The oil and gas that fuels our homes and cars started out as living organisms that died, were compressed, and heated under heavy layers of sediments in the Earth's crust. Scientists have debated for years whether some of these hydrocarbons could also have been created deeper in the Earth and formed without organic matter. Now for the first time, scientists have found that ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can be synthesized under the pressure-temperature conditions of the upper mantle —the layer of Earth under the crust and on top of the core. The research was conducted by scientists at the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory, with colleagues from Russia and Sweden, and is published in the July 26, advanced on-line issue of Nature Geoscience.
Methane (CH4) is the main constituent of natural gas, while ethane (C2H6) is used as a petrochemical feedstock. Both of these hydrocarbons, and others associated with fuel, are called saturated hydrocarbons because they have simple, single bonds and are saturated with hydrogen. Using a diamond anvil cell and a laser heat source, the scientists first subjected methane to pressures exceeding 20 thousand times the atmospheric pressure at sea level and temperatures ranging from 1,300 F° to over 2,240 F°. These conditions mimic those found 40 to 95 miles deep inside the Earth. The methane reacted and formed ethane, propane, butane, molecular hydrogen, and graphite. The scientists then subjected ethane to the same conditions and it produced methane. The transformations suggest heavier hydrocarbons could exist deep down. The reversibility implies that the synthesis of saturated hydrocarbons is thermodynamically controlled and does not require organic matter.
The scientists ruled out the possibility that catalysts used as part of the experimental apparatus were at work, but they acknowledge that catalysts could be involved in the deep Earth with its mix of compounds.
hrm. There's a certain group that, if this stands up, will be overjoyed. I, however, am not.
3 comments:
I thought this was pretty dead, really. The tech it's going to take to make it useable just doesn't exist yet.
Kutcherov and his friend Jack Kenney are genuine swindlers ! Notice that Kutcherov now agree that there is solid evidence for that most petroleum accumulations are fossil fuel. However, previously Kenney & Kutcherov have been claiming that it is thermodynamically impossible to form petroleum from biological matter. Also notice that this crazy team have been claiming they helped finding more than 65 billion barrels of abiotic oil in Ukraine; a classical swindlers fabrication. In fact the sum of all oil ever produced or discovered in Ukraine (today nearly 20 years after these claimed discoveries) is not more than 2 billion barrels. Kenney & Kutcherov claimed they found 30 times more, and they are the only ones in the world ever having heard about these giant abiotic oil fields !
Have a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
to read about all the crazy fabrications Kutcherov and Kenney has produced.
The main point is this: Mass balance shows that source rocks (mainly packed by algal residues) have generated and expelled 10 to 100 times more petroleum than ever discovered in a mature petroleum province. The amount of abiotic methane ever recovered is less than what an average human produce after a box of beans. That a given reaction can generate hydrocarbons, proves nothing about what generated the economic quantities of petroleum in sedimentary basins.
I agree with the previous comment and would further add one point that no one seems to discuss is if water can go down to the mantle via subducting plates, why is the probability of hydrocarbons going the same way never considered? Just because a deep reservoir exits doesn't necessarily make it abiogenic! It seems like this is the main aspect of Kutcherov et al. bogus bs needs to be academically challenged! thier experimental work that they have decribed is just another story..I am often surprised that it must have gotten through to Nature publication via a set of weak (or biased) reviewers. After all, a published material is only as good as the reviewers ability to see the issues. Often bunch of spineless reviewers will just sign the dotted lines to keep a debate alive. For example, what are they actually making methane from is unclear, afterall they start with methane, don't they? Even claim of equilibrium is ABSOLUTE BULL! who are they kidding!! At these insane conditions with a pinpoint heating source of lasers, do they really believe that their occurrence of ethane with methane actually exits?? They don't even mention if there is any CO2, water etc formed. Did people not take the same chemistry class, or maybe they took a different version of it. Or the more likely scenario is that the authors don’t want to see the NON-RELEVANCE of their study to anything! It is extremely troubling that these remarkably unconstrained experiments are getting so much attention..is this a reflection of the quality of science these days, or just a reflection of networking in academia?
Can somebody just shut them up for good…don’t get me wrong, but I think Gold’s ideas have excellent merit, but these bunch of Russian scammers have twisted it to make it look like they have the answers…!
What a shameful science!
Are there any studies done that deal with this issue in better terms? Someone must have done something better but kept it unglamorous...anyone?
It is a disservice to science and ethics to promote this BS….but I guess PR takes priority ..maybe that is why NASA is looking for ‘intelligent’ life elsewhere…
Post a Comment