From the University of Michigan, and the “department of models that can’t ever be verified”, comes this claim
![F7.large[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/f7-large1.jpg?quality=83)
ANN ARBOR–As much as two-thirds of Earth’s carbon may be hidden in the inner core, making it the planet’s largest carbon reservoir, according to a new model that even its backers acknowledge is “provocative and speculative.”
In a paper scheduled for online publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week, University of Michigan researchers and their colleagues suggest that iron carbide, Fe7C3, provides a good match for the density and sound velocities of Earth’s inner core under the relevant conditions.
The model, if correct, could help resolve observations that have troubled researchers for decades, according to authors of the PNAS paper.
The first author is Bin Chen, who did much of the work at the University of Michigan before taking a faculty position at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. The principal investigator of the project, Jie Li, is an associate professor in U-M’s Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences.
“The model of a carbide inner core is compatible with existing cosmochemical, geochemical and petrological constraints, but this provocative and speculative hypothesis still requires further testing,” Li said. “Should it hold up to various tests, the model would imply that as much as two-thirds of the planet’s carbon is hidden in its center sphere, making it the largest reservoir of carbon on Earth.”
It is now widely accepted that Earth’s inner core consists of crystalline iron alloyed with a small amount of nickel and some lighter elements. However, seismic waves called S waves travel through the inner core at about half the speed expected for most iron-rich alloys under relevant pressures.
Some researchers have attributed the S-wave velocities to the presence of liquid, calling into question the solidity of the inner core. In recent years, the presence of various light elements–including sulfur, carbon, silicon, oxygen and hydrogen–has been proposed to account for the density deficit of Earth’s core.
Iron carbide has recently emerged as a leading candidate component of the inner core. In the PNAS paper, the researchers conclude that the presence of iron carbide could explain the anomalously slow S waves, thus eliminating the need to invoke partial melting.
“This model challenges the conventional view that the Earth is highly depleted in carbon, and therefore bears on our understanding of Earth’s accretion and early differentiation,” the PNAS authors wrote.
In their study, the researchers used a variety of experimental techniques to obtain sound velocities for iron carbide up to core pressures. In addition, they detected the anomalous effect of spin transition of iron on sound velocities.
They used diamond-anvil cell techniques in combination with a suite of advanced synchrotron methods including nuclear resonant inelastic X-ray scattering, synchrotron Mössbauser spectroscopy and X-ray emission spectroscopy.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It may be heavily tied up with models, but at least they ran experiments to validate what they were proposing by using empirical data. Validating a model goes a long way towards having it accepted.
The experiment was a model – a physical model but still a model.
As the article stated, they used a diamond anvil to simulate the pressures and temperatures of the core.
Check the last two paragraphs of the article.
MarkW
That’s why I said a “physical model”. It was a physical system that tried to model the conditions in the core. It’s not the core but a model of the core!
forget it. it if you cant measure it directly you cant say anything about it. any time you use a model you are not doing science.
since we can’t see or touch the core we dont know. it could be empty or filled with green cheese.
models tell us nothing because they dont produce data.
/sarc off
So must take this as fact?
must you take facts as facts?
look around, there are only three dimensions. it’s a fact.
There is always an interplay between theory and fact and no sharp dividing line between the two.
The belief that there is a dividing line is one of the dogmas of empiricism.
Mosh
Yes but anyone with good scientific training knows measurements are themselves contrived metrics – ways of abstracting natural phenomena. Therefore abstraction, by its very definition can be remote or physical. Surely you know this.
Mosher, our criticism of climate models is valid because they are iterative models with finite precision of a system that is known to be nonlinear and chaotic.
Furthermore, they have failed for 18 years and counting, so it looks like our criticism has been vindicated.
Now, the climate scientists must scrap their models, come up with new ones, and make new predictions.
Dirk,
IMO work on models should go on the back burner until the climate system is better understood & computers more powerful. The models have been a tool to push an agenda, not to discover how nature works.
More data are needed & less modeling. As I’ve said before, the situation reminds me of the War on Cancer in the early ’70s. Massive amounts of money were wasted funding research before the science was ready. But at least then it was research & not GIGO modeling.
Mosher nonsense. I replied to this earlier. You make predictions based on a hypothesis these are tested by direct measurements or remote measurements (which BTW most large-scale physical science is validated) those are observations with known uncertainties. The physical model presented above is a good attempt (and used throughout the geological sciences dealing with extreme environments) but they are not observations. For example one could make predictions of observed S-wave propagation around the globe from tectonic events of differing magnitude based on the suggested hypothesis (or gravitational, geomagnitism). THAT IS HOW ALL EARTH STRUCTURAL MODELLING IS DONE!
Mosher nonsense. I replied to this earlier. You make predictions based on a hypothesis these are tested by direct measurements or remote measurements (which BTW most large-scale physical science is validated) those are observations with known uncertainties. The physical model presented above is a good attempt (and used throughout the geological sciences dealing with extreme environments) but they are not observations. For example one could make predictions of observed S-wave propagation around the globe from tectonic events of differing magnitude based on the suggested hypothesis (or gravitational, geomagnitism). THAT IS HOW ALL EARTH STRUCTURAL MODEL-VALIDATION IS DONE!
“look around, there are only three dimensions. it’s a fact.”
I guess Mosher just refuted string theory. When does he get his Nobel Prize?
I’m with Mosh on this, I’m going out on a limb and saying it simply isn’t green cheese, although green cheese is high in carbon, too. (sarc,etc.) Look modeling is done very successfully in engineering and science. We drill holes in an ore body and then use a statistical model to calculate ore reserves and grades and to optimize mining geometry, even the scheduling of loading and trucking either to the waste pile or the concentrator depending on grade and wind up with estimating a cost for doing this ~+/-15% – we’ve been at it a long time and we do end up with a mined out ore body and very accurate costs to compare to our estimates… er ah, model validation.
The difference with climate models is that they think they are doing the same thing. If your climate model isn’t within reasonable bounds of replicating observations, then your ‘experiments’ are not experiments with even simulated reality and the results can’t be called real data. With the geological model, we are careful to differentiate between data and model output – the data is from the drilling and other testing. In fact; in mining, it is against the law to not differentiate in this matter.
In thinking about important things that climate models haven’t been including, and musing on geological models and Willis’s thunderstorm cells, it occurred to me that everything in climate IS LOCAL, like the building blocks of ore of different grades integrated into a whole model of the ore body. I think the nonlinear chaotic systems view could be the barrier to good modeling. Trying to tie all these interlocking, interacting systems together in a model that one expects to project climate forward with is attempting the impossible. The solution of going to ever more powerful computers is just wasteful nonsense.
Maybe we should have separate models for the equatorial belt (20N/S?) over water and over land. This is really the earth’s central heating system/radiators. Take next the temperate zones either side with the main parameters acting there – largely horizontal circulatory system – air and water- mass and heat flow, etc. Then the polar areas north and south of 60 – these are a major part of the cooling system. Maybe separate models for summer and winter here. Separate models of natural variation to be added to the trends we get.
Have a separate model of frequency and effects of volcanic eruptions (also mainly equatorial effects) to modify the models, another for oceanic currents, other aerosols, etc. etc. Then see how we can put them together.
A simple example: if we want to model the firing of an artillery piece with muzzle velocity of V at an angle of 45 degrees, we can divide the motion into a constant horizontal component of Vcos45 for t seconds and the vertical component of (Vsin45t – 16t^2)*2 and determine how high the projectile goes, how far and how long it takes to land (assuming here level ground). We can add in atmospheric drag, wind vector and other things to get it closer to the real trajectory and time. Start with the simple. The system has limits – SSTs don’t go over 31, ice ages and interglacials seem to be capped as well, the overall temperature K varying a couple of percent.
But isn’t the real problem that these climate models are used to drive public policy? Not whether they are accurate.
Mosher’s lack of a proper computer science education is showing. This is why hacks should not comment on subjects they know nothing about.
Come on guys.
Take it back to Newton.
He came up with some mathematical models that work quite well to describe planetary bodies, ballistic motion, etc.
They are still useful today.
As further knowledge was gained in the area of space-time, the new mathematical models explained the inaccuracies in Newton’s equations.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
Just because folks in the climate science are clinging to ineffective models, doesn’t mean that models don’t have their place in science.
As knowledge is gained, it either affirms or disproves previous thought.
Not trying to pile on, just want to point out that three dimensions describes a vacuum and people do not exist within a vacuum.
I guess this is an example of empirical thought process: If there are only three dimensions; how did all this other stuff get here?
Something to think about.
Interesting hypothesis, though considering the pressures involved I would favour the liquid hypothesis over this one.
That said, the dead dinosaur theory of crude oil is also being challenged by an inner earth hydro-carbon hypothesis at the moment, so best not to dismiss out of hand.
Indeed – not much biological action on the moon Titan, as far as anyone knows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Titan
Although that has been hypothesized, however not that ET biology made the methane there, just exploits it.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/titan20100603.html
But then, maybe NASA is just pushing that hypothesis in order to get support for a surface mission to Titan.
Given the pressures involved solid iron at high temperature remains eminently possible. There is considerable leeway for error given that we can only estimate the exact core composition and conditions but an article published in Nature circa 1999 seemed to show that it was at least possible based on lab testing of iron under pressure at high temperature.
http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfbdxa/pubblicazioni/401462A0.pdf
As for the origins of oil the reality is that petroleum geologists use the presence of fossils of certain species as key markers of oil bearing rock. The fossils are typically those of plants, plankton and algae rather than major fauna. It may be that abiotic oil sources exist but most oil inproduction comes from fossil bearing strata.
It’s all arm-waving.
The C13 signature of Hydrocarbons clearly shows an organic source. Someone just wants to make a name for themselves.
In reply to ‘cd’
William:
Your comment is incorrect. There are dozens and dozens of observations and analysis results (including observations concerning the C12/C13 ratio) that supports the assertion that deep earth CH4 (core of earth) is the source for the deposits of natural gas and most of the petroleum oil on the planet.
There are multiple observations concerning the C13/C12 ratio that support the deep earth source for hydrocarbons. Plants of course preferentially use C12 in photo synthesis which explains why C13 is higher in the atmosphere. The C13/C12 ratio does not however increase with time in the sediment geological record which supports the assertion that there is a continuous deep carbon source of C12 (methane CH4) with low C13.
The anomalies concerning the C13/C12 ratio in petroleum and natural gas is one of the reasons why Thomas Gold and Russia/Ukraine geologists assert that the source of the earth’s hydrocarbons is from a deep earth source.
The Thomas Gold/Russia/Ukraine deep earth theory explains why: 70% of the planet is covered in water, provides the reason why there are massive concentration of hydrocarbon such as the 1.2 Trillion barrel heavy oil concentration in the Canadian province of Alberta (deep source of CH4 provides the pressure to push the CH4 through the mantel picking up heavy metals during the flowing process, the puzzle with the biological theory is why the massive concentration, what is source of the pressure and so on. Deep earth micro organisms eat the methane converting it to heavy oil and leaving biological residue), the reason why Saudi Arabia was 25% of the world’s oil and 50% of the Saudi Arabia oil is found in a single super, super, large oil field, explains why the solar wind has not stripped off water from the planet (i.e. CH4 is continually released from planet core which disassociates to form H2O and CO2), explains the composition of the atmosphere, explains why the atmosphere C12/C13 has remained constant with geological time (there is constant new source of high C12 from the core contained in CH4.)
There are two theories to explain how water and hydrocarbons came onto the earth: the late veneer theory and the deep CH4 theory. Roughly 100 million years after the earth was formed a Mars sized object struck the earth. That event formed the moon and stripped the mantel of light elements. There are two theories to explain why there are light elements on now on the earth’s surface. The late veneer theory hypothesis: Comets struck the early earth after the big splat event covering the very hot earth with hydrocarbons. The late veneer hypothesis requires that the earth had a Venus like atmosphere (atmospheric pressure of say 60 atmospheres) for the early earth, except with methane.
There are multiple problems with the later veneer hypothesis (See Thomas Gold’s Book Deep Hot Biosphere for details. One of the key problems is the observation that the percentage of heavy gaseous elements in the earth’s current atmosphere does not match that of comets (Comets are residues of the early solar systems. The comet elemental composition does match that of the sun). The late veneer theory’s explanation for the miss match of isotopes in the earth’s atmosphere to that of comets is that the early solar system had a close encounter with another solar system which temporary provided a limited source of comets to cover the earth but not significantly change the element composition of the sun.
The second hypothesis is the deep earth hydrocarbon theory. This theory hypothesizes that massive amounts of hydrocarbons (5% of the total core mass) are located in the earth’s core. As the core cools these hydrocarbon (CH4) are released. At very high pressures the CH4 forms longer chain molecules.
The release of CH4 is still occurring as the upper surface of the ocean is saturated with CH4 which indicates that CH4 is being released from some source.
http://origeminorganicadopetroleo.blogspot.ca/2011/01/thomas-gold-professional-papers.html
See Carnegie Institute of Sciences Deep Carbon Workshop presentations if you interested in this subject.
https://www.gl.ciw.edu/workshops/sloan_deep_carbon_workshop_may_2008
and…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090910084259.htm
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/abs/ngeo591.html
So William, somehow plant pollen got into the centre of the earth with all that oil? Nutty.
AP, carbon existed on the planet long before life did.
William
I’ve seemed to have touched a nerve.
I’m not saying that is beyond the realms of reason that there are inorganic sources of methane in petroleum reservoirs, in fact there is without doubt huge volumes of organic compounds throughout our solar system that are clearly not biogenic.
All that being said there are many more lines of evidence for the biogenic origin of reservoir hydrocarbons than d13C values:-
– We only get significant reservoirs of simple organic molecules in particular geological settings: principally carbonate/sandstone formations above organic rich source rocks with particular burial histories.
– We can actually map and date hydrocarbon migration using mineral fluid inclusions. They come from organic rich source rocks – shales.
– gas chromatography of crude oil have many complex molecules that map directly to source rock chemistry (chemical fingerprinting).
– shale source rocks have “immature” hydrocarbons called kerogens with organic geochemistries that can only be explained by biological sources.
There are more but I wont bore you.
Another line of evidence for organic source for petroleum is the rotation of polarized light due to the “left-handed” symmetry of organic molecules. Petroleum exhibits this “left-handed” rotation of polarized light while synthetic oils do not.
But in fact, few scientists give serious consideration to any origin of petroleum other than organic.
The fact that biological processes show a preference for C12 does not mean that there are no non-biological processes that do the same. The statement that the C13 signature shows a biological origin (ie. the photosynthesis signature) is a claim based on only one process that we know of, nothing more.
mpainter, yes most oil (if not all, perhaps) is of biological origin. And abiotic oil hypothesis has no real world evidence and is of no practical use.
But I’ve never found the chirality argument to be persuasive. Oil is food for bugs. The effect of microbes on oil will add chirality to the mix. It seems improbable to me that oil in the ground is sterile.
The C13/C12 ratio is far more indicative – although I suppose a similar argument could be made there.
Hmm. I’ve just managed to disagree with both sides of the debate. It’s nice to be back in the crazy zone. As though I ever left.
M Courtney,
Do you posit microbes in a reservoir at, say, 200°F and 5,000 psi? Or do you posit microbes in the mantle?.
Or do say as Mosher that the core could be green cheese (and microbes)?
The rotation of polarized light by purified petroleum is a positive indication of its organic origin.
mpainter, yeah I guess I can conceive of microbes in a reservoir at 99°C and 5,000 psi? Extremophiles turn up everywhere you can look for them.
As for microbes in the mantle – have we analysed oil straight from there?
The Russians claim to have got oil from crystalline rocks.
Like limestone? Or salt domes? You’ll need to do better than that.
I am open to alternative hypotheses but you’d need to explain where the pollen spores in the oil came from first. Until you’ve done this, I am firmly anchored to the “dead dinosaur theory” as you put it. Here’s one of many, many examples of articles describing what I am talking about: http://www.jipb.net/Abstract_old.aspx?id=2946
The Earth is not a tidy place. Crap moves. Lots of it. Expecting to find abiotic oil without life in it, or organic oil without some carbonate rock on hot iron synthesized oil in it, both are silly expectations. We know that hot minerals, like zeolites, in the presence of carbon sources and hydrogen sources (i.e. water) make hydrocarbons. We also know that life eats hydrocarbons and makes long chain fats. It’s all one big bowl of organic soup.
The “hard bit”, IMHO, is explaining why so much oil comes from near subduction zones without looking at abiotic processes on subducting carbonates; and explaining all the oil found on the bottoms of the oceans, and under 4 miles of rocks, and the liquid methane seeps from near volcanoes at the bottom of the ocean, and life forms eveolved to be dependent on oil seeps that had to exist for millions of years, and….
So why pollen? Because some of oil IS from algae sinking in ancient seas (such as North Sea oil). But why oil under miles of rock under the oceans? And why methane coming from volcanoes? And…. My answer is “some of each”. We just don’t know the ratios…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/theres-oil-on-that-ocean-bottom/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/did-crude-oil-rain-from-the-sky/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/
The theory of abiogenic hydrocarbon origins has been around forever despite have been disproven multiple ways. Hydrocarbon source rocks are all biogenic-marine shale kerogens or coal precursor peat. And Sweden drilled deep below an igneous cap rock where there ‘should have been abiogenic hydrocarbons’ found nothing. They are called fossil fuels for a reason. But are not dinosaur remains. You might find essay Much Ado about Nothing in Blowing Smoke: essays on energy and climate to be somewhat enlightening.
We have all lived on Titan previously. Oh, the memory of surfing those beautiful methane seas ..
Given the enormous abundance of hydrogen in the universe, and the high abundance of carbon in the universe, the idea that H and C are not being squeezed into hydrocarbons in the depths of planets seems almost unbelievable — seriously, how would it fail to happen?
I don’t dispute biotic oil. But abiotic hydrocarbons clearly exist elsewhere where there is apparently no life; why not here?
The obvious solution for CAGW disciples is, “change planets” PLEASE.
We promise to keep your twit account open…
I have no twit account, don’t need it. But you apperently do. Sad.
Personally I think this is interesting, good science. The bit about measured S wave velocities shows they are trying to resolve defficiencies in existing geophysical models of the Eath. The mention of carbon I read as being proper – they are talking about the amount of carbon in the physical make up of the Eath, and how it got there during the creation of the Eath and solar and are not using the term as a sub-prime science term for Carbon Dioxide.
That’s a huge tax base!
Exactly what I was thinking. Land owners will soon be paying a “carbon core tax” on the amount of carbon contained inside the solid angle their surface holdings intersect. Much more study needed since the higher the carbon amount, the higher the tax. (Expect people to buy a lot of steep hillsides to minimize their carbon core footprints.)
But is there enough grant money left niels? As you said “Much more study is needed”.
Interesting. The abiotic oil hypothesis gets a new twist.
True or not, but wouldn’t it be the joke of the century if Gaia delivered all that evil oil herself?
If so, they would probably start accusing Cro Magnon humans in order to keep the manmade origin intact. lol
There is a Typo. It is Mössbauer spectroscopy
It may not be able to be physically verified by taking samples (but technological surprises do happen). But the authors do admit that this is a speculative idea to solve a recognized question. Something is making the p waves move significantly slower than they should.
This paper is so unlike climate obsessed science: the issue is well defined. The evidence of a problem is significant ( half speed ). The authors are open: This is a speculation. And it is based on experiments (the diamond anvil).
Unlike climate models, this has the smack of possible reality.
I found the article interesting, but could not see its relevance to anything.
Why must science be relevant to anything?
It’s not engineering.
Its meant to be interesting.
Unless you bend it to fit a political agenda. Unfortunately for climate science that is the case most of the time.
That’s because it’s basic research. Basic research, by itself, rarely is “useful”. But basic research leads to applied research, and through applied research come useful products.
Bob Cringely wrote the best definition (http://www.cringely.com/2013/02/20/accidental-empires-chapter-5-role-models/):
“Basic research is something else—ostensibly the search for knowledge for its own sake. Basic research provides the scientific knowledge upon which R&D is later based. Sending telescopes into orbit or building superconducting supercolliders is basic research. There is no way, for example, that the $1.5 billion Hubble space telescope is going to lead directly to a new car or computer or method of solid waste disposal. That’s not what it’s for.
If a product ever results from basic research, it usually does so fifteen to twenty years down the road, following a later period of research and development.”
So you’re right: it’s interesting but not overly relevant to anything. But if they are onto something (see the other comments for stuff like abiotic oil), it’s going to be 2035 before we start to see the results.
I hesitate to speak for the moderators, but here is my take on the possible relevance of the article for WUWT. If carbon is not the main driver for global warming, then why not just pump and burn the oil as fast as we find it? Answer: because deep-Earth carbon is a finite non-renewable resource and we should leave some for the grandchildren. However if oil and gas come from the Earth’s core, it becomes a renewable resource and maybe the equation changes?
Of course it would not be as simple as that. I presume that even if oil and gas come from deep-Earth carbon, the rate of upward flow may be very slow indeed in which case it is once again a non-renewable resource.
Even if oil were finite it would still be ethical to pump it as fast as needed. Future generations will have plenty of methane hydrates etc. Besides, why would future people have any more legitimate need than today’s poor?
The fact is that with advancing technology the oil may not even be needed in the future.
There’s certainly some carbon in the mantle at least. Diamonds form at depths of between 140km and 300km. Isotopes suggest the carbon is derived from both inorganic [original] and organic [brought down through subduction] sources.
It would be interesting to know if there are figures on how much carbon makes it from the ocean trenches down into the mantle [effectively carbon “sequestration”].
I wonder if it’s included in carbon cycle modelling ?
We know that there is a LOT of carbon in the mantle regardless of what is in the core since volcanic basalts contain up to 10% of carbonates.
Subduction is another myth that will not die. See chapter 13: The Subduction Myth in Theories of the Earth and Universe by S. Warren Carey, Stanford University Press, 1988, ISBN 0-8047-1364-2.
Dan Kurt
Well it explain the CO2 from Icelandic volcanoes.. if the core was CO2 depleted it should have shown up as a very low CO2 emission from that hotspot…..
Not only Icelandic volcanoes … most gases from volcanoes and ocean vents are high in CO2, another indicator that there is plenty of carbon and oxygen in the mantle.
that even its backers acknowledge is “provocative and speculative.”
So, haw many is that now. 52, 75, 105 ? Who the hell knows. Taxpayer’s money being thrown around like rice at a wedding in an attempt to convince the world of the CAGW même.
Stephen I have a bit of sympathy for your views. However, most benefits that come from physical science are due to trickle-down effects where small innovation and accumulation of knowledge lead to great breakthroughs – “standing on the shoulders of giants”.
even the detested climate models have led to improvements in how we approach computational problems. Other fields that directly affect you such as economics, finance, and ironically enough, petroleum engineering (to name but a few) will benefit from these in time.
When extended to the social sciences, in the main you’re probably correct.
Look, we all know that Carbon warms things up yea?
Well the centre of the earth is extremely hot, so it stands to reason that there must be a heap of Carbon there.
You might be on to something there! I’ve also heard that the interior of the earth is extremely hot, “several million degrees” if I recall correctly?
But it wasn’t clear if Al measured that in Celsius or Fahrenheit?
Don’t be silly.
It’s °F.
It would be ridiculously hot in °C.
Thomas Gold – Add this one to your collection
It’s about time.
The authors honestly admit that their hypothesis is speculative.
Does this explain why shale gas and oil is found by Fracking at depths down to 20,000 feet? I am a coal power engineer, not a geologist. When I was in the southern Utah area and learned of Fracking to depths of about 20,000 ft. the thought occurred to me, how did four miles of dirt and rock cover these ancient plants and forests? Carbon originating for the earth’s core would seem to be one explanation for the shale gas and oil at such depths. Question, where would the hydrogen come from?
You can not begin to conceive of the geological time scales involved. Think of it this way: your entire lifespan represented by the first micron of a trip from New York to Sydney.
Be fair now…
Let’s call a human lifetime 45 years, and the age of the earth 4.5 billion years (just to get to convenient powers of ten) – so the earth is about 100,000,000 human lifetimes. A trip from New York to Sydney is on the order of 10,000 km, or 10 Mm. So 1/100,000,000 of the trip from New York to Sydney is 0.1 m.
Pretty big difference between 10 cm and a micron…
That depth is still well within the earth’s crust.
Continental crust is mostly 25 to 70 km thick, while the average oceanic crust is only around 7–10 km.
Assume just for the sake of argument an average deposition rate of merely a foot per millennium. That means the hydrocarbons found 20,000 feet down might be “only” 20 million years old. If they’re 200 million years old, then from the Triassic or Jurassic Period. That’s well after the coal-eponymous Carboniferous, separated by the Permian.
OTOH, can’t rule out hydrocarbons migrating upward from below the crust, either.
There are dozens and dozens of observations and analysis results that support the assertion that the source of petroleum oil and natural gas deposits on the planet is deep earth CH4. The most fundamental problem with the biogenic theory of oil formation is there is no viable natural physical process to convert plant residue to petroleum oil even for even very small amounts. The conversion of plant residue to petroleum oil hypothesis cannot explain the super, super, large petroleum oil deposits for multiple reasons.
What is the source of the biological material? There are massive deposits of light petroleum in sandstone and no nearby organic fossil residue. (This is the so called source problem that is not explained by the biogenic theory of oil formation.) There is no natural reaction in the conditions where the oil is found to convert plant residue to petroleum oil.
The deep earth hypothesis can explain why Saudi Arabia has 25% of the planet’s oil reserves half of which is contained in only eight fields. Half of Saudi Arabia production comes from a single field the Ghawar.
Excerpt from this wikipedia article on Oil Reserves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
The following is an excerpt from Thomas Gold’s book the Deep Hot Biosphere which that outlines some of the observations which supports an abiogenic origin (non-biological, primeval origin), for petroleum and natural gas.
And there are dozens and dozens of observations to prove you are wrong.
For example, I personally have observed methane and CO2 bubbling out of a coal seam and kerosene dripping from the carbonaceous shales in the roof of the seam.
I have also observed electron microscopy showing pollen spores from crude oil.
No-one doubts the reality of oil from biological sources.
It’s whether it can be produced abiotically that is questioned.
Me, I find it reasonable.
But there is no reason to think it would be produced at a layer that it is economical to extract from. As such the theory may be right but even if it is – it is of no practical use for prospecting.
The disparate observations are orthogonal to each other. Both are likely true.
M Courtney
Of course it can be produced abiotically. The Saturn moon Titan has oceans of methane and ethane.
But all the evidence, for sources of large reservoirs of simple organic compounds, points to biogenic origins. See post above.
How does the pollen prove anything? It might have been in the crude when it formed or it might have been picked up as the crude came up. Serious question. This has been an area of interest to me for a while and I’d like to know.
There is also the question of how did the spore survive? Billions of tonnes of organic matter dissolved and converted into thick, black gunk but not the spores? I’d have to ask “Why not?”.
A fascinating topic and any hints for further reading accepted.
And the Russians completed the experiment some years ago. Using Calcium Carbonate, Iron and triple distilled water and subjecting it to heat and pressure conditions that might be found in the mantle they produced organic hydrocarbons.
AP As far as the pollen, what happens to limestone when seduction underneath the earth crust. If you calcium carbonate saturated with seawater heat it up under pressure would you not get oil. would that oil not have pollen in it. By the way where does all that limestone end up we know most of it will never makes back to the surface.
Rud Istvan What I read the swedes did find oil in igneous rock, it was by crack igneous from a meteor. I don’t know where you get you information but it conflicts with mine. Here is what I found, the rest is behind a paywall:
“01/14/1991
Thomas Gold Ithaca, N.Y. The final results are in from the first major drilling operation undertaken to explore the deeper levels of the Siljan ring impact crater in Central Sweden. The results demonstrate that hydrocarbon gases from methane to pentane-as well as a light, largely saturated oil-are present deep in the granitic rock. The impact crater, generated 360 million years ago by a major meteorite, is now a circular area about 44 km across. EARLY INVESTIGATIONS Investigation of this area as a possible oil and gas prospect began in 1982 on the basis that the fracturing caused by the impact may h…”
Funny according to you they found nothing yet here it states they found something where something was not supposed to exist.
CD,
Yes, the presence of hydrocarbons on other planets & bodies in space presumably without life shows that abiotic production is not only possible but common. I agree that the issue is whether abiotic production can & does occur below or within Earth’s crust.
The most fundamental problem with the biogenic theory of oil formation is there is no viable natural physical process to convert plant residue to petroleum oil even for even very small amounts.
Look up thermal cracking. You can even do it in a lab with an oven filled with inert gas (nitrogen would probably do: anoxic environment).
The conversion of plant residue to petroleum oil hypothesis cannot explain the super, super, large petroleum oil deposits for multiple reasons.
Well plant tissue does not form petroleum liquids – that is true. It forms lignite and coal (lignin). While non-plant biological material such as animal proteins and fats produce short chain hydrocarbons when heated under anoxic conditions: thermal cracking. When buried rocks undergo similar processes and the lipids (e.g. fats) undergo cracking and due to elevated buoyancy pressure migrate upwards until they hit a seal => reservoir.
Are you seriously suggesting that the vast amounts of petroleum discovered underground were created by cracking animal fats? Masses of plants clearly have existed, but it is hard to imagine huge quantities of fatty animals piled up over the eons.
But if “plant tissue does not form petroleum liquids,” then the simplest explanation would seem to be abiotic. The presence of plant spores in petroleum, and even petroleum seeping out of coal beds (mentioned by AP above) do not demonstrate a biological origin; abiotic liquids from below could simply have infiltrated strata bearing remnants of life.
/Mr Lynn
L. E. Joiner (Mr Lynn)
Whole lot of sponges and jellyfish have existed in the past.
Plankton too.
Many algae produce lots of oil when nitrogen starved. They die and are preserved when they sink into dark anoxic bottom waters. Some single cell algae get up to 50% fats once they use up the Nitrogen. (This is done in algae to oil growing operations – then it is easy to convert it to petroleum like products.)
During the early phases of life on earth, there was a lot of algae growing and not much eating it all… So, for example, North Sea oil is likely from just such a stagnant sea of pond scum.
But that does not explain the other more problematic places….
In short, it is easy to get SOME oil from plants (mostly algae). It is almost as easy to get it from F.T. like processes using natural mineral catalysts, carbonate rocks, and deep hot iron rich environment with subduction zones. It is hard to sort out which process might have made what oil a few million (billion?) years later…
M Courtney – but what is the fat content of a jellyfish of sponge? Unlike you (presumably) and me, these poor suckers don’t get to sit all day at a desk, after all.
I’ve always wondered what should have become of all the other elements during the conversion of formerly living matter to oil. C-N bonds or C-O bonds don’t break all that easily, and both N and O are quite abundant in living matter. If there is any plausible, detailed mechanism for such a conversion, I have not seen it.
Asks Michael Palmer:
That was my question, too. Plankton might be a better bet. As for plants, E. M. Smith is correct that petroleum can be made from algae, but AFAIK it’s a complex and/or energy-intensive process. Could it be accomplished more easily over lots of time? Ocean bottoms are cold, which is not conducive to chemical reactions. I’d still lean toward abiotic origins.
/Mr Lynn
Are you seriously suggesting that the vast amounts of petroleum discovered underground were created by cracking animal fats?
Where did I say it had to be animal fat? Lipids can be synthesized and accumulate in microorganisms including plankton. I didn’t think I’d have had to have stated that.
Steel Earth!
The Goa’uld did, but gave it back. 😉
To bad they didn’t leave any naquadah behind. 😎
Sounds reasonable. Iron and Carbon are hardly rare. They took measurements and found that the hypothesis is consistent with observations. Sounds like good science.
They haven’t even over-egged the pudding by claiming too much certainty.
But for all the abiotic oil fans – this paper is irrelevant.
Whether you are right or not, extracting oil from the Earth’s core will not be economic and nor for the foreseeable future will it be technically feasible.
And if you could do that why not use geothermal anyway?
Sounds reasonable
It does but they need to make predictions using this hypothesis then test it. Unfortunately trying to model it in a lab isn’t good enough they’ll need to do it remotely somehow.
As for C being abundant. It is but all the accepted models of how rocky planets form would suggest that very little carbon relative to heavier elements would be found in the core. I guess this is were the main issues are likely to lie.
forgotten Occam’s razor.
just complicated.
just useless.
As the geomorphialist’s in Italys L’Aquila:
1st – no nead to pretend people are safe from earthquakes.
2nd – 3 to 5 years imprisonment for scientists solely responding to politic pressure. Berlusconi.
‘too complicated, too volatile. move on, nothings foreseeable happnin here.’
AP, What is to prevent crude originating from near the core from picking up your spores on there way up through the strata? Just because my socks pick up burrs and such from the field, does not mean that is where I originated.
In the words of Roseanne Roseannadanna,
“It’s always something – if it ain’t one thing it’s another.”
There was a recent discussion here at WUWT about the copious presence of water and radical hydroxyl in the earth’s mantle. The first element was Hydrogen and from that, creation builds the rest. How little we know or understand…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/13/new-evidence-for-oceans-of-water-deep-in-the-earth/
One of very few known substances in which elemental carbon (coal, graphite, diamond) will dissolve is molten iron. There is a LOT of molten iron in the earth’s core, and it has been molten ever since the planet first formed from a cloud of plasma including elements from hydrogen to uranium in avrious proportions. While there are no known samples of the earth’s core to analyze, there is absolutely no reason to suspect that there is NOT a significant amount of carbon dissolved in the molten iron-nickel core of the planet.
And, Earth’s magnetic field and its periodic reversals prove that an appreciable part of the mostly iron core must be molten rather than some crystalline solid.
As to the S wave speed carbide core hypothetical explanation, the ‘conventional’ alternative explanation is a layer of super hydrated mineral (stored water, in effect) in a core/mantle boundary layer. There is seismic data from major earthquakes that strongly suggests such a layer exists. The Tohoku quake ( which produced Japans recent tsunami and Fukushima) is the most recent to provide such evidence. Which is why this paper says it is providing a speculative but experimentally plausible alternative.
What the speculation does not address is iron carbide in relation to Earth’s magnetic field. I could not find any literature suggesting iron carbide would be magnetic under these temperature and pressure conditions. And the conventional explanation for bulk magnetic propeeties suggests it would not be. Nor is there a proposed mechanism segragating a solid carbide core from a liquid iron core shell, since carbon is soluble in iron–cast iron and high carbon steels being familiar examples.
You mention pole reversals. To me it suggests that the material of the Earth core is NOT magnetic; that the Earth magnetic field is generated via a motion of molted conductive material.
Deep core – isn’t that where all the missing heat has gone?