I made the mistake of writing a comment on Jennifer Marohasy’s Facebook entry which linked to her blog entry on There Facts Climate Sceptics Don’t Understand. The mistake was that Professor Harry Clarke, (for a professor he is) reacted to it by commenting on, in a derisive way, my support for Abiotic oil theory, and that therefore I believe there is an infinite amount of oil as opposed to the mainstream peak oil theory based on fossil fuel theory; the only thing I might believe in is the infinite stupidity of some members of the human race. Actually, in one sense Clarke might be described as a fossilised fool, one whose beliefs are permanently embedded in his brain, much like extinct life-forms are often fossilised into permanent forms in lithified sediments. Fossilised minds, or religious minds, ones which only see what has been embedded into their brains, then react to contradiction and novelty by shooting the messenger. Whatever, shit happens.
Actually it’s good Clarke raised the issue because Abiotic oil theory does have a major problem – the source of energy to transform low energy thermodynamic states, methane and low Dalton number hydrocarbons, to high energy state hydrocarbons using only pressure (P) and temperature (T) in the near subsurface of the earth; put simply it can’t be done, but that does not mean abiotic oil theory is falsified, because there is too much empirical data of petroleum occurrences suggestive of an abiotic origin. The problem is the source of energy, because P & T are simply not enough.
That energy source seems very likely to be the earth’s electric field inside the earth. Remember that magma is essentially viscous electric plasma, and that implies electric charge separation inside the earth. How this happens no one knows at present, but it’s there. The point is that if there is electrical charge separation inside the earth, i.e. electrical double layers, then we have also a potentially large source of energy that could allow high-Dalton number hydrocarbons to form spontaneously in the asthenosphere and/or lower crust.
That is, the phase stability of a compound like hydrocarbons could be represented by at least 4 or more factors, P, T, Electric Field Strength and gas fugacity. Could it be that if we assume pressure and temperature conditions for the asthenosphere, but raise the electric field strength, that methane might spontaneously transform or metamorphose into benzene, higher dalton number hydrocarbons and ultimately kerogen? (Kerogen found in sediments has to be interpreted as erosional products of pre-existing deposits of kerogen, and the peak oilers need to be wary of circular reasoning in their preferred explanation for kerogen)? (Remember that all laboratory experiments are conducted inside the earth’s ambient electric field, and that by increasing it for a laboratory experiment demonstrate that methane could be transformed into higher Dalton-number hydrocarbons).
This possibility occurred to me from previous correspondence with the Russian scientists Konstantin Khazanovitch-Wulff who told me that kimberlites, due to geochemical factors, are actually shallow crustal phenomena and not, as I used to believe, deep crustal or upper mantle derivatives, (the De Beers theory). The rationale for this model is again founded in plasma physics theory, and those interested can read the papers published in the NCGT News or Journal online. (Of course you can also discover many excellent scientific papers falsifying plate tectonics, and hence fossil fuel theory since this theory requires plate-tectonics).
Shallow crustal electrical double layers might also explain the occurrence of crystalline carbon, or diamond, at those depths as well, fitting in with K-W’s theory of shallow origin for kimberlites.
And Professor Clarke, like the rest of his fellow travellers, believes the science is settled. Only a non-scientist could come up with that interpretation.