Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

[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

[GaryN]

the right pressure the closer orbit to the sun and a mixture of electrical interaction may have contributed to the formation of these deposits

It does say "may" in this article, but I supect hydrocarbons will be plentiful in space.

Scientists May Have Found A Mega Ocean Of Oil—On The Other Side Of The Universe

Unlike Earth-bound fossil fuels — which are made up of decayed organic material — the researchers believe these hydrocarbon molecules are created by the fragmentation of giant carbonaceous molecules called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a waste-product of dying stars.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scientis ... z2T0TzGnx0

A waste product of dying stars they think, but I imagine there are ongoing processes around many perfectly health stars and their planets and moons that can produce hydrocarbons. Benzene is by way of an EUV photochemical process seems to be the accepted model, but microwave assisted synthesis should, IMO, also be considered. The idea of oil deposits on Earth coming from space, especially at a time of large solar flaring and CMEs, doesn't seem too far fetched to me.

[starbiter]

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.

Hola Nick C,

I know You have a soft spot in Your heart for terrestrial, internally produced, abiotic oil. I'm not opposed to that possibility. The problem for me is the location of the oil we find on our planet. The oil and gas is trapped in sediments. This includes the continental shelves with huge amounts of gas hydrates. From my perspective these sediments are quite fresh [probably less than 10,000 years]. There wouldn't be time for the oil to migrate to the locations where we find it, IMHO.

The Navajo formation is a good example. The San Rafael Sweel is capped with Navajo dunes. Just to the West is the Covenant Field.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum ... ges/02.htm

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

The map below shows the Covenant on the left and the San Rafael Sweel on the right.

http://goo.gl/maps/FEO3H

The millions of barrels of oil in the Covenant is covered with many feet of sediment.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/docum ... ges/05.htm

The only answer to this riddle would be catastrophic deposition. Both sloshing and reverse duning, again, IMHO.


michael

[seasmith]

by beekeeper » Thu May 09, 2013 7:20 pm

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

Hi bee,

Well starbitter's USGS pdf pretty much illustrates a whole bunch of conventional geological processes;
but to your "glassy" observation; if it's lateral 'lightning' or similarly created,
why doesn't the upper granitic layer exhibit the same glassy surface ?

Just for comparison, one might google the phrase "hydrothermal alteration of granite".


For anybody else following, a really great geology-intro source, with TONS of photos, is:
http://geologicalintroduction.baffl.co.uk/

s

[starbiter]

by beekeeper » Thu May 09, 2013 7:20 pm

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

Hi bee,

Well starbitter's USGS pdf pretty much illustrates a whole bunch of conventional geological processes;
but to your "glassy" observation; if it's lateral 'lightning' or similarly created,
why doesn't the upper granitic layer exhibit the same glassy surface ?

Just for comparison, one might google the phrase "hydrothermal alteration of granite".


For anybody else following, a really great geology-intro source, with TONS of photos, is:
http://geologicalintroduction.baffl.co.uk/

s

The conventional geologic explanation requires many millions of years. Are You down with that?


And exactly how did the glassy granite get ABOVE the coal. I'm all atwitter waiting for Your response.

michael

[beekeeper]

Greetings well my perspective allows me to observe only the lower layer.The upper layer is destroyed when we drill and blast to get to the coal. An underground coal mine might give a better picture of the underside ofthe upper layer of granite .A possibility that comes to mind is that the seams were created vertically but some serious upheaval in the earth crust rearrange them to their present configuration, regards beekeeper

[starbiter]

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

Just noticed the coal is SITTING on the glassy granite. So the granite didn't need to flow above the coal. But on the other hand, how did the coal form above the granite, if not externally.

michael

[beekeeper]

Hello again, what I do notice here in the foot hills of BC is that the coal seams are at 45 degrees from vertical or more. So earth crust heaving seems a possible option I will provide pictures of the formation later regards beekeeper

[starbiter]

Hello again, what I do notice here in the foot hills of BC is that the coal seams are at 45 degrees from vertical or more. So earth crust heaving seems a possible option I will provide pictures of the formation later regards beekeeper

Hi Beekeeper,

It might be better to discuss this topic on the dune thread.

The image linked below shows what appears to be coal on a 45% angle. It appears to me the formation grew towards the left.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-GyNP5 ... d3OHc/edit

michael

[Chromium6]

Well starbiter,

This theory is pretty controversial but has some interesting points. Points out some curious findings about the Grand Canyon. Believe what one will:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=5aN ... =endscreen

A lot of this presentation is based on this researcher's work. His work points out a lot of the curiosities. I don't want to derail anything on this thread with this author's point of view. Just look at his findings:
http://creation.com/geologist-steve-austin

One spectacular evidence of catastrophe that Steve discovered in Grand Canyon was a thick bed containing multitudes of fossil nautiloids. Shaped like a skinny dunce’s cap, nautiloid shells came from an animal that was like an octopus, or cuttlefish.

The shells are exposed in the walls of Grand Canyon in a 2-metre layer of rock called the Whitmore Nautiloid Bed. It’s a huge bed that extends over 300 km (200 miles), as far west as Las Vegas, Nevada.

“I believe the bed was formed by an underwater mud flow,” Steve said. “The water was full of mud, what we call a slurry, and so was much denser than the surrounding water. The slurry rushed down the steep slopes of the underwater mountains, gathering speed like an avalanche. And it careered across the ocean floor as fast as a semi on the freeway.”

There’s something like 40 or 50 cubic kilometres of sediment in that bed and it was all deposited rapidly.

“As the avalanche swept past it trapped the nautiloids and carried them along. I believe that these mud flows were highly pressurized and the fluid kept the sand and mud in suspension. It works like a water cushion and has very low friction, so the mud flow careers across the flat surface of the ocean floor for hundreds of miles.”

“These flows can change suddenly. A high speed slurry can start out as a laminar flow, where the fluid travels in regular, streamlined paths. Then, it can suddenly turn turbulent where the fluid flow is curly and irregular. You can see the same effect in the smoke from a candle that has just been put out.”

“Turbulent flow can’t carry the mud so it dumps its load suddenly across the ocean floor.”

“And that is what happened to the nautiloid shells. They were deposited quickly, frozen in time. One in every seven is standing vertical in the bed. The others tend to point the same way indicating the direction of the slurry flow. It’s a very interesting arrangement of fossils.”

For a long time geologists have thought that limestone rock, like the rock containing the nautiloid fossils, takes many thousands of years to form. “But this bed formed rapidly,” Steve said, “like in minutes. There’s something like 40 or 50 cubic kilometres of sediment in that bed and it was all deposited rapidly. This bed alone illustrates the title of my book, Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe.”

[starbiter]

Well starbiter,

This theory is pretty controversial but has some interesting points. Points out some curious findings about the Grand Canyon. Believe what one will:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=5aN ... =endscreen

A lot of this presentation is based on this researcher's work. His work points out a lot of the curiosities. I don't want to derail anything on this thread with this author's point of view. Just look at his findings:
http://creation.com/geologist-steve-austin

One spectacular evidence of catastrophe that Steve discovered in Grand Canyon was a thick bed containing multitudes of fossil nautiloids. Shaped like a skinny dunce’s cap, nautiloid shells came from an animal that was like an octopus, or cuttlefish.

The shells are exposed in the walls of Grand Canyon in a 2-metre layer of rock called the Whitmore Nautiloid Bed. It’s a huge bed that extends over 300 km (200 miles), as far west as Las Vegas, Nevada.

“I believe the bed was formed by an underwater mud flow,” Steve said. “The water was full of mud, what we call a slurry, and so was much denser than the surrounding water. The slurry rushed down the steep slopes of the underwater mountains, gathering speed like an avalanche. And it careered across the ocean floor as fast as a semi on the freeway.”

There’s something like 40 or 50 cubic kilometres of sediment in that bed and it was all deposited rapidly.

“As the avalanche swept past it trapped the nautiloids and carried them along. I believe that these mud flows were highly pressurized and the fluid kept the sand and mud in suspension. It works like a water cushion and has very low friction, so the mud flow careers across the flat surface of the ocean floor for hundreds of miles.”

“These flows can change suddenly. A high speed slurry can start out as a laminar flow, where the fluid travels in regular, streamlined paths. Then, it can suddenly turn turbulent where the fluid flow is curly and irregular. You can see the same effect in the smoke from a candle that has just been put out.”

“Turbulent flow can’t carry the mud so it dumps its load suddenly across the ocean floor.”

“And that is what happened to the nautiloid shells. They were deposited quickly, frozen in time. One in every seven is standing vertical in the bed. The others tend to point the same way indicating the direction of the slurry flow. It’s a very interesting arrangement of fossils.”

For a long time geologists have thought that limestone rock, like the rock containing the nautiloid fossils, takes many thousands of years to form. “But this bed formed rapidly,” Steve said, “like in minutes. There’s something like 40 or 50 cubic kilometres of sediment in that bed and it was all deposited rapidly. This bed alone illustrates the title of my book, Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe.”

Hi Cr6,

The 4 part Youtube series linked below explains the Grand Canyon nicely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8

The authors don't consider a reversal of Earth's rotation like Worlds in Collision proposes.

I think some of the Grand Canyon layers are from molten dust. There doesn't seem to be large amounts of oil in the area around the canyon. But North of the Grand Canyon the same layers found in the canyon have trillions of barrels, from great depths to the surface.

michael

[karanbansal342]

I am strong follower of abiotic origin of hydrocarbons and there is no doubt even that hydrocarbons has been formed in the deep origin of earth without any involvement
of organic matter from the surface of the earth. but we can not ignore the strong past experience of link between the organic rich source rock and reservoir. we can not
ignore the strong chemical analysis of its link with the living organism and can be nicely justify in abiotic theory.
2. If we want to prove the abiotic origin of hydrocarbons we must respect these strong evidences. according to me there is no need to ignore these evidences by the
followers of biotic theory but these evidences are strong evidences against the fossil oil theory.
3. There was huge abiotic hydrocarbons lakes,rivers and ocean on the surface of the earth in past geological time like Titan. http://www.universetoday.com/12800/tita ... han-earth/ and out of these hydrocarbons heavy molecular weight ,sticky and waxy material has been reburied after mixing
with the organic matter from the surface and organic matter has nothing to produce the oil and just has been mixed in pre generated abiotic hydrocarbons.sediments
that has been formed without any involvement of these abiotic hydrocarbons are Dry Holes only and we are getting nothing near there in spite of well established sediments
4. source rock is a mixture of mud+organic matter+pre generated abiotic hydrocarbons and organic matter has nothing to produce the oil.
5. this theory can help to find new location of hydrocarbons under testable conditions.
6. this theory has respect for the all valid evidences by the both current biotic and abiotic origin of hydrocarbons.

[Chromium6]

Related to Titan's moon. Looks like they are trying to leverage the PAH's for the creation of "life" here on earth (and Mars...if they can find it) at some point in this book. FT gets a brief mention. According to the "formula" they need "heat" for it all to "gel":


Abiotic synthesis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons on Mars

Mikhail Zolotov
Everett Shock

Article first published online: 21 SEP 2012

DOI: 10.1029/1998JE000627

Thermochemical calculations of metastable equilibria are used to evaluate the stability of condensed polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in cooling thermal gases and hydrothermal fluids on ancient Mars, which are roughly similar to their terrestrial counterparts. The effects of temperature, pressure, the extent of PAH alkylation, and the relative stability of PAHs and alkanes are considered. Inhibition of methane and graphite formation favors synthesis of metastable mixtures of hydrocarbons from aqueous or gaseous CO, CO2, and H2 below 200°–300°C. High‐temperature quenching of H2 and CO in volcanic and impact gases and dynamic hydrothermal fluids also favor the synthesis of hydrocarbons. In addition, an excess of CO in cooling systems relative to equilibrium makes the synthesis from CO and H2 more favorable energetically than from CO2 and H2. Both the CO‐H2 reactions through Fischer‐Tropsch (FT) type processes and the CO2‐H2 reactions could be catalyzed by magnetite. Volcanic gases and hydrothermal fluids related to mafic and ultramafic magmas and rocks are more favorable for FT type synthesis than those associated with oxidized Fe2O3‐bearing rocks and regolith. We conclude that PAHs and aliphatic hydrocarbons on Mars and Earth could be formed without the contribution of biogenic carbon. Some PAHs could be formed because of pyrolysis of other hydrocarbons formed earlier by the FT type synthesis or other processes. If the PAHs found in the ALH 84001 martian meteorite formed together with other hydrocarbons through FT type synthesis, it may be possible to bracket the temperature of the synthesis. The approach presented here can be generalized to study the synthesis of hydrocarbons in terrestrial volcanic and hydrothermal processes

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 7/abstract

-------

List of PAHs

Although the health effects of individual PAHs are not exactly alike, the following 18 PAHs are considered as a group in this profile issued by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR):[11]

acenaphthene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
benz[a]anthracene
benzo[a]pyrene
benzo[e]pyrene
benzofluoranthene
benzo[ghi]perylene
benzo[j]fluoranthene
benzo[k]fluoranthene
chrysene
coronene
dibenz(a,h)anthracene
fluoranthene
fluorene
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
phenanthrene
pyrene

Additional PAHs:

naphthalene

Origins of life
Main article: PAH world hypothesis

In January 2004 (at the 203rd Meeting of the American Astronomical Society), it was reported[19] that a team led by A. Witt of the University of Toledo, Ohio studied ultraviolet light emitted by the Red Rectangle nebula and found the spectral signatures of anthracene and pyrene (no other such complex molecules had ever before been found in space). This discovery was considered as a controversial[20] confirmation of a hypothesis that as nebulae of the same type as the Red Rectangle approach the ends of their lives, convection currents cause carbon and hydrogen in the nebulae's core to get caught in stellar winds, and radiate outward. As they cool, the atoms supposedly bond to each other in various ways and eventually form particles of a million or more atoms. Witt and his team inferred[19] that since they discovered PAHs—which may have been vital in the formation of early life on Earth—in a nebula, by necessity they must originate in nebulae.[20] More recently, fullerenes (or "buckyballs"), have been detected in other nebulae.[21] Fullerenes are also implicated in the origin of life; according to astronomer Letizia Stanghellini, "It's possible that buckyballs from outer space provided seeds for life on Earth."[22] In September 2012, NASA scientists reported that PAHs, subjected to interstellar medium (ISM) conditions, are transformed, through hydrogenation, oxygenation and hydroxylation, to more complex organics—"a step along the path toward amino acids and nucleotides, the raw materials of proteins and DNA, respectively".[23][24] Further, as a result of these transformations, the PAHs lose their spectroscopic signature which could be one of the reasons "for the lack of PAH detection in interstellar ice grains, particularly the outer regions of cold, dense clouds or the upper molecular layers of protoplanetary disks."[23][24]

Detection

Detection of PAHs in materials is often done using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry or liquid chromatography with ultraviolet-visible or fluorescence spectroscopic methods or by using rapid test PAH indicator strips.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycyclic ... ydrocarbon

[Chromium6]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 121102.jpg

Opens .pdf (Methane emissions from Earth’s degassing: a reference for Mars )
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object ... ctid=46104

SEEPAGE AND MICROSEEPAGE
widespread and detectable in
correspondence with any gas-oil field
(or Total Petroleum System)
Many petroleum fields discovered thanks
to HC seepage

Extraterrestrial methane

Methane has been detected or is believed to exist on all planets of the solar system, as well as on most of the larger moons. In most cases, it is believed to have been created by abiotic processes. Possible exceptions are Mars and Titan.

Methane on Mars – "potential sources and sinks" (November 2, 2012).

Mercury - the tenuous atmosphere contains trace amounts of methane.[54]
Venus – the atmosphere contains a large amount of methane from 60 km (37 mi) to the surface according to data collected by the Pioneer Venus Large Probe Neutral Mass Spectrometer[55]
Moon – traces are outgassed from the surface[56]
Mars – the Martian atmosphere contains 10 nmol/mol methane.[57] The source of methane on Mars has not been determined. Recent research suggests that methane may come from volcanoes, fault lines, or methanogens,[58] or that it may be a byproduct of electrical discharges from dust devils and dust storms,[59] or that it may be the result of UV radiation.[60] In January 2009, NASA scientists announced that they had discovered that the planet often vents methane into the atmosphere in specific areas, leading some to speculate this may be a sign of biological activity going on below the surface.[61] Analysis of observations made by a Weather Research and Forecasting model for Mars (MarsWRF) and related Mars general circulation model (MGCM) suggests that it is potentially possible to isolate methane plume source locations to within tens of kilometers, which is within the roving capabilities of future Mars rovers.[62] The Curiosity rover, which landed on Mars in August 2012, is able to make measurements that distinguish between different isotopologues of methane;[63] but even if the mission is to determine that microscopic Martian life is the source of the methane, the life forms likely reside far below the surface, outside of the rover's reach.[64] Curiosity’s Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) instrument is capable of tracking the presence of methane over time to determine if it is constant, variable, seasonal, or random, providing further clues about its source.[65] The first measurements with the Tunable Laser Spectrometer (TLS) indicated that there is less than 5 ppb of methane at the landing site at the point of the measurement.[66][67][68][69] The Mars Trace Gas Mission orbiter planned to launch in 2016 would further study the methane,[70][71] as well as its decomposition products such as formaldehyde and methanol. Alternatively, these compounds may instead be replenished by volcanic or other geological means, such as serpentinization.[31]

Saturn
Iapetus
Titan – the atmosphere contains 1.6% methane and thousands of methane lakes have been detected on the surface[72] In the upper atmosphere the methane is converted into more complex molecules including acetylene, a process that also produces molecular hydrogen. There is evidence that acetylene and hydrogen are recycled into methane near the surface. This suggests the presence either of an exotic catalyst, or an unfamiliar form of methanogenic life.[73] An apparent lake of liquid methane has been spotted by the Cassini-Huygens probe, causing researchers to speculate about the possibility of life on Titan.[74] Methane showers, probably prompted by changing seasons, have also been observed.[75]
Enceladus – the atmosphere contains 1.7% methane[76]
Uranus – the atmosphere contains 2.3% methane
Ariel – methane is believed to be a constituent of Ariel's surface ice
Miranda
Oberon – about 20% of Oberon's surface ice is composed of methane-related carbon/nitrogen compounds
Titania – about 20% of Titania's surface ice is composed of methane-related organic compounds
Umbriel – methane is a constituent of Umbriel's surface ice
Neptune – the atmosphere contains 1.6% methane
Triton – Triton has a tenuous nitrogen atmosphere with small amounts of methane near the surface.[77][78]
Pluto – spectroscopic analysis of Pluto's surface reveals it to contain traces of methane[79][80]
Charon – methane is believed present on Charon, but it is not completely confirmed[81]
Eris – infrared light from the object revealed the presence of methane ice
Comet Halley
Comet Hyakutake – terrestrial observations found ethane and methane in the comet[82]
Extrasolar planets – methane was detected on extrasolar planet HD 189733b; this is the first detection of an organic compound on a planet outside the solar system. Its origin is unknown, since the planet's high temperature (700 °C) would normally favor the formation of carbon monoxide instead.[83] Research indicates that meteoroids slamming against exoplanet atmospheres could add organic gases such as methane, making the exoplanets look as though they are inhabited by life, even if they are not.[84]
Interstellar clouds[85]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane
----------

This article points to CH4/Oil seepage off the coast of Santa Barbara, California at Coal Oil Point. In my humble opinion, this is abiotic (volcanic) by all indications (like on Mars) but the authors point to marine biological processes as the source.

http://seeps.geol.ucsb.edu/articles/200 ... 20JMPG.pdf
----------

Increase in Methane Input to the Atmosphere from Hydrocarbon Seeps on the World's Continental Shelves During Lowered Sea Level

Bruce Luyendyk, UCSB Geological Sciences; James Kennett, UCSB Geological Sciences; Jordan Clark, UCSB Geological Sciences

Present day hydrocarbon seepage from reservoirs beneath the world's continental margins discharge oil and natural gas into the ocean and atmosphere and contribute to the global methane budget. On the northern shelf of the Santa Barbara Channel, California the Coal Oil Point seep field discharges about 100,000 m3 of gas and 100 bbl of oil per day. The hydrocarbons seep from faulted anticlines in the Neogene Monterey and Sisquoc Formations. We determined these seepage rates from a combination of calibrated sonar surveys (Hornafius et al., 1999; Quigley et al., 1999) and gas and oil capture (Egland, 2000; Washburn et al., in press) at the sea surface. The gas includes 40 metric tons of methane emitted to the atmosphere each day. We have determined by oceanographic observation that roughly an equal amount of methane dissolves in the water column as hydrocarbon gas bubbles travel 50 to 70 meters to the ocean surface (Clark et al., 2000; Figure 1). The dissolved methane is advected away from the seeps by currents and dissipates throughout the waters of the Southern California Bight. Ultimately this dissolved methane is oxidized by microbes in the ocean or escapes to the atmosphere. The relative amounts due to these processes are unknown, but we assume that a significant proportion - possibly all - of the dissolved methane is lost in the ocean to oxidation. During lowering sea level of glacial periods these seeps and others like them around the world became exposed to the atmosphere (Figure 2). Furthermore, deeper gas seeps on the upper continental slope became covered with less water decreasing hydrostatic pressures and increasing seepage rates. The result of the sea level fall was more methane input directly to the atmosphere instead of dissolving in the ocean and oxidizing.

The greenhouse effect of the added methane input to the atmosphere serves as a negative feedback to other factors driving a drop in global temperatures during glacial periods. The methane added to the atmosphere from exposed seeps could be double the amount now estimated to originate from marine seeps. Estimates based on a log-normal model for the size distribution of marine seeps range from 18 to 48 teragrams per year (Tg; 1012 gm) at present (Hornafius et al., 1999). During lowered sea level these values could therefore increase to 40 to 100 Tg per year.

This proposed source of methane could resolve problems associated with calling upon wetlands as a major source of methane during lowered sea level of the Last Glacial Maximum and other glacial periods. Wetlands today are the main source of non-cultural methane (110-115 Tg/yr) to the global non-cultural budget (150-170 Tg/yr; e.g. Khalil and Rasmussen, 1995; Prather et al., 1995) but geologic evidence suggests that less extensive wetlands existed prior to the Holocene. Wetland sources were likely much less significant in cooler Pleistocene compared to warmer Holocene time. Dryer climate, lowered sea level and lowered water tables probably reduced wetland areas in glacial compared to interglacial times.

Prior to the Holocene another source is needed to explain the finding in ice cores of atmospheric methane concentrations in glacial times that are 50% the concentrations of interglacial times (Chappellaz et al., 1990). Significant methane sources during the Last Glacial Maximum and other glacial periods are likely to have been, exposed marine gas seeps, onshore gas seeps, methane release from continental shelf sediments, termites, remnant wetlands, lakes, fires Ð and possibly methane released from the conversion of gas hydrates (Kennett et al., 2000). The implication is that without a major wetland source the glacial period methane sources were largely 14C depleted. This proposal can be tested by carbon isotope studies of air bubbles in ice cores.

http://seeps.geol.ucsb.edu/abstracts/20 ... 20HBG.html

---------

Abiotic methane flux from the Chimaera seep and Tekirova ophiolites (Turkey): Understanding gas exhalation from low temperature serpentinization and implications for Mars

Giuseppe Etiopea, b, Corresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author,
Martin Schoellc,
Hakan Hosgörmezd

Abstract

The emission of abiotic methane (CH4) into the atmosphere from low temperature serpentinization in ophiolitic rocks is documented to date only in four countries, the Philippines, Oman, New Zealand, and Turkey. Serpentinization produces large amounts of hydrogen (H2) which in theory may react with CO2 or CO to form hydrocarbons (Fischer–Tropsch Type synthesis, FTT). Similar mechanisms have been invoked to explain the CH4 detected on Mars, so that understanding flux and exhalation modality of ophiolitic gas on Earth may contribute to decipher the potential degassing on Mars. This work reports the first direct measurements of gas (CH4, CO2) flux ever done on onshore ophiolites with present-day serpentinization. We investigated the Tekirova ophiolites at Çirali, in Turkey, hosting the Chimaera seep, a system of gas vents issuing from fractures in a 5000 m2 wide ophiolite outcrop. At this site at least 150–190 t of CH4 is annually released into the atmosphere. The molecular and isotopic compositions of C1–C5 alkanes, CO2, and N2 combined with source rock maturity data and thermogenic gas formation modelling suggested a dominant abiotic component (~ 80–90%) mixed with thermogenic gas. Abiotic H2-rich gas is likely formed at temperatures below 50 °C, suggested by the low deuterium/hydrogen isotopic ratio of H2 (δDH2: − 720‰), consistent with the low geothermal gradient of the area. Abiotic gas synthesis must be very fast and effective in continuously producing an amount of gas equivalent to the long-lasting (> 2 millennia) emission of > 100 t CH4 yr− 1, otherwise pressurised gas accumulation must exist. Over the same ophiolitic formation, 3 km away from Chimaera, we detected an invisible microseepage of abiotic CH4 with fluxes from 0.07 to 1 g m− 2 d− 1. On Mars similar fluxes could be able to sustain the CH4 plume apparently recognised in the Northern Summer 2003 (104 or 105 t yr− 1) over the wide olivine bedrock and outcrops of hydrated silicates in the Syrtis Major and Nili Fossae; just one seep like Chimaera or, more realistically, a weak, spatially sporadic microseepage, would be sufficient to maintain the atmospheric CH4 level on Mars.
Highlights

► Chimaera gas is dominated by abiotic CH4 from low temperature serpentinization. ► The ophiolitic seep releases at least 150-190 ton CH4 per year. ► Abiotic CH4 exhales by diffuse microseepage from ophiolites. ► The gas flux would be sufficient to maintain the atmospheric Martian CH4 level.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1X11004560

------------
Coverage of abiotic-biogenic oil formation and seeps:

The Chemistry of Life: Where Oil Comes From
Michael Schirber
Date: 16 March 2009 Time: 05:22 PM ET

http://www.livescience.com/3400-chemistry-life-oil.html


Natural Oil 'Spills': Surprising Amount Seeps into the Sea
LiveScience Staff
Date: 20 May 2009 Time: 06:04 AM ET

The infamous 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, one of the largest in U.S. history, dumped more than 10 million gallons of crude into Prince William Sound.

While the amount of oil and its ultimate fate in such manmade disasters is well known, the effect and size of natural oil seeps on the ocean floor is murkier. A new study finds that the natural petroleum seeps off Santa Barbara, Calif., have leaked out the equivalent of about eight to 80 Exxon Valdez oil spills over hundreds of thousands of years.

These spills create an oil fallout shadow that contaminates the sediments around the seep, with the oil content decreasing farther from the seep.

There is effectively an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara where 20 to 25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years. The oil from natural seeps and from man-made spills are both formed from the decay of buried fossil remains that are transformed over millions of years through exposure to heat and pressure.

"One of the natural questions is: What happens to all of this oil?" said study co-author Dave Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara. "So much oil seeps up and floats on the sea surface. It's something we've long wondered. We know some of it will come ashore as tar balls, but it doesn't stick around. And then there are the massive slicks. You can see them, sometimes extending 20 miles [32 kilometers] from the seeps. But what really is the ultimate fate?"

Based on their previous research, Valentine and his co-authors surmised that the oil was sinking "because this oil is heavy to begin with," Valentine said. "It's a good bet that it ends up in the sediments because it's not ending up on land. It's not dissolving in ocean water, so it's almost certain that it is ending up in the sediments."

The team sampled locations around the seeps to see how much oil was leftover after "weathering" — dissolving into the water, evaporating into the air, or being degraded by microbes.

Microbes consume most, but not all, of the compounds in the oil. The next step of the research is to figure out just why that is.

"Nature does an amazing job acting on this oil but somehow the microbes stopped eating, leaving a small fraction of the compounds in the sediments," said study co-author Chris Reddy, a marine chemist with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Falmouth, Mass. "Why this happens is still a mystery, but we are getting closer."

Support for this research, which is detailed in the May 15 issue of Environmental Science & Technology, came from the Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, and Seaver Institute.

http://www.livescience.com/5422-natural ... s-sea.html

[Chromium6]

Geologic controls of deep natural gas resources in the United States
1997, Edited by Dyman, T. S.; Rice, Dudley D.; Westcott, P. A.
USGS Bulletin: 2146

http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/2146/report.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerogen

Kerogen (Greek κηρός wax + -gen, that which produces)[1] is a mixture of organic chemical compounds that make up a portion of the organic matter in sedimentary rocks.[2] It is insoluble in normal organic solvents because of the huge molecular weight (upwards of 1,000 daltons or 1000 Da; 1Da= 1 atomic mass unit) of its component compounds. The soluble portion is known as bitumen. When heated to the right temperatures in the Earth's crust, (oil window ca. 60–160 °C, gas window ca. 150–200 °C, both depending on how quickly the source rock is heated) some types of kerogen release crude oil or natural gas, collectively known as hydrocarbons (fossil fuels). When such kerogens are present in high concentration in rocks such as shale they form possible source rocks. Shales rich in kerogens that have not been heated to a warmer temperature to release their hydrocarbons may form oil shale deposits.

Origin of material
Terrestrial

The type of material is difficult to determine but several apparent patterns have been noticed.

Ocean or lake material often meet kerogen type III or IV classifications.
Ocean or lake material deposited under anoxic conditions often form kerogens of type I or II.
Most higher land plants produce kerogens of type III or IV.
Some coal contains type II kerogen.

Extra-terrestrial

Carbonaceous chondrite meteorites contain kerogen-like components.[10] Such material is thought to have formed the terrestrial planets.
Kerogen materials have been detected in interstellar clouds and dust around stars.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerogen

Catagenesis
Catagenesis is a term used in petroleum geology to describe the cracking process which results in the conversion of organic kerogens into hydrocarbons.

A great deal of future research is required to isolate the parameters which are most significant for inducing the Catagenetic process. Future work in the field will involve the following:

Establishing the precise relationship between burial time and hydrocarbon cracking.
Determining how hydrogen from water is ultimately incorporated in kerogen.
Establishing the effect of regional shearing.
Determining how static fluid pressure affects hydrocarbon generation. Some experiments have demonstrated that static fluid pressure may explain the presence of hydrocarbon concentrations at depths where their composition would not otherwise be expected.
Many measurements of hydrocarbon content in sample rocks have been done at atmospheric pressure. This ignores the loss of large amounts of hydrocarbons during depressurization. Rock samples at atmospheric pressure have been measured at 0.11–2.13 percent of samples at formation pressure. Observations at well sites include fizzing of rock chips and oil films covering drilling mud pits.
Types of organic matter can not be ignored. Different types of organic matter have different chemical bonds, bond strength patterns, and thus different activation energies.
C15+ hydrocarbons are stable at much higher temperatures than predicted by first-order reaction kinetics.*

For example, while it was once assumed that catagenetic processes were first-order reactions, some research has shown that this may not be the case.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tholin (on Titan's Moons)

Tholins [after the ancient Greek word θολός (tholós) meaning "not clear"] are heteropolymer molecules formed by solar ultraviolet irradiation of simple organic compounds such as methane or ethane. Tholins do not form naturally on modern-day Earth, but are found in great abundance on the surface of icy bodies in the outer solar system. They usually have a reddish-brown appearance.