Fossil Fuel – The Conundrum

I have given up asserting coal, petroleum and natural gas are fossil fuels. The target audience seems deaf or in this politically correct climate, hearing challenged.

These commodities are called fossil fuels because our culture, which is based on the Judeo-Christian world view, views biological life as a minor epiphenomenon of a created, inanimate Universe. Demographically some 4 billion individuals seem to believe this, whether Judaen, Christian or Muslim. These three great faiths are also monotheistic, and hence, intrinsically, totalitarian faiths.

The previous post on Gunnar Heinsohn’s (GH) lecture about the fake-history of the 1st Millennium CE, in which some 700 years of chronology were fabricated to explain the survivor’s understanding of their particular circumstances informed by the book of Revelations (of John), where the prophets of old foresaw a final battle after which utopia would exist at the end of 1000 years, showed that the Roman world was catastrophically terminated by a global event that included massive fires producing black or dark earth horizons in the stratigraphy, as well as producing the chernozem soils elsewhere.

I accept GH’s revision of the 1st Millennium as well as his earlier, just as controversial, revision of Pre-Christ Middle East history in which he concludes, for example, that the Sumerians never existed but were the alter-egos of the Chaldeans whom the Romans knew of, but who did not know of the Sumerians. The basis for GH’s revision is archaeological stratigraphy and it’s lack of physical evidence in the ground of many asserted ancient peoples.  The writings of the late Charles Ginenthal detail these revisions but not completely agreeing with GH’s revision; such is the practice of science.

The methodology is simple – no archaeological evidence for a people or civilisation in the soil profile, then those peoples didn’t exist. The presence of stratigraphical unconformities in any archaeological sequence will be of little help to the GH hypothesis.

It is quite obvious that the enforced adoption of Christian Communism (GH’s phrase) during the early Middle Ages, and later, was to allow humanity in the Old World to survive.  Other cultures around the globe didn’t and resorted to cannibalism and other extreme modes to survive.

GH has shown that this 1st Millennium Crisis also caused a wholesale loss of knowledge that we are only now starting to recognise, and it becomes clear why the biblical literalists believe what they do.

People could be divided into two basic groups, those who see what they believe, and their actions driven by whether phenomena fit or do not fit their preconceptions of the world; a function of what they have been taught. Such individuals are expert in recitation of authoritative texts and other literary sources.  They are driven essentially by their minds and thus egos and any freedom of thought specifically constrained by authority – you may think this but not that.

The other group, much smaller than the one above, only believe what they see. Such individuals are data driven, placing emphasis on objective, literal primary human observations.  This immediately leads to determining whether the biblical Old Testament was factually correct, or true, or as the Lyellians asserted, allegorical and thus literature.  In a sense the biblical fundamentalists were partially correct in assuming the Old Testament narratives were literally true but the hiatus in knowledge caused by the Roman Termination Event created an intellectual unconformity in the chronological stratigraphy.  Like Charlie Lyell, and the other British Charlie, Darwin, chronological and geological unconformities can hide all sorts of possibilities ones needs when fabricating history. The biological species Charlie, could not explain how one animal species led to another, and those missing species were thus put into the chronological hiatuses represented by geological unconformities.  Good courtroom rhetoric but bad science.

Lacking knowledge of the past as documented by their immediate ancestors who were killed off, or died shortly after the RTE, the survivors then used their own memories and hence language, to explain extant physical reality. Given that the descendants of the survivors were probably illiterate, as possibly were their parents, since any survivors of an urban environment would be those who knew how to fend for themselves, rather than their masters, re-establishment of social order occurred on the basis of Darwinian selection, (one idea that Charlie probably got right), that he who had the gold made the rules, or he who had the largest number of thugs also made the rules.  (The State is simply a euphemism for the current occupants of institutionalised thuggery and theft).

These ignorant survivors would thus need to explain things the common man observes.  While the Greeks seem to have recognised the origin of petroleum from rocks, the Christian view of specific creation was quite different as detailed in the book of Genesis. I should say the Jewish sources since in my view Christianity is the New Testament, and the Old Testament, Jewish lore.

This leads us to the linear model of creation, firstly of an inanimate Universe followed by a second creation of life.  Modern science, after placing this idea on the rack of political correctness, then fabricated its racked version of ideological conformity as Uniformitarianism, our present day societal paradigm. Specifically uniformity of thought limiting explanations to the processes only observed in the present, and ignoring any hiatuses of knowledge that occurred during the past.  The model explicitly depends on the idea of a beginning of time, when T=0; the absolute beginning that the Oriental mind is unfamiliar with, since its world view, derived from peoples who seem not to have suffered as much as the Romans, as subsequent invasions by Greeks under Alexander, or from Muslim hordes from the West, attest, seems more primal or original than their conquerors.

The present-day meme of Darwinian Evolution of the Earth’s biosphere is predicated by theological presumption, and thus an artefact.

It is not real.

And it is funny that an ideal about scarcity of a physical thing becomes a scarcity in the mindlessness of its proponents simply because they remain ignorant of their own past, the in-situ stratigraphy, and prefer instead the la-la land of their co-religionists.

Update: Oh, oil, coal, are products of the Earth’s mantle, and, as the late Tommy Gold realised, biogenic. To which I would add, from the get-go. But try convincing a member of a monotheistic faith of alternatives to his/her authorial sources. One against four billion? No, I don’t think so.

About Louis Hissink

Retired diamond exploration geologist. I spent my professional life looking for mineral deposits, found some, and also located a number of kimberlites in NSW and Western Australia. Exploration geology is the closest one can get to practicing the scientific method, mineral exploration always being concerned with finding anomalous geophysical or geochemical data, framing a model and explanation for the anomaly and then testing it with drilling or excavation. All scientific theories are ultimately false since they invariably involved explaining something with incomplete extant knowledge. Since no one is omniscient or knows everything, so too scientific theories which are solely limited to existing knowledge. Because the future always yields new data, scientific theories must change to be compatible with the new data. Thus a true scientist is never in love with any particular theory, always knowing that when the facts change, so too must he/she change their minds.
This entry was posted in Archaeology, Catastrophism, Hare-brained theories, plasma universe, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Fossil Fuel – The Conundrum

  1. Thx1138 says:

    I think that life is a property of the universe. And I think that it’s found everywhere including on the inside of meteorites and on the inside of uncleaved chalk rock.

    Like

  2. MBP says:

    You simply don’t have complex hydrocarbon bonds in the deep mantle, they are too unstable there. We can chemically trace biomarkers back to a petroleum source. It’s been done since 1934. The existence of abiotic light hydrocarbons in the mantle does not equate to all hydrocarbons having that source. We can trace hydrocarbons to their kerogen source, it’s done all the time in petroleum basins. I had no idea this was even still a discussion.

    Like

    • So to first principles, where does the kerogen come from?

      We have no idea what is in the mantle.

      Biomarkers are traceable to a source? So petroleum in a sedimentary basin can be traced to where, exactly?

      Like

      • MBP says:

        1) kerogen is from source rocks, originally from biological material. There are 4 types (3 relevant), each with different sources and depositional environments. You cannot drill an exploration well wothout a viable source rock and adequate time-history for genesis and kerogen cracking; it just doesn’t happen.

        2) We have an understanding of hydrocarbon bond strength. We have an understanding of general mantle temperatures and pressures. We therefore have an understanding of how these bonds act in these temperatures and pressures. Pretty simple chemistry. You don’t even need to get to mantle T&P conditions to break down hydrocarbon bonds, it happens in deep conventional reservoirs.

        3) Petroleum in a sedimentary basin can be traced to it’s source rock. This is generally a organic rich shale but can be other organic-rich strata as well (generally carbonates). We core the source rock specifically for this reason; to determine the total TOC and fractination of biomarkers. Currently it is also beneficial to core source rocks since they now make up a large part of US production as unconventional reservoirs.

        Like

  3. Ian MacCulloch says:

    Well I think both biotic and abiotic hydrocarbon activity occur throughout the system. The ice hydrates are the most recent examples of the Gold hypothesis while the gas profiles in black shales tend to argue against the upward migration as proposed by Gold. The trace element profiles since the mid Proterozoic in black shales clearly point to exhalative acid volcanic genesis. Intermixed with the host silicates etc are layers albeit fine of organic material reaching as high as 15% TOC in most basins where these atypical very fine grained crystal ash fall tuffs occur. What is common is that these shales do not show sedimentary accretion as is common with the encompassing stratigraphy. These shales are also impermeable and would act as a barrier to the mechanism as proposed by Gold. As Frank Brielin wrote about many years ago there is abundant heavy oils in the ‘sandstones’ of the Ballarat Bendigo trough with TOC again up in the mid teens. My view is that the black shales are biotic no matter the age and I suspect that coal measures have a similar genesis with coal formation being the result of biosis with ample cellulose on offer from the vegetation to fuel the coalification processes. Intriguingly, the trace element analysis of the coals seams near Bulli point to an acid volcanic regime. At the Bulli type outcrop, there is abundant native sulphur leaching from the coal seams. Quite spectacular really.

    Like

    • Even Gold’s theory is starting to leak at little but one thing is clear, we seem to have an abundance of oil underfoot. I’m not doubting the chemistry and Khazanovitch-Wulff, when he sent me his last paper for grammatical checking etc, expressed the fear since me being ex De Beers and with that intellectual baggage, might not wish his paper to be published. Nonsense of course, but K-W said that kimberlites had acid volc or sedimentary affinities and not UM (mantle origin) as I used to believe. Right now I’m on the fence, (very strong one with 12×12 inch rails. ;-)).

      I supervised the drilling of a core hole under Cordeaux Dam when I worked for SMEC and the sandstone core initially was plastic and friable. 2 days drying and it was rock hard and brittle. So much for standard theory.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s