Non Organic Formation of Oil & Natural Gas?

William · #1 (**permalink**) 14-October-2007, 04:01 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, 04:49 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, 05:41 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, 01:03 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, 07:37 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**) 14-October-2007, 11:10 PM

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

William · #7 (**permalink**) 15-October-2007, 01:49 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, 03:10 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, 05:56 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, 08:12 PM

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

transreality · #11 (**permalink**) 17-October-2007, 11:06 PM

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, 02:19 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, 04:12 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, 01:03 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, 03:35 PM

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

jlhredshift · #16 (**permalink**) 18-October-2007, 06:58 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, 08:07 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, 08:10 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, 08:16 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