Avalio Pty Ltd. support and promote the Primordially Hydridic Earth (PHE) concept by Dr. V. Larin, having had emerged in the 1960s as a continuation of Dr. F. Hoyle’s research.
Natural Hydrogen: The Question Of Origin III
Part I – In the process of fundraising for our Natural Hydrogen Exploration project, we interact quite a lot with investment and commerce communities’ members. The comment about the subject of natural hydrogen prominence that we most often hear is:
“We don’t really care where this stuff is coming from. All we need is to see it on the surface in commercial quantities”.
As simple as this. (If it only was…)
To an average by-stander, this purely academical subject appears to be quite enigmatic – and this is perfectly normal: financial people are proficient with currencies and derivatives, and nobody expects them to be up-to-date with such confusing matters as nowadays’ geoscience concepts.
However, when it comes to the practical matters such as field exploration for natural hydrogen, the strategy in each individual case appears to be governed by the conceptual basis (if any). Everything from the research methods’ and drilling locations’ justification through to the cash-flow models and funding accruals, is tied up to this simple question: WHERE DOES H2 COME FROM?
As a result, a project success – or a lack hereof – is the function of the geoscience model selection.
Due to the number of reasons, serpentinization, ferrolysis, radiolysis and other processes in the Earth crust have become the most popular scenarios of natural hydrogen generation. Being on the theoretical side of things, this was harmless and did not cause any significant consequences. However, these days, with natural hydrogen exploration operations in full swing on all continents, this subject may become the source of disappointments for the involved participants.
Why? Well, there are several reasons for taking the abovementioned crustal (as we name it) models of hydrogen generation with a grain of salt – or two:
1. Serpentinization Chemistry. Appears that there are more than one version of chemical reactions describing serpentinization of minerals called olivines. The modern academia almost unanimously (one may wonder why…) sticks to the formulae of the process GENERATING hydrogen as a by-product. However, there is an alternative (yes) view asserting that hydrogen is the PRECURSOR (or feedstock, if you wish) reacting with olivines, producing serpentine:
2Mg2Si04 + Mg2Si2O6 + 4СО + 12Н2 → Mg6Si4O10(ОН)8 + 4СН4
(from Drits et al., 1983).
This version of the process was studied in depth by Hess (1933), Benson (1918), Jishi (1973); Moody (1976); Bowen and Tattle (1950), Coleman and Keith (1971), Wenner and Taylor (1973) etc. (This list BTW demonstrates the failure of the thesis that “all alternative geoscience models are rooted in Russia”).
Most importantly, the version of serpentinization process described in the above formula resolves the very important issue of rather small H2 quantities allegedly produced by a finite volume of rock, according to the “crustal H2 generation” proponents. (This subject will be covered in one of the next chapters, to follow soon).
Hydrogen is found in the mafic rocks’ serpentinization zones simply because this serpentinization process is PROMOTED by hydrogen degassing from the deeper geospheres, and excessive free gaseous hydrogen “left over” from this process emits to the surface where we detect it with gas sensors, GCs etc.
However, as it commonly happens with the science, this suggested alternative process, although being thoroughly researched, is not even discussed, once the “mainstream” model was “commonly accepted” and settled in.
- Hydrogen Generation Volumes and Timeframes.
2.1. Olivines Serpentinization. The latest (known to me) paper on the subject of shortcomings of crustal generation processes was published by A. Templeton et al. (2024) less than a year ago. The paper is mostly about the proposed stimulation scenarios aiming to generate (commercially) sufficient volumes of hydrogen beneath the surface, a.k.a. an “artificial reactor” down below.
(Now, apart from the list of petrophysical and chemical doubts we have about this process, the very idea of “helping” Mother Nature sounds a bit too far-fetched… One may say this process is similar to fracking – bad news: it is not, from the multiple aspects).
In the paper, it is asserted that “A simple technoeconomic analysis shows that the stimulation methods to be used must increase the rate of net hydrogen production at least 10,000-fold compared to the estimated natural rate to economically produce hydrogen from engineered water/rock reactions in the peridotite formations., i.e. by means of serpentinization and/or ferrolysis.
There is the FOUR orders of magnitude difference between what is expected and what the research outcome tells us. How very astonishing.
Summarizing, sounds like serpentinization or ferrolysis are NOT the way hydrogen could be expected to be produced in nature in commercial volumes.
2.2. Biotite Chloritization. According to Murray et al. (2020) , this process is similar to serpentinization (well, close enough for the purpose of this discussion). In this paper, please note the text on p. 13, quote: “Our simulations also provide insight on the time scales involved in the H2 generation processes occurring in the deep geothermal reservoir of Soultz-sous-Forêts. At conditions of 165°C and -245 mV, the fresh standard porphyritic granite produced 51.3 mol/m3 H2 in 147 years after the complete dissolution of the total amount of biotite and the precipitation of magnetite. The process duration is remarkably fast compared with the age of the granite, at 330 Myr…”
Please note the need for the very specific conditions for these reactions, which obviously makes their “operational window” extremely narrow. These conditions may be established and sustained for sufficient period in the lab – but in NATURE? We have serious doubts in this.
Summarizing the conclusions made by the authors of this paper, the structure aged 330 million years is supposed to keep producing hydrogen which had to be completely depleted after the first 147 years of this process.
I know this probably reads as pure theorizing but… SIX orders of magnitude between these two timeframes???
Additionally, once again, there is more than one way to express the process of biotite chloritization – similar to serpentinization (see Part I). Murray et al. describe it in a very sophisticated way, with compulsory presence of brines of certain salinity, at a certain temperature. We all know that the more complicated the scenario is, the more it is prompt to failure.
Meanwhile, a very simple and logic formulae was suggested by D. Pandit (2014) describing “the formation of chlorite and K-feldspar because of alteration of biotite” in a simple and rather elegant way – once again, with hydrogen PARTICIPATION in this process as FEEDSTOCK and, apparently, as a chemical reducing agent:
5Bio + 3An + 3SiO2(aq) + 4H2O + 6H+= 3Chl + 5Kf + 3Ca2+, and
10Bio + Kln + 7H2O + 10H+= 6Chl + 14SiO2(aq) + 10K+.
(For those of you who have an idea of how petrophysical properties change in the course of alteration processes: just imagine the “hydrogen reservoir” sealed by a granite sill which is being “chewed on” by hydrogen for a couple millions of years… ending up with no seal at all. Still wanna discuss hydrogen “trapped” in the “pressurized” pays?)
2.3. The paper published by P.B. Toft et al. (1990) represents a very comprehensive list of serpentinization reactions (see page 8 (144)). This list is quite long, therefore we refrain from bringing it here – just one very typical example:
30Fo(99%) + 44.6H20 = 15Lz + 0.2Mt + 14.4Br + 0.2H2
The most striking details here are:
(a) the tiny amounts of hydrogen (0.2 molecules) formed as a result of 30 molecules of Forsterite-type olivine serpentinization (1 mole H2 to 150 moles Fo ratio), and
(b) enormous amounts of water (223 moles of water to generate 1 mole of H2) needed for this reaction.
Question: Where all this water is supposed to come from?
Invite partners to watch the activities of Pacific Group Co., Ltd.
FanPage: https://www.facebook.com/Pacific-Group
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@PacificGroupCoLt
