With the search for oil and gas in the North Sea, significant coal deposits were discovered in this sea (1). 

The localization of these deposits in a sea-bed prohibits a traditional exploitation by mine. In situ combustion was considered with an aim of generating a combustible gas mixture easier to extract. But this technique was too polluting.

There is perhaps another resource to consider: the methane adsorbed in the pores of coal. This type of gas is called CBM for Coal Bed Methane (2). Several data could promise a significant and exploitable gas resource:

-       the amount of coal present under the North Sea seems significant; the amount of adsorbed methane should be in proportion,

-       part of these offshore coal deposits are sufficiently close to the coasts of England to be accessible by terrestrial drillings,

-       the technique of horizontal drilling, already used to recover shale gas, can be employed here to extract gas from coal,

-       coal is a porous rock, therefore the extraction of gas does not require hydraulic fracturing. 

(1)  https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2018/12/18/north-sea-ucg/

(2)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalbed_methane#

Perhaps the mining of shale deposits isn’t the enemy of energy transition.

Since 2005, hydraulic fracturing has permit the exploitation of gas and oil confined in shale deposits. These shale deposits produce gas and light liquid hydrocarbons.

Some studies have shown the possibility to extract heavy hydrocarbon molecules like paraffin from shale deposits by using supercritical carbon dioxide (1). This fluid is also ideal for the heat extraction from the deep deposit: its high density facilitates the heat transport and its low viscosity eases the circulation in small cracks of the fractured zone.

The use of supercritical CO2 on depleted shale wells can associate the extraction of heavy hydrocarbons and geothermal heat. The extraction of heavy hydrocarbons can last some years like the classical extraction of gas and light hydrocarbons in shale deposits. By contrast, the heat extraction can last a very long time.

The first test of this heat extraction could be made by the Pittsburgh town in Pennsylvania. This town is surrounded by many wells extracting gas from Marcellus shale deposit (2). This town has also maintained an urban heating network (3). The geothermal heat extracted from the wells located around the town could feed the urban heating network.

The geothermal energy has a good reputation as a stable renewable energy but its development is blocked by its high investment cost. If we can associate geothermal energy and hydrocarbon production, the investment cost can be reduced.

(1)  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283619903_Extraction_of_Hydrocarbons_from_High_Maturity_Marcellus_Shale_Using_Supercritical_Carbon_Dioxide

(2)  https://www.fractracker.org/map/us/pennsylvania/pa-shale-viewer/

(3)  https://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/mayorpeduto/District_Energy_in_Pittsburgh_DOE_Power_Point_AL.pdf

On 9/12/2020 at 1:12 AM, Area54 said:

That reads more like unsupported optimism than a thoughtful and informed analysis.

For one thing, just because something is possible does not mean it will necessarily be economic. Until you put some meat on the bones of your idea and address the problems that exist for it then all you have is a highly speculative, vague notion. Thus, the answer to your question, can fracking extract gold, is probably, but not economically and not without major environmental concerns.

Unsupported optimism : this comment can be applied on high temperature geothermy. This sort of renewable energy is a promise never realised because its costs are too high. The extraction of gold or other high value metals in deep wells can help the financing of geothermy. Yes, it is speculative. Why not ? 

On 9/12/2020 at 8:08 PM, John Cuthber said:

But zinc is already cheaper then the thiol, and you are bound to lose some of that expensive reagent.
Overall, this will probably lose money.

In hydrothermal deposits, gold is more often associated with molybdenum or platinum than zinc.

On 9/7/2020 at 4:00 PM, Area54 said:

You have also ignored the greater cost of drilling wells in rock that is much harder and more abrasive than those encountered in oil/gas drilling. (Not to mention the greater challenge of achieving good directional results.)

If gold mining by fracking is possible, the gold value can amortize quickly the high cost of drilling and fracturing.

After the gold extraction, the drills and fractured zone remain for another use, like geothermal energy. T

Finally, the great value of gold can facilitate the development of geothermal energy.

On 9/2/2020 at 11:35 PM, Area54 said:

I am not sure what you mean here.  I see two possibilities (Did you mean something else?) :

• Drill a well which becomes horizontal at the zone of interest.  Drill a second (vertical) well to intersect the first at its end point. Employ fracing technology to facilitate penetration of the chemicals into the zone of interest.
• Drill two vertical wells. Establish a connection between them by hydraulic fracturing.

I have a preference for the first method. As you noticed, this method permit to choose precisely the zone of interest.

On 9/1/2020 at 10:39 PM, John Cuthber said:

That's a matter of perspective.
You intend to dissolve gold.

In fact it will dissolve a lot of metal oxides (zinc, iron etc)

So you will use huge amounts of a moderately toxic chemical, mainly to dissolve stuff you don't want.

The great part of the ore is made of silicate that is not dissolved by pyridinethiol.

If pyridinethiol extracts other transition metals like zinc, it is not a bad thing, it can add a value to the extraction.

On 8/27/2020 at 12:01 AM, MigL said:

And you intend to pump chemicals which will essentially dissolve gold ore ???

The use of pyridinethiol is for chelating gold and not for dissolving ore.

In few years hydraulic fracturing has revolutionized the world of energy by the production of shale gas and shale oil.

It is perhaps possible that fracking can reach another resource in the depth of the Earth: gold.

A new theory established by geochemists (1) describes a transport of gold by trisulphide ion in hydrothermal deposit. Trisulphide ion chelates gold and facilitates its transport towards the ground surface by water. But the stability of trisulphide ion depends of temperature and pressure. Trisulphide ion decays at a depth of some kilometres and leaves a first deposit of gold. According to this theory, a second transport by chloride and sulphide ions explains the gold deposits near the surface.

We can imagine a deep gold deposit under each hydrothermal gold deposit. The deep gold deposits are probably more massive than the upper deposits because the transport by trisulphide ion is more efficient than the transport by chloride and sulphide ions. These deep gold deposits are not accessible by classical process of mining.

These deep deposits are perhaps accessible by hydraulic fracturing. A depth of some kilometres is not a problem. The shale oil deposits of Permian Basin exploited in Texas by fracking have an equivalent depth of some kilometres. How can we extract gold? Perhaps by the following process:

-        two vertical wells to reach the deep layer of deposit,

-        horizontal drill between the vertical wells with a hydraulic fracturing,

-        circulation of water with gold chelatant in the fractured zone, for example pyridinethiol (2).

If this process works, gold extraction by fracking can be the beginning of a new chapter of fracking industry: the deep mining.

(1) Sulfur radical species form gold deposits on Earth (https://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/13484)

(2) Pyridinethiol‐Assisted Dissolution of Elemental Gold in Organic Solutions

 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/anie.201810447

Since some years, there is a great hope in the development of EGS (enhanced geothermal system) (1). EGS combines hydraulic fracturing and deep well to extract the heat of hot rocks. The interest of EGS is it could be located everywhere on Earth.

The development of EGS is currently slowed by some problems, particularly its high cost of investment. In cases in which the hot reservoir is in basalt layer, this cost could be reduced by limewater injection:

-        the sale of hydrogen produced during some years could amortize quickly the cost of the well,

-        as we see before, the swelling during the reaction between limewater and basalt generates fracturing ; this induced fracturing could reduce the use of high pressure for mechanical fracturing.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_geothermal_system

13 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

It might be, but only if the planet has plenty of water and hydrogen is only really useful if you are doing fusion  or have lots of oxygen.

The planet has plenty of water in oceans and plenty of basalt in upper crust of Earth. That is a good potential of production of hydrogen. The combination of this hydrogen with atmospheric oxygen produces energy and water. The consumed oxygen is replaced by photosynthesis. The results of the whole operation is the inclusion of oxygen in basalt accompanying the oxidation of Fe2+.

12 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

How would this stack up against electrolysis?

Hydrogen produced by electrolysis is not an a primary energy, it is an energy carrier. This production needs another power source. Hydrogen produced by water oxidation of basalt is a primary energy, a sort of fossil energy  without CO2 emission.

22 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

That's not difficult.

Drill a deep hole.

Add water.

Yes, temperature and pressure are provided freely by Earth with the following gradients:

- 30°C / km

- 30 MPa / km

10 hours ago, chenbeier said:

As above mentioned, do the experiment. 

The experiment has already been made. In his thesis, Mr Malvoisin describes the production of hydrogen by a treatment of a steel slag. The FeO contained in the slag has been oxidized by water in a furnace at 200°C / 50 MPa. This experiment (1) on the slag continues for the purpose of the production of nanoparticles of magnetite. Despite its high purity, the hydrogen produced in this condition is too expensive.

(1) https://www.linksium.fr/projet/hymagin/

On 27/10/2018 at 1:51 PM, chenbeier said:

In your table it says still 0,051 V at pH 12. So no reaction!  

Good remark. I forgot to consider the effect of temperature on the Nernst equation. The effect of pH on the potential of reaction (Fe2+ + H+ > Fe3+ + ½ H2) is expressed by:

E = E0 – 0.06 pH

But the factor 0.06 is really the result of (R.T.ln(10)/F) at ambient temperature (see the web page (1)).

The reaction doesn’t occur at ambient temperature. According to the thesis of Mr Malvoisin (2), 150°C is a better temperature to obtain a good kinetic for the reaction. At this temperature, the value of the factor (R.T.ln(10)/F) is 0.084. So the effect of pH on the potential of reaction at 150°C is expressed by:

E = E0 – 0.084 pH

According to the precedent chart, the reaction becomes possible between pH 9 and pH 10 at 150°C.

(1) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Équation_de_Nernst

(2) https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/934238/filename/33513_MALVOISIN_2013_archivage.pdf

On 25/10/2018 at 12:02 PM, chenbeier said:

Ok, but I dont think in natural Rocks you have a pH of 14 . This can be achieved only with high concentratete NaOH or KOH. 

It is not necessary to reach this pH of 14. At pH 12, the potential of the reaction is zero. That means the reaction is equilibrated:

Fe2+ + H+ < > Fe3+ + ½ H2

In water at this pH 12, Fe2+ and Fe3+ are not soluble and thus remain fixed in the rock. The hydrogen produced is soluble in hot water. If limewater is put into circulation in the well, we can extract the hydrogen. The removing of H2 of the well displaces the reaction on its right wing and thus permits the continuation of the ferrous oxidation.

10 hours ago, chenbeier said:

And again Fe(OH)₂ or Fe(OH)₃ is not much solouble. You need the reaction 2 Fe²⁺ + 2 H+ =>2 Fe³⁺ + H₂ . In alkaline solution at pH 14 not much H+ available.

I am also wondering where this formula  E = E0 – 0.06 pH was developed from Nernst law.  I am missing the the log(Fe²⁺/Fe³⁺) in it. To many question marks??????

( Fe2+ + H+ > Fe3+ + 1/2 H2 ) is a simplified writing of the reaction.

The real reaction is : 

3 FeO + H2O > Fe3O4 + H2

___________

The formula ( E = E0 - 0.06 pH ) is developped from Nernst law to see the effect of pH on the potential. The formula is obtained by considering the concentrations of Fe2+ and Fe3+ equal.

You can see (but french text):

http://www.chimie-briere.com/pcemoxred/OXYDO.htm

22 hours ago, studiot said:

It is an interesting idea.

Have you any information on the economics for isntance how much hdrogen you might obtain for how much limewater injection?

How would you trap and store the hydrogen, bearing in mind it is the second smallest and lightest of all gases?

To evaluate the quantity of hydrogen economically recoverable by oxidation of Fe2+ in basalts, one can make comparisons with the exploitation of shale gas in the United States. The web page (1) brings elements of calculation. The following chart was established with the data provided by this web page. The methane concentrations estimated in several deposits of shale are expressed on the web page in scf/ton (standard cubic feet/ton). I converted the unit of these data into kg/ton. 

The exploitation of this type of deposit by hydraulic fracturing has caused a fall in the price of gas in the United States. Most of this gas is used to produce electricity. The essential property of gas for this production is its heat of combustion.

The oxidation of FeO by water produces magnetite according to the reaction:

3 FeO + H2O  >  Fe3O4 + H2

One needs 216 g of  FeO to produce 2 g of H2. The average content of basalts of FeO is 7 %. A ton of basalt thus contains 70 kg of FeO. The oxidation of this Fe2+by water can release 0.6 kg of H2 / ton of basalt.

This value is in the low part of concentration range of shale gases given higher:

But heat of combustion relativizes this low value. With equal mass, the heat of combustion of hydrogen is more twice the higher than that of methane:

The following chart presents the methane concentrations and the possible production of hydrogen expressed in MJ/ton.

In this way, the data are more favourable to basaltic hydrogen.

(1) https://spec2000.net/17-specshgas.htm

7 hours ago, chenbeier said:

According  Fe + 2 H⁺ => Fe²⁺ +  H₂ the standard potential is-0,402 V . The standard potential of 2 Fe²⁺ + 2H⁺ => 2Fe³⁺ + H₂  is+0,771 V

From this value alone it can not work. To reduce a metal you need a negativ redox potential. 

With other words the first reaction is working the second not, it would go in opposit way. In rocks you don't have metallic iron, so this doesn't work in my opinion.

 

Yes, according the standard potentials for Fe3+/Fe2+ (+0.771 V) and H+/H2 (0V by definition), the oxidation of Fe2+ by water seems impossible but the reaction is pH dependent.

 The potential of the reaction (Fe2+ + H+ > Fe3+ + ½ H2) change with the pH according to the formula :

 E = E0 – 0.06 pH

 The potential of the reaction change with pH : 

 As you see in this chart, the reaction becomes possible when ph is strongly basic.

The oxidation of Fe2+by water

The Pourbaix diagram (1) defines the fields of existence of chemical compounds according to the pH and the redox potential of an environment. The lines on a Pourbaix diagram define the reactions of transformation of a compound in the other. An area delimited by these lines thus represents the field of existence of a compound.

The following web page (2) shows the Pourbaix diagram of iron and its hydroxides in water. One can see on this diagram that the field of stability of Fe2+ in basic environment is particularly narrow. In addition, this field overlaps the limit of stability of water. This situation shows that the Fe2+ reduces the water and produces hydrogen in basic environment. Only the slow kinetic of the decomposition of water moderates this reaction.

(1)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pourbaix_diagram

(2)  https://chem.libretexts.org/Textbook_Maps/Inorganic_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Map%3A_Inorganic_Chemistry_(Wikibook)/Chapter_04%3A_Redox_Stability_and_Redox_Reactions/4.5%3A_Pourbaix_diagrams

Comparison basalts/peridotites

The fragility of Fe2+ in basic environment appears in nature by the reaction of serpentinization. This reaction is the oxidation of Fe2+ contained in a rock in contact with water. The peridotite, an igneous rock rare in the upper crust of Earth, is particularly sensitive to this reaction because of its very high content of MgO, about 30 %. This high percentage of Mg2+ makes water in contact with these rocks sufficiently basic to allow the oxidation of Fe2+by the water and the production of hydrogen.

According to the web page (3), the average content of FeO of the peridotites is slightly lower than that of basalts: 6.6 % for 7.1 %

One can see on this web page which the composition of basalts is not sufficiently basic to cause the oxidation of ferrous ions. The Fe2+ of basalts is stable in contact with natural water.

(3)  http://www.geolalg.com/chabou/cours4.pdf

Production of hydrogen with basalts

The thesis of Benjamin Malvoisin (4) studies the oxidation of the Fe2+ by water in peridotite. This work also shows the possibility of producing hydrogen using steel slags. Hydrogen is obtained by the oxidation of the Fe2+ contained in the slags by water. The high pH necessary to the reaction is due to the high content of ions calcium of the slags.

The upper crust of Earth contains much more basalt than peridotite. I propose to take the parameters described in the thesis of Mr. Malvoisin and to apply them to this source of Fe2+: basalts.

To exploit Fe2+ in basalts, the sequence could be:

-        vertical drilling to reach an underground layer of basalt,

-        horizontal drilling in the layer of basalt followed by a hydraulic fracturing,

-        injection in the well of a limewater.

The limewater is the cheaper base and confers on water in contact with basalt a pH in the order of 12 (5). It should be a sufficient pH to allow the oxidation of Fe2+of the rock. Ions hydroxylbrought by the limewater are not consumed, so the reaction should be maintained by a regular addition of water in the well.

The other parameter controlling the reaction, the temperature, is determined by the depth of the well. If the layer of basalt is at depths greater than 4000 meters, the temperature of the rock should be higher than 150°C. According to the kinetic established in the thesis of Mr. Malvoisin, this temperature should allow a sufficient speed of reaction.

Another parameter could be favourable to the reaction in the well: the oxidation of Fe2+ transforms olivine and pyroxene contained in rock into serpentine and magnetite. This passage from one mineral to another produces a swelling and generates a pressure of crystallization of 300 MPa (4). This pressure is higher than the lithostatic pressure at depths of 4000 meters. This situation could make the well autofracturing. 

The production curve of hydrogen could be similar to that of a shale gas well and thus last several years. After the end of the production, the well remains usable for the CO2 sequestration or geothermal energy.

(4)  https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/934238/filename/33513_MALVOISIN_2013_archivage.pdf

(5)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limewater

It depends much on the loop current... To shield the geomagnetic field away, a ferromagnetic material was a good start, like mumetal or permalloy.

A part of the magnetic shield described in the two articles presented in my first message is made with a ferromagnetic material. The other part of the magnetic shield is made with a superconductive material.

 

Just a detail about superconductors: only the type I eject the flux. Unfortunately, their maximum current density is too small for most uses, which rely on type II superconductors. These have some losses and let the flux pass through.

 

For my goal, the superconductive material of the magnetic shield must be type I to be opaque with the magnetic field but does not have to support a strong density of current. The superconductive material of the ring must support a strong density of current and must thus be type II but does not need to be opaque with the magnetic field.

I propose to get back to the central subject of the discussion.

Let a loop of electric current of which a part is covered by the magnetic shield. When this loop is located at the terrestrial equator, it undergoes two kinds of effect from the geomagnetic field: a force and a torque.

The Laplace force applied to the loop is: F = I B L with I intensity of the current, B magnetic induction, L length of the electric conductor. This equation shows that this force does not depend on the magnetic flux through the loop.

The other effect which the loop undergoes is a torque which depends on the magnetic flux. The loop of electric current will rotate in the magnetic field until the magnetic flux through the loop is maximal.

 

If you use Maxwell's equations to model something, then a claim that one of Maxwell's equations doesn't apply is nonsensical.

The apparent nonsense is here:

- one of the Maxwell's equations (divergence B = 0) implies the nonexistence of the magnetic monopole (1),

- two teams of scientists have produced a magnetic monopole with the help of a magnetic shield (2) (3).

(1) https://en.wikipedia...w_for_magnetism

(2) Gomory, F. et al. Experimental realization of a magnetic cloak. Science 335, 1466 (2012)

(3) Prat-Camps, J. et al. A Magnetic Wormhole. Sci. Rep. 5, 12488; doi: 10.1038/srep12488 (2015)

 

 

Except it is described by Maxwell's laws, if that's what they used to model the behavior (with a susceptibility of 0, not -1).

What do you mean? I don't understand your answer.

 

 

Can you point to any of the work in that article that is not based on, or violates, Maxwell's equations?

No, there is no violation of Maxwell's laws. But these laws have been established many years before the discovery of superconductivity. The superconductive materials have a magnetic property very special : their magnetic susceptibility is equal to -1. This property implies that the superconductive materials are perfect magnetic shield. The fact that a volume can be hidden from a magnetic field is a new property no described by Maxwell's laws. The making of a magnetic monopole whereas it is forbidden by Maxwell's laws is the best demonstration.

I remain sceptical about the idea of magnetic flux applied to the electromagnetic sail. The concept of magnetic flux is derived from one of the electromagnetism equations: divergence B = 0 (1). This equation implies also the inexistence of magnetic monopole. However the articles that I cited in my first message describe the making of a magnetic monopole by the use of a magnetic shield. This fact induces me to believe that the concepts derived from the equation divergence B = 0 are not valuable when a magnetic shield is present.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_magnetism