Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

[beekeeper]

Hi there starbiter really don't mean to butt in, but I have been juggling with an idea that may be of interest to this topic. I used to work in a diamond mine,I now work in a coal mine. The carbon print is obvious in both of them. What I find interesting is the layout of the deposits. The kimberlite pipe as well as the coal seam are laying in rock layers that offer no transition between either of them. As if they were inserted with a laser cut. One vertically the other horizontally. In my mind and with electrical interactions of cosmic proportions only a lighting strike could create such a fine cut in granite and imbed in the rock the carbon deposits of whatever origin,or transform granite into kimberlite. I
f we admit that our planet is much younger than the proposed evolution, we must look at another way than the transformation of organic materials into hydrocarbons. Regards beekeeper

[starbiter]

Hello Beekeeper,

Nice to hear from You. I think most coal is from comet dust, with some plant matter thrown in. The dust on comet Halley has 22% carbonaceous matter.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11539150

I picture this carbon rich material falling on earth. When it lands on dry surfaces a layer of coal is produced. The carbon rich material that runs off or falls directly into water can be sloshed back on land during a cessation of earths rotation.

The kimberlite pipes might be the result of an interplanetary lightning bolt going to ground. The pipes are often surrounded by gold mines. I've seen one example of this in CO. It's hard to imagine how the process produces the clean cuts You describe. So many riddles and so little time.

michael

[Chromium6]

Okay, how might this get "trapped" under the "surface" from an ancient EU event? This isn't exactly Naphtha. So exactly how would it "deposit" itself underground.

• 11.5 trillion cubic feet of proven gas resources

[starbiter]

Okay, how might this get "trapped" under the "surface" from an ancient EU event? This isn't exactly Naphtha. So exactly how would it "deposit" itself underground.

• 11.5 trillion cubic feet of proven gas resources

Okay, the Covenant field in UT is in the Navajo dune layer. In Canyon Lands the Navajo is the very top layer of dunes. This is the case for many miles. The Covenant field is around 6,000 ' down in the link below.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum ... ges/06.htm

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum ... 70chidsey/

Something filled the rivers and lakes with dirt and oil and water. It was then covered with about 5,800 ' of sediment. Sometimes slosh, sometimes conglomerate, sometimes molten dust. Maybe in a day. Maybe more. There might have been multiple events, separated by days or weeks or thousands of years. The options are delicious!

This seems so obvious! At least to my addled mind. It's described with awe and terror in Worlds in Collision. Plasma physics make the process plausible, at least IMHO. There was a diocotron instability over Four Corners. It stretched from the Aleutians to the Caribbean, again IMHO. Please see the Dune Thread, starting at the end.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 769#p82769



Venus filled the sky. With a bridge of plasma between Earth and electric comet Venus. With dust and carbonaceous material being attracted, sorted and converted electrically.

Oh yes, in answer to Your question, with depth and heat the gas would disassociate from the liquid oil. Producing great pressure.

michael steinbacher

[seasmith]

~
beekeeper wrote:

The kimberlite pipe as well as the coal seam are laying in rock layers that offer no transition between either of them. As if they were inserted with a laser cut. One vertically the other horizontally. In my mind and with electrical interactions of cosmic proportions only a lighting strike could create such a fine cut in granite and imbed in the rock the carbon deposits of whatever origin,or transform granite into kimberlite.

The electric "pipes", i get. The horizontal layers, i'm struggling with.
For your coal mine, are there some written geological descriptions ? Maybe some photos/diagrams ?
Is there any difference in the chemical composition of the granite layers, top and bottom ?
thanks, s

[starbiter]

Hello Seasmith,

I've posted the below link many times. If You have an interest in the subject please read it.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/0371/report.pdf


Beekeeper, did the coal look something like this? These are layers that include shale and coal. I can't say which is which.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-GyNP5 ... pKWnM/edit

michael

[beekeeper]

Hi there every one, the link graciously provided by starbiter totally described what I have been looking at. But my perspective projects the granite bed at hundreds of meters. And the coal deposit is sitting on a almost glassy granite surface. That is the reason why I submit that the granite bed was formed by an electrical interaction. regards Beekeeper

[Chromium6]

Relationship of the play to the Petroleum System concept

It might be useful to look at "Plays" in the industry.

Snedden et al. (2003) evaluated performance of plays defined as stratigraphic intervals or trends, as here but they recognized that for their purposes the play represents “an assemblage of
several plays, each with its unique characteristics of reservoir, entrapment etc.”

A recommended approach a more standardized hierarchic system for play definition.

At a high level, the presence and development of plays can
most easily be compared and used for predictive purposes
by identifying their place in basin history and/or their
tectonostratigraphic context

They can be defined further by three characteristics at
three levels, corresponding to different parameters,
spanning scales from more widespread to more local:


Level 1
the petroleum charge system which the play belongs to, usually the most widespread parameter, i.e. the source formation and migration process
-this links directly to the petroleum system

Level 2
the reservoir in which the accumulation occurs, defined either by the formation name or where facies vary rapidly, by the reservoir lithofacies (and its overlying seal)
–this also links directly to the petroleum system

Level 3
the trap type, usually the most restricted geographically & which usually comprises the most specific element of a play

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum ... _doust.pdf

[Chromium6]

It might be useful to look at "Plays" in the industry.
-------------------------------------------------------------


Relationship of the play to the Petroleum System concept

Snedden et al. (2003) evaluated performance of plays defined as stratigraphic intervals or trends, as here but they recognized that for their purposes the play represents “an assemblage of
several plays, each with its unique characteristics of reservoir, entrapment etc.”

A recommended approach a more standardized hierarchic system for play definition.

At a high level, the presence and development of plays can
most easily be compared and used for predictive purposes
by identifying their place in basin history and/or their
tectonostratigraphic context

They can be defined further by three characteristics at
three levels, corresponding to different parameters,
spanning scales from more widespread to more local:

Level 1
the petroleum charge system which the play belongs to, usually the most widespread parameter, i.e. the source formation and migration process
-this links directly to the petroleum system

Level 2
the reservoir in which the accumulation occurs, defined either by the formation name or where facies vary rapidly, by the reservoir lithofacies (and its overlying seal)
–this also links directly to the petroleum system

Level 3
the trap type, usually the most restricted geographically & which usually comprises the most specific element of a play

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum ... _doust.pdf

[starbiter]

It might be useful to look at "Plays" in the industry.
-------------------------------------------------------------


Relationship of the play to the Petroleum System concept

Snedden et al. (2003) evaluated performance of plays defined as stratigraphic intervals or trends, as here but they recognized that for their purposes the play represents “an assemblage of
several plays, each with its unique characteristics of reservoir, entrapment etc.”

A recommended approach a more standardized hierarchic system for play definition.

At a high level, the presence and development of plays can
most easily be compared and used for predictive purposes
by identifying their place in basin history and/or their
tectonostratigraphic context

They can be defined further by three characteristics at
three levels, corresponding to different parameters,
spanning scales from more widespread to more local:

Level 1
the petroleum charge system which the play belongs to, usually the most widespread parameter, i.e. the source formation and migration process
-this links directly to the petroleum system

Level 2
the reservoir in which the accumulation occurs, defined either by the formation name or where facies vary rapidly, by the reservoir lithofacies (and its overlying seal)
–this also links directly to the petroleum system

Level 3
the trap type, usually the most restricted geographically & which usually comprises the most specific element of a play

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum ... _doust.pdf

Hello Cr6,

I'm wondering what Your point is? The author admits problems with "plays".

"Among the oil and gas exploration community the “play” has an almost mythical status - the successful play is the thing of which
legends are made and “play-makers” are regarded as heroes of the industry. But what is the play exactly and why do we need it?
Curiously, considering the long period it has been in daily use it has never really been unambiguously defined and, as a result, it can
mean - within fairly broad limits - what people wish it to mean. Although the term is in common use therefore, in practice its
imprecision often leads us to simply ignore its significance as a concept in our rush to concentrate on prospect definition. So the
questions arise: Do we really need the play and can we gain by defining it more precisely? "

Me again,

He then goes on to use this model. This seems to be based on uniformity. My proposal is catastrophic.

Are You considering my model? I ask again, have You read Worlds in Collision? If You don't want to consider a short chronology [10,000 years or less] and descriptions of oil falling from the sky and running into the drainage systems, what are you doing on the Thunderbolts Forum?

michael steinbacher

[Chromium6]

I was trying to get across the parameters around "trap" formation. In terms of EU and Worlds in Collision, how would a "trap" form? For both oil and gas? Either from above (catastrophic) or from below? With EU thrown in, it is more of an open question than ever before.

[starbiter]

I was trying to get across the parameters around "trap" formation. In terms of EU and Worlds in Collision, how would a "trap" form? For both oil and gas? Either from above (catastrophic) or from below? With EU thrown in, it is more of an open question than ever before.

Hi Cr6,


The traps would form when molten dust covers an area forming impermeable rock. In many cases the rock is shale. Nothing gets through, including very high pressure gas. Other rock types might also form traps. Even sloshed clay could form a trap.

In many cases anticlines and synclines seem to be produced by the reverse dune process, or sloshing, without the need for folding or collapsing.

None of my bazaar ideas have ever been considered by geologists. Where would the red hot dust, oil and coal come from? Only a wacky Velikovsky disciple with too much time on his hands would have the gall to propose such a thing. It's difficult to believe i'm typing this stuff.

michael

[Chromium6]

Hello starbiter,

Thanks for taking a stab at it. There is a lot of "mystery" in the formation of oil and gas. I personally don't think it is adequately "reasoned" out. There are too many unexplainable cases to adequately cover all the bases. I do think Velikovsky adds something to the story, but I do believe there are a few chapters in this story that are still to be written. Basically, in most cases there is usually about 5,000+ feet layer of something on top of these traps. Was this layer created over millions of years or in a few of extreme geological change. The layer of carbon you highlight is in 99.99% of the cases inexplicable as it is situated with current geological explanations.

Gas in the Trillions of cubic feet forming over millions of years? What are the parameters to form a trap with the either sudden or extremely slow geological changes. I do believe abiotic processes can explain a few of the parameters but not all of them.

[nick c]

hi Chromium6 and starbiter,

I do think Velikovsky adds something to the story, but I do believe there are a few chapters in this story that are still to be written.

I think I made this reference in one of the earlier pages in this thread, but the thread is extensive and the discussion has turned back in this direction, so it bears repeating. Velikovsky did not advocate that all of the Earth's oil was of cosmic origin.
This quote from Earth In Upheaval p 288 clearly states his position:

This destroys the main argument the geologists have raised against the theory of the exogenous origin of some deposits of oil...
highlight added

The logic is obvious, oil can be formed abiotically here or out there, and during catastrophes it can be deposited.
This is the source of at least some but probably not all of the Earth's oil.

[beekeeper]

Greeting every One there is a proposal out there that earth May be an offspring of Jupiter or Saturn when we see the composition of some of their moons methane sulfur and other components of oil and gas are very much present in the composition of these moons the right pressure the closer orbit to the sun and a mixture of electrical interaction may have contributed to the formation of these deposits Rregards beekeeper
.
d