Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 12:19:03 +0100 (MET)
Subject: M-G: UNITE! Info #28en: 8/8 Chemical fuels, not "fossil", I.


UNITE! Info #28en: 8/8 Chemical fuels, not "fossil", I.
[Posted: 23.02.97]



(8) Why the chemical fuels are NOT "fossil"  [Posted: 24.08.96]


Subtitle of today's episode, continued from posting (7)
- part 7/8:

Mission: IMPOSSIBLE, or:

Discussion with Bruce Hamilton, Defender of "Dino Dinner"
Theory (and Author of "Automotive Gasoline FAQ")


Bruce,

As you've seen in my posting (7), those arguments which you
yourself advanced, except for your references to some sources,
in favour of the "fossil" or "dino vegetarian dinner" theory of the
origins of oil, gas and coal in reality cannot save that theory at
all. I'll here go into what those sources say - those six rather
recent magazine articles, that is, all of which I found, while I'll
have to pass on the two somewhat earlier books, from 1970
and 1984.

You wrote on 11.08 i.a.:

>Recently Thomas Gold has had significant success convincing
>a diverse range of people that much of the "fossil" methane is
>actually abiotic in origin. He is a lone voice, but has an
>impressive list of achievements that mean his opinion is
>seriously considered.

Yes, at least among some "oil people" there does seem to have
been a - very justified - rethinking. As a colleague at work
recently told me, for instance, there in a program on Danish TV
last July was an owner of a small oil company in Texas who said
to the astonished reporter that the theory that the oil gushing
up "all had to do with some small plants and animals long ago"
now was being "more and more questioned".

And "a lone voice" facing strong oppostion but still able to
convince "a diverse range of people" - such a phenomenon in
itself further points to his having a very strong factual case,
doesn't it. In fact Gold isn't, and hasn't been, all that "lone"
either - see for instance my posting (1) on this.

But those sources you mentioned don't in fact refer much to
Thomas Gold's works at all. And they certainly do *not* contain
any "evidence" whatever, against the correct, cosmic or deep-
earth-gas theory, for me to "repudiate", as you wrote on 20.08
that my mission would be, should I care to accept it.

Those six magazine articles (not counting the two books) are:

1. Everett L. Shock (Dept. of Earth and Planetary Sciences,
McDonnell Ctr. for the Space Sciences, St Louis): "Catalysing
methane production", Nature 07.04.1994, p. 499+

2. Frank D. Mango et al. (Depts. of Geology and Geophysics,
Houston, etc): "Role of transtion-metal catalysis in the
formation of natural gas", Nature 07.04.1994, p. 536+

3. Joseph Haggin: "Natural gas formation - Catalysis perhaps
made geologic deposits", Chemical and Engineering News,
11.04.1994, p. 4+

4. Everett L. Shock: "Methane - An open or shut case?",
Nature, 23.11.1995, p. 338+

5. Leigh C. Price & Martin Schoell (US Geological Survey,
Denver; Chevron Petroleum Techn. Co., La Habra, CA):
"Constraints on the origins of hydrocarbon gas from
compositions of gases at their site of origin", Nature,
23.11.1995, p. 368+

6. William C. Evans (US Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA):
"A gold mine of methane", Nature, 09.05.1996, p. 114+.


What in all the five first of those is really the theme is that
big problem with the "fossil" theory which I mentioned (after my
source Bergstroem, Sweden, 1985) in my posting (4):

"There also are other problems, for instance, the question of
how the transformation from biological material to crude oil
occurs. The well-known E. Teller (1979) summed up his
comprehensive experience thus (in translation): 'I've gone to
the best geologists and the best oil experts and I can give you
an authorative answer: Nobody knows'."

The common story in the first four articles of those mentioned
is that Mango (together with others) has been trying to solve
that problem experimentally and so save at least the possibility,
so to speak, of "Dino's dinner". (His very name perhaps might
even indicate such a direction, to someone really smart.) He's
gotten DOE (Dept. of Energy, USA) grants for such research.
Schock is in on that too but i.a. comes up with a little
"shocking" remark on "conventional wisdom".

Mango et al. write [2]: "The idea that natural gas is formed by
thermal decomposition of sedimentary organic matter enjoys
almost universal acceptance. But pyrolysis experiments on
organic matter have failed to reproduce the composition of
natural gas (typically 90% methane). It has recently been
suggested that natural gas may instead be generated
catalytically: transition metals...." [as catalysts].

And then is shown how they in fact have managed to produce
"ordinary natural gas" from (biological) kerogene with such a
catalytic method. As in the other articles, no direct argument
whatsoever is advanced against the deep-earth-gas theory. 

Writing on the same thing, Shock starts out with i.a. [1]:

"...the considerable faith of petroleum geologists in thermal
decomposition of organic matter with progressive burial. As with
many widely held beliefs (especially in organic chemistry), the
faith of the followers has little to do with the quantitative
strength of the hypothesis." [Hear, hear!]

"Given the geological, geochemical, experimental and
theoretical assault now being made on this conventional wisdom,"
[an oblique reference, probably, to Gold and others] "it is not
surprising that researchers are proposing new mechanisms and
pathways to account for both the widespread occurrence of
natural gas and the predominance of methane in that gas."

These last-mentioned things of course are simply due to
the fact that the deep-earth-gas theory is the correct one,
and precisely do fit in beautifully with that theory, while the
"dino diners" are having a heck of a time trying somehow
to make their square peg fit into that round hole - just as did
once the believers in the "ether" as a radio (etc) wave
medium and, long before that, the adherents of the
geocentric and "circles only" theory in astronomy, who drew
up "epicycle" after "epicycle" to "account for" the planets'
movements until they finally had to throw in the sponge.

In source [3], Haggen does refer quite directly to the deep-
earth-gas theory but says nothing against it either; he just
mentions that there are "different views":

"In recent years, increased attention has been paid to the
origins of petroleum and natural gas, with some theorists
suggesting that natural gas may even " [imagine!] "be
abiogenic in origin. One theory, for example, attributes
gas formation to processes deep within the Earth's crust
where there has never been kerogen deposits. The
traditional view, however," [he doesn't say why] "is that
biomass was deposited, covered and pressurized over
geologic time."

In source [5], Price and Schoell again mention those
problems that the "thermal decomposition" variant of the
"fossil" theory encounters and say that, besides' Mango's
catalysis experiment's perhaps offering a solution to them,
there might be another one in the gas and oil deposits'
"having migrated" from their "source rocks" (where they
might have been formed, then, in that "dino dinner" fashion,
they argue). They in detail discuss this possibility in
connection with the Bakken shales in North Dakota, USA.  

Schock in source [4] refers to both these two possibilities
but i.a. "even" says: "Perhaps the Bakken system...
represents an abiotic system."

In source [6], Evans discusses above all two cases of large
amounts of methane seeping up from the ocean sea floor:

"Imagine the existence, deeper within the Earth than any
organic deposits, of an enormous reservoir of methane (CH4).
Such a reservoir was proposed some years ago by Gold" [in fact
the theory is quite old and also originally Russian, according
to Bergstroem, who mentioned 1889 and W. Sokoloff, see my
posting (1)] "who considered the mantle a possible source of
the gas. Sceptics were numerous, but that oft-cited work
spurred much interest in finding abiogenic CH4 from great depth."

"A suitable candidate was soon found, in the gases dissolved
in high-temperature vent fluids on the sea floor at the East
Pacific Rise. Although CO2 is by far the dominant gas in these
fluids, several per cent of the total gas is CH4 with an
isotopic composition distinctly heavier than that normally
produced in the breakdown of organic matter."

Here again, Bruce, in that last sentence, is another blow
against that objection of yours against the abiotic theory
which I dealt with under "D)" in posting (7) - the one having
to do with the carbon isotopic ratios.  

Evans continues:

"The source of the CH4 in these and other similar vents is
still debated. In some cases it may be closer to the mantle
than many have assumed, as described in a recent paper
by Kelley".

"In 1987, a 0.5-km core of oceanic crustal layer 3 was
recovered bt the Ocean Drilling Program at the Southwest
Indian Ridge (SWIR).....Surprisingly, CH4 is an abundant
volatile species in fluid inclusions throughout the length of
the core, and in some cases the only major volatile."

Details are then discussed, and the necessity of further
investigation as to the origin of this methane is stressed.
The article ends:

"Although the researchers studying this core have not found
a mantle full of methane, they have found out much about
the origin of this gas in the deep oceanic crust. Considering
that serious uncertainties still exist about the origin of CH4
in natural gas reservoirs, these findings are an important
advance."


So, obviously, I don't have to "repudiate" what those sources
you mentioned say, Bruce. (And thank you once more for
bringing them to my attention!) They if anything only bring some
further support for what I'm maintaining - Mango's and the
others' demonstration of the theoretical *possibility* of "fossil"
formation of natural gas by no means of course contradicts this.

I'd like to add here too a small note on that question of gases
emerging from the sea floor which the last article was about:
There obviously are very many places in the oceans where this
occurs, on a large scale. On TV here in Sweden, for instance,
several months ago there was a discussion about the
"mysterious Bermuda triangle" where ships (and aircraft)
reportedly have suddenly disappeared, and one of the possible
explanations advanced was that of releases of such gases,
CO2 perhaps but also CH4 in large amounts, which would then
dramatically decrease the bouyancy of ships and cause them
to sink quite quickly. This is yet another thing, if true, that
would contribute towards the confirmation (under what I called
"Point =A41" in my first posting) of the main source of the chemical
fuels' being NOT old fossils but non-biological-origin methane
in the mantle of the earth, present since its formation.


I even at this stage in the discussion think it's reasonable to
suggest to you, Bruce, that you completely revise and rewrite
that subchapter 4.1 of yours in the "Automotive Gasoline FAQ",
on the (main) origin of oil (etc). How about it?

But I of course also would welcome, and in advance promise
to reply to - in an as detailed and objective manner as I can -
any further objections which you might find you can still raise
against what I'm maintaining in this series, in your actual -
sorry about that! - "Mission: IMPOSSIBLE".

Rolf M.

[So far, first 8 postings on this subject, making up Chapter I.]


UNITE! / VEREINIGT EUCH! / UNISSEZ-VOUS! / =A1UNIOS! /
F=D6RENA ER! Info en/de/fr/es/se series:

Advocates the political line of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong.
Each item # will be posted in one or more language(s).
Leaflets in the INFORMATIONSBLAD series published by
me, mainly in Swedish, since 1975 are available on request.

Bef=FCrwortet die politische Linie von Marx, Lenin und Mao
Zedong. Jedes Nummer # wird in einer oder mehreren
Sprache(n) gesandt werden. Flugbl=E4tter der Reihe
INFORMATIONSBLAD, von mir haupts=E4chlich in Schwedisch
seit 1975 ver=F6ffentlicht, sind auf Anfrage erhaltlich.

Avocate de la ligne politique de Marx, Lénine et Mao Zedong.
Chaque numéro # sera envoyé en une ou plusieurs langue(s).
Volantes de la série INFORMATIONSBLAD, publiée par moi
principalement en suédois depuis 1975, sont accessibles sur
demande. 

Partidaria de la l=EDnea pol=EDtica de Marx, Lenin y Mao Zedong.
Cado n=FAmero # sera enviado en una o varias lengua(s).
Se pueden conseguir a la demanda volantes de la serie
INFORMATIONSBLAD, publicada por me principalmente
en sueco desde 1975.

F=F6respr=E5kar Marx', Lenins och Mao Zedongs politiska linje.
Varje nummer # kommer att s=E4ndas p=E5 ett eller flera spr=E5k.
Flygblad i serien INFORMATIONSBLAD, publicerad av mig
huvudsakligen p=E5 svenska sedan 1975, kan f=E5s p=E5 beg=E4ran. 

Postal address:
Rolf Martens
Nobelvaegen 38
S - 214 33 Malmoe
SWEDEN
Tel: +46 - 40 - 124832








     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---