Some readers of this blog may recall that Louis Hissink sometimes brings up the subject of at least some oil being ‘abiogenic’ or ‘abiotic’ rather than fossil in origin. Most of us remain sceptical of such claims, which seem to be backed by anecdotal evidence at best.
However, an article published in Science on 1st February 2008 entitled, ‘Abiogenic Hydrocarbon Production at Lost City Hydrothermal Field’ states in the Abstract that, ” Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water, and moderate amounts of heat.”
So, there is now evidence of a mechanism for the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons. This is not to say that significant amounts of oil are abiotic in origin, but it is interesting nevertheless.
Readers may also remember my recent blog post, ‘Natural Gas from Bacteria: A Renewable Resource Linked to Climate Change?’
Imagine that – oil and natural gas as renewable resources!
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Louis included a history of the current state of knowledge with his blog post (November 2006) on the subject:
“Modern geological thinking remains wedded to its uniformitarian paradigm set up during the early nineteenth century when Charles Lyell, a Whig lawyer and amateur geologist, wrote his ‘Principles of Geology’ …
read more here http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001717.html
Good science means being able to prove by experiment that an hypothesis is valid.
To date no one has experimentally produced oil (hycrocarbons > methane) from biomass subjected to pressures and temperatures thought to occur at the base of sedimentary piles where oil is supposed to form over geological time.
The Abiogenic oil theory has yet again been verified by experiment as Paul has reported above. But the Biogenic theory has yet to be verified by experiment.
Science is based on explaining natural phenomena by processes that have been verified by experiment.
Biogenic oil theory is based on belief that it is formed from buried biomass, not from physical experiment.
Nope – the biogenic oil theory is marked on considerable success looking for oil in areas of past bioligical material deposition and good science showing oil full of chemical bio-markers. Which we have been over a dozen times (see archives).
This paper shows some “hydrocarbon” production in small areas not whole oil fields.
Indeed the paper discusses the isotopic signatures of biogenic methane production noting that these fields do not have methane with a biogenic signature.
The abiogenic oil theory is still a dead duck.
Perhaps email the lead authors Paul and ask them do they believe in biogenic oil ?
Paul – “So, there is now evidence of a mechanism for the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons. This is not to say that significant amounts of oil are abiotic in origin, but it is interesting nevertheless.”
No-one doubts that some hydrocarbons are abiotic. However the contention that the vast reserves of oil are therefore abiotic is completely false. Saying oil is a hydrocarbon is like saying a car is iron ore. The difference between simple hydrocarbons and oil is about the same.
Also such processes will always be carried out over geological times. There is no possible way our present consumption of oil and gas could ever be sustained even if all the oil and gas we are using was abiotic.
And even if it was releasing that much carbon into the atmosphere would be fatal anyway.
Louis – “To date no one has experimentally produced oil (hycrocarbons > methane) from biomass subjected to pressures and temperatures thought to occur at the base of sedimentary piles where oil is supposed to form over geological time.”
Once again you are very loose with the truth as practically all the steps have been carried out as part of the drive to produce oil from algae:
http://www.oilgae.com/
“Just by way of history, petroleum is widely believed to have had its origins in kerogen, which is easily converted to an oily substance under conditions of high pressure and temperature. Kerogen (Kerogen – from Wikipedia) is formed from algae, biodegraded organic compounds, plankton, bacteria, plant material, etc., by biochemical and/or chemical reactions such as diagenesis and catagenesis. Several studies have been conducted to simulate petroleum formation by pyrolysis. On the basis of these findings, it can be inferred that algae grown in CO2-enriched air can yield oil that can be converted into biodiesel. Such an approach can contribute to solving two major problems: air pollution resulting from CO2 evolution, and future crises due to a shortage of energy sources.”
There is no similar studies that produce anything other than simple hydrocarbons from abiotic sources. Even then you cannot explain the biological markers present in oil as just being dissolved out nor can you dismiss the trillions of barrels of oil being discovered where biotic oil is predicted to be.
Assessing Earth’s Inorganic Hydrocarbons
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol319/issue5863/twis.dtl
A long-standing question, important not just for petroleum resources but possibly in the origin of life, is the degree that a series of inorganic reactions that lengthen carbon chains (known as Fischer-Tropsch type reactions) might yield hydrocarbons from mantle methane. Although several examples of such hydrocarbons have been inferred, it has been difficult to demonstrate a purely mantle, abiogenic origin in the face of abundant biogenic hydrocarbons. Proskurowski et al. (p. 604) now show that the abundance of hydrocarbons in the Lost City vent field, an off-axis system in the Atlantic Ocean, decreases systematically with chain length in a manner predicted by Fischer-Tropsch type reactions. Analysis of carbon isotopes further support an inorganic origin. Because this system is likely representative of many similar systems in the oceans, an abundant source of mantle-derived hydrocarbons may be present on Earth, as well as during Earth’s early history.
Perhaps – but tell us when you find a abiogenic oil field with no biomarkers.
Paul, you are being sold a lemon.
Yes there is abundant evidence of abiogenic organic molecules (Mars, Titan, Comets) but that doesn’t mean that oil is abiogenic. The chemical equations defined by that process has alternative reactions. These alternatives are much more common, hence why you find carbonates around altered mafic and ultramafic rocks. Just because it’s “possible” doesn’t make it so.
Oils and other hydrocarbons tend to be very reactive, especially in oxidising conditions. Perhaps it would be possible for oils to form the erupt rapidly to near the surface in a similar fashion to the kimberlites and lamproites that harbour diamonds. Diamonds need to make it to the surface in less than two hours (from the mantle!) or the carbon get’s oxidised to CO2, and then combines to make carbonates.
Oil formation may be difficult to imagine or model, but all the worlds oilfields are associated with a source rock that at some stage was heavy with dead life.
Luke, you have totally misunderstood the issue, again. And professing a belief in Abiogenic oil Luke, is not science.
Ender, you have not added anything new except confirmation that, as Luke, you don’t understand the issue.
When scientists start opining that “we believe…” then that should cause red flags to be flown because in science it is the experimental evidence that compels us to accept certain facts.
As http://www.gasresources.net document, the Russian Urkrainian theory of abiotic oil is supported by solid experimental evidence.
Neither you nor Luke have provided contraditory experimental evidence.
Mr. T, the FTT method is a driven one, not spontaneous. Kenney et al have demonstrated that oil can be spontaneously produced as documented in the various scientific papers published at http://www.gasresources.net
The three of you have offered nothing but a foofaraw of rhetoric and pseudoscience. At best you have committed the logical fallacy that as oil contains biogenic markers, it must have been derived from that biogenic precursor. Oh? If mantle derived oil, which is an excellent organic solvent, moves upwards into, and invades, sedimentary rocks, it will incorporate that bio-detritus. That it contains bio-detritus is not proof that it was derived from it.
So, again, show experimental evidence that oil can be spontaneously produced by the burial of biomass at the depths and pressures assumed to exist at the base of sedimentary basins.
And I’ll repeat it, the Fischer Tropsche Process is a driven process, not a spontaneous one. Big difference
Experimental proof of biogenic origin of oil should be quite easy to demonstrate because the Russians have experimentally demonstrated the spontaneous production of hydrocarbons can be done at pressures and temperatures greater than those inferred to exist at the base of sedimentary basins.
Over to you
Louis – “Experimental proof of biogenic origin of oil should be quite easy to demonstrate because the Russians have experimentally demonstrated the spontaneous production of hydrocarbons can be done at pressures and temperatures greater than those inferred to exist at the base of sedimentary basins.”
So if it is so easy why has it not been done? Why is 99% of current oil found in sedimentary rocks? Why have you added no actual experiments or data to the time that Luke comprehensively demolished abiotic oil. Why have you not added anything to when I demolished it?
Again post the oil field that has oil with no biomarkers. Post the field that has re-filled. Post the experiment that starts with hydrogen and carbon and ends up with liquid crude oil with the same very long chain molecules and incredibly complex mixture of different compounds.
You cannot do this because they do not exist and until you can produce the evidence please do not post any more abiotic oil crap.
Louis – “Experimental proof of biogenic origin of oil should be quite easy to demonstrate”
Sorry I misread that. Biogenic origin of oil has been demonstrated. The Russians have demonstrated producing simple hydrocarbons that no-one is disputing can be produced from abiotic processes. On the biotic oil front do I have to mention oil from algae AGAIN or even the latest CSIRO research that:
“CSIRO and Monash University announced that they have developed a chemical process that turns green waste into a stable bio-crude oil.”
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2008/02/bio-crude-turns.html
How much more evidence are you going to ignore in your blindness?
Or you could ignore all these processes that mimic in part the conditions that oil formed.
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/04/technical_note__1.html
Ender, you have demolished, as also Luke, nothing. I have asked you to provide the experimental evidence to support your belief.
You have not. If it were so easy to do, then obviously it would have been done, so the logical conclusion one is forced to make, on the available data, is that it is NOT POSSIBLE TO SPONTANEOUSLY PRODUCE HYDROCARBONS from biomass at the pressures and temperatures thought to exist at the base of sedimentary basins. (apart from methane).
So this fact could well be the falsification of Abiogenic oil theory.
Think on it.
To which one might consider the Ender-Luke process of oil-genesis:
1. Gather much biomass based on present day observations.
2. Bury Biomass 7-12 km depth by non existent subduction processes.
3. Wait for a miracle to occur.
4. wait for oil to spill out on the surface of the earth.
After all, if oil never exuded onto the surface of the earth, we would never have worked out that it actually existed, and thus would have gone drilling for it.
Ender has not, since his comments here make clear, read one sentence of the scientific literature on the http://www.gasresources.net site.
Interesting that those who write here under pseudonyms are so certain of their stupidity.
Ender,
you have only referred to a weblog mentioning biofuel derivation.
Where are the scientific peer reviewed papers supporting and describing this process?
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/04/technical_note__1.
And oil? Chemical composition please, not unsubstantiated greenie faragos
Thanks for the link the article is very interesting.
It made me think maybe if certain situation allow for the creation of renewable energy maybe science would be able to create this conditions in order to increase the percentage of this cases.
Subduction?
Well Louis we’ll bury some biomass and you just wait here till we call you.
Now Ender did you say “CSIRO and Monash University announced that they have developed a chemical process that turns green waste into a stable bio-crude oil.”
Luke
and only announced at Ender’s Greenie site, so where is the official press release?
And do bury some biomass Luke, but I won’t be around since I actually have the time.
Don’t 🙂
Ender and Luke,
This is a blog, a place to discuss ideas. Why react so violently?
I’m interested in the concept, why are you guys never interested in anything novel and a bit out there?
You really don’t like anyone to question the status quo do you? It really gets boring. You hog threads and don’t let others explore the idea … however crazy it may seem, or may be.
Give us a break.
One of the more problematical aspects of biogenic oil theory is finding places where such biomass accumulates. Bottom of oceans? Seas?
Biomass? What is meant by this. All the large deposits of biomass are at the surface and comprises jumbled up masses of extinct fauna (Siwilak Hills in India and SE Asia) in sediments abutting the Himalayas. We have not found any such deposits in the existing seas or oceans. So if these deposits are considered the precursors of oil, by burial, how do we get those deposits down into the subsurface?
Being essentially unmetamorphosed fossiliferous sediments, any mechanical process to bury these would profoundly affect those sediments intrinsic nature, metamorphism and folding being bare minimum processes that would affect these rocks. And of course having densities lower than the rocks underlying them, extraordinary forces are required to transpose them to depths below the present surface to generate hydrocarbons.
So perhaps somewhere else extinct biomass was buried and somehow moved into the earth; but where? The only mechanism available is that assumed to operate in subduction zones but inspection of these zones, world-wide, do not show deposits of biomass rich sedimehents. In fact there do not seem to be any deposits of this type occurring in these subduction zones.
An added problem is the preservation of biomass in sediment – and logically it should be occurring now in the existing oceans and seas. Yet when a local catatrophe does occur, and mammals are swept out to sea to die, internal biological processes initially produce gases which cause these animals to float, and subsequent bacterial decay and foraging by scavengers eliminate these floating biomasses.
Undersea imagery of the remains of HMS Titanic on the Atlantic Ocean show compelling pictures of human artefacts such as leather boots, but not one showed any skeletal remains of the souls who perished at that time. Nothing.
So quite clearly organic residue tends not to accumulate at the bottom of seas and oceans.
So as the present paradigm is that the present enables us to understand the past, where then are the vast accumulations of biomass on their way downwards to form the biogenic oils?
Is the key to the past the present, or does this depend on how we define the present?
Hi Louis
You raise some interesting problems. However, it is fact is it not that there is a net sinking flux of phytoplankton biomass (after allowing for aerobic bacterial processes and zooplankton grazing etc) over very large areas of the oceans? That biomass originated as dissolved CO2 and bicarbonate in the near surface waters.
That great flux has to go somewhere, surely?
It would be my view that where most of it goes is ultimately into pools of liquid CO2 below the CO2 liquefaction depth of about 1400 – 1500 m (the occurrence of which pools is now being demonstrated though remote undersea vehicle studies) and into deposits of methane hydrate.
Both types of deposits are still available for further microbiological transformation into higher hydrocarbons via various heterotrophic and chemoautotrophic microbiological processes – especially now that we are realising how ubiquitous and varied life is even under conditions of great depth, pressure and even temperature.
If you want to know where the material remains of the ‘souls’ who perished in the Titanic are may I suggest they are simply all about the ship in the surrounding sediments, still being transformed and recycled in the numerous ways that Gaia does so well!
A short silly reponse using a boilerplate in which one, unthinkingly, fills in the blanks to produce a specious reply. Our educators have much to answer for, apart from the fact that PHd’s are awarded for contributions as above.
It is amusing to be able to sit back and watch a crank comparable to a water diviner be given space to air what is a “theory” that has no basis in fact. How low can the ‘free market’ go?
Whoops Jennifer you forgot SJT.
But SJT, you have only replied by ad hominem, not once to the issue, so perhaps emulate Luke and Ender and,…., disappear?
Oh dear, just another silly, cranky old troll with nothing better to broadcast than his own spittle. Reminds me of the old Usenet groups.
So we have some scientists claiming abiogenesis as source of life and others saying the simpler abiogenic compounds that make up oil is impossible.
Who is right? I wonder.
What I suggest the posters to this thread do is to read the article titled:’Mass extinctions: The microbes strike back’ in the latest (09 February 2008) issue of New Scientist.
The article gives a fairly good review of the incredible expansion in the science of finding and identifying a large variety of biomarker compounds in geological material over the last 10 years or so. This area of science has followed and paralleled an even longer equivalent expansion in our understanding of the nature and diversity of microbial life and biogeochemical energy (electron) flow pathways.
It has been apparent for quite some time that the evolution of microbial life on this planet proceeded at a rapid pace from at least about 2.7 Gy BP after the eukaryotes appeared.
Today for example we find incredible densities of bacteria at the bottom of the Greenland ice living on the surface of clay particles. The same can be said for the depths of the ocean, the insides of geothermally heated strata etc, etc. For example, incredible densities of iron dissimilatory bacteria like Geobacter became associated with the Exxon Valdez incident. Those little critters converted every skerrick of oily crud hitting the seabed into biomass, now only to leave their biomarkers behind in the sediment.
The lakes of liquid CO2 and masses of methane hydrate on the ocean floor are just a part of the story. Where is the great biomass? In truth it is almost everywhere.
In essence, the biogenic/abiogenic ‘argument’ is the utterly passe domain of those armchair theorists who never kept up with the science of the last 30 odd years.
And shortly we will discover a very well hidden science – lakes of liquid CO2 on the ocean floor?
Bit short on facts but long imaginative constructs I think.
Louis – “To which one might consider the Ender-Luke process of oil-genesis:
1. Gather much biomass based on present day observations.”
Don’t need to gather it as it sinks to the bottom of the ocean where it gathers. Look at the bottom of present oceans.
“2. Bury Biomass 7-12 km depth by non existent subduction processes.”
Are you still claiming to be a geologist? By this statement I think it has been a long time since the lectures on sedimentary rocks and how they are deposited.
Don’t tell me, as ALL the geologists in the world think that sedimentary rocks are:
“Sedimentary rocks are formed because of the overburden pressure as particles of sediment are deposited out of air, ice, wind, gravity, or water flows carrying the particles in suspension.”
You of course being the lateral thinker that you are would have a different theory – what is that? Don’t know where you got the subduction idea from.
“3. Wait for a miracle to occur.”
Actually it is a miracle. Which makes us burning this incredible resource all the more stupid. Anyway as the sedimentary rocks are formed the organic material deposited with the particles of the sediment are subjected to heat and pressure and are pyrolysed into oil just like the processes used today to form oil from algae. We do not have millions of years to form our oil so we use speedier processes however the principle is the same.
Now here are a few for you.
Why is there kerogen? If oil is formed in the mantle why are their vast deposits of kerogen like the oil shales and tar sands. Does the mantle sometimes form kerogen and sometimes form crude oil? The fact that there are different stages of the biological formation of oil on display for all to see would seem to be the best evidence yet.
Why are there fossils in oil shale? Your explanation of biomarkers in oil involves oil dissolving biological material out of the rock. How does a solid oil precursor like oil shale have fossils?
“4. wait for oil to spill out on the surface of the earth.”
That is almost exactly what happened. No-one had a use for oil until the rise of the petrol fuelled car and whale oil because scarce. However at the time people almost immediately realised the biological origin of oil and when the sources that bubbled up naturally became scarce they looked for other areas that oil should be and guess what they found 2 or 3 trillion barrels of the stuff. Good thing you and your abiotic oil mates where not around then as you have yet to find a barrel of oil.
“After all, if oil never exuded onto the surface of the earth, we would never have worked out that it actually existed, and thus would have gone drilling for it.”
Absolutely correct – what is the problem. Oil still would have remained a snake oil medical cure-all and whale oil replacement but for the fact that a certain light spirit called gasoline can be distilled from it. This light spirit was a perfect fuel for the then brand new gas engine that was being put into automobiles.
“Ender has not, since his comments here make clear, read one sentence of the scientific literature on the http://www.gasresources.net site.”
Yes I have and all the scientific rebuttals that totally demolish the ‘scientific’ material on this joke web site.
Why are you too lazy to even just Google this? What rock do you live under?
It is now well known that are indeed lakes of CO2 on the ocean floor. The only questions is how much and how many?
Why do you think it is one of the possible means of geosequestration considered to combat AGW?
In 2006 we were all watching, in full living colour, a nice video on the Net from a Japanese remotely operated undersea vehicle in the South China actually sampling the shallowest such lake yet discovered (only 1400 m depth).
This was very widely reported both on the Net and in journals and popular science magazine. Where were you?
This is just above the pressure required to maintain the CO2 in liquid form but a thin crust of sediment about 20 cm thick was just enough to keep the underlying CO2 confined. As soon as the corer device passed though the sediment rapid CO2 gas escape occurred.
And don’t you dare tell me that organic detrital material cannot be oxidized to CO2 at depths where there is no dissolved oxygen in the water! That would simply reveal that you also don’t know anything at all about modern biogeochemistry.
There are quite a variety of biogeochemical pathways that can oxidize organic detrital material to CO2 e.g. using Fe(II) in oxides and feldspars etc for the TEA (Terminal Electron Acceptor). Massive siderite etc often forms as a result.
There are also (at other locations) pathways for converting organic detrital material to methane, ethane etc of producing methane hydrate deposits.
All before any (potential) abiogenic diagenesis.
Correction to typo ‘…using Fe(III) in oxides and feldspars etc…’
“This is a blog, a place to discuss ideas. Why react so violently? ”
This topic doesn’t come under ideas, any more than bigfoot or creationism does. It’s supposed to be about science.
Ken Nealson and others wrote several nice papers on this issue of lakes of liquid CO2 on the floor of the ocean (including the microbial communities and their biogeochemistry) which were published 2 years ago.
See:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1599885
and
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1599929
and references therein
>You hog threads
Jennifer, a little look at your threads and you may see that the likes of Louis actually do the hogging, in more ways than one. Currently there are 33 comments here – 3 are from Luke, 4 are from Ender, and 12 are from Louis. Go to recent threads on similar topics and you will see an abundance of Hissink posts resplendent with juvenile comments like ‘Whoops Jennifer you forgot SJT.’
Why don’t you give us a break and come clean? Either you want people with a variety of views to express them here and thus discuss ideas, or make it clear this blog is simply for Hissink-types filling the void of Ian Mott and agreeing with your world views. In the meantime victimization isn’t a good look.
Louis – “Bit short on facts but long imaginative constructs I think.”
Did you actually look at Dr Steve Short’s bio? I think you better start remembering some of the actual geology you were taught to rebut his arguments. Smoke and mirrors will not do.
Travis,
” Currently there are 33 comments here – 3 are from Luke, 4 are from Ender, and 12 are from Louis.”
Neither surprising nor unwarranted since Louis was, unlike the other 2 (not to mention the forgotten 3rd), mentioned in the original post and presumably as a geologist has some expertise in the field. With Dr Short about it could actually get interesting.
Jan I doubt Louis would discuss this with any geologists. I work with a lot, and am one, and the chorus of laughter was loud at Louis’ theories.
Louis, mentioned all this to Rick Rogerson? Rick would be very interested to hear I am sure.
I’d also like to hear how he accounts for volcanism and oceanic trenches without using subduction.
To be honest I think Louis doesn’t actually believe what he says. I think he likes arguing.
Mr T
“I work with a lot, and am one, and the chorus of laughter was loud at Louis’ theories.
Louis, mentioned all this to Rick Rogerson? Rick would be very interested to hear I am sure.”
Well why don’t you ask him?
“I’d also like to hear how he accounts for volcanism and oceanic trenches without using subduction.”
I haven’t noticed that he had a problem with subduction just this:
“The only mechanism available is that assumed to operate in subduction zones but inspection of these zones, world-wide, do not show deposits of biomass rich sedimehents.”
i.e. a lack of biomass rich sediments in the subduction zones, and of course floating biomass avoids subductions zones altogether.
One needs to be careful lest one raises strawman arguments.
” To be honest I think Louis doesn’t actually believe what he says. I think he likes arguing.”
I wouldn’t know about that but the problem I have with the general argument against abiotic oil is that life itself, that is proposed to be its source, has and must have an abiotic source.
The real question for me at least is whether the existence of life is a necessary intermediate step.
“The real question for me at least is whether the existence of life is a necessary intermediate step”
Why not ask our good friend Gaia?
Why not ask our good friend Gaia?
I’m not into conversing with inanimate objects.
are you?
Jan, it was a joke for Louis. I was actually asking him if he had spoken to Rick about it. It was a rhetorical question. Louis is editor of the AIG newsletter of which Rick Rogerson is President, and also the Deputy of the Geological Survey of Western Australia.
He has claimed (in other posts) that “subduction is mechanically impossible” – hilarious I know.
Generally the Basins which hold oil are unrelated to subduction. They tend to be marine basins which have been uplifted by other means. So I don’t think this is correct “The only mechanism available is that assumed to operate in subduction zones but inspection of these zones, world-wide, do not show deposits of biomass rich sedimehents.”
ow about burial of deep ocean deposits by turbidite flows? There is enormous amounts of organic matter on the ocean floor.
Oil deposits always lie above rocks that are considered ‘source’ rocks. That is rocks that were formed in an environment that was rich in organic material, which has (in all oil deposits) come from life.
It’s irrelevant whether or not life is a NECESSARY intermediate step, as life has been the intermediate step in oil deposits – no oil deposits exist that didn’t have life as an intermediate step.
Mr T,
” it was a joke for Louis. I was actually asking him if he had spoken to Rick about it. It was a rhetorical question.”
Oh Ok so you think Louis was/is just having a bit of fun.
But still I’m curious I haven’t heard of the concept of abiotic oil until recently, I’m just wondering if it is at all possible. I’m sure you are aware that there was a time that it was hard to conceive of a solar centric solar system and now it’s hard to conceive of a geocentric one.
Sorry, looks like …. Hissunk!
Well Steve nobody ever counted on an actual domain expert ever showing up.
Oh well – so what do you know about DDT then?
Mr T,
I never claimed that plate tectonics was mechanically impossible, that was the conclusion of reported by those who went to that conference in Athens last November (2007) and posted in another thread here.
As you seem familiar with my activities and Rick Rogerson, but hide behind a pseudonym, your comments are mean spirited.
Dr Steve Short,
I presume, after having your abstract published in CCnet that you are simply a rent seeker.
Mr T,
“It’s irrelevant whether or not life is a NECESSARY intermediate step, as life has been the intermediate step in oil deposits – no oil deposits exist that didn’t have life as an intermediate step.”
How do you know?
I have now had time to look at some of the papers and notice one thing that the conditions necessary for the generation of abiotic oil are precisely those required to sustain life. (This was far from surprising)
It should hardly be surprising then that oil is found (abiotic or otherwise) where life present or past is found. Hence a possible alternate reason exists for a correlation, that does not necessarily mean causation. Therefore to rule it out i ask the question again and hope for a better thought out answer:
Is the existence of life a necessary intermediate step for the generation of hydrocarbons?
Jan
“I have now had time to look at some of the papers and notice one thing that the conditions necessary for the generation of abiotic oil are precisely those required to sustain life. (This was far from surprising)”
Now this is surprising, as I was under the impression it was derived from the mantle. This would not involve life.
The chemical equations I have seen involve dunite and peridotite. These (at the surface anyway) create the so-called serpentine soils which are actually poisonous due to their high nickel content (see parts of Oman, New Zealand and other obducted pieces of crust). It also happens at temps of over 500 degrees… Again, not very conducive to life.
So what I am saying is that the apprent conditions necessary for abiogenic oil would extinguish life, and life has not been found to survive in those places. So the question you pose is ill-constructed.
No one can prove life is a necessary step, but all the evidence we have would suggest it is. There is no reason to believe otherwise.
Louis, you did claim that subduction was mechanically impossible on this blog. Does this mean you now accept subduction? I’m not hiding, it’s more fun with a pseudonym. And have you spoken to Rick about it? You would respect his opinion, yes? I would think he would know about petroleum deposits in Western Australia (which have never been anywhere near the mantle, being in Phanerozoic Basins that are quite high in the lithosphere – the crust is pretty thick in WA).
Mr T,
“No one can prove life is a necessary step, but all the evidence we have would suggest it is. There is no reason to believe otherwise.”
What evidence is that by the way? You should know that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. The fact that there are a few biological markers in the oil deposits is hardly conclusive, so that leaves the question of prbbability so,
what is more probable the abiotic formation of hydrocarbons or of RNA and other self replicating enzymes necessary for life?
If no one can prove it either way you don’t really have a case and absolutely no cause to dismiss the idea much less with laughter.
Jan, all you have is speculation and pretty funny speculation at that.
I never spoke about probability. It’s not about what is more probable.
Oh is this really about ID?
ok, in summary:
Life cannot exist where abiogenic oil is supposed to occur.
No abiogenic oil has been found.
Oil is found in sedimentary rocks, not in rocks that have any relationship to the mantle.
The conduits required to get oil to near the surface (where we mine it) are very rare as faults don’t often penetrate to the mantle (they get smeared out in the aesthenosphere).
The reason this is funny is that you entertain the idea with no evidence, and no process to bring the oil to the surface. In fact all the evidence indicates the other direction. That oil is biogenic.
Proof is used in Mathematics. It doesn’t exist in science. You cannot prove that something doesn’t exist.
Have you heard of Occam’s Razor?
Ok, I have a better theory: Aliens did it, they made it and put it there.
You can’t prove me wrong, so according to your logic you should entertain the idea.
Dr Louis Hissink,
Noting that the abstract to which you refer is authored by Håkan Grudd whom I do not know, but simply drew the attention of CCNet to (for obvious reasons) I presume you are simply a rant seeker.
I recall running across someone just like you back in 1988, when as an ANSTO senior research scientist, I was studying growth rates of near-modern corals as climatic surrogates and concurrently invented a technique for ageing fish through lead-radium analysis of their (aragonitic) otoliths which today is routinely used all over the world to validate fish ages. I happened to joke at an international fisheries conference (as a guest speaker) that my preliminary studies of otoliths of the orange roughy suggested that, in some cases, ‘the fish on ones’ plate might be older than one’s granny’! Bizarrely, this off the cuff comment caused a certain character who had staked his whole career (and a lucrative consultancy to various national fishery industry bodies) on prior ‘proofs’ they lived to ages of 11 – 15 years to experience a severe bout of intense, personal angst which caused him to dedicate the remaining 20 years of his career to (1) proving me wrong, and (2) libelling my work at every possible opportunity. If you want to see the outcome, why don’t you Google words like: Fenton, Short, orange roughy, otolith, Cremer, Gauldie, lead, radium…
and then for supper finish up with (say) http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=MF07074
Thus it is with those who are condemned in this life to perpetually mix fact and fancy.
Dr Short,
Your first line of your post addressing me as Dr. Louis Hissink is totally wrong. I do not have a PHd but a MSc, so addressing me in the manner you did means you have not done your homework.
The rest of your comment must be based on an equally sound footing, and thus ignored.
Mr T,
I won’t discuss anything further with until you identify yourself.
As for Rick Rogerson, the concept has never been discussed between us but to bring him into the debate here can be only be interpreted as politically motivated.
I suspect Rick, considering his position, does not voice his opinion publicly but that of his office in DOIR. This is proper and to do otherwise under the present political climate would be considered suicidal.
I have previously experienced censorship for my opinion, once in TAG , during the early 1990’s, and a year, or so, in AIG News. The former resulted in my resignation from the GSA of Australia, the latter event resulted in AIG Council telling the erstwhile censors, calling for my head, to go play in another forum.
I’m driven by the data, not specious rhetoric, but then that is the price practioners of scientific empiricism have to pay.
Perhaps studying accessible papers on http://www.ncgt.org might broaden your perception of the actual state of geoscience on the earth, rather than the apparent blinkered one, precicated by politics, you seem to have.
Ok Louis, fine you take your bat and ball home.
Thing is if you say dumb things, people will say “that’s dumb” – doesn’t need to be any political motivation.
I was just trying to point out that if you had discussed it with Rick, he would have told you it was dumb.
I have no relationship with him, the AIG, or the GSA. I don’t care if you won’t talk to me, but I will still point out when you say dumb things.
Mr T
And dumb you are, I had no reason to discuss anything with Rick on this Blog.
So why bring it up?
Because he is a well-respected geologist. I figured if you wanted a decent opinion on something geological he would be the one to ask.
Mr T
Why should I ask for a decent opinion on something geological?
I am a geologist with a couple of science degrees, so why should I check with Rick on what I post here?
Louis stop whinging and make with the scientific rebuttal. Perhaps your view of censorship is simply a reaction not passing peer review? Your normal tactic when cornered is to either decamp or do an ad hom spray. Stop the diversionary obfuscation and back to the science pls.
Luke,
What scientific rebuttal? Peer Review, you have no idea of what TAG is.
F… Off idiot.
(My last post might be called an ad homeinem, and then who would blame me?)
“I am a geologist with a couple of science degrees”
I think you have hit the nail on the head, there. By maintaining this fiction of the lone, eccentric genius, you have effectively painted yourself into a corner, and are now committed to ignoring expert, informed opinions on topics you are interested in. Hence, you end up repeatedly making a fool of yourself. Drop the facade, and try to catch up with what is actually going on.
Mr T,
“I never spoke about probability. It’s not about what is more probable.”
And
” Proof is used in Mathematics. It doesn’t exist in science. ”
So you do understand then why I brought up probability.
Then
” You cannot prove that something doesn’t exist.”
Where did I ask you to prove something does not exist?
I asked you what is more probable. (Yes it is mathematics more of a comfort zone for me than geology).
Oh is this really about ID?
Why are you asking about ID I’m using my own name you are not? I don’t really care about your ID.
Incidentally the same plants which find serpentine toxic are also likely to find oils toxic. Furthermore the thing that really sparked my interest was the fact that these vents like the one at lost city are not only producing hydrocarbons but also the surrounding area is usually teeming with life during the life of the vent.
Jan, ID as in Intelligent Design.
You said:
“If no one can prove it either way you don’t really have a case and absolutely no cause to dismiss the idea much less with laughter.”
I am demonstrating that this is nonsense as proof exists in maths. And you didn’t address my theory that aliens did it.
The rest is nonsense. How could you compare RNA and abiotic oil? What has probability got to do with it? Because you personally find RNA improbable? RNA exists. It doesn’t matter how probable that was. Abiotic oil doesn’t, you can’t compare the two.
If you don’t know geology why are you even arguing this? It’s weird speculation.
“Incidentally the same plants which find serpentine toxic are also likely to find oils toxic.”
You are just making things up now!
I have noticed that your argument changes… Do you actually have a position?
Lost city I assume is a “black smoker”? No one has ever disputed the presence of abiogenic methane and ethane.
Mr T
“And you didn’t address my theory that aliens did it.”
I see no reason to do so. When one argues with a fool there are two fools arguing, so I will ignore your more foolish remarks.
“How could you compare RNA and abiotic oil?”
Because that is precisely the problem.
The pathway
no oil/life -> hydrocarbon -> hydrocarbon hydrates + amino acids-> building blocks of life
is in my opinion more probable and makes more sense than
no oil/life -> life -> oil.
Whether the process has a guiding intelligence or is purely stochastic (my position) is quite irrelevant, so you can forget about any notion of intelligent design as being part of the argument. It’s not really a geological problem but a chemical one.
“You are just making things up now! ”
So next few times you change the oil in your car pour the oil around the roots of a tree and see or hose your lawn with kerosene instead of water. See if I’m making things up.
Hydrocarbons, parafins etc are just longer chains of methane and ethane and various combinations of C & H. RNA is decidedly more complex than any hydrocarbons. However a more interesting question is are there any known deposits of abiotic carbohydrate, a necessary component (Ribose) of the RNA.
” What has probability got to do with it? Because you personally find RNA improbable? RNA exists.”
I see you don’t really understand how probability and inductive reasoning works. Don’t they teach this stuff to budding geologists?
As I have mentioned previously, the latest issue of New Scientist (09 February 2008) has a fascinating article in it.
I think that article would make for a truly excellent thread in this blog (as well as general highlighting on Jennifer’s web site).
The article is titled: Precambrian strikes back. The lead-in states: Forget asteroid Armageddon from the skies. The biggest danger to life is a hostile takeover by bacteria, warns Peter Ward.
This subject is not only close to my personal interests (as a working geochemist for now 35 years) but raises some very interesting issues I have been mulling over in recent years about the immense significance of the ‘biogeochemical partnership’ which actually applies on Earth between oxygen-breathing animal life and the oxygen-creating and CO2-absorbing cyanobacteria and plant kingdoms and the roles of methanogens and sulfur reducing bacteria.
Personally, I am coming round to the view that this is the real paradigm which the human race needs to embrace in order to manage issues such as AGW (to the extent it actually exists and is significant) and (perhaps more importantly) the levels of dissolved CO2 and O2 in the surface layers of the ocean and the sustainability and purposes of the continental plant biomass etc.
Proper realization (and a cultural and technological embracing) of this over-arching paradigm has deep implications for how we might look at (pre-peak and peak) coal, oil and gas etc, how we may re-create and use these energy-rich materials sustainably, how we can and should manage our partnership with the oceanic cyanobacteria, the sea floor methanogens, continental plants etc in a intelligent and symbiotic way.
In my view this (New Scientist) article might almost be classed as seminal, so profound are the issues which it raises in a popular science context. Hence it could initiate a very important thread, hopefully far more interesting and enlightening than this truly awful one.
May I suggest those of you who do have a passable knowledge of the literature of earth science and oceanography over the last 30 years or so try to read the aformentioned article.
>I do not have a PHd but a MSc,
Presumably if you ever got one you’d know it’s PhD. SJT couldn’t have summed you up better.
Jennifer wrote:
>Ender and Luke,
This is a blog, a place to discuss ideas. Why react so violently?…
Louis wrote:
> F… Off idiot.
>(My last post might be called an ad homeinem, and then who would blame me?)
Good Louis, it leaves the door open for any of us to retaliate likewise. Oops you are one of the protected species, so maybe not. Now that Ian Mott’s back we can have a little nature conservancy of them.
“no oil/life -> hydrocarbon -> hydrocarbon hydrates + amino acids-> building blocks of life
is in my opinion more probable and makes more sense than
no oil/life -> life -> oil.”
Again Jan you are merely speculating, the processes to make life have happened. The processes to make abiogenic oil haven’t it’s simple. It doesn’t matter whether you think they could have happened. It’s the difference between reality and fantasy.
You have no process to move oil from the mantle to shallow depths. You have no evidence of abiogenic oil, so my aliens theory is on as sound footing as yours. You are arguing using rhetoric not evidence or science.
“Incidentally the same plants which find serpentine toxic are also likely to find oils toxic.”
This is nonsense. This is something you made up. Plants don’t grow on serpentine soils.
“So next few times you change the oil in your car pour the oil around the roots of a tree and see or hose your lawn with kerosene instead of water. See if I’m making things up.” This is rhetoric, addressing a point I didn’t make. It’s a strawman.
There may be abiotic carbohydrate, I don’t know. Again it is not part of the abiogenic theory of oil.
“I see you don’t really understand how probability and inductive reasoning works. Don’t they teach this stuff to budding geologists?”
More rhetoric.
RNA – exists.
abiogenic oil – doesn’t
It’s irrelevant what the probabilities are. There is no relationship between the events. There is no reason to use inductive reasoning here.
“no oil/life -> life -> oil.” Doesn’t matter if you find this scheme improbable. We know the first two parts happened. So the ‘improbable’ part happened.
But again it is rhetoric, and isn’t based on a scientific proposition. What is your scientific position?
Geology is basically chemistry.
Louis – “Luke,
What scientific rebuttal? Peer Review, you have no idea of what TAG is.
F… Off idiot.”
Gee you really must have run out of arguments. I guess it is a problem when your ideas run into reality.
Mr T,
“What is your scientific position?”
That you are pretty dense.
“There may be abiotic carbohydrate, I don’t know. Again it is not part of the abiogenic theory of oil.”
IT IS OF LIFE and an extra step and a necessary step if we are to arrive at the self replicating molecules necessary for life. It must have happened somewhere in the universe since the big bang but that is NOT the issue the question is how do we get there?
I for on would leave that for biochemists.
“”I see you don’t really understand how probability and inductive reasoning works. Don’t they teach this stuff to budding geologists?”
More rhetoric.”
No really it’s at the core of your problem in arriving at a reasonable conclusion.
We have no known process for biotic oil the theory of it is based on the fact that there are biological markers in oil deposits I have stated a number of times already that this is not proof of a living source for oil. We have no know process (that is not to say we won’t find one but then it would have to shown to exist or have existed naturally).
We DO have known naturally occurring processes for the formation of alkanes and contrary to what you nave been saying not down deep in the mantle but as the gases flow upward through it (study up the Fischer -Tropsch reactions).
We also now know that this occurs at thermal vents where for the lifetime of the vent it’s rich in life which is extinguished when the vent shuts down. So where ever this occurs we may expect signs of former life so we know how those biological markers could have got there.
We know and we do this in a number of plants around the world use the Fischer-Tropsch process to create long chain synthetic oils and waxes, so the process exists and it exists in nature.
We know also from the fact that we see evidence of marine life 1000 M above sea level that any deposits formed in this way need not stay on the oceans beds.
We also have known biological processes to turn waste to methane but very little in the way of longer chain alkanes.
We have bacteria that can turn oil to methane.
That the processes exist and are known to exist naturally is not speculation.
That where they occur generally attracts living organisms is not speculation.
That markers of living organisms in oil deposits is proof of a living source of oil started as speculation it is speculation but has become entrenched myth.
That is my scientific position.
Jan, that was a load of waffle that has nothing to do with the original topic, which was the abiogenic theory of oil, which is based on chemical process which are supposed to take place in the mantle. It is about mantle-derived oil.
“We DO have known naturally occurring processes for the formation of alkanes and contrary to what you nave been saying not down deep in the mantle but as the gases flow upward through it (study up the Fischer -Tropsch reactions). ”
This for example is nothing to do with the original topic. You seem to have wandered off and started arguing for things that were not part of the original discussion. You keep presenting ‘strawman’ arguments. A lot of hydrocarbons are formed through non-life means, eg on Titan. But we are talking about the formation of crude oil on the planet Earth.
“We know and we do this in a number of plants around the world use the Fischer-Tropsch process to create long chain synthetic oils and waxes, so the process exists and it exists in nature.
We know also from the fact that we see evidence of marine life 1000 M above sea level that any deposits formed in this way need not stay on the oceans beds.
We also have known biological processes to turn waste to methane but very little in the way of longer chain alkanes.
We have bacteria that can turn oil to methane.
That the processes exist and are known to exist naturally is not speculation.
That where they occur generally attracts living organisms is not speculation. ”
All strawman arguments.
At the end you reach your position:
“That markers of living organisms in oil deposits is proof of a living source of oil started as speculation it is speculation but has become entrenched myth.”
But this is a political argument, and it is speculation on your behalf. Not one based in evidence. The oil industry uses the fact that oil comes from living organisms as an aid to find it.
Mr T,
” The oil industry uses the fact that oil comes from living organisms as an aid to find it.”
It might think it does but the most recent evidence unearthed is that living organisms are attracted to locations where oil (more precisely alkanes) is formed, to wit the submarine vents. A common cause is as good a reason for correlation as direct causation, but correlation is not evidence for causation for that you actually need the physical or in this case the chemical link. We don’t have that for the direct causation but we do have evidence for the common cause, and that is all we have.
I’m wondering how I can dumb this down more for you.
Repeating the mantra is not going to help you arrive at the truth, all that does is raise serum CO2 levels and bore the mind to the point where it rebels and the combination takes you a wild trip of fantasy.
Jan,
The problem is that you don’t know what you are talking about. There is no relationship between oil fields and deep ocean vents. Oilfields lie in marine successions, that is piles of marine sediments, that were formed on continental crust.
Why don’t you try reading some literature on oilfields? That way you won’t need to speculate.
“It might think it does but the most recent evidence unearthed is that living organisms are attracted to locations where oil (more precisely alkanes) is formed, to wit the submarine vents. ”
Alkanes are not crude oil. And again, this is off topic. The topic was abiogenic creation of oil, specifically mantle-derived oil.
And again you drift into rhetoric. You still have no actual scientifc position.
Jan Pompe – “We have no known process for biotic oil the theory of it is based on the fact that there are biological markers in oil deposits I have stated a number of times already that this is not proof of a living source for oil. We have no know process (that is not to say we won’t find one but then it would have to shown to exist or have existed naturally).”
Are you ignoring the quite common processes now that use turn algae into oil? All these processes use similar techniques to conditions in the sedimentary rocks that oil was formed in. We just use faster reactions.
“We DO have known naturally occurring processes for the formation of alkanes and contrary to what you nave been saying not down deep in the mantle but as the gases flow upward through it (study up the Fischer -Tropsch reactions).”
Maybe for simple hydrocarbons but no the mix of compounds that comprise crude oil. There is not experimental evidence that start with carbon and hydrogen and ends up with crude oil. In comparison there are plenty of experiments that start with biomass and end up with mixtures similar to crude oil.
“It might think it does but the most recent evidence unearthed is that living organisms are attracted to locations where oil (more precisely alkanes) is formed, to wit the submarine vents”
So these animals migrate to the submarine vents then get themselves deposited in sedimentary rocks along with the crude oil that is bubbling out of these submarine vents. So please post the list of current submarine vents that are producing oil.
Hi Jan
I don’t really want to get sucked into this thread again simply because a certain someone is liable to wake up, stagger over to some early model PC and spray buckets of grumpy old man’s bile around again. However, regarding the issue of biomarkers, I wonder if you are aware of how extensive and sophisticated the literature base on the compositions of biomarkers has got over the last 10 years or so? For example, I have been recently involved in studies of several Triassic freshwater/estuarine sandstones which have a fascinating mix of graphitised woody material (hey it even looks like wood under the microscope), gases (princ. methane and ethane) and even small pockets of oil. Graphite and oil contains very distinct (and very different) biomarker compounds. It is now a fact that we can identify a relatively large number of different biomarker compounds and relate them back to distinct classes of bacterial, cyanobacterial, plant and animal life – right down to the level of classes of algae, bacteria, protozoans etc. Please, give that article a read and then start Googling the literature. It might start you thinking about why there is so much late Permian oil and even coals (for example).
Regards
Steve
“That is my scientific position.”
I must have missed the part that was about science in there.
Ender,
“Are you ignoring the quite common processes now that use turn algae into oil?”
Oils ain’t Oils and biodiesel are ethyl and methyl esthers dot the same sort of stuff that comes out of the ground which are generally paraffins or alkanes. Now when you can get from algae to high molecular weight alkanes do let me know.
Hi Steve,
“I don’t really want to get sucked into this thread again simply because a certain someone is liable to wake up, stagger over to some early model PC and spray buckets of grumpy old man’s bile around again.”
Quite understandable if that is really what is going on I suspect it may not be. However thank you for your reply and i can see that you really are concerned that people get it right rather than arguing for the sake of it, so to be fair top you I have to say I don’t really have a problem a biological source for oil I don’t really have a problem with the possibility for an abiotic source either. I just like to kick around ideas and the thing about the article that really sparked my interest was the last paragraph but really is off topic.
Take a look and you may understand the tack I have taken.
Now however you have piqued my curiosity again that graphitised woody material I want to see some. I’ve seen petrified and opalised wood (the latter goes well in jewellry) but not graphitised wood. Also the biomarkers in graphite – I had thought that graphite was a primordial allotrope of carbon – please tell me more.
Sorry for the terse reply (and my failure to yet put a substantive post onto the new thread Jennifer has kindly started at my request). I am presently involved in management of the geochemical monitoring and rapid responses required by a major unexpected groundwater inflow to a working underground mine. Please email me your address and I’ll send you a piece of this graphitised wood stuff. There is no doubt that wood buried in sand (which becomes sandstone) is altered to anything between coal and graphite. I can also send you some nice microphotographs of graphitised wood fragments in a matrix of quartz clasts, various generations of siderite (both after clasts and as cement) which also contains marcasite in a siderite matrix (all in a coarse paleoerosional channel in Triassic sandstone). The mind boggles just imaging the fluxes of CO2, H2S and Fe(II) which caused these alterations and how they arose. It has even been suggested that supercritical liquid CO2 could be the solvent/vehicle for affecting these features.
Hi Steve,
Sorry for the terse reply
Terse? I don’t think it is.
I’ve been down one or two of those mines on the South Coast when I worked in industrial hygiene lab at the Port Kembla steelworks I can well understand the need to monitor groundwater inflow to the mine. No I’m not a chemist I found the instrumentation more interesting than what I could do with it and changed direction (Electronics/Physics).
“Please email me your address and I’ll send you a piece of this graphitised wood stuff.”
That is very kind of you far more than I have a right to expect I’ll send it via your web site.
Jan Pompe – “Oils ain’t Oils and biodiesel are ethyl and methyl esthers dot the same sort of stuff that comes out of the ground which are generally paraffins or alkanes. Now when you can get from algae to high molecular weight alkanes do let me know.”
Funny you should write “Oils ain’t Oils” as I used this exact phrase with Louis when he was trying to say that Russian experiments with hydrocarbons was producing oil.
I am aware that biodiesel is ethyl and methyl esters as I have studies quite extensively how to produce biodiesel from vegetable oil. I have found some articles however they are behind paywalls:
“Liquid hydrocarbons from biomass grown on waste
Enssani, E.
Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, 1989. IECEC-89., Proceedings of the 24th Intersociety
Volume , Issue , 6-11 Aug 1989 Page(s):1953 – 1958 vol.4
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/IECEC.1989.74739
Summary:Microalgal oil is proposed as an alternative renewable source of energy. The most inexpensive production of this oil would be from waste-grown microalgae. It is important to note, however, that there does not exist any viable method for the extraction of this oil. This study is the first of a four-part study on oil from microalgae in which the oil-extraction methods are identified, developed, and experimentally explored”
Which mentions:
“production of the substantial amounts of high. molecular weight alkanes in the C23 to C33 …. hydrocarbons in nature, two species of algae, a …”
Processes that specifically produce biodiesel from algae do so because that is what they are designed to do not because you cannot do it.
Ender,
“It is important to note, however, that there does not exist any viable method for the extraction of this oil.”
and
“production of the substantial amounts of high. molecular weight alkanes in the C23 to C33 …. hydrocarbons in nature, two species of algae, a …”
Are they contradicting themselves? More important though is there even a non viable process that might possibly occur naturally like for example the Fischer-Tropsch.
“Processes that specifically produce biodiesel from algae do so because that is what they are designed to do not because you cannot do it.”
It is designed that way because the alternative is not viable. Circular arguments really are passe.
Hi Jan
I received an email from you mysteriously directed to mail@ecoengineers.com.au which you stated had been accessed via my web site. However, the web site domain hasn’t used a .au extension since about September 2006. To add even further mystery the email then promptly vanished after a half life within MS Outlook of a few seconds! Please resend to the correct address. Ta.
Hi Steve,
I have received your reply so I’d guess it reappeared. The link that I used is the one “contact Dr Steve Short” under the heading ‘Find out more …” it still has the .au address.
and Steve thank you for the slide. (“I’d hit post instead of preview)