Homestead mailing list

[Clansgian AT wmconnect.com]

> > 
> >> 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...

But read the posit more closely.  Oil is "associated" with sedimentary rock.  
Item #7 below takes care of that.  There is nowhere in the world where there 
is ignious rock from the surface to the drill site that has oil.  In every 
case there is a semidmentary layer where the oil formed and it seeped into 
domes 
and chambers below.  





>> 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>

One of the oil fields most often cited by the abiotic oil folk is Viet Nam's 
White Tiger field with is fractured granite and those sites come right out 
and 
say that it is bedrock granite with no association with sedimentary rock from 
which the oil would have seeped.  Of course this is an out and out 
fabrication.  Here is a description of White Tiger's geology (an accurate 
one) from 
Wikkipedia:

"White Tiger is not the only oil field convincingly shown to be hosted in 
granite; however, inspection of the seismic profile of the area shows <A 
HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fault_%28geology%29";>faulted</A> 
basement passive margin which is sealed by an onlapping <A 
HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentary";>sedimentary</A> sequence. It 
is plausible that the oil has migrated laterally from thelowermost, mature 
sediments into the fault systems within the granite.The <A 
HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic";>seismic</A> profile shows a 
definite basement <A 
HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_%28geology%29";>horst</A> with 
onlapping sedimentary <A 
HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_rock";>source rocks</A>, draped by a 
reservoir seal.<A 
HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Tiger_oil_field#cite_note-5";>[6]</A>This
 trap view would see the oil migrate up the horst bounding 
faultsfrom the lower source units, into the trap unit draped over the top."

That is, there is no such thing on the earth as a reservoir of oil in ingeous 
or metamorphic rock that is not associated with a nearby or overlying 
sedimentary layer and the oil bears the same biological markers as one finds 
in that 
sediment.


> 
> >I never said that abiotic oil had biomarkers, but if it does,

It does.  All petroleum does.  That is telling.

> 
> >> 
> >> 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.

No, not to shallow deposits only.  Even the deep deposits bear the biomarkers 
of overlying sediment.


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

And the ferns and lichens pooped in there too??


> 
> 
> >> 
> >> 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).
> 
> >???


What the abioticists fail to explain is that crude petroleum is a complex mix 
of organic compounds.  When crude is heated to 100 degrees it begins to 
'crack', chemically changing into the fuel compounds we fractionally distill 
off.  
Heat reduces the crude oil, therefore it could not have been formed as a 
result of magma heat as the theory suggests.



> 
> 
> >> 
> >> 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. 

What you reference here is meteoric kerogen, it is not the same thing as 
terrestrial kerogen.  There has been no kerogen (such as in so called "oil" 
shale 
and tar sands) that is chemically the same as metoric kerogen.



> 
> >> 
> >> 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.

Some components of petroleum is entirely of long complex chains of all C12 
isotopes, exluding C13.  Biological process can account for this, but an 
inorganic process cannot.