rockdoc123 wrote:What I said was each and every igneous or for that matter crystalline basement rock that has produced oil is juxtaposed (that means beside not beneath) the source rock to which it has been typed. Hence why I said lateral migration. Do a search for Bach Ho and you will find a picture of this relationship?
Now that you're feeling a bit more confident you've dropped your wall of jargon defence, and I can make sense of what you say.
Is this the sort of formation you mean?
So the sediment source rock leaks oil into the higher basement rock where it gets trapped. Seems consistent. But I notice the source rock is itself above fracture basement rock, so I think thats where its getting its oil. But your lot wouldn't bother to check if the sediment rock is itself being supplied with oil from lower rocks cos it would discredit your theory.
Well how about the paper presented by J.R. Catano in Stockholm in 1992.
their analysis, by the way, points out that the so-called oil Gold claimed to have recovered was water mixed with gases comprised 98% of C1 and 2% of C2 and C3. No oil whatsoever.
Gold claimed C1 to C5 in 15 tonnes of oil. Even if it was something other than oil, c1 to c5 is good enough for me, and clearly good enough for conventional geologists, including you because it prompted them to asserting that an ancient sediment layer got into the cracks and saturated them with hydrocarbon. Up till then the Siljan crater had been thought to be strictly devoid of hydrocarbon bearing sediment material.
So make up your mind, is there no significant hydrocarbon in the Siljan crater, or do you need your ancient sediment to explain the hydrocarbon there?
In general, hydrocarbon gas shows in the Siljan crater are minor, except in the Solberga well. As water in the Siljan area normally contains small amounts of hydrocarbon gas of bacteria origin (marsh gas), it is difficult to separate this background gas from observed gas in the boreholes. A number of gas shows are considered to be of bacterial origin. In the Solberga well two basically different hydrocarbon gasses were found: one, a “wet” gas, is clearly related to the oils in the sedimentary rocks, while the other “dry” gas could be originating from a different source. No carbon isotope data were available to indicate the type and origin of this gas. It is purely speculative to assume it is abiogenic. Varying quantities of hydrogen gas were found in the Siljan area. These could have originated from several different sources, such as: oxidation of ferrous oxide, reactions between surface and formation water, solid state reactions in minerals, and association 6 with organic matter and or petroleum. Sufficient evidence is lacking to define the different sources.
Not a refutation of abiotic oil theory. It says there's unexplained hydrocarbon in Siljan, but the biotic oil trained geologists don't explore abiotic theory, but dismiss it as speculation. Why? The experiment was to test abiotic theory, yet they don't explore it. Its like dropping a ball to test gravity and saying, "there was an unexplained motion of the ball to the ground, it is purely speculative to assume it was gravity.". It is profoundly unscientific to dismiss theory this way.
Are they running scared of what they might find?
And perhaps we should point out that Gold doesn’t provide any analysis either other than his observations.
His analysis is here : http://origeminorganicadopetroleo.blogs ... apers.html
Wrt to the Tiber oil field, ok i accept what you say. Actually it doesn't matter to abiotic oil theory if oil is not present below 9000m. As it rises from the upper mantle, it condenses or drops out of solution at some depth, perhaps around 9000m. That's consistent with abiotic theory.
Your take on it was worth reading though, thanks. You are helping me sharpen my understanding of abiotic oil theory.