Wikipedia wrote:Location and formation of the pits
The La Brea Tar Pits and Hancock Park are situated within the Mexican land grant of Rancho La Brea, now a piece of urban Los Angeles, California, near the Miracle Mile district.
Tar pits are composed of heavy oil fractions called asphaltum, which seeped from the earth as oil. In Hancock Park, crude oil seeps up along the 6th Street Fault from the Salt Lake Oil Field, which underlies much of the Fairfax District north of the park. The oil reaches the surface and forms pools at several locations in the park, becoming asphalt as the lighter fractions of the petroleum biodegrade or evaporate. [...]
Wikipedia wrote:The Salt Lake Oil Field is an oil field underneath the city of Los Angeles, California. Discovered in 1902, and developed quickly in the following years, the Salt Lake field was once the most productive in California; over 50 million barrels of oil have been extracted from it, mostly in the first part of the twentieth century, although modest drilling and extraction from the field using an urban "drilling island" resumed in 1962. As of 2009, the only operator on the field was Plains Exploration & Production (PXP). The field is also notable as being the source, by long-term seepage of crude oil to the ground surface along the 6th Street Fault, of the famous La Brea Tar Pits. [...]
Wikipedia wrote:The Pitch Lake is the largest natural deposit of asphalt in the world, located at La Brea in southwest Trinidad, within the Siparia Regional Corporation. The lake covers about 40 ha and is reported to be 75 m deep...
The origin of Pitch Lake is related to deep faults in connection with subduction under the Caribbean Plate related to Barbados Arc. The lake has not been studied extensively, but it is believed that the lake is at the intersection of two faults, which allows oil from a deep deposit to be forced up. The lighter elements in the oil evaporated, leaving behind the heavier asphalt.
Wikipedia wrote:The McKittrick Tar Pits (also McKittrick Oil Seeps and McKittrick Brea Pits) are a series of natural asphalt lakes situated in the western part of Kern County in southern California. The pits are the most extensive asphalt lakes in the state.
The McKittrick Tar Pits are one of the five natural asphalt lake areas in the world, the others being Tierra de Brea in Trinidad and Tobago, Lake Guanoco in Venezuela and the Rancho La Brea Tar Pits (Los Angeles) and Carpinteria Tar Pits (Carpinteria) both also located in the US state of California...
The creation of an asphalt lake is related to deep faults between two tectonic plates.
Wikipedia wrote:The Midway-Sunset Oil Field is a large oil field in Kern County, San Joaquin Valley, California in the United States. It is the largest in California and the third largest in the United States.
The field was discovered in 1894, and through the end of 2006 had produced close to 3 billion barrels (480,000,000 m3) of oil. At the end of 2008 its estimated reserves amounted to approximately 532 million barrels (84,600,000 m3)...
While the Midway-Sunset field is a large contiguous area covering more than 30 square miles (80 km2), it comprises 22 identifiable and separately-named pools in six geologic formations, ranging in age from the Pleistocene Tulare Formation (the most recent geologically, the closest the surface, and the first to be discovered), to the Temblor Formation, of Miocene age (the oldest, and one of the last to be discovered). Throughout the field, the Tulare is often the capping impermeable formation, underneath which oil collects, but in some areas it is a productive unit in its own right. Its average depth is 200 to 1,400 feet (60 to 430 m).
One of the next pools to be discovered was the Gusher Pool, which, when found in 1909, took its name from the event itself: a large oil gusher. This occurrence was eclipsed spectacularly the next year, when drillers found the Lakeview Pool, unexpectedly drilling into a reservoir of oil under intense pressure, later estimated at approximately 1,300 psi (9.0 MPa) from the heights attained by the spewing oil. The resulting Lakeview Gusher was the longest-lasting and most productive oil gusher in U.S. history...
Wikipedia wrote:Oil in the McKittrick field is in 13 separate pools: 8 in the Northeast Area, and 5 in the Main Area. The most productive pools have been the Tulare-San Joaquin, Olig, and Basal Reef Ridge in the Main Area, and the Tulare-San Joaquin, Phacoides, and Oceanic in the Northeast Area. Oil API gravity varies between the different pools, with some bearing heavy crude of API gravity 12, and others with lighter oil, such as the Phacoides which reported an average value of 33.
AAPG Explorer wrote:When Occidental Petroleum announced a major new discovery in Kern County, California, it set off industry speculation about the nature and location of the find.
Specifics about the discovery initially were scant, but for industry participants anxious for good news it didn’t take long to learn where it was...
The company also said it wouldn’t give out details about the discovery, then released a slew of them:
• The new find holds an estimated 150 million to 250 million barrels of oil equivalent (BOE).
• About two-thirds of the discovery is believed to be natural gas.
• It includes multiple producing zones, “large pay zones of high permeabilities.”
• It’s a conventional, non-stimulation, non-shale play, although shales are present in the area and should be productive in the future.
• As of July, it was producing about 74 million cubic feet of gas and 5,000 barrels of liquids per day from six wells...
AAPG Explorer wrote:Oxy did make an intriguing statement about the new play, saying it was “most similar to a deepwater discovery and bears no relationship at all to so-called resource plays.”
If that implies Lower Tertiary, especially a fine-grained sandstone in the Oligocene-Eocene component of the Paleogene, the company may have found something a bit different from other production around Elk Hills.
The Elk Hills Oil Field has a complex stratigraphy compared to other nearby fields, many of which are a single large pool in a simple structural trap. Thirteen separate oil pools have been identified so far in the Elk Hills Field, in rock units ranging in age from Oligocene to Pleistocene. The shallowest formation, the Tulare, was the first in which oil was found, at 1,120 feet (340 m) below ground surface, and the deepest, the Oligocene portion of the Temblor containing the Agua Pool at a depth of 9,500 feet (2,900 m), was not found until 1977.
Eugene Coste wrote:...Oil and gas are stored products, in great abundance in certain localities, while neighboring localities often are entirely barren...
Eugene Coste wrote:Oil and gas were only supplied along some of the lines of structural weakness or along some of the fractured zones of the crust of the earth, and, therefore, the new fields are to be found only along these zones or belts...
A variety of catalysts can be used for the Fischer–Tropsch process, but the most common are the transition metals cobalt, iron, and ruthenium. Nickel can also be used, but tends to favor methane formation ("methanation").
Cobalt-based catalysts are highly active, although iron may be more suitable for low-hydrogen-content synthesis gases such as those derived from coal due to its promotion of the water-gas-shift reaction. In addition to the active metal the catalysts typically contain a number of "promoters," including potassium and copper. Group 1 alkali metals, including potassium, are a poison for cobalt catalysts but are promoters for iron catalysts. Catalysts are supported on high-surface-area binders/supports such as silica, alumina, or zeolites. Cobalt catalysts are more active for Fischer–Tropsch synthesis when the feedstock is natural gas. Natural gas has a high hydrogen to carbon ratio, so the water-gas-shift is not needed for cobalt catalysts. Iron catalysts are preferred for lower quality feedstocks such as coal or biomass.
Unlike the other metals used for this process (Co, Ni, Ru), which remain in the metallic state during synthesis, iron catalysts tend to form a number of phases, including various oxides and carbides during the reaction. Control of these phase transformations can be important in maintaining catalytic activity and preventing breakdown of the catalyst particles.
Fischer–Tropsch catalysts are sensitive to poisoning by sulfur-containing compounds. The sensitivity of the catalyst to sulfur is greater for cobalt-based catalysts than for their iron counterparts.
Promotors also have an important influence on activity. Alkali metal oxides and copper are common promotors, but the formulation depends on the primary metal, iron vs cobalt. Alkali oxides on cobalt catalysts generally cause activity to drop severely even with very low alkali loadings. C5+ and CO2 selectivity increase while methane and C2-C4 selectivity decrease. In addition, the olefin to parafin ratio increases.
LTFT and HTFT
High-temperature Fischer–Tropsch (or HTFT) is operated at temperatures of 330°C-350°C and uses an iron-based catalyst. This process was used extensively by Sasol in their Coal-to-Liquid plants (CTL). Low-Temperature Fischer–Tropsch (LTFT) is operated at lower temperatures and uses a cobalt based catalyst. This process is best known for being used in the first integrated Gas-to-Liquid (GTL) plant operated and built by Shell in Bintulu, Malaysia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2 ... ch_process
Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program was a program run by the United States Bureau of Mines to create the technology to produce synthetic fuel from coal. It was initiated in 1944 during World War II. The Synthetic Liquid Fuels Act approved on April 5, 1944 authorized the use of $30 million over a five year period for...the construction and operation of demonstration plants to produce synthetic liquid fuels from coal, oil shales, agricultural and forestry products, and other substances, in order to aid the prosecution of the war, to conserve and increase the oil resources of the Nation, and for other purposes.
The Bureau of Mines first studied the extraction of oil from oil shale between 1925 - 1928.
Between 1928 and 1944, the Bureau experimented with coal liquefaction by hydrogenation using the Bergius process. A small-scale test unit constructed in 1937 had a 100-pound per day continuous coal feed.
Between 1945 and 1948, new laboratories were constructed near Pittsburgh. A synthetic ammonia plant Louisiana, Missouri (Missouri Ordnance Works) was transferred from the Army to the program in 1945. The plant was converted into a coal hydrogenation test facility. By 1949 the plant could produce 200 barrels (32 m3) of oil a day using the Bergius process.
Part of the personnel were German scientists, who had been extracted from Germany by Operation Paperclip.
In 1948, the program was extended to eight years and funding increased to $60 million. A second facility was constructed at the Louisiana plant, this time using the Fischer-Tropsch process. Completed in 1951, the plant only produced 40,000 US gallons (150 m3) of fuel.
In 1953 the new Republican-led House Appropriations Committee ended funding for the research and the Missouri plant was returned to the Department of the Army.
In 1979, after the second oil crisis, the U.S. Congress approved the Energy Security Act forming the Synthetic Fuels Corporation and authorized up to $88 million for synthetic fuels projects.
In 1986, during the 1980s oil glut, President Reagan signed into law the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 which among other things abolished the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program. It's estimated that over 40 years the various efforts at creating synthetic fuels may have totaled as much as $8 billion.
Ruins of coal elevator in a synthetic gasoline plant from WWII (IG Farben Industrie Police, Poland)
The Bergius process was extensively used by Nazi Germany and targeted for bombing during the Oil Campaign of World War II. At present there are no plants operating the Bergius Process or its derivatives commercially. The largest demonstration plant was the 200 ton per day plant at Bottrop, Germany, operated by Ruhrkohle, which ceased operation in 1993. There are reports  of the Chinese company constructing a plant with a capacity of 4 000 ton per day. It was expected to become operational in 2007, but there has been no confirmation that this was achieved.
During WWII the United States conducted secret research in converting coal to gasoline at a facility in Louisiana, Missouri. Located along the Mississippi river, this plant was producing gasoline in commercial quantities by 1948. The Louisiana process method produced automobile gasoline at a price slightly higher than, but comparable to, petroleum based gasoline but of a higher quality. The facility was shut down in 1953 by the Eisenhower administration after intense lobbying by the oil industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_ ... ls_Program
A new day for gasification
In the early to mid-1900s, many U.S. cities and towns had their own coal gasification plant. Coal was heated in the presence of steam and a carefully controlled amount of air to produce a moderate-Btu gas that could be burned for heat and light. This so-called water gas was used in residences, businesses, and street lamps. The process produced a lot of waste and pollution, however. More efficient gasification processes were developed in the 1940s; Germany, for example, used gasification to produce gasoline and other liquid fuels during World War II. But the technology gradually gave way in the 1950s and 1960s to the use of natural gas, which was then cheaper than coal.
In recent years the concept of coal gasification has been revived and gasification technology has been improved. Today's gasifiers use high-temperature, high-pressure vessels and oxygen instead of air to produce high-quality syngas (primarily hydrogen and carbon monoxide), which is burned in gas turbines to generate electricity.
Several pilot coal gasification plants are now operating in the United States and other countries, producing both electricity (from syngas) and diesel fuel. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and energy companies are funding research to extend the benefits of gasification, as is SIUC (see Putting Technology into Practice). These benefits are threefold: efficiency, versatility, and pollution control.
In conventional power plants, coal is burned in order to heat water to drive steam turbine-generators. Only about 30 percent of the coal's energy value actually winds up producing electricity; the rest is waste heat. By using what's called a combined cycle to produce electricity, gasification plants can ratchet efficiency up to 50 percent or more. After syngas is burned, the waste heat from the turbines can itself be used to drive conventional steam turbines, generating additional electricity. In industry jargon, such plants are called IGCC systems, which stands for "integrated gasification combined-cycle."
If the Earth can abiotically produce hydrocarbons from deep beneath, then why can't comets and other planets?
I wonder if the Deep Earth abiotic community will ever embrace something so similar, but so different?
starbiter wrote:Hello Anaconda,
You have made an excellent case against fossil oil. However, the objections against fossil petroleum don't work against oil from comets or gas giants, IMO. I asked a chemist friend to look at the link below.
Anaconda, July 16, 2012, wrote:...And these plasma, electric current sheets would introduce huge amounts of electromagnetic energy into the Earth's crust and mantle, plus, this electromagnetic energy given off by the Sun likely was repeated numerous times in Earth's past.
Indeed, the same plasma, electric current sheets introducing huge amounts of electromagnetic energy into the Earth's crust and mantle, would also introduce huge amounts of electromagnetic energy into Venus at the same time.
So, comet oil would be possible. In fact, both Earth & Venus may have also seen increased volcanism at perhaps catastraphic activity levels. Each rocky planet undergoing dramatic convulsion due to electromagnetic stress, Earth with its plasma cage and pillar, the axis mondi, and plasma instabilities, Venus flaring as a comet, its eliptical orbit wobbled, perhaps dramatically, jets emanating from Venus' surface, and a filamented tail of ionized and non-ionized chemical elements and molecules. Venus likely under more electrical stress than the Earth, perhaps causing significant charge differential between the two planets, one within a cage and pillar, one with a coma and a tail fueled by jets from its surface, so any physical interaction could result in electrical discharges and transference of chemicals and molecules...
PersianPaladin wrote:If the Earth can abiotically produce hydrocarbons from deep beneath, then why can't comets and other planets?
I don't understand the difference of opinion here in your arguments. Earth's oil could indeed be a mixture of both terrestial hydrocarbons and extra-terrestial sources that were produced in very similar ways elsewhere.
By stubbornly dismissing the likely possibility of the extent of extra-terrestial hydrocarbons entering the Earth, one is sticking to a very dogmatic view. Of course, we will NOT know for sure about the actual ratios and proportions of terrestial vs extra-terrestial sources for hydrocarbons.
That is my own humble view.
I commend Starbiter for his work generally. And indeed, Anaconda has put forward a compelling case for abiogenesis - although I reserve the right to be skeptical as to the rate in which that oil is still being produced and how quickly we can get it out.
Anaconda, July 17, 2012, wrote:... And also abiotic oil is important to the idea of Venus as a comet and raining down hydrocarbons on Earth. It turns out abiotic oil, here on Earth, is also a clue to the potential of Venus producing abiotic oil in the past.
And, perhaps, now, starbiter, you have more insight into and respect for the interdisciplinary approach: It took a focus on Abiotic Oil Theory to provide a hypothesis for a possible physical process allowing Venus to be a comet and produce 'comet' oil, a central tenet of Dr. Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision.
PersianPaladin wrote:If the Earth can abiotically produce hydrocarbons from deep beneath, then why can't comets and other planets?
PersianPaladin wrote:I don't understand the difference of opinion here in your arguments. Earth's oil could indeed be a mixture of both terrestial hydrocarbons and extra-terrestial sources that were produced in very similar ways elsewhere.
PersianPaladin wrote:By stubbornly dismissing the likely possibility of the extent of extra-terrestial hydrocarbons entering the Earth, one is sticking to a very dogmatic view. Of course, we will NOT know for sure about the actual ratios and proportions of terrestial vs extra-terrestial sources for hydrocarbons.
PersianPaladin wrote:I commend Starbiter for his work generally. And indeed, Anaconda has put forward a compelling case for abiogenesis - although I reserve the right to be skeptical as to the rate in which that oil is still being produced and how quickly we can get it out.
starbiter wrote:And numerous cultures report floods of naptha where oil is found today.
starbiter wrote:The oil of the greater Green River basin is contained in what appears to be a geologic feature produced underwater with a strong current. This is over half of the worlds proven reserve. There are fossils associated with the oil as if it was a flooding scenario.
starbiter wrote:...as if it was a flooding scenario.
Glenn R. Morton wrote:Conclusion
Every feature of the Green River formation points to long periods of deposition. The coprolites of fish and birds, algal encrusting of logs, footprints, variations in laminae thickness consistent with known weather patterns, sunspots, and Earth orbital parameters. Radioactive dating confirms the depositional rates which indicate yearly varves. The young-earth creationist, like Garner, can sit on the fence and throw rocks at the geological explanation, but he can't explain any of these features. The young-earth creationist must ask himself the following set of questions if he is to be rational.
1. Why were the flood waters on layer after layer the depth of a bird leg as indicated by the footprints?
2. How were catfish able to leave so many coprolites on the layers if this is a rapidly deposited formation?
3. Why would God imprint orbital parameters and sunspot cycles on the thicknesses of the laminae?
4. Why do the radioactive dates seem to verify the slow depositional rates?
5. How could a bird take the time to nibble the lake floor during a global flood?
6. How are raindrop impressions preserved under the waters of a global flood?
7. Why did God produce a flood deposit which exactly matches the areal distribution seen in lakes? Did God deceive us?
8. Why do the oxygen-18 values decrease around the edges of Fossil Lake as would be expected of a modern lake?
9. The young-earth creationist must also ask him- or herself why the young-earth authors never tell him what I just told him.
PersianPaladin wrote:There are actually many accounts of global floods from cultures the world over. It only takes a perusal among the Catastrophist literature available.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest