rockdoc123 wrote: Kerogen is the precursor to both coal and hydrocarbons. It is time and temperature that converts kerogen to hydrocarbon but at some point (either high enough temperature or long enough burial) all of the kerogen is converted. This is called the transformation ratio of a kerogen and in most cases 100% transformation ratio (all of the kerogen converted) is reached by depths of 4 to 5 km in a continental basin setting.
And how does kerogen convert to oil exactly? Kerogen is about 1:1 hydrogen to carbon. I've been fishing you with my 3:1 ratio need for hydrocarbon conversion claim, but you won't bite, and I know why.
1st, the truth is oil hydrocarbons need only slightly over 2:1 hydrogen to carbon, not 3:1 which is only for ethane.
Usually you would fall over yourself to tell me I'm an idiot for claiming 3:1 H:C when oil only needs slightly over 2:1, but instead you are silent on the matter, despite repeated fishings by me.
The reason you are silent is because its sacrilege for the followers of the biotic oil religion to mention or think about the lack of hydrogen in kerogen compared to oil. During your brainwashing \ training you learnt to ignore it, either consciously or unconsciously, otherwise you'd never have passed your exams that tested if you were sufficiently brainwashed to do the bidding of the oil cartel. Hence your feverish opposition to anyone who come poking for the truth, like me.
That means kerogens never make it to depths of even the lower crust let alone the mantle. Suggesting otherwise dispels all sorts of physical laws, which apparently you never learned at your boxtop physics school.
You're mixing biotic theory with abiotic theory with the intention of arriving at inconsistency so you can call your opponent an idiot. That not's the right way to assess an alternative theory.
If you ask me, kerogen doesn't start at the top and go down, it more likely forms somewhere in the crust and goes up. Quite how it does this I'm not sure, but I'm considering several possibilities.
Here's one way you might find more agreeable :
methane rises from the mantle and gets trapped in and around a tight strata, forming a gas reserve.
deep crust methanotrophs break down the gas to form kerogen. Later the strata is fragmented due to geology, where it is exposed to upwelling hydrogen gas which transforms the kerogen into crude oil.
The methanotrophs may be incidental feeders, i.e. simply the internal pressure of a tight formation alone may be enough to condense upwelling methane into kerogen.I know you like biology making oil so I gave methanotrophs a key role to try cheer you up.
Wrt internal pressure being a factor that allows an otherwise unreactive substance to condense or react, this is something in all your rambling you haven't mentioned, perhaps they didn't teach you this during your brainwashing. If you want I'll teach you.
2. Kerogen is present almost exclusively in very tight (nanodarcy) source rock shales and marls, gas cannot penetrate into the pore space as there is no pathway.
Actually gas does penetrate, just very slowly, but given geologic time, the tight formation will become saturated with many of the fluids that it is in contact with. This is part of how a tight formation may condense hydrocarbons to longer chains, tight formations can hold a large pressure difference at their boundary with a loose formation ; a great increase in pressure may allow mantle level pressures, but at crustal temperatures.
So there's 2 theories of abiogenic oil formation from methane
1. methanotrophic
2. pressure induced
pick your favourite and we can discuss it further.
and don't forget hydration by upwelling mantle hydrogen gas. You need it for your conventional biootic theory too, so just accept it.
The point of mentioning graphite and diamond is to show that the Earth will bind carbon with carbon given a chance. Help me out with your geo-chemist skills : what is the lower energy state for a load of hydrogen, carbon and oxygen: a load of extremely compressed methane and oxygen, or oil with a bit of water residue? Nature will tend towards the lower energy state by biology or chemistry.
Given that we are onto the 8th page and you still haven't answered the question I asked you in my 1st post, my expectations are low that you can give direct answers. But you occasionally surprise me.