Monday, June 9, 2008

Methane Clouds Signal Earthquake

May 12th 2008: a 7.8 earthquake occurred in Wenchuan, Sichuan province, west China.

This is more evidence of the strong correlation between the mantle, fault lines, seismic activity, earthquakes, and hydrocarbons.

Sichuan is China's largest natural gas basin.

See Eugene Coste's Rock Disturbances Theory of Petroleum Emanations

Thomas Gold of course mentions this in Chapter 8 of the Deep Hot Biosphere: Rethinking Earthquakes.

Gold suggests that movement of primordial hydrocarbons also may be responsible for earthquakes that occur away from fault lines, and that release of methane and other light hydrocarbons is a prelude to an earthquake.
Also see Zhonghao Shou Earthquake Clouds And Short Term Prediction.

(3) Gas emission: Sulphureous gas emitted before the Haicheng earthquake [7], and so did carbon- dioxide before the Tangshan earthquake [9, 10].

(4) Earth-flash: At 19:36 of February 4, 1975, one minute or more before the quake, the No. 31 express train of Dalian-Beijing was approaching the Tang-Wang-Shan station near Haicheng. "Very bright purplish red flashes suddenly glittered in the dark sky before the train.


Anaconda said...


If science is a quest to understand the underpinning processes of various forces in our environment: biology, chemistry, physics, and geology; then theories that retard man's understanding are the most pernicious of developments because additional observations are constantly distorted by the biases of those who report and interpret the additional observations through the prism of their prejudice and bias.

The report on Sichuan's large gas basin is a classic example of the above stated danger.

Rather, than make a report that spurs additional questions, the assumptions of the "scientists" cloud the real significance of their findings.

That being the complex chemical interactions of abiotic phenomenon on Earth.

"Fossil" theory is one of those "pernicious developments," because as one notes, quite clearly, in abstract after abstract, theory and assumptions, are substituted for actual demonstrated scientific relationships.

When oil geologists (and this practice has spread to other geologists) state "diagenesis" is responsible for various geological processes -- what they really are saying is -- "it just happens, but we don't know how it happens," and let's leave it at that.

This is hardly proper scientific procedure: Satisfaction at being left in the dark of ignorance: That leaves man in no better place than before the scientific work was taken up in the first place!

So, not only is "fossil" theory "pernicious" in terms of exploration and production of petroleum, a necessity of modern civilization, but also as an obsticle in the quest of broader scientific understanding, which can have unknown negative consequences regarding other seemingly unrelated scientific advances for the benefit of mankind.

Sadly, the shamans of "fossil" theory can't bear to relinquish their power so they keep promoting worhship to a false Idol.

Anaconda said...


As this post and proceeding ones ably demonstrate, the relationship between earthquakes, vocanism, and hydrocarbons is strong (as opposed to the repeated claims of "fossil" theorists).

This suggests, indeed, as earthquakes and vocanism continue on Earth, so does the 'solfataric' processes that bring hydrocarbons, and more specifically petroleum, to the near surface in a regenerative process of those deposits.

Although, at what rate is hard to determine because the evidence is -- for all the current 'solfataric' acitivity at present -- that earthquakes, volcanism, and 'solfataric' activity was much greater in past geologic ages of Earth's history.

If crustal activity (earthquakes, volcanism, 'solfatara') has a continuum of activity; today's level is seemingly at relatively modest level.

Let's be quite clear: Crustal activity at the extreme active end of the continuum, as reflected in the geologic record, is so violent and destructive that a repeated performance would threaten the very existence of mankind, or at least any expression of high civilization as it is commonly understood in today's modern world.

Still, we are left with the question, at what rate does petroleum regenerate in this abiotic process at today's level of crustal activity?

That needs to be investigated and reported. Although, this information is in short supply at present, but under the right circumstances it could be collected.

Also, needed is a more precise understanding of where on the "crustal activity continuum" does the Earth presently stand?

These and other pressing scientific questions need to be persued, and can only be intelligently persued, after "fossil" theory has been jettisoned.

There are tremendous scientific questions to be answered and room for enterprising men to answer them. But these "men of science" can not pay heed to the empty Idol whorship of "fossil" theory.

Anaconda said...


New Scientist: Dolomite - The Mineral that shouldn't Exist (80% of North American Reserves)
(Available by direct link at left-hand column under Elements, Compounds, & Rocks Associated With Oil)

'The Dolomite Problem' has vexed scientists since the mineral was first identified back 1791. The mineral couldn't be created in the laboratory in conditions other than high heat and pressure, incompatable with conditions on the Earth's surface. But what about below the surface at some depth in the Earth's mantel?

The laboratory results suggest, indeed, dolomite can be created in the ultra-high heat and pressure of the mantel. But this "source" was rejected by the scientists of the time. And, this source has never been widely accepted by geology.

This rejection is in the face of the fact that ancient huge deposits of dolomite had an ordered arrangement of the crystal latice, but "Goldsmith could synthsise ordered dolomite only at relatively high temperatures."

And, "Significantly, the young sabkha dolomites have this DISORDERED ARRANGEMENT (emphasis added), although very few of the ancient ones do."

These ancient deposits are truly huge and on a scale so large entire mountain ranges consist of dolomite. "...and the mountains themselves - part of the southern Tyrol - are known as the Dolomites."

The answer to 'The Dolomite Problem' is quite simple: On a huge scale ORDERED ARRANGEMENT (emphasis added) dolomite rose from great depth in a 'solfataric' process to create the ancient deposits of dolomite. Young dolomite had the disordered arrangement as a result of precipitation as seen in Sabkha dolmites in the salt flats of the Persian Gulf and in the Carribean, where dolomite was at a high rate of solution in the saltwater as a result of large deposits in the nearby geologic strata.

This logical and relatively simple solution to the dolomite problem was obscured from geologists because of their disdain of abiotic processes generally in Earth's history and their attachment to "fossil" theory like processes. Note the word "diagenesis" is used in the article to describe a geological process -- a dead give away that they don't understand the chemical reactions they are talking about.

So, dolomite is produced as the "cheap man's diamond" in the mantel of the Earth, and is expelled in monumental 'solfataric', abiotic "outpourings" for it is far more than an "outgassing".

Remember, 80% of North American petroleum finds are in association with dolomite; this mineral that can only be created, as found in the ancient huge deposits, in the laboratory, by applying high heat and pressure consistent with the mantel.

The conclusions are clear: The Dolomite Problem has been solved.

But how does this speak to the "Crustal Activity Continuum"?

The answer is obvious, at the highest level of activity on the "Crustal Activity Continuum" the violence and power are so large, as to be truly awe inspiring and downright scary to envision in today's world.

Oil deposits associated with these acient dolomite eruptions should be equally awe inspiring; perhaps, Ghawar is an example of that association between the two minerals, and the potential of huge deposits -- clearly, petroleum is a mineral in every sense of the word, and not an organic compound of remnant organic detritus.

Still, the above exposition and postulate does not answer the question: What is the rate of regeneration of petroleum deposits at the current state of the "Crustal Activity Continuum"?

And, where is the present activity level on the continuum? True, exciting scientific inquiry awaits, rather than the stultifying "fossil" theory pablum about "source rocks" that aren't really source rocks at all.

This is the challenge, the gauntlet has been thrown down.

Can they meet the call or will they mumble and make offerings to their wooden Idol -- "fossil" theory?

Are their minds as ossified as their theory?

Anaconda said...


The Democrats answer to high oil prices, and consequently high prices at the pump, is to demagogue the issue -- when the answers are clear: Allow oil exploration and production in the United States and its territorial waters. Total "unproven" reserves in these areas banned by Democrats and a few "weak kneed" Republicans exceed at least 100 billion barrels of oil.

This is a conservative estimate -- estimates based on abiotic geology top 150 billion barrels.

Democrats' answer is to tax oil companies -- wrong answer -- it wouldn't do a damn thing to lower prices, just limit ability to invest in oil exploration and production.

Democratic Party policies to ban oil exploration and production in promising areas is the hight of hypocricy in the face of their claims to the American People: "We feel your pain."

No, their policies are inflicting pain on the American People and decreasing their standard of living.

Now, if the Republicans can mount an effective education blitz on the reasons for high oil prices they can win elections.

Some truths will hurt: The falling Dollar has added to the price of oil and Republicans have not helped with fiscal deficits on their watch. Trade deficits have also contributed to the falling Dollar, and, again, Republican's lack of policy in this area has contributed.

"Get a better deal."

Not less trade -- trade is good -- but a better deal is a necessity.

There are good deals and there are bad deals and there are neutral deals. Everybody knows that -- even the little guy who went to buy a used car.

At this point, the budget and trade issues, while important, are not paramount.

What is paramount is recognizing the Democratic Party's policies restricting oil exploration and production are the reason for the high price of gas.

Democrats need to pay the price, the only price they understand -- getting their stinking asses booted out of office.

Investment in oil and gas are good for America if those investments are allowed to be employed in exploration and production of oil in the United States of America and its territorial waters.

Make your voices heard because, remember, raw political power is all the Democratic Party respects.

OilIsMastery said...

Heaven forbid me to talk politics and I'm not sure what party Thomas Gold voted for but allow me to quote him regardless: "Hubbert's views changed the wealth of nations. The belief that oil would run out, and that those with a source could always increase the price, caused the early-'70s oil crisis. That, to my mind, is a completely stupid attitude that shifted many billions of dollars away from some countries and toward others."