Natural origin of oil vs organic origin, a joke?
Gary Helfert
(like water), it went against everything heard since high school. Later I
read an article in "Wired Magazine" about the scientist that made this
proposal. I don't remember his name but he is will respected in the
scientific community.
So why does everybody still laugh at this concept.
Hydrocarbons exists on other planets that do not have life on them. Why not
earth?
If life exists on the surface of earth, how did the oil come to be found so
deep under the earths surface?
Our main source of helium comes from natual gas fields under the earth. If
oil & natural gas come from the remains of decayed organics what is helium
doing there? It is not a buy product of decay.
I am not promoting this theory. I am just trying to understand why it is so
easily dismissed.
Rolf Martens
ghel...@worldnet.att.net says...
Oil, natural gas and coal all have natural or abiotic oigins,
not "biological" such.
This is demonstrated and explained wery well by J. F. Kenney
at the website managed by him, http://www.gasresources.net.
Also Thomas Gold demonstrated this. His articles I've saved
at my homepage, see its "Links" section under "On the origins
of oil and natural gas". Thomas Gold no doubt is that
well-respected scientist whose name you had forgotten. The
proposal that oil has aboitic origins was first made much
earlier than by him - see Kenney's page, for instance.
See also my recent "UNITE! Info #243en: Why is the oil price
so high? (3)", sent in 2 parts to this newsgroup (and also
at my home page).
The fact that helium precisely is so closely associated with
oil and natural gas fields, as you're pointing out, is one
of many things which confirm (or at least point to) the
fact that those substances' are coming from deep below.
The existence of hydrocarbons on other planets point in
the same direction too, of course.
The hydrocarbons are formed naturally, in vast amounts, in
the upper regions of the earth's mantle, and are continually
surging upwards, resulting in oil, natural gas and coal, which
can all be found in many places on earth, at depths from which
they can be extracted relatively easily and cheaply, with
today's technology.
Why is the correct theory on the origins of oil (etc) so
"easily" (and wrongly) dismissed, in almost all writings
which you can find on this subject?
Because some very powerful forces in society want people to
believe that oil (above all) is "scarce", which it might be
reasonable to suppose if it had biological origins, and
thus somehow accept the exorbitantly high oil price of today,
in reality a result of some political manipulations and
machinations.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Fritz Schlunder
"Gary Helfert" <ghel...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:TLbQe.1561$sP7....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> When I first heard the proposal oil might have been of natural occurance
> (like water), it went against everything heard since high school. Later I
> read an article in "Wired Magazine" about the scientist that made this
> proposal. I don't remember his name but he is will respected in the
> scientific community.
> So why does everybody still laugh at this concept.
>
> Hydrocarbons exists on other planets that do not have life on them. Why
not
> earth?
I'm not fully qualified to answer all of this, but...
The other planets are not like earth at all. I'm not fully up to date on my
astronomy, but as far as I'm aware hydrocarbons aren't normally found on
other planets, except for the gas giant planets and Saturn's giant moon
Titan. The gas giant planets aren't like earth at all in that they have
atmospheres of almost pure hydrogen (plus small amounts of other things like
helium and heavier elements). In the absence of abundant excess oxygen,
what is carbon to bind with? Obviously carbon won't bind with the noble gas
helium, but it can bind with hydrogen to make simple hydrocarbon substances,
namely methane (CH4). Once the methane is created, what exists to break it
down? On earth, excess free oxygen could break it down into CO2 and H2O,
but on a gas giant composed almost entirely of hydrogen, free oxygen isn't
likely to exist. I'm not sure what is the deal with Titan, we as a species
are still learning about the place, but as I understand it the atmosphere
doesn't contain free oxygen either. As I understand it Titan's atmosphere
is made of nitrogen, argon, and trace amounts of hydrocarbons such as
methane.
> If life exists on the surface of earth, how did the oil come to be found
so
> deep under the earths surface?
Sedimentation, tectonic activity, and other geological processes. Geology
is slow, but over many millions of years, things happen.
> Our main source of helium comes from natual gas fields under the earth. If
> oil & natural gas come from the remains of decayed organics what is helium
> doing there? It is not a buy product of decay.
Actually, helium is a byproduct (though perhaps not a "buy product") of
decay, but probably not of the type of decay you had in mind. Natural
uranium, thorium, and their radiactive daughter products often decay by
alpha particle emission. Alpha particles are composed of two protons and
two neutrons, or in other words the nucleus of a helium atom. Once the
particles slow down they grab a couple of electrons from their surroundings
and become helium atoms. Since helium is a noble gas, it does not
chemically bind with anything, not even itself. As a consequence, any newly
formed helium is free to begin migrating towards the surface of the earth
(helium gas has a much lower density than rock/mantle/earth core/etc., so
just like cream (which has lower density than milk) it would tend to "float"
towards the surface). If the helium atoms ever hit a highly non-porous cap
rock as it migrates upward, it can get trapped and accumulate, just like
natural gas and oil do.
> I am not promoting this theory. I am just trying to understand why it is
so
> easily dismissed.
Take a look at a sample of crude oil under a powerful enough microscope to
image things at the molecular and atomic level. Then take a look at some
kind of organic matter, such as a tree leaf. You will find some striking
similarities in what you find. You may for instance image a chlorophyll
molecule in the tree leaf, while in the oil you will find a couple of
separate smaller molecules that are very clearly broken down molecules
formed from one chlorophyll molecule. In the case of chlorophyll, it looks
like a ring with a long handle attached to the side of it. In the oil, you
might find a ring molecule, and then separate to that, you might find a long
handle/chain hydrocarbon molecule. If you had some "molecular tweezers" you
could hook the two molecules back together and make a new fully complete
chlorophyll molecule from the two parts. Kenneth Deffeys has a nice picture
of this more than coincidence in his book, "Beyond Oil."
Aside from this, as far as I am aware no oil has ever been found deeper than
the bottom of the "oil window." If the earth's mantle were constantly
producing oil, then it seems like oil should exist below the oil window. If
it exists, why have we been unable to find it? We do on a very regular
basis drill deeper than the oil window in our search for natural gas (since
it does occur below the oil window), yet we have still never found oil below
the oil window. Just how deep is this "abiogenic" oil supposed to be
anyway? Even if such oil did exist, what difference does it make for us
right now, since: 1. we don't know how to find it, and 2. we probably don't
have the technology to reach it, and 3. even if we could reach it that
doesn't mean it would be economical to produce.
These reasons are just the beginning. There are a number of other reasons
why the abiogenic oil theory is rather improbable, but for the time being I
think I'll leave them where they be. It is a (quasi) free country. People
are free to believe what they want, even when the beliefs are wrong, and
when such beliefs are foolish. On the other hand, I'm not a geologist, this
isn't my area of expertise, so I could be the one who is mistaken. Still,
as far as I am concerned cold fusion is perhaps more likely than (economic?)
abiogenic oil.
Dave C.
> believe that oil (above all) is "scarce", which it might be
> reasonable to suppose if it had biological origins, and
> thus somehow accept the exorbitantly high oil price of today,
> in reality a result of some political manipulations and
> machinations.
>
The problem isn't that oil is "scarce", the problem is that cheap oil is
being used at about the same rate that it can be extracted from the ground.
Very soon, there won't be enough oil to meet worldwide demands for it.
Alternate (read: more expensive) sources of oil can not be used. The
entire world economy depends on cheap oil. The entire world economy will
collapse if cheap oil cannot be produced fast enough to meet demand. If
alternate sources need to be tapped, there might as well be NO oil left on
the entire planet. The result will be the same as if the oil simply ceased
to exist. The world economy will collapse. -Dave
G. R. L. Cowan
>
> When I first heard the proposal oil might have been of natural occurance
> (like water), it went against everything heard since high school. Later I
> read an article in "Wired Magazine" about the scientist that made this
The late Thomas Gold.
> but he is will respected in the
> scientific community.
Perhaps some of his ideas were respected;
certainly some were not.
For instance, a year or two before dying
he pointed out to the world that sunlight
could not push a spacecraft (and therefore
the solar-sail advocates were making a
very basic, obvious mistake).
The reason was some idiocy about how this
would be a heat engine without a sink, or something.
Why comets' dust tails always point away from the sun,
he didn't seem to feel he needed to comment on.
> So why does everybody still laugh at this concept.
Because it is just as stupid as the no-light-force stuff,
cf. Fritz Schlunder's comment.
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html --
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet
Rolf Martens
>
>
>
>"Gary Helfert" <ghel...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:TLbQe.1561$sP7....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
occurance
>> (like water), it went against everything heard since high school.
Later I
>> read an article in "Wired Magazine" about the scientist that made
this
>> scientific community.
>> So why does everybody still laugh at this concept.
>>
Why
>not
>> earth?
>
>
>I'm not fully qualified to answer all of this, but...
>
>The other planets are not like earth at all. I'm not fully up to date
on my
>astronomy, but as far as I'm aware hydrocarbons aren't normally found
on
>other planets, except for the gas giant planets and Saturn's giant moon
>Titan.
There is a lot of methane in space and hydrocarbons, including
heavy ones, are found in meteorites, stuff "levt over" when
the planets (the inner ones too) were formed. Some meteorites
have as much of 1-3% of their mass consisting of kerogen,
which is made up of very long hydrocarbon chains
>
>
>> If life exists on the surface of earth, how did the oil come to be
found
>so
>> deep under the earths surface?
>
>
>Sedimentation, tectonic activity, and other geological processes.
Geology
>is slow, but over many millions of years, things happen.
It's physically impossible that oil could form in nature,
from biological material, close to the earth's surface.
See http://www.gasresources.net. It can only be formed in
the earth's mantle, more than 100 km down, and there it is
formed too, in vast quantities. That's why oil is found so
deep down. It has surged up from below.
That has nothing to do with the origins of oil. When surging
upwards from great depth, the oil often encounters some
biological material, which then gets dissolved in it.
>Aside from this, as far as I am aware no oil has ever been found deeper
than
>the bottom of the "oil window." If the earth's mantle were constantly
>producing oil, then it seems like oil should exist below the oil
window. If
>it exists, why have we been unable to find it? We do on a very regular
>basis drill deeper than the oil window in our search for natural gas
(since
>it does occur below the oil window), yet we have still never found oil
below
>the oil window. Just how deep is this "abiogenic" oil supposed to be
>anyway? Even if such oil did exist, what difference does it make for
us
>right now, since: 1. we don't know how to find it, and 2. we probably
don't
>have the technology to reach it, and 3. even if we could reach it that
>doesn't mean it would be economical to produce.
I don't know whay you mean by "the oil window". In reality,
much oil precisely has been found, since 4-5 decades back now,
at such depths as 5,000-7,000 m, in granite for instance.
Although such deep wells are expensive, it's quite economical
to produce such oil - this costs no more than $10-15/bl.
See http://www.gasresources.net or for instance my recent
posting "UNITE! Info #243en: Why is the oil price so high?"
in 2 parts. I'm qouting there for instance a report from
Oklahoma in February 2005, "The Economics of Deep Drilling in
Oklahoma", which says:
"Deep wells produce 11 times more output than the average of
all wells less than 15,000 feet [4,600 m] deep, and 40 times
more output than all wells less than 5,000 feet [1,500 m]
deep."
>These reasons are just the beginning. There are a number of other
reasons
>why the abiogenic oil theory is rather improbable, but for the time
being I
>think I'll leave them where they be. It is a (quasi) free country.
People
>are free to believe what they want, even when the beliefs are wrong,
and
>when such beliefs are foolish. On the other hand, I'm not a geologist,
this
>isn't my area of expertise, so I could be the one who is mistaken.
Still,
>as far as I am concerned cold fusion is perhaps more likely than
(economic?)
>abiogenic oil.
Powerful political forces in the world very much want people
to believe that the old and long-since refuted "theory"
of oil's having "biological" origins is true. This so that
they will more easily "accept" the exorbitantly high oil price
today as "natural" or "inevitable".
See also a brief discussion, on this newsgroup, under the
subject 'cyril's "bio-origins" coal with dino skeletons'.
I pointed out that such skeletons (and lots of other objects)
found in coal proved that its origin is not biologial;
two other writers were unable to explain how those (well-
preserved) objects got into that coal supposedly formed by
"massive compression" of biological material.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Rolf Martens
no...@nohow.not says...
That's not true at all.
Oil quite enough oil for all needs, for a long time in
the future. can be produced at less that $15/bl, at
the very most. This can be proved easily.
And most likely, there are enormous amounts which
can be produced at the "normal" Middle East or Nigeria
cost of $2-3/bl too.
The Saudi oil minister for instance said precisely that,
last year - to the discomfort of the US government and
some others who want to fleece us all.
Rolf M.
Rolf Martens
>
>
>Gary Helfert wrote:
>>
>> When I first heard the proposal oil might have been of natural occurance
>> (like water), it went against everything heard since high school. Later I
>> read an article in "Wired Magazine" about the scientist that made this
>> proposal. I don't remember his name ...
>
>The late Thomas Gold.
>
>> but he is will respected in the
>> scientific community.
>
>Perhaps some of his ideas were respected;
>certainly some were not.
>
>For instance, a year or two before dying
>he pointed out to the world that sunlight
>could not push a spacecraft (and therefore
>the solar-sail advocates were making a
>very basic, obvious mistake).
>
>The reason was some idiocy about how this
>would be a heat engine without a sink, or something.
>Why comets' dust tails always point away from the sun,
>he didn't seem to feel he needed to comment on.
>
>> So why does everybody still laugh at this concept.
>
>Because it is just as stupid as the no-light-force stuff,
>cf. Fritz Schlunder's comment.
Thomas Gold's making some mistake or other is not
all that relevant to the question of oil's origins.
On this he precisely was right. At the page managed by
J. F: Kenney this is explained even better:
Nuclear energy is much superior to everything else,
as you for instance have often explained. But oil
too is plentiful, and still important.
Gary Helfert
"Rolf Martens" <rolf.m...@comhem.se> wrote in message
news:R_lQe.32599$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...
Rolf Martens
ghel...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>
>Why do you feel that because oil is abiotic that it can not be depleted?
"Cannot be depleted" would be a too strong expression. The earth
after all has only a finite mass.
But vast amounts there must be, since oil naturally forms
in the mantle as soon as carbon and hydrogen are present,
and those two elements are among the most common in the
universe. In the earth's mantle, they should be plentiful too.
Also, read what an actual expert on the matter, Kenney, writes,
as quoted in my "UNITE! Info #243en":
"Correctly, one should better recognize that there exists no
more reason to expect a future shortage of petroleum than of,
say, mid-oceanic ridge basalt (MORB). [MORB is the rock
characteristic of the loci of the deep suture, spreading
zones on the mid-ocean floor where new oceanic crust is
constantly being erupted from the mantle of the Earth.]
Those predictive errors obtain specifically from neglect
of several extremely large potential sources of petroleum,
of which a few are set forth here.
....
The potential that certain of the petroleum fields presently
producing may be drawing pressured hydrocarbons from an open
and active fault or conduit from the mantle, and therefore
may never be depleted§ has been entirely neglected, as has
the potential to develop non-depleting fields by deep drilling.
(Mahfoud and Beck 1995)"
NB, he talks about the possibility of finding an open
or active conduit from the mantle - "no depletion then".
The authors mentioned had a title for an article:
[From the article's reference notes: Mahfoud, R. F. and
J. N. Beck (1995). “Why the Middle East fields may produce
oil forever.” Offshore April 1995: 58-64, 106.]
Rolf M.
Gary Helfert
that these pools of this hydrocarbon were here from the beginning and not an
on going process.
I have to think about this for a while. You probably have heard of the
methane hydrates in the deep waters off Florida. Do you also believe these
are continually being produced?
Again I am not promoting any theory, I just like discussing the
possibilities and enjoy your feedback.
"Rolf Martens" <rolf.m...@comhem.se> wrote in message
news:FrpQe.145104$dP1.5...@newsc.telia.net...
Bill Ward
<ghel...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>So you believe oil production is an on going process. I was thinking more
>that these pools of this hydrocarbon were here from the beginning and not an
>on going process.
>I have to think about this for a while. You probably have heard of the
>methane hydrates in the deep waters off Florida. Do you also believe these
>are continually being produced?
>Again I am not promoting any theory, I just like discussing the
>possibilities and enjoy your feedback.
You might want to read Gold's book "The Deep, Hot
Biosphere". It raises some very interesting questions, but
I don't think the case is quite as closed as Rolf claims.
The biotic and abiotic origin theories are not necessarily
mutually exclusive.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Rolf Martens
ghel...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>
>So you believe oil production is an on going process. I was thinking more
>that these pools of this hydrocarbon were here from the beginning and not an
>on going process.
The oil is there, deep down in the mantle, in vast quantities.
As far as I understand, the oil found in the crust (not so deep
down, but more of it somwehat deeper down, below 5,000 m down)
in most cases has been deposited there earlier.
But Kenney also speaks of a possibility of finding an open
coundit from the mantle - then a giving practically undepleting
source.
>I have to think about this for a while. You probably have heard of the
>methane hydrates in the deep waters off Florida. Do you also believe these
>are continually being produced?
Probably not, since they apparanetly were formed under
rather cold conditions on earth.
Rolf M.
Rolf Martens
>
>
>On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 00:35:06 GMT, "Gary Helfert"
><ghel...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>So you believe oil production is an on going process. I was thinking more
>>that these pools of this hydrocarbon were here from the beginning and not an
>>on going process.
>>I have to think about this for a while. You probably have heard of the
>>methane hydrates in the deep waters off Florida. Do you also believe these
>>are continually being produced?
>>Again I am not promoting any theory, I just like discussing the
>>possibilities and enjoy your feedback.
>
>You might want to read Gold's book "The Deep, Hot
>Biosphere". It raises some very interesting questions, but
>I don't think the case is quite as closed as Rolf claims.
>
>The biotic and abiotic origin theories are not necessarily
>mutually exclusive.
>
>Regards,
>
>Bill Ward
Concerning oil, at least, the case is closed. See the page
managed by J. F. Kenney, who knows even more about this than
did Gold: http://www.gastesources.net. Oil cannot possibly have
biological origins - the very laws of nature prohibit that.
On natural gas (methane): Lots of it are being produced by
microrganisms. But it seems that the natural gas coming from
wells is all abiotic.
Rolf Martens
<ghel...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>So how did all those dead dinosaurs & decaying leaves get
>down there in the first place? Did the wind blow a half mile
>of dirt on top of it when it was on the surface?
Probably yes. But the interesting question is not, how did they
get down there, but how did they get to be surrounded by that
hard brittle material, coal, which even has invaded the cells
of those leaves and which in some cases is found surrounding
manmade objects too.
The only solution to this: The coal was not formed by any
"compression" of biological material, as the erroneous theory
maintains - the leaves would have been crushed; in the case
of the manmade objects, there would have been no time for
large amounts of sediments to settle on top and cause
compression, thus the "official datings" of those coals
("300 million years" etc) must be wrong and they must have
formed rather recently. The coal - whether older or younger -
was formed by a liquid which later hardened. That's evidence,
once more, of hydrocarbons' surging up from the mantle, which
is what results in oil too - under other circumstances,
probably with not so much heat close to the surface, so that
the heavier hydrocarbons in those cases have not been
disassociated into methane, hydrogen and carbon.
Rolf M.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rolf Martens"
<rolf.m...@comhem.se>
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: Natural origin of oil vs organic origin, a joke?
Dave C.
> can be produced at the "normal" Middle East or Nigeria
> cost of $2-3/bl too.
>
> The Saudi oil minister for instance said precisely that,
> last year - to the discomfort of the US government and
> some others who want to fleece us all.
>
> Rolf M.
>
The mideast leaders have a huge financial incentive to say that there are
plenty of oil reserves left. The rate of production is partially tied to
the size of the reserves. Thus, if you are running out of oil, you still
SAY that there is plenty of it left. -Dave
Rolf Martens
no...@nohow.not says...
posted to this NG too on 26.08, you'll find that I expressly
took the possibility of such a motive, for statements which
might not necessarily be covered by ascertained facts, into
consideration.
And at the same time, I pointed out that such statements
precisely do fit in very well anyway with what can be calculated
to be the actual facts, and not concerning only one single
country either.
Both Saudi Arabia and lots of other counties which today
are not even oil producers can produce enormous amounts
of oil, at no high cost at all. See my Info, for instance.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
K. Jones
> The oil is there, deep down in the mantle, in vast quantities.
Proof of these "vast quantities"?
K. Jones
Fritz Schlunder
> The only solution to this: The coal was not formed by any
> "compression" of biological material, as the erroneous theory
> maintains - the leaves would have been crushed; in the case
> of the manmade objects, there would have been no time for
> large amounts of sediments to settle on top and cause
> compression, thus the "official datings" of those coals
> ("300 million years" etc) must be wrong and they must have
> formed rather recently. The coal - whether older or younger -
> was formed by a liquid which later hardened.
Errr... Now you are suggesting coal has abiotic origins too? It seems your
abiogenesis zeal knows no boundaries.
If you study samples of lignite coal you can often see the original wood
grain and texture still in it.
If you believe coal has abiotic origins, then it doesn't seem like much of a
stretch to believe you might also believe peat is abiotic. But if you
believe peat is abiotic, then it doesn't seem like much of a further stretch
to believe that you might believe regular biomass is also abiotic. (!!) Do
you believe any fuel is organically derived?
Rolf Martens
shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com says...
"They [the heavy hydrocarbons] can only arise, in nature and on
earth, under such conditions which exist more than 100 km down,
that is, in the earth's mantle. And under such conditions they
will arise, as soon as there is carbon and hydrogen present.
This was demonstrated by an experiment by Kenney and others in
2002. Since in the upper regions of the earth's mantle there
obviously are vast amounts of those two elements, both very
common in the universe, there are also vast amounts of heavier
hydrocarbons there. Because of the relatively low density of
these substances, they will tend to surge upwards. From this
stems that oil which is found in shallower or deeper wells."
NB also that J. F: Kenney, who knows about these things,
at his website mentions the possibility of finding
(practically) "non-depleting" oil by hitting an active conduit
or fault through which oil would continue gush up from the
mantle.
Also (Kenney:)
"Correctly, one should better recognize that there exists no
more reason to expect a future shortage of petroleum than of,
say, mid-oceanic ridge basalt (MORB)."
Rolf M.
K. Jones
> In article <MdQQe.2579$884.3...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >"Rolf Martens" <rolf.m...@comhem.se> wrote in message
> >news:fwyQe.32631$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...
> >
> >> The oil is there, deep down in the mantle, in vast quantities.
> >
> >Proof of these "vast quantities"?
> >
> >K. Jones
> >
> >
> As I wrote in "UNITE! Info #243en":
>
> "They [the heavy hydrocarbons] can only arise, in nature and on
> earth, under such conditions which exist more than 100 km down,
> that is, in the earth's mantle. And under such conditions they
> will arise, as soon as there is carbon and hydrogen present.
>This was demonstrated by an experiment by Kenney and others in
> 2002.
Since in the upper regions of the earth's mantle there
> obviously are vast amounts of those two elements, both very
> common in the universe,
Obviously? Cite please (not your OWN webpages, but something independant
please)
There is lots of hydrogen in the ocean too, but it's already being used for
something else.
K. Jones
Rolf Martens
Concerning hydrogen, Wikipedia says:
"Minerals in the mantle may contain as much as 10 times
the water as in all of the oceans."
Thus, quite large amounts of hydrogen in the mantle too,
and presumably in particular in its upper regions, which are
the interesting regions in this context.
Concerning carbon, an article at
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:NwvKKHmr1XMJ:
www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/Geo656/656notes03/
656%252003Lecture38.pdf+mantle+kerogen&hl=sv
says:
"...only a small fraction of the sedimentary organic carbon
is recoverable fuel; most is present as minor amounts
(typically 0.5% or less) of kerogen and other refractory
organic compounds insediments. Even greater amounts of carbon
are probably stored in the mantle, though the precise amount
is difficult to estimate."
It does go on to say:
"An order of magnitude figure might be 250-500 ppm CO2 in the
mantle, which implies a total inventory of 2.5-5 ¥ 10^8 Gt,
or about 10^6 times the amount in the atmosphere."
That would be only very small concentration of CO2 (or
carbon), true enough. But it's reasonable to suppose that the
concentration in the upper regions is higher than that in the
mantle as a whole, and since even these regions contain so
much more matter than does the earth's crust (4016 · 10^24 g
for the entire mantle, versus 24 · 10^24 g for the crust),
the total amount of carbon in these regions will be quite
large anyway.
In an article in 1996, Samar Abbas, Dept. of Physics,
Utkal University, India, wrote i.a.:
"If the non-organic theory is correct, then hydrocarbon
reserves would be enormous and almost inexhaustible."
(Article at
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:EfzK8RjhpXsJ:arxiv.org/
pdf/physics/9610011+mantle+kerogen&hl=sv)
I suppose this was based on a judgement, or knowledge, of
there actually existing such vast amounts of hydrogen and
carbon in the mantle as I inferred that there must be (true
enough, basing myself only on the fact of those two elements'
being quite common in the universe as a whole and on the
planets too).
Rather many other scientists, who presumably know more about
the actual composition of the earth's mantle than I do, have
stated too that if the abiotic or non-organic theory on the
origins of oil is correct, then oil must be plentiful on
earth.
(And of course that theory is correct; the "bio-origins" one
has long since been refuted as impossible to reconcile with
the laws of physics and chemistry.)
It seems to me that my writing that there "obviously" are
vast amounts of hydrogen and carbon in (the upper regions of)
the earth's mantle was well-founded, and my drawing the
conclusion that there's plenty of oil on earth too.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Rolf Martens
shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com says...
>> "They [the heavy hydrocarbons] can only arise, in nature and on
>> earth, under such conditions which exist more than 100 km down,
>> that is, in the earth's mantle. And under such conditions they
>> will arise, as soon as there is carbon and hydrogen present.
>>This was demonstrated by an experiment by Kenney and others in
>> 2002.
>*************
>Since in the upper regions of the earth's mantle there
>> obviously are vast amounts of those two elements, both very
>> common in the universe,
>**************
>
>Obviously? Cite please (not your OWN webpages, but something
independant
>please)
>There is lots of hydrogen in the ocean too, but it's already being used
for
>something else.
>
>K. Jones
One more thing, concerning carbon in the earth's mantle:
I wrote in a reply just now that according to one article,
"Even greater amounts of carbon [than in the crust] are
probably stored in the mantle, though the precise amount
is difficult to estimate",
and then there was an assessment of the proportion of CO2
in the mantle: No more than "some 250-500 ppm".
Which would mean vast amounts of carbon altogether anyway. But
nothing was said on there possibly being carbon in other
compounds in the mantle too, such as carbonates (CaCo3), which
are so plentiful in the earth's crust. The article in question
mainly concerned possible exchanges of CO2 between the
atmosphere and other parts of the planet, it seems.
Although I really don't have any concrete information on
this, it seems reasonable to me to conclude that there are
also quite vast quantities of carbonates in the upper regions
of the mantle too, and thus more carbon there (quite likely,
much more), than "only" that which is in the form of CO2.
Rolf M.
Rolf Martens
complement to what I wrote in my first reply.
In article <tQwRe.7865$2F1.4...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com says...
>> "They [the heavy hydrocarbons] can only arise, in nature and on
>> earth, under such conditions which exist more than 100 km down,
>> that is, in the earth's mantle. And under such conditions they
>> will arise, as soon as there is carbon and hydrogen present.
>>This was demonstrated by an experiment by Kenney and others in
>> 2002.
>*************
>Since in the upper regions of the earth's mantle there
>> obviously are vast amounts of those two elements, both very
>> common in the universe,
>**************
>
>Obviously? Cite please (not your OWN webpages, but something
independant
>please)
>There is lots of hydrogen in the ocean too, but it's already being used
for
>something else.
>
>K. Jones
My second reply, yesterday 01.09 (after I had first mentioned
some information on the amounts of hydrogen and carbon in the
mantle), was:
"One more thing, concerning carbon in the earth's mantle:
I wrote in a reply just now that according to one article,
"Even greater amounts of carbon [than in the crust] are
probably stored in the mantle, though the precise amount
is difficult to estimate",
and then there was an assessment of the proportion of CO2
in the mantle: No more than "some 250-500 ppm".
Which would mean vast amounts of carbon altogether anyway. But
nothing was said on there possibly being carbon in other
compounds in the mantle too, such as carbonates (CaCo3), which
are so plentiful in the earth's crust. The article in question
mainly concerned possible exchanges of CO2 between the
atmosphere and other parts of the planet, it seems.
Although I really don't have any concrete information on
this, it seems reasonable to me to conclude that there are
also quite vast quantities of carbonates in the upper regions
of the mantle too, and thus more carbon there (quite likely,
much more), than "only" that which is in the form of CO2."
So far, my second reply.
In this third reply of mine, first a guess:
Since the earth's crust to 0.5% consists of carbon, that is,
C makes up 5,000 ppm of it, it's reasonable to suppose that
in the upper regions of the mantle, the concentration of C
is not all that much lower. That is, probably not as low
as only those 250-500 ppm of CO2 (out of which one-fourth is
carbon) which that article I quoted mentioned, but at least
considerably higher than that.
And in my second reply I guessed that there must be at least
some carbon in the form of carbonates too, in the upper
mantle.
Now I've seen a website which comfirms this guess: "EOS of
Carbonates", at
http://mplmac.geo.cornell.edu/carbonates/carbonates.html.
It says:
"Carbonates are an important group of minerals for their
abundance in sedimentary rocks on the surface of the Earth
and for their existence in the organic material in the ocean,
which constitute the most important reservoir for carbon
dioxide on the Earth零 surface. Since there is so much
carbonate material in ocean basin sediments, one natural
question to ask is what is the destiny of those carbonates
in the sediments. Following the subduction of oceanic floor,
most of the carbonates are subducted underneath the
continental plate and deeper into the mantle. Carbonatite
magma and CO2 volcanic gas are the primary evidence that
carbon is an active member of the igneous process, where the
carbon is cycled back to the surface of the Earth. The
occurrence of diamond and carbonate inclusion in the mantle
xenoliths, on the other hand, have long been held as evidence
of carbon existing in a solid form in the deeper mantle.
Recent experimental and field evidence demonstrated that
magnesite is a possible host for carbon in the mantle.
Therefore, the properties of carbonates at high pressure and
temperature, starting from the most basic pressure (P)
- volume (V) - temperature (T) relationships, are important
keys to a better understanding of this relatively unknown
part of the Earth零 carbon cycle."
(Calcite is CaCO3; magnesite is MgCO3.)
So, the diamonds and carbonates found in xenoliths from the
mantle have long been held as evidence that there is carbon
in solid form (even) in the deeper mantle.
The article doesn't say, how common is that element there.
But it does confirm my guess about there being carbon not
only in the form of CO2 in the upper mantle. And if its
prevalence there is not all that much less than the 5,000 ppm
in the crust - which I think it's reasonable to assume -
then such amounts of carbon really are vast.
And demonstrated by that experiment I mentioned, carbon in the
mantle together with hydrogen (in water, for instance, which
there are lots of - see my first reply) will combine - at
least if there's also iron oxide present, which there is too
- into heavier hydrocarbons, that is, oil.
Which, thus, is very plentiful on earth.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Rolf Martens
your question, K. Jones. But one thing which I found,
concerning carbon in the earth's mantle, I think it would be
wrong to withhold to you. You suggested that there might
be "too little" of it to support my claim that oil is
plentiful on earth. Here's a "warning" by some people that
there, on the contrary, is "dangerously much" of it - see
below.
In article <tQwRe.7865$2F1.4...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com says...
>> "They [the heavy hydrocarbons] can only arise, in nature and on
>> earth, under such conditions which exist more than 100 km down,
>> that is, in the earth's mantle. And under such conditions they
>> will arise, as soon as there is carbon and hydrogen present.
>>This was demonstrated by an experiment by Kenney and others in
>> 2002.
>*************
>Since in the upper regions of the earth's mantle there
>> obviously are vast amounts of those two elements, both very
>> common in the universe,
>**************
>
>Obviously? Cite please (not your OWN webpages, but something
independant
>please)
>There is lots of hydrogen in the ocean too, but it's already being used
for
>something else.
>
>K. Jones
I already have mentioned there being lots of hydrogen, in the
form of water, presumably some 10 times as much water as in
all the oceans. And I successively added some information on
the probable amounts of carbon too, in my replies 1-3.
Now I've seen an article in "News in Science", 24.07.2004,
which has, firstly, some information on that which is
probably correct (confirming that which I wrote) and which
secondly makes a "horror story" of it too, another one of
those "global warming" horror stories which are intended too,
of course, to "justify" the exorbitant oil and gasoline
prices.
It's at http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s909282.htm
Headline "Deep carbon could trigger mass extinction" (Booh!).
Some quotes from the text:
"Researchers know that carbon is stored in the mantle, a layer
of plastic-like rock beneath Earth's fragile crust, said
Professor Hans Keppler of the Institute of Sciences at
Germany's University of Tuebingen, whose report appears in
today's issue of Nature.
Exactly how much is down there is unknown. Most estimates,
drawn from analyses of gases emerging from the mantle,
suggest the store is many times more than all the carbon in
the Earth's atmosphere, soil and sea combined."
[No doubt so far correct, and confirms what I already wrote.]
"The concern is that if just a part of this gigantic reservoir
is quickly released as carbon dioxide, or CO2, that could
create a runaway greenhouse effect. The CO2-soaked atmosphere
would store up heat from the Sun, shrivelling plant life and
destroying species along the food chain."
"The [mantle] reservoir is just gigantic compared with
anything that we have on the Earth's surface," said Keppler.
So he and his colleagues conducted an ambitious experiment
aimed at finding whether mantle rock is a stable storage for
CO2.
Most of the rock in the Earth's upper mantle is a crystalline
silicate called olivine.
...
The carbon turned out to be almost completely insoluble in
olivine ... So if the carbon is not in the olivine, that
leaves only one major source, Keppler said: "If you cannot
store the carbon in the olivine, then the only plausible
place for storing it are carbonates."
...
Heated to a molten state, carbonates are capable of squeezing
through cracks in the olivine, rising up towards the surface
and absorbing the free carbon as they go. They can pick up so
much that as much as 10 or 20% of their mass is carbon.
The risk, said Keppler, is that this carbonate reservoir
could suddenly be breached in the event of a major volcanic
eruption.
"Once the carbonate comes up to the surface, as soon as it is
below [a pressure of] 20 or 30 kilobars, which corresponds to
a depth of 40 or 60 km in the mantle," he said. "As soon as
it comes up beyond this depth, it will decompose and release
carbon dioxide."
The nightmare scenario? Gigantic geysers of carbon dioxide,
imperilling life on the surface. "There has been some evidence
that something like this has happened in the past. There is a
very good correlation with [CO2] flooding that coincides with
several mass extinction events - some massive, sudden change
of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," Keppler said."
And blabla, blabla.
So you see, K. Jones, there's not "too little" carbon in the
earth's mantle, as you thought (feared?) there might be, or
at least wanted me to prove there isn't. According to that
"News in Science" article, there in fact is "dangerously
much" of it.
Either "extinction" by there being "too much" carbon (and
thus "too much" oil), or else "return to the stoneage" by
there being "too little", that seems to be the choices
which some reactionary propagandists want to present to
people, in "justification" of the oil price's being
manipulated up to today's level.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
K. Jones
> Perhaps it's overdoing it a little to post a fourth reply to
> your question, K. Jones. But one thing which I found,
> concerning carbon in the earth's mantle, I think it would be
> wrong to withhold to you.
***********************************
>You suggested that there might
> be "too little" of it to support my claim that oil is
> plentiful on earth.
*****************************************
No, I didn't suggest anything of the sort.
There is lots of carbon and hydrogen in the universe.
Most of it useless as a fuel source.
Did you understand my comment about all the hydrogen in the oceans?
K. Jones
Rolf Martens
shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com says...
>
>
>
>"Rolf Martens" <rolf.m...@comhem.se> wrote in message
>news:65ZRe.32894$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...
>> Perhaps it's overdoing it a little to post a fourth reply to
>> your question, K. Jones. But one thing which I found,
>> concerning carbon in the earth's mantle, I think it would be
>
>***********************************
>>You suggested that there might
>> be "too little" of it to support my claim that oil is
>> plentiful on earth.
>*****************************************
>
>No, I didn't suggest anything of the sort.
>
>There is lots of carbon and hydrogen in the universe.
>Most of it useless as a fuel source.
>
>Did you understand my comment about all the hydrogen in the oceans?
>
>K. Jones
>
My initial argument was, that since hydrogen and carbon are
so plentiful in the universe, there should be vast amounts
of those elements in the earth's mantle too. And since it
has been shown by experiment that, if present in the mantle,
they will combine to form heavier hydrocarbons (that is, oil),
then - I argued - there should be vast amounts of heavier
hydrocarbons in the mantle too.
What I thought that you suggested was that there might be
"too little" of hydrogen and/or carbon *in the mantle* for
it to be true that there are vast amounts of heavier
hydrocarbons.
I agree with your proposition that the vast amounts of
hydrogen and carbon *elsewhere* in general does not mean
at all that they would be useful as (chemical) fuels. For
instance, all the hydrogen in the oceans, of course that's
of no use as a chemical fuel, since it's oxidized. (Another
matter, irrelevant in this context as you'll no doubt
agree, is that that hydrogen, or part of it, is a potential
*nuclear* fuel, for fusion.)
So I did understand your argument about there being lots of
(chemical-fuel-wise) useless hydrogen in the oceans, but I
found it irrelevant.
I later advanced some more specific arguments why, in my
judgement, there no doubt *are* vast amounts of hydrogen
and carbon at that particular location in the universe, the
earths mantle (which is the interesting location in this
context) - since what you asked for was *proof* of my
proposition, "plenty of oil on earth".
These arguments were firstly the estimate, in Wikipedia,
for instance, that water, even if relatively scarce in the
mantle, at least is present there in amounts corresponding
to some ten times the water in the oceans.
And secondly, some more information pertaining to the
amount (or prevalence) of carbon precisely in the mantle too.
Since the crust, I argued, contains some 0.5% of carbon,
(or 5,000 ppm of it), mainly in the form of carbonate, there
most likely is a not that much smaller percentage of it in the
upper regions of the mantle too.
On that point, btw, Kenney writes in one article, at:
http://www.gasresources.net/AlkaneGenesis.htm, i.a.:
"Although there has been observed igneous CaCO3 (carbonatite)
of mantle origin, carbon should be more reasonably expected
to exist in the mantle of the Earth as an element in its
dense phases: cubic (diamond), hexagonal (lonsdaleite), or
random-close-pack (chaoite)."
And the late Thomas Gold argued, in one article which I've
seen, that since diamonds (consisting of pure carbon, of
course) are formed in the mantle, carbon must be present there
in relatively large concentrations; otherwise those
aggregations of it which make up the diamonds could not have
been formed.
A sound argument, in my opinion.
To sum up: My replies to your request for proof of my
proposition "plenty of oil, since those higher hydrocarbons
are formed in the mantle" were intended to substantiate that
not only in the universe in general but in the earth's mantle
too, hydrogen and carbon *are* present in suffiently high
concentrations for there existing vast amounts of those
hydrocarbons there.
Another question, one which I did not address, is that of
whether these hydrocarbons, then, have surged up, are
surging up, in vast amounts close enough to the earth's
surface to be extracted by drilling (which is possible and
is being carried out to depths of up to 8,000 m).
And yes, observations and extraction practic shows that this
is so. Much oil has been extracted from such depths since 40
years back at least. The coal on earth comes from such
upsurges too. And so do those vast amounts of methane (and
also oil) which are seeping up from the ocean floors, for
instance.
One more thing concerning this:
On 18 June 2005, a one-day AAPG Research Conference on the
subject "Origins of Petroleum" was held in Calgary, Alberta,
Canada. I've seen the papers submitted; they can be found at
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/inde
x.htm
(and I have them at my homepage too - I must admit that some
parts of the technical arguments advanced I don't yet
understand).
In one of those papers, by Alexander A. Kitchka, the Ukraine,
this no doubt correct conclusion was drawn:
"Recognition of a feature such as a HC-saturated site - an
anisotropic depth domain - is a challenge ahead to exporatio-
nists and geophysicists and the intra-basement traps within
testable depths of drilling are the deep fractured reservoirs
where giant virgin hydrocarbon reserves await discovery.
This relevation should disencumber exploration practice
that is now overstressed and infatuated with the bio-organic
origin of petroleum paradigm.
Lastly, there is a single circumstance one may want to
consider in contemplating the truth of the paradigm: simple
calculations based on average present-day rates and volumes
(a conservative estimate) of hydrocarbon seepages on land and
sea testify that at the present-day rate of seepage the
world's conventional oil reserves (proven to this day) should
disappear in no more than one million years."
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
K. Jones
> So I did understand your argument about there being lots of
> (chemical-fuel-wise) useless hydrogen in the oceans, but I
> found it irrelevant.
Ok, let's take this one step further then.
*Why* is it "(chemical-fuel-wise) useless"?
And why do you think this carbon and hydrogen in the mantle, is not, also
"(chemical-fuel-wise) useless"?
K. Jones
Ed Earl Ross
> "Rolf Martens" <rolf.m...@comhem.se> wrote in message
> news:5ARTe.33323$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...
<snip>
>>So I did understand your argument about there being lots of
>>(chemical-fuel-wise) useless hydrogen in the oceans, but I
>>found it irrelevant.
>
>
> Ok, let's take this one step further then.
> *Why* is it "(chemical-fuel-wise) useless"?
> And why do you think this carbon and hydrogen in the mantle, is not, also
> "(chemical-fuel-wise) useless"?
I don't know if your are trolling or naive, but I'll assume you
really want answers to your questions.
Not all carbon and hydrogen in the mantle are useless as fuel.
Water (H2O) is useless as a fuel because it is a fire extinguisher.
To separate the hydrogen from the oxygen takes too much energy to
make it economically viable. Moreover, there is no source of atomic
hydrogen in the mantle, it is all combined with something else,
mostly water. For these reasons, some will say that atomic hydrogen
is not a fuel, it is a consumer of fuel.
Carbon and hydrogen in hydrocarbons, such as petroleum are very
useful as fuel, but supplies are limited. Therefore, the time we
can use this this great fuel is limited.
Atomic carbon, as coal, is also very useful, and plentiful.
Diamonds are also atomic carbon, and could be burned if one is
desperate.
As these carbon sources pollute the environment when burned, some
people devalue them. In other words, some believe the environmental
damage of using carbon and hydrocarbons as fuel is worse than the
benefits.
To get in depth answers to your questions, take choruses in
physics, chemistry, organic chemistry, and thermodynamics.
<snip>
--
Humbly--Ed
"If the man doesn't believe as we do,
we say he is a crank, and that settles it.
I mean, it does nowadays, because now we
can't burn him." (Mark Twain)
K. Jones
"Ed Earl Ross" <ede...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:OVYTe.48444$Nx.3...@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> K. Jones wrote:
> > "Rolf Martens" <rolf.m...@comhem.se> wrote in message
> > news:5ARTe.33323$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...
>
> <snip>
>
> >>So I did understand your argument about there being lots of
> >>(chemical-fuel-wise) useless hydrogen in the oceans, but I
> >>found it irrelevant.
> >
> >
> > Ok, let's take this one step further then.
> > *Why* is it "(chemical-fuel-wise) useless"?
> > And why do you think this carbon and hydrogen in the mantle, is not,
also
> > "(chemical-fuel-wise) useless"?
>
> I don't know if your are trolling or naive, but I'll assume you
> really want answers to your questions.
I am neither trolling nor naive.....I was "leading" Mr. Martens to my
points.
> Not all carbon and hydrogen in the mantle are useless as fuel.
Check
> Water (H2O) is useless as a fuel because it is a fire extinguisher.
It is useless because it takes more energy to disasscoicate it than you get
from recombining it.
> To separate the hydrogen from the oxygen takes too much energy to
> make it economically viable. Moreover, there is no source of atomic
> hydrogen in the mantle, it is all combined with something else,
> mostly water.
Check. Now you've hit on the point of my line of questioning.
Yes, some carbon and hydrogen is available as fuel. Peat/coal/oil..et al.
The majority of hydrogen is "unavailable", as it's already combined with
things like oxygen.
The same holds true of carbon. We see the majority of it things like
carbonates, organic matter, etc.
Mr. Martens, as I understand it, is saying since carbon and hydrogen are
some of the most abundant elements in the universe, it follows that there
must be an unlimited supply of hydrocarbons.
I disagree.
K. Jones
Rolf Martens
shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com says...
[RM, earlier:]
>> So I did understand your argument about there being lots of
>> (chemical-fuel-wise) useless hydrogen in the oceans, but I
>> found it irrelevant.
>
>Ok, let's take this one step further then.
>*Why* is it "(chemical-fuel-wise) useless"?
Because it's in the form of water, of course, which
doesn't burn so well. I don't understand why you're asking
this. Perhaps because the hydrogen, as separated from the
oxygen, might function as an energy *carrier*? (Not a
fuel, of course.)
>And why do you think this carbon and hydrogen in the mantle, is not, also
>"(chemical-fuel-wise) useless"?
>
>K. Jones
Difficult for me to understand too why you're asking that
question. It's because in the earth's mantle, those elements
will form hydrocarbons, of course - lots of them too. Which
was a main point in all that I've written in this context.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Rolf Martens
says...
>
>
>K. Jones wrote:
>> "Rolf Martens" <rolf.m...@comhem.se> wrote in message
>> news:5ARTe.33323$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...
>
><snip>
>
>>>So I did understand your argument about there being lots of
>>>(chemical-fuel-wise) useless hydrogen in the oceans, but I
>>>found it irrelevant.
>>
>>
>> Ok, let's take this one step further then.
>> *Why* is it "(chemical-fuel-wise) useless"?
>> And why do you think this carbon and hydrogen in the mantle, is not, also
>> "(chemical-fuel-wise) useless"?
>
>I don't know if your are trolling or naive, but I'll assume you
>really want answers to your questions.
>
>Not all carbon and hydrogen in the mantle are useless as fuel.
>
>Water (H2O) is useless as a fuel because it is a fire extinguisher.
>To separate the hydrogen from the oxygen takes too much energy to
>make it economically viable. Moreover, there is no source of atomic
>hydrogen in the mantle, it is all combined with something else,
>mostly water. For these reasons, some will say that atomic hydrogen
>is not a fuel, it is a consumer of fuel.
>
>Carbon and hydrogen in hydrocarbons, such as petroleum are very
>useful as fuel, but supplies are limited. Therefore, the time we
>can use this this great fuel is limited.
A good reply to K. Jones except for those three lines of yours,
which turn everything upside-down.
The whole point of what I wrote is that - as has been
demonstrated - there's *plenty* of oil, precisely since
hydrogen and carbon spontaneously combine in the mantle
to form vast amounts of it.
An experiment in 2002, starting out with marble (CaCO3),
water and iron oxide, showed that.
See http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
K. Jones
> In article <28XTe.15094$I02.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com says...
>
> [RM, earlier:]
> >> So I did understand your argument about there being lots of
> >> (chemical-fuel-wise) useless hydrogen in the oceans, but I
> >> found it irrelevant.
> >
> >Ok, let's take this one step further then.
> >*Why* is it "(chemical-fuel-wise) useless"?
>
> Because it's in the form of water, of course, which
> doesn't burn so well. I don't understand why you're asking
> this. Perhaps because the hydrogen, as separated from the
> oxygen, might function as an energy *carrier*? (Not a
> fuel, of course.)
Ok. We're on the same track, and we're in agreement here. Although there is
*lots* of hydrogen in the oceans, it's mostly useless to us as a fuel.
> >And why do you think this carbon and hydrogen in the mantle, is not, also
> >"(chemical-fuel-wise) useless"?
> >
> >K. Jones
>
> Difficult for me to understand too why you're asking that
> question.
Same example as above. My geology sucks, but the evidence I've found in my
searches so far, overwhelminginly indicates the same scenario exists for
carbon...there may be lots of it, but it's 'locked up' in other stuff.
>It's because in the earth's mantle, those elements
> will form hydrocarbons, of course - lots of them too.
Perhaps I really am very naive. I haven't been able to find any data to
suggest there is much hydrocarbons in "the mantle"...., unless you believe
vast amounts of carbon and hydrogen is subducted into the upper mantle and
somehow transformed into hydrocarbons....
The crust apparently is anywhere from 30 to 60 km thick......are you
proposing to drill 30-60km deep to reach the mantle??
I've yet to see any evidence you have of vast resources of
hydrocarbons.......just the claim x is plentiful, and y is plentiful, so
there must be lots of xy.
K. Jones
Rolf Martens
shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com says...
I don't know much about geology either. But clearly, the carbon
"locked up" in other stuff gets "unlocked" in the mantle, 100-200 km
down,
and forms hydrocarbons together with likewise formerly "locked-up"
hydrogen.
This was demonstrated in an an important experiment in 2002
described at:
http://www.gasresources.net/AlkaneGenesis.htm
A mixture of marble, CaCO3 (with locked-up C) together with
water (with locked-up H) and iron oxide as a catalyst was
subjected to 50,000 bar and 1500 K (mantle conditions).
Spontaneously, lots of heavy hydrocarbons (the mixture found
in oil) arose.
>>It's because in the earth's mantle, those elements
>> will form hydrocarbons, of course - lots of them too.
>
>Perhaps I really am very naive. I haven't been able to find any data
to
>suggest there is much hydrocarbons in "the mantle"...., unless you
believe
>vast amounts of carbon and hydrogen is subducted into the upper mantle
and
>somehow transformed into hydrocarbons....
See that article once more.
>The crust apparently is anywhere from 30 to 60 km thick......are you
>proposing to drill 30-60km deep to reach the mantle??
No, but there are vast amounts of hydrocarbons surging up
towards the earth's surface. Lots of oil reservoirs have been found
at some 7,000 m down, all the coal in the world stens from such
upsurges too, and so do those enormous vents of methane at the
seafloor and on land too which are rather well known.
>I've yet to see any evidence you have of vast resources of
>hydrocarbons.......just the claim x is plentiful, and y is plentiful,
so
>there must be lots of xy.
>
>K. Jones
Details on this, how you can see that it's plentiful, I already
wrote about in earlier replies to you.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Rolf Martens
shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com says...
>Mr. Martens, as I understand it, is saying since carbon and hydrogen are
>some of the most abundant elements in the universe, it follows that there
>must be an unlimited supply of hydrocarbons.
>I disagree.
>
>K. Jones
>
I didn't say that this "neccessarily followed", but, in
my first reply to you, that it was "reasonable to assume"
that there are vast quantities of them in the earth's
mantle too - which would mean, vast amounts of hydrocarbons.
In several later replies, I advanced some more concrete
arguments concerning precisely the mantle and the likely
prevalence of C and H there.
Please see those replies of mine - from a week ago or so.
Or check out my homepage under "Links" and "On the
origins of oil and natural gas".
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Rolf Martens
shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com says...
>Mr. Martens, as I understand it, is saying since carbon and hydrogen are
>some of the most abundant elements in the universe, it follows that there
>must be an unlimited supply of hydrocarbons.
>I disagree.
>
>K. Jones
On the amounts of carbon and hydrogen likely to exist in
the upper mantle of the earth, and the probable prevalence
of those elements in that (interesting) location (not in the
universe as a whole), I've posted five replies to you earlier,
four of them on 1 Sept and one yesterday 8 Sept.
Here I'm bringing all of them once more, and now together.
My argument was and is: If there is much C and H in the
upper mantle, lots of heavier hydrocarbons (i.e., oil) will
form there too; they will surge upwards towards the surface
to depths where they can be reached by shallower or deeper
drilling.
That is, much C and H in the mantle will mean: Plenty of oil.
Earlier replies:
My earlier reply 1 (01.09):
Concerning hydrogen, Wikipedia says:
"Minerals in the mantle may contain as much as 10 times
the water as in all of the oceans."
Thus, quite large amounts of hydrogen in the mantle too,
and presumably in particular in its upper regions, which are
the interesting regions in this context.
Concerning carbon, an article at
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:NwvKKHmr1XMJ:
www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/Geo656/656notes03/
656%252003Lecture38.pdf+mantle+kerogen&hl=sv
says:
"...only a small fraction of the sedimentary organic carbon
is recoverable fuel; most is present as minor amounts
(typically 0.5% or less) of kerogen and other refractory
organic compounds in sediments. Even greater amounts of carbon
are probably stored in the mantle, though the precise amount
is difficult to estimate."
It does go on to say:
"An order of magnitude figure might be 250-500 ppm CO2 in the
mantle, which implies a total inventory of 2.5-5 Ą 10^8 Gt,
conclusion that there's plenty of oil on earth too.
My earlier reply 2 (01.09):
One more thing, concerning carbon in the earth's mantle:
I wrote in a reply just now that according to one article,
"Even greater amounts of carbon [than in the crust] are
probably stored in the mantle, though the precise amount
is difficult to estimate",
and then there was an assessment of the proportion of CO2
in the mantle: No more than "some 250-500 ppm".
Which would mean vast amounts of carbon altogether anyway. But
nothing was said on there possibly being carbon in other
compounds in the mantle too, such as carbonates (CaCo3), which
are so plentiful in the earth's crust. The article in question
mainly concerned possible exchanges of CO2 between the
atmosphere and other parts of the planet, it seems.
Although I really don't have any concrete information on
this, it seems reasonable to me to conclude that there are
also quite vast quantities of carbonates in the upper regions
of the mantle too, and thus more carbon there (quite likely,
much more), than "only" that which is in the form of CO2.
My earlier reply 3 (01.09):
In this third reply of mine, first a guess:
Since the earth's crust to 0.5% consists of carbon, that is,
C makes up 5,000 ppm of it, it's reasonable to suppose that
in the upper regions of the mantle, the concentration of C
is not all that much lower. That is, probably not as low
as only those 250-500 ppm of CO2 (out of which one-fourth is
carbon) which that article I quoted mentioned, but at least
considerably higher than that.
And in my second reply I guessed that there must be at least
some carbon in the form of carbonates too, in the upper
mantle.
Now I've seen a website which comfirms this guess: "EOS of
Carbonates", at
http://mplmac.geo.cornell.edu/carbonates/carbonates.html.
It says:
"Carbonates are an important group of minerals for their
abundance in sedimentary rocks on the surface of the Earth
and for their existence in the organic material in the ocean,
which constitute the most important reservoir for carbon
dioxide on the Earthąs surface. Since there is so much
carbonate material in ocean basin sediments, one natural
question to ask is what is the destiny of those carbonates
in the sediments. Following the subduction of oceanic floor,
most of the carbonates are subducted underneath the
continental plate and deeper into the mantle. Carbonatite
magma and CO2 volcanic gas are the primary evidence that
carbon is an active member of the igneous process, where the
carbon is cycled back to the surface of the Earth. The
occurrence of diamond and carbonate inclusion in the mantle
xenoliths, on the other hand, have long been held as evidence
of carbon existing in a solid form in the deeper mantle.
Recent experimental and field evidence demonstrated that
magnesite is a possible host for carbon in the mantle.
Therefore, the properties of carbonates at high pressure and
temperature, starting from the most basic pressure (P)
- volume (V) - temperature (T) relationships, are important
keys to a better understanding of this relatively unknown
part of the Earthąs carbon cycle."
(Calcite is CaCO3; magnesite is MgCO3.)
So, the diamonds and carbonates found in xenoliths from the
mantle have long been held as evidence that there is carbon
in solid form (even) in the deeper mantle.
The article doesn't say, how common is that element there.
But it does confirm my guess about there being carbon not
only in the form of CO2 in the upper mantle. And if its
prevalence there is not all that much less than the 5,000 ppm
in the crust - which I think it's reasonable to assume -
then such amounts of carbon really are vast.
And demonstrated by that experiment I mentioned, carbon in the
mantle together with hydrogen (in water, for instance, which
there are lots of - see my first reply) will combine - at
least if there's also iron oxide present, which there is too
- into heavier hydrocarbons, that is, oil.
Which, thus, is very plentiful on earth.
My earlier reply 4 (01.09):
Perhaps it's overdoing it a little to post a fourth reply to
your question, K. Jones. But one thing which I found,
concerning carbon in the earth's mantle, I think it would be
wrong to withhold [from] you. You suggested that there might
be "too little" of it to support my claim that oil is
plentiful on earth. Here's a "warning" by some people that
there, on the contrary, is "dangerously much" of it - see
below.
...
And blabla, blabla.
My earlier reply 5 (08.09):
I should specify perhaps:
My initial argument was, that since hydrogen and carbon are
so plentiful in the universe, there should be vast amounts
of those elements in the earth's mantle too. And since it
has been shown by experiment that, if present in the mantle,
they will combine to form heavier hydrocarbons (that is, oil),
then - I argued - there should be vast amounts of heavier
hydrocarbons in the mantle too.
What I thought that you suggested was that there might be
"too little" of hydrogen and/or carbon *in the mantle* for
it to be true that there are vast amounts of heavier
hydrocarbons.
I agree with your proposition that the vast amounts of
hydrogen and carbon *elsewhere* in general does not mean
at all that they would be useful as (chemical) fuels. For
instance, all the hydrogen in the oceans, of course that's
of no use as a chemical fuel, since it's oxidized. (Another
matter, irrelevant in this context as you'll no doubt
agree, is that that hydrogen, or part of it, is a potential
*nuclear* fuel, for fusion.)
So I did understand your argument about there being lots of
(chemical-fuel-wise) useless hydrogen in the oceans, but I
found it irrelevant.
I later advanced some more specific arguments why, in my
http://www.gasresources.net/AlkaneGenesis.htm, i.a.:
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/inde
x.htm
That was a collection of my earlier arguments for: Plenty of
C and H in the upper mantle; therefore, plenty of oil on
earth.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Bill Ward
<shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>"Rolf Martens" <rolf.m...@comhem.se> wrote in message
>news:5ARTe.33323$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...
<snip>
>> So I did understand your argument about there being lots of
>> (chemical-fuel-wise) useless hydrogen in the oceans, but I
>> found it irrelevant.
>
>Ok, let's take this one step further then.
>*Why* is it "(chemical-fuel-wise) useless"?
>And why do you think this carbon and hydrogen in the mantle, is not, also
>"(chemical-fuel-wise) useless"?
>
>K. Jones
>
Kevin, Thomas Gold supported a theory of hydrocarbon origins
in a book named "The Deep, Hot Biosphere". I've read the
book and highly recommend it, because it raises some
intriguing questions about the standard theory. Right or
wrong, it's interesting.
The basic idea is that the Earth has primordial hydrogen and
carbon in the mantle, plus additional subducted material
recycled from the surface. At some deep pressures.
elemental carbon is stable. The existence of diamonds
pretty well proves that. If there is hydrogen also present,
by LeChatelier's principle, hydrocarbon formation would be
favored. That's been tested in labs recently using CaCO3,
H2O, and I believe, an iron oxide catalyst.
Methane is fluid, and if formed, would flow upwards toward
lower pressure.
Gold then notes the presence of bacteria found in deep rocks
and proposes that they may be involved in deriving higher
hydrocarbons.
There's lots more, including many examples of physical
evidence.
I'm generally pretty skeptical, but my BS detector failed to
go off while reading the book. Most of the points Gold made
seem plausible to me.
I probably disagree with Rolf on just about everything
philosophical and political. I don't have anywhere near as
much enthusiasm and certainity as he does, but I do think
the book deserves rational criticism of the points Gold
makes, regardless of who's touting it.
I'd like to hear your opinion if you do read it.
Regards,
Bill Ward
G. R. L. Cowan
>
> ... At some deep pressures.
> elemental carbon is stable. The existence of diamonds
> pretty well proves that. If there is hydrogen also present,
> by LeChatelier's principle, hydrocarbon formation would be
> favored. That's been tested in labs recently using CaCO3,
> H2O, and I believe, an iron oxide catalyst.
Something like this?
8 CaCO3 + 9 H2O ---FeO---> 8 CaO + C8H18
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html --
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet
Bill Ward
<gco...@eagle.ca> wrote:
>Bill Ward included:
>>
>> ... At some deep pressures.
>> elemental carbon is stable. The existence of diamonds
>> pretty well proves that. If there is hydrogen also present,
>> by LeChatelier's principle, hydrocarbon formation would be
>> favored. That's been tested in labs recently using CaCO3,
>> H2O, and I believe, an iron oxide catalyst.
>
>Something like this?
>
> 8 CaCO3 + 9 H2O ---FeO---> 8 CaO + C8H18
>
Well, that would be nice, Graham, but I don't think it was
quite that simple. The result was mostly methane. Also,
that equation seems to be missing some oxygen in the output.
I may have misspoke (miswrote?) when I said "catalyst". The
FeO may take part in the reaction to sop up extra O2.
Here's a link to a paper on the subject:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/39/14023
and an excerpt:
<begin quote>
We present in situ observations of hydrocarbon formation via
carbonate reduction at upper mantle pressures and
temperatures. Methane was formed from FeO, CaCO3-calcite,
and water at pressures between 5 and 11 GPa and temperatures
ranging from 500°C to 1,500°C. The results are shown to be
consistent with multiphase thermodynamic calculations based
on the statistical mechanics of soft particle mixtures. The
study demonstrates the existence of abiogenic pathways for
the formation of hydrocarbons in the Earth's interior and
suggests that the hydrocarbon budget of the bulk Earth may
be larger than conventionally assumed.
<end quote>
The item I remember was a brief release in a recent Science
News issue reporting similar high pressure methane
generation. I don't know if it was referring to the above
work or not.
Here's a brief non-hysterical overview of the abiogenic
hypothesis I found interesting:
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html
I haven't yet followed all the links, but it seems
reasonably well balanced so far. Let me know what you
think.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Rolf Martens
>
>
>On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 09:36:52 -0400, "K. Jones"
><shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Rolf Martens" <rolf.m...@comhem.se> wrote in message
>>news:5ARTe.33323$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...
>
><snip>
>
>>> So I did understand your argument about there being lots of
>>> (chemical-fuel-wise) useless hydrogen in the oceans, but I
>>> found it irrelevant.
>>
>>Ok, let's take this one step further then.
>>*Why* is it "(chemical-fuel-wise) useless"?
>>And why do you think this carbon and hydrogen in the mantle, is not,
also
>>"(chemical-fuel-wise) useless"?
>>
>>K. Jones
>>
>Kevin, Thomas Gold supported a theory of hydrocarbon origins
>in a book named "The Deep, Hot Biosphere". I've read the
>book and highly recommend it, because it raises some
>intriguing questions about the standard theory. Right or
>wrong, it's interesting.
>
>The basic idea is that the Earth has primordial hydrogen and
>carbon in the mantle, plus additional subducted material
>elemental carbon is stable. The existence of diamonds
>pretty well proves that.
That last is one point made by Thomas Gold too. On carbon in
the mantle, J. F. Kenney writes, at
http://www.gasresources.net/AlkaneGenesis.htm:
"Although there has been observed igneous CaCO3 (carbonatite)
of mantle origin, carbon should be more reasonably expected
to exist in the mantle of the Earth as an element in its
dense phases: cubic (diamond), hexagonal (lonsdaleite), or
random-close-pack (chaoite)."
>If there is hydrogen also present,
>by LeChatelier's principle, hydrocarbon formation would be
>favored. That's been tested in labs recently using CaCO3,
>H2O, and I believe, an iron oxide catalyst.
That was an experiment in 2004 by Henry P. Scott et al.
Their result was only methane - as reported at several
websites too.
Another experiment in 2002 however, by Kenney et al, above
all resulted in heavier hydrocarbons (oil in fact), though
there was some methane too. See:
http://www.gasresources.net/AlkaneGenesis.htm
Henry P. Scott according to a later article also said:
"It is conceivable that heavier hydrocarbons may yet be
produced by high-pressure carbonate reduction".
Why didn't the 2004 experiment also result in such higher
hydrocarbons, as did the one in 2002?
This I don't know.
Also, Kenney et al in another article, at
http://www.gasresources.net/Plagiarism(Overview).htm,
maintain:
"At the pressures of the mantle, methane is unstable, and the
hydrogen-carbon system there evolves the entire suite of
heavier hydrocarbons found in natural petroleum, in the
Planck-type distribution which characterizes natural
petroleum. Methane at pressures of the mantle of the Earth
will decompose to evolve octane, diesel oil, heavy
lubricating oils, alkylbenzenes, and the compounds found in
natural petroleum."
Presumably, they mean, then, that the methane formed,
together with heavier hydrocarbons, in their experiment in
2002, would be unstable in the longer run in the mantle.
The question is, considering the somewhat differering
results (reported) in 2002 respectively in 2004: Only methane
formed in the mantle, or only higher hydrocarbons, or
perhaps both?
I'm drawing the conclusion: At least, not only methane.
The reports on the 2004 result may have influenced by some
political considerations; I basically trust the report on
the 2002 result. Also the fact that heavier hydrocarbons
are found in many meteorites (see below too) points to
there being some non-biological process which forms them.
>Methane is fluid, and if formed, would flow upwards toward
>lower pressure.
>
>Gold then notes the presence of bacteria found in deep rocks
>and proposes that they may be involved in deriving higher
>hydrocarbons.
Actually, as far as I've seen, Gold never proposed or
adhered to that particular theory, that it's (only) methane
that surges up from the mantle and then, at depths of a few
km, gets polymerized into heavier hydrocarbons (oil) by
bacteria which "strip" the methane of some of its hydrogen.
That theory has been advanced by C. Warren Hunt - who also
(rightly of course) rejects that demonstrably wrong old
theory of "bio-origins" of oil - its formation out of *dead*
biotic matter, that is.
C. Warren Hunt presents his theory (based also on a particular
theory by V. N. Larin on the structure of the entire earth)
in some books with abstracts at
http://www.polarpublishing.com/.
Also, he participated with a paper on it to the AAPG
Research Conference "Origin of Petroelum" in Calgary on
18 June this year. All the papers from that conference are at
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/abstracts/2005research_calga
ry/index.htm
(and also at my homepage).
I suppose (though I don't know any thermodynamics) that the
second law of thermodynamic - which prohibits the formation,
under crustal conditions, of oil from decomposing (dead)
biogenic (or other) matter and thus kills the old "bio-origins"
theory - does not prohibit such formation of oil, by living
matter, out of methane.
But I think that one fact, anyway, speaks strongly against
Hunt's particular variant of mantle-origin theory about oil:
The presence in many meteorites also of higher hydrocarbons.
These clearly have been formed by processes not involving
bacteria.
>There's lots more, including many examples of physical
>evidence.
For the abiotic theory on oil's origin, yes.
>I'm generally pretty skeptical, but my BS detector failed to
>go off while reading the book. Most of the points Gold made
>seem plausible to me.
>
>I probably disagree with Rolf on just about everything
>philosophical and political. I don't have anywhere near as
>much enthusiasm and certainity as he does, but I do think
>the book deserves rational criticism of the points Gold
>makes, regardless of who's touting it.
On that last, I agree with you. And concerning politics, there
are many critics of the long-since-refuted "bio-origins"
(former) theory (and present-day big hoax) who don't agree
with me at all on politics, people who know much more of oil
science than I do too. The political aspect on the matter
which I'm putting is that: Why is that so clearly incorrect
(ex-)theory still being advocated so massively, and in fact
so hysterically, by the "mainstream" media etc? It's concerning
that which I'm presenting a certain explanation.
On the science, I've concluded, after I read a certain book
in the late 1980s, that Gold was basically right. And after
I've seen (last year) the page managed by J. F. Kenney, at
http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm, I hold that that
page is even more precisely correct and explains things even
better. (Though I cannot follow all of the more technical
reasoning there, I'm certain its main points are correct,
since otherwise there would have been some experts' refutations
of them; such are nowhere to be found.)
>
>I'd like to hear your opinion if you do read it.
>
>Regards,
>
>Bill Ward
I shall comment on Graham Cowan's reply (briefly) and on yours
to him too.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Rolf Martens
>
>
>Bill Ward included:
>>
>> ... At some deep pressures.
>> elemental carbon is stable. The existence of diamonds
>> by LeChatelier's principle, hydrocarbon formation would be
>> favored. That's been tested in labs recently using CaCO3,
>> H2O, and I believe, an iron oxide catalyst.
>
>
> 8 CaCO3 + 9 H2O ---FeO---> 8 CaO + C8H18
>
>
>http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html --
>boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet
Yes, precisely.
But octane, C8H18, and other higher hydrocarbons were not
found (or not reported) in that experiment which Bill Ward
referred to, which was by Henry P. Scott and others in 2004.
The reports from that one only said "methane" (CH4).
However, precisely such higher Hcs as C8H18 (and many others)
reportedly resulted in a similar experiment in 2002, by
J. F. Kenney et al (reactions such as the one you described).
See: http://www.gasresources.net/AlkaneGenesis.htm
In a reply to Bill Ward, I'm commenting on the difference.
On another matter, nuclear energy, which of course is even
better than oil: The campaign in society against that, in
my opinion, is an even worse phenomenon than the campaign
against oil use. Also, those two campaigns are parallel,
coming from the same forces, who basically want all energy to
be scarce and expensive. This is extremely hostile to
practically everybody on earth, I hold.
Now there demonstrably is plenty of oil. In the longer run,
because of the enormous development potential of nuclear
power, it no doubt will be preferable to replace it with
nuclear energy, for transport (car fuel) too. How, then?
Boron, as a carrier, you're suggesting. Seems possible to
me, but does mean that an entire big existing system of
fuel storage and transportation would have to be replaced.
I earlier (as likewise a former fan of hydrogen as a carrier -
I now think this is impractical) asked you about energy loss
in nuclear plant production of hydrogen by electrolysis and
then a fuel conversion to something like oil: You calculated,
in reply, some 50%, with ethanol as a result.
I think that an even better fuel, that octane (C8H18) mentioned
by you above or something like that, in a somewhat distant
future could well be produced from CO2 and water in some
really advanced nuclear-energy economy. But such things of
course one can only speculate about today.
Today it's important to find out and publicize some basic
truths both about nuclear energy and about oil. Some obviously
horrid lies on both of those subjects are being disseminated
most massively by the media, the scool textbooks etc.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
Rolf Martens
says...
>>>
>>> ... At some deep pressures.
>>> elemental carbon is stable. The existence of diamonds
>>> pretty well proves that. If there is hydrogen also present,
>>> by LeChatelier's principle, hydrocarbon formation would be
>>> favored. That's been tested in labs recently using CaCO3,
>>> H2O, and I believe, an iron oxide catalyst.
>>
>>Something like this?
>>
>> 8 CaCO3 + 9 H2O ---FeO---> 8 CaO + C8H18
>>
>quite that simple. The result was mostly methane. Also,
>that equation seems to be missing some oxygen in the output.
>I may have misspoke (miswrote?) when I said "catalyst". The
>FeO may take part in the reaction to sop up extra O2.
See another reply to you: The (reported) result of an
experiment in 2004, yes, was (mostly, or even only?) methane.
But another experiment in 2002, the one by J. F. Kenney et
al, did result in heavier hydrocarbons (oil) (too). Report at:
http://www.gasresources.net/AlkaneGenesis.htm
>Here's a link to a paper on the subject:
>http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/39/14023
>
>and an excerpt:
>
><begin quote>
>We present in situ observations of hydrocarbon formation via
>carbonate reduction at upper mantle pressures and
>temperatures. Methane was formed from FeO, CaCO3-calcite,
>and water at pressures between 5 and 11 GPa and temperatures
>ranging from 500°C to 1,500°C. The results are shown to be
>consistent with multiphase thermodynamic calculations based
>on the statistical mechanics of soft particle mixtures. The
>study demonstrates the existence of abiogenic pathways for
>the formation of hydrocarbons in the Earth's interior and
>suggests that the hydrocarbon budget of the bulk Earth may
>be larger than conventionally assumed.
><end quote>
>
>The item I remember was a brief release in a recent Science
>News issue reporting similar high pressure methane
>generation. I don't know if it was referring to the above
>work or not.
>
>Here's a brief non-hysterical overview of the abiogenic
>hypothesis I found interesting:
>
>http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html
Well, in particular at Kenney's page, at
http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm,
also that fact - "hysterical", if you like, or rather,
particularly important - is pointed to, in several articles;
I'm quoting from one of them:
"The second law of thermodynamics [which is the law saying
that the entropy, "disorder", must always increase - RM]
prohibits spontaneous genesis of hydrocarbons heavier than
methane in the regimes of temperature and pressure found in
the near-surface crust of the Earth. This fact has been known
by competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers,
mechanical engineers and thermodynamicists since the third
quarter of the 19th century."
This *settles* the matter concering the old ("rococo", Kenney
calls it) hypothesis of (dead-matter) "bio-origins" for oil:
It's physically impossible.
A "hysterical" argument, if you like. Or rather, it's the
adherence and advocacy by certain forces in society, still
today, of that clearly incorrect hypothesis that's really
"hysterical".
>I haven't yet followed all the links, but it seems
>reasonably well balanced so far. Let me know what you
>think.
>
>Regards,
>
>Bill Ward
There's a likewise not so bad (and likewise "balanced")
overview on the question and the controversy also at:
http://www.cooldictionary.com/words/Abiogenic-petroleum-origin.wikipedia
That article even brings (rather far down in the text) that
decisive (or "hysterical") argument, concering the "bio-
origins" hypothesis:
"Thermodynamics
The Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits spontaneous
generation of hydrocarbons heavier than methane at low
pressures. Thermodynamic calculations[10] and experimental
studies confirm that n-alkanes (common petroleum components)
do not spontaneously evolve from methane at pressures
typically found in sedimentary basins, and so the theory of
an abiogenic origin of hydrocarbons suggests deep generation
(below 200 km [11].)"
Then it goes on to mention (so-called) "evidence supporting
the biogenic theory". Which "evidence" in fact can be seen
(even by me, an amateur) to be just crap.
On politics, you don't agree with me. I haven't expected that
other debaters would do so either. But I want to put to you
and to others these proposition:
Don't the facts actually demonstrate that the abiotic theory
on the origin of oil is correct?
And isn't there clearly some very strong political interest or
other which causes that old "bio-origin" hypothesis to be
propagandized so massively still today?
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
G. R. L. Cowan
>
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 20:47:07 -0400, "G. R. L. Cowan"
> <gco...@eagle.ca> wrote:
>
> >Bill Ward included:
> >>
> >> ... At some deep pressures.
> >> elemental carbon is stable. The existence of diamonds
> >> pretty well proves that. If there is hydrogen also present,
> >> by LeChatelier's principle, hydrocarbon formation would be
> >> favored. That's been tested in labs recently using CaCO3,
> >> H2O, and I believe, an iron oxide catalyst.
> >
> >Something like this?
> >
> > 8 CaCO3 + 9 H2O ---FeO---> 8 CaO + C8H18
> >
> Well, that would be nice, Graham, but I don't think it was
> quite that simple. The result was mostly methane. Also,
> that equation seems to be missing some oxygen in the output.
> I may have misspoke (miswrote?) when I said "catalyst". The
> FeO may take part in the reaction to sop up extra O2.
That would make it the fuel.
Buried hydrocarbons would last as long as
divalent iron was down there to be converted
to trivalent, although some pretty severe
rate limitations on the conversion might apply.
"... as oil seeps up through the layers of Earth
closer to the surface, it mixes with oil from biological origins,
and takes on its characteristics..."
Abiotic oil theory won't get anywhere by predicting that all
oil found underground will show signs of biological origins.
My term paper was on dogs' ability to digest cellulose ...
and it was *good*. And you don't have to just believe me on this,
there's also the evidential fact that I no longer have it.
"... explain some phenomena that are not currently understood,
such as why petroleum deposits almost always contain biologically
inert helium..."
I believe that *is* understood: actinide elements' slow decay
produces helium throughout Earth's crust, and its upward diffusion
is blocked by the same cap rock formations that trap oil and gas.
Rolf Martens
No, whoever wrote that sentence, it's wrong. There is *no*
oil whatsoever that has "biological origins". (See below.)
As the oil seeps up from the mantle, it mixes of course
with biological matter of different sorts, which become
dissolved in it. This explains those things which are wrongly
called "biomarkers" in oil. Besides, many of those molecules
which were earlier thought to arise only in living organisms
have ben found in meteorites.
>
>Abiotic oil theory won't get anywhere by predicting that all
>oil found underground will show signs of biological origins.
No - that sentence quoted above on this was wrong.
The abiotic theory does "get somewhere", above all since
the "biotic" hypothesis is physically impossible:
"The second law of thermodynamics [which is the law saying
that the entropy, "disorder", must always increase - RM]
prohibits spontaneous genesis of hydrocarbons heavier than
methane in the regimes of temperature and pressure found in
the near-surface crust of the Earth. This fact has been known
by competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers,
mechanical engineers and thermodynamicists since the third
quarter of the 19th century.",
it's pointed out in one of the articles at
http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com
K. Jones
<snip>
> I'm generally pretty skeptical, but my BS detector failed to
> go off while reading the book. Most of the points Gold made
> seem plausible to me.
>
> I probably disagree with Rolf on just about everything
> philosophical and political. I don't have anywhere near as
> much enthusiasm and certainity as he does, but I do think
> the book deserves rational criticism of the points Gold
> makes, regardless of who's touting it.
>
> I'd like to hear your opinion if you do read it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill Ward
Thanks Bill....just ordered the book, looking forward to the read without
the politics.
K. Jones
K. Jones
"Rolf Martens" <rolf.m...@comhem.se> wrote in message news:tpaUe.145931
<snip>
> >> Difficult for me to understand too why you're asking that
> >> question.
>
> >Same example as above. My geology sucks, but the evidence I've found
> in my
> >searches so far, overwhelminginly indicates the same scenario exists
> for
> >carbon...there may be lots of it, but it's 'locked up' in other stuff.
>
> I don't know much about geology either. But clearly, the carbon
> "locked up" in other stuff gets "unlocked" in the mantle, 100-200 km
> down,
> and forms hydrocarbons together with likewise formerly "locked-up"
> hydrogen.
>
> This was demonstrated in an an important experiment in 2002
> described at:
>
> http://www.gasresources.net/AlkaneGenesis.htm
<snip>
Thanks Rolf. I'm going to read the Thomas Gold book, and I'll return to the
discussion once I've educated myself a little more on the subject.
K. Jones
Rolf Martens
shadet...@hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com says...
and "The Deep Hot Biosphere" more recently, this year.
I very much recommend the website managed by J. F. Kenney too:
http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm
It's rather technical in part, but I think I understand its main
points. I found this to be even more precise, and to explain
things even better (re oil origins), than the writings of Thomas Gold.
Rolf M.
www.rolf-martens.com