The equation that describes gas devolving from oil as it is cracked releases energy, to make that equation go backwards it requires an enormous amount of input energy. It has never been accomplished in a laboratory under closed conditions so I’m afraid it is a fantasy to imagine it happening in the crust. If your theory was correct we would never see relatively shallow reservoirs completely filled with dry gas as according to you that dry gas could somehow condense to become oil.
The upper mantle is a high energy, high pressure environment. Enormous, colossal, gigantic, pick your superlative. There's enough energy there to condense oil. And its been done in a lab. Here :
Alexander F. Goncharov wrote:We show that when methane is exposed to pressures higher than 2 GPa, and to temperatures in the range of 1,000–1,500 K, it partially reacts to form saturated hydrocarbons containing 2–4 carbons (ethane, propane and butane) and molecular hydrogen and graphite. Conversely, exposure of ethane to similar conditions results in the production of methane, suggesting that the synthesis of saturated hydrocarbons is reversible. Our results support the suggestion that hydrocarbons heavier than methane can be produced by abiogenic processes in the upper mantle.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n ... eo591.html
You failed.
Show me a data on a downwards explusion of oil from a sediment rock. It would be a thorn in my theory
There is not a single reservoir in the world where that is required. Every basement reservoir I have ever seen (a lot of them and in at least 5 continents) has been juxtaposed to source rock in the perfect position for lateral migration. That being said theoretically oil could migrate downwards given it will move from an area of higher pressure to an area of lower pressure...underpressured reservoirs are quite common. But it isn't necessary given what I said previously.
Then your ideas don't make sense. You've got oil bearing igneous rock beneath sedimentary sources rock, but the oil didn't migrate down. It tends to migrate up. Did the formation do two 180 flips so the igneous rock could be above the sedimentary source rock, to recieve the oil, then flip to get underneath the sedimentary rock again?
Madness.
Again why are you arguing about something you don’t actually understand anything about? I refered to lost circulation material. If circulation was lost in order to regain it requires that materials that will block off the zone where drilling fluid is being lost to are circulated down the hole. I’ve been on a number of rigs where walnut shells, burlap from sacks, ground up limestone and yes graphite were circulated downhole to plug off the problem. You would not be able to stop lost circulation or unstick drill pipe or deal with formation flow without adding something to the drilling fluid.
You didn't mention lost circulation material. So now you're saying T.Gold had circulation problems in Siljan, and from all this stuff that can be used to plug a leak, he selected a load of oil to try plug the leak, therefore destroying the controls of the experiment, so what was later extracted as scientific evidence was just the oil he used to try plug the leak.
Well that's your dumbest story yet. You've got nothing substantial against Gold's Siljan, his extraction of mineral oil there was a vindication of abiotic theory and a discredit to biotic oil theory.
that paper doesn't actually do any analysis. It just says :
Unmistakable evidence found by geochemical analysis of oils, oil-stained rocks, and organic rocks points to the Ordovician bituminous Tretaspis Shale as the source for the oil found in the Siljan crater.
And thats all!
Unmistakable - used like its a magic word that supposed to defeat un-believers. It doesn't work. They should at least provide the analysis.
Macondo was drilled in 5000 feet of water to the reservoir at 18,000 feet below sea level. That means the oil at Macondo was at a depth below mudline of 13,000 feet or around 4000 m. The depth of water does not come into play in oil and gas generation given it does not add additional burial heat to the sediment pile, it is the depth from seafloor to source that matters, in this case well below the depths I mentioned from Ventura county.
Its side stepping the issue if you latch on to my minor error there : Macondo the well that destroyed DeepHorizons was relatively shallow, but the Tibers old field found by DeepHorizons in 2009 was 10km deep. Thats the key point, you avoided it.
It's proximity to the mantle that heats rocks. Having cold ocean on top making the rock floor cold means a steeper temperature gradient with depth, and at 10.5km beneath sea level and 1.2km of water that makes Tibers over 9km 'below the mudline', and full of oil. You've failed.