Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

[BobDodds]

Sparky, Anaconda, the real question as far as abiotic vs biogenic origin would not seem to be whether light oil can be turned into heavy oil, but, obviously, whether less chemically active lower energy potential material ("snake", dinosaur, plant) tends to turn into more chemically active higher energy potential material (would-be snake oil).

Where did that other question even come from? Where is there any hint that oil has to be biogenic unless gasoline can be turned into coal? Were dinosaurs made of gasoline, oh, I didn't know. I think the question is whether great pressure and heat tend to turn less reactive low energy material into highly reactive high energy material, isn't it, more or less?

[BobDodds]

In that context, we might pause and reflect on why diesel costs more if it only makes half a loop through the plumbing.

Then, ask ourselves if we can trust hired-archicalists who tell us diesel costs more.

People who work at refineries are wondering, and another thing that looks terribly simple to them is that we just keep paying. How does it feel to be personally disrespected and laughed at by other human beings? Human beings, like Bandar, they come and they go, let's make sense.

[Anaconda]

BobDodds,

Yes, I agree with your comment. I was just answering the question if it was possible for short-chain hydrocarbons (i.e., methane) to combine into long-chain hydrocarbons. This is the basic idea behind the Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep primordial abiotic oil formation in the mantle, as described by J. F. Kenney. (I subscribe to the Fischer-Tropsch Type formation of abiotic oil because it has laboratory and field observations to support it, as has been discussed many times on this board. However, I don't dismiss the possibility of deep primordial abiotic oil formation per the Russian-Ukrainian model, but it is much less scientifically constrained as to the physical-chemical pathways.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Le Brea Tar Pits

Location and formation of the pits

The La Brea Tar Pits and Hancock Park are situated within the Mexican land grant of Rancho La Brea, now a piece of urban Los Angeles, California, near the Miracle Mile district.

Tar pits are composed of heavy oil fractions called asphaltum, which seeped from the earth as oil. In Hancock Park, crude oil seeps up along the 6th Street Fault from the Salt Lake Oil Field, which underlies much of the Fairfax District north of the park. The oil reaches the surface and forms pools at several locations in the park, becoming asphalt as the lighter fractions of the petroleum biodegrade or evaporate. [...]

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

Salt Lake Oil Field

The Salt Lake Oil Field is an oil field underneath the city of Los Angeles, California. Discovered in 1902, and developed quickly in the following years, the Salt Lake field was once the most productive in California; over 50 million barrels of oil have been extracted from it, mostly in the first part of the twentieth century, although modest drilling and extraction from the field using an urban "drilling island" resumed in 1962. As of 2009, the only operator on the field was Plains Exploration & Production (PXP). The field is also notable as being the source, by long-term seepage of crude oil to the ground surface along the 6th Street Fault, of the famous La Brea Tar Pits. [...]

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

What is interesting is that when you dig down into the general physical phenomenon of 'tar pits', Wikipedia describes the formation of the tar pitts as being the result of oil rising up through vertical conduits, deep faults, up to the surface:

Pitch Lake

The Pitch Lake is the largest natural deposit of asphalt in the world, located at La Brea in southwest Trinidad, within the Siparia Regional Corporation. The lake covers about 40 ha and is reported to be 75 m deep...

Geology

The origin of Pitch Lake is related to deep faults in connection with subduction under the Caribbean Plate related to Barbados Arc. The lake has not been studied extensively, but it is believed that the lake is at the intersection of two faults, which allows oil from a deep deposit to be forced up. The lighter elements in the oil evaporated, leaving behind the heavier asphalt.

This same general description of the origin of tar pits is also applied to the McKittrick Tar Pits:

McKittrick Tar Pits

The McKittrick Tar Pits (also McKittrick Oil Seeps and McKittrick Brea Pits) are a series of natural asphalt lakes situated in the western part of Kern County in southern California. The pits are the most extensive asphalt lakes in the state.

The McKittrick Tar Pits are one of the five natural asphalt lake areas in the world, the others being Tierra de Brea in Trinidad and Tobago, Lake Guanoco in Venezuela and the Rancho La Brea Tar Pits (Los Angeles) and Carpinteria Tar Pits (Carpinteria) both also located in the US state of California...

The creation of an asphalt lake is related to deep faults between two tectonic plates.

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

Southern California oil fields are known to have 'oil pools' at numerous different depths in the geologic column.

Midway-Sunset Oil Field

The Midway-Sunset Oil Field is a large oil field in Kern County, San Joaquin Valley, California in the United States. It is the largest in California and the third largest in the United States.

The field was discovered in 1894, and through the end of 2006 had produced close to 3 billion barrels (480,000,000 m3) of oil. At the end of 2008 its estimated reserves amounted to approximately 532 million barrels (84,600,000 m3)...

Geology

While the Midway-Sunset field is a large contiguous area covering more than 30 square miles (80 km2), it comprises 22 identifiable and separately-named pools in six geologic formations, ranging in age from the Pleistocene Tulare Formation (the most recent geologically, the closest the surface, and the first to be discovered), to the Temblor Formation, of Miocene age (the oldest, and one of the last to be discovered). Throughout the field, the Tulare is often the capping impermeable formation, underneath which oil collects, but in some areas it is a productive unit in its own right. Its average depth is 200 to 1,400 feet (60 to 430 m).

One of the next pools to be discovered was the Gusher Pool, which, when found in 1909, took its name from the event itself: a large oil gusher. This occurrence was eclipsed spectacularly the next year, when drillers found the Lakeview Pool, unexpectedly drilling into a reservoir of oil under intense pressure, later estimated at approximately 1,300 psi (9.0 MPa) from the heights attained by the spewing oil. The resulting Lakeview Gusher was the longest-lasting and most productive oil gusher in U.S. history...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midway-Sunset_Oil_Field

The McKittrick Oil field also has multiple distinct oil pools:

Oil in the McKittrick field is in 13 separate pools: 8 in the Northeast Area, and 5 in the Main Area. The most productive pools have been the Tulare-San Joaquin, Olig, and Basal Reef Ridge in the Main Area, and the Tulare-San Joaquin, Phacoides, and Oceanic in the Northeast Area. Oil API gravity varies between the different pools, with some bearing heavy crude of API gravity 12, and others with lighter oil, such as the Phacoides which reported an average value of 33.

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

So, apparently, in the Southern California oil fields, Kudryavtsev's Rule is observed, where hydrocarbons are found at multiple levels of the stratigraphic column.

And, new oil discoveries are being made in Southern California:

California onshore find largest in 35 years, Elk Hills ‘Secrets’ Being Revealed, November 2009:

When Occidental Petroleum announced a major new discovery in Kern County, California, it set off industry speculation about the nature and location of the find.

Specifics about the discovery initially were scant, but for industry participants anxious for good news it didn’t take long to learn where it was...

The company also said it wouldn’t give out details about the discovery, then released a slew of them:
• The new find holds an estimated 150 million to 250 million barrels of oil equivalent (BOE).
• About two-thirds of the discovery is believed to be natural gas.
• It includes multiple producing zones, “large pay zones of high permeabilities.”
• It’s a conventional, non-stimulation, non-shale play, although shales are present in the area and should be productive in the future.
• As of July, it was producing about 74 million cubic feet of gas and 5,000 barrels of liquids per day from six wells...

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2009/11nov/calif1109.cfm

So, "multiple producing zones" is another way to say oil is located on multiple levels in the geologic column, i. e., Kudryavtsev's Rule.

Also, something else interesting in the above link:

Oxy did make an intriguing statement about the new play, saying it was “most similar to a deepwater discovery and bears no relationship at all to so-called resource plays.”

If that implies Lower Tertiary, especially a fine-grained sandstone in the Oligocene-Eocene component of the Paleogene, the company may have found something a bit different from other production around Elk Hills.

Elk Hills Oil Field

Geology

The Elk Hills Oil Field has a complex stratigraphy compared to other nearby fields, many of which are a single large pool in a simple structural trap. Thirteen separate oil pools have been identified so far in the Elk Hills Field, in rock units ranging in age from Oligocene to Pleistocene. The shallowest formation, the Tulare, was the first in which oil was found, at 1,120 feet (340 m) below ground surface, and the deepest, the Oligocene portion of the Temblor containing the Agua Pool at a depth of 9,500 feet (2,900 m), was not found until 1977.

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

When a description of an oil field mentions different geological 'age' units, it means oil is found at multiple depths in the geological column.


Another interesting aspect of the Southern California oil fields is that they seem to follow Eugene Coste's abiotic oil description:

...Oil and gas are stored products, in great abundance in certain localities, while neighboring localities often are entirely barren...

Oil and gas were only supplied along some of the lines of structural weakness or along some of the fractured zones of the crust of the earth, and, therefore, the new fields are to be found only along these zones or belts...

[webolife]

Other evidences being more controversial in my opinion, Kudratsyev's Rule, the association of oil fields with deep crustal fault systems, and the presence of hydrocarbons in extraterrestrial bodies, are the best indicators that oil is abiotic. After reviewing all of the evidences presented on this forum, I no longer feel it necessary to defend the possibility of fossil fuels. Old dog... new trick.

[Chromium6]

This is a related historical curiosity behind the Fischer-Tropsch process. The Germans added the use of catalyts at various temperatures to improve conversion.

Besides Fischer-Tropsch there are other processes to convert coal to short or long hydrocarbons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karrick_process
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergius_process

Fischer–Tropsch catalysts

A variety of catalysts can be used for the Fischer–Tropsch process, but the most common are the transition metals cobalt, iron, and ruthenium. Nickel can also be used, but tends to favor methane formation ("methanation").

Cobalt-based catalysts are highly active, although iron may be more suitable for low-hydrogen-content synthesis gases such as those derived from coal due to its promotion of the water-gas-shift reaction. In addition to the active metal the catalysts typically contain a number of "promoters," including potassium and copper. Group 1 alkali metals, including potassium, are a poison for cobalt catalysts but are promoters for iron catalysts. Catalysts are supported on high-surface-area binders/supports such as silica, alumina, or zeolites.[5] Cobalt catalysts are more active for Fischer–Tropsch synthesis when the feedstock is natural gas. Natural gas has a high hydrogen to carbon ratio, so the water-gas-shift is not needed for cobalt catalysts. Iron catalysts are preferred for lower quality feedstocks such as coal or biomass.

Unlike the other metals used for this process (Co, Ni, Ru), which remain in the metallic state during synthesis, iron catalysts tend to form a number of phases, including various oxides and carbides during the reaction. Control of these phase transformations can be important in maintaining catalytic activity and preventing breakdown of the catalyst particles.

Fischer–Tropsch catalysts are sensitive to poisoning by sulfur-containing compounds. The sensitivity of the catalyst to sulfur is greater for cobalt-based catalysts than for their iron counterparts.

Promotors also have an important influence on activity. Alkali metal oxides and copper are common promotors, but the formulation depends on the primary metal, iron vs cobalt.[6] Alkali oxides on cobalt catalysts generally cause activity to drop severely even with very low alkali loadings. C5+ and CO2 selectivity increase while methane and C2-C4 selectivity decrease. In addition, the olefin to parafin ratio increases.

LTFT and HTFT

High-temperature Fischer–Tropsch (or HTFT) is operated at temperatures of 330°C-350°C and uses an iron-based catalyst. This process was used extensively by Sasol in their Coal-to-Liquid plants (CTL). Low-Temperature Fischer–Tropsch (LTFT) is operated at lower temperatures and uses a cobalt based catalyst. This process is best known for being used in the first integrated Gas-to-Liquid (GTL) plant operated and built by Shell in Bintulu, Malaysia.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2 ... ch_process

-----------

Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program was a program run by the United States Bureau of Mines to create the technology to produce synthetic fuel from coal. It was initiated in 1944 during World War II. The Synthetic Liquid Fuels Act approved on April 5, 1944 authorized the use of $30 million over a five year period for

...the construction and operation of demonstration plants to produce synthetic liquid fuels from coal, oil shales, agricultural and forestry products, and other substances, in order to aid the prosecution of the war, to conserve and increase the oil resources of the Nation, and for other purposes.

History

The Bureau of Mines first studied the extraction of oil from oil shale between 1925 - 1928.

Between 1928 and 1944, the Bureau experimented with coal liquefaction by hydrogenation using the Bergius process. A small-scale test unit constructed in 1937 had a 100-pound per day continuous coal feed.

Between 1945 and 1948, new laboratories were constructed near Pittsburgh. A synthetic ammonia plant Louisiana, Missouri (Missouri Ordnance Works) was transferred from the Army to the program in 1945. The plant was converted into a coal hydrogenation test facility. By 1949 the plant could produce 200 barrels (32 m3) of oil a day using the Bergius process.

Part of the personnel were German scientists, who had been extracted from Germany by Operation Paperclip.

In 1948, the program was extended to eight years and funding increased to $60 million. A second facility was constructed at the Louisiana plant, this time using the Fischer-Tropsch process. Completed in 1951, the plant only produced 40,000 US gallons (150 m3) of fuel.

In 1953 the new Republican-led House Appropriations Committee ended funding for the research and the Missouri plant was returned to the Department of the Army.

In 1979, after the second oil crisis, the U.S. Congress approved the Energy Security Act forming the Synthetic Fuels Corporation and authorized up to $88 million for synthetic fuels projects.

In 1986, during the 1980s oil glut, President Reagan signed into law the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 which among other things abolished the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program. It's estimated that over 40 years the various efforts at creating synthetic fuels may have totaled as much as $8 billion.

Use
Ruins of coal elevator in a synthetic gasoline plant from WWII (IG Farben Industrie Police, Poland)

The Bergius process was extensively used by Nazi Germany and targeted for bombing during the Oil Campaign of World War II. At present there are no plants operating the Bergius Process or its derivatives commercially. The largest demonstration plant was the 200 ton per day plant at Bottrop, Germany, operated by Ruhrkohle, which ceased operation in 1993. There are reports [4] of the Chinese company constructing a plant with a capacity of 4 000 ton per day. It was expected to become operational in 2007,[5] but there has been no confirmation that this was achieved.

During WWII the United States conducted secret research in converting coal to gasoline at a facility in Louisiana, Missouri. Located along the Mississippi river, this plant was producing gasoline in commercial quantities by 1948. The Louisiana process method produced automobile gasoline at a price slightly higher than, but comparable to, petroleum based gasoline[6] but of a higher quality.[citation needed] The facility was shut down in 1953 by the Eisenhower administration after intense lobbying by the oil industry.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_ ... ls_Program

[Chromium6]

Found this as well:

A new day for gasification

In the early to mid-1900s, many U.S. cities and towns had their own coal gasification plant. Coal was heated in the presence of steam and a carefully controlled amount of air to produce a moderate-Btu gas that could be burned for heat and light. This so-called water gas was used in residences, businesses, and street lamps. The process produced a lot of waste and pollution, however. More efficient gasification processes were developed in the 1940s; Germany, for example, used gasification to produce gasoline and other liquid fuels during World War II. But the technology gradually gave way in the 1950s and 1960s to the use of natural gas, which was then cheaper than coal.

In recent years the concept of coal gasification has been revived and gasification technology has been improved. Today's gasifiers use high-temperature, high-pressure vessels and oxygen instead of air to produce high-quality syngas (primarily hydrogen and carbon monoxide), which is burned in gas turbines to generate electricity.

Several pilot coal gasification plants are now operating in the United States and other countries, producing both electricity (from syngas) and diesel fuel. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and energy companies are funding research to extend the benefits of gasification, as is SIUC (see Putting Technology into Practice). These benefits are threefold: efficiency, versatility, and pollution control.

In conventional power plants, coal is burned in order to heat water to drive steam turbine-generators. Only about 30 percent of the coal's energy value actually winds up producing electricity; the rest is waste heat. By using what's called a combined cycle to produce electricity, gasification plants can ratchet efficiency up to 50 percent or more. After syngas is burned, the waste heat from the turbines can itself be used to drive conventional steam turbines, generating additional electricity. In industry jargon, such plants are called IGCC systems, which stands for "integrated gasification combined-cycle."

http://perspect.siu.edu/05_sp/coal1.html

[starbiter]

Hello Anaconda,

You have made an excellent case against fossil oil. However, the objections against fossil petroleum don't work against oil from comets or gas giants, IMO. I asked a chemist friend to look at the link below.

http://www.im.microbios.org/0801/0801005.pdf Page 9 deals with organics

Dr Paul Anderson's remarks follow,
[...]

In taking the cometary gases listed in Llorca’s paper, one clearly
sees that basic hydrocarbons abound. Simple molecules such as CO, H2,
CH4, etc. are a far cry from naptha and multi-ringed and petroleum
type compounds. However, there is precedence that when combined with
the other inorganic constituents of the comet longer chain
hydrocarbons and even naptha type compound can be formed in extreme
cases. The Fischer Tropsch synthesis of hydrocarbons is a well known,
commercially successful process. It was utilized in WWII once the
Allies cut off Germany’s sources of oil. German chemists figured out a
way to synthesize fuels from simple hydrocarbon, hydrogen, and CO type
feeds over transition metal-based catalysts. The iron catalyst serves
as a nucleation point in which the CO is hydrogenated and subsequent
chain propogation occurs. Gasoline, kerosene, and even heavy tars are
obtained in this process. The temperatures required are moderate, only
in the 200-500C range, and pressures effect the range of products
formed. While it is unknown the temperature distribution in the comet
corona/tail, I suspect at some points from the surface it is within
the range due to the visible glow discharge of the ions in the tail.
As the hydrocarbons pass through the regions of optimal temperature,
when mixed with the iron-nickel minerals so often found in comet dust,
the hydrocarbons could be formed through catalytic reactions. Upon
further cooling, they would condense as a range of petroleum products.

Me again,

At least one chemist thinks that various petroleum products are available from comets.

I just returned from the Book Cliffs and Green River basin. The shale layers appear to be the result of flooding on a continental scale. The upper layers are now being processed. The depth starts at 30'.

http://www.eenews.net/public/energywire/2012/05/22/1

[...]
Todd says the oil sands veins are 30 feet below the surface, although the depth and thickness of the resource varies and some veins extend much deeper. Excavating those sands would involve stripping the land of vegetation, removing the topsoil and strip mining the resource.

me again,
This apparent slosh remnant [limestone cap with clay and sand layers] contains half of the known oil reserves of our planet according to the GAO.

http://thecoloradoobserver.com/2012/05/ ... estimates/

In the case of the Covenant field the oil is in rivers, lakes, and dunes of dolomite. This seems like a flood of oil that flowed into a lake. At least to me.

You have questioned oil above basement rock as an objection to comet oil. The Electric Universe model doesn't propose a catastrophe. It proposes many electric catastrophes. The process might have begun at the bottom of the geologic column. The bottom of the sediments. Oil might also be expected to seep down because of gravity. As additional sediments were piled above the early oil deposits the heat would increase. With additional heat, gases might be released from the liquid oil, greatly increasing the pressure. Increased pressure might cause the oil to expand in the direction of least resistance. This direction might be up, down, or sideways. If there was a fault or cracks below the formation, oil might be forced down. If there is a cavity the oil might fill it under great pressure. If oil and pressure are removed from oil deposits above during drilling, pressurized oil from below might replace some of the removed oil and gas. This might explain oil fields apparently being refilled after being exploited.

The oil we exploit might be produced deep within the Earth in a volcanic process as You propose. Getting that oil into a river/lake/dune system like Covenant or massive shale layers like Green River/Book Cliffs seems like a huge stretch. The fossils found in oil shale seem hard to explain if the oil and minerals were from volcanic activity deep within Earth.

I hope You can consider abiotic comet oil. The proven quantities contained in what appears to be a slosh [the Green River area] should answer any question about the potential quantities of externally produced oil.

michael steinbacher

[PersianPaladin]

If the Earth can abiotically produce hydrocarbons from deep beneath, then why can't comets and other planets?

I don't understand the difference of opinion here in your arguments. Earth's oil could indeed be a mixture of both terrestial hydrocarbons and extra-terrestial sources that were produced in very similar ways elsewhere.

By stubbornly dismissing the likely possibility of the extent of extra-terrestial hydrocarbons entering the Earth, one is sticking to a very dogmatic view. Of course, we will NOT know for sure about the actual ratios and proportions of terrestial vs extra-terrestial sources for hydrocarbons.

That is my own humble view.

I commend Starbiter for his work generally. And indeed, Anaconda has put forward a compelling case for abiogenesis - although I reserve the right to be skeptical as to the rate in which that oil is still being produced and how quickly we can get it out.

Regards,

~Hoz.

[starbiter]

Hello PP,

We all seem to agree that oil might be produced abiotically, deep within Earth. On the other hand, the process seems less confined in the coma of a comet, or the atmosphere of a gas giant. The ingredients are there. The pressures and temperatures are probably available. The area is highly electrified.

And numerous cultures report floods of naptha where oil is found today.

The oil of the greater Green River basin is contained in what appears to be a geologic feature produced underwater with a strong current. This is over half of the worlds proven reserve. There are fossils associated with the oil as if it was a flooding scenario.

I wonder if the Deep Earth abiotic community will ever embrace something so similar, but so different?

michael

[GaryN]

@PP

If the Earth can abiotically produce hydrocarbons from deep beneath, then why can't comets and other planets?

That PAHs are formed in stellar atmospheres is accepted, and it appears that the plasma hydrogenation required to form alkenes could also occur in interstellar space, not just in comets or planets. RF plasmas might be the key to the process, and I'd think we could find those somewhere in space too. I don't doubt that much of the oil we consume is from deep down chemical reactions, but I would't rule out that some surface deposits that are now tar sands or coal might have come from above. No oil shortages in the Universe it seems.

Just beat me with your post there Michael...

I wonder if the Deep Earth abiotic community will ever embrace something so similar, but so different?

Count me in!

[Lloyd]

Cardona's the Expert on Oil etc
* I say that only because he's accumulated more evidence than anyone else that I know of and his theory is the most consistent, simple and holistic that I know of.
Saturn Flares
* So the most likely source of oil and coal is the same as the source of much of the rock strata, water etc: viz. periodic Saturn flares in ancient times.
* I believe the flares were explosions of material outward mainly from Saturn's equator. He has suggested, I think, that the former moons of Saturn, including Earth, Mars, Venus etc, were sometimes ejected during flares. So it seems that comets are likely to have come from flares as well. It seems likely that oil would have come to Earth directly from Saturn flares, but comets produce at least some hydrocarbons as well.
Biela's Comet
* The book, Mrs. O'Leary's Comet, which I think was discussed in one or more TPODs about the 1871 Chicago fire, provided good evidence that the fire was caused by hydrocarbons from Biela's comet. Acetylene is one of the gases that was considered to be probably present, which accounted for the extreme heat of the Chicago fire in places where large rock buildings melted. The book described the fall of balloons of fire which fell in Wisconsin at that time, which engulfed and killed groups of people there. Sand also fell. And the TPODs suggest that electrical effects were responsible for the fusing of coins in the pockets of some of the victims who were not burned by fire.

[Anaconda]

Hello Anaconda,

You have made an excellent case against fossil oil. However, the objections against fossil petroleum don't work against oil from comets or gas giants, IMO. I asked a chemist friend to look at the link below.

As you know in several previous comments, I responded to your assertions by stating "comet oil would be possible". Here is a part of a longer comment in regards to comet oil:

...And these plasma, electric current sheets would introduce huge amounts of electromagnetic energy into the Earth's crust and mantle, plus, this electromagnetic energy given off by the Sun likely was repeated numerous times in Earth's past.

Indeed, the same plasma, electric current sheets introducing huge amounts of electromagnetic energy into the Earth's crust and mantle, would also introduce huge amounts of electromagnetic energy into Venus at the same time.

So, comet oil would be possible. In fact, both Earth & Venus may have also seen increased volcanism at perhaps catastraphic activity levels. Each rocky planet undergoing dramatic convulsion due to electromagnetic stress, Earth with its plasma cage and pillar, the axis mondi, and plasma instabilities, Venus flaring as a comet, its eliptical orbit wobbled, perhaps dramatically, jets emanating from Venus' surface, and a filamented tail of ionized and non-ionized chemical elements and molecules. Venus likely under more electrical stress than the Earth, perhaps causing significant charge differential between the two planets, one within a cage and pillar, one with a coma and a tail fueled by jets from its surface, so any physical interaction could result in electrical discharges and transference of chemicals and molecules...

Here is the link to the full comment:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2150&start=690#p68310

starbiter, you failed to address my comment (I looked forward to and was interested in what your response would be, but you failed to comment), don't you think it would be appropriate to actually respond to my comment which directly addresses your assertions instead of waiting until my comment was off the active page of the board and then making a comment which implies I never responded to your assertions?

If the Earth can abiotically produce hydrocarbons from deep beneath, then why can't comets and other planets?

I don't understand the difference of opinion here in your arguments. Earth's oil could indeed be a mixture of both terrestial hydrocarbons and extra-terrestial sources that were produced in very similar ways elsewhere.

By stubbornly dismissing the likely possibility of the extent of extra-terrestial hydrocarbons entering the Earth, one is sticking to a very dogmatic view. Of course, we will NOT know for sure about the actual ratios and proportions of terrestial vs extra-terrestial sources for hydrocarbons.

That is my own humble view.

I commend Starbiter for his work generally. And indeed, Anaconda has put forward a compelling case for abiogenesis - although I reserve the right to be skeptical as to the rate in which that oil is still being produced and how quickly we can get it out.

Regards,

~Hoz.

PersianPaladin, please see my above comment via the link I provided and also a follow up comment I provided in regards to comet oil:

... And also abiotic oil is important to the idea of Venus as a comet and raining down hydrocarbons on Earth. It turns out abiotic oil, here on Earth, is also a clue to the potential of Venus producing abiotic oil in the past.

And, perhaps, now, starbiter, you have more insight into and respect for the interdisciplinary approach: It took a focus on Abiotic Oil Theory to provide a hypothesis for a possible physical process allowing Venus to be a comet and produce 'comet' oil, a central tenet of Dr. Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2150&start=690#p68395

If the Earth can abiotically produce hydrocarbons from deep beneath, then why can't comets and other planets?

Yes, as I've stated, now, repeatedly, "comet oil would be possible".

I don't understand the difference of opinion here in your arguments. Earth's oil could indeed be a mixture of both terrestial hydrocarbons and extra-terrestial sources that were produced in very similar ways elsewhere.

Yes, "Earth's oil could indeed be a mixture", rather, the relevant question is what the proportions of that mixure could be? The difference between starbiter and myself is that starbiter apparently attributes almost all petroleum to comet oil (starbiter is a little vauge on the proportion, but given his comments, it seems he attributes almost all petroleum to comets), while I attribute most petroleum to the Earth's own ability to form abiotic oil within its crust and shallow mantle.

By stubbornly dismissing the likely possibility of the extent of extra-terrestial hydrocarbons entering the Earth, one is sticking to a very dogmatic view. Of course, we will NOT know for sure about the actual ratios and proportions of terrestial vs extra-terrestial sources for hydrocarbons.

PersianPaladin, can you now see starbiter was giving readers a false impression by failing to respond to my previous comments regarding the possibility of comet oil by making a subsequent comment which ignored those comments?

I commend Starbiter for his work generally. And indeed, Anaconda has put forward a compelling case for abiogenesis - although I reserve the right to be skeptical as to the rate in which that oil is still being produced and how quickly we can get it out.

Reasonable sceptism is the bedrock of the Scientific Method. And, as I have previously stated on this board, nobody knows how fast abiotic oil is formed in the Earth's crust.

My primary point beyond the validity of Abiotic Oil Theory, itself, is showing the vast extent below the Earth's surface where petroleum could be found and that Man has not explored much of those vast tracts below the Earth's surface which have the possibility for abiotic oil deposits, both on land and under the seafloor.

And numerous cultures report floods of naptha where oil is found today.

Please provide a citation for the above assertion beyond Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision. As you know I already addressed issues raised by Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision in a previous comment.

The oil of the greater Green River basin is contained in what appears to be a geologic feature produced underwater with a strong current. This is over half of the worlds proven reserve. There are fossils associated with the oil as if it was a flooding scenario.

False.

Here is a link for a map of the Green River shale formation:

http://webhosting.web.com/imagelib/site ... &title=Map of Green River Formation - Oil Shale

...as if it was a flooding scenario.

starbiter, you need to closely read the following link:

Creationist Misuse of the Green River Formation, Glenn R. Morton (2003)

(Creationists and starbiter have similar views regarding a flooding scenario, so the above paper's arguments are relevant to the validity of starbiter's hypothesis.)

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/greenriver.htm

starbiter, please read and study the above link which directly contradicts your hypothesis, then I would appreciate your response to the arguments presented, therein.

Here is the conclusion from the above paper:

Conclusion

Every feature of the Green River formation points to long periods of deposition. The coprolites of fish and birds, algal encrusting of logs, footprints, variations in laminae thickness consistent with known weather patterns, sunspots, and Earth orbital parameters. Radioactive dating confirms the depositional rates which indicate yearly varves. The young-earth creationist, like Garner, can sit on the fence and throw rocks at the geological explanation, but he can't explain any of these features. The young-earth creationist must ask himself the following set of questions if he is to be rational.

1. Why were the flood waters on layer after layer the depth of a bird leg as indicated by the footprints?

2. How were catfish able to leave so many coprolites on the layers if this is a rapidly deposited formation?

3. Why would God imprint orbital parameters and sunspot cycles on the thicknesses of the laminae?

4. Why do the radioactive dates seem to verify the slow depositional rates?

5. How could a bird take the time to nibble the lake floor during a global flood?

6. How are raindrop impressions preserved under the waters of a global flood?

7. Why did God produce a flood deposit which exactly matches the areal distribution seen in lakes? Did God deceive us?

8. Why do the oxygen-18 values decrease around the edges of Fossil Lake as would be expected of a modern lake?

9. The young-earth creationist must also ask him- or herself why the young-earth authors never tell him what I just told him.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/greenriver.htm

Let me be clear, I'm not saying starbiter is a Creationist, but his ideas about a "flooding scenario" are similar to what is suggested by Creationists' "global flood" scenario and the facts & evidence presented by Glenn R. Morton in the above paper directly contradict those flooding claims in regards the Green River Formation.

I look forward to starbiter's response to the above paper.

[PersianPaladin]

There are actually many accounts of global floods from cultures the world over. It only takes a perusal among the Catastrophist literature available.

[Anaconda]

There are actually many accounts of global floods from cultures the world over. It only takes a perusal among the Catastrophist literature available.

Yes, of course that is correct. The issue here is not the general issue of flooding scenarios, but the specific claim that the Green River Formation is the result of flooding or "sloshing" as starbiter claims.

PersianPaladin, since you have weighed in, please read the Morton paper and look at the facts & evidence he has presented. I'd be interested in your analysis of Morton's paper.

[starbiter]

Anaconda said, Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:55 pm
[...]


Let's be clear, as I stated before, "comet oil would be possible", but it doesn't explain the giant oil deposits or the vast bulk of the world's oil supply.

For that Abiotic Oil Theory provides the best answer: The bowels of the Earth is a veritable geo-physical and chemical factory of vast resources.


Me again,

Anaconda admits comet oil is possible but then claims it's not capable of meaningful deposits. Then he gets upset when i claim the majority of Earth oil seems to be from external sources, because he admitted comet oil is possible. Anaconda, Your argument escapes me. You don't seem to want to consider a catastrophic scenario on a catastrophist forum for the bulk of Earth's oil. Or are You willing to consider legend and myth? Do You think the Green River basin might be the result of rivers of oil fulling lakes with sediment and oil? Or did the oil require many millions of years to be created by volcanoes?

The article You linked makes an argument against A flood. I assume the Great Flood is the model being opposed. As i mentioned last time, many floods with and without hydraulic currents are being proposed. Lakes would be filled with oil, water, and sediments by flooding rivers of oil . Then electric currents would lithify some of the deposits to varying degrees. That seems to agree with Your link. The difference being that the lakes were filled rapidly, then covered rapidly, repeatedly. There were interludes for bird foot prints.

The layers of the Book Cliffs proclaim a series of floods as described in the Sedimentation videos. Page 40 of the PDF linked below is a good description. The report doesn't mention carbonates. Carbonaceous shale is oil shale. The coal layers might be vegetation or carbon from a comet or gas giant. NASA reports coal/carbon in comet comas.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/0371/report.pdf

The largest deposits of oil could be from comet Venus, or a gas giant earlier in the catastrophic scenario.


michael steinbacher