Homestead mailing list

[EarthNSky <erthnsky AT bellsouth.net>]

Clansgian AT wmconnect.com wrote:

> Ditto when I point out the weaknesses in the posit.  What's the point
>  of posting something to get people to thinking and then when they 
> think about it and conclude otherwise to take umbrage at it??

I guess that I wanted people to think in a different direction, about
how ubiquitous, if at all, life is in the universe, not about the way
oil is used.



> > > assigned belief and intent to my post that I did not intend.
>
> Bev, in my reply to your post, besides using the passive voice 'you' 
> meaning 'someone, anyone', where have I addressed your beliefs  or 
> you personally at all??  Who is doing the assigning here?

You did when you brought up the topic of Peak Oil...you made the
assumption that I intended the topic to lead to a discussion about Peak
Oil, when I intended the discussion to lead to a discussion about life
in the universe.
Also, you prefaced your comments with a reference to C2C, which was
directed squarely at me, calling the whole thing utter bunk.

Let me also make sure of something,,,,just want you to know that I am
not angry or anything, just trying, however unsuccessfully, to make my
point.


> > > Fossil fuels have almost
> > zero C14, and IMO, what little it does have is there from 'mixing' 
> > or contamination.
>
> Fossil fuels have almost zero C14 because every source of carbon 
> contains almost zero C14.  It, as you point out, is only made in the 
> upper atmosphere and occurs as less than on part in a trillion of 
> availble carbon.  It is implausable that atmospheric C14 would have a
>  chance to mix with the expected C12 and C13 of carbon that would
> have been present when the mantle was formed.  The reason there is so
>  little C14 in fossil fuels is because they have been in the ground
> so long, most of it has decayed into C13.  That there is any at all
> is a strong indicator of biological and therefore atmospheric origin.
The above is acceptable to me, but not what you originally said.

I thought about the way I wrote the part you quoted and I should have
gone back and expounded then, but will now.
By mixing, I meant the folding of crustal layers, where surface biology
gets folded and kneaded deep into the crust.  That is not really
contamination, per se, but it explains how the 'atmospheric' and surface
based isotopes get deep under the surface.


> Peak Oil analysis takes into account all known and extant data 
> concerning the existence of petroleum.  New data might surface that 
> force a different conclusion.  It hasn't happened yet, might some 
> time, but it hasn't happened yet.
>
> There are huge gaping holes in the Abiotic Oil theory that are not 
> explained and there are other data used to support it that do not 
> pass muster.  I am going to include the major ones at the end of this
>  post because few people will be interested in reading that far.  But
>  you, Bev, I invite to read them and then tell me that you think 
> petroleum might have an abiotic origin.


I just don't believe it is as mutually exclusive as you seem to insist
that it is.  Your list is quite valid and supports biotic origins, what
you would certainly expect seeing as how most petroleum comes from
shallow deposits, but it is like apples and oranges for our discussion.
 I just don't think it tells the whole story.  You've used a few
analogies, so I will use one, too...it may be that we are arguing
quantum mechanics vs. celestial mechanics, and neither is the absolute
truth of the matter.  It may be that both arguments are correct under
certain circumstances.   Walking widdershins in England is making
continuous left hand turns, walking counterclockwise in a circle.
Walking widdershins in Australia is making continuous right hand turns,
walking clockwise in a circle.  Where you are matters.

> > 1) The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary 
> > rocks.  If any signicant amout of oil were from a hydrocarbon lake,
> >  why would oil only occur in sedementary rock?

False.  Oil also occurs in igneous and metamorphic rocks, the
sedimentary stuff is just easy to access...
Without getting too deep in fractured geology, just look at this page:
http://www.geoscience.co.uk/geofrc/geobaseafrica.html
Granite is igneous..Lava, I believe, is also igneous.<G>

If you click over to the North American page of the same site
http://www.geoscience.co.uk/geofrc/geobasenamerica.html
You see that they are talking about oil in metamorphic rock.

By the way, #8 below is the same as this one.

> > 2) The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as 
> > shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic 
> > markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the
> >  two).   Biomarkers are organic compounds of specific biological 
> > origin identifying whether the petroluem is primarily of bacterial 
> > origin, or what type of plant the organic material came from.  How 
> > did those compounds get in the abiotic oil?

I never said that abiotic oil had biomarkers, but if it does, maybe
extremophiles.  If bacteria can live in lava, then bacteria can live in
oil.  Or, perhaps there was mixing of abiotic and biotic oil through
seepage, or perhaps the microbes were living in the rock that trapped
the oil and the oil absorbed the microbe fart.  How the hell do I know? <g>

> > 3) The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in 
> > accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative
> >  of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that 
> > formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks,
> >  the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).

I believe that applies to shallow deposits.

> > 3) The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and 
> > depositional environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of 
> > land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine 
> > sediments, those indicating marine conditions only in marine 
> > sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only bacterial 
> > biomarkers).

There's a 'close link', but no cross contamination?  No possibility
whatsoever that microbes in the rock pooped in the oil??


> > 4) Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100  (C) 
> > degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures
> >  as implied by the abiogenic postulate).

???


> > 5) The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the 
> > laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic
> >  theory.


That supports biogenic, but does not really speak to abiotics-at least
not directly. But, I'm glad you mentioned kerogen because kerogen has
been found on meteorites and seen in galactic nebulae.  If kerogen can
be turned into petroleum in the lab by heating, then that could explain
the presence of complex hydrocarbons elsewhere in the solar system,
which MIGHT imply extraterrestrial life.

> > 6) The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of 
> > biological fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything 
> > like the fractionation of light carbon that is seen in petroleum).

Perhaps I am getting tired, but I'm not getting what you just wrote.
Ron is pushing me to get off the computer, so it is hard to concentrate.

> > 7) The location of petroleum reservoirs down the hydraulic gradient
> >  from the source rocks in many cases (those which are not are in 
> > areas where there is clear evidence of post migration tectonism). 
> > That is, if oil were coming from from some hydrocarbon lake below, 
> > why is there always a biologically active geological layer above 
> > the deposit.

There is a magma chamber under a biologically active geological layer in
a volcano, but yet lava, gases, and water still rises through the
layers.  Did I misunderstand?

Since no one apparently has read Gold's book, I tried to find
information on it today.  There is a Wikipedia entry on abiotic oil that
mentions Gold's book and his special take on the matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

The good part starts about halfway down the page, and you can start with
the heading for "Evidence of abiogenic mechanisms"
If I had read that first, I would have just provided the link and would
not have written the rest of this post! <g>

Bev


--
"Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will
not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius
will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the
world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone
are omnipotent. The slogan 'press on' has solved and always will solve
the problems of the human race"

~ Calvin Coolidge