Are you aware of any papers that estimate how much oil has naturally seeped through the crust onto land and into oceans in total over time?
I have seen referenced yearly figures of circa 2 million barrels a year, and if true that means that, assuming a constant rate of seepage (although arguably it would have diminshed over time so may have been higher in the past), if you extrapolate back to the most recent of the 50-300 million years the standard model estimates for the formation of the oil, you reach a total seepage figure of 50,000,000 x 2,000,000 = 100 trillion barrels. This is probably a quite conservative estimate.
100 trillion alone is vastly greater than any estimate of total oil (used + reserve) so is it just bad luck that man has started to extract it just as it's about to run out or (what seems far more likely to me) is it being constantly replenished?
Anaconda
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
Aardwolf:
Aardwolf wrote: Are you aware of any papers that estimate how much oil has naturally seeped through the crust onto land and into oceans in total over time?
No.
But as you suggest it's a lot.
And, it's a strong argument for Abiotic Oil because if oil was a product of organic detritus, and necessarily finite, over geologic time, the oil would have escaped to the surface and dissipated by now. In fact, much of the oil would have dissipated without even reaching the surface by various processes of oxidation and degradation which happen within the interior of the planet.
Aardwolf wrote: ...(what seems far more likely to me) is it being constantly replenished?
Yes, replenishment by entirely abiotic processes...
notnewton
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
More Sun/ Magnetic Evidence
" On Jun 02 Anaconda wrote: I would add free electrons and protons (negative hydrogen ions) are central in Earth's electromagnetic dynamics which is the focus of this forum's section. As a side note to notnewton, there is one brief article on Earth's electromagnetic dynamics on the Expanding Earth Knowledge Company website. An expanded treatment of Earth's electromagnetic dynamics would be a valuble addition (See Expaning Earth Knowledge Company section, New Electro-Magnetic Cause.) http://eearthk.com/Expand.html#t41
I replied but did not give a more complete set of clues. Now with the Solstice upon us, more can be visible.
1. Plot the 4 primary points I list on my site onto a cheap globe, paying particular attention to the Greenland Point, and visualize the Great Circles along both coasts of Australia. Also visualize the GC going through Italy and up through the Red Sea (as examples) that connect to the Greenland Point. 2. Is there any revelvance to these GC's? There is another who wrote The Twisted Earth, Howard DeKalb who saw almost the same linear angles. He, however, used Mercator Projection Flat Maps (never globes). The New Concepts in Global Tectonics site http://www.ncgt.org/ is an anti-PT group that hates bias but focuses on "Surge" tectonics, and is biased against EE (how odd). Their past issues are posted for free and if you go to "Issues" you will find DeKalbs work on Articles # 45, 44, 43, & 40. Let us consider this as confirmation of my angles and points. 3. Solstice Understanding. When the ancients set up astronomical structures like Stonehenge, they could plot important directions. However, it is not clear to most that due East is not easy to plot, but the date of the Winter and Summer Solstice are easy to plot. Why? East occurs during the Equinox (March 21, Sept 21) and the Solstice ( Jun 21, Dec 21). The term equinox means loosely Equal. Solstice means "Sun Still". If one looks to sun rise during the Equinox, say between March 10 and April 10, the sun will rise in an inconsistent location, moving rapidly on the horizon in its pathway northward. Which position exactly was March 21? Hard to tell. But at the Solstice the sun stops in its path for perhaps a week, and was easy to mark. It is important to note the on a larger scale the sun line between night and day on a globe is a Great Circle. Half dark, Half light, with a narrow band in between. As the earth orbits the sun each day that angle changes. But also, on the Solstice, on a globe, that sun angle remains the same for a longer period of time than at other times, particularly during the Equinox. 4. Find an astronomical site that shows a flat map Mercator projection of the earth with a moving GC line between the day and night. This one is complicated http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/vplanet.html and does it all but likely requires downloading software and learning a bit. There are many others (try global clocks). You will see not a GC but something that looks like a Sine Wave. During the course of the day that sine wave moves across the plot, and during the course of a year that Sine Wave changes shape. Today it approximates the final Solstice position. An astute observer will notice that during some time of the day, the angle at dawn, and the angle at dusk will correlate to my GC's around Australia's coasts, and that the sine wave will pass through and be parallel to the Red Sea and Italy, etc, and that the peak of the Sine wave will pass through the Greenland Pt. This should yield a Eureka moment (likely it won't). 5. 2 of my 4 points are antipodal and near the moving positions of the earth's magnetic poles. 2 of my 4 points are antipodal and lie on the North and South Tropic Latitude lines. They all make a near perfect GC by themselves. Magnetic Core, Solar Plane Reactive Expansion (Maco-Spire) indicates that there is an earth surface correlation here likely indicative of causation to an expansion source. 6. I believe the sun is continuously emitting or influencing an energy (particle? energy wave? aether?) but that for some reason it only or primarily influences the earth during dawn or dusk, and that that influence is cumulative, so that the days of fast moving angles (equinoxes) will get "less of" this impact, and those days with a greater consistency of impact (solstices) will get a greater cumulative effect, perhaps like a capacitor, or continuous thin coasts of translucent paint will build to a different color with more applications.
There is a correlation to the sun. There is also a correlation to the Galactic Center. What this is and how it yields new mass is of course not clear, nor is this proof. However, one does not need proof to develop theories and predictions (and to be shocked). You won't see it unless you do the work.
Anaconda
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
Here is another scientific paper on abiotic production of hydrocarbons. Possibly of more interest and certainly more controversial is the assertion that coal is a result of abiotic processes. It also presents chemical equations for the production of hydrocarbons & coal. This scientist considers possibilities that have not been extensively looked at by other abiotic oil scientists.
HOW THE EARTH SEQUESTRATES OIL, NATURAL GAS AND COAL FROM CARBON DIOXIDE AND CARBON MONOXIDE UNDER REDUCING CONDITIONS by Chris Landau (page 93 of the PDF file)
Abstract: I suggest that inorganic chemical pathways exist for producing coal, natural gas and oil from dolomite (CaMgCO3), Calcium carbonate (CaCO3), (limestone), calcium carbonate rich sandstones and mudstones, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. I propose that the carbon in the calcium carbonate is changed to Methane and other hydrocarbon gases and liquids by heat, pressure and by reducing hydrogen sulfide and water. I have set out in simplified chemical equations some of the reactions I believe to be taking place. My ideas differ slightly from published research that I could find.
The main differences are: I have emphasized that coal is inorganic I believe we are forming coal, oil and gas today and replenishing the natural reserves. Active fault zones and regions of tectonic activity increase all natural hydrocarbon production. Dolomite and limestone are being converted to natural gas oil and coal today at 1-2 miles in depth. I accept that natural gas and oil are being made at 150 kilometers in depth as well. Hydrogen sulfide is a major contributing reducing chemical to calcareous formations, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.
How does Mr. Landau reach the conclusion that coal is inorganic or abiotic?
I came to these conclusions after logging about 70 miles of calcareous sediments in the 7000'- 11500' wells that were drilled in California's central valley from 2005 to 2007. I sought equations to explain the hundreds of feet of coal that I logged in the gas wells between 6000 and 8000 feet encountered in deep water marine environments around Rio Vista, California. Shallow water lagoon environments, that were proposed as an explanation, did not make any sense for producing coal at these depths. In any case the oil companies were looking for oil and gas. Coal was of no interest. It was simply a distraction.
So, this scientist reports that coal was "logged in the gas wells between 6000 and 8000 feet" below the Earth's surface.
The following is an interesting claim:
Natural gas is found within, below and above limestone or calcium rich sandstone layers.
These layers are the source of methane. They are not the traps for natural gas.
Here is Mr. Landau's approach to coal formation:
Hydrogen Sulphide will react with iron to form pyrite. With ongoing reduction, hydrogen sulphide will also react with carbon to form pyrite bands in coal and emit methane gas. The carbon is further reduced to methane gas. Even calcareous shells will be reduced to pure pyrite.
Fe (iron) + 2H2S + C = FeS2 (pyrite) + CH4 G = - 149kJ/mol
Water will combine with Sulphur trioxide gas to form sulphuric acid
H2O + SO3 = H2SO4 G = - 82kJ/mol
H2SO4 + CaCO3 = CaSO4+CO2 + H2O G = - 134kJ/mol
Sulphuric acid and limestone combine to form gypsum and give off water and carbon dioxide.
SO3+CaCO3 = CaSO4 + CO2 G = - 213kJ/mol
Sulphur trioxide converts limestone to gypsum or anhydrite and carbon dioxide. In the presence of hydrogen sulphide (black smokers would be the modern visible reaction zone), the following reactions are possible.
Coal is therefore created by the reduction of carbon monoxide by hydrogen sulphide gas with the release of sulphur dioxide and water. Coal is of course a more complex structure with nitrogen, sulphur and hydrogen atoms in its molecular structure.
Graphite or solid carbon can also be created by the pyrolysis of methane in the absence of air. This would be possible in fault zones at depth where heat and reducing conditions are the norm.
The accepted origin for coal and gas is through forests and plankton being buried under heat and pressure. Tree fern fossils or pterodactyl fossils in coal do not mean that these fossils created the coal. The fossils were preserved in non – oxidizing, reducing conditions. Coal is therefore a chemical sedimentary deposit as is chert and dolomite. Leaves preserved as sandstone or mudstone are only evidence of the preservative material, not what the living plants were made of while they were alive. A sabre tooth tiger or mammoth preserved in a tar pit does not mean that tar pits are created from dead mammals, it simply tells us how the animal was preserved or fossilized. The accepted origin for oil is through plankton being buried and oil being created from an accumulation of these tiny single and multi-cellular organisms under reducing conditions. Let us move forward and understand that oil is an excellent preservative material as is formalin. Let us understand that the preservative materials like oil and coal are complex carbon based liquids and solids that helped preserve the plants and animals of the past. Carbon Chondrites or meteorites from outer space composed almost totally of carbon do not indicate that trees or plants created these meteorites. Diamonds made of pure carbon from 100 miles beneath our feet are not evidence of plants being buried and preserved at mantle depths.
That coal is also abiotic is controversial, but coal found between 6,000 and 8,000 feet below the Earth's surface suggests that coal is, indeed, formed by abiotic processes.
webolife
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
Anaconda, Just wanted you to know I'm still following your thread with interest. In the Landau article you quoted, he said that coal is characterized by complex structure including nitrogen, sulfur and hydrogen... this is a much more important point than he makes of it, as nitrogen is biologically fixed from the atmosphere. Nevertheless, I am still waiting and totally willing to be convinced of an entirely abiotic origin for all hydrocarbons...
Anaconda
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
webolife wrote: Anaconda, Just wanted you to know I'm still following your thread with interest. In the Landau article you quoted, he said that coal is characterized by complex structure including nitrogen, sulfur and hydrogen... this is a much more important point than he makes of it, as nitrogen is biologically fixed from the atmosphere. Nevertheless, I am still waiting and totally willing to be convinced of an entirely abiotic origin for all hydrocarbons...
webolife, I appreciate your following the thread and keeping an open-mind.
I also agree, the Landau paper, all by itself, does not nail down the proposition. Frankly, I didn't want to pursue the origins of coal in this thread until the abiotic origins of oil was nailed down because coal is a much "heavier lift" than showing oil's abiotic origins — a mineral — not a pure mineral like gold, silver, or copper, but a molecule that combines hydrogen & carbon, both plentiful in the Earth's crust and shallow mantel.
In other words, it's hard enough to show oil is abiotic (mostly, because people have been so pre-conditioned to believe oil is derived from previously living organisms), so, claiming coal is also abiotic without first nailing down oil formation would make it even harder for people to accept abiotic oil (but, now, the thread is pretty exhaustive in that regard).
Before I present additional information for consideration, let me, now, present a variation of Chris Landau's ideas:
(The abstract and body as presented in the PDF file.)
I suggest that inorganic pathways exist for producing coal, natural gas and oil from dolomite(CaMgCO3), calcium carbonate(CaCO3) (limestone), calcium carbonate rich sandstones and mudstones, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. The carbon in the calcium carbonate is changed to methane and other natural gases by heat, pressure and by reducing hydrogen sulphide gas and water. Active fault zones are a source of hydrogen sulphide gas, carbon dioxide gas and water. Under reducing conditions water poor regions will produce coal. With more water, natural gases are produced. With abundant water, oil is produced.
Natural gas is found within, below and above limestone or calcium rich sandstone layers. These layers are the source of methane. They are not the traps for natural gas. In a reducing environment, limestone is changed to methane.
Coal and methane may form by carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide bubbling out of volcanic vents in the presence of hydrogen sulphide (black smokers) No limestone is necessary.
H2S will react with salt-water brines to produce HCl (hydrochloric acid).
H2S+2NaCl (salt) = 2HCl+Na2S
Hydrochloric acid reacts with calcium carbonate to produce carbon dioxide. 1) 3CO2(carbon dioxide) + H2S = 3CO(carbon monoxide) +H2O+SO2 (sulphur dioxide) 2) SO2 +CaCO3 = CaSO4+CO Sulphur dioxide converts limestone to gypsum or anhydrite. 3) H2S + 3CO = 3C (coal/lignite) +H2O+SO2 Carbon dioxide and water with hydrogen sulphide will produce methane gas. 4) 2C + H2S + 3 H2O =2 CH4 + SO3
The accepted origin for coal and gas is through forests and plankton being buried under heat and pressure. Tree fern fossils or pterodactyl fossils and dinosaur bones in coal do not mean that these fossils created the coal. The fossils were preserved in non – oxidizing, reducing conditions. Plankton in oil means that these reducing conditions preserved these organisms. The plankton did not create the oil. Coal is therefore a chemical sedimentary deposit as is chert (SiO2) and dolomite (CaMgCO3). Oil and gas are inorganic by-products of reducing environments and conditions. With further reduction and in the presence of iron, coal and seashells, are changed to pyrite. Gastropod shells are often seen under reducing conditions, perfectly preserved and made of pyrite. The Petrified Forest, which represent tree trunks turned to stone, under siliceous conditions, does not mean that living trees when buried, are always preserved in carbon form. The fossils outlines are preserved, but they are altered to the chemistry that surrounds them.
Now, lets consider additional information for the proposition that coal is also abiotic.
The End of Fossil Fuels by Thomas J Brown:
(The relevant portions regarding coal will be presented, but I strongly encourage those interested in Earth's geology to read the entire article as it points out many anomalies, some of which, might be attributable to electromagnetic forces...in addition, it should be noted that the Brown article was linked earlier in the thread, but not emphasized.) http://thomasbrown.org/EndofFossilFuels ... Fuels.html
The Carboniferous period--comprising the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian-- is named after the vast amounts of coal and other hydrocarbons found at this horizon level of the geological column. The coal deposits are certainly not limited to the Paleozoic, appearing in progressively younger strata into the Tertiary, but the Pennsylvanian beds are vast and persistent, both in thickness and areal extent. It has been assumed and acclaimed that these vast deposits are merely the remains of ancient forests and swamps, compacted and transformed over time. As a reference, it has been estimated that the present Amazon forest, if compressed into coal, would only comprise a couple inches or so of coal. I shall quote the ever eloquent Velikovsky on the subject:
"Seams of coal are sometimes fifty or more feet thick. No forest could make such a layer of coal; it is estimated that it would take a twelve-foot layer of peat deposit to make a layer of coal one foot thick; and twelve feet of peat deposit would require plant remains a hundred and twenty feet high. How tall and thick must a forest be, then, in order to create a seam of coal not one foot thick but fifty? The plant remains must be six thousand feet thick. In some places there must have been fifty to a hundred successive huge forests, one replacing the other."
What about an 800 foot thick coal seam in Australia? How many miles thick must the plant matter have been to form such massive pure carbon deposits? What, pray tell, causes these multiple layers and exceptionally thick coals? While peat bogs do have a chemical congruence with coal beds, there are questions of size and structure which leave the fundamental question of origin still open. Would successions of peat bogs and marshes continually be deposited at the same flat area, dozens of times, cycling with shales and limestones, and adding in clays, sands and gravels in more recent deposits? Velikovsky postulates catastrophe spawned hurricanes sweeping burnt forest debris with successive tides sweeping in marine layers and fresh layers of burnt organic materials. Yes, some of the evidence supports his line of thought, but not all of it.
Somehow I think something more organic--or more properly, organised--has happened, or is happening.
Vein-like Coal. Surely this sort of deposit cannot be considered as "sedimentary". Common sense indicates an injection in a liquid state. Liquid petroleum is found in pockets within such formations, suggesting a common origin of coal and petroleum.
Sequential Somethings
Cyclothems are rhythmic sediments, repeated layerings of alternating strata, such as coal, limestone, shale, etc. They are not to be confused with annual, or "varve", deposits, which indicate seasonal variations. No, the cyclothems are boggling curiosities. The Pennsylvanian cyclothems, which in this case include coal measures in the sequence, cover over 50,000 square miles in areal extent in North America, and further persist in outcrops around the globe. Some of the associated layers are very thin shales less than half an inch thick bedded in layers with pure coal of varying thicknesses, all perfectly dead level and flat, with known continuous segments of over 15,000 square miles! How can these finely layered strata be explained? Certainly not by sedimentation, especially when the fossils are considered. And when we consider that these same coal seam sequences are found in Europe, then their amazing persistence truly boggles the mind. Methinks more than giant hurricanes at work here.
Fusain, or "mother of coal" is a charcoal-like geological layer that appears in coal beds mostly, but not always. Fusain contains "woody" characteristics, indicating a potential vegetative origin, however the exact mechanism has yet to be scientifically described. It is persistent globally, and it has been suggested is the remains of conflagration. What sort of conflagrations create perfectly thin flat carboniferous layers of questionable origin and of great areal extent?
Vein-like deposits of coal have been described, such as the Canadian type known as Albertite, suggesting the possibility that the coal was at one time liquid. This is a further nail in the coffin for the increasingly tenuous conjecture that the coal beds are merely ancient swamps & peat bogs. It is almost a certainty that the coal was injected as a liquid into the fissures. In the case of Albertite, a vein coal from New Brunswick, Canada, liquid petroleum is found in cavities, as well as in cavities of related shales.
Brown is quite exhaustive in providing facts & evidence regarding coal's origins:
Waiter, there's a fly in my soup!
Fossils are certainly found in coal, but these raise far more questions than they answer. Actually the greater curiosity is the general absence of fossils and source material patterning in coal, save for reports on some Tertiary coals such as the Geiseltal of Germany which has been described as a "veritable graveyard" of flora and fauna of globally diverse geographical and climatological regions deposited in a mixed and disarticulate fashion. Such large deposits of mixed biological debris are not limited to coal beds, and are quite indicative of global catastrophe such as postulated by Velikovsky. Deposition of the Geiseltal must have been quite rapid, as chlorophyll is still found preserved in leaves in the coal, thus indicating that the coal itself is not the leaves! Perhaps it had rained as fire from the sky during or causing suggested catastrophe. Or was squirted wholesale from the bowels of the earth, to punish and extinguish the trees and animals of paradise.
In general however, what fossils that have been found in coal beds are replacement fossils, that is they bear the patterns of the original flora or fauna, but consist of coal itself, or often pyrite and other minerals. Most fossils that do occur are at the top or above the seam, leaving the seam bodies pure. That is, the fossils are found in the non-coal roof or floor rocks!
Coal is amazingly pure carbon, often 90% or more, with mineral contents as low as 4%, and ash residues of less than 3%. Curiously, erratic boulders and rock fragments are found in coal, though soils which the vast coal-forming forests supposedly grew upon are fully absent. It is claimed that the so-called "fireclays" found underlying many coal beds are the soils upon which the vast forests once grew, but in Nova Scotia there is a coal measure three miles thick, whose structure contains 76 coal seams and 90 fireclay layers. The fireclays are occasionally found without related coal as well.
I present Brown's facts & evidence, mostly, without comment, for now, because it is so exhaustive.
Proceeding into the continually more curious we come across the polystrate (multiple strata) intrusions such as fossil trees. These can penetrate from a carbonate layer--e.g. limestone--into one or more coal layers. This raises the question of how those trees could have stood through successive aeons of forest accumulation and destruction. Shouldn't the tree have become part of one mere layer of coal, along with its tree brethren? Examples of such trees are described in the literature as "coalified where they are within the coal seam, but are not coalified where they are in the carbonate" (Gold) leaving exact origin open to question. Seriously, how could a tree stand through the complex and long term activities which supposedly caused the finely laid, flat, consistent coal beds and end up partaking of the mineral substance of that and the alternating oceanic layers? There are many examples of polystrate fossils, they are not limited to coal beds, but they raise some important questions. Common sense indicates a new picture must be built.
Brown provides a bounty of facts & evidence. Brown makes the most aggressive & exhaustive case for coal's abiotic origin that I have found in my researches.
Total Science
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
Bravo Anaconda...
To me this thread is about as entertaining as a thread titled "Water in the Shallow Sea?"
I realize that magic and ancient alchemy are ridiculed and mocked by 21st century pseudoscientists who don't know what a hydrogen and a carbon atom are, or those who have never read Von Humboldt or Berthelot, so I'm now focusing on more controversial scientific issues such as Centaurs.
However, as the saying goes, "let us dismiss things ancient."
mharratsc
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
Electrical transmutation is of necessity the root of all things 'metal', wouldn't you say? It is only the lack of interdisciplinary studies that prevents those working in this field from seeing rudimentary truths, I think. Plasma physicists have been creating transmutations for how long now? Isotopes? How do they accomplish these feats? Burying hamburger under twenty feet of sand and starting bonfires on top of it? I think usually they will use particle accelerators and electric arcs, hmm?
I guess the problem here is that no plasma physicist/experimenter has been able to specifically transmute 'something' into petroleum, or coal... and because of this lack of direct experiment this is all 'wild conjecture' despite all the other elements and compounds that are created in this fashion?
I don't mean to make light of it, but seriously- it's analogous to saying "You may admit that a scoop of vanilla ice cream dropped on a hot sidewalk will melt into a sticky puddle" but you have no evidence whatsoever that a scoop of butterscotch-fudge-marble-chunk New York vanilla will likewise melt into a sticky puddle on a hot sidewalk! Conjecture! Foul! Fringe science!
I'm not fully invested in this whole battle mind you, so forgive me for popping in with this opinionated interjection. Suffice it to say that I'm in complete agreement with the abiotic origins theories mentioned in this thread. Once long-held 'beliefs' are removed, these arguments appear self-evident in my eyes.
Anaconda
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
mharratsc:
Yes, in my opinion, transmutation does play a significant role in Earth's geology, i.e., gold almost always is found in mountainous regions or in the sediments where the mountains' runoff settles, think placer gold mining in streams (mountains are an expression of high temperature & pressure, plus, possibly electromagnetic energy). The one exception which comes to mind is South Africa, but, as TPOD readers know, South Africa displays geological evidence of intense electromagnetic energy activity.
Thunderbolts Picture of the Day, The Electrical Origin of Kimberlite Pipes:
The actual process which formed the kimberlite crater or diatreme remains unknown, because there is clear evidence that these diatremes were machined downwards from the surface by a magmatic vortex effect. The final puzzle lies in the origin of these rather unique rocks—some 220 kilometers under the surface, well away from active tectonic zones.
This strongly suggests kimberlite eruptions are essentially electrical discharge sites of short duration between the Earth and another cosmic body, where electrical charge differences between the Earth and the interloper caused electrical short circuits between them. The rotary or tunneling mechanism recognized from the shape and structure of the kimberlite diatremes can then be explained as the result of powerful Birkeland currents corkscrewing into the Earth's surface forming the smooth and steep sides of the kimberlite diatreme.
Now that I reviewed the above TPOD, I remember Russia also has large quantities of gold & diamonds (interestingly enough, from the same geological regions).
mharratsc, I favorably raised the issue of transmutation previously in the thread (although, certainly not in any great detail). Earth's crust & mantle is a very active chemical reaction environment, due, at least in part, to electromagnetic energy, plus, the inherent chemical reactiveness of the various elements with each other in environments of intense heat & pressure. Hydrocarbon formation, in my opinion, is also effected, and, indeed, accelerated, by electromagnetic energy dynamics.
starbiter
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
Hello Anaconda: I've enjoyed your posts on weather.
Concerning coal, the EU/Velikovsky model is quite different than an abiotic model. It would appear much of the coal is plant matter. Earth in Upheaval deals with this in chapter 13, COAL. Paperback, page 195
Apparently EVERY tree was uprooted. Then a hurricane blew ALL the vegetation into a planet wide flood. The wind concentrated the vegetation in piles that were covered with dunes and slurry outwash.
Then a current burned the vegetable matter in the absence of oxygen.
The details in EiU are tingling.
The sediment covering the coal is not a problem. Dust from our planet and other sources duned dry land, and outwash slurry covered the area surrounding the dunes. Coal is the beginning of the process in many cases. There may have been earlier catastrophes with the same sequence of electric events producing coal. But in many cases coal is the beginning of the world wide plague of darkness. The sediment above is the result of The Valley of the Shadow of Death. Dust from Venus.! Maybe a bit of Mars. And electrically eroded Earth and volcanic dust.
Abiotic oil is one thing, but abiotic trees are another thing altogether.
I mentioned earlier that bituminous coal was oil and coal. Apparently it's sulfur and coal.
Now lets talk about ice being forced to the edge of the Stratosphere by warm breezes. Cum bI ya.
michael
Sorry Anaconda, i was confusing you with Ardawolf. You both like abiotic/expanding ideas i believe.
Anaconda
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
starbiter:
Velikovsky does not offer a scientific model in the strict sense for the formation of coal.
Velikovsky was a pioneer in considering electromagnetic phenomenon via ancient written text, and I respect his contribution. But as is often the case with pioneers, in various fields of understanding, while their contribution is significant (they are pioneers, after all ), they can be incomplete or wrong regarding certain specifics. Regarding the formation of coal, Velikovsky was engaging more in his own speculation, rather than relying on scientific evidence or even ancient written text. (Please feel free to provide a passage from Velikovsky, I be happy to consider it.)
starbiter wrote: "It would appear much of the coal is plant matter."
Yes, that is the popular conception, but what solid scientific evidence do offer in support of that assertion?
Kudryavtsev's Rule states that any region in which hydrocarbons are found at one level will also have hydrocarbons in large or small quantities at all levels down to and into the basement rock. Thus, where oil and gas deposits are found, there will often be coal seams above them.
Now, this is not always the case, but there are other facts & evidence.
Getting back to the idea that planet matter makes up coal, this passage is from the Brown article:
Fossils are certainly found in coal, but these raise far more questions than they answer. Actually the greater curiosity is the general absence of fossils and source material patterning in coal, save for reports on some Tertiary coals such as the Geiseltal of Germany which has been described as a "veritable graveyard" of flora and fauna of globally diverse geographical and climatological regions deposited in a mixed and disarticulate fashion. Such large deposits of mixed biological debris are not limited to coal beds, and are quite indicative of global catastrophe such as postulated by Velikovsky. Deposition of the Geiseltal must have been quite rapid, as chlorophyll is still found preserved in leaves in the coal, thus indicating that the coal itself is not the leaves! Perhaps it had rained as fire from the sky during or causing suggested catastrophe. Or was squirted wholesale from the bowels of the earth, to punish and extinguish the trees and animals of paradise.
I agree the Geiseltal coal beds of Germany offers evidence of a catastrophic event or a series of events in close succession.
But I suspect the coal came wholesale from the bowels of the Earth — quite possibly during an intense aurora phase, as described by Dr. Anthony Peratt, but the timing is uncertain.
In general however, what fossils that have been found in coal beds are replacement fossils, that is they bear the patterns of the original flora or fauna, but consist of coal itself, or often pyrite and other minerals. Most fossils that do occur are at the top or above the seam, leaving the seam bodies pure. That is, the fossils are found in the non-coal roof or floor rocks!
The following quote provides, perhaps, the strongest evidence that coal is an abiotic product and not plant detritus:
Vein-like deposits of coal have been described, such as the Canadian type known as Albertite, suggesting the possibility that the coal was at one time liquid. This is a further nail in the coffin for the increasingly tenuous conjecture that the coal beds are merely ancient swamps & peat bogs. It is almost a certainty that the coal was injected as a liquid into the fissures. In the case of Albertite, a vein coal from New Brunswick, Canada, liquid petroleum is found in cavities, as well as in cavities of related shales.
Perhaps the best way to consider the Thomas J Brown article, The End of Fossil Fuels, is as a whole, put it altogether, and, there are a lot of anomalies for which "modern" geology has no ready explanation (this is where Electric Universe theorists may have better explanations).
Starbiter, what do you make of Chris Landau's report of coal being found at depths of 6,000 to 8,000 feet below the surface:
I sought equations to explain the hundreds of feet of coal that I logged in the gas wells between 6000 and 8000 feet encountered in deep water marine environments around Rio Vista, California. Shallow water lagoon environments, that were proposed as an explanation, did not make any sense for producing coal at these depths.
But this post is not about abiotic coal or coal, whatever its source, so perhaps this was an unwise detour after all. But I thought the Chris Landau contribution to the field was worthy of mention because (one thing jumps out at you from his work, beyond the abiotic coal contribution) the chemical pathways for the formation of hydrocarbons from abiotic processes is simple and verifiable chemical reactions, principly "reducing" reactions — there's nothing mysterious about the chemical reaction processes.
Lloyd
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
* Apparently, Albertite is not coal, but asphalt, from oil shale.
Albertite From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Albertite is a type of asphalt found in Albert County, New Brunswick. It is a type of solid hydrocarbon.
It is a deep black and lustrous variety, and is less soluble in turpentine than the usual type of asphalt. It was from Albertite that kerosene was first refined. It was first truly studied by New Brunswick geologist Abraham Gesner, who had heard stories of rocks that burned in the area.
Formation
Albertite is formed from oil shale which has become remobilised into liquid asphalt. The process of formation is as follows;
* Production of crude oil (petroleum) from source rocks (in the case of Albert Mines, oil shale) * Petroleum becomes trapped in an anticlinal culmination * The petroleum gradually leaks out through the weakly permeable cap rock, the lighter oils are released most easily, leaving the bituminous residues of tars, asphaltanes and so forth behind * Eventually, the lighter hydrocarbons are totally removed, leaving the solid residue behind as albertite
Occurrence
Albertite is named after the Albert County Mines in New Brunswick, Canada, from whence it was first found. The occurrence at Albert Mines existed as a series of discordant veins which were hosted in the core of an anticlinal closure of a fold. It was initially mistaken for coal. The geologists of the 1800s were at a loss as to describe how this coal apparently came to lie discordant to the strata of the area, as they did not yet understand the nature of the oil shale source rock, nor the fact that the albertite was essentially solidified asphaltum.
Albertite and controversial theories
Albertite is often used to argue the abiogenic origin of coal because it was originally reported as a "liquid coal" and this is a basis for arguments under the current theories of the abiogenic origin of petroleum and coal. The work of various Russian scientists and Thomas Gold are based on this early misconception.
These arguments are based on an archaic interpretation by the geologists of the day, who described it as coal, and presupposed (correctly) that it had once been liquid, though wrongly as about it being a liquid form of coal. The abiogenic theorists particularly favor the sentence:
If this Albertite is to be called coal, then we must admit that coal is not continued to beds subordinate to the stratification, but occurs also in lodes, like metallic ores.
However, proper reading of the 1865 source states:
This coal must have been injected into the crevices in a pasty or fluid state, since all the little apertures streaming off from the main vault, and even large cavities of many cubic yards extent have been filled in with it. It appears to me that these veins are analogous to veins of Petroleum. The latter are often found to occupy anticlinal vaults. If we should conceive a Petroleum vein to solidify, the solid mass resulting would present all the phenomena of the Albert vein. And on the other hand, the study of the irregularities of the Albert vein, if it be like Petroleum, would elucidate the sinking of oil wells.
External links
* Albertite occurrences, Albert Mines * Oil Shows of Nova Scotia, including Albertite leads * Solid Hydrocarbon References * Asphaltic substances in Turkey; their physical properties
Lloyd
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
* What percentage of average coal consists of plant or organic material? In reviewing literature, it appears to me that the percentage is very high. So it seems highly unlikely to be produced abiotically. The following is from: http://geology.com/articles/coal-through-a-microscope.shtml. The only suspicious thing I notice so far is that charcoal is often present in coal. This could be from typical forest fires, or from cataclysmic conflagrations. If it's not from cataclysmic conditions, then it's possible that coal formation may provide a way to date plant life on Earth. It's conceivable that coal may have formed under uniformitarian conditions prior to the Saturn System breakup, although I think it's a bit unlikely, because I think granite generally underlies coal beds, whether closely or distantly, and granite appears to have been formed by electrical breakdown of sedimentary rock, during cataclysms, according to Juergens.
This is a thin section of "cannel coal". This type of coal is composed of large amounts of spores, resins or algal materials. These types of plant debris are very resistant to decay. When they are found in high concentrations with charcoal and mineral matter it suggests swamp conditions where the woody material decayed away and the more resistant materials accumulated. This image represents a view of coal that is about four millimeters wide.
A generalized diagram of a swamp, showing how water depth, preservation conditions, plant types and plant productivity can vary in different parts of the swamp to yield many types of coal. Illustration by the West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey.
The coal shown in this view is known as "boghead coal". It contains large amounts of preserved algal debris which appear in this image as the yellow-orange particles. This type of material might accumulate on the fringes of a swamp where there is a lack of wood and other coal-forming plant materials. This image represents a view of coal that is about four millimeters wide.
The indestruct[i]bility of the epidermis of some plants is shown by a layer of Lower Carboniferous "paper coal" in Russia some 2 feet in thickness, which is built up almost exclusively of the foil-like cuticles of certain lycopods. All of the tissues of the interior of the plants had decayed.
* Here's something from that site that I never heard of. It reminds me superficially of geodes. Coal Balls
Important sources of plant fossils in coal are coal-balls. These are irregular or subspherical masses of mineral matter, usually of calcium or magnesium carbonate and iron pyrites, which vary in size from a fraction of an inch to 2 or 3 feet, and in weight from an ounce to two or more tons. Most of them, however, weigh but a few pounds. Coal-balls are generally of localized occurrence. They may be congregated in definite bands or in irregularly scattered pockets. They have been known in Europe for many years but were not discovered in North America until 1922. In North America they were originally discovered in Illinois, but they have subsequently been found in Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, and probably elsewhere, although they are unknown in the coal fields of the Appalachian region or in western Pennsylvania or Ohio. They occur mostly in rocks of middle Pennsylvanian (Conemaugh) age although a few are older. In Europe they are found mostly in the Westphalian and Yorkian, and consequently are' older than those found in North America. - The conditions under which coal-balls formed appear to vary somewhat, but in Great Britain and Europe they exist only in coal seams overlain by marine limestones. It is thought that the calcium and magnesium carbonates making up the mineral content of the balls were derived from sea water, which covered the peat deposits soon after their formation but before they became sufficiently compacted to flatten the plant parts completely. However, in Illinois the coal-balls are not overlain by marine beds and the petrifying minerals must have come from some other source. These coal-balls also contain considerable pyrites and some are composed almost entirely of this mineral. It is believed that here the free carbon liberated during partial disintegration of the plant substances reduced sulphates present in the water, with the contemporaneous deposition of calcium, magnesium, and iron carbonates which formed the coal-balls. - Many coal-balls are barren of recognizable plant remains but others contain fragments of stems, roots, petioles, foliage, seeds, sporangia, and liberated spores (Fig. 10). The parts are often partially crushed and the outermost tissues have generally disappeared. Portions of stems frequently extend completely through the coal-balls and for some distance into the surrounding coal where they, too, have been altered into coal.
- ... Just how basic compounds such as calcium and magnesium carbonates are precipitated within the cells is less known, but apparently they form along with coal-balls or other calcareous masses in coal seams and shales. Calcification and pyritization of plant tissues often take place concurrently, with either one or the other of the minerals predominating or with deposition in approximately equal quantities. Silica usually exists alone; it seldom combines with other petrifying minerals.
* Oh, I just found this in the list of References there.
FILICIANO, J.M.: The relation of concretions to coal [seams?], Jour. Geology, 32, 1924. STOPES, M.C., and D.M.S. WATSON: On the present distribution and origin of the calcareous concretions in coal seams known as "coal balls/' Royal Soc. London Philos. Trans., B 200, 1908.
mharratsc
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
Very interesting about the coal balls... another z-pinch phenomenon it seems. Thanks for posting that, Lloyd
