THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
PeterM 921, you wrote in part:
My response to [1] : Uh?
My response to [2] : Uh?
Does anyone else understand what Peter is trying to say?
OR;
Peter; could you please try and elaborate or expand on what you are attempting to say?
Bob_FJ,
Could you please explain why it was clearly a lot worse in 1913 ?
According to the Australian Government’s Dept of the Environment, it wasn’t worse in 1913. They say “Inflows in the Murray-Darling Basin have continued to set new record lows in recent months. In over 100 years of streamflow and rainfall records, the key Murray-Darling Basin headwater catchments have never been as dry as this. “
http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/mdb/dry-inflow-planning.html
PS Any references to zero 14C in oil yet?
Bob_FJ,
My dictionary doesn’t include the word ‘uh’. It does have ‘uh-uh’ , which is defined as a less empahtic variant of ‘yes’ but somehow I suspect that you may not mean that.
I’m sure if you take the sentences slowly you should be able to figure out what I’m getting at, but if you send me an email ( Max has my address) I’ll try to give you a simplified version.
Abiotic Oil: A few Russian expert comments:
“The overwhelming preponderance of geological evidence compels the conclusion that crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the Earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths.”
Academician Professor Vladimir B. Porfir’yev, senior petroleum exploration geologist for the U.S.S.R., at the All-Union Conference on Petroleum and Petroleum Geology, Moscow, 1956.
“Statistical thermodynamic analysis has established clearly that hydrocarbon molecules which comprise petroleum require very high pressures for their spontaneous formation, comparable to the pressures required for the same of diamond. In that sense, hydrocarbon molecules are the high-pressure polymorphs of the reduced carbon system as is diamond of elemental carbon. Any notion which might suggest that hydrocarbon molecules spontaneously evolve in the regimes of temperature and pressure characterized by the near-surface of the Earth, which are the regimes of methane creation and hydrocarbon destruction, does not even deserve consideration.”
Professor Emmanuil B. Chekaliuk, at All-Union Conference on Petroleum and Petroleum Geology, Moscow, 1968.
“The eleven major and one giant oil and gas fields here described have been discovered in a region which had, forty years ago, been condemned as possessing no potential for petroleum production. The exploration for these fields was conducted entirely according to the perspective of the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins. The drilling which resulted in these discoveries was extended purposely deep into the crystalline basement rock, and it is in that basement where the greatest part of the reserves exist. These reserves amount to at least 8,200M metric tons of recoverable oil and 100B cubic meters of recoverable gas, and are thereby comparable to those of the North Slope of Alaska. It is conservatively estimated that, when developed, these fields will provide approximately thirty percent of the energy needs of the industrial nation of Ukraine.”
Professor Vladilen A. Krayushkin, Chairman of the Department of Petroleum Exploration, Institute of Geological Sciences, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Kiev, and leader of the project for the exploration of the northern flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin, at the VII-th International Symposium on the Observation of the Continental Crust Through Drilling, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1994.
BTW, did you notice that Russia has recovered from being very poor in its own tappable resources, to being the greatest exporter of oil and gas? Que?
Watch this space!
Proponents of abiotic oil like to point out that although Russia’s oil production peaked in 1987, their output has increased tremendously over the past several years. They link this to the Russian development of the abiotic oil hypothesis, which is held by a small minority of Russian scientists, to claim that Russia’s production is growing because of abiotic oil. This is nonsense. In the first place, Russian oil production dropped precipitously in the early 1990s following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The current surge in oil production is in large part due to the revival of the Russian oil industry using conventional and well established geological methods. There have been no significant new discoveries of oil in Russia since the 60’s. Oil is just about the only thing currently holding up the Russian economy.
Even so, the level of production is still less than in the 80’s, in the Soviet Era, is widely thought to be just about at its second peak and that no further increases are likely.
PeterM,
Here is a little tease for you, (a physicist?), concerning the origin of hydrocarbons, such as oil and gas energy resources on our Earth:
The simplest common species is methane which has various origins, and which on our planet, exists commonly as a gas. However, it is also common throughout the Universe in various phases.
I paste-quote an internet source; Google for it if you like:
The sub-surface pressures and temperatures on Titan are of course very much lower than on Earth! Got it? I avoid posting the link to avoid spamming delay, but please feel free to find it Via Google.
As a declared physicist, perhaps you could advise if the abiotic source of hydrocarbons on Titan is any different to that seen on Earth? This preceding sentence of mine ends with a question mark. (?)
However, ALL of my preceding sentences in this post comprise part of that total question to you!
PeterM, 930,
You wrote in part:
I find that to be internally puzzling/ contradictory!
Could you please clarify what it is that you were trying to say?
Russia is said to be be currently the largest exporter of oil and gas according to some sources. Are you saying that that is frogshit, and if so, why?
Can you quote sources for you intelligence?
Bob/Peter: please explain why this detailed debate about abiotic hydrocarbons is so important. Seems to me that it’s a distraction from the real issues. Or perhaps I’m missing something.
We wake up at 4:45 AM.
“Early to bed, early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise”. – Benjamin Franklin
“The early bird gets the worm” –
Meaning
Success comes to those who prepare well and put in effort.
Origin
This is first recorded in John Ray’s A collection of English proverbs 1670, 1678:
“The early bird catcheth the worm.”
Clearly, the title of the work indicates that this was considered proverbial even in the 17th century.
Considering the amount of others commuting to work early as I do, it would seem quite normal, (and justified).
I was sort of waiting for this/thinking about this recently. I’m certain that the Alarmists will now say that they have the ability to control atmospheric CO2 as well as the weather.
Mauna Loa CO2 January to July trend goes negative first time in history
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/mauna-loa-co2-january-to-july-trend-goes-negative-first-time-in-history/
I’ve reread the article I referred to at 922. It’s beautifully argued. Here the concluding paragraph:
Amen to that.
Hi Brute,
I was elated to read your 935:
“Mauna Loa CO2 January to July trend goes negative first time in history.”
This is a true success story, which we should all celebrate.
In December we had the top brains in climatology, plus a sprinkling of UN politicians, meeting in Bali to discuss what needs to be done to reduce atmospheric CO2. The answer: “don’t hesitate to mitigate”!
And Voila! Just one month later we have this good news.
This is obviously a clear case of “causation”.
The Bali boondoggle was so successful that it even resulted in a rapid and substantial drop of temperature, again showing the direct effect of “mitigation” as well as confirming the causation between CO2 and temperature.
Thanks to worldwide cooperation on “mitigation” initiatives led by Dr. Pachauri and Ban Ki Moon, the world is saved!! (Heroic march music…)
(Camera pans to belching smokestacks and music shifts to sinister sounds in a minor key…)
But we must continue to be vigilant and “mitigate” to save our planet…
Great story!
Regards,
Max
Max,
I agree with your summation. Hah.
But seriously folks…………
This from the article:
“What this means I cannot say. It may be noise; it could be a fault in the data gathering or in the measurement instrumentation. It may be an effect of increased ocean CO2 solubility due to the La Nina and global cold snap we’ve been having the past few months. Or it may be related to the biosphere respiration changing in some way we don’t know about.”
“This may signal a change, or this one time event may in fact be that, one time. It may not happen again next year, we simply don’t know. But, it is unique and thought provoking.”
I just thought it would be interesting to discuss. Some of the comments may provide better explanations than I can provide. Your thoughts????
Oh Dear…………
Al Gore, Oilman
AUGUST 1ST, 2008 BY MATTHEW VADUM
http://www.capitalresearch.org/blog/?p=224
PeterM 927,
Sorry, I remembered the date of the photo showing the River Murray in SA to be dry wrongly, it should be 1915, not 1913
You’ll find it it at the following link together with recent healthy photos during the worst ever drought.
Extract:
According to an excerpt from ‘100 Years at Rosevale’ by Russell McDonald in ‘Picnic in the Murray in Definance of the Drought’ by Marianne Cockroft: “Water was never more than two feet six deep while we carted [timber], and for a long time in Autumn 1915 was perfectly dry, the river having stopped running in February or March”. So, there was water in the river in 1914 but the river ran dry in early 1915.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/wiki/Water_Levels
Despite what you say, Oz has a long history of severe droughts, the measurement of which and the regionality is rather complicated
Peter 926, you wrote in part in 921:
And I responded:
My response to [1] : Uh?
My response to [2] : Uh?
Does anyone else understand what Peter is trying to say?
OR;
Peter; could you please try and elaborate or expand on what you are attempting to say?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let me help you, with a dictionary definition of ‘uh?’, a well known interjection, and in return could you please answer my question above? There’s a good chap: me help you; you help me!
uh [u]
interj
grunting exclamation expressing surprise: used as the written form of a grunting exclamation made to express surprise or request something to be said again
[Early 17th century. Representing an inarticulate sound]
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Bob_FJ,
I’ll post these separately. Comment to follow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_industry_of_Russia
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/35767
Robin 933, you asked:
Well, a quick primary answer is that if abiotic oil is a reality, in extractable quantities, (and I’m not saying it is), then that is what is known as GOOD NEWS. (exceedingly very excellent good news).
In fact I THINK it is far more important, (as an issue), than a lot of the stuff discussed here.
It was our host who raised the topic, expressing strong interest. Not only do I find it to be important, but it is also interesting, and other topics such as the refusal of PeterM to recognise the loss of sea ice due to changed wind patterns, and the long term cyclical mechanical fracturing of ice-shelves, to be a boring waste of time.
The behaviour of alarmists is such that they do not seem to like to see any GOOD NEWS, and of course, PeterM will not like to see any evidence of abiotic oil. He may even argue that the hydrocarbons found on Titan do not support the abiotic hypothesis.
Bob_FJ,
I’ve just separately posted a couple of links concerning Russia’s and the USSR’s oil production. They should appear soon.
The USSR was bigger than Russia of course and its a bit difficult to disentangle the figures but there seems to be a consistent story that oil Production peaked in the USSR in the 80’s, fell rapidly as the USSR broke up but have partially recovered to about 80% of peak USSR levels since but are not expected to rise much if any further. Some analysts have claimed that Russian oil has now just passed or is at its second peak.
Russian and Saudi Oil production is comparable at present. They tend to have swapped the No1 and No2 spots in recent years. However, Russian oil reserves are rated at No8 in the world with a lifespan of 17 years at current production levels. In fact they’ll last longer than that but production will probably start to fall soon.
Robin and BOB_FJ,
You want to know why it is relevant? I’m sorry to repeat all this but BOB_FJ didn’t seem to follow what I was getting at before, so I’ll have another go for his benefit too.
There is a theory that oil is abiotic in origin, this does not make any difference to the AGW theory as such, but the proponents of the abiotic oil theory go on to suggest that oil is being continuously produced in the bowels of the earth and so reserves will never be depleted. No more peak oil. The tanks will never run dry. We’ll all be able to drive our SUVs for ever. Yippee!
As I’ve suggested the believers in this magic source of everlasting oil are nearly all climate sceptics too. So, as Tony has already asked, where’s the scepticism for this new theory? As I’ve suggested previously, it’s not so much scepticism. It’s more a belief in the ultimate of conservatism. Nothing need ever change. In other words a “Fools Paradise Syndrome”.
Bob_FJ,
I didn’t say that Australia has never had a problem with droughts. What I, and the Australian Dept of the Environment, are saying is that the current one is the worst for at least 100 years and worse than the one early in the 20th century which you refer to.
I agree that it is difficult to conclusively prove that this is related to AGW. However, the climate models, which I know you’ll scoff at, do predict worsening droughts, not just for Australia but also for areas such as sub-Saharan Africa too.
Peter,
I still cannot understand why you are clinging to the model argument. THEY ARE WRONG. THEY HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE WRONG, FLAWED, INACCURATE, INCORRECT. How many ways can I say it? The observations have proven them wrong.
You’d have better luck reading tea leaves.
If you want to stop burning oil or coal because you believe that it harms the environment, THEN STOP. But don’t push your Gaia worship on the rest of us and tell us that we must pay for Al Gore and Hansen’s lunatic theories.
Courtesy of Ice Cap…..
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Fraudulent_science.pdf
Aug 04, 2008
Fraudulent Science
Will Alexander
My advice to climate alarmists is that now is an appropriate time to start planning your exit strategy. The whole IPCC/UNFCCC edifice is about to disintegrate. I described these events in my recent memos. My position during all these years has been very simple. I could find no evidence of unnatural changes in the officially published hydrometeorological records. In the attached memo, for the first time I go on the attack. Not only is there no believable evidence in the data to support climate alarmism, but the evidence refutes the IPCC’s claims and completely undermines its position.
I have attached two files, my memo and the evaporation histograms in file Evaporation.pdf. What is the future of climate alarmism and its associated research? There is none. The globe is cooling, the glaciers are advancing and Bangladesh is not being inundated by rising sea levels. Public interest is falling and the media are becoming more critical. The possibility of nations reaching agreement on meaningful actions to control, let alone reduce, their undesirable emissions is receding by the day. The basic science underlying the IPCC’s position is being eroded away, stone by stone.
There is a growing and very perceptible groundswell of public and scientific opinion that is questioning the very basis of climate alarmism. The alarmists are no longer dealing with a gullible public and ambitious poticians. Here in South Africa, we are going through turbulent times. Honest, conscientious and knowledgeable scientists have a professional and moral duty to examine the scientific basis for the alarmist claims and report their findings. The most efficient method to publicise their results is the Internet. Others can use the information to complement their own studies. The rising tide of knowledge will become unchallengeable. This is the route that I have followed. Ever since I became involved in this climate change issue, way back in 1993, I reported that there is no evidence in the data to support the alarmist claims. The other side insisted that their computer models were infallible and that I was wrong. I did not try to prove that they were wrong. I just kept reiterating that there was no evidence in the data to support their theories. This was also my 93-page message to the Stern Review. You will recall their basic argument. Increasing undesirable greenhouse gas emissions result in rising global temperatures. These increase evaporation from the oceans. Energy is thereby transferred to the atmosphere. This in turn amplifies the greenhouse effect. All of this results in an intensification of the hydrological cycle: more extreme floods and droughts, etc etc. All of this results in threats to our precious plant and animal species and human life on this planet. (But as the analysis shows,) there is no evidence of changes in open water surface evaporation that are synchronous with global temperature changes during the period of record. This is a body blow for the climate alarmists. There is absolutely no evidence that global warming increases evaporation from open water surfaces, including the oceans.
If the alarmists try to follow the adaptation route, they will be squashed underfoot by civil engineers and applied hydrologists. There is only one remaining option. Abandon ship. In the meantime, you may find this item on the web interesting.
See Will’s latest memo here.
PS. Yes I forgot about the methane on Titan. Its actually present on other planets too, and was once present in the Earth’s atmosphere in large quantities in its early life.
That obviously wasn’t of biological origin, but biological organism have largely consumed it in the last billion years or so. It is possible that there may still be samll amounts of methane emitted from the earth naturally, maybe from volcanoes. But no-one has ever found this in anywhere near commercial quantities.
Thomas Gold is a leading proponent of the abiotic oil theory. He famously sunk a deep well in Sweden and produced 80 barrels of so-called abiotic oil. This is disputed BTW. His critics would say that there was no evidence of this.
In any case, the cost of the drilling was approximately $60 million dollars. So, even if Dr Gold was right, and the oil was of abiotic origin, it does work out at $750,000 per barrel to produce!
http://www.springerlink.com/content/2uy02wulmcrdm4kq/
Alan G. Judd1
Received: 12 August 2003 Accepted: 20 April 2004 Published online: 25 June 2004
Abstract Microbial and thermogenic methane migrates towards the seabed where some is utilised during microbially-mediated anaerobic oxidation. Excess methane escapes as gas seeps, which occur in a variety of geological contexts in every sea and ocean, from inter-tidal zones to deep ocean trenches. Some seeps are localised, gentle emanations; others are vigorous covering areas of >1 km2; the most prolific seeps reported (offshore Georgia) produce ~40 t CH4 per year. Gas bubbles lose methane to the water as they rise, so deep water seeps are unlikely to contribute to the atmosphere. However, bubbles break the surface above some shallow water seeps. Estimates of the total methane contribution to the atmosphere are poorly constrained, largely because the data set is so small. 20 Tg yr–1 is considered a realistic first approximation. This is a significant contribution to the global budget, particularly as methane from seeps is 14C-depleted. A seep measurement programme is urgently required.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/fjvk6u33n9y4dxyl/
Alan G. Judd1, 2
Received: 20 February 2003 Accepted: 26 June 2003 Published online: 10 October 2003
Abstract Seabed fluid flow includes volcanic and hydrothermal fluid emissions from ocean spreading centres, island arcs, and intra-plate volcanism, and groundwater flows in some coastal areas. Of direct concern to this paper is the escape of methane from the seabed. Escaping methane may be of microbial, thermogenic or abiogenic origin. Escapes occur in all seas and oceans, in coastal waters, on continental shelves, slopes and rises, the deep oceans, and deep ocean trenches. These represent a variety of geological contexts on passive continental margins, at convergent plate margins (accretionary wedges) and transform plate boundaries. Seepage is clearly widespread, and it contributes methane to the biosphere, the hydrosphere and the atmosphere, thus making up an important part of the global carbon cycle.
Evidence of Methane Ice’s Role in Climate Warming
Seen by CSULB Geology Professor, Research Colleagues
http://www.ced.csulb.edu/news-events/story.cfm?hackid=680
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalprogram/abstract_94703.htm
ABIOTIC METHANE PRODUCTION AT MANTLE PRESSURES
SCOTT, Henry P., Physics and Astronomy, Indiana University South Bend, 1700 Mishawaka Ave, South Bend, IN 46615, hpscott@iusb.edu, HEMLEY, Russell J., Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 5251 Broad Branch Road N.W, Washington, DC 20015, MAO, Ho-kwang, Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 5251 Broad Branch Road, NW, Washington, DC 20015, LIU, Zhenxian, Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC 20015, FRIED, Larry, Chemistry and Materials Science, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550, and HERSCHBACH, Dudley, Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard, Cambridge, MA 02138
We have designed and conducted experiments to make in situ observations of hydrocarbon formation at the pressure conditions of the Earth’s upper mantle. Specifically, we have used both laser and resistively heated diamond anvil cells to examine an assemblage initially consisting of FeO, CaCO3 and H2O. We have spanned pressures from 2 to 11 GPa and temperatures from 200 to 1500 C.
Synchrotron x-ray diffraction was used to identify solid phases and Raman and infrared spectroscopy were used to detect hydrocarbon species. At high pressures and temperatures, FeO oxidizes to form Fe3O4-magnetite. Methane formation is particularly strong near 5 GPa and 500 C, but forms at all conditions of this study. Furthermore, the results are shown to be consistent with multi-phase thermodynamic calculations based on the statistical mechanics of soft particle mixtures. The assemblage FeO-CaCO3-H2O was studied by previous workers at 5 GPa and 1,500 C using an apparatus by which run products were analyzed after pressure and temperature quench. Contrary to the previous work, our in situ observations thus far have not provided conclusive evidence to indicate the presence of heavier hydrocarbons, yet we cannot rule out the possibility. The observation of methane formation at mantle pressures is significant because it demonstrates the existence of abiogenic pathways for the formation of hydrocarbons in the Earth’s interior and suggests that the hydrocarbon budget of the bulk Earth may be larger than conventionally assumed. It is conceivable that heavier hydrocarbons may yet be produced by high-pressure carbonate reduction.
Brute,
All I can say is ‘don’t hold your breath’ waiting for cheap methane supplies to power your V8! Methane is essentially the same as natural gas and that is rising in price just as quickly as oil.
Genuine “Good News” is to be welcomed of course. Any progress of electrical batteries which is to be welcomed. We really need a good battery to power ‘plug in hybrid vehicles’ which are going to need shortly, if we don’t already. This might qualify:
http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/wip/0406wip11.html
TonyN, 861, & your F/U 894; you first wrote in part, concerning the abiotic oil hypothesis:
I, (me, myself, personally), still think that Morgan’s summary is basically sound, although as I’ve found so-far, a lot of stuff floating around, especially things Russian, is rather anecdotal and full of CONTRADICTIONS, or confusion, even down to simple basic things like Russia’s oil reserves and projected output.
However, I’m totally convinced that there are indeed long-chain abiotic hydrocarbons in Earth’s mantel, but, whether they are significantly recoverable as a separate entity to “biotic oil“, or if ‘biotic’ is actually a complete misnomer, (the same thing), is imponderable to me at the moment. It seems to me that the “Western paradigm” of so-called biotic oil reservoirs MIGHT EQUALLY serve to entrap abiotic oil. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a reliable method available to distinguish the two potential origins, or whether there might be both; from what I‘ve studied so-far.
Meanwhile, as an example of the confusion that exists, let’s take just one very important point, according to Morgan:
As far as I CAN FIND, so far, the only ultra-deep drilling in the USSR (far exceeding that of the rest of the world to date) was on the Kola Peninsular, and by 1969 they had allegedly reached an astonishing, (some say impossible), depth of over 12km. However they had reportedly not yet reached their targeted basalt, (non sedimentary rock), when it seems that they ran out of money, and stopped short. They were reportedly hoping to go down to maybe 15Km later, but what happened next, I can‘t find, and the USSR crumbled. They had discovered by 1989, various minerals of interest in the sedimentary rocks, but there was no mention of oil before stopping short of the bedrock. (or, apparently, unfunded since then, so it is all far from clear).
On the other hand, there is other stuff around where the former USSR buddies reportedly found oil in bedrock in less-deep bores, such as:
*A total of sixty one wells were drilled, [In the Dnieper-Donets Basin bedrock] of which thirty seven were commercially productive, an extremely impressive exploration success rate of almost sixty percent. The size of the field discovered compared with the North Slope of Alaska. By contrast, US wildcat drilling was considered successful with a ten percent success rate. Nine of ten wells are typically “dry holes.” (BTW, 61 drillings is rather few by Western standards)
*The Russian company Petrosov drilled in Vietnam’s White Tiger oilfield offshore into basalt rock [bedrock] some 17,000 feet down and extracted 6,000 barrels a day of oil to feed the energy-starved Vietnam economy.
*The Chinese are getting into the act too. Here is a brief extract: “…drilling-rig that the Chinese are using is designed to drill as deep as 12,000 metres. (Now please? Why would they do that?)
As far as scientific papers on the origin etc of abiotic oil are concerned, the most predominant seem to emanate out of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and it seems that out of their substantial Russian authorship, they are all lead-authored by fellow American geo-physicist J.F. Kenney. (perhaps for linguistic reasons?) However, there are some other Russian and non-Russian papers on side issues, such as C12-C13, isotope ratios, which are also rather important, that I might identify later if there is any interest.
For an example of a major “Russian Academy” paper, (please Google the title to find, rather than have spam-delay):
…The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum J. F. Kenney et al 2002
PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA
Dedicated to the memory of Nikolai Alexandrovich Kudryavtsev, who enunciated what has become the modern Russian–Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins (35), and to the late Academician E. B. Chekaliuk (J.F.K.).
Max, any chance you could take a peep at some of the chemistry and stuff in that paper?I was never hot on chemistry, and I’m very rusty (joke) on it in my old age!
I guess that PART of the problem here is a continuing hostility, paradigm/career conflict, etc, between East and West?