Time for a challenge.
Having posted considerable data that refutes the notion of commercially viable oil and gas of abiogenic origin without any reciprocate refutation, the argument against an abiogenic origin of crude oil and natural gas is now well and truly won.
However it occurs to me that the very same information can be used to predict where abiogenic origin hydrocarbons may be found, and what properties they would have.
If gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons could be found that match all of these criteria, then we would have a case for commercially viable oil and gas of abiogenic origin that would be very difficult to dispute.
In the spirit of good old British fair play therefore, before I declare final victory, I will set my swivel-eyed tinfoil-hat-wearing chums a final challenge, to produce real hard evidence based on the current state of science.
The cchallenge is to find me commerical field that matches ALL of these criteria:
1. Geology
"the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water, and moderate amounts of heat"
(Proskurowski et al 2008)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/319/5863/604
So based upon those predictions (which are much vaunted by the church of abiogenic oil), and to allow for no abmiguity, both the source rock and the reservoir rock must be basalt.
It must be a significant distance (in the region of 1500 Km lets say) from any potential sedimentary sources, and be devoid of any horizontal fissuring that would allow migration from sediments.
Evidence of vertical fissuring below the reservoir is essential to demonstrate migration from the mantle.
Evidence of vertical fissuring above the reservoir above renders the example invalid due to the possibility of downward migration of oil.
Depth should be beyond 5,000m (of rock - not of seawater and rock combined) and the reservoir should contain both liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons.
So basically guys your best bet is to start looking for an oil field/well within about a maximum of 300km of a spreading centre (perhaps a little more in the pacific as it is spreading faster than the atlantic).
2. Properties of the Hydrocarbons.
Diamondoids present in liquid hydrocarbons must be consistent with an original carbon source of abiotic origin - therefore carbon isotope ratios of around 0 to 5 per mil must be demonstrable.
(Mello and Moldowan 2005 - Petroleum: To Be Or Not To Be Abiogenic
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/mello/mello.htm )
It has been noted by Abiogenic origin advocates such as Gold that abiogenic gaseous hydrocarbons (i.e methane) are invariably associated with helium which is also present within the mantle in large quatities.
Therefore, helium content of the gases extracted must be consistent with uncontaminated mantle derived fluids as described in Jenden and Kaplan (1993)
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=7052010
Isotopuic signatures of the carbon contained in the hydrocarbons (both liquid and gaseous) must be consistent with that that of an abioic origin as stated in Sherwood-Lollar et al (2002)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6880/abs/416522a.html
If I have made any errors in these prediction please feel free to correct me with quotations from and links to, the relevant papers - if they are indeed appropriate I will edit this thread and the challenge therein accordingly.
Responses must be correctly referenced with valid peer review science of no older than 25 years (unless a special case can be made for submitting older material)
Any responses that are not able to answer all points raised will be deemed insufficient as proof - although merit will be given for getting close as this will no doubt raise interesting paradoxes, stimulate intellgent discussion, and prompt further study into the current state of the science.
Any responses that attempt to refute the science presented without approriate peer review or with peer reviewed work that has not in itself already been refuted thouroughly in this thread (such as this one:
http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm) will result in that poster considered as having lost the argument.
You may now impress me with your superior knowledge.
