Deep-Gas, Deep Hot Biosphere Theory

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">where exactly are these "proven reserves" the world is "awash" in? Also is there any documentation for these "exhausted" reservoirs "refilled" from below? [nemesis]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Here’s an excerpt and link that addresses this question a little more specifically: Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">“Recovering dynamic Gulf of Mexico reserves and the U.S. energy future”
Roger N. Anderson, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University
[Most of paragraphs in this article were published in the week of April 26, 1993 by OIL&GAS JOURNAL]

Although the world is awash in hydrocarbons at the moment, the shift in exploration from the U.S. to overseas will shift our balance-of-payments evermore into the red as more and more oil is imported to satisfy U.S. internal needs ( which are projected to continue to climb). This flight of exploration is not just an economic problem, it is also a geological problem. The perception is that there are no more "Elephants"; no more billion barrel oil fields to find in the U.S., that are not under lands banned by Congress from exploration in the foreseeable future.

The pressure, temperature, seismic and overproduction anomalies observed in the EI 330 field suggest the possibility that the oils produced in 1993 may not have been present in the reservoirs at the beginning of production in 1973. Organic geochemical evidence for time dependent variability in composition has rarely been examined in oil fields. However, the 4 phases of the Texas A&M study offer a limited opportunity since many oils from EI 330 block wells were sampled in 1985 and again in 1988. One well was also sampled in 1973, and another in 1992.
Whole oil chromatograms were measured for oils from several wells producing from each reservoir in the EI 330 block, with 7 wells sampled at two different times, and two wells sampled at three times. Oils from the two shallow reservoirs (at 4200 feet and 5200 feet) that were heavily biodegraded in 1973, showed considerable variability in degree of biodegradation from 1985 to 1988. In all cases, the 1985 oils were less heavily biodegraded than either in 1973 or in 1988.
Another indication of mixing of different hydrocarbons comes from the gasoline concentrations in these same oils. Light gasoline contents were greater in 1988 than in either 1973 or1985. This same pattern was observed in non-biodegraded oils from the reservoir at 7600 feet.

Source link:
www.kressworks.com/Science/Recovering_dy..._Mexico_reserves.htm
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I apologize for stealing your thread but I was trying to approach an end point a few months ago from the opposite side: [Gregg] <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That's what it's there for.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think that nitrogen would be an end product of nuclear decay chains. The officially registered decay chains start with relatively long lived parent isotopes but none of them give off nitrogen. The scientists are looking at three or four leaves on a tree and forgetting the tree, let alone the forest. Anyway, the final decay step gives a stable element. How are these parent decay isotopes still producing such things as nitrogen in a planet that is 4-1/2 billion years old? The problem with human theories is that they "close the book" and prohibit further inquiry into the phenomena...We get a continuous flow of nitrogen for the same reason we get helium. But what is the starting point?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I would much apreciate a qualitative description of the nuclear decay chains that produce nitrogen, IYO.

What about the math-does this add up? If the N2 came from some reaction within the Earth and also produced He and CH2 does the amount of N2 in the atmosphere match up with the hydrocarbons in the crust? Or is there another way N2 evolves?

As to the problem of finding the reaction that produces the result observed what about starting with silicon and then figure out where it came from? The reaction then could be almost anything if the standard model is discarded. Nuclear research is poorly developed right now because of the bomb and secret labs that did the job.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>

I would much apreciate a qualitative description of the nuclear decay chains that produce nitrogen, IYO.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />What about the math-does this add up? If the N2 came from some reaction within the Earth and also produced He and CH2 does the amount of N2 in the atmosphere match up with the hydrocarbons in the crust? Or is there another way N2 evolves?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />As to the problem of finding the reaction that produces the result observed what about starting with silicon and then figure out where it came from? The reaction then could be almost anything if the standard model is discarded. Nuclear research is poorly developed right now because of the bomb and secret labs that did the job.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I will give my answers to these questions. It will take time because I am back to full time process design for water treatment for Alberta oil fields. A good living but not a technology that will last. I don't see a long term future for oil as a primary energy source.

What I will present is speculation. Before we can go into details about how nitrogen could arise from radioactive decay, we must look at how anything heavier than hydrogen comes into existence.

The usual model for the formation of a solar system begins with a nebula that will contract because of gravity. OK. A problem comes up when we proceed to say that the nebula consists of gases and dust. That claim immediately brings into existence all the elements of the Periodic Table without any apparent explain of how. This problem is commonly recognized and explained with a prior supernova. It is claimed that the circumstances of a supernova can "create anything". This debris then impacts a "pure" nebula and accounts for planetary material. This is a cop out.

But let's concede this miracle to the supernova. Observations of supernova indicate two fundamental facts:

1) The debris goes in all directions and the chance of "heavy" elements remaining together is very, very slim.

2) Supernovas are extremely rare.

The birth rate of stars apparently outnumbers supernovae by several orders of magnitude. So the supernova explanation for the "heavy" elements in our solar sysyem is very, very weak.

Dr. Van Flandern has postulated that planets come out of the Sun. I agree with this with a slight geometric twist: I think the planet forms within the Sun, in its permanent orbit, and the remainder of the Sun collapses inward. This occurs because the solar material to make that planet has been "exhausted. What falls inward is both proton material and Elysium. Both have been consumed in making the planet.

I suggest that sunspots are examples of planets in the making. If they collide, etc, the buildup of such a planet will be a failure. We get enormous eruptions instead.

Conventional nuclear fusion theory states that the elements are progressively made in layers in the Sun much like an onion. Each inner layer is hotter, thus enabling higher collision velocities to make progressively heavier nuclei. Actual observations of our Sun show a boiling cauldron. A lot of chaos; no onion layers.

I will give my version of nuclear fusion in my next posting.


Gregg Wilson

"Conventional nuclear fusion theory states that the elements are progressively made in layers in the Sun much like an onion. Each inner layer is hotter, thus enabling higher collision velocities to make progressively heavier nuclei. Actual observations of our Sun show a boiling cauldron. A lot of chaos; no onion layers." - Gregg Wilson
Gregg, what you describe here would only take place in a very massive star which has exhausted all the hydrogen in its core. According to the standard theory, only hydrogen fusion takes place in the Sun.