Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

[seasmith]

http://www.cggveritas.com/data/1/rec_do ... tivity.pdf


Chromium6
That's a nice report

[Chromium6]

This historical "Earthquake Map" below shows the huge Mid-Atlantic Ridge fault. Tectonically active this could be a prime place for hydrocarbon formation.

-------

Discovery

A ridge under the Atlantic Ocean was first inferred by Matthew Fontaine Maury in 1850. The ridge was discovered during the expedition of HMS Challenger in 1872.[2] A team of scientists on board, led by Charles Wyville Thomson, discovered a large rise in the middle of the Atlantic while investigating the future location for a transatlantic telegraph cable.[3] The existence of such a ridge was confirmed by sonar in 1925[4] and was found to extend around the Cape of Good Hope into the Indian Ocean by the German Meteor expedition.[5]

In the 1950s, mapping of the Earth’s ocean floors by Bruce Heezen, Maurice Ewing, Marie Tharp and others revealed the Mid-Atlantic Ridge to have a strange bathymetry of valleys and ridges,[6] with its central valley being seismologically active and the epicentre of many earthquakes.[7][8] Ewing and Heezen discovered the ridge to be part of a 40,000-km-long essentially continuous system of mid-ocean ridges on the floors of all the Earth’s oceans.[9] The discovery of this worldwide ridge system led to the theory of seafloor spreading and general acceptance of Wegener's theory of continental drift and expansion as plate tectonics.

Notable features along the ridge

The Mid-Atlantic Ridge includes a deep rift valley which runs along the axis of the ridge along nearly its entire length. This rift marks the actual boundary between adjacent tectonic plates, where magma from the mantle reaches the seafloor, erupting as lava and producing new crustal material for the plates.

Near the equator, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is divided into the North Atlantic Ridge and the South Atlantic Ridge by the Romanche Trench, a narrow submarine trench with a maximum depth of 7,758 m (25,453 ft), one of the deepest locations of the Atlantic Ocean. This trench, however, is not regarded as the boundary between the North and South American Plates, nor the Eurasian and African Plates.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/07/article-2170140-13F688B8000005DC-944_964x580.jpg


http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum ... _parry.pdf

1New Exploration Ventures, ConocoPhillips, Stavanger, Norway. (Chris.C.Parry@conocophillips.com)
Abstract
The Atlantic Mid Ocean Ridge can be traced from the Bouvet triple junction at latitude 54 degrees south, some 10,000 kilometers northwards via Iceland into the Norwegian Sea before joining with the Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Ocean, via the Fram Strait.
Along the length of the divergent boundary of the Atlantic Mid-Ocean Ridge, the spreading center is offset by regularly spaced transform boundaries. These can be traced shoreward as deep-seated continental fracture zones beneath the sediment cover.
Lister et al. (1986) described upper plate and lower plate passive margins, separated by a detachment fault, which give rise to asymmetric conjugate margins after final continental breakup. The upper plate is characterized by a narrow continental shelf, with relatively little sedimentary accommodation space. It is relatively unstructured and has experienced uplift related to underplating. While on the opposite side of the mid ocean ridge, the conjugate lower plate is characterized by a wide continental shelf, which has abundant sedimentary accommodation space. It is complexly structured and exhibits bowed up detachment faults. Transfer faults offset marginal features and can cause the upper/lower plate polarity to change along the strike of the margin.
The Fram Strait is a transform margin which was initiated in the Eocene as a result of the onset of spreading in the North Atlantic. The sliding of the North American Plate past the Eurasian Plate during the opening of the North Atlantic created an upthrust zone that formed due to space constraints associated with low-angle convergent strike slip or transform motion. The easiest direction for space relief for the squeezed sediments is vertical, and a zone of downward tapering wedges and upthrust margins is created.
The Atlantic Mid Ocean Ridge transform boundaries can be traced across the oceanic crust towards the coast line, forming basement structural highs. These are related to volcanic activity along strike of these “leaky” fracture zones in the oceanic crust. These structures set up the initial structural framework of the continental margin basins. Syn-rift and post-rift deepwater sedimentation onlap these basement highs and the influence of the transfer zones continues to propagate into younger strata by differential compaction. These differential compaction

Science 1 February 2008:
Vol. 319 no. 5863 pp. 604-607
DOI: 10.1126/science.1151194

Abiogenic Hydrocarbon Production at Lost City Hydrothermal Field

Giora Proskurowski1,2,*,
Marvin D. Lilley1,
Jeffery S. Seewald2,
Gretchen L. Früh-Green3,
Eric J. Olson1,
John E. Lupton4,
Sean P. Sylva2 and
Deborah S. Kelley1

1 School of Oceanography, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
2 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA.
3 Department of Earth Sciences, ETH-Zentrum, Zurich, Switzerland.
4 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)–Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Newport, OR 97365, USA.


Abstract

Low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons in natural hydrothermal fluids have been attributed to abiogenic production by Fischer-Tropsch type (FTT) reactions, although clear evidence for such a process has been elusive. Here, we present concentration, and stable and radiocarbon isotope, data from hydrocarbons dissolved in hydrogen-rich fluids venting at the ultramafic-hosted Lost City Hydrothermal Field. A distinct “inverse” trend in the stable carbon and hydrogen isotopic composition of C1 to C4 hydrocarbons is compatible with FTT genesis. Radiocarbon evidence rules out seawater bicarbonate as the carbon source for FTT reactions, suggesting that a mantle-derived inorganic carbon source is leached from the host rocks. Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water, and moderate amounts of heat.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5863/604.short


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

Lost City Hydrothermal Field

Lost City, located 20 km west of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, is characterized by extreme conditions never before seen in the marine environment: venting of pH 9-11, >90°C, metal-poor fluids from carbonate edifices that tower 60-m above the seafloor. Investigation of this remarkable system has forever changed our views about where and how life can thrive and survive on and in the seafloor and provided new models for the evolution of life on this earth and possibly elsewhere [Kelley et al., 2005]. This system is the longest-lived of any known venting environment in the worlds’ oceans with activity ongoing for at least 120,000 years. Investigations of this site were funded by the National Science Foundation and by the NOAA Ocean Exploration program.

Within the Atlantis Massif, a >14,000 foot tall mountain on which Lost City rests, fluid rock reactions in the ultramafic rocks result in alkaline fluids with high concentrations of abiogenically produced hydrogen, methane, and other low molecular weight hydrocarbons. In concert, these dissolved gases support novel microbial communities. The oxygen-free, interior zones of the chimneys harbor biofilms of a single type of archaea called Lost City Methanoscarcinales that utilizes methane in its metabolism. Bacteria related to CH4- and S-oxidizers, are mostly found in the oxygenated, outer walls of chimneys where fluid chemistry is substantially different than the chimney interiors [Brazelton et al., 2006].

The highly-sculpted, high-surface area of the Lost City structures provides ample space for faunal habitats, and many recovered invertebrates were located within the porous channels and crevices of the carbonate. Surprisingly, while total biomass is low within the field, the field supports a species diversity that appears to be as high as any other known black smoker system on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge spreading center.

The range and complexity of environments hosting peridotites and other ultramafic rocks within the worlds’ oceans is vast and it is unlikely that Lost City is unique. Perhaps the most far-reaching impact of the discovery Lost City-type is the realization that life itself may have originated within these dynamic environments in which geological, chemical, and biological processes are intimately linked.

http://www.lostcity.washington.edu/scie ... ation.html

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

Organic geochemistry of fluids from 4 ultramafic-hosted hydrothermal systems of the Mid Atlantic Ridge

C. Konn*, J.L. Charlou, J.P. Donval, N.G. Holm, F. Dehairs, S. Bouillon

Ultramafic-hosted hydrothermal sites are characterized by mantle outcrops. On the Mid-Atlantic ridge, the Eurasian and American plates are moving appart resulting in the oceanic crust to tear up and to let the mantle rocks outcrop. Circulation of seawater, along the faults, within the mantle alters the periodites via the serpentinisation process, which produces a large amount of H2. Notably, H2 is a great source of energy for further chemical reactions. Besides, a high CH4 concentration in the water column is associated with ultramafic hydrothermal activity. This methane has been suggested to be abiogenic and to be formed via a Fisher-Tropsh synthesis (3H2 + CO +CH4 + H2O). The isotope-ratio values support the later hypothesis. This has lead to the idea of abiogenic formation of larger organic compounds such as hydrocarbons or key molecules for the origin of life issue. Both thermodynamics and laboratory work support this idea, but field data had not been studied yet. During the EXOMAR and the SERPENTINE cruises conducted by IFREMER, France; hydrothermal fluids from the MAR have been collected at different hot vent sites (Rainbow, Lost City, Logachev, Ashadze). Innovative and efficient techniques have been developed, used and improved to concentrate, isolate and extract compounds from the fluids by SPE (Solid Phase Extraction)-GC-MS and SBSE (Stir Bar Sorptive Extraction)-TD (ThermalDesorption)-GC-MS analyses. Mainly hydrocarbons, but also oxygen- and nitrogen-compounds were clearly -identified by comparison of recorded mass spectra with library data. As for the analysis process, a particular attention is now paid to carboxylic acids and hydrocarbons as well as volatiles (C1-C8).

This work is carried out partly within the MoMARnet (Monitoring deep sea floor hydrothermal environments on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge: A Marie Curie Research Training network’) framework.

http://www.interridge.org/files/interridge/Konn.pdf

[Anaconda]

Chromium6,

Excellent post.

You provide information on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which is the "other half" of the geological structures necessary for abiotic oil to be present across the sea floor and compliments my discussion of the abiotic oil geology of the "near-shore" (a relative term considering oil has been found 230 miles off the Brazilian coast):

...Papa Terra [oil field] is bigger and costlier than the Chevron-operated Frade field about 230 miles off the Brazilian coast. Frade began production in June. It cost about $3 billion and holds recoverable reserves estimated at 200 million to 300 million barrels of oil...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... dETeCf39mQ

Oil fields 230 miles off the coast of Brazil. We're getting along way offshore for prehistoric lakes to form (or recent comet oil from Venus).

Chevron Corp (CVX.N) announced on Tuesday a slightly earlier start of oil output at the Frade field, a $3 billion project off Brazil's coast expected to produce 90,000 barrels per day by 2011.

Crude oil from Frade, located some 230 miles (370 km) from Rio de Janeiro in 3,700 feet (1,128 meters) of water...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/ ... 0220090623

Of particular note is the New Exploration Ventures, ConocoPhillips, Stavanger, Norway, abstract discussing the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The fact that an oil company, ConocoPhillips, is studying the Mid-Atlantic Ridge as a potential new exploration area for petroleum is significant indicator ConocoPhillips is taking into account Abiotic Oil Theory in their exploration strategies. Add in the fact the ConocoPhillips' abstract discusses transform faults, which have already been discussed at length on this board in terms of Abiotic Oil Theory, and you have more evidence the oil industry takes Abiotic Oil Theory seriously -- follow the money.

quote from abstract
...Along the length of the divergent boundary of the Atlantic Mid-Ocean Ridge, the spreading center is offset by regularly spaced transform boundaries. These can be traced shoreward as deep-seated continental fracture zones beneath the sediment cover...

It has been previously discussed on this board that transform faults run all the way to and into the continents; the same fault is often continuous between oceananic and continental tectonic plates.

Stravanger, Norway is also home to Statoil, the Norwegian state oil company. Martin Hovland (author of the super critical water theory discussed on this board) works for Statoil and subscribes to Abiotic Oil Theory. It is significant an oil company abstract discussing the Mid-Atlantic Ridge originates from the same city where another oil company, Statoil, which applies Abiotic Oil Theory in their exploration stategies, is located.

As Chromium6 presents, there is significant evidence for production of abiotic hydrocarbons in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge area. If full-spectrum alkane series hydrocarbons (petroleum) is discovered by the drill bit in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge area, then the view that abiotic petroleum deposits exit across the entire sea floor of the South Atlantic from Brazil to the West African coast is considerately bolstered.

[Anaconda]

starbiter,

You are misinformed.

[Anaconda] If your not comfortable with the catastrophic model, why do You post HERE?

I do subscribe to the catastrophic model.

Let's be clear, if coal is abiotic (obviously, it's a controversial conclusion, inspite of the bituminous coal evidence and the heavy metal evidence), a large amount of energy would be needed to extrude the massive amounts of coal found spread-out over vast expanses near the surface all over the world.

And there is a substantial body of evidence to support a mechanism to introduce large amounts of energy into the Earth's crust & mantle:

I subscribe to Dr. Anthony L. Peratt's theory that a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora enveloped the Earth and most likely has enveloped the Earth many times in the Earth's past. [...]

Regardless of the exact age of the Earth (I agree no one knows), it does appear that abiotic coal formation epochs were repeated across the great expanse of Earth's history. These abiotic coal epochs were catastrophic in effect and extent. And, beyond the extruding of coal up to the surface, likely, there were many secondary electromagnetic effects and phenomena. It seems quite possible that coal balls are one of those effects.

Another, physical effect would be an increased volcanism at perhaps catastraphic activity levels.

At times in Earth's history, the surface was a very inhospitable place to be.

starbiter, please see the entire comment, currently on page 17 of this board:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2150&start=240#p41088

The above theory is repeatedly discussed on the Thunderbolts Picture of the Day by Rens van der Sluijs.

Electric Universe is not only "in the sky" but also in the ground. And in that regard I have repeatedly discussed Abiotic Oil Theory in relation to the electric Earth on this board (I realize this is a long board and understand you may not have read my comments regarding the relationship between Electric Universe Theory and Abiotic Oil Theory, although my discussion starts relatively early in the thread).

In terms of Dr. Velikovsky's contribution, as I stated, I regard him as a pioneer along with Hannes Alfven, although, as I stated before, I do not subscribe to Velikovsky word for word, which judging by your comments, you do.

And neither do the "THE" EU insiders follow Velikovsky word for word:

As per the link you, starbiter, provide, Wallace Thornhill does not subscribe to Velikovsky word for word:

Since then sceptical scholars have shown Velikovsky’s historical perspective of cataclysmic events to be wrong. However, his basic premise of planetary encounters has been confirmed and the details fleshed out to an extraordinary degree.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/synopsis/ ... e-history/

(First two sentences of the fourth paragraph from the above synopsis.)

Please, starbiter, "pioneer" is a special place in any scientific theory, and, often, while pioneers are right in a broad overview, they are often wrong in particulars due to lack of information via observation & measurement, but their pioneering inspires and leads others to investigate the idea and spurs follow-up scientific inquiry and more detailed empirical observation & measurement, which shows the "pioneer" was right in the broad overview of the subject, but often wrong on a particular issue.

starbiter, I also subscribe to the Electric Comet Theory. Whether Venus was a full-blown comet with a highly eliptical orbit, such as today's comets, or changed orbit less radically, but still enough to where its tail became electrical with significant electromagnetic and chemical interactions with Earth is still up to debate (I suggest Anthony Peratt's theory of a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora is connected to Venus having an electromagnetic tail by supplying the electrical energy which animated Venus' tail which, then, impacted the Earth and possibly the energy which changed Venus' orbit around the Sun causing Venus to "cross paths" with Earth).

I also subscribe to the idea that comets, meteorites, and astoroids originated as a result of past planetary electromagnetic interaction, i.e., electric discharge machining (EDM) as evidenced by the scars on Mars, some here on Earth, and other planets and moons and, perhaps, stronger evidence, still, by recent empirical observation & measurement of the comets, themselves, where the evidence suggests the comets consist of material which could only form in a planetary body. The best evidence currently available is comets, meteorites, and astoroids were created as material was "blasted away" from the various spots on the planetary bodies and sent into space.

This conclusion may explain why there is dolomite dust in the comet tail and also explain the presence of hydrocarbons found within meteorites (although this conclusion weakens the proposition that comets, meteorites, and astoroids formed in space and, thus, the hydrocarbons in meteorites has to be abiotic).

starbiter, in terms of translation and interpretation of ancient writings, I require multiple sources. A single interpretation is subject to the individual's particular bias & prejudice (people have a natural tendency to find what they are looking for). Venus does not have an atmosphere of hydrocarbons, but of carbon dioxide.

The dolomite is best explained as comet dust.

False.

Actually, the best explanation of the dolomite in comet dust (only a small percentage of which is dolomite) is that the comet was "blasted away" from a planetary body, possibly Earth, itself, and the dolomite originated on the planetary body, then was transported into space as a constituent of the "blasted away" rock body.

There are numerous deposits of dolomite which are completely inconsistent with the idea of comet dust "settling to Earth". The best evidence currently available is the vast bulk of dolomite chemically formed here on Earth and then was extruded to the surface or intruded into the geologic column from below.

I would hope first and foremost this is a scientific forum.

Yes, the forum is focussed on electromagnetic phenomenon and this board is about planetary phenomenon of an electromagnetic nature. But to be an all encompassing theory it must take into account all natural phenomenon.

Electric Universe is based on catastrophism. Period!

False.

It is based on electromagnetic physical interactions on a cosmological scale and, here, on a planetary scale.

Whether the electromagnetic phenomenon is of a catastrophic nature or a non-catastrophic nature depends on the specific circumstances and evidence surrounding a specific phenomenon on a case by case basis, in other words, follow to where the evidence leads.

Obviously, Dr. Velikovsky was interested in catastraphism, and the founders of Electric Universe were inspired by Velikovsky, but Electric Universe goes beyond Velikovsky. Hannes Alfven also inspired the founders of Electric Universe. Hannes Alfven was interested in electromagnetic phenomenon, but not necessarily catastrophic phenomenon. It should by also said that Anthony Peratt, as a protégé of Hannes Alfven, is also a pioneer of Electric Universe concepts & ideas in his own right.

This discussion on an upper board of the Electric Universe Forum should always consider a catastrophic scenario. If not, this discussion should be on new insights and mad ideas, IMHO.

I suggest you broaden your horizons to include electromagnetic phenomenon which is not "catastrophic", yet is electromagnetic in nature and as intricate to the workings of the Universe and/or Earth as any catastrophic event or process.

[starbiter]

Hello Anaconda: You said,

[...]

In terms of Dr. Velikovsky's contribution, as I stated, I regard him as a pioneer along with Hannes Alfven, although, as I stated before, I do not subscribe to Velikovsky word for word, which judging by your comments, you do.

And neither do the "THE" EU insiders follow Velikovsky word for word:

As per the link you, starbiter, provide, Wallace Thornhill does not subscribe to Velikovsky word for word:

Wallace Thornhill wrote:
Since then sceptical scholars have shown Velikovsky’s historical perspective of cataclysmic events to be wrong. However, his basic premise of planetary encounters has been confirmed and the details fleshed out to an extraordinary degree.

Me again,
My statement below covered the issue of the historical perspective. So my statement is the opposite of claiming
that EU insiders agree with Velikovsky word for word.

This is my earlier statement,
This seems rather clear. Wal goes on to say that the history [dates] is in doubt. That still makes the Electric Universe Forum a catastrophic forum. This discussion on an upper board of the Electric Universe Forum should always consider a catastrophic scenario. If not, this discussion should be on new insights and mad ideas, IMHO.

end quote

My work in geology disagrees with Dr Velikovsky's vision drastically. But You have me agreeing word for word.


Concerning hydrocarbons in the atmosphere of Venus. The first probe to test the atmosphere of Venus reported hydrocarbons. Later probes found carbon dioxide and sulphuric acid. Some EU insiders [i'm not referring to Wal Thornhill] feel the results might have been altered so as not to support Dr Velikovsky. We might never know. Others feel hydrocarbons might not be stable in the atmosphere of Venus.

http://www.mikamar.biz/symposium/thrnhill.txt Wal's view


Alexander A. Scarborough was the gentleman i had lunch with at NPA 18. He is one of the abiotic oil pioneers. He believes oil is created internally by planet Earth. I'm open to the idea also. As opposed to You Anaconda, he was completely open to comet oil as proposed by Dr Velikovsky. When i told him of the reluctance of people on this thread to even consider abiotic comet oil he was shocked.

Your openness to abiotic coal seems a far cry from considering comet oil, Anaconda. Where have You ever discussed comet oil as a possibility. You brushed aside the notion with a comment about meteorites which made no sense to me. Your comment seemed insincere.


Concerning dolomite i find your comments confusing. How were dolomite and calcite produced on the planets that ejected the comets as You propose? By shells and skeletons as geologists propose. Why was NASA surprised to find carbonates in the coma of comets? Electrical comets seem to have dolomite and limestone in their comas. They also have aromatic hydrocarbons. This seems like a clue to me. Are You just going to ignore this fact?

My big problem with oil oozing up from below through faults into the sediments where we find it is the timeline. How long does it take for the oil to ooz into impermeable shale? What is your timeline for the process? How was impermeable oil shale rock produced? What lithified it? Is it metamorphic? According to this link the whole formation went for a ride on the magic elevator.

{...]

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Oi ... Is-It.html


The simplest way to think of shale, is as a rock made up of the very same compounds that make up oil, bio-matter from ages ago, that through intense pressure and heat over time, was actually turned into a metamorphic rock instead of a thick gooey liquid.



Oil rich shale can be found all throughout the world, but the largest deposits rest peacefully below the ground within the United States itself. That’s right, just one thousand feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains, in and area known as The Green River Formation is the world’s largest untapped oil reserve, holding an estimated Two Trillion barrels of crude oil which is simply sitting there ready to be claimed.

Me again,
Seems like abiotic comet oil to me. The layers of the Green River formation are obviously from a slosh of underwater sediment that included 2 trillion barrels of oil, as described in legend and myth. It was then apparently zapped into shale rock by an electrical event, externally, IMHO.


michael

[Chromium6]

Biogenic and Abiogenic Petroleum

( If you look at maximum depth at which oil is found, and then at the maximum depth at which hydrocarbons with fossils are found, both in the same locations, it can put things in perspective a bit. Oil can and is found much deeper than fossils. This may raise a question of whether the earth is like really, really ancient with mass amounts of ancient biotic life, or is there something else going on? )

Found this analysis interesting. Item 4.24 answers a few questions:
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/N ... roleum.pdf

[Anaconda]

starbiter,

I appreciate you don't subscribe to Dr. Velikovsky "word for word". Thanks for clearing up that misunderstanding. My misunderstanding was due to your constant invocation of Dr. Velikovsky, particularly his translation & interpretation of a historical nature as paraphrased by you, starbiter:

But what's clear is that oil rained from above, day and night. It rained oil day after day. The rivers rain with oil. People climbed trees to escape the oil. The oil killed more people than all the other disasters, in some cases. This is basic EU.

No, it's not "clear" or "obvious" that oil rained from above "day after day". When a proponent claims a conclusion is clear or obvious, particularly an extraordinary claim, such as yours, without much analysis or evidence to back it up, it's an unsupported assumption they are hoping to slip past the reader.

This is not basic Electric Universe or good science.

Do you have any seperate and independent source apart from Dr. Velikovsky's translation & interpretation which agree with Dr. Velikovsky?

It is important that Dr. Velikovsky historical accuracy has been shown to be wrong because the timing is important (and if his timing is wrong, so potentially is his translation & interpretation).

Why is the timing important? Because if your hypothesis is correct it is catastrophe on a grand scale, all over the world a layer of comet debris several thousand feet, "8,000 to 10,000 feet deep", covered the planet roughly 8,000 to 12,000 years ago. This would be a total extinction event. Yet, there was not a total extinction event within historical human memory.

There was partial extinction in the relevant time frame, particularly on the North American continent with the extinction of the large mammals, but this is not consistent with your descriptions. Numerous types of animals did survive.

The other independent sources for a historical narrative as presented by Wallace Thornhill in the link you provided do not mention oil raining from the sky "day after day":

The ancient Chinese Soochow Astronomical Chart says "Venus was visible in full daylight and, while moving across the sky, rivaled the sun in brightness". The Hebrews wrote "The brilliant light of Venus blazes from one end of the cosmos to the other end." The Chaldeans described Venus as a "bright torch of heaven", a "diamond that illuminates like the sun", "A stupendous prodigy in the sky" that "fills the entire heaven.", and compared its light to that of the rising sun. At present the light of Venus is <1 millionth that of the sun. Universally, Venus was referred to by the ancients in the same terms as a comet: a bearded, hairy or smoking star.

Thornhill goes on to further elaborate the ancient sources:

Descriptions of phenomena in the ancient skies should not be dismissed out of hand as poetry or metaphor-particularly if on the same page as a comet is mentioned, we read of falls of stones from the daylit sky or a shower of stars at night. These are related phenomena which we know from modern science might be expected to occur together. Of course by themselves such reports do not prove anything.

http://www.mikamar.biz/symposium/thrnhill.txt

In fact, nowhere in the above link does Thornhill make reference to oil raining "day after day".

Could it be that Thornhill did not find any other independent sources for this claim, therefore chose not to use it or include it in his discussion? Yet, you, starbiter, put an enormous amount of reliance on Velikovsky's claim.

(By the way, I found the Thornhill discussion interesting and it agreed with my suggestion for the origin of the dolomite and hydrocarbons in comets and meteorites, respectively. As I stated before I subscribe to the Electric Comet Theory and have no objection to Venus having a comet-like tail and impacting the Earth with its tail.)

My work in geology disagrees with Dr Velikovsky's vision drastically.

Okay. Please specifically explain how your work in geology drastically disagrees with Dr. Velikovsky's "vision" or provide a link to a discussion on another board, I'm aware of your "Duning" board.

Regarding whether hydrocarbons exist in Venus' atmosphere or had existed in the past, your claim that we may never know isn't scientific, not when, by now, multiple Venus satellite probes have failed to detect hydrocarbons and have confirmed a Venus atmosphere dominated by carbon dioxide.

Regarding Alexander A. Scarborough, I had not heard or read of him until you mentioned his name and I have been intensively researching Abiotic Oil Theory for four years. But I did Google his name and came up with a couple of papers which weren't particlularly scientific (scientifically unconstrained) from eight to ten years ago. I don't consider him a pioneer in Abiotic Oil Theory and given his explanations for the causation of abiotic oil, it doesn't surprise me he would nod his head in polite agreement over a casual lunch regarding your hypothesis.

As opposed to You Anaconda, he [Scarborough] was completely open to comet oil as proposed by Dr Velikovsky.

starbiter, please don't misrepresent my position.

My response directly to the possibility of comet oil:

Hi starbiter:

Starbiter asked:
What is your problem with comet oil?

I have no problems with comet oil, on the contrary, I was the one who brought up hydrocarbons found in meteorites, in the first place.

And I already responded to one of your comments, explaining that comet oil would be possible, but that the oil deposits in the Middle East are not consistent with comet oil because the deposits are too large & concentrated (19 cubic miles of oil pumped from Ghawar so far) and there are fracture zones in the basement (bedrock) directly under the Ghawar oil field in Saudi Arabia which provide scientific evidence for where the oil emanates from, as there are fracture zones in the basement under the other Middle Eastern oil fields...

starbiter, you write that I ignore your argument, but in reality it is you who ignored the above facts, evidence, and analysis and proceeded to make your own claims while ignoring my response to jone dae.

My complete response of June 28, 2012 is currently here with a link to a prior response to your February 15, 2012 initial comment regarding comet oil:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2150&start=645#p67625

Again, starbiter, please respond to my specific arguments instead of repeating generalities. My argument about oil deposit concentrations, particularly the 19 mile cube of oil pumped from the Ghawar oil field in Saudi Arabia and its underlying network of faults is plenty specific and easy to understand as opposed to claiming it "made no sense" to you.

I consider that nothing but a dodge so you can avoid giving an answer to my response to your comment: In my book that's intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Insofar as your accusation goes:

[Anaconda] Your comment seemed insincere.

I provided a response based on the facts & evidence that I was aware of at the time of my reponse. And, given that you failed to provide a detailed argument for comet oil on this board prior to my March 29, 2012 response, I fail to see the basis for you calling me "insincere".

Excuse me for responding that "comet oil would be possible", but not agreeing with your extraordinary claims of comet oil accounting for the great oil deposits in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world without a detailed scientific basis provided by you. It's your claim after all, so you have the burden of substantiating your claims.

What? Am I supposed to simply bow down to your claims without a detailed scientific argument from the proponent of those claims because Dr. Velikovsky said so?

starbiter, you wrap yourself in a kind of easy going style, but your assumptions about the validity of your hypothesis are arrogant and misplaced. When your claims are boiled down to their essence, you have very little scientific facts or evidence to back them up, at least that I'm aware of, so you use Dr. Velikovsky as a battering ram to bully people to agree with your extraordinary claims. That's not fair to Dr. Velikovsky's memory or place of pride as a pioneer for Electric Universe supporters, of which I am one.

You need to do better than that.

Starbiter, in all honesty you should be cautious when making extraordinary claims and using Dr. Velikovsky as a basis for those claims. Follow Wallace Thornhill's example as provided by the above link and make compelling arguments based on the physical facts & evidence as empirically observed & measured. That's what I've tried to do through the whole course of this board, but you seem to casually ignore the extensive scientific evidence I have provided in support of Abiotic Oil Theory.

Now, onto more pleasant subjects and to your arguments which you have provided here on this board since my June 28, 2012 response:

How were dolomite and calcite produced on the planets that ejected the comets as You propose?

starbiter, as you know, there is a "Dolomite Problem" in geology so there is considerable disagreement, but I subscribe to the idea that dolomite is chemically formed deep in the crust in hydrothermal systems via natural chemical affinities or properties of the elements, themselves, when subjected to heat and pressure (allow me to expand that answer later as I've now been writing a long time in this one sitting).

Why was NASA surprised to find carbonates in the coma of comets?

Because NASA holds to the so-called "snowball" hypothesis for the formation of comets, which doesn't allow for higher chemical elements due to their belief that comets are the leftovers from the so-called "nebular" hypothesis of solar system formation.

Electrical comets seem to have dolomite and limestone in their comas. They also have aromatic hydrocarbons. This seems like a clue to me. Are You just going to ignore this fact?

No, I'm not ignoring this fact. I've already explained to you why comets have dolomite and limestone in their comas:

I also subscribe to the idea that comets, meteorites, and asteroids originated as a result of past planetary electromagnetic interaction, i.e., electric discharge machining (EDM) as evidenced by the scars on Mars, some here on Earth, and other planets and moons and, perhaps, stronger evidence, still, by recent empirical observation & measurement of the comets, themselves, where the evidence suggests the comets consist of material which could only form in a planetary body. The best evidence currently available is comets, meteorites, and asteroids were created as material was "blasted away" from the various spots on the planetary bodies and sent into space.

This conclusion may explain why there is dolomite dust in the comet tail and also explain the presence of hydrocarbons found within meteorites.

This agrees with Wallace Thornhill's analysis, by the way.

They [comets] also have aromatic hydrocarbons. This seems like a clue to me.

No, this is not particularly helpful to your hypothesis because natural petroleum consists overwhelmingly of alkane hydrocarbons, which is a different chemical structure from aromatic hydrocarbons.

My big problem with oil oozing up from below through faults into the sediments where we find it is the timeline.

How so? You and I agree geological timelines are dubious and unreliable to begin with, so it seems that so-called "timelines" are irrelevant to the formation of Abiotic Oil Theory in geological terms. Yet, there are some scientific indications that abiotic oil formation may happen faster in more active geological areas, even to the extent to be relevant to economic man, but the fact remains, nobody knows how fast abiotic oil forms, but that doesn't detract from the evidence that petroleum forms via completely abiotic processes via electro-thermal-chemical bonding processes as exampled by the Fischer-Tropsch Type synthesis of hydrocarbons.

How long does it take for the oil to ooz into impermeable shale?

starbiter, your assumption is wrong.

The hydrocarbons don't "ooz into impermeable shale". You have set up a strawman argument for your own idea's benefit. Strawman arguments are a classic case of improper argumentation.

I have never claimed oil "ooz into impermeable shale". On the contrary, the oil (or oil field brine which has been previously discussed on this board) flows up through conduits, cracks, or fractures, with the mud or silt together as a 'slurry' and then forms the sedimentary layer oil shale together. Or the oil field brine flows up through conduits, cracks, or fractures, and then the heavy hydrocarbons, C215H330 (kerogen), settle to the muddy bottom of a watery basin because heavy hydrocarbons are heavyier than water while the light hydrocarbons rise to the top of the water and evaporate. Thus, the oil becomes part of the shale before it hardens to an impermiable form. Or the oil is intruded into the geological column and the heavy hydrocarbons solidify and drop out of the 'brine' and deposit in strata and geological formations before it ever reaches the surface.

There are plenty of oil deposits that are not part of the shale in the form of kerogen, but rather are trapped below the impermiable shale, thus, the shale acts as a geological trap for the oil to pool up below in porous aggragates or sand. That is why oil geologists and "rough necks" alike refer to oil "sands" as the oil deposits are often found in porous "sands" and aren't in shale. This was true of the Pennsilvania & Appalachian oil fields, the first great oil producing region of the United States:



And to do that I will go back to Eugene Coste and his article the Volcanic Origin of Natural Gas and Petroleum (1903):

The Journal of the Canadian Mining Institute, 1903, Volcanic Origin of Natural Gas and Petroleum, Eugene Coste.

The above table shows more than 50 different "sands" (by this term we mean any gas or oil rock, as in the parlence of a driller, whether it is a sandstone, a limestone, or any other rock) in which oil or gas fields have been found along the Appalachian belt, and we have no doubt that as a great many so called "stray sands" were left out of the table and, as the different "pay" or "pay streaks" of the same "sand" are only counted as one, that the real number of different sands which have been found containing gas or oil along this belt, from West Virginia to New York State, cannot be less, if any, than eighty...

This first passage provides some definitions and background so as to fully appreciate the next passage. A "sand" is a seperate rock layer or strata in the geologic or stratigraphic column which has petroleum deposits:

Let us take you along this belt in a rapid survey of what the drill really teaches us: -- in the oil region south-west of Pittsburgh the drill starts (where the upper measures are the thickest) in the Upper Barren Coal Measures, and inside of 3,500 feet to 4,000 feet passes through the 26 oil and gas "sands" of the lower Carboniferous, Subcarboniferous and Upper Devonian shown in the above table [available in the linked document]; but, here it will tap the illusive oil or gas in one of these sands, there in another, in the most indiscriminate fashion. Occasionally, it will tap them in the same field in two, four, six or even more of the "Sands" like at Macksburg. Which is going to be the producing sand? Will it be the shallow or Cow Run sands? or the Salt sand? or the Keener, Big Injun or Berea? or the deeper Gordon or 5th sand? It is quite evident that the oil and gas are wanderers, and that their home [origin] is not in any of these sands. We now go north-east of Pittsburg to the Middle and Northern oil fields [where, again, multiple "sands" in the same geologic column were found to have hydrocarbons]... We have then at last reached the Archaean Crystalline floor without finding this home and, on the top of it we record the highest pressure for the gas yet recorded... Now! what is the source?... Our negative proofs then become a most positive conclusive proof that the home [origin] of our wanderers [oil & gas] is below the Archaean in the fluid magma.

http://books.google.com/books?id=2UcLAA ... &q&f=false

Here again I urge readers to take some time and read Eugene Coste's article in the link.

Now, Eugene Coste is an Abiotic Oil Theory pioneer, as well as geologist and hydrocarbon explorationist.

Coste identifies many characteristics of petroleum reservoirs, geologic structures, and abiotic markers, that are later identified by modern abiotic oil theorists as being indicators of the reality of Abiotic Oil Theory.

We have seen Eugene Coste identify two characteristics so far: The association of dolomite and petroleum and the presence of multiple rock layers or "sands" in the same geologic column that have deposits of hydrocarbon down to the bedrock.

Stanley B. Keith identified the association of dolomite and hydrocarbons and Nikolai Kudryavtsev identified petroleum deposits in multiple rock layers down to the bedrock, half a century after Eugene Coste in Kudryavtsev's case and closer to a century in Keith's case, respectively.

What is your timeline for the process?

Again, as you already know geological timelines are unreliable and, thus, not particularly relevant. So, isn't it hypocritical to keep asking this question?

How was impermeable oil shale rock produced?

Time, heat, and pressure caused by a building up of overburden in the geological column. See above discussion for the formation of oil shale.

What lithified it?

A combination of heat and pressure over an indeterminate length of time.

Is it metamorphic?

Yes, in the sense that the Fischer-Tropsch Type chemical process is a metamorphic process: Metamorphism is the solid-state recrystallization of pre-existing rocks due to changes in physical and chemical conditions, primarily heat, pressure, and the introduction of chemically active fluids. Mineralogical, chemical and crystallographic changes can occur during this process.

According to this link the whole formation went for a ride on the magic elevator.

starbiter, with all due respect your link is garbage which parrots the so-called "fossil" fuel theory that has been thoroughly falsified over the course of this board.

Parroting garbage doesn't say alot for your analytical skills, starbiter. Particularly when you parrot something which doesn't even agree with your own ideas.

Seems like comet oil to me.

starbiter, I got to tell you that seems intellectually lazy to latch onto a so-called "fossil" fuel theory story about oil shale and then claim it supports your extraordinary claim with no supporting analysis & reinterpretation provided by yourself.

The layers of the Green River formation are obviously from a slosh of underwater sediment that included 2 trillion barrels of oil, as described in legend and myth.

starbiter, when a proponent of an extraordinary claim, such as yours, makes a statment to the effect that "obviously" their claim is right. You have to question it.

Because no, it is not "obvious" that anything "sloshed" or acted like what you are claiming.

Perhaps, you should take the time and read the board (yes, I realize it would take several hours over several days, but then you could interject your ideas or objections from an informed position of knowledge, as opposed to where you are currently standing). You might just learn something, too.

Imagine that.

[Anaconda]

Post script to privious comment in response to starbiter:

How long does it take for the oil to ooz into impermeable shale?

Besides this being a strawman argument by misrepresenting my position, beyond oil oozing into impermeable shale, which I never claimed, there is another problem: "ooz" is a terribly misleading term for the forces involved in the transport of oil up through the geological column via conduits consisting of cracks or fractures.

In all the oil- and gas-fields or petroleum-deposits, the gaseous products are under a strong pressure which is not artesian or hydrostatic, which increases with depth, and which cannot be be anything else but a volcanic pressure. Oil, gas and bitumens are never indigenous to the strata in which they are found -- they are secondary products impregnating and cutting porous rocks of all ages, exactly as volcanic products alone can do. Oil and gas are stored products, in great abundance in certain localities, while neighboring localities often are entirely barren; and many of the strata among which they are found are impervious, that the source of these hydrocarbons must be the source below, which alone is abundant enough, and alone possesses sufficient energy, to force and accumulate such large quantities of these and associated products in so many spots through such impervious strata. The oil- and gas-fields are located along the faulted and fissured zones of the crust of the earth, parallel to the great orogenic and volcanic dislocations. -- Eugene Coste, geologist, abiotic oil theorist & hydrocarbon explorationist, 1905

Volcanic pressure from below is not an "oozing" pressure, but a very powerful pressure and as BobDodds pointed out, as reported by Eugene Coste, the highest pressure of the oil deposits and natural gas deposits is found deepest in the geological column which is inconsistent with claims that most if almost all oil being the result of comet oil.

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... -- Eugene Coste, geologist, abiotic oil theorist & hydrocarbon explorationist, 1905

Coste's observation has been confirmed many times over. This is completely inconsistent with comet oil from above being responsible for the bulk of the world's oil supply, as oil would be much more evenly spread out and there would not be a direct corollary between oil deposits and the cracks, fractures, and faults of the world's crust. And there is a direct corollary between oil deposits and the cracks, fractures, and faults because they act as the conduits for the upward migration of oil from deep below.

For if most oil was the result of burial as is essentially claimed by starbiter, then you wouldn't find the pressure to be higher the deeper one gets in the geological column, rather, the pressure would be highest next to the oil shale, itself, but in physical reality the pressure is highest the closer one gets to the original source of the generated pressure which is deep in the crust and shallow mantle where Abiotic Oil Theory holds oil originally forms.

Also, starbiter's hypothesis that most of the world's oil deposits are the result of comet oil, which got buried, ignores the great distinction between oil shale which consists of molecular heavy hydrocarbons, C215H330, and light crude oil which has the full compliment of the alkane hydrocarbon series. Oil that was deposited towards the surface with little capping or trap rock structure could expect to have the light hydrocarbons escape into the atmosphere and leave the heavy hydrocarbons behind, but a vast bulk of the oil is full compliment alkane hydrocarbon series petroleum which shows no evidence of ever being exposed to the surface.

Also, as Nikolai Kudryavtsev of Kudryavtsev's Rule and Eugene Coste point out, the amount of light oil in a deposit almost always is much more than could be accounted for if all the oil came from the oil shale or so-called "source rock" in the area of the oil deposit. In fact, there are areas where no "source rock" or oil shale has been found to account for the petroleum which is discovered and then extracted.

Starbiter's failure to account for the difference between oil shale and regular petroleum, liquid oil, is a fatal invalidation of his idea.

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.

[Aardwolf]

Where does comet oil supposedly come from?

[Sparky]

Where does comet oil supposedly come from?

We get lighter hydrocarbons from crude, but is there any experimental evidence that that can be reversed, crude from lighter hydrocarbons.?

thanks

[starbiter]

Hello Anaconda: I find the sources Dr V used in the Naptha section of Worlds in Collision adequate.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21746049/Veli ... -Collision

The chapter uses legend and myth from around the world describing huge amounts of oil falling from the sky. Most of the people died. Apparently You're not impressed. I don't care. And i don't care for your lectures either.

The Electric Universe is founded on comparative legend and myth. You also don't seem to believe this. If i'm wrong concerning comparitive legend and myth i'd like to be corrected by the owners of this forum. The thinking about this subject in the group has many differences of opinion concerning dates and agents responsible. But if we go back 12,000 years, and consider Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, or the Sun as possible agents, i think there is general agreement. Some members think oil rained down from Saturn, during the Saturnian System period. Plasma makes the descriptions from legend and myth possible, completing a circle. The agents and dates are not factors in my work. Just the descriptions of the catastrophic events.

In his book Primordial Star, pages 50 to 65, Dwardu Cardona proposes that oil rained down on Earth from Saturn. Dwardu uses the descriptions from Worlds in Collision, which You find unworthy. Venus or Saturn are both fine with me.

The "Electric Universe, Planetary Science" board is for discussion of these catastrophic events, by definition. From your post You seem to feel these proposed events would have killed everyone, so you don't think the descriptions are historic. If this precludes You from considering legend and myth why do You post on this board? There are many abiotic oil forums not based on catastrophe.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&t ... 41&bih=584

Your post quoted many abiotic oil experts. They all have one thing in common. None of them considered oil from an external source. Not one. Sloshing wasn't considered. Comets as a source of sediment weren't considered. Dolomite from comets wasn't considered. Duning as a process for mountain formation probably didn't come up.

After i viewed the "Experiments in Stratification" videos a few times, sloshing became fairly easy to recognize in the field. I took 8 EU followers to the deserts and mountains of the western USA before and after the Vegas EU conference. They ALL seemed to get IT. IT was easy. On the third day of the trip i was pointing out the difference between duning and slosh. A Ph.D physicist said to me,"i get it. You don't need to say anymore".

I've spent a lot of time in the Book Cliffs and Green River Basin lately. The formations appear to be slurry runoff. This appears extremely obvious. It also appears obvious You don't believe or trust me in any way. No problem!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8

If the Green River Basin is a slosh from recent catastrophes then the oil shale containing 2 trillion barrels of oil would have flowed with the slosh. This would be expected in the WiC scenario. It fits the scenario like a glove, or to a T. Please don't lecture me for my choice of words. I already know your feelings. You have been very clear!

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-GyNP5 ... lNjYz/edit

You have determined a limit for oil from an external source. The large deposits can't be from an external source according to You. Who are You to determine a limit? From the descriptions from legend and myth the oil rained for days and nights [plural]. On land the oil seems to have flowed with the sloshes [plural]. Oil that fell on the oceans would be a different story. The heavy oil would sink by definition. The light oil would float. Winds would push the surface of the oceans in the direction of the wind. Hurricanes do the same thing. Water is forced over land by the direction of the wind. As Dr V proposed, the oil would be pushed against shorelines and collection points [bays]. Natural bays could fill up with oil. The level of the oceans and seas were variable during the events, to a great degree, if You listen to the descriptions and think of the consequences. This process could account for large concentrations at varying depths.

Concerning alkanes, You have me there. Obviously comets can't account for the alkanes in oil.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987KosIs..25..810G

[...]
The structure of the 3.35 band in the Comet Halley spectrum attributed to characteristic oscillations of C-H bonds in hydrocarbons has been investigated with the Vega-1 IKS IR spectrometer, assuming that the radiating matter is in a gaseous state. It is suggested that the band structure can be explained by alkanes more complex than ethane or naphthenes. The necessary presence of molecules of one class of unsaturated hydrocarbons, polyenes, must also be assumed. The flux of hydrocarbon molecules emitted by the Comet Halley nucleus on March 6, 1986 was found to equal 1.3 x 10 to the 29th/s; this flux included a carbon atom flux of about 4 x 10 to the 29th/s.


me again,


Concerning my disagreements with Dr Velikovsky, i see mountains as dunes in many cases, Dr V saw mountains as folded.

I see the "River of Fire" as plasma in some of the cases mentioned in WiC. Dr V thought "The River of Fire" was naptha.

Dr V thought basalt and other volcanic rock was always volcanic. I think much of the volcanic rock was produced externally. It's stated in WiC that the dust, sand, gravel, rocks, and boulders came down mingled with the "River of Fire" glowing red hot. This would be a way to explain many basalt formations in the western USA. Much of the basalt and volcanic rock is explained by missing volcanoes. The basalt flow in between the missing volcano and the existing basalt is also missing. The actual basalt is often described as looking pristine, even though the volcano and missing basalt have vanished.

Much of the basalt associated with missing volcanoes is high in iron. If the dust that was described in the "Plague of Darkness" was concentrated by electromagnetic forces, iron rich compounds may have been preferentially attracted. The "River of Fire" might have electromagnetic properties explaining iron rich basalt. The andesite that bubbled up in Mt. St Helens was not iron rich.


Concerning the high pressure of oil found below oil shale. If the depths are great enough to cause heat one might expect gas to be separated from the liquid oil, increasing the pressure. If You watch the sedimentology video you'll notice the layering pattern seems consistent. Carbonates on top, clay in the middle, and sand below. The clay layer would produce shale, with or without oil, if zapped, in my model. Any oil that leaked out of the clay layer might seep into the sand below, remaining a liquid. Your volcanic explanation for increased pressure might be possible. Your certainty seems overdone.

On the 29th of August, after NPA 19 in Albuquerque, there will be another geology tour. I'll be leading critical people through the western USA. We will wonder the Book Cliffs. Your invited to see the process for yourself, it's obvious!

michael steinbacher

[venn]

Sloshing as a process becomes obvious once you start to recognize the pattern. Being actually out there helps a lot.

[venn]

On the 29th of August, after NPA 19 in Albuquerque, there will be another geology tour.

It will be the 29th of July ...

[starbiter]

The Covenant oil field of central Utah has an estimated 100,000,000 barrels of oil. The description of the area holding the oil is interesting.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum ... /index.htm
[...]

Cores from the Navajo Sandstone display a variety of eolian facies (dune, interdune, lake/playa, fluvial/wadi), fracturing, and minor faults which, in combination, create reservoir heterogeneity. Reservoir sandstone is 97% frosted quartz grains (bimodal grain size), with some quartz overgrowths and illite. The net reservoir thickness is 424 ft over a 1600-ac area. Porosity averages 12%; permeability is 100 mD. The drive mechanism is a strong water drive; water saturation is 38%. A thorough understanding of all the components that created Covenant field will determine whether it is a harbinger of additional, large oil discoveries in this vast, under-explored region.


me again,
The oil seems to be associated with a river system [fluvial] leading to a lake surrounded by dunes. Oil might have flowed down a river into a lake while duning was occuring. The oil is capped by limestone. Limestone would be expected if the Experiments in Stratification videos are considered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8

The oil is mixed with 38% water which fits a lake being filled with oil. The oil lake was 424" deep and covered 2.5 square miles.

michael

[Anaconda]

starbiter,

The Covenant oil field has been discussed on this board:

Comparing & contrasting the White Tiger oil field off the coast of Vietnam in South East Asia with the Covenant oil field located in 2004 in the state of Utah in the United States. One oil field is offshore and the other is on land.

Both locations were originally considered poor prospects for the discovery of oil by conventional geologists.

This board has previously discussed the White Tiger oil field off the coast of Vietnam (March 26, 2011). In numerous discussions of Abiotic Oil Theory, the offshore oil fields of Vietnam are held-up as an example of oil production from the crystalline basement (bedrock), and, thus, with the conclusion that petroleum is abiotic:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2150&start=390#p49626

The Search and Discovery scientific paper, Petroleum Geology of Cuu Long Basin - Offshore Vietnam* by Nguyen Du Hung and Hung Van Le (2004) provides a description & discussion of the White Tiger field:

Partial Abstract:
The Cuu Long basin is a Tertiary rift basin on the southern shelf of Vietnam. It covers an area of approximately 25,000 km2 (250 x 100 km). The basin was formed during the rifting in Early Oligocene. Late Oligocene to Early Miocene inversion intensified the fracturing of granite basement and made it become an excellent reservoir.

In spite of some discoveries in the Oligocene-Miocene clastics and volcanic sections, fractured granite basement is still the main target of Cuu Long basin. Tectonic activities play a key role in creating and enhancing the fractures in the basement. Five major oil fields produce predominantly from the basement.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2004/hung/

The following Schematic from the paper provides a visual of the geology:

Figure 4. Two-dimensional model of the play concept for the Cuu Long basin.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum ... ges/04.htm

The paper goes on to describe the fractured rift horst:

Oil was stored in macro-fractures, micro-fractures, and vuggy pores. The matrix porosity of the magmatic body is negligible. Fractures inside the basement may originate from one or a combination of the following factors:
1) The cooling of the magmatic body
2) Tectonic activity
3) Hydrothermal processes
4) Weathering and exfoliation.

However, the tectonic activity and the hydrothermal processes are practically the main factors that control the porosity of the fracture systems. Recent studies (Cuong, T. X. 2001; Schmidt, J. et al., 2003) proved that the compression event that occurred during Late Oligocene reactivated the pre-existing faults/fractures and created effective porosity inside the granite basement. The compression probably resulted from the restraining band of a strike-slip motion along the E-W trending lineaments.

Take note of the geologic structure presented in the above linked schematic.

Now let's compare & contrast the White Tiger field's structure with the Covenant oil field discovered in 2004 in the state of Utah in an area which had been considered by most conventional geologists as a poor prospect for discovering oil:

Covenant Oil Field, Central Utah Thrust Belt: Possible Harbinger of Future Discoveries*, by Thomas C. Chidsey et. al. (2007):

Abstract
After over 50 years of exploration [apparently with little success] in the central Utah thrust belt, or “Hingeline,” the 2004 discovery of Covenant oil field proved that this region contains the right components (trap, reservoir, seal, source, and migration history) for large accumulations of oil. To date, 10 producing wells and one dry hole have been drilled from two surface pads. Covenant has produced over 2 million bbls of oil and no gas; the field averages 6400 BOPD.

The Covenant trap is an elongate, symmetric, northeast-trending anticline, with nearly 800 ft of structural closure and bounded on the east by a series of splay thrusts in a passive roof duplex. The eolian Jurassic Navajo Sandstone reservoir is effectively sealed by mudstone and evaporites in the overlying Jurassic Twin Creek Limestone and Arapien Shale. Oil analysis indicates a probable Mississippian source – oil derived and migrated from rocks within the Hingeline region...

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum ... 70chidsey/

The "Hingeline" is in reference to a lifted or raised ridge or thrust belt running in a northeast-trending direction in central Utah.

Okay, let's now specifically examine the geologic structure of the Covenant oil field as presented in the following schematics:

Figure 9. Northwest-southeast structural cross section, Covenant field.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum ... ges/09.htm

Figure 27. Potential drilling targets: Schematic east-west structural cross section through Sevier Valley, Utah.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum ... ges/27.htm

Take note of the geologic structure presented in the above linked schematics. Now, again, compare & contrast the above geologic structure with the geologic structure of Vietnam's offshore White Tiger oil field:

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum ... ges/04.htm

The similarities are striking & notable with the internal faults within the overall structure pointed towards the top and center of the fault structure in both the White Tiger and Covenant oil fields. The difference is that the White Tiger oil field consists of fractures & faults running into the crystalline basement and the Covenant oil field consists of sedimentary layers pushed upwards via thrusting originating from below the sedimentary layers.

It is interesting to look at the seimic, earthquake history map of Utah:

Utah, Seismicity Map, Seismicity of Utah 2000 - 2006

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/ ... micity.php

Also, interesting to look at is the physical relief map of Utah:

Utah Physical Map - Utah Relief Map:
This Utah shaded relief map shows the major physical features of the state [Third map down on the Geology.com webpage].

http://geology.com/state-map/utah.shtml

After comparing the seismic and physical relief maps of Utah, note the congruence of the thrusting uplift and seismic activity. Again, it is striking and remarkable.

After reviewing seismic maps of various oil fields on tectonic faults, one will note the consistency of earthquake, tectonic faults, and oil fields (although, not all oil fields are associated with seismically active areas).

Now, keep in your mind's eye the above uplift and seismic activity maps and the following schematic from the Covenant oil field Discovery paper:

Figure 1. Location of Covenant oil feld, uplifts, and selected thrust systems in the central Utah thrust belt. Numbers and sawteeth are on the hanging wall of the corresponding thrust system. Colored (light orange) area shows present and potential extent of the Navajo Sandstone Hingeline play in the central Utah thrust belt.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum ... ges/01.htm

Discussion:

Hydrothermal activity is noted in both the White Tiger oil field and the Covenant oil field:

Diagenetic characteristics of the Jurassic Navajo Sandstone in the Covenant oil field, central Utah thrust belt, by W. T., Parry, Marjorie A. Chan,, Barbara P. Nash (2009):

http://doi.aapg.org/data/open/offer.do? ... N08170.HTM

...The reservoir temperature of 188F (87C) is too high for bacterial sulfate reduction and too low for geologically significant thermochemical sulfate reduction accounting for the association of abundant in produced [hydrothermal] water and trace pyrite in the core.

The presence of Dolomite is also reported at the Covenant oil field:

...Bleached dune facies in the core samples contains ferroan dolomite, quartz overgrowths that do not completely fill pore spaces, grain-coating and pore-filling illite, coarse-grained gray hematite, kaolinite, and trace pyrite. Reddish brown interdune facies are typically very fine-grained sandstone and siltstone and contain dolomite and ferroan dolomite cement...

As has been discussed before on this board, there is laboratory (Fischer-Tropsch industrial production of hydrocarbons) and field evidence that abiotic oil is a result of hydrothermal Fischer-Tropsch Type processes:

We suggest a third possibility--the generation of methane and heavier hydrocarbons through reactions that occur during cooling, fractionation, and deposition of dolomitic carbonates, metal-rich black shales, and other minerals from hydrothermal metagenic fluids. These fluids are proposed to be the product of serpentinization of carbon-rich peridotites under hydrogen-rich, reduced conditions.

Hydrothermal Hydrocarbons, by Stanley B. Keith and Monte M. Swan (2005)

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum ... /keith.htm

As can be seen by the Parry, Chan, Nash paper on the composition of the Covenant oil field, both Dolomite and iron are present in the Covenant oil field, as well as hydrothermal activity.

All these elements, and, the physical geology, as demonstrated with the contrast & comparison between the White Tiger oil field and the Covenant oil field are consistent with Abiotic Oil Theory.

Direct evidence for hydrothermal hydrocarbons continues to mount. Some of the more relevant observations include:

Hydrothermal dolomite (HTD) not only hosts hydrocarbons, but has trapped hydrocarbons during its deposition under hot hydrothermal conditions (100-200 C) (for example Hulen and others, 1994 at Railroad Valley, Nevada). HTD is associated with large oil and gas accumulations including the supergiant Ghawar field in Saudi Arabia (Cantrell and others, 2001).

Geochemistry of hydrocarbons, experimental work, and mass-balance calculations have identified the fluids that produce HTD as hot, strongly-reduced, hydrocarbon-rich chloride and/or bicarbonate brines containing elements exotic to basins such as Mg, Fe, Ni, V, Se, Co, and Zn. Indeed, many oil field brines may represent the original hydrothermal carrier fluid for reservoir hydrocarbons.

Virtually all oil is now known to contain nanodiamond particles and their diamondoid overgrowths. Nanodiamond presence strongly suggests a high-pressure, high-temperature origin at some point in the generation, migration, and deposition of the hydrocarbon (Dahl and others, 2003 a and b).

Thermogenic abiogenic low-C number hydrocarbon gases (mainly methane) have been experimentally produced under hydrothermal conditions that simulate serpentinization of a peridotite source (Berndt and others, 1996; Horita and Berndt, 1999). Ultrathermogenic methane has also been produced experimentally by reacting magnetite, calcite, and water in a diamond anvil high-pressure apparatus under mantle pressures and temperatures (Science News, 2004).

Oil has been shown to produce copious amounts of catalytic gas by heating above 130 C in the presence of native metals such as Fe, Ni, and Co. The rates of reaction are geologically instantaneous and easily fit within the lifespan of a hydrothermal plume system (Mango, and others, 1994).

Humans have been unintentionally modeling and producing gasoline under hydrothermal hydrocarbon conditions for decades. Starting in the Second World War industrial scale ‘hydrothermal’ gasolines have been produced by injecting hydrogen into hot carbon oxides produced from pyrolysis of coal cokes and subsequently cooling and condensing the hydrothermal mixture across a metalliferous (native metal) catalytic interface (Fischer-Tropsch process, see Szatmari, 1989).

Large methane-charged hydrothermal seepages have been recently discovered in oceanic transform environments such as the Lost City ‘white smoker’ field in the central Atlantic (Kelley and others, 2001, Fruh-Green, 2004). These seepage phenomena provide evidence that serpentine-sourced, crustal-scale hydrocarbon systems may breach the lithosphere. Where they do so, at a subaqueous interface, they may furnish inorganic hydrocarbon, metal, and other chemical exhalative material for black shale accumulations. Indeed, hydrocarbons generated by this process may still be replenishing producing reservoirs (for example, the Eugene Island 300 reservoir in the deep Gulf of Mexico).

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum ... /keith.htm

Here is the link for the Covanent oil field discussion:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2150&start=510#p62843

Consider the observation that the White Tiger oil field off the Vietnam coast is oil from the crystalline basement and that oil goes all the way down to the crystalline basement in the Pennsilvania & Appalachian oil fields:

[surveying] We now go north-east of Pittsburg to the Middle and Northern oil fields [where, again, multiple "sands" in the same geologic column were found to have hydrocarbons]... We have then at last reached the Archaean Crystalline floor without finding this home and, on the top of it we record the highest pressure for the gas yet recorded... Now! what is the source?... Our negative proofs then become a most positive conclusive proof that the home [origin] of our wanderers [oil & gas] is below the Archaean in the fluid magma. -- Eugene Coste, geologist, abiotic oil theorist & hydrocarbon explorationist, 1905

Kudryavtsev's Rule:

Kudryavtsev's Rule states that any region in which hydrocarbons are found at one level will also have hydrocarbons in large or small quantities at all levels down to and into the basement rock. Thus, where oil and gas deposits are found, there will often be coal seams above them. Gas is usually the deepest in the pattern, and can alternate with oil. All petroleum deposits have a capstone, which is generally impermeable to the upward migration of hydrocarbons. This capstone leads to the accumulation of the hydrocarbon.

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

And, here is a report of oil down to the crystalline basement in the Sirte basin of Libya:

Now, let's look at an abstract of a paper reporting on an oil field in the Sirte Basin (among many oil fields in the Sirte Basin).

The Geology of the Nafoora Oilfield, Sirte Basin, Libya, H. S. Belazi (1989)

Abstract
The Nafoora oilfield is situated on a major tectonic uplift in the eastern Sirte Basin, the Amal-Nafoora High. Four oilfields have been discovered on this uplift – Amal, Rakb, Augila and Naffora.

Drilling on this high encountered hydrocarbon entrapment in over a dozen distinct stratigraphic units. These reservoirs range in age from Pre-Cambrian basement to Miocene sands. The most important reservoirs in the Nafoora field are the sandstones of the Amal (Cambro-Ordovician) and Maragh (Upper Cretaceous) Formations. Reservoirs in the Upper Cretaceous, Palaeocene and Eocene carbonates are as important as those in the sandstones.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract

The author, Belazi, reports "hydrocarbon entrapment" is observed "in over a dozen distinct stratigraphic units." A stratigraphic unit is a layer of rock in the geologic column. These stratigraphic layers start with the bedrock (crystalline basement) and work up to the surface. Each layer of rock can vary widely, yet, each is identifiable as a seperate layer of rock. So, hydrocarbons are identified up and down the stratigraphic column in over a dozen distinct layers of rock.

Next, Belazi reports, "These reservoirs range in age from Pre-Cambrian basement to Miocene sands." So, not only are there over a dozen seperate layers of rock with hydrocarbon deposits, but the first petroleum deposit is directly above and/or within the crystalline basement, the deepest and oldest body of rock in the column, consistent with Kudryavtsev's Rule, and up to the Miocene sands, which are a more recent rock layer. Over ten geological epochs seperate the Pre-Cambrian basement and Miocene sands. As Belazi reports, an important petroleum reservoir exists in the Cambro-Ordovician level of rock, so, this deposit is at a depth on the stratigraphic column between the Cambrian and Ordovician levels, close to the bottom of the geologic column. And another important petroleum reservoir exists seven geologic epochs above the Cambro-Ordovician in the Upper Cretaceous.

All the above discussion fits within Kudryavtsev's Rule like a hand fits in a glove and exactly as Abiotic Oil Theory predicts. "Kudryavtsev's Rule states that any region in which hydrocarbons are found at one level will also have hydrocarbons in large or small quantities at all levels down to and into the basement rock."

In the Nafoora oilfield in the Sirte Basin that is apparently just so.

There are numerous oil fields where oil is observed down to the crystalline basement:

GeoScience Limited
HYDROCARBON PRODUCTION FROM FRACTURED BASEMENT FORMATIONS Version 5.1

INTRODUCTION
This compilation presents brief details of the occurrences of commercial hydrocarbon reservoirs in fractured basement rocks from over 19 different countries.

Basement Reservoirs of Libya, North Africa
Considerable volumes of oil were discovered in Libya during the late 1950's / early 1960's (Roberts 1970).. Oil is mainly produced from the Sirte basin. The Amal and Nafoora-Augila fields lie on the Rakb high in the eastern part of the Sirte basin. However, the Amal field reservoir rock is sedimentary in nature (Paleozoic Amal quartzose sandstone) rather than igneous or metamorphic.

Nafoora-Augila Field
Precambrian granite is the host for one of the primary oil producing reservoirs in the Nafoora-Augila field, which is one of the main giant fields in the Sirte basin (Belgasem 1991). The fractured and weathered basement (a late Precambrian or early Paleozoic granite) is one of three producing horizons. Some of the oil wells started production from the basement reservoir only, while others produced from the basement and/or sedimentary reservoirs.

The basement rocks are gradations of granophyre, granophyricgranite, granite and rhyolite (Belgasem et al 1990). The basement reservoir contains a large accumulation of oil in fracture and weathered porosities. Due to the mineralogical complexity of the reservoir and the heterogeneous nature of the fracture features, the weathered and fracture porosity distribution is not well known.

The Nafoora-Augila field is located in the northeast of Libya(southeast of the Amal field), and is at the top of the Rakb high. The Nafoora-Augila area originally was a concession of Oasis Oil Co., the owner of the Amal field. The company drilled two wells near the top of the high. Oasis abandoned the concession as the wells proved to be dry. The concession was then obtained by Occidental Petroleum (UK) Ltd in 1966. The first successful well of Occidental was Dl, which had an initial production of 14,800 bbl/day. Production came from porous fossiliferous limestone perforated throughout the interval from 8,530 to 8,563 ft (2,600 to 2,610 m). This reservoir rock was lower Rakb carbonate and was not a basement reservoir(P'An 1982).

The first basement reservoir encountered was Well D2, drilled on possibly the highest point of the high. Well D2 produced at a rate of 7,627 bbl/day from devitrified rhyolite and highly weathered and fractured granophyre. Well D9 also produced from the basement only, with an initial production of 1,500 bbl/day. The reservoir rock was weathered granite. Wells D3, D4, D5 and D6 were all step out tests that became oil wells, the most productive being D5 which produced at a stabilised rate of 14,140 bbl/day from two perforated intervals consisting of 59 ft (18 m) of carbonate rock and 39ft (12 m) of granite. Well D6 produced from the basement reservoir, with an initial flow of 1,200 bbl/day. D8 was an openhole basement completion, testing at 18,000 bbl/day from basement rocks and36 ft (11 m) of perforated carbonate rocks (P'An op cit).

http://www.hendersonpetrophysics.com/fr ... 2.html#lib

(Scroll up or down the link to review the other oil fields where oil is observed in the crystalline basement.)

Also, in the Western United States is the Lost Soldier Field in the state of Wyoming:

The Lost Soldier Field in Wyoming has oil pools, he stated, at every horizon of the geological section, from the Cambrian sandstone overlying the basement to the upper Cretaceous deposits. A flow of oil was also obtained from the basement itself.

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

These are important and numerous observations of petroleum deposits down to and including withinin the crystalline basement (bedrock).

starbiter, I have watched and reviewed the Experiments In Stratification four part series. I agree it is a very important set of experiments that have profound implications for Science's understanding of sediment formation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8

I also encourage readers to watch and review the Drama in the Rocks four part series, which is an extension of the Experiments In Stratification series.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwA6CGwp ... re=related

I note in the Drama in the Rocks series an observation is made where a long length of petrified tree trunk vertically intrudes (crosses) several strata layers. This is a very significant observation.

This same observation has been seen with "fossil trees" that vertically intrude (cross) multiple stata in coal formations.

These observations deserve more discussion than I can devote at this time and will be followed up with further analysis & interpretation.