts are quite clear, and known to not so few people
anyway, despite that doomsday propaganda "we'll soon run out
of oil!". They won't get any different either just because
those well-known reactionaries you're quoting sometimes,
hypocritically, are saying something half sensible on the matter.
Oil demonstrably is abiotic, and plentiful.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Rolf Martens
BobMail@downie-geo#n0spam#.co.uk says...
>
>
>>>.
>>
>>Actually, it would be more appropriate to call me - a person
>>who (although in my case, I'm an amateur in these matters)
>>knows that the abiotic theory on the formation of oil, natural
>>gas and coal is the correct one - a "Kudryavtsevite", or
>>perhaps a "Medeleevite".
>>
>
>Perhaps a professional can add a reply to this by use of a simple
>thought experiment.
>
>The oldest historical method of oil exploration was to observe oil seeps
>at surface and to drill nearby, thereby intersecting the oil-bearing
>strata at shallow depth. This technique was responsible for the
>discovery of significant volumes of oil and gas. The technique is still
>widely used to the present day, though the technology is much advanced
>with aerial and satellite imagery and geochemical sampling added to
>simple visual observation.
>
>So far, and correct me if you know I'm wrong on this, all areas of the
>world with significant oil seeps are associated with areas of
>sedimentary rocks and, more importantly, organic-rich rocks that can be
>implicated or proven as the source of the oil.
Gladly correcting you, old professional: Lots of oil since a long
time back is being pumped up from crystalline rocks, in several
countries in the world: Russia, the Ukraine and Vietnam, for instance.
It was found some 7,000 m down in granite here in Sweden too, only
for some reactionary political reasons, commercial extraction has
been desisted from.
See above all:
Gas Resources Corporation, Houston, Texas, USA (J.F. Kenney):
http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm
>
>Now if those pressing for commercial reserves of abiotic oil are correct
>in their assumptions, one would predict the presence of significant
>hydrocarbon seeps overlying areas of non-sedimentary ("basement") rocks.
>As these do not exist one can reasonably infer that commercial
>quantities of abiotic also do not exist. I do note that trace quantities
>of hydrocarbons occur in non-sedimentary rocks.
Sporry, they very much exist.
>I would be very interested if any exponent of the abiotic theory could
>point be in the direction of an area of non-sedimentary rocks where
>oil-seeps abound. As active exploration geologist I will be the first to
>take out an exploration licence.
You would not get any such licence from the politicians here
in Sweden (who in such matters obey those in the USA), if you
applied for one for the Siljan Ring area here, for instance.
Just try it!
>There is no conspiracy. Oil is a finite resource.
>--
>Bob Downie
>Downie GeoScience Ltd.
>please remove #n0spam# to reply directly
A whale of a conspiracy there is on this matter in the world.
And by no means the only one, concerning important matters
of the natural sciences. See some articles at my homepage,
for instance.
Bill Ward
<BobMail@downie-geo#n0spam#.co.uk> wrote:
Bob, I'm an amateur who read Gold's book and am intrigued by
his theory. I'm glad to see a professional interested
enough to make meaningful comments. I have a few questions
and comments I hope you can respond to.
1) Do the oil seeps around sedimentary formations depend on
the anisotropic permeability of the rocks?
2) Is there a general difference between the permeability of
sedimentary and basement rock? If so, could the lack of
seeps be explained by that permeability difference?
3) Is it possible for oil to be trapped beneath a formation
without seeps? Other than the Siljan experiment, has anyone
seriously looked?
4) What do you think of the magnetite Gold found in the
Siljan hole?
5) Have you personally read Gold's "Deep, Hot, Biosphere"
book? If so what did you think? Did you find any specific
serious errors?
Thanks for your interest.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Bob Downie
<rolf.m...@comhem.se> writes
<snip>
>>The oldest historical method of oil exploration was to observe oil seeps
>>at surface and to drill nearby, thereby intersecting the oil-bearing
>>strata at shallow depth. This technique was responsible for the
>>discovery of significant volumes of oil and gas. The technique is still
>>widely used to the present day, though the technology is much advanced
>>with aerial and satellite imagery and geochemical sampling added to
>>simple visual observation.
>>
>>So far, and correct me if you know I'm wrong on this, all areas of the
>>world with significant oil seeps are associated with areas of
>>sedimentary rocks and, more importantly, organic-rich rocks that can be
>>implicated or proven as the source of the oil.
>
>Gladly correcting you, old professional: Lots of oil since a long
>time back is being pumped up from crystalline rocks, in several
>countries in the world: Russia, the Ukraine and Vietnam, for instance.
>It was found some 7,000 m down in granite here in Sweden too, only
>for some reactionary political reasons, commercial extraction has
>been desisted from.
>
crystalline/non-sedimentary rocks with significant oil seeps. Where are
they?
2. Of course there is local production from crystalline rocks. It
migrates in from adjacent sedimentary sequences.
3. You keep on mentioning Russia. As it happens I have conducted a fair
number of exploration studies in Russia and am reasonably well
acquainted with the producing formations. Believe it or not there is no
significant production from crystalline rocks. It is insufficient to
vaguely say that oil is/was being produced from these. Please supply
specifics; field names locations. Data on virtually all Russian oil
fields is available and the nature of any producing formation easily
verified.
4. I won't go into the nature of the hydrocarbons (if any) recovered
from the Siljan Ring other than that was never proven to be of abiogenic
origin.
>See above all:
>Gas Resources Corporation, Houston, Texas, USA (J.F. Kenney):
>http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm
>>
>>Now if those pressing for commercial reserves of abiotic oil are correct
>>in their assumptions, one would predict the presence of significant
>>hydrocarbon seeps overlying areas of non-sedimentary ("basement") rocks.
>>As these do not exist one can reasonably infer that commercial
>>quantities of abiotic also do not exist. I do note that trace quantities
>>of hydrocarbons occur in non-sedimentary rocks.
>
>Sporry, they very much exist.
A simple assertion. Where do they exist?
If you care to reply with specifics such as areas of crystalline rocks
with significant oil seeps, and names and locations of fields with
production from crystalline rocks (non-attributable to sedimentary
source) then we have a dialogue.
Dan Bloomquist
Rolf Martens wrote:
>
> But the facts are quite clear, and known to not so few people
> anyway, despite that doomsday propaganda "we'll soon run out
> of oil!". They won't get any different either just because
> those well-known reactionaries you're quoting sometimes,
> hypocritically, are saying something half sensible on the matter.
I've looked at the numbers. Fields have and are peaking all over the
world. It is either a huge conspiracy by all the oil producers in the
world or it is what it is.
> Oil demonstrably is abiotic, and plentiful.
So far, no.
John Mauel
Hunt and the famous (in Calgary, anyway) shyster / scamster Larry Ryckman
near Ft. McMurray.
https://secure.globeadvisor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/gam/20050527/ROILABIOTIC27
is the only reference I could find. People (though probably not Ryckman)
lost a bucket of money.
Rolf Martens
BobMail@downie-geo#n0spam#.co.uk says...
Somewhere I have a report from a British drilling form about
hydrocarbons being found in crystalline rocks in very many
countries around the world. A very detailed report - I hope
I can dig it out from my stack of files soon.
For now, just one older thing which I've saved too:
An article from back in 1960:
Kenneth Knight Landes, John Joseph Amoruso, Lloyd James
Charlesworth, Frank Heany, and Pierre-Jacques Lesperance:
Petroleum resources in basement rocks
Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
(1960), 44(10):1682-1691
It's quoted at:
http://www.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/georef/1961009704
The authors wrote - NB, already in 1960:
"Abstract:
About 100 million barrels of oil has been produced so far
from basement rocks in Venezuela, California, Kansas, and
Morocco. Initial productions have been as high as 17,000
barrels per day. The reservoir in most places is fractured
metamorphic and igneous rock. Trapping can be either
anticlinal or due to varying permeability. All known basement
rock accumulations occur where the basement rock is at a
higher elevation than the surrounding flanking sediments. The
sedimentary veneer overlying the basement rock may or may not
contain oil accumulations. Most basement rock petroleum
deposits have been found by accident; the probable reserve
in these rocks is of such magnitude that discovery by design
should become the rule."
And concerning the oil found around 1990 some 7,000 m down
in granite here in Sweden, under the siljan Ring:
Was there proof that this oil was abiotic? No direct such
proof, as far as I know. But certainly, indications in that
direction. And definite proof that it did not, for instance,
come from "pumping fluid contamination", as certain people
have tried to explain it away with.
And is there any oil (found in the ground) that has
"biological origins", perhaps?
Of course not. As pointed out by Kenney, above all, this
is physically impossible, as many scientists have known
since some 100 years back now. See the article at the
website managed by him at:
http://www.gasresources.net/Nature%28Editor01%29.htm
I've earlier quoted from it:
"The second law of thermodynamics [which is the law saying
that the entropy, "disorder", must always increase - RM]
prohibits spontaneous genesis of hydrocarbons heavier than
methane in the regimes of temperature and pressure found in
the near-surface crust of the Earth. This fact has been known
by competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers,
mechanical engineers and thermodynamicists since the third
quarter of the 19th century.
...
The scientific problem connected with the genesis of
hydrocarbons has been that genuine scientists have not
heretofore been able to explain how, and under what
conditions, such molecules do spontaneously evolve. Our
article has resolved this question: Petroleum hydrocarbons
heavier than methane are the high-pressure members of the
hydrogen-carbon system; their spontaneous genesis requires
pressures comparable to those necessary for the spontaneous
genesis of diamond."
Those stories about that oil which is found in crystalline
rocks "having migrated from" sedimentary rocks (some dozens
of km away, for instance), are just fairytales, are they
not - invented for some very reactionary political reasons?
(About which - see my homepage)
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Rolf Martens
I've tried to locate a report by a British drilling company
on hydrocarbons found in crystalline rocks in many countries
and haven't found the thing which I've saved somewhere yet,
but I did find something quite similar:
http://www.geoscience.co.uk/geofrc/geobasetop.html
Hydrocarbon Production From Fractured Basement Reservoirs
- Version 7
February 2002
Introduction
This compilation presents brief details of the occurrences
of commercial hydrocarbon reservoirs in fractured basement
rocks from approximately 30 different countries. By
definition (see below), the review concentrates only on those
reservoirs found in igneous, metamorphic and volcanic rocks.
...
etc
(In the text, all the continents are listed, and then
the different countries.)
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
gresham
BobMail@downie-geo#n0spam#.co.uk wrote on 1/25/06 5:19 AM:
> The oldest historical method of oil exploration was to observe oil seeps
> at surface and to drill nearby, thereby intersecting the oil-bearing
> strata at shallow depth. This technique was responsible for the
> discovery of significant volumes of oil and gas. The technique is still
> widely used to the present day, though the technology is much advanced
> with aerial and satellite imagery and geochemical sampling added to
> simple visual observation.
>
This is absolute and total BULL SHIT !!!
Just look at Gulf Oil...millions of dollars...mile on mile of geochem
sampling, land and sea, satellite imagery.....the whole ball of wax......ten
years of it (1975 - 1985) and what did they find??? NOT ONE DROP OF OIL.
gresham
Bob Downie
writes
were first discovered by the observation of the location of surface
seeps. It is also a simple fact that oil companies use satellite imagery
and surface geochemistry as inputs to their exploration efforts. The
fact that some are not successful just shows how difficult it is to
locate subsurface hydrocarbons.
Bob Downie
abiotic origins and if we would only drill in the correct (crystalline
basement) places we would have more oil than we know how to deal with.
Then there are those whose profession it is to find oil and wish it were
so easy.
In an earlier post I postulated that if commercial quantities of oil
were of abiotic origin "one would predict the presence of significant
hydrocarbon seeps overlying areas of non-sedimentary ("basement")
rocks". I challenged anyone to either refute my proposition or to name
me a basement area where significant seeps occur. I am waiting for a
reply.
>
>I've tried to locate a report by a British drilling company
>on hydrocarbons found in crystalline rocks in many countries
>and haven't found the thing which I've saved somewhere yet,
>but I did find something quite similar:
>
>http://www.geoscience.co.uk/geofrc/geobasetop.html
>
>Hydrocarbon Production From Fractured Basement Reservoirs
>- Version 7
>
You have now tried to muddy the issue by mentioning numerous instances
of oil production from basement rocks as though this proves the point
that the oil is abiotic in origin. Let us be quite clear in this. _Yes_
oil is produced from basement rocks and _no_ this is not rare. However,
in every one of the instances oil is sourced by migration from nearby
sedimentary sequences. For example even in the above reference you cite
is the phrase:
"Structural highs in the basement are created by fault tectonics or by
the submergence and subsequent covering with sediments of hills
sculptured in the basement rock during its emergence. It is important
that the reservoir is overlain by a seal and that oil from adjacent
source rocks is able to migrate into this trap."
For any occurrence of commercial basement-hosted oil to be significant
it would have to wholly divorced from any sedimentary sequences. In
previous posts you have mentioned Russia as having such deposits. In an
earlier post I challenged you to give the names and locations of these
fields. For these I am also waiting.
Bob Downie
<bward...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>
>1) Do the oil seeps around sedimentary formations depend on
>the anisotropic permeability of the rocks?
vertical component, yes. These may act as permeability conduits.
>
>2) Is there a general difference between the permeability of
>sedimentary and basement rock?
Very much so. Sedimentary rocks frequently have high intrinsic
porosities and permeabilities (which is why they are good hydrocarbon
reservoirs). Basement rocks almost invariably have low porosities and
permeabilities (except where fractured).
> If so, could the lack of
>seeps be explained by that permeability difference?
Yes. Basement rocks tend to be very rigid and hence liable to brittle
fracturing. Sedimentary rocks in general, and shales and halite in
particular, tend to be more ductile. Thus brittle basement rocks are
typified by frequent open fractures whereas sedimentary rocks tend to
deform in a ductile manner. All else being equal there would be a
greater expectation that basement rocks would leak oil to surface.
>
>3) Is it possible for oil to be trapped beneath a formation
>without seeps? Other than the Siljan experiment, has anyone
>seriously looked?
Anything is possible. Geologists have crawled over the globe recording
whatever they see. I think that if significant oil seeps over basement
territories were present they would have been observed.
>
>4) What do you think of the magnetite Gold found in the
>Siljan hole?
Pass
>
>5) Have you personally read Gold's "Deep, Hot, Biosphere"
>book? If so what did you think? Did you find any specific
>serious errors?
Only the discussions on it in the scientific press. Here is a question
for you. Did you ever read a good book on petroleum geology? Did you
find any specific errors in it?
>
>Thanks for your interest.
You are welcome
Rolf Martens
BobMail@downie-geo#n0spam#.co.uk says...
>
>
>There are those who propose the idea that most oil in the world is from
>abiotic origins and if we would only drill in the correct (crystalline
>basement) places we would have more oil than we know how to deal with.
And those people are quite right, of course. Btw, not only
"most" oil (found in the ground) is abiotic. ALL of it is.
Oil cannot be formed, spontaneously (in nature) out of dead
biological matter, yoU see.
>Then there are those whose profession it is to find oil and wish it
were
>so easy.
Among those with that profession, there are quite many who
do know the simple truth about oil's origins too. Many in
Russia and the Ukraine, to begin with. See Kenney on this.
Or Vladimir G. Kutcherov, quoted at my homepage at:
http://rolf-martens.com/otherspubs/040108_v_g_kutcherov_on_abiotic_oil.h
tml
Now both the main reactionary governments in the world and
the big oil companies, for political and directly economic
reason, absolutely don't want this truth to come out. They
very much want people to believe in the "bio-origins" and
"scarce" idiocy. Perhaps you're employed by one of those
companies, and genuinely believe in that idiocy, just, more
or less unconsciously, to keep your "peace of mind"?
Anyway, it seems that many geophysicists in the West too
know very well that the abiotic theory is the correct one,
only, they dare only say so in private. On this, see my
homepage too:
http://rolf-martens.com/otherspubs/051011_geophysicists_admit_oil_is_abi
otic.html
>In an earlier post I postulated that if commercial quantities of oil
>were of abiotic origin "one would predict the presence of significant
>hydrocarbon seeps overlying areas of non-sedimentary ("basement")
>rocks". I challenged anyone to either refute my proposition or to name
>me a basement area where significant seeps occur. I am waiting for a
>reply.
>
>>
>>I've tried to locate a report by a British drilling company
>>on hydrocarbons found in crystalline rocks in many countries
>>and haven't found the thing which I've saved somewhere yet,
>>but I did find something quite similar:
>>
>>http://www.geoscience.co.uk/geofrc/geobasetop.html
>>
>>Hydrocarbon Production From Fractured Basement Reservoirs
>>- Version 7
>>
>
>You have now tried to muddy the issue by mentioning numerous instances
>of oil production from basement rocks as though this proves the point
>that the oil is abiotic in origin. Let us be quite clear in this. _Yes_
>oil is produced from basement rocks and _no_ this is not rare.
OK, so far so good.
>However,
>in every one of the instances oil is sourced by migration from nearby
>sedimentary sequences. For example even in the above reference you cite
>is the phrase:
>
>"Structural highs in the basement are created by fault tectonics or by
>the submergence and subsequent covering with sediments of hills
>sculptured in the basement rock during its emergence. It is important
>that the reservoir is overlain by a seal and that oil from adjacent
>source rocks is able to migrate into this trap."
These "migration" stories I don't believe at all. They're
(mainly, at least) just some inventions, intended to explain
away the fact that the oil has surged up from the mantle,
irrespective of whether the overlaying rocks are sedimentary
or crystalline.
>For any occurrence of commercial basement-hosted oil to be significant
>it would have to wholly divorced from any sedimentary sequences. In
>previous posts you have mentioned Russia as having such deposits. In an
>earlier post I challenged you to give the names and locations of these
>fields. For these I am also waiting.
>--
>Bob Downie
>Downie GeoScience Ltd.
Details on this I actually don't know. I refer you to Kenney's
website, the article "The Exploration and Development of the
Twelve Major and one Giant Oil and Gas Fields on the Northern
Flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin", at
http://www.gasresources.net/DDBflds2.htm
and to what Kutcherov said (here in Sweden in 2004), as
quoted by me at the address give above:
"Indirect evidence favoring the modern abiotic theory is the
process of exploration and production of petroleum in an area
which had been previously abandoned due to the "biologic-
origin" hypothesis. The northern flank of the Dniepr-Donets
basin, was reexamined according to the perspective of the
modern theory of deep, abiotic genesis of hydrocarbons and
more than 50 connected oil and gas fields were found."
The best *direct* evidence for that theory of course remains
the fact that the "bio-origins" idiocy simply contradicts
the laws of nature. Only because of the fanatical interest
in favour of it, on the part of those who rule the world
today, and their massive propaganda (and pressure on
professionals) do some people still believe in it, or pretend
to do so.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Rolf Martens
says...
>
>Now both the main reactionary governments in the world and
>the big oil companies, for political and directly economic
>reason, absolutely don't want this truth to come out.
[The one about oil' having abiotic origins]
>They
>very much want people to believe in the "bio-origins" and
>"scarce" idiocy.
This, by the way, includes the government of Russia
and some Russian oil companies too. Take the Russian
oil company Sibneft, for instance. At its homepage,
it blithely maintains that "oil has bio-origins",
with no discussion whatsoever mentioned on this
matter.
Precisely as if it were not precisely in Russia
that this was conclusively disproved, 50 years
ago, with the scientific discussion settled in that
country then.
Propaganda motives lie behind this idiocy and
pretended ignorance by Sibneft (for instance) too.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Bob Downie
<rolf.m...@comhem.se> writes
>>In an earlier post I postulated that if commercial quantities of oil
>>were of abiotic origin "one would predict the presence of significant
>>hydrocarbon seeps overlying areas of non-sedimentary ("basement")
>>rocks". I challenged anyone to either refute my proposition or to name
>>me a basement area where significant seeps occur. I am waiting for a
>>reply.
And still a reply does not come.
>
>>However,
>>in every one of the instances oil is sourced by migration from nearby
>>sedimentary sequences. For example even in the above reference you cite
>>is the phrase:
>>
>>"Structural highs in the basement are created by fault tectonics or by
>>the submergence and subsequent covering with sediments of hills
>>sculptured in the basement rock during its emergence. It is important
>>that the reservoir is overlain by a seal and that oil from adjacent
>>source rocks is able to migrate into this trap."
>
>These "migration" stories I don't believe at all. They're
>(mainly, at least) just some inventions, intended to explain
>away the fact that the oil has surged up from the mantle,
>irrespective of whether the overlaying rocks are sedimentary
>or crystalline.
>
>>
>Details on this I actually don't know. I refer you to Kenney's
>website, the article "The Exploration and Development of the
>Twelve Major and one Giant Oil and Gas Fields on the Northern
>Flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin", at
>http://www.gasresources.net/DDBflds2.htm
>
As I said, all examples of basement-hosted hydrocarbons are related to
lateral migration from adjacent sedimentary source rocks. If you check
your above reference, I think that you will see that the basement is
intimately surrounded by sedimentary sequences. As for the content of
the paper, bits of it I read were gobbeldy-gook. For example, there is
no such thing as "Paleontology analyses of the oil". Oil contains no
fossils. Additionally, the evidences given in the paper for the abiotic
origin of the oil are simple assertions, such as you make, backed up by
no evidence. A paper like that could only be published on the web.
So where are the basement areas with oil seeps? Were are the
basement-hosted oil fields not associated with sedimentary sequences?
--
Bob Downie
Downie GeoScience Ltd.
Long...@aol.com
scientific wisdom turned out to be wrong, or at least incomplete. It
would behoove us all to be a little humble about topics such as the
origin of oil, and at least leave our minds open to the possibility
that there may be more to the story than is included in the
currently-accepted wisdom.
Kenny and some Russian co-authors published a paper in the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences a few years ago (Vol. 99, #17, Aug
20, 2002).
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.172376899
They made some assertions that I do not have the technical knowledge to
assess. Based on thermodynamics, they claimed that alkanes form
inorganically at very high pressures & temperatures, corresponding to
depths in the Earth of about 100 km. (Presumably, this is analogous to
carbon forming into diamonds at high pressure & temperature). They
also seemed to cast doubt on a biotic origin for alkanes (except
methane) by suggesting that it would be thermodynamically difficult for
them to form at lower pressures.
Now, from a practical point of view, hydrocarbons formed at depths of
100 km might as well have formed on the Moon. The energy input
required to get to such hydrocarbons could well exceed their energy
content. Even if the abiotic origin theory is correct, we might still
be left with having to harvest them where they have leaked up over
geological time into more accessible structural/stratigraphic traps --
which is what the industry has been doing quite effectively anyway.
Again, there is an analogy with how we harvest diamonds.
If anyone has an understanding of the thermodynamic arguments about
hydrocarbon formation, it would be great to share some of that with
those of us in the Great Unwashed.
Bill Ward
I'll second that motion. Let's hear some of the physical
science arguments on both sides, and leave the rhetoric
behind.
Regards,
Bill Ward
>
gresham
Long...@aol.com at Long...@aol.com wrote on 1/26/06 9:56 AM:
I have here (in my hand) the results of at least 20 soil gas surveys. The
samples were taken from soil at a depth of 5 to 15 feet. Analysis was
performed using a portable GC unit. The number of sites sampled in each
survey varies from about 100 to over 800. The total number of sites being
about 5000. The hydrocarbons analyzed for being methane, ethane, ethylene,
propane, i-butane, n-butane and propylene. The statistics being mean
compositional ratios: for C1/C2 we have 1 survey at 25, three in the range
of 5 to 7 and the bulk being in the range of 12 to 15.
The ethylene to propylene ratio being fairly constant at 1.1 to 1.6
In most surveys ethylene correlated well (0.8 or greater) with all other
HC's except C1. and so on...
There can be no doubt that alkanes can form at low temp and pressure.
gresham
T.Keating
wrote:
No one disputes that abiotic HC's are possible..
In fact, it has measurable characteristics.
The phenomenon has been extensively profiled (via 13C isotopic
ratio). and the industry has been measuring those isotope ratio's for
many decades. Oil companies like to known what type of organism
produced the deposit..
I.E So they'll have a clue where to look for more.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/Jun2003/1055532737.Bc.r.html
"Re: Why do living organisms exhibit a preference for Carbon-12 over
Carbon-13?"
http://www.c14dating.com/frac.html
"The deltaC13 value for a sample can yield important information
regarding the environment from which the sample comes, because the
isotope value of the sample reflects the isotopic composition of the
immediate environment."
http://www.c14dating.com/isotope.html
The overwhelming isotopic data indicates that are current HC fuels are
derived from organic processes. Hence the wild abiotic oil theory
get's stretched well past the point of believability.
http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm
" Although hydrocarbons can be produced from inorganic sources, a 1993
study based on helium isotopes found that abiogenic hydrocarbons
account for less than 200 parts per million of cumulative global
production to date, Lewan said." ... That's less than 0.02%...
"I don't think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic
source of hydrocarbons. The key question is, 'Do they exist in
commercial quantities?'"
Likewise ... the decreasing atmospheric isotope C13 ratio also
eliminates volcanic events as the cause of current CO2 problem..
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/001753.html
"How Do We Know That CO2 Increases Come From Human Activity? ?
Now.. If you wan't to dispute scientific methodology of isotopic
fractionation.. you're welcome to argue with the nearest rock..
more refs...
http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/isoig/period/c_iig.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1037/OFR2004-1037.pdf
Dan Bloomquist
Bill Ward wrote:
>
> I'll second that motion. Let's hear some of the physical
> science arguments on both sides, and leave the rhetoric
> behind.
I'll vote it one step further and say take from the reason for having
the discussion. It is about cheap hydrocarbons. First, we know we get
them typically from certain geological structures. So that is where we
look. It doesn't matter what the source is because present assumptions
used to look for oil work as well enough. If abiotic theory leads to
major discoveries, great. But they don't. If it is about the next source
of hydrocarbons, we already know there are vast ocean deposits in the
form of methane hydrates. But the same problem as an end result, they
are not economically producible.
It may very well be true that some or all hydrocarbons are abiotic. So
what? If it doesn't result in producible oil, it remains academic and
has nothing to do with the subject of peak oil. It only detracts from a
very serious issue that the world desperately needs to address, even if
it is to late to fix it properly.
http://lakeweb.com/tmp/Hirsch.pdf
> Bill Ward
Bill Ward
No, geology is unfortunately not my field. I'm hoping to
find someone who does know enough about petroleum geology to
objectively comment on Gold's book directly, rather than
relying on book reports.
If you do read it, I'd certainly be interested in your
opinion.
Thanks for your comments.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Bill Ward
<tkgo...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>
>No one disputes that abiotic HC's are possible..
> In fact, it has measurable characteristics.
>
> The phenomenon has been extensively profiled (via 13C isotopic
>ratio). and the industry has been measuring those isotope ratio's for
>many decades. Oil companies like to known what type of organism
>produced the deposit..
>
> I.E So they'll have a clue where to look for more.
>
>
>http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/Jun2003/1055532737.Bc.r.html
>"Re: Why do living organisms exhibit a preference for Carbon-12 over
>Carbon-13?"
>
>http://www.c14dating.com/frac.html
>
>"The deltaC13 value for a sample can yield important information
>regarding the environment from which the sample comes, because the
>isotope value of the sample reflects the isotopic composition of the
>immediate environment."
It seems to me that there is an implicit assumption that
biologic mechanisms are the only way that 13C and 14C can be
fractionated. What about diffusion through fine pores
during an upward trip through the porous rocks? Has that
been ruled out?
>
>http://www.c14dating.com/isotope.html
>
> The overwhelming isotopic data indicates that are current HC fuels are
>derived from organic processes. Hence the wild abiotic oil theory
>get's stretched well past the point of believability.
I would think that would depend on whether organic processes
are the sole method of isotope separation.
>
>http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm
>" Although hydrocarbons can be produced from inorganic sources, a 1993
>study based on helium isotopes found that abiogenic hydrocarbons
>account for less than 200 parts per million of cumulative global
>production to date, Lewan said." ... That's less than 0.02%...
>
>"I don't think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic
>source of hydrocarbons. The key question is, 'Do they exist in
>commercial quantities?'"
The flip side is "have we really looked in enough places to
be sure?"
I haven't seen enough solid evidence on either side to be
convinced either way. Much of the discussion seems to have
a political agenda attached which raises doubts about both
sides.
The wikipedia entry appears to me to be fairly balanced:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiotic_oil
Would you care to comment on anything there?
Regards,
Bill Ward
Bill Ward
<publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>
>Bill Ward wrote:
>>
>> I'll second that motion. Let's hear some of the physical
>> science arguments on both sides, and leave the rhetoric
>> behind.
>
>I'll vote it one step further and say take from the reason for having
>the discussion. It is about cheap hydrocarbons. First, we know we get
>them typically from certain geological structures. So that is where we
>look. It doesn't matter what the source is because present assumptions
>used to look for oil work as well enough. If abiotic theory leads to
>major discoveries, great. But they don't. If it is about the next source
>of hydrocarbons, we already know there are vast ocean deposits in the
>form of methane hydrates. But the same problem as an end result, they
>are not economically producible.
>
>It may very well be true that some or all hydrocarbons are abiotic. So
>what? If it doesn't result in producible oil, it remains academic and
>has nothing to do with the subject of peak oil. It only detracts from a
>very serious issue that the world desperately needs to address, even if
>it is to late to fix it properly.
But it also may be that oil companies are looking where they
have always looked. Science is all about understanding how
things work. It can't hurt to find out whether the current
paradigm is right or wrong. If we better understand where
oil comes from, it might improve the economics of
production.
I'm curious, for example, where all those methane hydrate
deposits came from. If we knew, it might suggest a way to
exploit them.
First the science, then the economics, then the engineering,
then the profits.
As always, thanks for your comments, Dan.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Bob Downie
<bward...@ix.netcom.com> writes
I previously postulated the following:
"If those pressing for commercial reserves of abiotic oil are correct in
their assumptions, one would predict the presence of significant
hydrocarbon seeps overlying areas of non-sedimentary ("basement") rocks.
"
In detail the argument is as follows.
1. Significant oil and gas seeps are frequently observed in sedimentary
basins and are often the explorationists first indication of the
petroleum potential of an area. Conventional wisdom has it that these
seeps are sourced from organic-rich rocks.
2. If deep generation abiotic oil were to migrate to shallow levels
where it could be tapped by drilling to typical oil-field depths (say
1-4km), there must be parts of the world where this oil migrates to
surface via faults and fractures. Significant oil or gas seeps should
result. (As an aside, I would suggest that seeps would be more likely in
basement terrains due to the brittle nature of the rocks and hence
greater occurrence of open fractures).
3. The theory of deep abiotic oil would imply that seeps would be
equally likely to occur in sedimentary or basement terrains.
4. As far as I know (and I am prepared to be corrected on this) there
are no basement areas of the world where major hydrocarbon seeps are
present, except where adjacent to sedimentary sequences.
5. As major hydrocarbon seeps do not occur in basement areas distal to
sedimentary sequences, the theory of abiotic oil is incorrect.
T.Keating
wrote:
>On 26 Jan 2006 15:39:08 -0800, "T.Keating"
><tkgo...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>>>
>>
>>No one disputes that abiotic HC's are possible..
>> In fact, it has measurable characteristics.
>>
>> The phenomenon has been extensively profiled (via 13C isotopic
>>ratio). and the industry has been measuring those isotope ratio's for
>>many decades. Oil companies like to known what type of organism
>>produced the deposit..
>>
>> I.E So they'll have a clue where to look for more.
>>
>>
>>http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/Jun2003/1055532737.Bc.r.html
>>"Re: Why do living organisms exhibit a preference for Carbon-12 over
>>Carbon-13?"
>>
>>http://www.c14dating.com/frac.html
>>
>>"The deltaC13 value for a sample can yield important information
>>regarding the environment from which the sample comes, because the
>>isotope value of the sample reflects the isotopic composition of the
>>immediate environment."
>
>It seems to me that there is an implicit assumption that
>biologic mechanisms are the only way that 13C and 14C can be
>fractionated. What about diffusion through fine pores
>during an upward trip through the porous rocks? Has that
>been ruled out?
yes... because it could never happen with any consistancy.
HC molecules are significantly larger than any particular carbon
atom. Crude Oil is made up of 1000's of difference molecules. Any
mechanical filter method capable of capturing 13C would have captured
every molecule larger than CH4.
I can't recall anybody(in the history of the world) who has
successfully fractionated atomic isotopes using a mechanical filter
process. (Sure would have made the Manhattan project a whole lot
easier.)
>>
>>http://www.c14dating.com/isotope.html
>>
>> The overwhelming isotopic data indicates that are current HC fuels are
>>derived from organic processes. Hence the wild abiotic oil theory
>>get's stretched well past the point of believability.
>
>I would think that would depend on whether organic processes
>are the sole method of isotope separation.
The high energy states of FT process and the rest of the junk Gold
propounds isn't capable of any significant 13C selectivity. Instead
Gold relies on dissolving existing organic HC's on it's way to the
surface pockets to explain away the gaping hole in his theory.
I.E. All his delta 13C numbers are masked by the organic HC
components. At which point, what's the purpose of his theory??
(No organic HC's to filter through == no Gold HC's.... an amazing
coincidence..)
>
>>
>>http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm
>>" Although hydrocarbons can be produced from inorganic sources, a 1993
>>study based on helium isotopes found that abiogenic hydrocarbons
>>account for less than 200 parts per million of cumulative global
>>production to date, Lewan said." ... That's less than 0.02%...
>>
>>"I don't think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic
>>source of hydrocarbons. The key question is, 'Do they exist in
>>commercial quantities?'"
>
>The flip side is "have we really looked in enough places to
>be sure?"
Yes.. the oil industry has poked more than enough dry holes in the
ground to find oil of any origin Their are all sorts of nasties
encountered in few deep wells already drilled. Like an ocean of molten
sulfur, more than enough to turn any HC's into H2S.
>
>I haven't seen enough solid evidence on either side to be
>convinced either way. Much of the discussion seems to have
>a political agenda attached which raises doubts about both
>sides.
His theory is unable to accommodate most the existing measurements.
(He conveniently ignores those data points.. and still lacks any real
supporting evidence.)
In summary.. Gold's theory doesn't hold any water.. A quack in the
oil industry.. Even the Russians have abandoned the "abiotic"
origin theory. The Russian "abiotic" paper was first published in 1951.
Then Craig (1953) ID'd organic (low energy state) methods 12C
selectivity and determined the true origin of the world's HC deposits.
>The wikipedia entry appears to me to be fairly balanced:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiotic_oil
>
>Would you care to comment on anything there?
Thoroughly discredited by subsequent publications, experiments, and
measurements . P.S. That's how our scientific process works.
Gold's subsequent publication was DOA on arrival.. His theory FAILED
peer review. Too much existing data contradicts his theory, so he
jumped to pop science journals.
Rolf Martens
Long...@aol.com says...
>
>
>There have been a number of examples over history where conventional
>scientific wisdom turned out to be wrong, or at least incomplete. It
>would behoove us all to be a little humble about topics such as the
>origin of oil, and at least leave our minds open to the possibility
>that there may be more to the story than is included in the
>currently-accepted wisdom.
>
>Kenny and some Russian co-authors published a paper in the Proceedings
>of the National Academy of Sciences a few years ago (Vol. 99, #17, Aug
>20, 2002).
>www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.172376899
Yes, certainly they are quite correct.
>
>They made some assertions that I do not have the technical knowledge to
>assess. Based on thermodynamics, they claimed that alkanes form
>inorganically at very high pressures & temperatures, corresponding to
>depths in the Earth of about 100 km. (Presumably, this is analogous to
>carbon forming into diamonds at high pressure & temperature). They
>also seemed to cast doubt on a biotic origin for alkanes (except
>methane) by suggesting that it would be thermodynamically difficult for
>them to form at lower pressures.
>
>Now, from a practical point of view, hydrocarbons formed at depths of
>100 km might as well have formed on the Moon. The energy input
>required to get to such hydrocarbons could well exceed their energy
>content. Even if the abiotic origin theory is correct, we might still
>be left with having to harvest them where they have leaked up over
>geological time into more accessible structural/stratigraphic traps --
>which is what the industry has been doing quite effectively anyway.
>Again, there is an analogy with how we harvest diamonds.
>
>If anyone has an understanding of the thermodynamic arguments about
>hydrocarbon formation, it would be great to share some of that with
>those of us in the Great Unwashed.
>
I on my part don't know enough about thermodynamics either
for me to be able to verify this independently.
But there is an important indirect verification:
The "peak oil" propagandists certainly have experts on
thermodynamics too. If Kenney et al were wrong, some of
these experts certainly would quickly point this out.
But there is complete silence by the "peak oil" crowd
concerning this argument of Kenney et al. So one may
safely conclude that it's correct.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Rolf Martens
>
>
>in article 1138290966....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
>Long...@aol.com at Long...@aol.com wrote on 1/26/06 9:56 AM:
>> If anyone has an understanding of the thermodynamic arguments about
>> hydrocarbon formation, it would be great to share some of that with
>> those of us in the Great Unwashed.
>>
>I have here (in my hand) the results of at least 20 soil gas surveys. The
>samples were taken from soil at a depth of 5 to 15 feet. Analysis was
>performed using a portable GC unit. The number of sites sampled in each
>survey varies from about 100 to over 800. The total number of sites being
>about 5000. The hydrocarbons analyzed for being methane, ethane, ethylene,
>propane, i-butane, n-butane and propylene. The statistics being mean
>compositional ratios: for C1/C2 we have 1 survey at 25, three in the range
>of 5 to 7 and the bulk being in the range of 12 to 15.
>The ethylene to propylene ratio being fairly constant at 1.1 to 1.6
>In most surveys ethylene correlated well (0.8 or greater) with all other
>HC's except C1. and so on...
>
>There can be no doubt that alkanes can form at low temp and pressure.
>
>gresham
>
There can be no doubt that they can NOT.
The higher hydrocarbons (those with carbon chains, that is, the
substances other than methane) in those samples you mentioned of
course were not formed at low temp and pressure, but had surged
up from the earth's mantle - the only place where they can
form spontaneously (as opposed to, by human action).
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
formed at low temp and pressure
Rolf Martens
tkgo...@ktcnslt.com says...
>
>No one disputes that abiotic HC's are possible..
> In fact, it has measurable characteristics.
>
> The phenomenon has been extensively profiled (via 13C isotopic
>ratio). and the industry has been measuring those isotope ratio's for
>many decades. Oil companies like to known what type of organism
>produced the deposit..
NO organisms ever produced any such deposit. This "wish" by
the oil companies is just part of their public propaganda.
> I.E So they'll have a clue where to look for more.
>
>
>http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/Jun2003/1055532737.Bc.r.html
>"Re: Why do living organisms exhibit a preference for Carbon-12 over
>Carbon-13?"
>
>http://www.c14dating.com/frac.html
>
>"The deltaC13 value for a sample can yield important information
>regarding the environment from which the sample comes, because the
>isotope value of the sample reflects the isotopic composition of the
>immediate environment."
>
>http://www.c14dating.com/isotope.html
>
> The overwhelming isotopic data indicates that are current HC fuels are
>derived from organic processes.
Wrong. That isotope fractionation which your'e advancing as
an argument for that long since refuted "bio-origins" hypothesis
occurs also when the hydrocarbons, surging up from the earth's
mantle (the only place which higher such than methane can be
formed), pass through certain kinds of rocks.
>Hence the wild abiotic oil theory
>get's stretched well past the point of believability.
>
>http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm
>" Although hydrocarbons can be produced from inorganic sources, a 1993
>study based on helium isotopes found that abiogenic hydrocarbons
>account for less than 200 parts per million of cumulative global
>production to date, Lewan said." ... That's less than 0.02%...
>
>"I don't think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic
>source of hydrocarbons. The key question is, 'Do they exist in
>commercial quantities?'"
>
>
> Likewise ... the decreasing atmospheric isotope C13 ratio also
>eliminates volcanic events as the cause of current CO2 problem..
>
>http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/001753.html
>"How Do We Know That CO2 Increases Come From Human Activity? ?
>
>
> Now.. If you wan't to dispute scientific methodology of isotopic
>fractionation.. you're welcome to argue with the nearest rock..
Some of which rocks precisely are responsible for that
fractionation which you wrongly assert is "proof of bio-origins".
Not even those rocks, thus, have any valid arguments against
the correct, abiotic theory - even if the politicians and big
oil companies no doubt would have liked to be able to persuade
those poor dead things to do so.
>more refs...
>http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/isoig/period/c_iig.html
>http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1037/OFR2004-1037.pdf
>
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Rolf Martens
>>
>>"The deltaC13 value for a sample can yield important information
>>regarding the environment from which the sample comes, because the
>>isotope value of the sample reflects the isotopic composition of the
>>immediate environment."
>
>It seems to me that there is an implicit assumption that
>biologic mechanisms are the only way that 13C and 14C can be
>fractionated. What about diffusion through fine pores
>during an upward trip through the porous rocks? Has that
>been ruled out?
No, you're quite right. This diffusion precisely causes
isotopic fractionation too.
>>
>>http://www.c14dating.com/isotope.html
>>
>> The overwhelming isotopic data indicates that are current HC fuels are
>>derived from organic processes. Hence the wild abiotic oil theory
>>get's stretched well past the point of believability.
>
>I would think that would depend on whether organic processes
>are the sole method of isotope separation.
Which it is not.
>>http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm
>>" Although hydrocarbons can be produced from inorganic sources, a 1993
>>study based on helium isotopes found that abiogenic hydrocarbons
>>account for less than 200 parts per million of cumulative global
>>production to date, Lewan said." ... That's less than 0.02%...
>>
>>"I don't think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic
>>source of hydrocarbons. The key question is, 'Do they exist in
>>commercial quantities?'"
>
>The flip side is "have we really looked in enough places to
>be sure?"
>
>I haven't seen enough solid evidence on either side to be
>convinced either way. Much of the discussion seems to have
>a political agenda attached which raises doubts about both
>sides.
>
>The wikipedia entry appears to me to be fairly balanced:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiotic_oil
>
>Would you care to comment on anything there?
>
>Regards,
>
>Bill Ward
As I've written before, there in particular is one
argument for the abiotic theory which in itself is
decisive. The one aboutthermodynamics, brought by
Kenney et al.
Oil simply *cannot* be formed spontaneously (that is,
in nature) at those low temperatures and pressures which
exist close to the earth's surface. This rules the
"bio-origins" hypothesis out.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
T.Keating
wrote:
Correction.. Mechanical filter .. Gaseous diffusion, can isotopically
separate identical chemical compounds. But it requires a precise
thermal equilibrium, an appropriate filter, and a closed system
(Closed system required or material left behind find's alternate
route to surface. Even with closed system equilibrium/P pressure
continuously shifts as more&more material is left behind. Only a
carefully controlled manufacturing process can maintain the appropriate
equilibrium necessary to maintain a consistent isotopic fractionation.)
All these events are unlikely to occur naturally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope_separation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaseous_diffusion
Bob Downie
<BobMail@downie-geo#n0spam#.co.uk> writes
Its bad form to respond to one's own posts but all I am hearing are
esoteric arguments about isotopes and thermodynamics which probably none
of us are expert on. I want to take the simple explorationist's view as
postulated above. Forget the high-blow theories for a moment, look at
the practical. Does abiotic oil work as a viable exploration model-
certainly not.
I notice that Mr Rolf Martens has now declined to answer me. He clearly
has no argument and knows he is on very shaky ground.
A response perhaps?
T.Keating
wrote:
Snip...
>Oil simply *cannot* be formed spontaneously (that is,
>in nature) at those low temperatures and pressures which
And what pressure is that?. 1 mile of water/rock is ~2000 psi..
And ask any chemist, (which you're not one) All reactions are a
function of TIME verses TEMP.. Millions of years can easily make up
for lower temps.
>exist close to the earth's surface. This rules the
>"bio-origins" hypothesis out.
You must be some sort of neophyte.
Organic to oil conversion to oil occurs every time I cook some meat.
(Same process occurs with all lifeforms.. just in varying degrees)..
My cooking pan...
One pound of hamburger.
Conditions one atmosphere, 250F, 10 minutes.
Fatty organic compounds (almost oil) rendered into Oil.
Pour oil off to reduce calories of meat dish.
LongmuirG
> In summary.. Gold's theory doesn't hold any water.. A quack in the
> oil industry..
It is not clear what "theory" you are dismissing here.
Gold's book on this topic was titled "The Hot Deep Biosphere". It has
been a couple of years since I read it, but his main point was that
life was more likely to have evolved in the dark, warm stable pores
below the Earth's surface, and later migrated to the much more
variable, exposed surface. Incidentally, those microbes in the deep
biosphere could be the source for all the organic markers which are
claimed to demonstrate the organic origin of oil. Abiotically formed
hydrocarbons were really just a sidebar in Gold's theory, as I
understood it. But please correct me.
Full disclosure -- my own guess is that whether hydrocarbons are
sourced biotically or abiotically (or both), they are only of practical
interest when they accumulate in the kinds of traps the oil industry
has been seeking for 150 years. But there are always unpredictable
advantages for us in gaining a better understanding of the world we
live in.
gresham
rolf.m...@comhem.se wrote on 1/27/06 5:40 AM:
> In article <BFFEA95D.13075%Gres...@cox.net>, Gres...@cox.net says...
>>
>>
>> in article 1138290966....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
>> Long...@aol.com at Long...@aol.com wrote on 1/26/06 9:56 AM:
>
>>> If anyone has an understanding of the thermodynamic arguments about
>>> hydrocarbon formation, it would be great to share some of that with
>>> those of us in the Great Unwashed.
Thermodynamic Arguments that something can not happen or occur or form,
should always be taken with a grain of salt or a smile. After all we exist.
My mentor, K.S. Spiegler (MHRIP), said that Thermodynamic's was a misnomer,
It should have been called Thermostatic's.
>> There can be no doubt that alkanes can form at low temp and pressure.
>>
>> gresham
>>
> There can be no doubt that they can NOT.
>
> The higher hydrocarbons (those with carbon chains, that is, the
> substances other than methane) in those samples you mentioned of
> course were not formed at low temp and pressure, but had surged
> up from the earth's mantle - the only place where they can
> form spontaneously (as opposed to, by human action).
>
> Rolf M.
> www.rolf-martens.com
> formed at low temp and pressure
>
Perhaps you missed the point: The strong correlation found between Ethylene
and ALL other HC's except Methane shows that TWO processes are involved. We
all know how methane is formed. Now (for your information) Ethylene is a
very strong plant hormone which (among other things) regulates root growth.
The implication is strong that the HC's are formed as a result of plant
growth and not vice versa.
gresham
BTW I'd like to hear more about Surging. Is it a fun sport?
gresham
Chris
in 1900 by 2075 it will reach 400 ppm. How long before we suffocate?
Chris.
Long...@aol.com
> Well the atmosphere will not last for ever! So the CO2 level take of upwards
> in 1900 by 2075 it will reach 400 ppm. How long before we suffocate?
CO2 is non-toxic to humans, and essential to plant life. Because the
human respiratory system has evolved using CO2 concentration as a
feedback mechanism, high CO2 concentrations can stimulate rapid
breathing. Normal CO2 in dry air is around 300 parts per million
(ppm). People can safely work in atmospheres containing 5,000 ppm.
Lethal CO2 concentration is somewhere between 25,000 ppm & 100,000 ppm
-- really, asphyxiation. 400 ppm in 2075 will be a breeze for humans,
and a bonus for plants. The real question is do we have enough
economically accessible fossil fuels to get us to 400 ppm in 2075?
Rolf Martens
Long...@aol.com says...
Saudi Arabia has lots of oil, to begin with - 1.2 trillion bls,
its leaders have said. Quite possibly, there in that country is a
direct conduit (an open fault) right down to the earth's mantle,
where the oil (and gas) comes from. Production cost in that
country: less than $1/bl.
Also in many other countries (including, most probably, Sweden
from where I'm writing) there are lots of oil to be found,
with deep drilling, above all - very little of which is
being undertaken today. Production costs: No more than $10-15/bl.
On CO2 you're right of course. It's good for humans and plants
to have, say 400 ppm of it in the atmosphere. This would not
increase the greenhouse effect much, since that effect to
some 96-99% depends in water vapour in the atmosphere.
Rolf M.
lvh
originating from bioprocesses are always non-active.
Crude oil contains many complicated structures such as poryforins, which are
similar to chlorophyll as present in plant leaves. Both factors may point
too strong probability for bio origin of crude oil.
In a refinery crude is easily and rapidly cracked at temperatures from on
350 dg C and for longer reaction times alteration can be shown at
temperatures as low as 250 dgC. Oil originating at high temperatures is
therefore very unlikely.
"T.Keating" <tkgo...@ktcnslt.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:1138318748.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:36:46 GMT, bward...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Ward)
> wrote:
>
> >On 26 Jan 2006 07:56:06 -0800, Long...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >>There have been a number of examples over history where conventional
> >>scientific wisdom turned out to be wrong, or at least incomplete. It
> >>would behoove us all to be a little humble about topics such as the
> >>origin of oil, and at least leave our minds open to the possibility
> >>that there may be more to the story than is included in the
> >>currently-accepted wisdom.
.
Rolf Martens
says...
>
>
>Many oil components shows optical activity in polary meters, compounds not
>originating from bioprocesses are always non-active.
No. They can be optically active too.
>Crude oil contains many complicated structures such as poryforins, which are
>similar to chlorophyll as present in plant leaves. Both factors may point
>too strong probability for bio origin of crude oil.
No, they don't. In the oil surging up from the mantle, many
substabces of bio-origins get dissolved. As for prorfyrins,
those found in oil contain nickel and vanadine. Bio-orgins
porfyrins don't contain these metals, but have iron or magensium
instead.
>In a refinery crude is easily and rapidly cracked at temperatures from on
>350 dg C and for longer reaction times alteration can be shown at
>temperatures as low as 250 dgC. Oil originating at high temperatures is
>therefore very unlikely.
It originates in en environment that has both high temperature
and high pressures - i.e. the mantle. In the refineries there is¨
not that high pressure.
The laws of physics prohibit the spontaneous formation of
oil, out of dead bio origin matter, at those conditions of
temperature and pressure which reign close to the earth's
surface. This has been known by scientists for over 100 years.
Thus the bio-origins hypothesis is long-since dead. See
Gas Resources Corporation, Houston, Texas, USA (J.F. Kenney):
http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm
for details.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
gresham
le...@wanadoo.fr wrote on 1/29/06 2:09 AM:
> Many oil components shows optical activity in polary meters, compounds not
> originating from bioprocesses are always non-active.
Umberto Colombo showed that silica gel was capable of (could be taught to)
separating D from L compounds. Perhaps clays could too since many have a
similar surface.
> Crude oil contains many complicated structures such as poryforins, which are
> similar to chlorophyll as present in plant leaves. Both factors may point
> too strong probability for bio origin of crude oil.
Many of these *structures* are traceable to the reservoir and hence were
added after oil emplacement. A good example is Helium found in natural gas
deposits.
> In a refinery crude is easily and rapidly cracked at temperatures from on
> 350 dg C and for longer reaction times alteration can be shown at
> temperatures as low as 250 dgC. Oil originating at high temperatures is
> therefore very unlikely.
You forget that High Pressure can (may) negate High Temperature. To some
extent.
>
>
Gresham