MolaKule
Staff member
BAck to regulary scheduled programming:
Here is a summary view/history of oil genesis:
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/newsletter/NL04S/PDF/origin.pdf
See Figure 2. Note that water and sedimentation play a big role in petroleum genesis.
The following is a slightly more detailed summary paper:
http://chentserver.uwaterloo.ca/aelkamel...f-petroleum.pdf
The discussion I disagree with is:
Quote:
Although simple thermogensis adequately describes petroleum generation,
geocatalysis involving reactive mineral surfaces, clays, trace metals, or
organic species have been proposed.55,56 Such processes are highly
speculative, and it is difficult to image how inorganic agents would remain
activated under subsurface conditions or how mass transport limitations
inherent in solid-solid interactions could be circumvented57
We use cataylists and the catalysis processes to change chemicals from one form or molecular composition to another all the time so why should this be dismissed as a potential process/conversion theory?
Here is a summary view/history of oil genesis:
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/newsletter/NL04S/PDF/origin.pdf
See Figure 2. Note that water and sedimentation play a big role in petroleum genesis.
The following is a slightly more detailed summary paper:
http://chentserver.uwaterloo.ca/aelkamel...f-petroleum.pdf
The discussion I disagree with is:
Quote:
Although simple thermogensis adequately describes petroleum generation,
geocatalysis involving reactive mineral surfaces, clays, trace metals, or
organic species have been proposed.55,56 Such processes are highly
speculative, and it is difficult to image how inorganic agents would remain
activated under subsurface conditions or how mass transport limitations
inherent in solid-solid interactions could be circumvented57
We use cataylists and the catalysis processes to change chemicals from one form or molecular composition to another all the time so why should this be dismissed as a potential process/conversion theory?
Last edited: