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: bboyer, MGmirkin

Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread post by Chromium6 » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:18 pm

Forgot this one. Here's a recent discovery in Australia.

By the way, this is a book published this year by Vladimir Kutcherov that covers his claims.
Edited by Vladimir Kutcherov
and Anton Kolesnikov
Major oil discovery in outback SA

Updated January 25, 2013 14:33:21
Brisbane company Linc Energy says independent studies have confirmed a major shale oil source in South Australia's far north, which officials have estimated could be worth $20 trillion.

The company says US-consultants have carried out drilling and geological and seismic surveys around Coober Pedy.

Linc Energy holds rights over more than 65,000 square kilometres of land in the Arckaringa Basin and started explorations in 2008.
So if you took the 233 billion [barrels] well, you're talking Saudi Arabia numbers. It's massive, it's just huge.
- Peter Bond
In a statement to the Stock Exchange, the company said reports from US-based consultants indicate underlying rock formations "are rich in oil and gas-prone kerogen".

The company says up to 233 billion barrels of oil are estimated to be trapped in the shale.

Chief executive Peter Bond says even if the amount of retrievable oil is well below that, the discovery is still "bigger than the Cooper Basin and Bass Strait combined".

"If you stress test it right down and you only took the very sweetest spots in the absolute known areas and you do nothing else, it's about 3.5 billion [barrels] and that's sort of worse-case scenario," he said.

"So if you took the 233 billion, well, you're talking Saudi Arabia numbers. It's massive, it's just huge.

"We've also spent a lot of time with our own geologists and external geologists trying to unlock what's the best option there.

"What it could do is really turn this thing into the next boom, so where you saw coal-bed methane transform Queensland and the gas industry, shale could and I think will transform South Australia and a potential oil boom."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-24/m ... sa/4481982
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''

Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread post by Chromium6 » Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:04 pm

Not exactly "planetary science" information below... but it affects many people. :x
JPMorgan Accused of Energy-Market Manipulation by U.S. Agency

By Brian Wingfield & Dawn Kopecki - 2013-07-29T22:18:19Z

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) manipulated power markets in California and the Midwest from September 2010 to June 2011, obtaining tens of millions of dollars in overpayments from grid operators, the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission alleged today.

The agency said in a Notice of Alleged Violations that it had preliminarily determined a JPMorgan trading unit had engaged in eight manipulative bidding strategies.

The New York-based bank has agreed to sanctions including a fine of about $400 million in a settlement that may be announced as early as tomorrow, according to a person familiar with the case who asked not to be identified because the terms aren’t yet public. Other sanctions may include forfeiting profits, this person said.
Bidding Practices

Investigators have suspected that bidding practices by JPMorgan traders improperly got grid operators to overpay for electricity from power plants the bank controls, Thomas Olson, a FERC attorney in the agency’s enforcement office, said in a July 2012 filing with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

In wholesale electricity markets, buyers and sellers negotiate prices based on supply and demand. There are costs associated with making a bid to provide power, including fuel and starting up the generator, according to Steven Greenlee, a spokesman for the California Independent System Operator, the state’s grid operator. If a sale of electricity doesn’t yield enough revenue for the generator to recover its startup costs, the grid operator will issue the company a “make whole” payment, he said in an e-mail.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-2 ... gency.html
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread post by nick c » Fri Aug 02, 2013 7:56 am

Not exactly "planetary science" information below... but it affects many people. :x
If true it may indeed affect many people, however, this thread should discuss/debate the scientific merits of the theory that petroleum, coal, etc have an abiotic origin.
We want to avoid political debate on the "Planetary Science" board.

User avatar
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread post by GaryN » Sun Aug 04, 2013 11:40 am

I see they recenly doubled the estimates for the Bakken and 3 forks formations
“These world-class formations contain even more energy resource potential than previously understood, which is important information as we continue to reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign sources of oil,” said Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell.
http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs ... ormations/

So I was wondering what had been done in southern Manitoba, as the formation straddles the border, and found this site, which includes a movie and a Power-Point presentation of the laying down of the layers in the area and the times they were deposited. Could there be an alternative process at work for those layers though, one that might have had something to do with the creation of the hydrocarbons too?

Williston Basin 3D Geological Model
http://www.manitoba.ca/iem/mrd/geo/will ... model.html
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

Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread post by Chromium6 » Sun Aug 04, 2013 10:10 pm

There's that big red stripe for Shale going from the US to the near Arctic in Saskatchewan, Canada.

Older mapping:

World Has More Shale Oil Reserves than Previously Thought
By Monty Guild07/02/2013
With Tony Danaher

Last month the Energy Information Agency (EIA) published an update to its 2011 assessment of shale oil and gas resources in 41 countries outside the United States. After just two years, there was enough new data to warrant a new report; this is a field where information is scarce and subject to radical revision on the basis of new discoveries.

The current report adds about 11 percent to global technically recoverable shale oil reserves, and about 47 percent to global technically recoverable shale gas reserves. There were some sharp changes in estimates, which is to be expected given the preliminary nature of the data.

Estimated reserves were revised sharply down for fields in Norway, Poland, and South Africa. More modest downward revisions were made for China and Mexico. We can anticipate many more such revisions in the future as exploration continues and more potential fields come under competent geological scrutiny.

Nevertheless, the breakdown by country is interesting:

Location of world shale reserves

http://www.financialsense.com/sites/def ... serves.jpg

http://www.financialsense.com/sites/def ... serves.jpg

We noted immediately the size of China’s gas reserves. Does this mean that the potential renaissance of U.S. industry, fueled by its comparative advantage in energy costs, is in jeopardy? Not necessarily.

Top ten shale oil gas reserves

The key is the distinction between technically recoverable resources and economically recoverable resources.

While technically recoverable reserves, which are what the EIA report evaluates, are comprised of all resources that can be recovered with current technology, economically recoverable reserves includes only those resources which would be profitable to extract at current market prices. In short, the usefulness of hydrocarbons in the ground depends fundamentally on political and economic conditions above the ground. And here, the advantage is still with North America. The report notes:

“Recent experience with shale gas in the United States and other countries suggests that economic recoverability can be significantly influenced by above-the-ground factors as well as by geology. Key positive above the ground advantages in the United States and Canada that may not apply in other locations include private ownership of subsurface rights that provide a strong incentive for development; availability of many independent operators and supporting contractors with critical expertise and suitable drilling rigs and preexisting gathering and pipeline infrastructure; and the availability of water resources for use in hydraulic fracturing…
“The market effect of shale resources outside the United States will depend on their own production costs, volumes, and wellhead prices. For example, a potential shale well that costs twice as much and produces half the output of a typical U.S. well would be unlikely to back out current supply sources of oil or natural gas. In many cases, even significantly smaller differences in costs, well productivity, or both can make the difference between a resource that is a market game changer and one that is economically irrelevant at current market prices.”
We believe that despite the presence of significant shale oil and gas reserves outside North America, the factors referred to above will continue to make U.S. shale oil and gas extremely competitive compared to the unconventional resources of other countries lacking the U.S.’ industrial, legal, and political infrastructure. Very bullish for the US.

Tony Danaher
http://www.financialsense.com/contribut ... ly-thought
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''

User avatar
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread post by GaryN » Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:48 pm

That's a useful map Chromium6, it would be interesting to overlay some geological regions that seem to exhibit past electrical effects to see if there is any correlation.
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

Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread post by Chromium6 » Wed Aug 07, 2013 5:23 pm

Here's a new area in Newfoundland called "Green Point" that they didn't pencil in "red" yet:

Billion Barrels of Oil-In-Place

The fascinating geology of the Green Point Shale is that it is considered an “Allochthon”, that is the landform has been moved here by geologic events, they were not formed in-situ. The hypothesis is that the geologic forces that moved the shale layer here also crumpled up the shales in a folding thickening pattern similar to an accordion. The layers are “tectonically thickened by imbrication (stacking)”, so that the shale layer that should be only tens of metres thick naturally ends up being a few hundred meters thick.

The Newfoundland government documents offering the oil exploration licenses for bids says this about the specific area:
Port au Port #1 oil and gas tests and the presence of oil in seeps and drilled wells demonstrate that source rocks are mature and that oil and gas was generated and migrated into traps. After trap formation there were direct migration routes through porous beds or faults from the Green Point shale into allochthonous reservoirs.

With source rocks in the oil window or dry gas window, trap preservation and presence of adequate reservoir remains the main risk factors in the Paleozoic basins.
This tells me that the shale rocks are oil bearing and the risk is how to find the reservoir. Even if conventional oil pools are not located, these thick shale beds can be now produced with modern “fracking” technology.

With the crumpled and thick layers of shale, this gives cause to the lucrative aspects of this story. The thicken layer implies an increase in the amount of oil source rocks available for extraction. The geologic forces may have also assisted in the stressing of the shales to make them permeable with large faults and micro-fracturing. The testing performed by NuTech of Texas on the geology gives some very interesting results as shown following:


The GPS shale oil layers are uncommonly thick and thus gives a multiple to the amount of possible oil-in-place. Note the number for Long Point well M16 gives 930 MMBO per section, almost a billion barrels of oil-in-place.

https://mb50.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/n ... foundland/
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''

Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread post by Chromium6 » Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:25 pm

Kind of curious if offshore-deep water shale research has been underway? Companies like Transocean could drill that deep. If anything it would prove conclusively the hydrocarbons "from below" theory. It would be the discovery of large amounts of hydrocarbons trapped in shale below several thousands of feet in deep water. Just a hunch but I bet under the oceans sits an unlimited amount of hydrocarbons trapped in shale formations and not just in coastal locations either.

World Oil News Center


Transocean drillship sets new water-depth record offshore India

ZUG, Switzerland — Transocean's ultra-deepwater drillship Dhirubhai Deepwater KG1 has set a new world record for the deepest water depth by an offshore drilling rig.

The rig recently spudded a well in 10,411 ft of water while working for ONGC off the East coast of India. This accomplishment surpasses Transocean’s prior world record of 10,385 ft of water, also set by the KG1 while working for ONGC in India in February.
http://www.worldoil.com/Transocean_dril ... India.html

Pumped Up: Chevron Drills Down 30,000 Feet to Tap Oil-Rich Gulf of Mexico
By Amanda Griscom Little Email 08.21.07

Looming like an Erector set version of Hellboy — with cranes for arms, a hydraulic drill for its head, and a 200-foot derrick for a body — the rig appears at once menacing and toylike. But the real spectacle is below the surface: A drill is plunging down through 4,000 feet of ocean and more than 22,000 feet of shale and sediment — a syringe prodding Earth's innermost veins. That 5-mile shaft will soon give Chevron the deepest active offshore well in the Gulf. Some land drills have gone deeper, but extracting oil from below miles of freezing salt water and unyielding sediment creates a set of technical problems that far exceed those faced on terra firma


Even better, a recent discovery by Chevron has signaled that soon there may be vastly more oil gushing out of the ultradeep seabeds — more than even the optimists were predicting four years ago. In 2004, the company penetrated a 60 million-year-old geological stratum known as the "lower tertiary trend" containing a monster oil patch that holds between 3 billion and 15 billion barrels of crude. Dubbed Jack, the field lies beneath waters nearly twice as deep as those covering Tahiti, and many in the industry dismissed the discovery as too remote to exploit. But last September, Chevron used the Cajun Express to probe the Jack field, proving that petroleum could flow from the lower tertiary at hearty commercial rates — fast enough to bring billions of dollars of crude to market. It was hailed as the largest publicly reported discovery in the past decade, opening up a region that is perhaps big enough to boost national oil reserves by 50 percent. A mad rush followed, and oil companies plowed more than $5 billion into this part of the Gulf.


hevron runs its offshore drilling operations out of a gleaming Houston skyscraper that recalls the nose of a double-barreled shotgun aimed skyward. Geologists work in cavernous visualization rooms with floor-to-ceiling monitors depicting digital renderings of the Gulf waters and seabed. Chevron has long bet that there's oil in these regions and has bought from the Department of the Interior almost twice as many federal leases to drill in the ultradeep waters of the Gulf as any other company.

One of Chevron's top geologists, a Jerry Garcia look-alike named Barney Issen, pulls an image of the Jack field up onto the monitors. "To you, this may looks like a dog's breakfast," he says, pointing to a multi colored morass. But the data is actually a finely detailed 3-D map of the ocean, seafloor, and sediment below. It will allow Chevron to locate promising spots to drill and then provide a guide for the engineers who operate the production process remotely.

To make this map, Issen and his team deployed ships that cruised through the Gulf, popping off air guns — underwater cannons that emit a gigantic burp into the ocean, bouncing sound waves off under water rock formations. Hydrophones (aquatic microphones) tethered to the vessels recorded the response, taking in hundreds of thousands of recordings simultaneously. These allowed the company to determine the composition and shape of the rocks below. Chevron needed to use masses of microphones to compensate for the distortions caused by a layer of salt as jagged as the Swiss Alps beneath the seafloor in the ultradeep regions of the Gulf. That mineral, unfortunately for the geologists in Houston, acts like a fun-house mirror for seismic sound waves. Issen compares sorting through the data to "peering through a thick wall of mottled glass and trying to count the freckles of someone on the other side."

Then you have to hope you've found a highly porous and permeable oil bed. Most people think of oil as floating in big pools under layers of rock. But it's actually embedded in the rock, sort of like water in a sponge. "When you drive the drill down, you're going into porous rock that can be either kinda squishy or kinda rigid," Siegele says. Squishy is better, but as rock ages, it typically become tighter. That's why industry members were flabbergasted by the Jack well test that revealed high porosity. It's also what gives the Jack field, and the lower tertiary in general, the potential to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil — while earning Chevron a ton of money .
http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/magazi ... mf_jackrig
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''

Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread post by Chromium6 » Fri Aug 09, 2013 11:05 pm

A bit dated report but covers the Green River Formation's Hydrocarbon billions of oil in Shale. It is curious that Shell is using a technique that is something mother nature does in situ under the right conditions.


Oil from Stone - The promise and perils of oil shale development

by Paul Roberts


Oil shale is, at the outset, not much to look at. Most of it is dusty gray streaked with sooty black - a rock that is unlikely to find its way into your child's summer rock collection. Much of oil shale country is, to many, equally unappealing: an arid scrubby landscape tens of thousands of adults drive through annually, hoping the car doesn't break down or run out of gas.

However, oil shale holds a lot of promise. There is enough energy contained in these formations to keep our SUVs and energy-intensive lifestyles cruising well into the next century. If this image causes a cacophony of conflicting thoughts, then you can understand the excitement, and the reservations surrounding the oil shale industry today.

"It's a huge, huge resource," exclaims Jeremy Boak, oil shale project manager for the Colorado Energy Research Institute (CERI) housed at Colorado School of Mines.

At current estimates there are roughly three trillion barrels of recoverable oil lying dormant within the world's known oil shale deposits. This equals the total amount of liquid oil known to have existed on our planet, before we even began extracting it. One half of these resources exist within the United States.

The vast majority of the U.S. deposits lie in what is known geologically as the Green River Formation, which sits under 17,000 square miles of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Of the one trillion-plus barrels of potential oil streaked throughout these sediments, a moderate estimate promises that at least three quarters, or 800 billion barrels, is recoverable. That's three times the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.

The oil shale is a very dense resource as well. As Dag Nummedal, CERI's director, puts it, "The numbers are just astounding. There is five times the amount of oil per acre in the Piceance Basin [Colorado] as within a rich oil field like Prudhoe Bay." One reason for such potential productivity is the thickness of the oil shale in the Green River Formation. The very best liquid oil reservoirs are 100 to 300 feet thick, whereas much of the oil shale in this area is 1,000 feet thick.

Oil shale has recently become a hot news topic, but Colorado School of Mines has been studying it for years. A longtime senior executive in the industry, Glenn Vawter '60 recalls, "I was on a Mines field trip in the late fifties and Professor Barb [Petroleum Engineering] points across at these cliffs and says, 'Some day this is going to be the salvation of our energy problems in this country.' It caught my attention then, and I've spent the better part of 25 years working on oil shale."

In October of this year Mines hosted its 27th Oil Shale Symposium in partnership with CERI. The event recorded one of its largest turnouts, with more than 330 attendees from 23 states, four Canadian provinces and 20 countries. With such high levels of interest, it doesn't seem to be a question of whether this industry will get off the ground, but when--and most pressing--how.

The first part of the challenge lies here: Oil shale does not actually contain oil. The sooty black streaks that run through these ancient sediments is kerogen, a precursor to liquid oil. To turn it into the real thing, it either needs several million years of geological heat and pressure from nature, or a few years of artificial heat induction arranged by an enterprising corporation. (or ultrasonic waves from crystalline granite ringing...--Chromium)

The second aspect of the challenge is the enormous scale of development required to realize those 800 billion barrels of oil, and many fear that the risks of development at a commercial scale are too high. Impacts on ecosystems, water and, notably, global warming, are primary concerns, and no one feels the heat more than the corporations looking to develop the industry.

Ralph Coates, senior engineer with Combustion Resources, spoke of a news release last June from six environmental groups detailing how one large oil shale plant would produce more carbon emissions than all the coal-generated electricity in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming: "That's obviously a problem for any development of oil shale. The industry has got to satisfy these complaints and concerns with getting the plants permitted," he said.

Adam Brandt, with the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley, states, "By the time an industry gets up and going, there's a fairly good chance that there will be carbon regulation, so any technology that would be developed would need to be amenable to a carbon mitigation effort."

With years of effort, tens of millions of dollars on the line and environmental concerns looming, corporations are moving cautiously--nevertheless, there is excitement in the air from industry representatives. With crude oil prices this high and no relief expected in the foreseeable future, oil shale is economically viable. Additionally, new technologies, and older technologies with new twists, are being applied that could address concerns about carbon emissions and other environmental issues.

Converting kerogen to liquid oil involves a process called retorting--a distillation process in which the oil shale is heated to high temperature (greater than 350° Celsius) to produce hydrocarbons in both gaseous and liquid form. There are two basic strategies for doing this: ex situ and in situ.

In ex situ processing, or above-ground retorting, the shale is mined (either open pit or room-and-pillar), crushed and then heated for an hour or two in an enormous above-ground kiln called a retort. Surface retorts yield a thick tarry product, which is then further refined into transportation grade fuels and other products.

With in situ processing, oil shale deposits are heated where they naturally exist, deep in the ground. The shale is heated for two to four years and the resulting liquid, and gaseous hydrocarbons are pumped up and out. The product is a less viscous, lighter oil that requires far less refining than traditional shale oil to make gasoline, jet fuel and diesel fuel.

As of June 2007, the Department of Energy listed 23 companies developing extraction technologies for oil shale.

Here's just a taste of what's being cooked up....

Shell Oil is acknowledged as the leader in the in situ processing field, due to the considerable amount of time and money they have invested, and the creative strategies they have developed. Shell's in situ approach is tackling head on a problem specific to the deepest and richest oil shale resources: free flowing groundwater that, if contaminated, could impact communities far and wide. Shell's answer is to create a "freeze wall" that surrounds the block to be developed, extending hundreds of feet down into the ground. The barrier is created by pumping a refrigerant through plumbing that surrounds the target block. The wall excludes groundwater that would make heating the shale impractical, and protects the surrounding aquifer from contamination. Electric heating elements are inserted into a series of boreholes which cook the kerogen slowly over three to four years, yielding a high quality liquid product condensed from the hydrocarbon vapors created in the formation.

"It's a totally different product than taking fresh rock and running it through an oven for 90 minutes," says Tracy Boyd, Shell's spokesperson. "Short duration retorting yields a very heavy product that has lots of issues to make it usable."
Shell plans to use electricity to heat the shale at a commercial scale, which will likely involve the construction of new power plants, either coal fired or nuclear. "Maybe in the long run we'll have a mix of sources like wind, IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) and who knows what the mix will be. Market factors will likely play a role."
Commercial in situ production is not expected to begin any time soon, with the most ambitious estimates being 2015. Shell is testing its freeze walls: breaching them, measuring effects and developing protocols for possible contingencies. But Boyd is more than optimistic. "Shell has not been researching this since '81 and doing tests in the field since '96 just because we enjoy R&D. We see an opportunity that's too big not to take seriously."

EGL Resources is taking a different tack. "Our in situ approach is different in how the shale is heated," says Glenn Vawter '60, manager of EGL's Oil Shale Division. "We drill down and go horizontally underneath the shale, and use convection (via superheated steam), not just conduction as others are doing. In simplest terms it's like a radiator system you'd have in your house where you are circulating a hot fluid through [pipes]." The heat then radiates upward through the shale. Product is extracted from vertical wells drilled and "spidered" throughout the target deposits above the horizontal heating conduits. The advent of directional drilling, a relatively recent but commonly used technique in conventional oil operations, makes this possible. "You know, 30 years ago when we were trying to do things like this in oil shale, there wasn't nearly the level of technology that there is today," says Vawter.

Energy efficiency is critical. EGL plans to use the natural gas produced in the retorting process (about a third of the product) to heat the shale and then recover the heat from the circulating system in spent blocks for use in the next fresh block of shale. EGL doesn't expect a field test until late in 2009.

Kevin Shurtleff, founder and president of Mountain West Energy, is developing an in situ gas extraction process in which natural gas, heated and pressurized at the surface, is injected into the deposit, heating the shale by convection as the heat rises up through the deposit, "sweeping" hydrocarbon rich vapors to the surface for collection.
"In our process we convert [the hydrocarbons] to a gas, and it stays as a gas, until we bring it back to the surface," says Shurtleff. "If you leave it in the vapor state, you get much better mobility--it flows much more easily out of the reservoir."
For powering the operation, Shurtleff says, "I'm biased against electricity... the problem is you have huge conversion losses so it's always going to cost more energy and produce more pollution than if you use direct heating."

Initially, Mountain West plans to use natural gas (eventually collected on site from the gas fraction of the product) to power their operation. "Ultimately the natural gas we produce we'd prefer to sell, and move to a solar thermal process... that can produce 400° Celsius gas," says Shurtleff, who hopes that eventually such technologies can take him to a zero CO2-emission extraction process.

Surface retorting, the other way to produce shale oil, is already being used commercially for oil shale in Estonia, China and Brazil. At one point a pilot project was launched in Australia before being shut down, in part due to environmental concerns. A similar process is used to extract heavy oil from oil sands in northern Alberta in Canada. Surface retorting is considered the most invasive of extraction methods, due to the mining required, and because existing commercial processes burn the spent shale for fuel, compounding the carbon emissions. For surface retorting to meet anticipated regulatory requirements in the United States, some refinements are being devised.

Combustion Resources is developing a low carbon emission ex situ process. Ralph Coates, senior engineer for the firm, explains, "The main advantage of our [above ground] process, at least theoretically, is we'll heat [the oil shale] with hydrogen as the fuel and avoid putting CO2 as a flue gas. We propose using a similar approach to the FutureGen project: producing the hydrogen by gasifying coal, separating the CO2 that's produced, liquefying it at high pressure and transporting it for either use in secondary oil recovery or underground storage.

FutureGen is the Department of Energy's $1.5 billion initiative to create a coal-based, zero-CO2-emission electricity and hydrogen power plant. "It's a very logical approach for solving the problem of CO2 emissions from coal fired plants," adds Coates.

If oil shale in the Green River Formation ever becomes a meaningful and economically viable source of energy for the nation, it will have to be on a massive scale, which inevitably brings with it substantial regional population growth, necessitating new urban infrastructure. The environmental challenges are also daunting: large quantities of power and water will be required; restoration projects will need to follow in the wake of recovery operations; measures to protect the groundwater may be complex and costly; and extracting the resource without emitting massive quantities of CO2 and other pollutants brings significant challenges and costs. Some argue that such huge capital investments are better spent elsewhere.

"It's not clear to me that it's what we should be doing ahead of increasing efficiency, looking at alternatives and energy conservation, which might limit the need to produce oil shale, at least for the coming decade," says Berkeley's Adam Brandt. "Eventually we might have to use it," he concedes.

Jeremy Boak is pragmatic about environmental concerns and future demand for energy: "Something we are trying to emphasize at CERI is that we've got a huge energy transition going on, and we expect it will take one, two or three generations to complete. In the meantime, any alternatives to fossil fuels will require investment and subsidies which would need to be taken from somewhere. There are plenty of incentives to produce oil and gas, but if you take some of those away, you will lose production. We've got a very careful balancing act ahead of us to make this long-term transition, and we think that making the traditional energy sources more carbon neutral is a really, really important part of that."

http://magazine.mines.edu//2007/Winter/ ... stone.html
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''

Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread post by Chromium6 » Fri Aug 09, 2013 11:10 pm

Some other considerations for hydrocarbons. Sometimes I'm in the clouds myself... :)

Alchohol cloud found in space
Agençe France-Presse

Tuesday, 4 April 2006

Milky Way
Astronomers found the methanol cloud in the W3(OH) region of the Milky Way, where stars form (Image: NASA/JPL-Caltech/R Hurt, SSC)

Astronomers say they have spotted a cloud of alcohol in space that measures 463 billion kilometres across, a finding that could shed light on how giant stars are formed from primordial gas.

The vast bridge-shaped cloud of methanol has been spotted in a region of the Milky Way called W3(OH), where stars form by the gravitational collapse of concentrations of gas and dust.

Researchers led by Dr Lisa Harvey-Smith spotted the cloud from the UK's Jodrell Bank Observatory.

They present their findings today at a meeting of the UK's Royal Astronomical Society in Leicester.

The researchers have revealed giant filaments of gas by detecting masers.

These are like lasers. But rather than emitting beams of light, masers emit beams of microwave radiation, which the molecules in the gas cloud amplify millions of times.

The largest of the maser filaments, which were detected using the Merlin radio telescope, was 463 billion kilometres long.

The researchers say the entire gas cloud seems to be rotating as a disc around a central star, just like accretion discs in which planets form around young stars.

Harvey-Smith says the discovery is surprising as until now researchers had thought of masers as point-like objects or very small bright hotspots surrounded by fainter halos.

In 2004, astronomers spotted methanol for the first time in one of the disc-like clusters that form around nascent stars.

That discovery opened up a new area of debate in astrophysics, challenging the conventional view that interstellar chemistry could not provide the conditions for creating complex molecules.

Until then researchers thought the molecules would be ripped apart by ultraviolet radiation from stars and other tough conditions.

Around 130 organic molecules have also been identified so far in space, fuelling speculation that these complex molecules may have helped to sow the seeds for life on the fledgling Earth.
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''

Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread post by Chromium6 » Fri Aug 09, 2013 11:16 pm

Bloomberg: Colorado, Utah Rival OPEC Reserves, Lure Chevron, Exxon, Shell
May 28th, 2007
by admin.

By Joe Carroll

May 29 (Bloomberg) — Colorado and Utah have as much oil as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Nigeria, Kuwait, Libya, Angola, Algeria, Indonesia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates combined.

That’s not science fiction. Trapped in limestone up to 200 feet (61 meters) thick in the two Rocky Mountain states is enough so-called shale oil to rival OPEC and supply the U.S. for a century.
Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., the two biggest U.S. energy companies, and Royal Dutch Shell Plc are spending $100 million a year testing new methods to separate the oil from the stone for as little as $30 a barrel. A growing number of industry executives and analysts say new technology and persistently high prices make the idea feasible.
“The breakthrough is that now the oil companies have a way of getting this oil out of the ground without the massive energy and manpower costs that killed these projects in the 1970s,” said Pete Stark, an analyst at IHS Inc., an Englewood, Colorado, research firm. “All the shale rocks in the world are going to be revisited now to see how much oil they contain.”

The U.S. imports two-thirds of its oil, spending $300 billion a year, or 40 percent of the record trade deficit. Every $10 increase in a barrel of crude costs an American household $700 a year, according to the Rand Corp., founded in 1946 to provide research for the U.S. military. Oil prices have risen 63 percent since 2004 and higher fuel costs have slowed growth in the world’s largest economy to the lowest in four years.

The last effort to exploit the Colorado and Utah shale fields foundered in the 1980s after crude prices tumbled 72 percent, resulting in a multibillion dollar loss for Exxon. Techniques developed to coax crude from tar sands in Alberta, 1,600 miles (2,500 kilometers) to the north, may help the U.S. projects’ engineers.

Cooking the Shale

“The potential for shale is large,” said Joseph Stanislaw, senior energy adviser for Deloitte & Touche LLP and co-author with oil analyst Daniel Yergin of “The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy” (Simon & Schuster, 464 pages, $26). “Assuming the technology proves out, the size and scale of the reserves are significant.”

Energy providers are investing in shale oil production because the reserves are large enough to generate higher returns than smaller fields in Oklahoma and Texas, where output is declining after eight decades.

Shale is also a more attractive investment than new U.S. refineries, which Shell and Chevron say may lose money as rising use of crop-based fuels such as ethanol lowers domestic gasoline demand. Exxon says it isn’t interested in building new fuel plants in the U.S. because the company expects North American fuel consumption to peak by 2025.

“You’re going to build refineries where demand is increasing, and that’s the developing world,” Scott Nauman, Exxon’s manager of economics and energy planning, said in a May 18 presentation at a University of Chicago oil conference.

Shell’s Project

In the high desert near Rifle, Colorado, Shell engineers are burying hundreds of steel rods 2,000 feet underground that will heat the shale to 700 degrees Fahrenheit (370 degrees Celsius), a temperature at which Teflon melts.

The heat will be applied for the next four years to convert the hydrocarbons from dead plants and plankton, once part of a prehistoric lake, into high-quality crude that is equal parts jet fuel, diesel and naphtha, the main ingredient in gasoline.

Chevron, which helped build the Saudi Arabian energy industry when it struck oil in the kingdom in 1938, plans to shatter 200-foot thick layers of shale deep underground, said Robert Lestz, the company’s oil-shale technology manager.

Rather than using heat to transform the shale into crude, Chevron plans to saturate the rubble with chemicals to convert it. The method will reduce power needs and production costs, Lestz said in a May 24 interview. Using chemical reactions to get oil from shale also means fewer byproducts such as ash and fewer greenhouse gases, he said.

`Brute Force’

Chevron scientists are working with researchers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico to determine which chemicals work best for converting shale to crude oil. Shell’s heating technique amounts to “a brute-force approach,” said Lestz, who is based in Houston.

Raytheon Co., the maker of Tomahawk missiles and the first microwave ovens, is developing a process that would use radio waves to cook the shale.

Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil plans to shoot particles of petroleum coke, a waste byproduct of oil refining, into cracks in the shale. The coke will be electrically charged to create a subterranean hot plate that will cook the shale until it turns into crude. The company declined to discuss the progress of its oil shale tests.

`Oil Is Here’

“These are quite remarkable technological approaches,” said Jeremy Boak, a geologist at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, Colorado, who spent 11 years cleaning up radioactive waste and disposing of weapons-grade plutonium at U.S. government sites. “The oil companies don’t have the exploration problem of finding resources to drill. We know the oil is here. It’s just a matter of getting it out.”

U.S. oil shale deposits likely hold 1.5 trillion barrels of oil, according to Jack Dyni, a geologist emeritus at the U.S. Geological Survey. All 12 OPEC countries combined have proved crude oil reserves of about 911 billion barrels, led by Saudi Arabia, with 264.2 billion barrels, according to statistics compiled by BP Plc.

Skeptics of the potential for shale oil include Cathy Kay, an organizer for the environmental group Western Colorado Congress, who says the techniques will drain water supplies, scar the landscape and require so much power the skies will be choked with smoke from coal-fed generators.

Environmental Concern

“They are going to do absolutely massive environmental damage,” said Kay, a South African native who’s been spearheading the Grand Junction, Colorado, group’s anti-shale campaign since September.

“Why don’t these companies invest these giant sums of money developing the cheapest, cleverest solar panel or geothermal process, instead of chasing this elusive oil?” Kay asked.

Shell, based in the Hague, estimates it can extract oil from Colorado shale for $30 a barrel, less than half today’s price of $66 for benchmark New York futures.

Shell’s process includes surrounding each shale field with an underground wall of ice. The so-called freeze walls are to prevent groundwater from swamping the heating rods and to protect the local water supply from contamination as the organic material in the rocks turns to oil, according to Terry O’Connor, the Shell vice president in charge of the company’s Colorado shale project.

500,000 Barrels

“There’s a lot of testing to be done,” O’Connor said in a May 24 interview. “We’re proceeding cautiously.”

O’Connor declined to say how much oil Shell expects it could produce from shale. Stark at IHS and other analysts said Shell expects to get 500,000 barrels a day from its project, 25 percent more than comes from Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay, the largest U.S. oil field.

“This is an amazing resource,” said James Bartis, an oil analyst at Santa Monica, California-based Rand, whose researchers have included former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the Nobel Laureate economist Paul Samuelson. Bartis says that success in the Rockies could cut crude prices by 5 percent, saving American consumers $20 billion a year.

“It’s been raised before as a panacea for impending shortages, but never before has it been shown to be competitive with conventional oil,” Bartis said.

Equipment Demand

Drillers, pipe-makers and metal fabricators such as Nabors Industries Ltd. and closely-held UOP LLC will be the first to profit as Shell, Chevron and Exxon drill thousands of wells a half-mile underground by 2011.

The oil companies may begin pumping commercial quantities of oil from Colorado shale within a decade, about as long as Chevron will need to develop the 500 million-barrel Jack prospect in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, according to Stark, who is a former Mobil Corp. geologist.

“Given the state of the oil market, more and more effort is being put into making shale a viable source,” said Stanislaw. He estimated it will take six to eight years before oil companies perfect their extraction methods. “The timeframe is very long,” he said.

In the 1970s, oil shale efforts involved mile-wide strip mines and factory-sized cookers to boil giant limestone boulders. This time, no company expects to bring in front- loaders, heavy-duty dump trucks or thousands of miners to haul shale from open pits.

“The old technique required them to dig the equivalent of a new Panama Canal every month,” said former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm, whose tenure from 1975 to 1987 included the last attempt to extract oil from shale.

`More Sane Process’

“This new approach is a much more sane process, but that’s all relative,” Lamm said in an interview. “They’re doing this in an immensely fragile area where wagon ruts from the Oregon Trail in the 1840s are still visible. It doesn’t excite me because I think they’re about to indelibly change our state.”

Local residents are also leery, recalling the ghost towns and job losses left behind from the last shale boom and bust.

Battlement Mesa, Colorado, a town Exxon built to house an expected 25,000 shale workers, was abandoned when the company shut its mine on May 2, 1982, a day locals still refer to as “Black Sunday.” The town is now a retirement community.
“I don’t think this is going to go anywhere,” said John Savage, an attorney in Rifle whose father started a shale-oil company in 1956. “It’s just too tough to get that oil out of the ground. There’s trillions of barrels down there, but there’s too much rock on top of it.”
Oil companies also are exploring shale fields in Jordan, Morocco and Australia, though preliminary assessments indicate none is as oil-rich as the Colorado and Utah deposits. The final approval for full-scale projects in the U.S. won’t be made until after 2010.

“If we waited a few million years, all this stuff would turn to oil,” Rand’s Bartis says. “Some people don’t want to wait that long.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Joe Carroll in Chicago at jcarroll8@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: May 28, 2007 19:08 EDT

http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/05/2 ... xon-shell/
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''

Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread post by Chromium6 » Fri Aug 09, 2013 11:28 pm

Methane in the Mantle?

2004-09-17 (All day)

Mantle mockup. Methane bubbles (at the bottom, left and slightly right of center) in a lab simulation of Earth's interior suggest that the gas may form in the mantle.

Earth's supply of fossil fuels may not depend entirely on fossils after all. For the first time scientists have created methane gas in the lab using only inorganic materials, leading to speculation that vast reserves of the gas may be present deep underground.

The conventional wisdom is that fossil fuels typically derive from ancient plants or organisms. A few scientists have long speculated, however, that oil and gas could arise in the absence of organic matter. The late astrophysicist Thomas Gold of Cornell University was one of the strongest proponents of the idea. He suggested that the biological molecules found in oil and gas are not proof of a biological origin but instead are traces of microscopic organisms that thrive deep in the crust. In recent years, Gold's theory that organisms live beneath the surface has proved correct. But until now, nobody has been able to demonstrate that hydrocarbons could be produced without the byproducts of life.

The breakthrough came when a team led by geophysicist Henry Scott of Indiana University in South Bend used an apparatus called a diamond anvil cell to heat and squeeze iron oxide, calcite, and water. The experiment was intended to mimic conditions 100 km to 200 km deep, in the partially molten layer known as the mantle. At temperatures between 500° and 1500°C and pressures between 50,000 and 110,000 atmospheres, methane bubbles formed, the team discovered by sending x-rays through the sample. The results, published online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, point to the possibility of a huge reservoir of methane in the mantle. But even if such a reservoir exists, it's out of reach with today's technology; the typical oil or gas well is rarely deeper than 10 km.

The findings have implications for the possibility of life on other planets as well, says geologist Barbara Sherwood Lollar of the University of Toronto. The methane recently detected on Mars (ScienceNOW, 24 Mars) may not indicate life, because it could have been produced from simple elements. On the other hand, a deep hydrocarbon reservoir could be a source of energy for subsurface microbes. "It would provide them with the energy they need to subsist in the absence of photosynthesis," Lollar says.


Also covered here: http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040913/ ... 913-5.html

Ethanogens at work!

Almost all the methane on Earth is made, directly or indirectly, by organisms. A small proportion comes from buried, decomposing plants, whose insoluble parts become a material called kerogen. (Sure about that???) When kerogen breaks down through thermal "cracking," the result is methane, as well as longer-chain hydrocarbons like ethane, propane, and butane. [Methane, the simplest hydrocarbon, has one carbon and four hydrogens (CH4). Ethane has two carbons and six hydrogens (C2H6). The formula for propane is C3H8, and butane is C4H10.]

Much more methane comes from anaerobic microbes called methanogens. Some methanogens are called "extremophiles" because they can prosper under extreme acidity, alkalinity, or saltiness -- conditions once thought intolerable to life.

Methanogens can also tolerate extreme temperatures. Methanopyrus kandleri, for example, lives in the 80 to 100 degrees C water around black smokers in the Gulf of California. Other methanogens live below 0 degrees C in Antarctica.

Concretions, or blueberries at Meridiani
Image Credit: NASA

Methanogens are "extremely widespread on Earth," says Stephen Zinder, a microbiologist at Cornell University in New York. "Anywhere there is a place that usually doesn't have oxygen, you find them. Whether it's in the gastrointestinal tract, the soil, or the deep subsurface, you find them." Although they are anaerobes, methanogens can sometimes survive -- if not reproduce -- when exposed to small concentrations of oxygen.

Methanogens living in wetlands produce about 21 percent of the methane in Earth's atmosphere, says Sushil Atreya of the University of Michigan (Atreya was a co-author of the Science paper on the methane results from Mars Express.). Methanogens in the guts of cows and other ruminant produce about 20 percent. Microbes in termites and similar organisms make 15 percent of atmospheric methane, and in rice paddies, about 12 percent. Other major sources include natural gas releases and biomass burning.

On Earth, a large amount of methane is locked inside ice crystals under permafrost and beneath the continental shelves. These deposits of methane hydrate, also called methane clathrate, are vast. They are thought to contain far more carbon than all fossil fuels put together.

If clathrates are so dominant as a methane storage on Earth, why not on Mars too? Clathrates form on Earth under certain combinations of pressure and temperature, and some scientists think these combinations could occur on Mars as well. (No abundant PAHs on Mars so far....)

Making methane without biology

Although nearly all methane on Earth has a biological origin, scientists have recently begun to appreciate how many ways abiogenic methane can be generated. The essential precondition for abiogenic methane, says Juske Horita of the Chemical Sciences Division at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, is the presence of molecular hydrogen (H2) and carbon dioxide (CO2).

If you put CO2 and hydrogen together, thermodynamics dictates that it has to go to methane," says Horita.

The reaction speed is dependent on pressure, temperature, and the presence of catalysts. Since carbon dioxide is common in so many environments, finding sources of abiogenic methane is largely a search for hydrogen and suitable catalysts for the reaction. Abiogenic methane does not form in Earth's atmosphere, even though CO2 is abundant, because molecular hydrogen is so rare.

Most abiogenic methane is generated by the "serpentinization" reaction, which forms the mineral serpentine. At mid-oceanic ridges, water heated by magma reacts with rocks like olivine, which contain high levels of the catalysts iron and magnesium. During serpentinization, hydrogen liberated from water reacts with carbon from carbon dioxide to form methane. The reaction creates heat and vast deposits of serpentine on the ocean floor.

Until recently, the abiotic water-mineral-carbon dioxide reactions, including serpentinization, were thought to require 200 degrees C water, and no one knows if water on Mars goes deep enough to get that hot. There are indications that similar methane-making reactions could take place in cooler conditions. Horita, for example, notes that serpentinization may be occurring in 50 to 70 degrees C water in Oman and the Philippines. And in 1999, Horita and Michael Berndt, a geochemist then at the University of Minnesota, published a recipe for a related reaction that makes methane in the presence of a nickel-iron mineral catalyst. While the reaction made methane in a few days at 200 degrees C, Horita suspects it would also work, although more slowly, at 50 to 70 degrees C. To his knowledge, that experiment has not been done.

Researchers have found other ways to make methane, using different catalysts and minerals. In May 2004, Dionysis Foustoukos and William Seyfried Jr. of the University of Minnesota made methane, ethane and propane at 390 degrees C and 400 times the atmospheric pressure at Earth's surface, using a chromium-bearing mineral as catalyst.

In September 2004, Henry Scott of Indiana University at South Bend published a study which found that, by subjecting iron oxide, calcite, and water to the intense heat and pressure of Earth's mantle, methane formed.

Yet despite the multiple discoveries of new pathways to abiogenic methane, most methane on Earth is biogenic. "So much methane is produced by bacteria on Earth, it's widespread, it's everywhere," says Horita. "As a part of the global methane budget, I don't think [abiogenic is] important. However, abiogenic may be locally important, possibly including Mars."
Volcanoes are another source of methane, although the youngest active source would have to be a few million years ago, and methane without replenishment disappears in 300 years on Mars.
Credit:ESA/Mars Express


Coverage on massive amounts of water in source rocks in Asia.

Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth
Ker Than | February 28, 2007 08:28am ET


http://www.livescience.com/1312-huge-oc ... earth.html
Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth
Ker Than | February 28, 2007 08:28am ET
Scientists probing the Earth's interior have found a large reservoir of water equal to the volume of the Arctic Ocean beneath eastern Asia. The left figure is a slice through the Earth, taken from the figure on the right, showing the attenuation anomalies within the mantle at a depth of roughly 620 miles. In both images, red shows unusually soft and weak rock believed to be saturated with water, and the blue shows unusually stiff rock (yellow and white show near-average values).
Credit: Eric Chou

Scientists scanning the deep interior of Earth have found evidence of a vast water reservoir beneath eastern Asia that is at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.

The discovery marks the first time such a large body of water has found in the planet's deep mantle. [The World's Biggest Oceans and Seas]

The finding, made by Michael Wysession, a seismologist at Washington University in St. Louis, and his former graduate student Jesse Lawrence, now at the University of California, San Diego, will be detailed in a forthcoming monograph to be published by the American Geophysical Union.

Looking down deep

The pair analyzed more than 600,000 seismograms — records of waves generated by earthquakes traveling through the Earth—collected from instruments scattered around the planet. [Image Gallery: This Millennium's Destructive Earthquakes]

They noticed a region beneath Asia where seismic waves appeared to dampen, or "attenuate," and also slow down slightly. "Water slows the speed of waves a little," Wysession explained. "Lots of damping and a little slowing match the predictions for water very well."

Previous predictions calculated that if a cold slab of the ocean floor were to sink thousands of miles into the Earth's mantle, the hot temperatures would cause water stored inside the rock to evaporate out.

"That is exactly what we show here," Wysession said. "Water inside the rock goes down with the sinking slab and it's quite cold, but it heats up the deeper it goes, and the rock eventually becomes unstable and loses its water."

The water then rises up into the overlying region, which becomes saturated with water [image]. "It would still look like solid rock to you,” Wysession told LiveScience. "You would have to put it in the lab to find the water in it."

Although they appear solid, the composition of some ocean floor rocks is up to 15 percent water. "The water molecules are actually stuck in the mineral structure of the rock," Wysession explained. "As you heat this up, it eventually dehydrates. It's like taking clay and firing it to get all the water out."

The researchers estimate that up to 0.1 percent of the rock sinking down into the Earth's mantle in that part of the world is water, which works out to about an Arctic Ocean's worth of water.

BTW, found this which is a very readable book from the 1920s on Shale oil production in Scotland. Quite good actually. Covers the Isle of Skye where the good Scotch Talisker is made.

http://ia700802.us.archive.org/16/items ... 00alde.pdf
Colorado Oil Shale Frontispiece

Oil Shale—General Formation. Colorado . 10
Colorado Oil Shale . . 11
Paper Shale. Colorado 30
Massive Shale. Utah 31
Utah Oil Shale . 38
A Mountain of Oil Shale. Colorado ... 39
Oil Shale. Utah 46
Massive Shale. Colorado 47
Oil Shale Cliff. Utah . 64
Oil Shale. Colorado 65
Mount Logan. Colorado 94
Apparatus for Oil Shale Analysis, Oil Shale
Laboratory. Colorado School of Mines.
Golden, Colorado 95
Oil Shale. Utah 120
A Mountain of Oil Shale. Colorado . . . 121
The shale oil industry is not new. It has been
successfully developed and operated in Scotland
for nearly seventy years. The first
material to be subjected to dry distillation,
which furnished the earliest known distillation
tar, was described by Boyle in 1661. About
this time tar was recovered from the dry distillation
of pine in Norway and Sweden. In 1661 a
patent was taken out by Becker in England for the
recovery of tar and pitch from coal. Becker was
also the first to produce coke. The one outstanding
achievement, however, in the shale oil industry
is due to James Young. The possibility of
extracting oil from bituminous shale had long been
known in Scotland, but the small plants which had
been erected were of brief existence and of little
importance. At the suggestion of Lyon Playfair,
Young built a refinery for treating petroleum obtained
from a spring at Alfreton, in Derbyshire.
He produced two kinds of oil, one for lubricating
and the other for burning in lamps. Paraffin was
also obtained but not utilized to any extent.
Within two years the supply began to fail and in
1851 the business ceased. Meanwhile, it had occurred
to Young that the oil had been produced by
the action of heat upon coal, so he attempted to
produce an artificial oil by this means. As a
result of a long-continued investigation with many
varieties of coal he secured a patent in October,


1850, which became the basis of a new industry.
"The coals,' ' the patentee says, "which I deem to
be best fitted for the purpose are such as are usually
called parrot coal, cannel coal, and gas coal,
and which are much used in the manufacture of
gas for the purpose of illumination. '

' Early in 1850, a material called Boghead coal from Torbane
Hill was brought to his attention. This he found
to be the most promising of any material he had
investigated. In 1850, a plant was erected at Bathgate.
The salient feature of Young's invention
was the distillation of bituminous substances at
the lowest possible temperature for the production
of volatile compounds. In practice it was found
that the best results were obtained at about 800 °F.
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''

User avatar
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread post by starbiter » Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:59 am

Not much talk of comets in the previous post. No raining oil running down rivers. No people climbing trees to escape rivers of oil.

I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear



Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread post by Chromium6 » Sat Aug 10, 2013 11:12 pm

starbiter wrote:Not much talk of comets in the previous post. No raining oil running down rivers. No people climbing trees to escape rivers of oil.

Velikovsky near covered Gas Hydrates... no stories of frozen hydrates sinking in the arctic either?



Earth and Planetary Sciences » "Updates in Volcanology - New Advances in Understanding Volcanic Systems", book edited by Karoly Nemeth, ISBN 978-953-51-0915-0, Published: September 27, 2012 under CC BY 3.0 license
Chapter 3

An Overview of Mud Volcanoes Associated to Gas Hydrate System

By Umberta Tinivella and Michela Giustiniani
DOI: 10.5772/51270

1. Introduction
2. The mud volcanoes

Map showing the worldwide locations of onshore (blue stars, after [33], with additions), known (red open oval, without gas hydrates; solid red oval hydrate bearing), and inferred (solid yellow rectangle) submarine mud volcanoes. The “possible sediment diapirs” mapped by [34] are also shown (open yellow rectangle). Modified after [12].

Figure 1. Map showing the worldwide locations of onshore (blue stars, after [33], with additions), known (red open oval, without gas hydrates; solid red oval hydrate bearing), and inferred (solid yellow rectangle) submarine mud volcanoes. The “possible sediment diapirs” mapped by [34] are also shown (open yellow rectangle). Modified after [12].

http://www.intechopen.com/books/updates ... -system#F1

Figure 2.

Map showing the worldwide locations of gas hydrate obtained by direct (open red pentagons) and indirect (solid red pentagons) measurements. Modified after [29].


Underwater volcanic range discovered off coast of Norway

By Robert On August 4, 2013

2,200 F (1200° C) magma pouring into the seas from hundreds of submarine volcanoes – and we wonder why the seas are warming.
Researchers at the University of Bergen (UiB) have found a 932-mile (1,500-km) volcanic mountain chain hidden off the coast of Svalbard, which could soon break the surface to form a new island chain.
The range extends from Jan Mayen island in the Greenland Sea to the Fram Strait between Svalbard and Greenland.

“We have discovered five new vent fields in Norwegian national waters between Jan Mayen island and Loki’s Castle,” Rolf Birger Pedersen, the professor leading the research, told The Local. “The vent fields were discovered during a cruise with RV GO Sars in July this summer.

The last volcano was found a few weeks ago and is just 20 meters below sea level, said Pedersen, professor at the Centre for Geobiology (UiB).

“We have found volcanoes at such a shallow level and they could break the surface at any time and form a new island group,” said Pedersen.

“We have long known that Iceland has both volcanic activity and hot springs, but we thought that we did not have anything like that in Norway. But we do, it was only under water,” he added.

Pedersen made his name in 2008 when he discovered the underwater volcanic range Loki’s Castle. The new discovery comprises hundreds more volcanoes, some just 20m below the surface.

Just for the record, I’ve been talking about underwater volcanoes for years. In fact, there’s an entire chapter in “Not by Fire but by Ice” (entitled “Fish Stew”) that discusses the importance of underwater volcanoes, and how they’re heating the seas.

http://www.thelocal.no/20130802/Volcani ... ian-waters

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/h ... more-90887

http://www.tnp.no/norway/tech/3893-norw ... have-found

Thanks to Chris Crouch, StanB888, Laurel, Mondo Kane, Steven Rowlandson, David N. Wigtil and Peter Pesola for these links

“The Norwegian version of this text speaks about the activity of those volcanoes and 1200° C magma,” says Chris. “I don’t know why that information isn’t included in the English version.”

* * *

“Just as you discussed in your book,” says David. “This article neglects, of course, the possibilities that volcanoes (rather than human heating) may be “melting the Arctic.”

* * *

“Definitely a reason for altered currents and some warm seas,” says Laurel.

* * *

“So the global warming in the arctic is so severe that it is even causing the ocean floor to boil up and ready to boil over the surface at any time!” says Ed MacAulay.

* * *

“Imagine how much heat is being put into the Arctic ice from prevailing currents,” says Peter. “How much might this be causing ocean warming in the area?”

On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''

Posts: 141
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:53 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread post by beekeeper » Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:31 pm

it may be of interest to see what have supposedly been found in coal seams embedded in rock formations estimated to be300 millions yrs old hopefully this link will work http://www.earth-heal.com/index.php/new ... ussia.html
If nothing can travel faster than light, how can darkness escape it


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests