Talk:Abiogenic petroleum origin/Archive 2

message: This is like watching crabgrass spread. Now we have statements like The distribution of sedimentary basins is caused by plate tectonics, with sedimentary basins forming on either side of a volcanic arc, which explains the distribution of oil within these sedimentary basins. I presume they're talking about the sagebrush volcanoes of the West Texas Permian Basin, the snow volcanoes of the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin, or the notorious sand volcanoes of the Arabian-Iranian Mega-Basin. See the Wikipedia article on sedimentary basins for more realistic info. RockyMtnGuy 14:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sedimentary Basins

message: I am a geophysicist (of Russian Parentage) working in the oil Industry - Abiogenic oil is not believed in by anybody working in mainstream petroleum exploration taday. All commercial petroleum deposits are linked to organic source rocks, This includes Ghawar, The Canadian Tar Sands, Kashagan (which I worked on) and the Orinoco tar belt. Deep Methane may be possible but heavier hydrocarbons are cracked by high temperatures. Source rock estimation is difficult as we have few samples to measure Total Organic Content from rocks in the source kitchen. This rubbish belongs with Trofim Lysenko- Alan Foum
:The Abiogenic theory was first tested by the Canadian government over 100 years ago. It was an obvious thing to look for - drill a well through the Athabasca Oil Sands and find the source of the oil. The Geological Survey of Canada drilled three wells starting in 1894. They found no oil but hit natural gas (and one well blew out of control for the next 21 years). Under the oil sands (and the gas fields), there is the Canadian Shield, pre-Cambrian granite which covers most of Canada, and does not contain any oil (but has recently been discovered to have billions of dollars worth of diamonds, for those who are interested.)
:The source of the oil sands is unclear, but it is clearly not under the oil sands because people have drilled thousands of wells through it and found nothing underneath. Most likely it is hundreds of miles downdip to the southwest. Most of Alberta is underlain by oil-rich shale which is up to five miles deep at the southwest corner and zero at the northeast corner. It looks like the buried oil from a vast area has been slowly migrating southwest to northeast, following the rock layers, and rising until it reaches the surface near Lake Athabasca. And there it is, on the surface. It doesn't  matter where it originated from, because it's not there any more, it's in the oil sands now. RockyMtnGuy 05:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No working Petroleum Geologists believe in this

message: Whenever considering this hypothesis, bear in mind that the Oil majors reject it, and by implication bet several billion dollars against it every year.  There are no 'deep fractures', for the simple reason that the crust becomes plastic at depths of 10-15km; the methane forming reaction ran to completion around 2.5 billion years ago (Around the same time as oxygen started to build up in the atmosphere - all the inner planets have been oxidised by the action of solar UV over time); the generation of oil from source rocks has been done in the lab; I could go on.
--193.130.83.216 12:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This article desparately needs editing!

message: Removed and corrected some of the more glaring errors and slants.  On a meta-slant, why is it that some people with little or no background in geology, let along petroleum geology, get so passionate about this subject?  The idea that oil companies are trying to bury this theory falls flat on the basis that it would cost them vast amounts of profit, oil service companies like Haliburton even more so.
:I can't speak to the validity of the theory, but would it really be in the interests of the oil companies to flood the market with cheap product and drive down prices? I doubt they'd want to find out if it were true. Aelffin 18:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow up edit

message: The article is in dire need of editing (as others have mentioned). I can improve the language, but the facts are in dispute. I'm adding the Expert tag. It will need to stay until an informed consensus is reached. ::Didactylos 08:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the microdiomonds/diamondoids thing, i too agree that there's little evidence for the Pro side, and I did add the Con side mainly as a foil to the Pro side. I, for one, would shed tears (crocodilian) idf the whole issue was removed. Permanently. So as not to clog up an already ridiculous subject with more ridiculousness.::Rolinator 12:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Flaws 

message: Like biogenic postulation about petroleum origin, evidence of diamondoids present in natural petroleum and gases being contamination from drill bits during drilling wells is absolute nonsense. Diamondoids is similar to natural diamonds from kimberlites and lamproites but only because its molecular structure. In chemical comparison diamondoids have hydrogen added to carbon atoms while diamonds is only pure carbon without hydrogen. Neverthless, both probably have similar origin from great depth in the earth's mantle, supporting abiogenic petroleum origin.
:So, diamondoids are hydrogen-carbon, or similar to a carbide? What is its mineral name? If it is an identified naturally occurring mineral substance you should be able to provide a name for it and provide some form of reference. Otheriwse it's like saying hematitoid is hematite with hydrogen added when it's actually goethite. And also, why don't we see diamondoids in all rocks from the deep crust? Such as metamorphosed Phanerozoic sediments which, presumably, contained a kerogen which had been converted to a carbide or carbon hydride compound? Surely all metamorphic rocks would have this, not just deep basinal rocks, and by inference, there would be abundant evidence of this mineral. Rolinator 07:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Geology is a young science, but a lot older than astrophysics. Also, I'd hardly want a motor mechanic looking at my kidneys, so I don't really believe an astrophysicist knows enough about :geology to make accurate predictions. 
Russian science has done some almost mythical things. Drilling to 12km into the crust. Synthesising a 18 month 5Kbar, 450 degree C acidic hydrothermal experiment, etc. But that does not mean that the assumptions made by anyone about the mantle hold true: we have only secondary evidence of the mantle and lots and lots of equations. I don;'t trust equations.
Rolinator 11:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diamondoids from drill bits? (sic) 

message: OK; 
Diamonds are invariably formed from abiogenic carbon and, without argument, are abiogenic. They show carbon isotope ratios around 0 to 5 per mil indicating little, if any isotopic fractionation during their formation. However, the structurally related diamondoids in oil show high levels of isotopic fractionation in the range of -20 to -30 per mil, the same as most true biomarkers, indicating diamondoid derivation from enzymatic ally-created lipids with subsequent structural rearrangement during the process of source rock maturation and oil generation.
Reference: Mellor et al.
Carbon isotopic composition of -20 to -30 per mil for diamondoids, which include atoms aside from carbon in their lattices, is different from diamond carbon at 0 to -5 per mil. Also, this shows that diamondoids cannot have been created by terrestrial methane which is at -30 to -70 per mil or more; because reactions favor light carbon, you'd think deep methane wconverted to diamondoid would show a much greater sken in isotopic composition. So, sorry, diamondoids are no evidence of abiogenic petroleum, though you were right that they aren't from drill bits as I ignorantly claimed. But anyway, its over and done with now.Rolinator 09:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final answer on diamondoids 

message: :"The capital fact to note is that petroleum was born in the depths of the earth, and it is only there that we must seek its origin." (Dmitri Mendeleev, 1877)
Mmmmm... nothing says "NPOV" like an appeal to authority in the third paragraph.
The rest of the artical does not disappoint. Massive, repeated, flagrant NPOV violations. A+++ --203.222.161.178 03:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal to authority 

message: I have been going over the evidence of this Abiogenic theory again, prompted by its leaking over into the coal and Talk:coal pages. I am not entirely against methane from the mantle feeding bacteria, whose dead bodies could then form biogenic oil, in granites or whatever. But when people start crapping on about coal from magma, I see red. So lets go over some of the evidence, same as in Talk:Coal;
*Abiogenic theory cites Albertite as evidence of liquid coal and coal discordant with bedding
* This is actually a form of bitumen or asphaltane which is a residue left over from an oil accumulation. The discordance comes from its injection into an anticlinal extensional fault. It is NOT coal.
* The WorldNetDialy link and proposition about the White Tiger field in Vietnam is essentially a tainted link, because the guys running WorldNetDaily wrote the book "Black Gold Stranglehold". 
::So effing what? Since virtually everything ever written about anything is penned by persons who are more supportive of one theory over another and have said so -- let's just delete 99.87% of Wikipedia right now! Otherwise, I fail to see a reason for bitching about WND when Chevron's progaganda is front & center over at peak oil. Jeesh; the subject is mysterious happenings five miles down, not denying the Holocaust.--Mike18xx 07:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Going over the evidence again

message: I edited this to remove the following:
:This process was developed and used extensively in World War II by Germany, which had limited access to crude oil supplies. It is today used in South Africa to produce most of that country's diesel from coal. Since there are large but finite coal reserves in the world, this technology could be used as an interim transportation fuel if conventional oil were to disappear. There are several companies developing the process to enable practical exploitation of so-called stranded gas reserves, those reserves which are impractical to exploit with conventional gas pipelines and LNG technology.
I did this because
# this information is about the fischer-tropsch process and its use in the modern world
# This is irrelevant to the discussion of serpentinisation synthesis of oil
# it is not scientific evidence either for or against
# It is speculative corporate information, again, of no scientific value to the discussion of abiogenic oil
I hope you agree with this. We can do without cluttering up the evidence sections with quasi-political and quasi-corporate speculations. Rolinator 02:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fischer tropsch edit 

message: Maybe it's me but in the geological arguments for and against the theory, there seems to be conflicting statements. In the con side it says: "The eight barrels of oil-like substance produced from the Siljan borehole were proven to be diesel sludge contamination". But on the pro side it says that it was shown that diesel sludge contamination was proven to not be the source. At best, perhaps it should be clarified? Ucntcme 18:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The inability of Gold, et al, to discover (significant) petroleum after deliberately attempting to locate it in the unlikeliest of places neither "proves" nor "disproves" his or anyone else's theories. After all, it's not as if he proposed the continents where floating like rafts over the stuff. The more important scientific work revolves around chemistry, not whether or not something has been found. (But if we do wish to go there, *I* would certainly like a credible explanation for why there's enough dissolved CO2 down at the mantle/crust interface boundary to propel liquid magma into 2,000ft fountains out of Kileaua's vents.)--Mike18xx 07:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seemingly Conflicting Arguments 

message: Thomas Gold is not the father of the Russian-Ukranian abiotic oil theory. He is also a known plagiarist and disinformationist. I believe this page needs a MAJOR overhaul and all references to Thomas Gold should be removed.
Source. Please click on the link to the source to view the links to the articles referenced at the bottom of the page.
-------------------
This page is written in order to clear up certain misunderstandings connected with the provenance, and authorship, of the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins.  Everything about the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is extraordinary.  Not only has this extensive body of scientific knowledge permitted the Russian nation, which had been previously petroleum-poor, to achieve energy independence, but also modern Russian petroleum science has been the subject of the most daring attempt at plagiarism in the history of modern science.
Sometime during the late 1970’s, a British-American, one-time astronomer named Thomas Gold discovered the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins.  Such was not difficult to do, for there are many thousands of articles, monographs, and books published in the mainstream Russian scientific press on modern Russian petroleum science.  Gold reads the Russian language fluently.
In 1979, Gold began publishing the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of petroleum origins, as if such were his own ideas and without giving credit to the Russian (then, Soviet) petroleum scientists from whom he had taken the material.  Gold tried to alter the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins with notions of his own in order to conceal its provenance, and gave his “ideas” the (very misleading) name the “deep gas theory.” 
Worse yet, Gold’s alterations of modern Russian petroleum science are utterly wrong. Specifically Gold’s claims that there exist large quantities of natural gas (methane) in the Earth at depths of its mantle are completely wrong, - such claims are upside-down and backwards.  At the pressures of the mantle, methane is unstable, and the hydrogen-carbon system there evolves the entire suite of heavier hydrocarbons found in natural petroleum, in the Planck-type distribution which characterizes natural petroleum.  Methane at pressures of the mantle of the Earth will decompose to evolve octane, diesel oil, heavy lubricating oils, alkylbenzenes, and the compounds found in natural petroleum.  [These properties of the hydrogen-carbon system have been described at greater length and rigor in a recent article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.1]  Regrettably, Gold is as ignorant of thermodynamics as he is of ethics.
A few moment’s thought should have been given to the reasonable probability that an astronomer, who had no previous knowledge of petroleum or geology, and no experience in those fields, might have independently thought up, all by himself, a formidably extensive body of knowledge which itself resulted from the directed work of many, many men and women of a large country with a splendid scientific tradition, working over several decades.  The notion compares with the myth of Apollo springing fully-armed from the forehead of Aphrodite.  As the French say, “incroyable !”
A common saying goes that “imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.”  Perhaps one might speculate that plagiarism is somehow an even more sincere compliment.  Not so.  The plagiarism of scientific work constitutes theft of a scientist’s most precious possessions.
Scientists very rarely garner wealth from their endeavors.  Science is usually done by its practitioners for the joy of discovery, - and for the credit and standing gained among their peers as reward for successful work.  As one might expect, when the Russian petroleum scientists learned of Thomas Gold’s behavior, they were outraged.  They remain so today.
The men and women in the former U.S.S.R. who worked hard to develop and enunciate the modern theory of abiotic petroleum origins struggled under unusual difficulties throughout their lives.  This century has been very hard for every one born in the former U.S.S.R.  All of the contributors to the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abiotic hydrocarbon origins had to live through the worst of the Communist period in their country, and almost all of them suffered the terrible experiences of World War II.  Their lives have been especially hard.  Now without exception they are all poor.  To have had even what little reward they deserved for their scientific work stolen from them by plagiarism is especially disgusting.
Gold’s attempts at plagiarism have not been restricted to the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins.  Thomas Gold is a serial plagiarist.  In the papers which are included in the following pages, are to be found published complaints against Gold for having plagiarized scientific research involving not only modern Russian petroleum science [Krayushkin, U.S.S.R.], but also bolide impacts [Denofrio, U.S.A.] and speculations on an hypothesized agency of microbes for generating oil [Hunt, Canada].
A prairie lawyer named Abraham Lincoln once remarked, “you can fool all the people some of the time, and there are even some people whom you can fool all the time;  but you can’t fool all the people, all the time.”  Thomas Gold has yet to learn.
 
1  J. F. Kenney, V. G. Kutcherov, N. A. Bendeliani and V. A. Alekseev, "The evolution of multicomponent systems at high pressures:  VI. The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origins of petroleum," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 2002, 99, 10976-10981.
	
Specification of the plagiarism by Thomas Gold in the diverse complaints of other scientists.
Letters from various scientists complaining of plagiarism by Thomas Gold, and from Russian scientists rejecting paper(s) by Gold for reasons of lack of originality and failure of attribution.
	 
1. Letter of Dr. Richard A. Donofrio, Astro Geological Research, to editor of Atlantic Monthly, complaining of plagiarism by Thomas Gold of his [Donofrio's] work connected with bolide impact sites as potential prospects for petroleum exploration, dated May 1986.
PDF version
 
2. Letter of John Briggs, Department of Journalism, Western Connecticut State University, to Professor V. A. Krayushkin, questioning the claims of Thomas Gold as originator of modern (Russian) petroleum science, dated 15 December 1989.
PDF version.
 
3. Letter of Professor V. A. Krayushkin, Institute of Geological Sciences, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, to John Briggs, specifying and demonstrating the extent and sources of the plagiarism by Thomas Gold of the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins, dated 16 January 1990.
PDF version.
 
4. Letter of Dr. C. Warren Hunt, Archean Petroleum, to Dr. Eugene Mallove, editor of Infinite Energy, complaining of plagiarism by Thomas Gold of his [Hunt's] ideas and speculations of a creation of petroleum by microbial action, dated 01 August 1989.
PDF version.
 
5. Letter of Dr. I. N. Plotnikova, on behalf of the Organizing Committee for the International Petroleum Conference commemorating the semicentennial enunciation of modern petroleum science by N. A. Kudryavtsev, held in Kazan June 2001, rejecting, for lack of originality and failure to credit properly previous scientific work, a paper which Thomas Gold had tried to insinuate into the Proceedings of that conference.
PDF version.
: I think you are reading an older version; the version as it states it now, in the "History of Abiogenic Theory" section starts by crediting Berthelot and Mendeleev, then Kudryavtsev et al., and then moves on to say that in the West Gold was one of the most forceful proponents in recent times. 
:I'll quote you the article text just to make sure;
::The abiogenic petroleum theory was founded upon several archaic interpretations of geology which stem from early 19th century notions of magmatism (which at the time was attributed to sulfur fires and bitumen burning underground) and of petroleum, which was seen by many to fuel volcanoes. Indeed, Wernerian appreciation of basalts at times saw them as solidified oils or bitumen. While these notions have been disabused, the basic notion that petroleum is associated with magmatism has persisted. The chief proponents of what would become the abiogenic theory were Mendeleev[28] and Berthelot.
::Russian geologist Nikolai Alexandrovitch Kudryavtsev was the first to propose the modern abiotic theory of petroleum in 1951. He analyzed the geology of the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta, Canada and concluded that no "source rocks" could form the enormous volume of hydrocarbons, and that therefore the most plausible explanation is abiotic deep petroleum. However, humic coals have been proposed for the source rocks by Stanton (2005).
::Although this theory is supported by geologists in Russia and Ukraine, it has recently begun to receive attention in the West, where the biogenic petroleum theory is still believed by the vast majority of petroleum geologists. Kudryavtsev's work was continued by many Russian researchers — Petr N. Kropotkin, Vladimir B. Porfir'ev, Emmanuil B. Chekaliuk, Vladilen A. Krayushkin, Georgi E. Boyko, Georgi I. Voitov, Grygori N. Dolenko, Iona V. Greenberg, Nikolai S. Beskrovny, Victor F. Linetsky and many others.
::The theory is receiving attention from Western geologists, as indicated by the one day just prior to the June 2005 AAPG annual meeting in Calgary, Alberta.
::Astrophysicist Thomas Gold[29] was one of the abiogenic theory's most prominent proponents in recent years in the West. Thomas Gold died in 2004, with apparently none of his students following up on his research. Conspiracist Joe Vialls [30] died in 2005. The passing of the torch may go to Dr. Jerome R. Corsi, author of "Black Gold Stranglehold", or Dr. Jack Kenney of Gas Resources Corporation[31][32][33]. Nevertheless, the theory has received continued attention in the media and scientific organizations (note external links).
:Now. What you do from here on in is, firstly, update the "History of Abiogenic Theory", with your knowledge. Leave in the Berthelot-Mendeleev part; it's fine. Change the bit about the Russian researchers with whatever you want. We'll review. Leave in the things about Thomas Gold. While it may be true he came to the scene late, and not having read any Russian papers nor many of Gold's, and certainly not having worked out the chronology of it all, the fact remains, Gold is the most accessible source in the West, and he did research. Eliminating him and his work entirely isn't the way to go about it in wikipedia. I agree with your points, namely that it is likely he was a plagiarist and your reasoning is sound. But plagiarist or not, his work exists and is a reference for the English speaking world. Also, you seem unaware of one salient point: he is now deceased. So...change away, just be careful to adopt a NPOV stance and keep Gold in. We aren't here to judge, just report the facts. Also, you may be better off moving over to the wiki on Gold himself, and raising these points there as well. Thanks for your input, Rolinator 14:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The attempted plagiarism by T. Gold of the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins. 

message: I am not in any sense a mineralogist or a geologist (mathematical physics is my area), so I could be way off-base here, but our article on kerogens, as well as some of our asteroid articles, make the claim that kerogens exist in the asteroid belt, and indeed in deep space.  Since the kerogen article suggests that kerogens are precursors to fossil fuels, would that suggest that hydrocarbons needn't have a biological origin?  Wooster (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sure does mention kerogen, that wikipedia article. But what type of kerogen? Type I, type II? Is it just amino acids (ie; amine (nitrous) hydrocarbon which is potentially not organic) as mentioned above (do a bit of reading on this talk page)? OR is it just agenda pushing by the same people as like to mangle this page (aside from myself, obviously) so they can say, as you do, "hey look something written on a free to air, openly editable web page is supporting the wild ambit claims made on another web page!". IT's the internet, take everything with a grain of salt. Rolinator 00:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Qué?  You need to get your tinfoil-detector checked, mate.  I was asking an honest question.  As it happens, I buy the biological origins theory, because I trust the experts in whose field this is.  I understand this includes you.  I was just wondering whether the existence of asteroidal kerogens was evidence that it needn't (and please watch my verbs, I choose them carefully) happen that way; in fact, I was more interested in the (admittedly, thoroughly hypothetical) question of whether those kerogens could be converted (by some process) into fuel, and you've given me a direction to head in.  With thanks, Wooster (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, glad I could help out, mate.Rolinator 11:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerogen and asteroids 

message: The references for this article appear to be in very bad shape:  there are, for example 23 of them, while 33 are cited.  As another example, ref no 16 about trace metals points to an article by Zhmur, rather than the intended one by Szatmari, which in the reference list is number 5.  Clicking on the arrow next to ref 16 doesn't do anything.  Can somebody explain what is going on here?  Can they be readily fixed?  DonSiano 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: * Lack of mantle helium in the majority of crustal hydrocarbon sources which are definitively not related to magmatism penetrating the sedimentary basin after the oil window
* Valentin, J., 2004. Isotopic, organic and inorganic geochemistry of the Idrija mercury deposit, Slovenia: constraints on the formation of the Hg-PAH association. PhD Thesis, Unpublished, Univerity of Lausanne, Switzerland.Abstract
The abstract of Valentin's thesis does not describe a global survey of crustal hydrocarbon, helium, nor magmatism.  Which are covered in the thesis? (SEWilco 05:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Helium has strongly association with hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas); also with mercury mainly isotope 3He, that is primordial. There's no biological process that produces helium. About this matter, better explanation was give by Dr. Thomas Gold in his book "The Deep Hot Biosphere" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.76.216 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is about Valentin's thesis and what it explains.  (SEWilco 04:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Valentin says the citation of his work at that place is inappropriate and simply wrong.  Helium is not mentioned.  Statement and reference removed.  (SEWilco 16:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An abstract of Valentin's thesis begins: "Hydrothermal petroleum forms by geologically rapid maturation of sedimentary organic matter..." - which is exactly the reverse what the abiotic proponents are arguing. Helium is not mentioned anywhere. RockyMtnGuy 15:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, helium and hydrogen are the first things to escape if there are any leaks in a seal.  No, biological processes do interact with mercury.  Some biological processes absorb mercury or convert it (some forms of it).  As with vitamins, some plants and microbes have an affinity for metals which includes mercury, and will absorb and thus concentrate it from the less concentrated origin in rock/soil.  A plant has a limited sense of taste and some metals are needed for biological processes.  (SEWilco 14:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been hypothesized in direct contradiction to Gold that under certain circumstances migrating hydrocarbon gas will extract all of the existing helium available in solution in water and carry the He with it into any available reservoir. See . RockyMtnGuy 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Remember to sign and date your comments with ~~~~.  Also start new topics as a separate section.  And don't edit past discussions, such as by adding text above existing discussions, because that changes the meaning of what was already discussed and makes a reply to your comment awkward. (SEWilco 16:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying bitumens in association with uranium deposits like McArthur River (Canada) that's near Athabasca is like saying New Mexico is near the Pacific Ocean. Alberta and Saskatchewan are each the size of Texas. The bitumen deposits of Alberta are in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin - which is a huge sedimentary basin, while the uranium deposits of Saskatchewan are in the Canadian Shield - which is a vast area of precambrian granite. They are hundreds of kilometres apart. There's no significant amount of oil in the Canadian Shield and there are no uranium mines in the WCSB. And not finding them is not for lack of looking for them. RockyMtnGuy 17:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valentin helium 

message: An important observation is that deep fault in basement can be reactivated during basing evolution. Other question is about how metals reach the crust. Silicon, hydrocarbons? Important gold deposits around the world has in association carbonaceous phyllites or graphitic schists (carbon). Hydrothermal alterations in host rocks such as in Golden Mile, Australia, carbonatization is strong (again carbon!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.57.158 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 6 September 2006
::Irrelevant to the oil argument, unless you wish to argue that long-lived reactivated basement faults (eg; the Mundrabilla Lineament, active for ~1080 Ma and still going) should have oil but do not, and thus the theory is disproved? Carbonate metasomatism, as seen at the Kalgoorlie Golden Mile, is different from methane and petroleum. Carbonate metasomatism is driven by devolatilisation of basalt (arguably inorgaic) to produce a potassic, carbon dioxide bearing hydrothermal fluid from within the orogenic belt, so it is emphatically not a mantle-driven process, at least in Kalgoorlie. 
::The association of gold with carbonaceous phyllites is as a reductive trap; carbon is a reduced element, when present as graphite in a rock. It tends to act, much like it does in a cyanide process plant (CIL-CIP) as a catalyst to break down thiosulphate gold complexes within the hydrothermal solution, thereby prompting the deposition of gold. But that also ignored the whole rheology argument with gold deposition, which is that a phyllonite is an appropriate structural trap. When you get down to nitty gritty details, the number of large gold deposits which are hosted within graphitic shales is actually quite small; most gold is hosted within dolerite within sequences of basalts, or within slates and phyllites. In none of these cases is there any real link between gold deposition and oil. Trust me on this, I wrote a thesis on gold, I work in the gold exploration industry Rolinator 08:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous, sign your postings with ~~~~, and start a new section when you start a new topic.  Whatever the significance is of fault reactivation... (SEWilco 02:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deep fault reactivation