Be careful, the amount of water at Earth's surface is not constant over time. The amount of water depends on the volume released from the mantle. And that amount varies along the activity (growth) of the planet.
Yes, I agree that the source of Earth's water is from the interior.
But Florian, you fail to acknowledge that the sea level during the Cretaceous was higher all over the world, including off the coast of South America. It is possible when the oceanic basins initially opened up between South America and Africa shallow lakes would form, but they would have been a relatively short lived phenomenon (geologically speaking) if they existed. It depends on the sea level at the time of the original rifting, if it was as high as the sea level coveirng part of North America, the rifts would almost immediately (again, geologically speaking) fill in with sea water at the prevailing world sea level, soon turning into a long straight running the length of the rift between the two continents (see link below for rough approximation):
The oil finds have been as much as a 170 miles offshore of Brazil which mirrors the dynamics off the West African coast. That far offshore, these locations where the oil has been found would not have been "shallow lakes". The rift would have thinner crust that would shear and tear allowing deep crust and shallow mantle volatiles to flood upward towards the surface and be trapped below the salt barrier. By the time the rift opened 170 miles off Brazil and a similar distance off the coast of West Africa (roughly 340 miles wide rift between South America and Africa), we would be talking about a wide rift that would be filled in to the prevailing world sea level at that time in the geological time line. Again, shallow lakes would not be likely.
Florian wrote: Fossil oil could form at the early stage.
But the oil is found at such distances from the shore in such deep water and so deep below the sea bed and below the salt barrier that it is highly unlikely that a shallow lake would be found at this location because the process of rifting would be fairly advanced and water levels would be at the prevailing world sea level which scientific evidence suggests was higher than today.
Florian wrote: Don't forget that at the early stages of the ocean formations, the basins are very narrow, easily filled with sediments from the uplifted flank of the rift.
Yes, the material that covers the salt in the Campos Basin (off the coast of Brazil) deposits are typically described as "turbidite," a sedimentary deposit that consists of material moved down a steep slope at the edge of the continental shelf. This same type of material, turbidite, is also found above the deep oil deposits in the Gulf of Mexico. But it sluffed off the sides of the continents when it was already under water.
Of course, time will tell a great deal — if this salt barrier, sometimes a mile thick, runs all the way out to the mid-ocean expansion ridge and deposits of oil also run all the way out to the expansion ridge, it makes it even harder to suggest that all that salt and the oil below it were formed as a result of shallow lakes.
There hasn't been wide-spread exploration farther out toward the mid-ocean expansion ridge, but if oil keeps being found the farther out you go, then I expect we will have that continued exploration and will discover whether the salt barrier and the oil keep going toward the mid-ocean ridges.
Florian wrote: Actually not. Both are possible. it really depends on the amount of water present at the surface at the time of formation of the layer of salt. So again, that is not a clinching argument.
There is some truth to that, but here's the thing, to evaporate a mile of salt, it would take a tremendous amount of sea water, and if there was that much sea water, why would it evaporate at all?
But I'll give your point it's full expression: It would take repeated flooding and evaporation over, what, hundreds of thousands of years. But again, the salt is relatively pure, if it was part of an evaporation process, then wouldn't there be sizable amounts of impurities mixed in with the salt?
Florian wrote: I remind you that we mostly agree: oil is likely not from fossil origin nor are thick salt layers "evaporites". Just playing the devil's advocate here.
Sure, I understand and appreciate that role, but you also must understand, I'll still answer you to the best of my ability with all the scientific evidence at my disposal
And, yes, I recognize we mostly agree
Florian wrote: Hell no. The theory predicts fluctuating surface amounts/level, and in any case, a lesser amount of water than present.
Just playing devil's advocate, hope that's okay?
Yes, a lesser amount of water than present, but instead up on the continents because the continents constituted the surface of the planet. But still we are talking about the Cretaceous Period and the scientific evidence was that world sea levels were higher than today, regardless of the amount of water.
Florian
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
Anaconda wrote: But Florian, you fail to acknowledge that the sea level during the Cretaceous was higher all over the world, including off the coast of South America.
It was higher relatively to what? To the current ocean level. Problem: these oceans did not exist back then! Do you understand now why this reasoning is flawed? Fact is that Earth was likely a patchwork of shallow epicontinental seas, emerged terrane and a few rapidly filling narrow oceanic type basins. In this context, fossil oil could form. Keep in mind that the narrow basin must fill rapidly with sediment because their volume is not comparable to current oceanic basin.
Anaconda wrote: The oil finds have been as much as a 170 miles offshore of Brazil which mirrors the dynamics off the West African coast. That far offshore, these locations where the oil has been found would not have been "shallow lakes". The rift would have thinner crust that would shear and tear allowing deep crust and shallow mantle volatiles to flood upward towards the surface and be trapped below the salt barrier.
That is precisely because the crust shears and tears that you would find pieces 170 miles offshore. When a continent break up, the crust thins, then breaks into pieces that are sheared and dispersed over very long distances hundreds of km. Besides, pieces of the former continental are often engulfed by basalts.
Anaconda wrote: Yes, the material that covers the salt in the Campos Basin (off the coast of Brazil) deposits are typically described as "turbidite," a sedimentary deposit that consists of material moved down a steep slope at the edge of the continental shelf. This same type of material, turbidite, is also found above the deep oil deposits in the Gulf of Mexico. But it sluffed off the sides of the continents when it was already under water.
Yes it did. But it tells you nothing about the width of the basin and the thickness of the water layer. It could be a 200 km wide basin filled to the top with sediments, much like the Rhine Graben, with a shallow layer of water (say 100 m).
Anaconda wrote: There hasn't been wide-spread exploration farther out toward the mid-ocean expansion ridge, but if oil keeps being found the farther out you go, then I expect we will have that continued exploration and will discover whether the salt barrier and the oil keep going toward the mid-ocean ridges.
Yes. we'll probably learn a lot from these explorations.
There is some truth to that, but here's the thing, to evaporate a mile of salt, it would take a tremendous amount of sea water, and if there was that much sea water,
You don't need a lot of water in the Earth expansion scenario, you simply need a continuous stream of salty water coming to the surface from the mantle, and continuously evaporating.
why would it evaporate at all?
Because it's been leaking into space. Remember that Earth was smaller, less massive and less surface gravity.
But I'll give your point it's full expression: It would take repeated flooding and evaporation over, what, hundreds of thousands of years. But again, the salt is relatively pure, if it was part of an evaporation process, then wouldn't there be sizable amounts of impurities mixed in with the salt?
There are large amount of salts in sea water (35g/L). A larger amount in mass than any impurity.
Anaconda
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
Hi Florian:
I appreciate your feedback on the subject, as it allows an opportunity for clarification and discussion of the ideas presented.
(As a side note, it is my contention that there is a hiarchy: Plasma processes drive an expanding Earth, which in turn and in concert with plasma processes drives the chemical, molecular processes which are expressed by various chemical element, i.e., sulphur and other element and mineral formation, deposits including abiotic oil, gold, diamonds and other economic minerals. Ironically, it is the end result, hydrocarbon formation and other economic minerals that have the largest impact on mankind, at least in terms of economics.)
Florian presented my (Anaconda's) statement:
Anaconda wrote: But Florian, you fail to acknowledge that the sea level during the Cretaceous was higher all over the world, including off the coast of South America.
And Florian responded:
It was higher relatively to what? To the current ocean level. Problem: these oceans did not exist back then! Do you understand now why this reasoning is flawed? Fact is that Earth was likely a patchwork of shallow epicontinental seas, emerged terrane and a few rapidly filling narrow oceanic type basins. In this context, fossil oil could form. Keep in mind that the narrow basin must fill rapidly with sediment because their volume is not comparable to current oceanic basin.
It was higher relatively to what? To the current ocean level.
Relative to the elevation of the continents in the Cretaceous Period as expressed by the sea level covering North America and presumably in relation to the South American continent as well (I haven't found any evidence of shallow epicontinental seas covering parts of South America, but presumably there should have been at least some "patchwork" as you pointed out).
Now, if this raised sea level in relation to the continents (assuming "oceans did not exist back then") existed in and around South America (and Africa, by the way), then "a few rapidly filling narrow oceanic type basins" would as you stated, rapidly fill in with sea water because these narrow oceanic type basins would open up below the prevailing sea level at the time. Little opportunity for shallow, stagnant lakes would exist.
Yes, "the narrow basin must fill rapidly with sediment", turbidite, but rapid filling is not consistent with "fossil" formation of hydrocarbons, as the turbidite is not claimed as the source of the oil deposits as the oil companies readily acknowledge, rather, the claim is that the so-called "source" rock is "benthic foraminifera," with little shell creatures that live on the ocean bottom. The "source" rock itself is described as having been formed in "bathyal" conditions, a term typically reserved to describe the ocean floor from half a mile to about two miles down.
Clearly, that is inconsistent with stagnant, shallow lakes and "fossil" theory oil formation.
Florian wrote: It could be a 200 km wide basin filled to the top with sediments, much like the Rhine Graben, with a shallow layer of water (say 100 m).
Not really, as the turbidite, as stated, above, is not claimed to be the so-called "source" rock for the oil deposits, but rather the "source" rock is claimed to be bathyal, not broken up continental graben that difted out into the oceanic basin.
Florian wrote: That is precisely because the crust shears and tears that you would find pieces 170 miles offshore. When a continent break up, the crust thins, then breaks into pieces that are sheared and dispersed over very long distances hundreds of km. Besides, pieces of the former continental are often engulfed by basalts.
I have no objection to the, above, statement.
But I will point out that "pieces" of continental grantic rock that presumably you are suggesting are the "source" rock for the oil is not claimed as such by the oil industry and would likely be too small to be capable of providing the oil to say the Tupi field which is estimated to have 8 billion barrels of oil, and the overall Compos basin with as much as 80 billion barrels of oil.
"Pieces" of sedimentary rock (and accompanying sediment) simply wouldn't have the volume necessary to generate the amount of oil in question, but perhaps, I misunderstand your argument.
At this point in the discussion, I think it is pertinent to note that today the mid-ocean ridges have been discovered to emit abiotic hydrocarbons from a process of "serpentinization", which I have discussed earlier in this thread and which has been identified by scientists as a source for the commerical quantities of oil & natural gas.
Please see the linked article, below, after the quoted passages for a discussion of abiotic hydrocarbons being admitted from the mid-ocean expansion ridges:
Water venting at Lost City is generally 200 F. The fluids do not get as hot as the black smokers because the water is not heated by magma but rather by heat released during serpentinization, a chemical reaction between seawater and mantle rock.
That's also the reason for all the hydrocarbons.
Naturally occurring carbon dioxide is locked in mantle rock. At Lost City, the reaction between the rock and seawater produces 10 to 100 times more hydrogen and the hydrocarbon methane than a typical black smoker system found along mid-ocean ridges, the Science co-authors found.
Please review the scientific abstract titled: Peridotites, Serpentinization, and Hydrocarbons linked after a quoted passage from the abstract:
Serpentinization of peridotites by oceanic or metamorphic sourced brines under strongly reduced conditions and temperatures of 200-500 C produces hydrocarbon-rich, chloride and/or bicarbonate metal-bearing brines. Serpentinization is common on the ocean floor along fracture zones (Lost City), beneath conventional petroleum in rifts due to sedimentary burial (Gulf of Mexico) or thrust loading (Roan Trough), and at the top of flat subducting oceanic crust (Eocene beneath UT, CO, WY).
The similarity between the geologic processes described in the "Lost city" ScienceDaily article and the abstract on serpentinization and commercial quantities of hydrocarbons is striking.
This is additional evidence that the oil deposits off the coast of Brazil and West Africa are abiotic.
Florian wrote: You don't need a lot of water in the Earth expansion scenario, you simply need a continuous stream of salty water coming to the surface from the mantle, and continuously evaporating.
But you do have to match the geological evidence that there were higher sea levels in relation to the continents causing "a patchwork of shallow epicontinental seas" including the North American inland sea. And that these sea levels were fairly constant as evidenced by the vast fossil record of complex life in these seas that existed over many millions of years, which if there was constant evaporation, would have ceased to exist or never existed in the first place.
(As a another side note: An expanding Earth can be looked at independent of the existence of abiotic oil, and, conversely, the existence of abiotic oil can be considered independent of an expanding Earth. One doesn't necessarily depend on the other, and I suspect that may be your point in all this discussion — I don't know.
But I'll suggest this: It is far easier for laymen to get their head around Abiotic Oil theory [as difficult as that admittedly is] than for laymen to get their head around Expanding Earth theory, and I say that as a supporter of both.
My experience is that attacking one theory in order to boost another theory, while widely practiced, doesn't work. It only weakens both theories and plays into the hands of those that want to discredit both theories — something to think about )
junglelord
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
I agree with abiotic oil prodution and expanding earth... so cheers!
moses
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
junglelord wrote: I agree with abiotic oil prodution and expanding earth... so cheers!
Sounds like the deep oil is being produced by land that sunk a long way. And I'm into the Earth's oceans undergoing EDM. .... so boo. Mo
Joe Keenan
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
Broadly speaking three things are needed to force reactions, pressure, temperature/energy input and a catalyst. All refining processes (excepting the initial fractionating of crude) use these three variables to varying degrees. If we look at the earth as a theoretical refinery we see we have all the needed variables in place, massive electrical currents flowing through the earth provide the energy input (like an electric heater), pressure is supplied by the earths depth (different reactions would occur at different depths/pressures) and catalysts are present as minerals (platinum for example). As I mentioned in my earlier post, the fact that the core of the earth is not 35,000 degrees may indicate the predominate reaction is endothermic. Perhaps exothermic reactions may be indicated in geologically active regions? Perhaps variations in minerals (reactant) force different reactions in different parts of the globe? Just a thought.
Joe Keenan
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
It would be interesting to know if the temperature gradient of the earth varied, if the temperature at any given depth varied over the world. This might indicate different reactions occuring in different locations.
mharratsc
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
Yay! I can add something to this that I actually have some knowledge about!!
Temperature in different areas would also differ due to the amount of current flowing through a particular area, and the electrical resistance of the material there. Any 'wet earth' or conductive strata are going to be semi-conductive, and therefore having loss as heat to the current carried through it (much like the CPU chip in a PC).
That is going to add quite a bit of focused heat in areas for the above-mentioned reactions.
Mike H.
Lloyd
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
Anaconda:
Problem: these oceans did not exist back then! ... Earth was likely a patchwork of shallow epicontinental seas, emerged terrane and a few rapidly filling narrow oceanic type basins. ... Plasma processes drive an expanding Earth....
* You're right that, according to Cardona et al, based on analysis of ancient myths etc, the oceans and ocean basins probably didn't exist before a few thousand years ago. * But expanding Earth theory is unlikely. See my earlier thread, Breakthrough on How Continents Divided, for the best explanation of rapid continental drift in an EU context at: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1462. It's an excellent thread with loads of new info. It's based partly on the site: http://newgeology.us. Anaconda:
Earth was likely a patchwork of shallow epicontinental seas, emerged terrane and a few rapidly filling narrow oceanic type basins. In this context, fossil oil could form. ... Plasma processes drive an expanding Earth, which in turn and in concert with plasma processes drives the chemical, molecular processes which are expressed by various chemical element, i.e., sulphur and other element and mineral formation, deposits including abiotic oil, gold, diamonds and other economic minerals. ... the mid-ocean ridges have been discovered to emit abiotic hydrocarbons from a process of "serpentinization", which I have discussed earlier in this thread and which has been identified by scientists as a source for the commerical quantities of oil & natural gas.
* In an electric universe with electrical transmutation, you don't need carbon to get hydrocarbons. You can have common elements, like magnesium or sodium, to get carbon first in rapid electrical discharge events. http://www.life-enthusiast.com/ormus/orm_bio_transmut.htm: Kervran claimed that petroleum was not formed from flesh or plants, but from the reaction Mg == C + C at great depth. If water is present, the hydrogen combines with carbon, and the oxygen forms sulfur (O + O == S), giving sulfurous oil. The Mg can come from a pocket of saline water when Na + H == Mg. Otherwise, Mg also can come from Ca or from adjacent layers of dolomitic rock. Oil deposits in the Sahara have been found in pre-Carboniferous rocks (Devonian and Cambrian-Ordovician) and in dolomite. Usually there is no communication between layers of petroleum deposits of different composition which are widely separated by hundreds of meters of impermeable rock. * Also see my excellent thread on Transmutation at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3~, which starts with a transmutation chart.
... these sea levels were fairly constant as evidenced by the vast fossil record of complex life in these seas that existed over many millions of years....
* I don't believe there's reliable evidence of anything on Earth having existed for millions of years. Venus and Titan appear to have been ejected from Saturn or another gas giant in the past few thousand years and Earth could easily have been also ejected only a few thousand years before that.
redeye
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
Saturn Moon Could Power 150 Billion Labor Day Barbecues
Since its discovery by Dutch astronomer Christiaan Huygens in 1655, Saturn's most massive moon, Titan, has been known as a place of mystery and intrigue. The large, cloud-enshrouded moon is such a scientific enigma that for the past five years, it has been targeted by NASAs Cassini spacecraft with more than 60 probing flybys. One of its latest findings could be a valuable asset to future generations of space explorers hunting for materials to whip up a Labor Day barbecue.
"Titan's atmosphere is extremely rich in an assortment of hydrocarbon chemicals, including propane, which we use to fill our barbecue tanks," said Cassini scientist Conor Nixon of the University of Maryland, College Park. "Titan's atmospheric inventory would fuel about 150 billion barbecue cookouts, enough for several thousand years of Labor Days."
For those who are burger, barbecue or Titan challenged, propane is a three-carbon alkane (a chemical compound consisting of carbon and hydrogen), that is non-toxic and heavier than air. With its low boiling point of minus 43.6 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 42 degrees Centigrade), propane vaporizes as soon as it is released from its pressurized container. Here on Earth, propane is commonly used as a fuel for forklifts, flamethrowers, residential central heating, portable stoves, hot air balloons, and – of course – barbecues. On other worlds propane is an untapped resource.
This gas of many terrestrial uses was first discovered in Titan's atmosphere back in 1980 when NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft flew past the Saturnian system. Over the years, both ground and space-based instruments have added to the research, but accurately quantifying the amount of propane on Titan has proved elusive. Then, in 2004, the Cassini spacecraft entered orbit around Saturn.
Measuring the amount of propane on Titan is important to scientists because the gas is a very complex molecule, and its signature in the infrared spectrum is close to those of several molecules scientists are hoping to discover in Titan's atmosphere.
"It was not so much that measuring propane was our endgame, but it helps enormously in our hunt for other complex molecules," said Nixon. "These include pyrimidines that are potential building blocks for biological molecules, such as the nuceleobases of our DNA." If we can detect them on Titan, that would be very significant."
Propane on Titan was measured using data from Cassini's Composite Infrared Spectrometer instrument. During multiple flybys of the moon between June 2004 and June 2008, the instrument measured infrared light from the edge of Titan's atmosphere. After a detailed analysis of the gas's characteristic 'emission bands' or signature, using computer predictions backed by the latest laboratory research into its infrared spectrum, the Composite Infrared Spectrometer team came up with an estimate of the amount of propane in Titan's atmosphere So exactly how much propane does it take to fire 150 billion cookouts?
"We estimate there are nearly 700 million barrels of propane on Titan, said Nixon. "That is enough to fill six-billion 20-pound tanks of liquefied propane gas. It sounds like a huge amount, but that would satisfy total U.S. consumption of propane for only 18 months."
Which still leaves, with regards to Saturn's biggest moon, one Labor Day staple still to be determined. How many hamburgers could future generations of outer-planet explorers grill using Titan's atmospheric propane?
"A dozen at a time, that's two trillion hamburgers," said Cassini's Nixon, "assuming you stop at medium-well."
Nixon is the lead author on a paper about propane on Titan to be published in an upcoming issue of Planetary and Space Science.
The Cassini-Huygens mission is a cooperative project of NASA, the European Space Agency and the Italian Space Agency. The Cassini orbiter was designed, developed and assembled at JPL. JPL manages the mission for the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington. Cassini's Composite Infrared Spectrometer team is based at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
Doing the math: How do we get from "150 billion barbeque cookouts" to "two trillion" burgers?
You can fit 700 million barrels of propane into about six billion 20-pound tanks of liquefied propane gas (LPG). As most Labor Day cookouts will probably occur on this planet, we will use Earth as our barbecue laboratory. On Earth, a full tank of LPG burns for about nine hours – enough time to turn out 25 to 30 meals. That brings us to about 150 to 180 billion meals. If you average 12 medium-well patties per meal, then we're talking about 2 trillion burgers. When it comes to figuring out how many hot dogs could be cooked, you're on your own.
- end -
Cheers!
Lloyd
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
Redeye:
"We estimate there are nearly 700 million barrels of propane on Titan, said Nixon. "That is enough to fill six-billion 20-pound tanks of liquefied propane gas. It sounds like a huge amount, but that would satisfy total U.S. consumption of propane for only 18 months."
* One gallon of liquid propane weighs 4.23 pounds. One gallon of water weighs 8.34 pounds, almost twice as much. A 20 pound tank of LP would be 4.7 gallons. 6 billion 20 pound tanks would be 28.2 billion gallons. A gallon is one eighth of a cubic foot. 28.2 billion divided by 8 = 3.5 billion cubic feet. That's equivalent to 80,349 acres one foot deep, which is a little over 125 sq miles, which is 12.5 miles by 10 miles by one foot. That's not much propane on Titan, assuming the measurements have been fairly accurate. * But why are you changing the subject? The propane on Titan could have been formed by electrical discharge transmutation, somewhat like the process mentioned above regarding Earth. There are said to be other hydrocarbons on Titan as follows. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_c ... atmosphere says: The atmosphere is 98.4% nitrogen—the only dense, nitrogen-rich atmosphere in the solar system aside from the Earth's—with the remaining 1.6% composed of methane and trace amounts of other gases such as hydrocarbons (including ethane, diacetylene, methylacetylene, acetylene, propane), cyanoacetylene, hydrogen cyanide, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, cyanogen, argon, neon and helium. * So its atmosphere is almost pure nitrogen, a bit more so than Earth's, but with more carbon and a bit of oxygen. * And by the way, the atmospheres of Venus and Mars are over 90% carbon dioxide.
popster1
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find
Researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have managed to prove that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated. The findings are revolutionary since this means, on the one hand, that it will be much easier to find these sources of energy and, on the other hand, that they can be found all over the globe.
The nature of the proof is not included in the article.
StefanR
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
In a study published in Nature Geoscience, researchers from the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Sweden and the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington joined colleagues at the Lomonosov Moscow State Academy of Fine Chemical Technology in publishing evidence that hydrocarbons can be produced 40 to 95 miles beneath the surface of the Earth. At these depths — in what's known as Earth's Upper Mantle — high temperatures and intense pressures combine to generate hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbons then migrate toward the surface of the Earth through fissures in the Earth's crust, sometimes feeding existing pools of oil, sometimes creating entirely new ones. According to Sweden's Royal Institute, "fossils of animals and plants are not necessary to generate raw oil and natural gas. This result is extremely radical as it means that it will be much easier to find these energy sources and that they may be located all over the world."
The Institute's lead author, Vladimir Kutcherov, Professor at the KTH Department of Energy Technology, is even more brash at the implications of his findings: "With the help of our research we even know where oil could be found in Sweden!" he delights. Kutcherov's technique involves dividing the world into a fine-meshed grid that maps cracks (or migration channels) under the Earth's crust, through which the hydrocarbons can bubble up to the surface. His advice: Drill where the cracks meet. Doing this, he predicts, will dramatically reduce the likelihood of dry wells. Kutcherov expects the success rate of drillers to more than triple, from 20% to 70%, saving billions in exploration costs while opening up vast new areas of the planet — most of which has never been deemed to have promise — to exploration.
The Nature study follows Kutcherov's previous work, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that created hydrocarbons out of water, calcium carbonate and iron — products in the Earth's mantle. By superheating his ingredients in a pressure chamber at 30,000 times atmospheric pressure, simulating the conditions in the Earth's mantle, Kutcherov's alchemy converted 1.5% of his concoction into hydrocarbons — gases such as methane as well as components of heavier oils. The implication of this research, which suggests that hydrocarbons are continuously generated through natural processes? Petroleum is a sustainable resource that will last as long as Planet Earth.
[He] created hydrocarbons out of water, calcium carbonate and iron — products in the Earth's mantle. By superheating his ingredients in a pressure chamber at 30,000 times atmospheric pressure, simulating the conditions in the Earth's mantle, Kutcherov's alchemy converted 1.5% of his concoction into hydrocarbons — gases such as methane as well as components of heavier oils.
* In my Sept 9 message above at posting.php?mode=reply&f=4&t=2150#pr26015 I referenced Kervran's version of oil production, which may be more realistic, since it's compatible with electrical influences, whereas the Russian theorist suggests only that conventional forces are involved. I think there is good evidence that the Earth's mantle and even the crust has electrical forces constantly operating. So I suspect that oil production is largely due to electrical forces, rather than merely to high heat and pressure. * The only data that exists about the Earth's mantle seems to be S and P waves from seismology and I don't think they can determine exactly what the mantle consists of. Calcium carbonate is lime and I've never heard of any theory of lime or limestone existing more than a mile or two deep. I think all that's known to exist below such depths are granite, basalt and the like.
Anaconda
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
Hi Lloyd:
One of the many good things about this forum is that there is a certain "agree to disagree" attitude, which allows for a full discussion of views. Participation isn't predicated on agreeing with all the other members positions. That said, I don't agree with some of your comments.
Lloyd wrote: * You're right that, according to Cardona et al, based on analysis of ancient myths etc, the oceans and ocean basins probably didn't exist before a few thousand years ago.
I'm not sure they say that and even if they do it is highly unlikely. I've seen some of your comments here, which push for a "young Earth", you were admonished by others that Electric Universe doesn't subscribe to a known age of the Earth, one way or the other.
I reviewed the theory you expostulated on how the continents divided — I don't subscribe to that view. Rapid continental division isn't supported by the scientific evidence, rather, it is a crutch for those who want to postulate a young Earth. While no one knows or can ever know how old the Earth is scientifically, the scientific evidence stands four-square against an Earth only several thousand years old.
Lloyd wrote: * The only data that exists about the Earth's mantle seems to be S and P waves from seismology and I don't think they can determine exactly what the mantle consists of. Calcium carbonate is lime and I've never heard of any theory of lime or limestone existing more than a mile or two deep. I think all that's known to exist below such depths are granite, basalt and the like.
While you are quite right that scientists can't determine exactly what the mantle consists of, there is evidence of carbon existing within the deep crust and upper mantle(see link below quotes):
ScienceDaily (Dec. 4, 2008) — Researchers from INSU-CNRS, working with chemists at a CNRS research unit, have explained that the high conductivity of the Earth's upper mantle is due to molten carbonates. They demonstrated the very high conductivity of this form of carbon.
Appearing in the 28 November issue of Science, their work has revealed the high carbon content of the interior of the upper mantle. This composition can be directly linked to the quantity of carbon dioxide produced by 80% of volcanoes.
Geologists have long claimed that significant amounts of carbon have been present in the Earth's mantle for thousands of years. Up until now, there was very little direct proof of this hypothesis, and samples from the surface of the mantle contained only very small quantities of carbon.
In essence, scientists found a volcano that emits molten carbonates from depth.
But let's discuss areas of agreement:
I've reviewed the scientific evidence for transmutation of chemical elements, and found that a persuasive body of scientific evidence exists, and I previously commented in this thread favorably on that possibility. Namely, there is substantial evidence of oxygen transmuting into sulpher and sulphur is found in close association with hydrocarbons.
I agree with mharratsc when he wrote:
Yay! I can add something to this that I actually have some knowledge about!!
Temperature in different areas would also differ due to the amount of current flowing through a particular area, and the electrical resistance of the material there. Any 'wet earth' or conductive strata are going to be semi-conductive, and therefore having loss as heat to the current carried through it (much like the CPU chip in a PC).
That is going to add quite a bit of focused heat in areas for the above-mentioned reactions.
There is evidence that much if not most of the elements present in the Earth's crust derive from pressure, temperature, and electrical conditions in the crust that drive transmutation processes, rather than the conventional view that all chemical elements derive from exploded stars. I suggest that this planet is in essence a factory of chemical elements (including hydrocarbons).
And you rightly point out that sulpher is a common element found in association with hydrocarbons.
As far as the paper referenced above being limited to heat and pressure and correct chemical feedstock goes, I think claiming oil ia abiotic is enough of a tough sell because we, the public, have been conditioned practically from birth to accept the "fossil" fuel paradigm (cute dinosaurs and such), so going forth and stating deep hydrocarbon formation depends transmutation would make the sell even harder.
(Transmutation is one of those ideas that science will embrace, here, in the 21st century, but apparently not yet. I state not yet, but am confident it will be embraced because it can be tested in the laboratory.)
Anyhow, just to show the close association between sulphur and hydrocarbons and provide context suggesting hydrocarbon formation is simply a chemical or mineral formation process, by whatever means (though, I share with you the view that transmutation plays a role — how much, I don't know), here is a presentation transcribed in a Canadian geology journal from a conference that lays out the close association of sulpher, hydrocarbons, salt, and magnesium or dolomite:
The above presentation makes the asociations of hydrocarbons with other minerals quite clear.
And, by the way, the significance of the paper was that the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm stands behind the research, institutional prestige being a big part of scientific acceptance and that the paper was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Nature Geoscience, which gives credibility to the thesis (yes, I know the problems with peer-reviewed journals, so, this is bittersweet in a way), and being picked up by ScienceDaily, a mainstream science media outlet.
)
