I did some web searching for information on Dr. Gold and the abiotic theory of hydrocarbon creation. I noticed that most of the sites backing the abiotic theory were non-scientific. The best rebuttals to the abiogenic theory that I came up with were from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists at this web site:

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm

and Dr. John Clarke, a geologist and astrobiologist from Australia (his bio is at this link:

http://aca.mq.edu.au/People/jclarke.htm

I e-mailed Dr. Clark and received permission to post a rebuttal he posted in another forum to the theory of abundant abiotic oil:

The fact remains that the abiotic theory of petroleum genesis has zero credibility for economically interesting accumulations. 99.9999% of the world's liquid hydrocarbons are produced by maturation of organic matter derived from organisms. To deny this means you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.

1) The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.

2) The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).

3) The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).

3) The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and depositional environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, those indicating marine conditions only in marine sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only bacterial biomarkers).

4) Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).

5) The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory.

6) The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of biological fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything like the fractionation of light carbon that is seen in petroleum).

7) The location of petroleum reservoirs down the hydraulic gradient from the source rocks in many cases (those which are not are in areas where there is clear evidence of post migration tectonism).

8 ) The almost complete absence of significant petroleum occurrences in igneous and metamorphic rocks (the rare exceptions discussed below).

The evidence usually cited in favour of abiogenic petroleum can all be better explained by the biogenic hypothesis e.g.:

9) Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in igneous rocks (better explained by reaction with organic rich country rocks, with which the pyrobitumens can usually be tied).

10) Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in metamorphic rocks (better explained by metamorphism of residual hydrocarbons in the protolith).

11) The very rare occurrence of small hydrocarbon accumulations in igneous or metamorphic rocks (in every case these are adjacent to organic rich sedimentary rocks to which the hydrocarbons can be tied via biomarkers).

12) The presence of undoubted mantle derived gases (such as He and some CO2) in some natural gas (there is no reason why gas accumulations must be all from one source, given that some petroleum fields are of mixed provenance it is inevitable that some mantle gas contamination of biogenic hydrocarbons will occur under some circumstances).

13) The presence of traces of hydrocarbons in deep wells in crystalline rock (these can be formed by a range of processes, including metamorphic synthesis by the fischer-tropsch reaction, or from residual organic matter as in 10).

14) Traces of hydrocarbon gases in magma volatiles (in most cases magmas ascend through sedimentary succession, any organic matter present will be thermally cracked and some will be incorporated into the volatile phase, some fischer-tropsch synthesis can also occur).

15) Traces of hydrocarbon gases at mid ocean ridges (such traces are not surprising given that the upper mantle has been contaminated with biogenic organic matter through several billion years of subduction, the answer to 14 may be applicable also).

The geological evidence is utterly against the abiogenic postulate.

Cheers

Jon Clarke

Is it possible to archive Dr. Clarke's point by point reasoning as a reference somewhere on the site ?

That's a great idea. I'm sure Dr. Clarke would give his permission, in the name of science. Given how often the question of abiotic oil comes up here, having some kind of FAQ or boilerplate response would be very useful. Plus, it's really interesting in its own right, for people who have wondered how we know oil is organic.

We’re starting work on the FAQ and Encyclopedia right now in fact. Thanks Dv, for getting an OK from Dr. Clark. I’ll try to get that on one or both locations.

I also like mine:

"If you believe in abiotic energy sources, then Please explain the existence of coal"

This connection is similar to seeing chimpanzees and gorillas for the first time and then realizing the evolutionary ladder makes a bit of sense.

Matt,

What's your take on these two articles?

Thx,
Riddick

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

http://www.reformation.org/oil-monopoly.html

I think its a crackpot theory, but lets suppose for a moment that this is the case. So there are deep sources of oil down there someplace. So what? If it takes 2 barrels of oil to bring one barrel to the surface it won't work. In any case there will be plenty of oil left in the ground after we're done with it.

I agree. It's essentially saying that the Earth will continue to produce oil. Kind of a different spin on the perpetual motion concept.........and those statistics regarding the amount of energy in Alaska. I don't buy those figures either - especially now when every other oil company has admitted that they were way off on their oil estimates.

You know it could be possible. Hell, anything is possible, but I think the weak point in the whole abiotic argument is that even if oil is a renewable resource, what is the time frame for recharge. Don't forget that a 1000 years is like a geologic second and if it takes a 1000 years to recharge a resevoir of abiotic oil then for our purposes it is still a non-renewable resource. We are talking about hydrocarbons moving through mainly rock at a finite permeability. That is going to take alot of time to move a massive amount of hydrocarbons and time is not our friend at the present moment.

I think that Morgan Stanley analysis that Syncrude posted says it:



That's assuming there is such a thing, of course, which is questionable.

http://www.peakoil.com/gate.html?name=Forums&file=search&mode=results

Seach for "abiotic"

Already addressed. But I am glad to see some of our newer posters noticed the problems with this theory being the solution for peak oil.

I did some web searching for information on Dr. Gold and the abiotic theory of hydrocarbon creation. I noticed that most of the sites backing the abiotic theory were non-scientific. The best rebuttals to the abiogenic theory that I came up with were from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists at this web site:

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm

and Dr. John Clarke, a geologist and astrobiologist from Australia (his bio is at this link:

http://aca.mq.edu.au/People/jclarke.htm

I e-mailed Dr. Clark and received permission to post a rebuttal he posted in another forum to the theory of abundant abiotic oil:


=====================================

Aaron, could we put Dr. Clarke's response somewhere where it's easier to find? Searching for "abiotic" did not bring up my two previous posts of this information.

Williams is totally clueless about gas and water injection.
See for example:

http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/oilgas/eor/

If you do not reinject gas, the pressure will decline and the oil will stop flowing to the surface. You would then need to pump it out. That is what the "pump jack" in the illustration is doing, there is a long cable operating a pump at depth.

The reinjected gas can be produced after oil production has finished.