Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby paulvsheridan » Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:00 pm

Thomas Gold was a close personal friend.

My first public discussion of these issues appeared in many magazines in 1998/1999, but the auto mags were especially receptive:

http://links.veronicachapman.com/OriginsOfOil.htm

Note that I present Dr. Gold's one-on-one discussion about Titan, which took place in the early 1980's (!) atop page 55 (upper left corner).

There is no such thing as "fossil fuels" in the context used by BigGreen and BigOil. The motivation of the latter regarding this ruse is obvious: limited biosphere = limited quantities of hydrocarbon fuels = diminishing supplies justified pricing (Not cost; cost is up and down with many factors.).

The motivation of BigGreen is slightly more convoluted, but more pathetic from an ethics point-of-view. I point out BigGreen's pathetic convolution atop page 54. A quote from the infamous pseudo-environmentalist Stephen Schnieder:

“What we’re really getting back is the carbon dioxide (CO2) that was taken out of the air hundreds of millions of years ago, when plants died and sank to the bottom of swamps. And we’re getting it back when we burn that coal or that oil.”

The use of hydrocarbon fuels contributes to atmospheric concentrations of CO2, but the BigGreeen/Schnieder notion of "re-releasing" is fundamentally flawed. The motivation of the "re-releasing" ruse is to tag human activity as the cause of AGW . . . and we've seen how absurd that notion is.
User avatar
paulvsheridan
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:22 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby StefanR » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:33 am

ECONOMIC DEPOSITS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH TERRESTRIAL IMPACT STRUCTURES.
BY
Dr. Nitish Priyadarshi
Terrestrial impact craters are important geological and geomorphological objects that are significant not only for scientific research but for industrial and commercial purposes. The structure may contain commercial minerals produced directly by thermodynamic transformation of target rocks (including primary forming ores) controlled by some morphological, structural or lithological factors and exposed in the crater (Masaitis, 1992). Iron and uranium ores, nonferrous metals, diamonds, coals, oil shales, hydrocarbons, mineral waters and other raw materials occur in impact craters.

Terrestrial impact craters are relatively new objects for multi disciplinary investigations. Their discovery and study represents one of the most interesting episodes in the history of geological science.

Economic deposits associated with terrestrial impact structures range from world-class to relatively localized occurrences. The more significant deposits are introduced under the classification : progenetic, syngenetic or epigenetic, with respect to the impact event.
Natural impact craters are the result of the hypervelocity impact of an asteroid or comet with a planetary surface. Impact is an extraordinary geological process involving vast amounts of energy, and extreme strain rates, causing immediate rises in temperature and pressure that produce fracturing, disruption and structural redistribution of target materials. Some economic deposits of natural resources occur within specific impact structures or arc, in someway, impact related. Masaitis (1992) noted approximately 35 known terrestrial impact structures that have some form of potentially economic natural resource deposits.
http://nitishpriyadarshi.blogspot.com/2009/08/are-impact-craters-useful.html
From the synopsis of Chatterjee’s paper he reinforces the theory that, "Evidence is accumulating that there were multiple
impacts across the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary such as the Chicxulub crater in Mexico, Boltysh crater in Ukraine, Silverpit
crater in North Sea, and the Shiva crater offshore western India."
Many of these structures are some of the best hydrocarbon producing sites in the world. Shiva is one of them.
Its morphology is much the same as the previous craters, concentric geophysical rings, a collapsed outer rim, an underwater
central spire as high as Mount Everest, dated as 65 million years old. The central uplift called, Bombay High, has veins of
pseudotachylite (formed largely by frictional melting along faults where rocks moved at or after an impact event) and a core
of Neoproterozoic granite (938±13 Ma) that rebounded upward for more than 5 km.
The age of the crater is inferred from its a 500,000 mile2 brecciated lava Deccan Traps, which encase alkaline igneous rock
spires, rich in Iridium. Paleocene sediments, isotopic dating ejecta melt, the magnetic anomaly of the Carlsberg Ridge, seismic
reflection, and structural and drill core data all indicate the possible impact origin of the Shiva structure. Siderophile ("iron-loving")
elements & rock type are, iridium-rich alkaline melt rocks, shocked quartz, Ni-rich spinels (MgAl2O4, Magnesium Aluminum Oxide),
Ni-rich vesicular glass, sanidine, a polymorph of Potassium Aluminum Silicate KAlSi3O8, spherules, fullerenes (C60-Buckyballs),
glass-altered smectites (refers to a family of non-metallic clays primarily composed of hydrated sodium calcium aluminum silicate,
bentonite), and tsunami deposits. And finally the K-T clay boundary layer in India is one meter thick- the thickest in the world.
http://starmon.com/geology/KT_craters.html
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:30 pm

* Deposits under "impact" sites seems reasonable, since impacts are sites of megalightning strikes, which promote transmutation. Right? And maybe Kervran's ideas about the nature of the transmutations apply.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4364
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby GaryN » Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:57 pm

ScienceDaily (Nov. 6, 2009) — Scientists in Washington, D.C. are reporting laboratory evidence supporting the possibility that some of Earth's oil and natural gas may have formed in a way much different than the traditional process described in science textbooks.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 123032.htm

The peak oil guys must be cringing.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2660
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby kmcook » Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:45 pm

Here's a lead story in major Australian Newspaper 11/11/09...
http://www.theage.com.au/world/global-o ... -i7gu.html
kmcook
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:20 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Total Science » Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:45 pm

kmcook wrote:Here's a lead story in major Australian Newspaper 11/11/09...
http://www.theage.com.au/world/global-o ... -i7gu.html

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn for $10 million.

Hydorcarbons are infinite and renewable.

Hydrogen is the most abundant chemical element in the universe and carbon is the fourth most abundant chemical element in the universe.

Good luck running out.

"One can, then, conceive the production, by purely mineral means, of all natural hydrocarbons. The intervention of heat, of water, and of alkaline metals -- lastly, the tendency of hydrocarbons to unite together to form the more condensed material -- suffice to account for the formation of these curious compounds. Moreover, this formation will be continuous because the reactions which started it are renewed incessantly." -- Marcellin Berthelot, chemist, 1866

"Hydrocarbons can be re-defined as a 'renewable resource, rather than a finite one' (Gurney 1997)" -- Peter R. Odell, economist/geologist, 2004
"The ancients possessed a plasma cosmology and physics themselves, and from laboratory experiments, were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by Peratt's petroglyphs." -- Joseph P. Farrell, author, 2007
Total Science
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:10 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Anaconda » Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:07 pm

kmcook wrote:Here's a lead story in major Australian Newspaper 11/11/09...
http://www.theage.com.au/world/global-o ... -i7gu.html


Sometimes, it's better to sit back and see what develops. But in this instance, comment is warranted.

I smell a rotten fish, more specifically a red herring:

Let's examine and analyze the news article starting right-off the top:

THE world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, says a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.


Whistleblowers are not anonymous.

Whistleblowers are identified and provide actual evidence, say internal documents, that contradicts the official position.

And when you read the entire article, there is not one fact, statistic, or piece of evidence provided that backs up this anonymous claim.

The senior official claims the United States has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oilfields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.


Of course, the anonymous source states the International Energy Agency (IEA) is overplaying the chances of finding new reserves, but offers no rational or evidence to support the claim that the IEA is "overplaying" the prospects of new reserves. On the contrary, offshore oil deposits have just begun to be exploited (potential areas of oil deposits versus what has actually been explored).

Now, could it be possible the United States would like the report to be robust?

Yes, because high oil prices would hurt the United States and put political pressure on the administration to open up the vast offshore areas off the Eastern seaboard and the California coast (this would be one more political difficulty for an administration beset with political difficulties).

Also, as the evidence on this thread suggests, the rate of decline for existing oil reserves may actually be overstated.

The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply, to be published overnight.


What this anonymous story maybe trying to do is undercut the IEA's report which focusses on lower demand (due to the spurious claim of AGW), of course, lower demand means lower prices, and that is the last thing the oil industry wants to see happen. In reality, this newspaper article maybe an attempt to justify the recent run-up in prices for oil when supply and demand simply don't justify the run-up. In fact, a bubble in commodity prices including oil is likely underway that can't be sustained.

The Middle-East has production capability that is not being utilized at present.

The point of the article is this:

External critics have frequently said this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and that the world has already passed its peak in oil production. Now the ''peak oil'' theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment.


The global energy establishment wants to have it both ways, publically "peak oil" is false, but privately the industry has its shills out on the hustings pushing the "peak oil" story to justify higher prices when demand and supply don't justify it.

Oil production has consistently increased, so, for "peak oil" to have any validity there needs to be evidence to support the claim, not the other way around.

No evidence of "peak oil" is provided in this article.

And "peak oil" has been falsified so many times there just isn't any credibility at this point for unsupported claims of "peak oil".

Cheerleaders and mouth pieces for oil speculators are always trying to make the "peak oil" case and their predictions have failed numerous times.

...said the IEA source, who asked not to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry.


What baloney!

There are no reprisals for people who suggest oil supplies will tighten within the oil industry -- that's exactly what the industry wants to hear -- what a joke.

''The 120 million figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.

''Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90 million to 95 million barrels a day would be impossible, but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further.''


Again, where is the evidence?

This is nothing but empty fear-mongering.

''We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone,'' he said. ''I think that the situation is really bad.''


Complete malarkey and totally unsupported by actual news. This article isn't much of a news item, it's really a speculator's gambit to "bounce the wave" and keep oil prices rising without actual increase in demand.

Matt Simmons, a respected oil industry expert, has long questioned the decline rates and oil statistics provided by Saudi Arabia on its own fields. He has raised questions about whether peak oil is much closer than many have accepted.


Matt Simmons is an unabashed cheerleader and has been proved wrong about "peak oil" so many times it'll make your head spin.

Colin Campbell is another "peak oil" shill for the oil industry and speculators who has predicted "peak" numerous times and been wrong every time.

This article is nothing but hot air and a re-tread of other "peak oil" stories.

When the IEA puts out its World Economic Outlook, it must be time to trot out another "peak oil" story.

"If it's Tuesday, it must be Belgium."

Same old, same old.
Anaconda
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby GaryN » Wed Nov 11, 2009 8:40 pm

You are right Anaconda, but maybe preaching to the converted?
The price of oil should be around $20-25 based on supply and demand right now, but for one thing there are dozens of tankers moored around the world full of oil that was purchased at around $75 by speculators when they thought it was going to go to $200, contango is the name of the scheme I believe. The traders would loose their shirts if the price were below $75, and of course the big boys wouldn't like that.

Meanwhile, in the Gold world:

Barrick shuts hedge book as world gold supply runs out.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... s-out.html

Yes, same trick, different pony.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2660
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Anaconda » Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:59 pm

Hi GaryN:

GaryN wrote:
You are right Anaconda, but maybe preaching to the converted?


Personally, I don't like the connotation of the word "converted". It suggests a quasi-religious belief system and that's not what I'm aiming for here. The scientific evidence speaks for itself and individual forum readers need to come to their own conclusions based on the evidence.

My purpose in analyzing and interpreting the news item was to expose the actual content (or lack thereof) of the news story and let readers decide for themselves what credibility might exist in such a news story. People learn things and once "learned" it is much harder to change to the correct understanding (something akin to the difficulty of unlearning a bad golf swing and learning a proper "swing" technique -- it is much easier to learn something right the first time than correcting a bad habit).

I am aware that for most everybody, they learned the "fossil" fuel paradigm, including myself, and so any reinforcement (of the "fossil" fuel paradigm) is likely to be grabbed at so one can say, "I wasn't wrong the first time I learned it". The story was linked in the thread (for whatever reason) and so it needed to be answered in the strongest analytical terms possible.

Take for instance the prior statement in the thread from webolife:

...but in terms of the large natural reservoirs of oil, either plants or animals in mass, plus plenty of water with a reasonably high concentration of silicate catalysts such as clays, plus heat and/or pressure, plus infusion of methane from abiotic [and biotic] origins, gives you oil.


This statement is basically a restatement of the "fossil" fuel paradigm (if I understand webolife's meaning correctly). But there is no scientfic evidence this process actually occurs in terms of specific chemical processes or chemical "pathways" with known chemical constraints (laws of chemistry and physics). Rather, this is a justification of what webolife first learned about the "fossil" fuel paradigm and webolife seemingly desires to preserve what he first learned (again, it's much harder to unlearn a false understanding).

See, Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum.

http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm

Now, if webolife is referring to transmutation, which I have approvingly discussed with accompanying scientific evidence and documentation (based on primordial chemical elements, not biological detritus) then webolife and others need to consider that less than 1% of biological detritus is preserved long term in the Earth's shallow crust (over 99% of biological detritus breaks down before or soon after deposition). So, there simply isn't enough biological detritus available for transmutaion processes to account for the large oil deposits all over the world (Saudi Abrabia's oil deposits, specifically the Ghawar oil field, are way too large to suggest biological detritus build-up in that one location can account for all the oil, by the standard "fossil" fuel paradigm or through transmutation processes dependent on biological detritus build-up).

But such is the desire to confirm first learned principles that a fuzzy proposition (no quantitative analysis) is put forward as a supposition (in the face of all the counter scientific evidence already provided in the thread) of fact.

That being said, it is necessary to rebutt statements and news stories that give encouragement to retain ideas that were learned by accepting what people supposedly in the know, "say". Such as is the case with "modern" astronomy which passes along it's "fairy tales" as fact, and people who don't know any better simply swallow it because that's what they first learned, so they continue to swallow the bilge.
Anaconda
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby jjohnson » Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:40 pm

Mark Twain seems eerily prescient today when he wrote, "It ain't what you know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." So much for our 'education' re fossil fuel, and the interesting but irrelevant history in A Thousand Barrels A Second, Peter Tertzakian, 2006.
jjohnson
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby webolife » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:59 pm

Anaconda,
The concept you miss in commenting about my "biogenic paradigm" is that, quite contrary to the standard view, I believe in the rapid transmutation of carbohydrates to hydrocarbons. So your objection about the relatively rapid decay of biologics doesn't apply to my scenario. The same is true of fossilization in general, ie. that one of the requirements for any kind fossilization to happen is some sort of rapid preservation step, whether flash freezing, sudden burial, electrical transmutation, or whatever. I have two samples of coprolites (petrified dung) in my rock collection that are particularly good representatives of the necessity of rapid preservation. Oil has its unique transmutation process... I simply believe that the raw materials for that process include biologics, along with abiogenic methane, etc. Coal is another story... plenty of data to show that coal is a product of rapid burial and heating (and/or compression) of massive amounts of plant material... I'm reminded of 80 ft deep coal seams in Antarctica that must have required the burial of double that depth of original materials. I've mentioned in other posts some of my samples of coalified materials in rocks gleaned from the jog jam area of the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2530
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Anaconda » Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:33 pm

webolife:

I appreciate your opinion (I reviewed the "fossil thread"). But there are problems with your analysis.

webolife wrote:
The concept you miss in commenting about my "biogenic paradigm" is that, quite contrary to the standard view, I believe in the rapid transmutation of carbohydrates to hydrocarbons. So your objection about the relatively rapid decay of biologics doesn't apply to my scenario.


In the "fossil thread", the biological detritus, for example, the fossilized dung, doesn't turn into hydrocarbons, but instead turns into silicon and other heavy minerals, a true transmutation from biological detritus (carbohydrates) into non-carbon based minerals.

... I believe in the rapid transmutation of carbohydrates to hydrocarbons.


A transition of carbohydrates to hydrocarbons would not be transmutation.

Why?

Because your hypothesis entails the rearranging of molecular structure, rather than the transmutation of elements into larger and different elements. It doesn't work out upon closer inspection because carbohydrates don't have the necessary hydrogen atoms (hydrocarbons generally have more hydrogen atoms than carbohydrates at higher potential chemical energy). Where are the hydrogen atoms coming from? Also, low pressure (near the surface) electrical action tends to split molecules, i.e., electrolysis, although the evidence presented in the "fossil thread" suggests that transmutation can happen close to the surface (possibly even at the surface), but the carbohydrates transmute into silicon.

So your objection about the relatively rapid decay of biologics doesn't apply to my scenario.


Actually, yes my objection does apply to your scenario because it would require constant "transmutation" to catch biological detritus before it breaks down to be able to account for the large oil deposits (accepting your hypothesis for the sake of argument). The evidence suggests surface transmutation is episodic not constant.

Rapid preservation does occur, but on an episodic basis not a constant basis and the evidence suggests silicon formations are the result not hydrocarbon formations.

At best one could hypothesize that a small portion of oil comes from biological detritus following your scenario (a reversal of the standard theory that now allows that a small portion of oil is abiotic).
Anaconda
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby webolife » Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:42 pm

Anaconda,
Your repeated use of the word "constant" above still does not gel with my view.
I do not believe that the fossils are a result of a constant process at all, but of a rapid catastrophic event, or series of related ones happening in geologically recent time. I understand your point about transmutation, especially in the case of petrifaction, just noting that not all fossils are transmutated; hydrocarbons like coal,oil, etc. are/may be molecularly altered from biologic carbohydrates... under the proper catastrophic conditions of heat/pressure, and with the appropriate catalysts present, including especially silicates like clay or volcanic ash. Electrical discharge phenomena at or beneath the surface may be important players in this, I do not doubt.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2530
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Anaconda » Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:49 pm

webolife:

webolife wrote:
I understand your point about transmutation, especially in the case of petrifaction, just noting that not all fossils are transmutated; hydrocarbons like coal,oil, etc. are/may be molecularly altered from biologic carbohydrates... under the proper catastrophic conditions of heat/pressure, and with the appropriate catalysts present, including especially silicates like clay or volcanic ash.


The problem is that only 1% of organic detritus fails to breakdown rapidly (something I pointed out before).

There is no build-up of organic detritus to be periodically and rapidly turned into hydrocarbons via electrical discharge.

And certainly no credible physcial explanation for ultra-deep oil deposits (like sub-salt oil deposits off the Brazilian and West African coasts) or ultra-large oil deposits like Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, where there was little chance for a big build-up of organic detritus to begin with even if organic detritus didn't rapidly and almost completely breakdown which is known to be the case.
Anaconda
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby webolife » Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:19 pm

Anaconda, you keep doing it!
Now you have replaced the word "constant" with the word "build up"!
My catastrophic view has much organic debris [not "detritus", which implies a rather uniformitarian life cyclical process] being buried by enormous flows of sediment in a very short time. "Build up" is barely in my vocabulary.
I hold confidently to a catastrophic view of abiotic and biotic origins for "fossil fuels"... and my view is one not found in the mainstream "biotic" camp.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2530
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests