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">

The links below address your questions to some degree. Also being an "extraordinary hypothesis," the best source for facts is from the principal scientist himself (and the sources he sites). His definitive work is "The Deep Hot Biosphere: the Myth of Fossil Fuels," by Thomas Gold.

Jan. 19, 2005 ABC News article

abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=421532

“Hydrocarbon Fuels Aren't Fossils”

by Paul Sheridan

www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles2/FossilFuels.html

Also, for a list of Russian scientists who preceded Gold in the abiogenic theory of the origin of petroleum see:

www.gasresources.net/VAKreplytBriggs.htm

I’ll try to find more specific answers as time permits.

Neil DeRosa

There is a further problem with the fossil fuel theory - particularly in regard to natural gas. Almost all of the gases can be explained as thermal breakdown of heavier substances. There are two exceptions: helium and molecular nitrogen. A very long term, stable source for helium is radioactive decay. The majority of radioactive decays result in alpha particles, which just another name for a helium nucleus that is emitted with a velocity.

Molecular nitrogen is not a decay product, either by chemical means or by, so far, an identified radioactive decay. If the Earth is 4-1/2 billion years old, where is the molecular nitrogen coming from? It hasn't managed to escape the interior of the Earth after 4-1/2 billion years?

I looked over the composition of natural gas wells listed for the state of Michigan. All had molecular nitrogen - typically 5% - 25%. However, a few exceeded 90% in nitrogen composition. I doubt if any of these wells are more than 2 to 3 miles deep.

For volcanos, they don't list N2 in the gas composition. But why would they? It is an inert and is therefore of no interest.

In order for N2 to chronically come out of the Earth, there has to be a cause. Does anyone care to venture a speculation? Or a hypothesis? Or a theorem? Or a Law? Or an Axiom? (It makes no difference to Reality.)

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In order for N2 to chronically come out of the Earth, there has to be a cause. Does anyone care to venture a speculation? Or a hypothesis? Or a theorem? Or a Law? Or an Axiom? (It makes no difference to Reality.)[Gregg]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm guessing this is another one of those gaps in conventional science. The prescribed answer is that nitrogen is created in the fusion processes of stars. But if that’s the only (or major) source of nitrogen, why would it be continually welling up from the depths of the earth? I thought the lighter elements rose to the surface when the earth was first formed. If 14N wasn't being continually made in the earth's depths and in large amounts, how could it be the predominant gas in the atmosphere?

Thanks, Neil, Gregg. As I recall now, I did read Dr. Gold's book a long time ago. A couple things come to mind. Even if at least some methane were primordial, and could be stable at extremely high mantle pressures, it should decompose as it approaches the surface and the pressure drops. So the complex hydrocarbons of petroleum would have to re-form, or form in the first place, by polymerization - the opposite of the standard scenario, where methane is formed by "cracking" of fossil petroleum at great depths.
And even if there were abundant primordial methane, it would not be a good argument against conservation. It's hard to see how any hypothetical "refilling" of reservoirs could keep up with the rate of depletion seen over the last century.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nemesis</i>
<br /> It's hard to see how any hypothetical "refilling" of reservoirs could keep up with the rate of depletion seen over the last century.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The refilling is not hypothetical but very real. It doesn't happen in all reservoirs. It is most obvious in high API (light) petroleum fields. However, it is also happening in low API, secondary recovery oil fields. The fields around Bakersfield, California began secondary recovery in 1964 and they were expected to be exhausted by the 1980s. They are still flowing strong.

However, you are correct about it not keeping up with demand (When are you too rich?). More difficult, expensive reserves are being opened - at considerable cost. It is also becoming a very "dirty" technology, approaching that of coal. This form of energy source will become too expensive in about 30 years.

My goal here is to lead us to a new energy source that has been available since the early 1950s. The only obstacle in our way is:

"WE ALL KNOW THAT ... (Your favorite mainstream science theory).


Gregg Wilson

<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'm guessing this is another one of those gaps in conventional science. The prescribed answer is that nitrogen is created in the fusion processes of stars.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font 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: "What is a proton?". However, you have opened the matter from the opposite side. I agree with the first step in nuclear fusion: two hydrogen nuclei come together to form deuterium. After that, I part company with the nuclear fusion boys. They have predicted a vast energy release from nuclear fusion. It has been a total failure. In particular, read about the technological effort at the University of Wisconsin.

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? This is where conventional nuclear fusion science fails.

But the "hydrogen" bomb works spectacularly (and it has no value). Why have nuclear fusion reactors failed miserably? Gee, let's ignore the actual data and observations and stick with our "herd" theory of nuclear fusion.....

Pons and Flieschman achieved some level of success (actual data) but the theory that they accepted was completely wrong.

I find conventional, mainstream scientists to be as close minded as the Bible thumpers. A little bit like the drug junkies on Ward 1 making fun of the Alkys on Ward 2, who are, of course, making fun of the druggies on Ward 1. Circular thinking.



Gregg Wilson