Got the joke the first time. Soylent brand gasoline and all that. But now it is a bit redundant.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Why, do you need to compensate for something?

Seriously, the best car I ever had was a Sprint with a dinky 3-cylinder engine. Shook like it was watching Pokemon if it went over 80, but it lasted 11 years with minimal maintainance and probably would have gone 22 more if bad fortune hadn't taken it away. Got fantastic milage.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

Given your utter lack of any specific reasons, I am unable to respond.

Also, it's redundant.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

"Department of Redundancy Department."

I think there's a Department for that.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Since I have given reasons several times elsewhere (some in this thread), I thought it unneccessary. But since you have missed their significance (even though you quoted them), here they are again.

Any theory for the original of large scale accumulation of petroleum needs to account for the following:

1) The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.

2) The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).

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

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

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

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

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

7) The location of petroleum reservoirs down the hydraulic gradient from the source rocks in many cases (those which are not are in areas where there is clear evidence of post migration tectonism).

8 ) The almost complete absence of significant petroleum occurrences in igneous and metamorphic rocks (the rare exceptions discussed below).

All these individually are extremely strong indicators that economic accumulations of petroleum are of biological. Collectively they are even stronger.

Furthermore the evidence usually cited in favour of abiogenic petroleum can all be better explained by the biogenic hypothesis e.g.:

9) Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in igneous rocks (better explained by reaction with organic rich country rocks, with which the pyrobitumens can usually be tied).

10) Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in metamorphic rocks (better explained by metamorphism of residual hydrocarbons in the protolith).

11) The very rare occurrence of small hydrocarbon accumulations in igneous or metamorphic rocks (in every case these are adjacent to organic rich sedimentary rocks to which the hydrocarbons can be tied via biomarkers).

12) The presence of undoubted mantle derived gases (such as He and some CO2) in some natural gas (there is no reason why gas accumulations must be all from one source, given that some petroleum fields are of mixed provenance it is inevitable that some mantle gas contamination of biogenic hydrocarbons will occur under some circumstances).

13) The presence of traces of hydrocarbons in deep wells in crystalline rock (these can be formed by a range of processes, including metamorphic synthesis by the fischer-tropsch reaction, or from residual organic matter as in 10).

14) Traces of hydrocarbon gases in magma volatiles (in most cases magmas ascend through sedimentary succession, any organic matter present will be thermally cracked and some will be incorporated into the volatile phase, some fischer-tropsch synthesis can also occur).

15) Traces of hydrocarbon gases at mid ocean ridges (such traces are not surprising given that the upper mantle has been contaminated with biogenic organic matter through several billion years of subduction, the answer to 14 may be applicable also).

16) The trace elements found in oil such as V, Ni, As, Pb, Cd, etc. that supposedly indicate abiogenic origin are either result of biological concentration (in the case of V) or through reductive precipation of dissolved solutes in ground water. Black shales and coals are also enriched in these elements abd reductive trapping of heavy mentals is a common process for formation of low temperature sediment-hosted ore bodies.

Jon

(reference to wiki article concerning abiogenic oil production theories) Well, two points about your statement seem to beg for clarification and bring into question, at least to my reading, whether or not you've actually given the article and its listed references more than a superficial read and consideration (or perhaps I'm mistaking prejudicial bias for careless ignorance?).
1) The article isn't a "defense" of abiogenic production, but rather a discussion, with referenced support, for the various predominant
Abiogenic Oil theories and considerations, as well as an exposition of, again with referenced support, the predominant arguments against Abiogenic Oil production.
2) There is not a single all encompassing Abiogenic Oil production theory, but rather a broad and diverse spectrum of considerations, which, IMO, cover the range from largely unsupported and fantastical, to plausible.


Ahhh, perhaps it was my misinterpretation of your language usage, which seemed an attempt to dictate commands for my required course of action. But such usages are easy to misunderstand in this type of format, if that is the case, I apologize for misunderstanding your communication. Rather than get into what (hopefully) are additional areas of potential miscommunication in the above statements, I'll wait and take them to the indicated thread, where they are hopefully, at the least, tangentally topical.


Indeed, topically related, though the discussion on that thread seemed to only sparsely and lightly touch upon the abiogenic "oil" topic, and seemed to have been largely abandoned without addressment of the few counterpoints and supporting references already provided by other posters. I will, however be glad to enjoin the discussion at that location, thank-you for responding to my request. As to explaining why I consider your "points" simplistic and largely irrelevent, that doesn't require much room. I consider them to be of this nature primarily due to the apparent lack of consideration of the full range of abiogenic production concepts, and most particularly the qualifications inherent and implicit in my original statements.

Several of your points were specifically addressed in the article (for example, sedimentary rocks). Since you dismissed it without (apparently) even reading it I assume your mind is made up and that's the end of discussing it with you.

That's OK; you're probably right. As I said before, I find the subject intriguing but am not qualified to argue it. On the other hand, I am at least willing to read opposing viewpoints before I dismiss them out of hand.

Daffy, it would be helpful if you were to express the arguments you find compelling or weak in you own words and we can discuss them.

Yes, I have a firm opinion on the subject based on a good understanding of geology. But that does mean it could not be changed with additional evidence.

That's OK; you're probably right. As I said before, I find the subject intriguing but am not qualified to argue it. On the other hand, I am at least willing to read opposing viewpoints before I dismiss them out of hand. [/QUOTE]

How do you know I haven't? Have you considered the possibility that I may know the issues better than the person writing such such articles?

Jon

Because of your previous comment.

But, OK, let's start with sedimentary rocks: does this observation make sense?

I'll take a shot at this one. I think the source of the methane is clathrates carried by subducted seafloor. What I do not know is the survivability of the frozen methane hydrate as it is being subducted.

__________________
(By the way, I hate it that so many papers in the areas of planetary science and geology are not easily available to the dreaded "non-subscribers". It is like they are screaming at me: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH". Good, I feel better now.)

"Quaerendo inventis"

Of course, you could buy a subscription to Nature/NPG, and/or AAAS, which would gain you access to most of the journals and papers available. Or alternatively, most localities possess some access to state/local university systems and it is not terribly difficult to access trade and professional publications for most if not all fields through such.

Kudryavtsev's Rule that states petroleum can be found in all layers of a sedimentary basin; subsequently proven to be of limited application; it has also been stated as applying to hydrocarbon deposits, including natural gas, petroleum, and coal.

First of the note that "the rule has limited application". It's not quite clear what this means. Does it mean that it works in limited cases? If so, what about the less limited cases where it does not work? If it only works in a limited number of cases then other explanations are likely to be more generally useful. For example a basin, or stacked series of basins with a long history are likely to have many episodes in which there will be generation of suitable sources, reservoirs, and traps. For example, in southern central Australia, the Cambrian, Permian and Mesoizoic successions are all prospective for liquid hydrocarbons. Not because of something seeping up from the mantle, but because of mutliple horizons of source rocks. If the source rocks are not there though then the story is different. For example further west there is only one prospective petroleum horizon because there is only one prospective source rock horizon. Further south there are thick sedimentary successions, potential reserviors and traps, but no source rocks and therefore no targets.

The other thing to note is the linking by Kudryavtsev of coal, gas, and petroleum. These are quite different materials and can have very different origins.

Nikolai Kudryavtsev pointed that the eruptions of mud-volcanoes have liberated such large quantities of methane that even the most prolific gasfield underneath should have been exhausted long ago and also provided several other geological arguments about abiotic and deep origin of petroleum.

To comment meaningfully on this one would need to know the petroleum fields in question, look at the detailed calculations, and check against independent data. However, I would caution against quick acceptance of such calculations. The have many assumptions built into them that may not be correct. I would also point out that mud volcanoes are not universal phenomena, but found in only some places and have complex origins.

Jon

Thanks...please don't misunderstabnd me; I am not supporting this theory...I just trying to understand it better.

If I understand you correctly, does this not indicate possible uncertainty with both ideas?

The problem is that the process of oil formation is not a simple one. this is true for most things in geology BTW. In specific cases there are always details that remain uncertain.

But as a whole, based on what we presently know, I don't think there is any doubt that economic accumulations of oil are of biological origin.

Jon

I'll let it go...you keep restating your position without answering my questions. That's OK...you are certainly under no obligation to do so.

Cheers.

I regret you think this. Which of your questions have I not answered?

You have pointed me to a wikipedia article:

Did you want me to do a point by point discussion of this?

You said:

This was after I had given you eight things the abiogenic hypothesis needed to explain that were currently very well explained by the biogenic theory (and you even quoted them). I then gave you them again plus another eight replies to specfic objections that abiogenetic proponents had with the biogenic theory.

This led you to ask the first specific question I could identify:

To which I responded with three paragraphs of discussion. How is this not answering your question? Indeed, since you said "Thanks" to my reply,. I assumed I had!

Your responded with another question:

Agaion, I gave an answer to this question.

So which questions have I not answered?

Jon

Apologies for not replying earlier, I missed your reply.

How about you actual raise specific points? What have I said or done that indicates "prejudicial bias" or "careless ignorance".

I disgree. An encyclodpedia article on an ATM hypothesis should also indicate clearly why this hypothesis is almost universally rejected at present . It does not.

Then why don't you discuss them, clearly distinguishing which ones you mean and the evdience in their favour?

Accepted. I don't always write clearly either.

Thank you.

If you think the issue has only been lightly touched upon, I suggest you come up with specific points. But so far the discussion seems to have died. Not that I mind, particularly.

Jon

I concede all your points. The thanks was genuine, too.

You are welcome!

Cheers

Jon