Non Organic Formation of Oil & Natural Gas?

William · #1 (**permalink**) 14-October-2007, 05:01 AM

Did you every wonder why one small area of the planet, Saudi Arabia, has roughly 25% of the earth’s oil reserves, half of which is in only eight fields. (See wikipedia article below.)

The “Non Organic Theory of Oil Formation” or "abiogenic petroleum origin" is an interesting theory that originated in Russia and was revived by the astronomer Thomas Gold. The following is a short quote from a wikipedia article, that discusses the theory.

Quote:

The theory of abiogenic petroleum origin holds that natural petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to the formation of the Earth. The ubiquity of hydrocarbons in the solar system is taken as evidence that there may be a great deal more petroleum on Earth than commonly thought and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids which migrate upward from the mantle.

I have been following the development and discussion of the theory from an economic impact standpoint, a scientific standpoint, and from an energy reserves standpoint.

Reserves Standpoint
The Russian’s have drilled the deepest gas wells on the planet and have found “natural gas” at depths were organic methane is believed not to have formed. Following the Russian’s example, North Americans have also drilled and found natural gas at very great depths. It seems that there is significantly more "natural gas" available in the planet. (Remember that 70% of the planet's surface is covered with water.) I have heard some work that notes the earth's crust is different at high latitudes and that there may be great amounts of natural gas at those latitudes.

Commercial Standpoint
At the turn of the millennia there was a key meeting in Switzerland, noted in the magazine “The Economist” of large oil investors to discuss the Abiogenic theory’s implication on oil prices. Obviously, either the secret must still be in the bag or the theory is not correct, as oil prices have continued to climb.

Scientific Standpoint
From an astrophysics standpoint the abiogenic theory seems quite plausible. Obviously carbon and hydrogen are very plentiful, in the solar system. It would seem reasonable that the early earth could have had large amounts of hydrocarbons trapped in the earth’s surface.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Excerpt from this wikipedia article on Oil Reserves

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

Quote:

Saudi Arabia reports it has 262 gigabarrels of proven oil reserves (65 years of future production), around a quarter of proven, conventional world oil reserves. Although Saudi Arabia has around 80 oil and gas fields, more than half of its oil reserves are contained in only eight fields, and more than half its production comes from one field, the Ghawar field.

danscope · #2 (**permalink**) 14-October-2007, 05:49 AM

If it's true, they would want to maximize their profits as soon as possible..
ie high prices now.
I say develope alternatives and get off oil altogether. '
We'll see.
Dan

01101001 · #3 (**permalink**) 14-October-2007, 06:41 AM

See old topics:
Is oil really "fossil fuels"
Oil depletion

Thomas Gold and abiogenic oil (or abiogenesis of oil) (or petroleum) has come up briefly in a number of other threads, as well.

William · #4 (**permalink**) 14-October-2007, 02:03 PM

This article notes some of the basic observations that support the abiogenic theory of oil formation.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38645

Excerpt from the article:

Quote:

Another interesting fact is that every oil field throughout the world has outgassing helium. Helium is so often present in oil fields that helium detectors are used as oil-prospecting tools. Helium is an inert gas known to be a fundamental product of the radiological decay or uranium and thorium, identified in quantity at great depths below the surface of the earth, 200 and more miles below. It is not found in meaningful quantities in areas that are not producing methane, oil or natural gas. It is not a member of the dozen or so common elements associated with life. It is found throughout the solar system as a thoroughly inorganic product.

Even more intriguing is evidence that several oil reservoirs around the globe are refilling themselves, such as the Eugene Island reservoir – not from the sides, as would be expected from concurrent organic reservoirs, but from the bottom up.

Dr. Gold strongly believes that oil is a "renewable, primordial soup continually manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attached by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the dinosaurs."

Smaller oil companies and innovative teams are using this theory to justify deep oil drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, among other locations, with some success. Dr. Kenney is on record predicting that parts of Siberia contain a deep reservoir of oil equal to or exceeding that already discovered in the Middle East.

eburacum45 · #5 (**permalink**) 14-October-2007, 08:37 PM

Since Dr Gold passed away very few geologists believe that the abiogenic origin theory has much credibility. I'm not surprised that helium turns up in gas fields; it is thje second most common element in the universe, after all. In fact there is apparently some debate as to why there is so little helium on Earth, but I don't know the details to be honest.

Neverfly · #6 (**permalink**) 15-October-2007, 12:10 AM

Anyone think that the concentration of oil in the Middle East may be related to Pangea?

William · #7 (**permalink**) 15-October-2007, 02:49 AM

Quote:

In reply to eburacum45’s comment:
Since Dr Gold passed away very few geologists believe that the abiogenic origin theory has much credibility. I'm not surprised that helium turns up in gas fields; it is the second most common element in the universe, after all. In fact there is apparently some debate as to why there is so little helium on Earth, but I don't know the details to be honest.

Hello,

I believe (see the excerpt from Wikipedia below) that the abiogenic theory is accepted by Russia and Ukrainian geophysicists, it is not as you state the accepted view of western geophysicists however there are scientific arguments which supports that theory and there are some western geophysicists who continue to support it. The following is a brief summary of the data that support the theory.

Background
From a practical commercial standpoint some aspects of the abiogenic have been tacitly accepted based on where and at what depth oil and natural gas is searched for. (The abiogenic theory oil and natural gas, hypotheses that large deposits should be found at crust intersections that occur over porous rock. Say over the Saudi Ghawar field or along the intersection of continental crust and the ocean floor.

It should also be noted that from oil industry standpoint, a smaller reserve justifies a higher price, so there might not be industry support for a broad casted theory change. Regardless, the oil industry continues to discuss the theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Except from the Wikipedia article.

Acceptance

Quote:

Although this theory is supported by geologists in Russia and Ukraine, it has recently begun to receive attention in the West, where the biogenic petroleum theory is accepted by the vast majority of petroleum geologists. Kudryavtsev's work was continued by many Russian researchers — Petr N. Kropotkin, Vladimir B. Porfir'ev, Emmanuil B. Chekaliuk, Vladilen A. Krayushkin, Georgi E. Boyko, Georgi I. Voitov, Grygori N. Dolenko, Iona V. Greenberg, Nikolai S. Beskrovny, Victor F. Linetsky and many others.

Example of proposed abiogenic deposits

Quote:

Supergiant fields such as the Athabasca Tar Sands (Canada), Orinoco Heavy Oil Belt (Venezuela) and the Ghawar Field (Saudi Arabia) are good examples that have been interpreted as having been formed by abiogenic oils. This interpretation is based mostly on perceived deficiency in source rock volumes.

A) Lack of Source Argument

Quote:

Russian geologist Nikolai Alexandrovitch Kudryavtsev was the first to propose the modern abiotic theory of petroleum in 1951. He analyzed the geology of the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta, Canada and concluded that no "source rocks" could form the enormous volume of hydrocarbons (estimated today 1.7 trillions barrels), and that therefore the most plausible explanation is abiotic deep petroleum. However, humic coals have been proposed for the source rocks by Stanton (2005)

B) Trace Metal Argument

Quote:

Nickel (Ni), vanadium (V), lead (Pb), arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg) and others metals frequently occur in oils. Some heavy crude oils, such as Venezuelan heavy crude have up to 45% vanadium pentoxide content in their ash, high enough that it is a commercial source for vanadium. These metals are common in Earth's mantle, thus their compounds in oils are often called as abiomarkers.

Analysis of 22 trace elements in 77 oils correlate significantly better with chondrite, serpentinized fertile mantle peridotite, and the primitive mantle than with oceanic or continental crust, and shows no correlation with seawater. [12]

C) Reduced carbon argument

Quote:

Petroleum is composed mainly of n-alkanes. Sir Robert Robinson studied the chemical makeup of natural petroleum oils in great detail, and concluded that they were mostly far too hydrogen-rich to be a likely product of the decay of plant debris.[13] However, several processes which generate hydrogen could supply kerogen hydrogenation which is compatible with conventional petroleum generation theories.[26]

Olefins, the unsaturated hydrocarbons, would have been expected to predominate by far in any material that was derived in that way. He also wrote: "Petroleum ... [seems to be] a primordial hydrocarbon mixture into which bio-products have been added."

The presence of low-oxygen and hydroxyl-poor hydrocarbons in natural living media is supported by the presence of natural waxes (n=30+), oils (n=20+) and lipids in both plant matter and animal matter, for instance fats in phytoplankton, zooplankton and so on. These oils and waxes, however, occur in quantities too small to significantly affect the overall hydrogen/carbon ratio of biological materials.

Ronald Brak · #8 (**permalink**) 15-October-2007, 04:10 AM

As I understand it Saudi Arabia has lots of oil because of rock formations that trap oil. Helium is also trapped in the same rock formations, but due to its small molecular size some is able to leak up to the surface and be detected in ground samples. The same goes for argon. I don't see why refill supports an abiotic origin as organic oil could be moving through porous rock, and one would have to be sure that real refil is occuring and that increased reserves are not an illusion caused by better extraction technologies.

If you analyze a fresh igneous (volcanic) rock you will find some carbon in it, but it isn't much. Generally much less than in sedimentary rock and we can be sure the carbon in sedimentary rock came form organic sources. Could some natural gas be abiotic in origin? Sure. Could some oil be abiotic in origin? Well I would guess that it would be unlikely to form so many long molecules if it were abiotic due to high temperatures deep in the crust, but I suppose some of it could have been processed int longer molecules by bacteria. But from what I know at the moment I would guess that most oil is organic.

eburacum45 · #9 (**permalink**) 15-October-2007, 06:56 AM

Jon Clarke gave some good references on this subject in this link; unfortunately none of those are on-line.
Oil depletion
As he says, the material available on-line is a poor guide; against-the-mainstream geologists are more likely to promote their ideas on the web, so are dispropotionately represented there.
Jon also gives a good summary of the arguments here
Oil depletion
as he says at the end;

Quote:

The geological evidence is utterly against the abiogenic postulate.

SkepticJ · #10 (**permalink**) 17-October-2007, 09:12 PM

I'm pretty sure oil can't form without carbon, so it has an organic origin.

transreality · #11 (**permalink**) 18-October-2007, 12:06 AM

Oil is found intimately associated with its progenitor kerogen, which is is just a compressed mass of biological materials. From this kerogen the spores and pollen from the orignal deposition environement are routinely extracted, characterised and dated. The huge gas fields in the middle east have a silurian source. The largest oil fields date from the cretaceous. The geomorphology of the area means that it was subject to geologically frequent inundation. This created carbonate sheets that acted to seal in the underlying biologically rich sediments, leading to high preservation. It is probably changing economic measures of reserves resulting from exploration and developing extraction techniques that is leading to any increase in known reserves.

jlhredshift · #12 (**permalink**) 18-October-2007, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transreality

Oil is found intimately associated with its progenitor kerogen, which is is just a compressed mass of biological materials. From this kerogen the spores and pollen from the orignal deposition environement are routinely extracted, characterised and dated. The huge gas fields in the middle east have a silurian source. The largest oil fields date from the cretaceous. The geomorphology of the area means that it was subject to geologically frequent inundation. This created carbonate sheets that acted to seal in the underlying biologically rich sediments, leading to high preservation. It is probably changing economic measures of reserves resulting from exploration and developing extraction techniques that is leading to any increase in known reserves.

Silurian gas fields, I assume you mean natural gas, and that means marine deposits. There has been a lot of research and discussion in reference to anoxic conditions due to lack of mixing in the deep ocean forming large amounts of methane being trapped at the bottom of the stratified oceans. The Silurian aspect of this intrigues me. Do you have more information?

transreality · #13 (**permalink**) 18-October-2007, 05:12 AM

The sequence is dated by graptolites which are communal algae, and the source rock is an organic rich black shale. The graptolites are often pyrtised which suggest anoxic burial. Possibly a near shore lagoonal setting that has been periodically washed over and buried.

The gas only remains after the thermal maturity from deep burial has driven off the oil. These are old source rocks, as they go.

jlhredshift · #14 (**permalink**) 18-October-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transreality

The sequence is dated by graptolites which are communal algae, and the source rock is an organic rich black shale. The graptolites are often pyrtised which suggest anoxic burial. Possibly a near shore lagoonal setting that has been periodically washed over and buried.

The gas only remains after the thermal maturity from deep burial has driven off the oil. These are old source rocks, as they go.

I am a little uncomfortable with anoxic burial "near shore". Any wind would provide a mixing mechanism for O₂.

jlhredshift · #15 (**permalink**) 18-October-2007, 04:35 PM

It just dawned on me from reading another thread, how did Titan get its methane?

jlhredshift · #16 (**permalink**) 18-October-2007, 07:58 PM

So, toanswer William's question:

oil, coal =biogenic

natural gas =?????????????? biogenic and abiogenic

What if the (from Wiki)

Quote:

The Farallon Plate was an ancient, wholly oceanic plate, which began subducting under the west coast of the North American Plate— then located in modern Utah— as Pangaea broke apart during the Jurassic period. Over time the central part of the Farallon Plate completely subducted under the southwestern part of the North American Plate. The remains of the Farallon Plate are the Juan de Fuca Plate subducting under the northern part of the North American Plate, the Cocos Plate subducting under Central America and the Nazca Plate subducting under the South American Plate.

It is thought that much of the plate initially went under North America (particularly the western United States and southwest Canada) at a very shallow angle, creating much of the mountainous terrain in the area (particularly the American Rocky Mountains). A large fragment of the subducted plate is believed to presently be in the mantle under eastern North America.

contained (from Wiki)

Quote:

Methane clathrate, also called methane hydrate, is a form of water ice that contains a large amount of methane within its crystal structure. Extremely large deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of the Earth.

How deep would the Farallon plate be under, say, Utah?

korjik · #17 (**permalink**) 18-October-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlhredshift

I am a little uncomfortable with anoxic burial "near shore". Any wind would provide a mixing mechanism for O₂.

through a few meters of mud?

The assumptions on getting an anoxic burial require that the mixing mechanisms not apply. Things like a near shore swamp with a barrier island chain that blocks all but the largest disruptions.

You would end up with a layer of organics, that were then buried by a layer of debris from a large storm, then a layer of organics, and so on.

korjik · #18 (**permalink**) 18-October-2007, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlhredshift

It just dawned on me from reading another thread, how did Titan get its methane?

in its formation. The three most common non single element compounds in the universe are probably methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and water (OH2). The inner planets lost the CH4 and CH3 to evaporation from the sun, but Titan would have been far enough out to keep its methane.

jlhredshift · #19 (**permalink**) 18-October-2007, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by korjik

through a few meters of mud?

The assumptions on getting an anoxic burial require that the mixing mechanisms not apply. Things like a near shore swamp with a barrier island chain that blocks all but the largest disruptions.

You would end up with a layer of organics, that were then buried by a layer of debris from a large storm, then a layer of organics, and so on.

I agree as to the swamp situation, but graptolites were pelagic and I think their burial would be deep marine.

Minor nitpick: ammonia is NH₃

Byrd · #20 (**permalink**) 18-October-2007, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlhredshift

It just dawned on me from reading another thread, how did Titan get its methane?

I'd also point out that the methane there is in the atmosphere and not underground. Hints at a different mechanism.

transreality · #21 (**permalink**) 19-October-2007, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlhredshift

I agree as to the swamp situation, but graptolites were pelagic and I think their burial would be deep marine.

It looks like the graptolitic shales may have been almost global events. Graptolites thrive on the shallow continental shelf. Post-ordovician deglaciation resulted in fresh water covering the shallow waters and in long-lasting anoxia, (10,000 yrs +).

In the Ordovician shallow inland seas and wide shallow continental shelves were apparently more extensive than currently.

William · #22 (**permalink**) 20-October-2007, 12:55 AM

This long titled paper is interesting. The authors assert that chemical thermal dynamic analysis can be used to determine whether a reaction will or will not occur, at a specific temperature and pressure. They assert that using chemical thermal dynamic analysis, that it can be shown that long chain carbon molecules will not spontaneously be formed, except at great pressures (at depths greater than 100 km). Then they preform an experiment that produces long chain hydrocarbons using a diamond anvil that can recreate the pressure at great depths.

The following are excerpts from this paper.

The evolution of multi-component systems at high pressures: VI. The thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen–carbon system: The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum, By Kenney, Kutcherov, Bendeliani, and Alekseev

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/17/10976

Quote:

Natural petroleum is a hydrogen–carbon (H–C) system, in distinctly nonequilibrium states, composed of mixtures of highly reduced hydrocarbon molecules, all of very high chemical potential and most in the liquid phase. As such, the phenomenon of the terrestrial existence of natural petroleum in the near-surface crust of the Earth has presented several challenges, most of which have remained unresolved until recently. The primary scientific problem of petroleum has been the existence and genesis of the individual hydrocarbon molecules themselves: how, and under what thermodynamic conditions, can such highly reduced molecules of high chemical potential evolve?

Quote:

The theoretical analyses establish that the normal alkanes, the homologous hydrocarbon group of lowest chemical potential, evolve only at pressures greater than approx. 30 kbar, excepting only the lightest, methane. The pressure of 30 kbar corresponds to depths of approx.100 km. For experimental verification of the predictions of the theoretical analysis, a special high-pressure apparatus has been designed that permits investigations at pressures to 50 kbar and temperatures to 1,500°C and also allows rapid cooling while maintaining high pressures. The high-pressure genesis of petroleum hydrocarbons has been demonstrated using only the reagents solid iron oxide, FeO, and marble, CaCO3, 99.9% pure and wet with triple distilled water.

Quote:

The expression in the second line of Eq. 2 states further that for any circumstance for which the Affinity does not vanish, there exists a generalized thermodynamic force that drives the system toward equilibrium. The constraints of this expression assure that an apple, having disconnected from its bough, does not fall, say, half way to the ground and there stop (a phenomenon not prohibited by the first law) but must continue to fall until the ground. These constraints force a chemically reactive system to evolve always toward the state of lowest thermodynamic Affinity.

These constraints force a chemically reactive system to evolve always toward the state of lowest thermodynamic Affinity. Thus, the evolution of a chemically reactive, multicomponent system may be determined at any temperature, pressure, or composition whenever the chemical potentials of its components are known. To ascertain the thermodynamic regime of the spontaneous evolution of hydrocarbons, their chemical potentials must be determined.

William · #23 (**permalink**) 20-October-2007, 01:05 AM

This real is an interesting paper. The analysis seems to be fairly straight forward. Are the conclusions also straightforward?

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/17/10976

Quote:

The scientific problem of the genesis of hydrocarbons of natural petroleum, and consequentially of the origin of natural petroleum deposits, regrettably has been one too much neglected by competent physicists and chemists; the subject has been obscured by diverse, unscientific hypotheses, typically connected with the rococo hypothesis (1) that highly reduced hydrocarbon molecules of high chemical potentials might somehow evolve from highly oxidized biotic molecules of low chemical potential. The scientific problem of the spontaneous evolution of the hydrocarbon molecules comprising natural petroleum is one of chemical thermodynamic-stability theory. This problem does not involve the properties of rocks where petroleum might be found or of microorganisms observed in crude oil.

This paper is organized into five parts.

The first section reviews briefly the formalism of modern thermodynamic-stability theory, the theoretical framework for the analysis of the genesis of hydrocarbons and the H–C system, as similarly for any system.

The second section examines, applying the constraints of thermodynamics, the notion that hydrocarbons might evolve spontaneously from biological molecules. Here are described the spectra of chemical potentials of hydrocarbon molecules, particularly the naturally occurring ones present in petroleum. Interpretation of the significance of the relative differences between the chemical potentials of the hydrocarbon system and those of biological molecules, applying the dictates of thermodynamic-stability theory, disposes of any hypothesis of an origin for hydrocarbon molecules from biological matter, excepting only the lightest, methane.

In the third section is described a first-principles, statistical mechanical formalism, developed from an extended representation of scaled particle theory (SPT) appropriate for mixtures of aspherical hard-body molecules combined with a mean-field representation of the long-range, attractive component of the intermolecular potential.

In the fourth section, the thermodynamic Affinity developed using this formalism establishes that the hydrocarbon molecules peculiar to natural petroleum are high-pressure polymorphs of the H–C system, similarly as diamond and lonsdaleite are to graphite for the elemental carbon system, and evolve only in thermodynamic regimes of pressures greater than 25–50 kbar (1kbar approx. 100 MPa).

The fifth section reports the experimental results obtained using equipment specially designed to test the predictions of the previous sections. Application of pressures to 50 kbar and temperatures to 1,500°C upon solid (and obviously abiotic) CaCO3 and FeO wetwith triple-distilled water, all in the absence of any initial hydrocarbon or biotic molecules, evolves the suite of petroleum fluids: methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, hexane, branched isomers of those compounds, and the lightest

William · #24 (**permalink**) 20-October-2007, 05:45 AM

The following is an excerpt from Thomas Gold’s book the Deep Hot Biosphere which that outlines some of the observations he believes supports an abiogenic origin (non-biological, primeval origin), for petroleum and natural gas.

Comments:
Some authors claim that the Russians have successfully been able to find petroleum and natural gas using the abiogenic theory, were the hydrocarbons found were at much greater depths and in regions were petroleum would not be expected based on the traditional organic based theory of oil formation.

Quote:

(1) Petroleum and methane are found frequently in geographic patterns of long lines or arcs, which are related more to deep-seated large-scale structural features of the crust, than to the smaller scale patchwork of the sedimentary deposits.

(2) Hydrocarbon-rich areas tend to be hydrocarbon-rich at many different levels, corresponding to quite different geological epochs, and extending down to the crystalline basement that underlies the sediment. An invasion of an area by hydrocarbon fluids from below could better account for this than the chance of successive deposition.

(3) Some petroleum from deeper and hotter levels almost completely lack the biological evidence. Optical activity and the odd-even carbon number effect are sometimes totally absent, and it would be difficult to suppose that such a thorough destruction of the biological molecules had occurred as would be required to account for this, yet leaving the bulk substance quite similar to other crude oils.

(4) Methane is found in many locations where a biogenic origin is improbable or where biological deposits seem inadequate: in great ocean rifts in the absence of any substantial sediments; in fissures in igneous and metamorphic rocks, even at great depth; in active volcanic regions, even where there is a minimum of sediments; and there are massive amounts of methane hydrates (methane-water ice combinations) in permafrost and ocean deposits, where it is doubtful that an adequate quantity and distribution of biological source material is present.

(5) The hydrocarbon deposits of a large area often show common chemical or isotopic features, quite independent of the varied composition or the geological ages of the formations in which they are found. Such chemical signatures may be seen in the abundance ratios of some minor constituents such as traces of certain metals that are carried in petroleum; or a common tendency may be seen in the ratio of isotopes of some elements, or in the abundance ratio of some of the different molecules that make up petroleum. Thus a chemical analysis of a sample of petroleum could often allow the general area of its origin to be identified, even though quite different formations in that area may be producing petroleum. For example a crude oil from anywhere in the Middle East can be distinguished from an oil originating in any part of South America, or from the oils of West Africa; almost any of the oils from California can be distinguished from that of other regions by the carbon isotope ratio.

korjik · #25 (**permalink**) 20-October-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlhredshift

Minor nitpick: ammonia is NH₃

duuuuh

fixed

William · #26 (**permalink**) 21-October-2007, 05:15 PM

In reply to eburcacum

http://www.bautforum.com/members/eburacum45.html

In the above bautforum comment, ebucacum quoted a mysterious “Jon Clarke” who states that “The geological evidence is utterly against the abiogenic postulate.”

This Jon Clarke is also quoted in this mysterious blog entitled “Peak Oil”. Is it possible this “Jon Clarke” has an agenda?

http://www.peakoil.com/contentid-25.html

ecbrucam, It should be noted that there are strong commercial reasons, for some to ignore or misconstrue the technical data, that supports the abiogenic postulate.

Quote:

ecbrucam stated: "Jon Clarke gave some good references on this subject in this link; unfortunately none of those are on-line. Oil depletion As he says, the material available on-line is a poor guide; against-the-mainstream geologists are more likely to promote their ideas on the web, so are disproportionately represented there."

Any comments concerning this?

Quote:

Robert O. Russell, a wellsite geologist at the first well in North America (at Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada) drilled into crystalline basement granitic shield rocks for the express purpose of commercial hydrocarbon exploration, has pointed out that there are more than 400 wells and fields worldwide, both off-shore and on-shore that produce or have recently produced oil from igneous rocks (7). This fact alone indicates that many aspects relating to the origin of petroleum need to be revised. Thomas Gold, a distinguished proponent of the non-organic theory, has expanded the application of the non-organic theory to all hydrocarbons, including coal.

(7) Russell, R. O., Oil Gas J., 1995, p. 34

William · #27 (**permalink**) 22-October-2007, 03:43 AM

Vietnam largest oil field produces 280,000 bpd from non-sedimentary region?

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2005/02feb/vietnam.cfm

Quote:

Bach Ho (White Tiger), Vietnam's largest oilfield, produces almost 280,000 barrels of oil per day from granitoid basement.

Evidence of refilling reservoirs, in the Mideast and US Gulf Coast?

http://www.offshore-mag.com/display_...e-oil-forever/

Comment: 8 oil fields in the Saudi Arabia have roughly 12% of the total world oil reserves. What is there such a concentration of oil reserves in one place?

Quote:

MIDDLE EAST GEOLOGY Why the Middle East fields may produce oil forever

Reservoirs recharging from below; reserves climbing despite long production history and few new discoveries, Robert F. Mahfoud & James N. Beck McNeese State University (US)

The topography of the Middle East, as it exists today, is the result of a geodynamic system reflected in the creation of subduction zones in Oman, along the Persian/Arabian Gulf area, along the Syrian-Turkish borders, and along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea.

This system is also reflected in rift creation leading to the opening of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Suez, the Gulf of Aqaba, northward to southern Turkey, and between Syria and Jordan. The subduction and rifting are caused by the counterclockwise movements of the Arabian plate from Miocene to Recent, as evidenced by recent earthquakes.

The location and orientation of hydrocarbon fields appear to be controlled by and related to subduction and rifting activities. The formation of hydrocarbons are due to the chemical processes which take place, even today, within the subduction/rift zones, and deep into the basement.

http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm

Quote:

“Oil Fields Are Refilling... Naturally - Sometimes Rapidly” By Robert Cooke
Staff Writer - Newsday.com

Deep underwater, and deeper underground, scientists see surprising hints that gas and oil deposits can be replenished, filling up again, sometimes rapidly.

Although it sounds too good to be true, increasing evidence from the Gulf of Mexico suggests that some old oil fields are being refilled by petroleum surging up from deep below, scientists report. That may mean that current estimates of oil and gas abundance are far too low.

Recent measurements in a major oil field show "that the fluids were changing over time; that very light oil and gas were being injected from below, even as the producing [oil pumping] was going on," said chemical oceanographer Mahlon "Chuck" Kennicutt. "They are refilling as we speak. But whether this is a worldwide phenomenon, we don't know."

Also not known, Kennicutt said, is whether the injection of new oil from deeper strata is of any economic significance, whether there will be enough to be exploitable. The discovery was unexpected, and it is still "somewhat controversial" within the oil industry.

Kennicutt, a faculty member at Texas A&M University, said it is now clear that gas and oil are coming into the known reservoirs very rapidly in terms of geologic time. The inflow of new gas, and some oil, has been detectable in as little as three to 10 years. In the past, it was not suspected that oil fields can refill because it was assumed the oil formed in place, or nearby, rather

In addition to the drilling effort and the inspection of seeps, Whelan and her colleagues reported that three-dimensional seismic profiles of the underground reservoirs commonly show giant gas plumes coming from depth and disrupting sediments all the way to the surface.

This also shows that in an area west of the South Eugene Island area, a giant gas plume originates from beneath salt about 15,000 feet down and then disrupts the sediment layers all the way to the surface. The surface expression of this plume is very large -- about 1,500 feet in diameter. One surprise, Whelan said, was that the gas plume seems to exist outside of faults, the ground fractures, which at present are the main targets of oil exploration.

jlhredshift · #28 (**permalink**) 22-October-2007, 03:42 PM

This quote from Williams' post #23,

Quote:

The second section examines, applying the constraints of thermodynamics, the notion that hydrocarbons might evolve spontaneously from biological molecules. Here are described the spectra of chemical potentials of hydrocarbon molecules, particularly the naturally occurring ones present in petroleum. Interpretation of the significance of the relative differences between the chemical potentials of the hydrocarbon system and those of biological molecules, applying the dictates of thermodynamic-stability theory, disposes of any hypothesis of an origin for hydrocarbon molecules from biological matter, excepting only the lightest, methane.

I have a problem with.

The ubiquitousness of methane in the universe indicates that it is produced abiotically and bacteria certainly cast it off as a waste product (biotically). As to "the notion that hydrocarbons might evolve spontaneously from biological molecules" implies that if there were no other impacting circumstances, that no oil would be formed. I think that is obvious. But, there are always geologic situations involved where oil is found. Plate subduction carries sediments and clathrates under other plates with their own basement rocks that may have to be drilled through to get to the oil or methane of the subducted plate. The subduction will also most likely subject the materials to heat and pressure providing the energy for transforming the molecules and moving them from place to place.

William · #29 (**permalink**) 23-October-2007, 04:20 AM

Quote:

In reply to lhredshift:
I have a problem with.

The ubiquitousness of methane in the universe indicates that it is produced abiotically and bacteria certainly cast it off as a waste product (biotically). As to "the notion that hydrocarbons might evolve spontaneously from biological molecules" implies that if there were no other impacting circumstances, that no oil would be formed. I think that is obvious. But, there are always geologic situations involved where oil is found. Plate subduction carries sediments and clathrates under other plates with their own basement rocks that may have to be drilled through to get to the oil or methane of the subducted plate. The subduction will also most likely subject the materials to heat and pressure providing the energy for transforming the molecules and moving them from place to place.

I am not sure I understand what your problem is with the non-organic theory of oil formation.

The evidence appears to be overwhelmingly in favour of that hypothesis.

For example see next comment.

William · #30 (**permalink**) 23-October-2007, 04:35 AM

This article appears to provide a scientific dismissal of "the petroleum was created from ancient marine life by pressure hypothesis".

Anyone want to defend the biological hypothesis?

"Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum". by J. F. Kenney et al.

http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm

Quote:

With recognition that the laws of thermodynamics prohibit spontaneous evolution of liquid hydrocarbons in the regime of temperature and pressure characteristic of the crust of the Earth, one should not expect there to exist legitimate scientific evidence that might suggest that such could occur. Indeed, and correctly, there exists no such evidence.

Nonetheless, and surprisingly, there continue to be often promulgated diverse claims purporting to constitute “evidence” that natural petroleum somehow evolves (miraculously) from biological matter. In this short article, such claims are briefly subjected to scientific scrutiny, demonstrated to be without merit, and dismissed.

The claims which purport to argue for some connection between natural petroleum and biological matter fall into roughly two classes: the “look-like/come-from” claims; and the similar(recondite)-properties/come-from” claims.

Quote:

The “look-like/come-from” claims apply a line of unreason exactly as designated: Such argue that, because certain molecules found in natural petroleum “look like” certain other molecules found in biological systems, then the former must “come-from” the latter. Such notion is, of course, equivalent to asserting that elephant tusks evolve because those animals must eat piano keys.

In some instances, the “look-like/come-from” claims assert that certain molecules found in natural petroleum actually are biological molecules, and evolve only in biological systems. These molecules have often been given the spurious name “biomarkers.”

The scientific correction must be stated unequivocally: There have never been observed any specifically biological molecules in natural petroleum, except as contaminants. Petroleum is an excellent solvent for carbon compounds; and, in the sedimentary strata from which petroleum is often produced, natural petroleum takes into solution much carbon material, including biological detritus. However, such contaminants are unrelated to the petroleum solvent.

The claims about “biomarkers” have been thoroughly discredited by observations of those molecules in the interiors of ancient, abiotic meteorites, and also in many cases by laboratory synthesis under imposed conditions mimicking the natural environment. In the discussion below, the claims put forth about porphyrin and isoprenoid molecules are addressed particularly, because many “look-like/come-from” claims have been put forth for those compounds.

Quote:

The “similar(recondite)-properties/come-from” claims involve diverse, odd phenomena with which persons not working directly in a scientific profession would be unfamiliar. These include the “odd-even abundance imbalance” claims, the “carbon isotope” claims, and the “optical-activity” claims. The first, the “odd-even abundance imbalance” claims, are demonstrated to be utterly unrelated to any biological property. The second, “carbon isotope” claims, are shown to depend upon measurement of an obscure property of carbon fluids which cannot reliably be considered a measure of origin. The third, the “optical-activity” claims, deserve particular note; for the observations of optical activity in natural petroleum have been trumpeted loudly for years as a “proof” of some “biological origin” of petroleum. Those claims have been thoroughly discredited decades ago by observation of optical activity in the petroleum material extracted from the interiors of carbonaceous meteorites. More significantly, recent analysis, which has resolved the previously-outstanding problem of the genesis of optical activity in abiotic fluids, has established that the phenomenon of optical activity is an inevitable thermodynamic consequence of the phase stability of multicomponent fluids at high pressures. Thereby, the observation of optical activity in natural petroleum is entirely consistent with the results of the thermodynamic analysis of the stability of the hydrogen-carbon [H-C] system, which establish that hydrocarbon molecules heavier than methane, and particularly liquid hydrocarbons, evolve spontaneously only at high pressures, comparable to those necessary for diamond formation.

There are two subjects which are particularly relevant for destroying the diverse, spurious claims concerning a putative connection of petroleum and biological matter: the investigations of the carbon material from carbonaceous meteorites; and the reaction products of the Fischer-Tropsch process. Because of their importance, a brief discussion of both is in order.

Quote:

The reaction products of the Fischer-Tropsch process are only metastable in the thermodynamic conditions of their synthesis; at pressures of approximately only 150 bar and 700 K, the destruction of liquid hydrocarbons is inevitable. During the industrial Fischer-Tropsch process, the reaction products are promptly cooled and moved to conditions of lower pressure. The natural environment does not mimic the highly-controlled, and highly-regulated, industrial, Fischer-Tropsch process. The Fischer-Tropsch process cannot be considered for the generation of natural petroleum.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Red Rain: Extraterrestrial Microbes?	TheAtomium	Science and Technology	80	09-September-2007 07:37 AM
The Reciprocal System of Physical Theory	Excal	Against the Mainstream	77	15-March-2007 10:35 PM
The Elemental Energy Wave/Particle; definitely Against the Mainstream	Bogie	Against the Mainstream	358	30-January-2007 01:05 AM
Distant galaxies with suppressed star formation	Blob	Astronomy	0	22-September-2006 01:23 AM
New Technique for Finding Organic Molecules in Meteorites	Fraser	Universe Today Story Comments	0	05-May-2006 08:25 PM