[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/session.php on line 1056: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3897)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4762: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3897)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4764: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3897)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4765: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3897)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4766: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3897)
Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

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 Chromium6 » Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:24 pm

I've been looking for evidence of Earth generated ultra-sound seismic waves "sono-cracking" hydrocarbons. Not much is out there to indicate it. :?: Though, there are a few experiments indicating that sono-cracking hydrocarbons can occur at near room temperature.

--------
The Chemical Effects of Ultrasound

Intense ultrasonic waves traveling through liquids generate small
cavities that enlarge and implode, creating tremendous heat.
These extreme conditions provide an unusual chemical environment

by Kenneth S. Suslick

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/suslick/doc ... er8980.pdf

The sonochemistry of liquids depends mainly on physical effects of the quick heating and cooling caused by cavity implosion. For instance, when Peter Riesz and his colleagues at the National Cancer Institute irradiated water with ultrasound, they proved that the heat from cavity implosion decomposes water (H20) into extremely reactive hydrogen atoms (W) and hydroxl radicals (OH-). During the quick cooling phase, hydrogen atoms and hydroxl radicals recombine to form hydrogen peroxide (H202) and molecular hydrogen (H2). If other compounds are added to water irradiated with ultrasound, a wide range of secondary reactions can occur. Organic compounds are highly degraded in this environment, and inorganic compounds can be oxidized or reduced.

Other organic liquids also yield interesting reactions when they are irradiated with ultrasound. For' example, alkanes, major components of crude oil, can be "cracked" into smaller, desirable Crude oil is normally cracked by heating the entire mixture to temperatures above 500 degrees C. irradiating alkanes with ultrasound, however, makes cracking possible at room temperature and produces acetylene, which cannot be produced through simple heating. Perhaps the most unusual chemical phenomenon associated with ultrasound is its ability to produce microscopic flames in cold liquids by a process known as sonoluminescence. When an imploding cavity creates a hot spot in various liquids, molecules may be excited into high-energy states. As these molecules return to their ground state, they emit visible light. Edward B. Flint in our laboratory discovered in 1987 that hydrocarbons irradiated with ultrasound provide a most striking result: emitted light similar in color to a flame from a gas stove.

The effects of ultrasound on liquids have also been used to enhance the chemistry of compounds in solution. Compounds that contain metal-carbon bonds, called organometallics, are particularly illustrative. This diverse class of chemicals is important in the formation of plastics, in the production of microelectronics and in the synthesis of pharmaceuticals, herbicides and pesticides. In 1981 Paul F. Schubert and I first investigated the effects of ultrasound on organometallics, in particular iron pentacarbonyl, or Fe(CO)5 The results, when compared with the effects of light and heat on Fe(CO)5 underscore the distinctive chemistry that ultrasound can induce [see illustration on opposite page]. When Fe(CO)5 is exposed to heat, it decomposes into carbon monoxide (CO) and a fine iron powder, which ignites spontaneously in air. When Fe(CO)5 is exposed to ultraviolet light, it first breaks down into Fe(CO)5 and free CO fragments. Fe(CO)5 can then recombine to form Fe2(CO)g. Cavity implosion creates different results. It delivers enough heat to dissociate several CO molecules but cools quickly enough to quench the reaction before decomposition is complete. Thus when Fe(CO)5 is exposed to ultrasound, it yields the unusual cluster compound Fe3(CO)12. The sonochemistry of two immiscible liquids (such as oil and water) stems from the ability of ultrasound to emulsify liquids so that microscopic droplets of one liquid are suspended in the other. Ultrasonic compression and expansion stress liquid surfaces, overcoming the cohesive forces that hold a large droplet together. The droplet bursts into smaller ones, and eventually the liquids are emulsified. Emulsification can accelerate chemical reactions between immiscible liquids by greatly increasing their surface contact. A large contact area enhances crossover of molecules from one liquid to the other, an effect that can make some reactions proceed quickly. Emulsifying mercury with various liquids has particularly interesting chemistry as delineated by the investigations of Albert J. Fry of Wesleyan University. He developed the reactions of mercury with a variety of organobromide compounds as an intermediate in the formation of new carbon-carbon bonds. Such reactions are critical in the synthesis of complex organic compounds. The sonochemistry of solid surfaces in liquids depends on a change in the dynamics of cavity implosion. When cavitation occurs in a liquid near an extended solid surface, the cavity implosion differs substantially from the symmetrical, spherical implosion observed in liquid-only systems. The presence of the surface distorts the pressure from the ultrasound field so that a cavity implosion near a surface is markedly asymmetric. This generates a jet of liquid directed at the surface that moves at . speeds of roughly 400 kilometers per hour. The jet, as well as the shock waves from cavity implosion, erode solid surfaces, remove nonreactive coatings and fragment brittle powders. Reactions are further facilitated by high temperatures and pressures associated with cavity implosion near surfaces. These processes all enhance the chemical reactivity of solid surfaces, which is important in the synthesis of drugs, specialty chemicals and polymers. The sonochemistry of solid surfaces in liquids is best exemplified by reactions of active metals, such as lithium, magnesium, zinc and aluminum. Ultrasonic irradiation of reaction mixtures constituting these metals provides better control at lower temperatures and produces relatively higher yields. Pierre Renaud of the University of Paris first examined such reactions. More recently Jean-Louis Luche of the University of Grenoble and Philip Boudjouk of North Dakota State University have popularized the use of an ultrasonic cleaning bath to accelerate the reactions of active metals. The chemistry of these metals is very difficult to control. Traces of water, oxygen or nitrogen can react at the surface to form protective coatings. Increasing the reactivity of the protected surface by direct heating, however, can result in undesirable explosions. Ultrasound can keep the surface clean and allows the reaction to proceed evenly at reduced ambient temperatures. Excellent yields and improved reliability can be achieved for many reactive metals in large-scale industrial applications.

The extreme conditions generated by cavitation near surfaces can also be utilized to induce reactivity in "unreactive" metals. Robert E. Johnson in our laboratory, for instance, examined reactions between carbon monoxide and molybdenum and tantalum, as well as other comparable metals. Conventional techniques require pressures of from 1 00 to 300 atmospheres and temperatures of from 200 to 300 degrees C. to form metal carbonyls. Using ultrasound, however, formation of metal carbonyls can proceed at room temperature and pressure. The implosion of a cavity, in addition to all the effects described so far, sends shock waves through the liquid. The sonochemistry of solid particles in liquids depends heavily on these shock waves; they drive small particles of a powder into one another at speeds of more than 500 kilometers per hour. My co-workers and I have recently shown that such collisions are so intense in metal powders that localized melting takes place at the point of impact. This melting improves the metal's reactivity, because it removes metallic-oxide coatings. (Such protective oxide coatings are found on most metals and are responsible for the patina on copper gutters and bronze sculpture.)

Since ultrasound improves the reactivity of metal powders, it also makes them better catalysts. Many reactions require a catalyst in order to proceed at useful or even appreciable rates. Catalysts are not consumed by the reaction but instead speed the reaction of other substances. The effects of ultrasound on particle morphology, surface composition and catalyst reactivity have been investigated by Dominick. Casadonte and Stephen. Doktycz in our laboratory. They have discovered that catalysts such as nickel, copper and zinc powders irradiated with ultrasound show dramatic changes in surface morphology. Individual surfaces are smoothed and particles are consolidated into extended aggregates. An experiment to determine the surface composition of nickel revealed that its oxide coating was removed, greatly improving the reactivity of the nickel powder. Ultrasonic irradiation increased the effectiveness of nickel powder as a catalyst more than 1,000,000 times. The nickel powder is as reactive as some special catalysts currently in use, yet it is nonflammable and less expensive.

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/suslick/doc ... er8980.pdf
----------


New waves of seismic technology yield big oil finds (video)

HOUSTON — For decades, the giants of the oil industry were confounded by salt.

While oil companies for years had shot sound waves into the deep to help create images of undersea geology, salt located far under the floor of the Gulf of Mexico was unpredictable. It muffled reflections, or bounced them away from survey vessels, leaving geophysicists in the dark.

But that was before a series of recent seismic imaging breakthroughs involving supercomputers and the largest moving objects in the ocean. The advancements helped oil companies peek under salt layers located miles below the Gulf and have spurred a number of discoveries and billions of dollars in new investment in offshore oil production.

"It’s like a medical imaging experiment that we’re all familiar with when they take an ultrasound and show us an image of the baby, only it’s done on a planetary scale," said Craig Beasley, chief geophysicist for Schlumberger’s WesternGeco subsidiary.

Making waves

Using the new and evolving methods, oil companies have found ways to shoot sound miles below the surface and capture more echoes of those sound waves than they ever have.

Teams of mathematicians, geophysicists and software engineers use large computer systems to translate those echoes into three-dimensional images of reserves more than six miles below ocean, rock layers and salt, a feat that was little more than a dream a decade ago.

The innovations have helped oil companies tap into some of the largest offshore oil reserves ever discovered and are a big reason why four towering oil platforms were under construction this summer at a single yard in Ingleside near Corpus Christi. The platforms are the culmination of multibillion dollar projects to extract oil from reservoirs that would have been challenging to target prior to seismic imaging advances.

"If the seismic had stayed the same as it was in 1999 and 2000…today we would be effectively drilling in the dark," said John Etgen, BP’s distinguished adviser for seismic imaging.

Beasley said salt previously created havoc in seismic images.

"The easiest way to think about it is the swimming pool where you put your pole in the swimming pool, and it looks like there’s a kink in the pole," he said.

The shape of the pole hasn’t changed, of course, but its image is distorted. Salt in underground layers as thick as 18,000 feet can have the same effect, sending sound waves back at different speeds and angles and leaving gaps in data and distorting images.

Since salt reflects sound in a variety of directions, geophysicists had to find a way to capture more echoes. Covering the ocean surface with sensors isn’t practical, so experts at BP decided to experiment with additional sources of sound, Etgen said.

Capturing sound

Most seismic surveys involve boats towing arrays of cables up to five miles long and half a mile wide, perhaps creating the largest moving bodies in the sea. The cables are equipped with hydrophones, which measure sound in water.

To generate sound waves, oil companies use air guns to create explosive sounds under water in intervals as long as 15 seconds.
Environmentalists say the noise can endanger sea life.

The air guns can produce underwater noise of more than 130 decibels, 10 miles from the source, said Michael Jasny, director of the Natural Resource Defense Council’s marine mammal protection project. That’s as loud as a jackhammer and almost as loud as the sound of a jet engine, which measures 140 decibels.

A settlement earlier this year among environmentalists, regulators and a leading industry group puts some limits on air gun use.

When they are used, each blast sends sound waves deep below the ocean and seafloor. Their echoes return and hit the hydrophones.

BP’s breakthrough

BP in 2004 pioneered the wide azimuth towed streamer method, a new approach to seismic that would change the industry. The process captures more sound waves with the same set of cables by using multiple boats firing air guns, Etgen said.

Each boat sends soundwaves into the ground, delivering reflections to the surface from multiple angles. Powerful computers use mathematical processes called algorithms to combine the echo images, creating a sharper view of what lies beneath the salt, Etgen said.

Video: ‘Augmented reality’ turns animation into oil business tool

The effect is similar to sports broadcasts that use multiple cameras to show the action from different angles. If one angle produces a distorted or incomplete image of the underground rocks, measurements of other reflection angles help fill in the missing parts.

"The more of that thing that I can catch and record, the better chance I have of making an image," Etgen said. The wide azimuth survey produced 16 times as much data as conventional seismic surveys, he said.

The success prompted other experiments.

Beasley said WesternGeco championed an approach involving just one boat with an air gun and streamers attached. The guns fired as the vessel moved in a giant circle, with a radius of up to 5 miles. Then it moved over slightly and made another, overlapping circle. The method allowed a single array to encircle the reflections bouncing up from the subsurface, helping a survey vessel capture more sound waves from each air gun blast, Beasley said.

WesternGeco now is advancing seismic imaging that involves multiple sounds being fired at the same time, cutting out the waiting period needed between air gun shots, Beasley said.

On the ocean floor

Another revolutionary approach places sensor nodes on the ocean floor rather than towing them on the surface, said Roger Keyte, director of marketing and strategy for Sugar Land-based Fairfield Nodal.

It produces the yellow, disk-shaped nodes in its Sugar Land facility, then ships them by the thousands to locations where they’re dropped off boats, sink to the ocean floor and listen for sound.

They can produce the most detailed images possible because they don’t encounter ambient noise from moving through the water and can be placed in position to capture sonic reflections, he said.

The technique, called on-bottom seismic, allows oil explorers to examine plays beneath existing structures like platforms and pipes, which isn’t possible for unwieldy vessels towing strings of hydrophones. BP first used the method in a commercial survey at its Atlantis field in 2005, Etgen said.

Although they produce more data than towed hydrophones, on-bottom seismic surveys can cost as much as four times more, Fairfield Nodal’s Keyte said.

But companies have found on-bottom seismic critical to expanding their drilling efforts.

"I view it as a ground-breaking kind of technology that’s allowing us to see the subsurface like we’ve never seen it before," said John Hollowell, Shell’s executive vice president for deep water in the Americas, in a July interview. "And the success of these projects in many respects is your ability to see the subsurface better than anybody else."

Deep water discoveries

Several of the largest oil fields ever discovered were not produced until many years later, after advances that helped oil companies better plan for the deep obstacles they might face.

BP’s Thunder Horse field, the second largest field discovered in the Gulf with an estimated 1.1 billion barrels of oil equivalent in recoverable reserves, was discovered in 1999, but production didn’t begin until 2008, according to research from energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie.

Shell’s Mars-Ursa field, which was discovered in 1989, is the largest in the Gulf of Mexico, with 1.3 billion barrels of oil equivalent in recoverable reserves, according to Wood Mackenzie. Production didn’t begin at the Mars field until 1996.

Reserve estimates for both fields, and others, have increased as seismic imaging advancements have helped companies better understand underground rock layers. And a new effort to produce oil from the Mars field is currently underway, following advancements in seismic imaging that helped Shell drill new wells there.

Advancements since then have led to a rush of huge new Gulf discoveries, some that have lifted the profile of smaller oil companies, such as Cobalt International Energy. Cobalt explicitly targets reserves located below salt layers, focusing on its use of advanced seismic imaging to help it find oil, the company says.

Cobalt made one of the largest gulf discoveries in the last decade when it found the North Platte field last year. The field holds 500 million barrels of oil equivalent in recoverable reserves, according to Wood Mackenzie.

Beasley said that further seismic advances are likely to help oil companies find more oil that they couldn’t see before.

"I’m sure there’s a limit somewhere," he said. "We haven’t reached it yet."

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/10/28/new- ... nds-video/
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
Chromium6
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Chromium6 » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:20 am

On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
Chromium6
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby sureshbansal342 » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:41 am

in my Opinion a new balanced theory is required that can be helpful in future exploration. both the theories has strong evidences and all the strong evidences should be respected to form new balanced theory. putting strong evidences of both together we can easily conclude that majority commercial oil has been expelled from those sedimentary rocks that essentially has been formed with the involvement of abiotic hydrocarbons ( once huge present on the surface of the earth in past geological time,like currently present on the surface of the Titan). sediment that has been formed with the involvement of these abiotic hydrocarbons are not suitable to form commercial interesting accumulations. ( only possible model that can respect the all valid evidences of both the theories).
sureshbansal342
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby sureshbansal342 » Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:34 am

Conclusive Comment; Followers of abiotic theory can never be listened until they do not reconcile the strong evidence of association of MAJORITY global commercial oils with sedimentary rocks. No body is allowed to ignore this well tested past experience . This is the most strong point of biotic theory and most of the drillers are using this method and must be reconciled in abiotic theory otherwise nobody will listen .
Expulsion of hydrocarbons from sedimentary source rock do not prove the biotic origin of petroleum. Yes, i agreed pre mind set up is a big problem as we have grown up by reading biotic theory from school time. In my opinion we required a balanced theory that can increase the future exploration efficiency.
sureshbansal342
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Chromium6 » Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:02 pm

Iceland has a few interesting finds on PAH and lava.

---------

4. HYDROTHERMALLY ALTERED VOLCANIC ROCKS

Samples of hydrothermally altered basalt and secondary minerals were collected from different locations in the Miocene-Pliocene lava piles in Iceland. The composition and distribution of secondary minerals suggest that some components of secondary minerals (e.g. K in celadonite) found in fissure and dyke swarms were transported with groundwater from the acid subvolcanic intrusions (Geptner and Petrova, 1996). The composition of secondary minerals (smectites, celadonite, zeolites, siliceous minerals) indicates that the rocks investigated in the course of this work were washed by groundwater heated to temperatures less than 150°C (Kristmannsdottir, 1982). Small accumulations (fine drop-like segregation) of the bituminous substance were found in altered rocks in close association with low temperature hydrothermal minerals in Berufjördur and Eyjafjördur locations (Geptner et al.,1999a). Some species of PAH were identified in a sample of asphalitie found in the Miocene lava pile in South-eastern Iceland at the same association of hydrothermal minerals. In the last case it was concluded that the bituminous substance was formed due to a close contact and heating of lignite by a sill intrusion (Jakobsson and Fridleifsson, 1990). The total PAH content in the hydrothermal mineral assemblages is 1-2 orders of magnitude higher than that of unaltered rocks. The different mineral assemblages differ in hydrocarbons composition and content. The highest content (672-2543 ppb) was encountered in a smectite-celadonite mineral assemblage associated with siliceous minerals and zeolites. The basaltic rocks with amygdales filled by secondary minerals are characterised by an approximately similar content of biphenyl-fluorene and naphthalene homologues (47 and 41%, respectively), other hydrocarbons compounds are as follows: phenanthrene 7%, and benzofluorene homologues 3%, and unsubstituted pyrene 2%. Secondary minerals precipitated in gas cavities contain ten times more PAH, which are highly dominated by naphthalene homologues (69%). Biphenyl and fluorene (16%) and phenanthrene (11%) homologues represent another substituted species. Pyrene accounts for 1% of the total amount. The PAH content in nontronite-zeolite mineral assemblages ranges from 233 to 822 ppb. The hydrocarbons composition in such assemblages differs from the one described above. Only half of the samples contain biphenyl and fluorene homologues (19-46%). Some samples contain a considerable amount of chrysene homologues (9-38%). Among the secondary minerals, siderite is characterised by the highest content of PAH (2326 ppb) mainly represented by naphthalene homologues (83%). One can suggest that the sum and composition of hydrocarbons in different secondary mineral assemblages reflect the conditions of mineral formation, paleotemperature of the groundwater, the intensity of circulation, and time of secondary mineral
formation.

5. MODERN AND ANCIENT SEDIMENTARY DEPOSITS

The content of PAH in modern and ancient sedimentary deposits was studied in marine, lagoon and lake deposits in areas in the north (Tjörnes, Skjálfandi, Öxarfjördur), west (Snaefellsnes) and southern (Svinafell) parts of Iceland. An association of smectite-zeolite secondary minerals characterises the Pliocene-Pleistocene sedimentary deposits in all the studied regions. Zeolites are represented mainly by chabazite that points to a rather low temperature during the hydrothermal alteration (Kristmannsdottir, 1982). In modern marine fine-grained sandstone and aleurolite in the Skjálfandi bay secondary minerals consist of smectite only. In lagoon sand collected at surface in a geothermal field of Öxarfjördur there were only found amorphous silica and Fe-hydroxides in present-day hydrothermal mineral precipitates. Hydrocarbons in the analysed deposits show a wide range in both content and composition. In the northern part of the rift zone total PAH values from 9 to 2635 ppb were measured in the surface lagoon sediments of the Öxarfjördur geothermal field. At the same geothermal field total PAH values of the Pleistocene marine deposits (well 4, 10 cores analysed from 333 to 437 m depth) range from 39 to 309 ppb. Pliocene and Pleistocene marine deposits sampled out of the rift zone showed a rather low content of PAH (Table 2, 3).Board coal, 7250 – Lignite, 7260 – Lignite; (*) index of refraction.

Values of total PAH obtained in the modern Skjálfandi marine sediments scatter from 9 to 200 ppb (Table 4). Comparison shows that hydrothermally altered marine deposits at the Tjörnes, Breiðavik, and Búlandshöfði (Snaefellsnes) localities, with exception of the ones containing carbonificated plant remnants show only those species of PAH that were fixed in unaltered lava, tephra and hyaloclastite. In hydrothermally altered deposits carbonised plant remains worked as a geochemical barrier for concentration of secondary minerals and PAH species.

...

Those data on PAH composition have produced a convincing evidence for the existence of modern natural gas emissions of hydrocarbons, including PAH, that rise to the surface up from the deep levels of the Earth crust. One may assume that at a certain depth there is a big fluidal source containing high-molecular hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are brought up to the surface together with the waters from the boreholes or natural springs, and with gas emission.

9. CONCLUSION

The study of the distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in geothermal fields strongly indicates a close association with the dynamics of the modern hydrothermal environment. Hydrocarbons, coming up to the surface together with the hot fluids and gas from the heated foci in the earth crust are mostly emitted to the atmosphere. A certain part of this hydrocarbon flow as coming closer to the ground surface at lower temperatures seems to accumulate in the altered rocks together with secondary minerals. There are good reasons to assume that it is due to the long-term hydrothermal effect that secondary mineral assemblages may become substantially enriched in hydrocarbons. Such an environment could thus produce and accumulate isolated occurrences of bitumen substances. The total PAH content and composition differ significantly between various geothermal fields and samples collected at the same locality. Sediments of different mineral composition and intensity of hydrothermal alteration have a high diversity in content and composition of PAH. No correlation was detected between the genesis of deposits, hydrothermal mineral assemblages and PAH composition. One can suggest that the total PAH concentration as well as the composition in different secondary mineral assemblages would be expected to reflect the conditions of mineral formation – paleotemperature of groundwater, masflow circulation intensity, and the succession of the hydrothermal events.

There has been discovered a great difference in PAH composition in groundwater sampled from different tectonic structures. It is very important to note that at the same location (e.g. Helgavogur in Myvatn and Kisilhóll fumarole field in Reykjanes) PAH composition in water and minerals or sediment precipitates differs significantly. It suggests a great fluctuation of PAH compounds in groundwater and a fluctuating accumulation of PAH within secondary minerals or fine grained sediments. A long-term study of hydrocarbon accumulation from steam and hot effluent water is needed to explain the nature of irregular trapping of hydrocarbons in secondary mineral assemblages and hydrothermally altered rocks. The correlation of PAH composition with geological and geothermal structures has been demonstrated by the study of soils. In Skógalón the PAH composition in soils from cold flanks of the geothermal field differs significantly from those revealed in warm and hot zones of the field (Figure 1). A clear correlation of PAH composition with rift faulting is disclosed in Reykjanes by studying soil samples collected along a profile extending from volcano Skálafell to Kisilhóll fumarole field across some active faults (Figure 2). These data as well as the accumulation of PAH from gas upflow jets by traps demonstrate the main pathways of hydrocarbon transportation from the deep levels of the Earth crust.

http://www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/IG ... 5/0860.pdf
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
Chromium6
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Chromium6 » Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:07 pm

On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
Chromium6
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby sureshbansal342 » Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:44 pm

I will be highly appreciated if some one provide me any scientific paper showing that kerogen has been formed from deceased organic matter ONLY. Or deceased organic matter is precursor of kerogen . this will be a great help for me.
sureshbansal342
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Chromium6 » Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:36 am

Looks like China is on board for "deep oil/N.G." formation. Full article at link. Looks they are choosing a fairly depopulated area to drill into. China has an "underground" ocean below it. A lot of water sits in deep rocks under most of China. This might be a promising area with a natural form of "Fischer–Tropsch" activity occurring. Like India off-shore, China is looking at "very deep" prospects:
---------

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gener ... dence.html

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/ ... oject.html


China Drills Into the “Roof of the World” to Help Alleviate Foreign Dependence

By Rory Johnston | Tue, 08 April 2014 22:19

From copper to iron to oil, China is the world’s leading importer of almost every raw mineral. Wary of the risks this dependence brings, Beijing is looking ever inward to exploit the mineral wealth of its interior, including the politically contentious and technically challenging Tibetan Plateau. The most recent development is a 7-kilometer deep borehole drilled by Chinese resource exploration teams. The exact location of the borehole, the deepest ever drilled at such a high altitude, as well as the companies involved in the exploration are being kept secret.

The Plateau is estimated to contain 30-40 million tons of copper, 40 million tons of lead and zinc, and billions of tons of high-grade iron ore—it is also estimated that the Plateau’s Qiangtang Basin contains upwards of 70 billion barrels of oil, potentially making it the largest such reserve on the planet. If these estimates are even remotely accurate, the rewards for Beijing will be enormous.
------
But this is not deterring Beijing. While Chinese SOEs have been in the area for over a decade (CNPC began exploring in 1995), there is a new push to see the region developed. Beijing is reviewing a proposal for a new “deep-earth” exploration project that was submitted by some of China’s most prominent geologists. As the name would imply, the project involves drilling more than 10 kilometers into the Plateau in order to obtain samples for study. Even if the samples are promising, development of these resources is going to be technically challenging and China does not have a good track record in this area—it has had difficulty tapping its vast shale gas deposits without the help of Western IOCs.

One point of concern that has been raised is the potential for water contamination. The Plateau is also known as the “water tower of Asia,” feeding many of the regions critical rivers as well as holding 30 percent of China’s freshwater resources. Develop these resources incorrectly, and it could negatively impact hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people.

The Tibetan Plateau may be a mountain of money, but it’s too early to tell. Geological uncertainty, technical difficulty, water vulnerability, and politics all complicate production prospects. As Beijing chases self-sufficiency, we can only hope that they don’t cut corners.

By Rory Johnston of Oilprice.com
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
Chromium6
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Chromium6 » Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:43 am

The Bergius Process

The Bergius Process is a method of production of liquid hydrocarbons for use as synthetic fuel by hydrogenation of high-volatile bituminous coal at high temperature and pressure. It was first developed by Friedrich Bergius in 1913, in 1931 Bergius was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his development of high pressure chemistry.
Process

The coal is finely ground and dried in a stream of hot gas. The dry product is mixed with heavy oil recycled from the process. Catalyst is typically added to the mixture. A number of catalysts have been developed over the years, including tungsten or molybdenum sulfides, tin or nickel oleate, and others. Alternatively, iron sulphides present in the coal may have sufficient catalytic activity for the process, which was the original Bergius process.

The mixture is pumped into a reactor. The reaction occurs at between 400 to 500 °C and 20 to 70 MPa hydrogen pressure. The reaction produces heavy oils, middle oils, gasoline, and gases. The overall reaction can be summarized as follows:

Image

The immediate product from the reactor must be stabilized by passing it over a conventional hydrotreating catalyst. The product stream is high in naphthenes and aromatics, low in paraffins and very low in olefins. The different fractions can be passed to further processing (cracking, reforming) to output synthetic fuel of desirable quality. If passed through a process such as Platforming, most of the naphthenes are converted to aromatics and the recovered hydrogen recycled to the process. The liquid product from Platforming will contain over 75% aromatics and has a RON of over 105.

Overall, about 97% of input carbon fed directly to the process can be converted into synthetic fuel. However, any carbon used in generating hydrogen will be lost as carbon dioxide, so reducing the overall carbon efficiency of the process.

There is a residue of unreactive tarry compounds mixed with ash from the coal and catalyst. To minimise the loss of carbon in the residue stream, it is necessary to have a low-ash feed. Typically the coal should be <10% ash by weight. The hydrogen required for the process can be also produced from coal or the residue by steam reforming. A typical hydrogen demand is ~8 kg hydrogen per ton of dry, ash-free coal.
History

Friedrich Bergius developed the process during his habilitation. A techniques for the high-pressure and high-temperature chemistry of carbon-containing substrates yielded in a patent in 1913. In this process liquid hydrocarbons used as synthetic fuel are produced by hydrogenation of lignite (brown coal). He developed the process well before the commonly-known Fischer-Tropsch process. Karl Goldschmidt invited him to built an industrial plant at his factory the Th. Goldschmidt AG (now known as Evonik Industries) in 1914.[2] The production began only in 1919, after the World War I ended, when the need for fuel was already declining. The technical problems, inflation and the constant criticism of Franz Joseph Emil Fischer, which changed to support after a personal demonstration of the process, made the progress slow and Bergius sold his patent to BASF, where Carl Bosch worked on it. Before World War II several plants where built with an annual capacity of 4 million tons of synthetic fuel. These plants were extensively used during World War II to supply Germany with fuel and lubricants.

http://www.thefullwiki.org/Bergius_process

--------

Related to China above:

Oct 4, 2006


China cools down coal liquefaction
By Wu Qi

BEIJING - To avert potential risks, China has raised the capital threshold for projects converting coal to liquid (CTL) fuel to brake a possible overheating in the coal-chemical industry, as excessive investment in such projects pollutes the environment and strains the water supply.

In early July, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), China's top economic-planning body and industrial watchdog, issued a circular demanding that local governments tighten control of new CTL projects before the national CTL development program is complete.

The government will not approve coal-liquefaction projects with an annual production capacity under 3 million tons, according to the NDRC circular.

One ton of coal-to-oil-processing capacity requires an investment of 10,000 yuan (US$1,250). Thus the 3-million-ton annual capacity means an investment of 30 billion yuan, an astronomical figure for most enterprises, said Li Dadong, an academician with the Chinese Academy of Engineering.

"The move aims to contain possible overheating and ensure a healthy development of the coal-liquefaction industry across the country," he said.

The world's largest coal producer, China generates about 70% of its energy needs by burning coal.

Constantly rising oil prices have prompted the coal-chemical industry to try to find alternatives for petroleum in China, the world's fourth-largest economy. Oil-price hikes have further spurred a wave of new CTL projects.

Coal liquefaction is a process that converts coal from a solid state into liquid fuels, usually to provide substitutes for petroleum products. Coal-liquefaction processes were first developed in the early part of the 20th century but later application was hindered by the relatively low price and wide availability of crude oil and natural gas.

Large-scale applications have existed in only a few countries, such as Germany during World War II and South Africa since the 1960s. The oil crises of the 1970s and the threat of depletion of conventional oil supplies sparked a renewed interest in the production of oil substitutes from coal during the 1980s. However, the wide availability of inexpensive oil and natural-gas supplies in the 1990s in effect ended the near-term commercial prospects of these technologies.

CTL fuel technology is still in an experimental phase in China, according to the NDRC.

China is the world's second-largest energy producer and fifth-largest crude-oil producer. Driven by high oil prices and fast economic growth rates, China reached a record high in domestic oil production and consumption in the first half of 2006.

In the first six months, China's domestic production of crude oil totaled 92 million tons, up 2.1% year-on-year. Domestic production of refined oil reached 85 million tons, up 5.6%, according to China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Association statistics.

In that same period, China's net crude-oil imports reached 70 million tons, up 17.6%, and China's net import of oil products reached 12 million tons, up 48%, according to customs figures. Ministry of Commerce sources said China's oil imports accounted for 47% its total consumption in the first half of this year. And the latest figures from the NDRC show China imported 95.8 million tons of crude oil in the first eight months of this year, up 15.3% from a year ago.

"China will continue to rely mainly on domestic energy supplies, and its oil production will stay anywhere between 180 [million] and 200 million tons a year for a relatively long period of time," said Zhang Guobao, vice minister in charge of the NDRC.

The country will meet the energy challenge through stabilizing domestic oil output, looking for better energy alternatives and enhancing energy efficiency, according to a plan for the mid- and long-term development of the Chinese energy sector.

"The coal-liquefaction project will offer an efficient way to quench China's thirst for oil. It is conducive to reducing China's external dependence on crude oil," said Professor Lin Boqiang of Xiamen University in eastern China's Fujian province.

CTL investment rush
China began developing CTL technologies in the 1980s. The coal-liquefaction project was given strategic significance in the mid-1990s, as China became a net oil importer, according to Zhang Yuzhuo, deputy general manager of Shenhua Group, China's biggest coal producer.

In 1999, China launched its first CTL project at Pingdingshan in Henan province. However, the project, with a 500,000-ton annual capacity, came to an untimely end because the type of coal it used proved unfit for liquefaction.

In 2001, a high-tech research project under the national 863 Program picked up the pace on CTL projects.

Shenhua Group took the lead in the process. In August 2004, it embarked on an ambitious direct coal-liquefaction project, the first of its kind in the world, at Ordos in Inner Mongolia.

The project is designed to have an annual capacity of 5 million tons. Estimated to cost 24.5 billion yuan ($3 billion), the project will be undertaken in two phases. The first phase, designed to produce 3.2 million tons of oil products, is scheduled for production by 2007, the second phase by 2010, with a designed annual production capacity of 2.8 million tons.

Other major coal producers followed suit. Last February, a coal-liquefaction project with a designed initial annual capacity of 160,000 tons was kicked off by the Lu'an Group in Tunliu, Shanxi province.

Two months later, Yankuang Group initiated a huge two-phase coal-liquefaction project at Yulin in Shaanxi province that will involve a total investment of 100 billion yuan. The project is expected to yield 10 million tons of oil products a year by 2020.

However, in addition to the three projects that have won approval from the NDRC, many other provinces and regions have blindly planned and built coal-liquefaction projects in recent years. The businesses look forward to significant economic returns counting the high price of oil and the current low cost of coal, despite potentially overloading local resources and ecosystem. The result: a headlong rush into CTL projects.

It is reported that a total of 30 coal-liquefaction projects are under detailed planning or at the feasibility stage. According to conservative estimates, the total capacity would exceed 16 million tons, and the involved investment would surpass 120 billion yuan ($15 billion). Insiders predict that China's annual oil output liquefied from coal will reach 50 million tons by 2020.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Busi ... 4Cb01.html

------
Recently Benzene was found in water supplies in Western Chinese cities resulting in 2 million people needing "bottled" water. This may be related to the efforts below:


(Chinese) Gov't Aims to Rein in Growth of Coal Liquefaction

Adjust font size:

China has raised the capital threshold for projects converting coal to liquid fuel to prevent a possible overheating of the coal-chemical industry, as the excessive development of fossil fuels pollutes the environment and strains water supplies.

On July 7, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), China's top economic policy-making body, issued a circular requiring local governments to tighten controls over new coal liquefaction projects before the completion of the national development program for the coal liquefaction industry.

The government will not approve coal liquefaction projects with an annual production capacity under three million tons, said the NDRC circular.

One ton of coal-to-oil processing capacity needs an investment of 10,000 yuan (US$1,250). Therefore, an annual capacity of three million tons requires an investment of 30 billion yuan (US$3.75 billion), an astronomical figure for most enterprises, said Li Dadong, an academic from the Chinese Academy of Engineering.

Constantly rising international oil prices have prompted the coal chemical industry to try to find alternatives to petroleum in China. Oil's recent rally towards US$80 a barrel has spurred a further wave of coal liquefaction projects.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/BAT/177543.htm
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
Chromium6
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby sureshbansal342 » Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:00 am

"TRUE ORIGIN OF HYDROCARBONS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have sufficient evidences that majority of commercially interesting hydrocarbons have been expelled from organic rich source rock and are trapped in the reservoir rocks. We also have the evidences showing presence of biological molecules in all commercial oils.

We have observed the abundance of similar hydrocarbons on many other planetary bodies viz. comets and moons (eg. Titan) etc. which are thought to have been formed without any involvement of any biological material . The common association of hydrocarbons with the inert gas helium is also not explainable in current theory of biotic origin of petroleum. We have observed presence of some traces element like V, Ni, Cu, Co, Zn.. etc in hydrocarbons which also do not clearly explain the biotic origin of petroleum ( szatmari et al,2005). According to the author of the paper ,they have analyzed 68 Brazilian oil and nine foreign oils and determined 24 metal traces in the oils showed fine correlation of the oils with CI chondrite and mantle peridotites, and worse correlation with oceanic and continental crust, and none with seawater. No doubt, the biotic theory has some important evidences but on the other hand the followers of abiotic theory also have strong evidences which cannot be denied. So we require a new theory that can reconcile the strong evidences of both the current theories. Taking strong evidences of both the theories we can easily conclude it.
Majority of commercially interesting hydrocarbons accumulations have been formed from the organic rich sedimentary source rocks but essentially from those which has been formed with the involvement of abiotic hydrocarbons. And these abiotic hydrocarbons were once hugely present on the surface of the earth in past geological time. Sedimentary rocks that have been formed without any involvement of these abiotic hydrocarbons are not suitable to form commercial hydrocarbons deposits. So abiotic sources are the major contributor in the commercial accumulations of hydrocarbons. Hence a well balanced theory is today’s major requirement which will help future hydrocarbon exploration efficiently.

AUTHOR
SURESH BANSAL
PB,INDIA
sureshbansal342@gmail.com "
sureshbansal342
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Chromium6 » Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:03 am

Some coverage on South Africa's use of Fischer-Tropsch:
--------

The demand for power in the Vaal Triangle increased such that a further three coal fired power stations were built on or next to coalfields. These were the Vaal Power Station built in 1945, the Taaibos Power Station built in 1954, and the Highveld Power Station in 1959. There were now five coal-fired power stations in the Vaal Triangle area, producing the greatest concentration of power generating stations in South Africa. It was in the 1980’s that Lethabo station came on line. It is a coal-burning power station, with the generating sets being able to consume approximately 40 000 tons of coal per day at full load, whilst at the same time producing close to 16 000 tons of ash.

Lethabo holds the distinction of being the only power station in the world capable of burning a low grade coal. The coal, which has a calorific value generally in the range of 15 to 16 MJ/kg, is supplied from the Anglo Coal’s nearby New Vaal Colliery. The unusually low quality of the coal means that it also has a very high ash content of up to 42%. In keeping with national environmental legislation, electrostatic precipitators, the largest of their kind in the world, have been installed at Lethabo. The precipitators remove 99.8% of the fly ash present in the gases that are released through the smokestacks.
The cement industry uses the ash as a cement extender, thus reducing the water demand of a concrete mix. Almost 250 000 tons of ash from the Lethabo Power Station was exported to Lesotho for the Katse Dam project.
Electricity and steam generating plant was not the only use for coal. There was considerable interest in coal chemistry during the 1920s, and in 1927 a Government White Paper was published recommending the development of gasification and carbonisation processes.

In the early 1930s, Anglovaal and the British Burmah Company mined oil shales near Ermelo, to distil off and refine the oil, mainly for petrol. Anglovaal’s interests in oil-from-coal were extended when rights to the German Fischer-Tropsch process were acquired and Etienne Rousseau, a research engineer, was appointed to investigate the production of synthesis gas from coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process.

In September 1950, of the Government-sponsored South African Coal, Oil and Gas Corporation Ltd. (SASOL from the name South African Synthetic Oil Limited) was established and in 1955 Sasol produced its first oil from coal. The Sasol plant, later named Sasol One and now Sasol Chemical Industries (SCI), has been supplied with coal from the Sigma underground mine (consisting of the Sigma/Mohlolo underground and the Wonderwater strip-mining operations) since the early 1950’s. The mine is owned by the Sasol Mining division which in total produced over 51 million ton of coal in 2001 of which 6 million ton was produced at the Sigma Colliery.

http://www.vaaltriangleinfo.co.za/histo ... coal_4.htm

--------
A lot of "Fischer-Tropsch" may naturally occur in long running coal-seam fires(?).

Pictures: Centralia Mine Fire, at 50, Still Burns With Meaning
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... mine-fire/

Pictures: A Rare Look Inside China's Energy Machine

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... na-energy/

Exploiting Coal by Burning It Underground

By Christopher Martin August 30, 2012

A natural gas rig lights up the night near Dimock, Pa. Improvements in seismic mapping and drilling that have lit a fire under the U.S. fracking boom could also spur development of a domestic coal gas industry

Imagine if the world’s most abundant fossil fuel could be tapped without moving mountains, delivered without trucks or trains, and burned without emitting greenhouse gases. Actually, the technology to make this possible has been around for more than a century. Underground coal gasification (UCG) was pioneered by Sir William Siemens in the 1860s to light the streets of London. Vladimir Lenin hailed the method in a 1913 article in Pravda for its potential to rescue Russian workers from the hazards of underground mines.

Despite its early boosters, the technology never caught on in the U.S.—mostly because it cost too much. Now the improvements in seismic mapping and drilling that have lit a fire under the U.S. fracking boom could also spur the development of a domestic coal gas industry, proponents say. “The shale gas revolution is opening doors for the coal gas revolution,” says Richard Morse, director of coal and carbon research at Stanford University. “We knew it was there but couldn’t get it out in a cost-effective way.”

The technology works like this: Underground coal seams are ignited, and the resulting combustible gas is piped out for use in electricity generation or as a raw material in chemical production. The burn can be controlled by regulating the flow of oxygen, so there’s slim chance of giving rise to another Centralia. In that abandoned Pennsylvania town, a coal seam near the surface has been burning since 1962.

The method also leaves the worst parts of coal—the mercury, arsenic, and lead—stored underground. And it allows for a much simpler capture of greenhouse gases—which can be piped back into the seam and stored there or sold to oil producers who inject it into wells to boost recovery rates.

Development of coal gas is proceeding faster in places where natural gas is expensive and coal seams are deep, including Canada, South Africa, China, New Zealand, and Uzbekistan. Both of those preconditions are absent in the U.S.—at least right now. Hydraulic fracturing has depressed the price of gas to a 10-year low of less than $2 per million British thermal units. That’s well below the $6 per MMBtu that can be attained through a typical gasification project, according to estimates by Julio Friedmann, chief energy technologist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. “Cheap gas is the mortal enemy,” Friedmann says.

Researchers at Stanford University and Lawrence Livermore estimate that underground coal gasification would boost the levels of exploitable coal reserves in the U.S. fivefold. But Tom Welch, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Energy, says UCG “has limited applicability across the U.S. because we have ample supplies of high-quality, readily available coal.”

That hasn’t stopped mining companies in the U.S. from picking up reserves that would otherwise be worthless. Peabody Energy (BTU), the largest U.S. coal producer, last year paid $6.5 million for 29 coal leases in Wyoming containing what it says are “billions of tons” of the fuel. The seams are too deep to mine conventionally but could be ideal for underground gasification.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... nderground
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
Chromium6
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby sureshbansal342 » Sat Apr 12, 2014 5:25 am

There is no doubt that abiotic theory is a real challenge to current biotic theory. there should be a Ph.d in abiotic theory also.
sureshbansal342
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Chromium6 » Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:13 pm

On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
Chromium6
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby sureshbansal342 » Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:09 pm

In my opinion all followers of abiotic theory should unite at one stage and only solution to be recognized. and i highly suggest to reconcile the strong evidences of current biotic theory also. infect we required a new balanced theory that can reconcile the strong evidences of both. any followers of abiotic theory can send me mail so that I can unite all.
sureshbansal342@gmail.com
sureshbansal342
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

Unread postby Chromium6 » Thu May 15, 2014 7:41 pm

---
“No Turning Back:” Mexico’s Looming Fracking and Offshore Oil and Gas Bonanza
May 13, 2014 | By WakingTimes | 1 Reply

Ben Jervey & Steve Horn, DeSmogBlog
Waking Times

After generations of state control, Mexico’s vast oil and gas reserves will soon open for business to the international market.

In December 2013, Mexico’s Congress voted to break up the longstanding monopoly held by the state-owned oil giant Petroleos Mexicanos — commonly called Pemex — and to open the nation’s oil and gas reserves to foreign companies.

The constitutional reforms appear likely to kickstart a historic hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) and deepwater offshore oil and gas drilling bonanza off the Gulf of Mexico.

“This reform marks a major breakthrough in Mexico’s economic history only comparable to the signing of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1992,” international investing and banking giant Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (BBVA) wrote in a January 2014 economic analysis.

...

Contrast that to Texas, just across the border. There, production increased by more than 150 percent during those same ten years, according to Daniel Yergin.

Texas’s gains are tied primarily to fracking, which has allowed drilling companies to tap into the Eagle Ford Shale and Barnett Shale basins.

“We can see what is going on in the United States. Shale gas in the United States created a sense of urgency for us,” Pemex CEO Emilio Lozoya told Yergin in an article appearing in The Wall Street Journal. “We have the reserves. But we don’t have the cash and the technology to develop them.”

If the reforms bring about the production spike hoped for by Pemex and Mexican officials, the country could be among the world’s oil-producing giants by 2025.

...
Mexico’s Reserves: Where and How Big?

Mexico sits on nearly 14 billion barrels of oil in proven reserves, according to Pemex. The Oil and Gas Journal pegged it at 10.2 billion barrels at the end of 2011. But that’s just what they know they have.

The country’s unexplored oil reserve potential is second only to the Arctic Circle, according to Bloomberg and others reporting on the reforms.

Pemex estimates, as reported by Bloomberg, that deep-water Gulf of Mexico prospects could be as large as 26.6 billion barrels of oil. Onshore, there are potentially 60 billion barrels yet untapped.

...

Though Pemex has rented four deepwater rigs to dig exploratory wells, experts believe that any real deep-water production will be contracted to foreign companies, which have the technical know-how to produce oil from these fields.

As part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (Section 303), President Barack Obama signed off on U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement in December 2013, which “establishes a framework for U.S. offshore oil and gas companies and [Pemex] to jointly develop transboundary reservoirs.”

The bill lifts the floodgates for industry to tap into more than 1.6 million acres of offshore oil and gas.

Burgos Basin

Texas’s famous Eagle Ford Shale formation has been an epicenter of the U.S.shale boom, with accompanying health and air impacts to boot. Fossil fuel reserves don’t adhere to international demarcations, and just south of the border sits Mexico’s Burgos Basin (which Mexico calls the Boquillas formation).


Mexico 3

Image
Image Credit: Manhattan Institute

Pemex estimates there could be more than 300 trillion cubic feet of recoverable shale gas in the Burgos. And the U.S. Congressional Research Service pointed out in a January 2014 report that Mexico may have the fifth largest tight oil reserves and fourth largest tight gas reserves in the world.

This is largely due to the portion of the Eagle Ford formation that stretches south of the border.




http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/05/13/t ... s-bonanza/
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
Chromium6
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests