THE Abiotic Oil Thread pt 2 (merged)

[rockdoc123]

Oxygen can be absorbed as CO2 in rocks like olivine ((Mg,Fe)2SiO4). That's one of the most common reactions in the world.

Several problems with this. Firstly there are a number of magnesite deposits where it has been demonstrated that the source of carbon is biogenic.

M. Orion Jedrysek 1, 2 Stanislaw Halas 1, 1997, The origin of magnesite deposits from the Polish Foresudetic Block ophiolites: preliminary δ13C and δ18O investigations, Terra Nova, Vol 2, issue 2, pages 154 – 159

As well this reaciton would form magnesite, silica and water. In this case you should expect close correspondence between ultramafic intrusive rocks, magnesite deposits and hydrocarbon accumulations. On the contrary there is virtually no correlation of ultramafics, magnesite with hydrocarbon deposits.

Again the main problem is you can't form complex hydrocarbons from methane as it requires chemical bonds to be created that require enormous amounts of energy. If you believe their claim that they form some ethane and butane you are still left with two problems...the enormous volumes of hexane, heptane etc in the crust globally and the fact you would have to hold these species in disequilibrium throughout their rise from the deep crust through to the shallow crust.

Notwithstanding all of that I am not aware of a liquid hydrocarbon that hasn't been matched based on carbon fingerprints to a source rock in hydrodynamic continuity with it.

[Gerben]

Several problems with this. Firstly there are a number of magnesite deposits where it has been demonstrated that the source of carbon is biogenic.
[...]

The arguments you give both say: some oil is biogenic. That doesn't prove that (a significant portion of) oil can't be abiotic.

[SeaGypsy]

One of the more tech oriented posters here could do a better job than me of explaining this but in laymans terms I will put it this way:
There is no random abiotic equivalent to life forms filling the niche of hydrocarbons in nature. No reason in nature why hydrogen and carbon would be combined outside of or independent to life. All plants from algae to the giant redwoods form hydrocarbons. All animals from microbes to humans use plant formed hydrocarbons as energy stores and lubricants. Rocks have no need of hydrocarbons and no ability to create them. Hydrocarbons, along with water and oxygen are essential to all forms of life. The mineral universe is quite capable of existing without hydrocarbons. Life is incapable of existing without the ability to build and use hydrocarbons; they are fundamentally part of the life cycle.

[Keith_McClary]

Current oil consumption is 30 billion barrels/year.

According to my calculations, if the Earth has been abiotically oozing oil at this rate since the dinosaurs, the world would be half a mile deep in oil.

This would be 50 times the mass of the atmosphere, so it could not be consumed by critters without using up all the oxygen.

30 billion barrels = 5 km3
Area of earth = 5 x 108 km 2
Therefore, depth of oil = 10 -8 km / year

[EnergyUnlimited]

One of the more tech oriented posters here could do a better job than me of explaining this but in laymans terms I will put it this way:
There is no random abiotic equivalent to life forms filling the niche of hydrocarbons in nature. No reason in nature why hydrogen and carbon would be combined outside of or independent to life. All plants from algae to the giant redwoods form hydrocarbons. All animals from microbes to humans use plant formed hydrocarbons as energy stores and lubricants. Rocks have no need of hydrocarbons and no ability to create them. Hydrocarbons, along with water and oxygen are essential to all forms of life. The mineral universe is quite capable of existing without hydrocarbons. Life is incapable of existing without the ability to build and use hydrocarbons; they are fundamentally part of the life cycle.

I would not got so far with these assertions.
Otherwise you have to accept that there is a life on Titan and that is very unlikely to be true.

I do not have a problem with tiny percentage of oil (and even larger amounts of NG) being abiotic, but these are irrelevent amounts with no effect on overall oil reserves.
And I agree with Rockdoc - Vietnamese deposits are certainly of biotic origin.

[rockdoc123]

The arguments you give both say: some oil is biogenic. That doesn't prove that (a significant portion of) oil can't be abiotic.

what I actually said was that I am not aware of any oil deposit that has not been clearly linked to a organic shale/carbonate source rock. This is done through comparison of geochemical parameters of both the oil and the source rock.

Since I have been working in this industry since the mid seventies I suspect I have been exposed to most oil deposits in some fashion or another. There is no deposit that cannot be explained (or has not been explained) as having a biogenic origin. This isn't questionable science....oil and source rock geochemistry have been an established realm of research since the fifties.

[Geologist]

Yes....I said the same earlier in this long and repetitive thread. The various Laws of Thermodynamics seem to be ignored by all of the folks who propose abiotic oil. I've also wondered how the heck you maintain oil in a completely unstable phase as it migrates up into the shallow crust (quick answer is you can't).

Also that paper points to White Tiger as an example. I've worked on the Vietnamese basement plays ...Bach Ho, Rang Dong, etc. The oil has been typed to a Miocene source rock unequivocally. Not sure how many times that has to be repeated as well.

It's enough and simple keep in mind. See below.

"The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time."
Fred Hoyle, 1982

[EnergyUnlimited]

It's enough and simple keep in mind. See below.

"The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time."
Fred Hoyle, 1982

Fred Hoyle was a wise man but nevertheless plenty of his ideas were plain stupid.
Steady State Universe model completely discredited base on current observations or fiddling with anthropic principles to justify his own (and ours) existence as well as his statement quoted above are good evidence of that.

There is nothing strange here.
I may give you another example of famous and silly statement from a very wise man:

"an atomic nuclei is like a very rich man who never spend" - Albert Einstein.

He said it few years before Ms Meitner discovered uranium fission.

[Geologist]

Also coal is abiogenic as proposed by Dr. Thomas Gold. Coal has mercury, nickel, vanadium, lead and other metals, similar to oil. Mercury is not associated to biological processes but mercury occur in some oils and frequently in natural gases.

OMFG!

Cosmological models still remain not understood

However is is well understood that Hoyle's steady state scenario is a nonsense.

Oil formation from fossils is a impossibility according 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

You have rather restricted understanding of 2nd Law of of Thermodynamics in particular and physics or chemistry in general.
In particular I can assess that you are misunderstanding provision which allows for local drop of entropy at the expense of its overall increase on a larger scale.
Actually we cannot show any macroscopic process which goes against 2nd Law.

I strong recommend you read the book The Deep Hot Biosphere. Picture with plant fossil in coal is surely, as said Dr. Thomas Gold, the best evidence of abiogenic black coal. Hydrocarbons preserve very good plant material and other fossils, like tar, even at celular tissue level.
it's also important keep in mind what Gold said.
"Hydrocarbons are not biology reworked by geology (as the traditional view would hold, but rather geology reworked by biology"

[Geologist]

Yes....I said the same earlier in this long and repetitive thread. The various Laws of Thermodynamics seem to be ignored by all of the folks who propose abiotic oil. I've also wondered how the heck you maintain oil in a completely unstable phase as it migrates up into the shallow crust (quick answer is you can't).

Also that paper points to White Tiger as an example. I've worked on the Vietnamese basement plays ...Bach Ho, Rang Dong, etc. The oil has been typed to a Miocene source rock unequivocally. Not sure how many times that has to be repeated as well.

"The oil has been typed to a Miocene source rock unequivocally" - Oil come from "source rocks" (sic)...only if a miracle occur or laws of physics are completly wrong and a lot of geologists are right.

[EnergyUnlimited]

I strong recommend you read the book The Deep Hot Biosphere. Picture with plant fossil in coal is surely, as said Dr. Thomas Gold, the best evidence of abiogenic black coal. Hydrocarbons preserve very good plant material and other fossils, like tar, even at celular tissue level.

Geological formation of coal is well understood because we know very young coals (pit), an older one (lignite), an old one (black coal) and perhaps the oldest (anthracite).
There is sufficient geological record to trace a progress of coal formation.
Carbonification of cellulosic material upon long storage and or upon action of high temperatures in absence of oxygen is also well understood from chemical point of view.

So there is really no room for some silly abiotic explanation.

it's also important keep in mind what Gold said.
"Hydrocarbons are not biology reworked by geology (as the traditional view would hold, but rather geology reworked by biology"

No, it is not important any more than a statement:
"There are pink unicorns on the Moon".

"The oil has been typed to a Miocene source rock unequivocally" - Oil come from "source rocks" (sic)...only if a miracle occur or laws of physics are completly wrong and a lot of geologists are right.

So which particular laws of physics are broken here as per your opinion?
I can find none.

[rockdoc123]

"The oil has been typed to a Miocene source rock unequivocally" - Oil come from "source rocks" (sic)...only if a miracle occur or laws of physics are completly wrong and a lot of geologists are right.

You are either joking or completely ignorant of the science. On a daily basis hydrocarbons are created from source rock material in the laboratory. It is called "pyrolysis" and we use it as a means of determining source rock yield. This has been done for decades on end by commercial labs. I've done it myself when I was a graduate student 30+ years ago. So if there is a law of physics being broken here it must be one invented on your "Bizarro World" as each and every law of Thermodynamics is obeyed in this reaction.

I strong recommend you read the book The Deep Hot Biosphere. Picture with plant fossil in coal is surely, as said Dr. Thomas Gold, the best evidence of abiogenic black coal.

that is beyond stupid. Imagine a coal deposit exposed in a river bed. A leaf floats in and further sediments are deposited...millions of years of compaction and what do you have ..a leaf fossil sitting in coal. Notwithstanding the fact that in reflective light from thin sections cut from lignitic coal up to medium grade bituminous coal you can see woody plant material which has not been converted. It isn't until you reach high grade bituminous and anthracitic grade that you lose the precursors.

[Geologist]

Also coal is abiogenic as proposed by Dr. Thomas Gold. Coal has mercury, nickel, vanadium, lead and other metals, similar to oil. Mercury is not associated to biological processes but mercury occur in some oils and frequently in natural gases.
Cosmological models still remain not understood and also origin of petroleum and coal and a lot of geological processes. Seek for truth continue but It's important to reason with problems rather than impossibilities. Oil formation from fossils is a impossibility according 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Hoyle's citation is suitable.

Absolutely ridiculous. You can take any low grade coal, take a thin slice through it, mount it on a slide and view in relected or refracted light and you will see plant material (I did this as an undergrad and grad student literally hundreds of times). The coal macerals that can easily be identified in higher grade coals have been shown experimentally to be derived from plant material.
This is not new science....I suggest you read some of the many books out there on coal geology and coal petrology that are 20 - 30 years old and not disputed. The works by people such as Tissot and Welte or the Teichmuellers outline this information in considerable detail.
If you actually believe that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not adhered to by the coalification/authenigenisis process then you should write a paper and publish in Journal of Coal Geology or Journal of Coal Petrology. Perhaps you can explain this to us....I haven't had a good laugh today.

No, it's not ridiculous, for example where does come from mercury present in coal? From plant material? Absolutely no! There's no "fossil fuel". I strongly reccomend you read The Deep Hot Biosphere, Thomas Gold. There you'll find the following conclusion as said Sir Fred Hoyle:
"The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time."
— Fred Hoyle, 1982
In my opinion the same is applied to coal, black coal, of course.

[Keith_McClary]

I tried to ask above, what is the maximum rate at which abiogenic oil could be produced without us being up to our armpits in the stuff? Wouldn't it be observable even if it was a tiny fraction of current consumption? (Or tell me where to look it up).

[Tanada]

I tried to ask above, what is the maximum rate at which abiogenic oil could be produced without us being up to our armpits in the stuff? Wouldn't it be observable even if it was a tiny fraction of current consumption? (Or tell me where to look it up).

I have seen several of the proponents claim it is a steady state situation, in theory at depth the crude is formed by geochemical processes and destroyed by bacteria at matching rates and the bacteria are why we find chemical evidence of life in all oil.

[EnergySpin]

Whoa!
Kudos to rockdoc who has been battling the nonsense in this thread as far as I remember (all the way back to 2005).

[Geologist]

I tried to ask above, what is the maximum rate at which abiogenic oil could be produced without us being up to our armpits in the stuff? Wouldn't it be observable even if it was a tiny fraction of current consumption? (Or tell me where to look it up).

All oil and natural gas, of course, are abiotic in origin because they are primordial material that erupt from great depths. There are biological molecules present in no- biological oil when hydrocarbons reach lower pressure and temperature levels in crust, mainly in sedimentary basins where good reservoirs (pore spaces) and seals (cap impermeable rocks) occur. Primordial hydrocarbons feed bacteria and bacteria dead into oil leaving their parts as contaminants also called biomarkers. Oil formed from biological detritus is not a problem - is a thermodynamic impossibility.

[Geologist]

Also coal is abiogenic as proposed by Dr. Thomas Gold. Coal has mercury, nickel, vanadium, lead and other metals, similar to oil. Mercury is not associated to biological processes but mercury occur in some oils and frequently in natural gases.
Cosmological models still remain not understood and also origin of petroleum and coal and a lot of geological processes. Seek for truth continue but It's important to reason with problems rather than impossibilities. Oil formation from fossils is a impossibility according 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Hoyle's citation is suitable.

Absolutely ridiculous. You can take any low grade coal, take a thin slice through it, mount it on a slide and view in relected or refracted light and you will see plant material (I did this as an undergrad and grad student literally hundreds of times). The coal macerals that can easily be identified in higher grade coals have been shown experimentally to be derived from plant material.
This is not new science....I suggest you read some of the many books out there on coal geology and coal petrology that are 20 - 30 years old and not disputed. The works by people such as Tissot and Welte or the Teichmuellers outline this information in considerable detail.
If you actually believe that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not adhered to by the coalification/authenigenisis process then you should write a paper and publish in Journal of Coal Geology or Journal of Coal Petrology. Perhaps you can explain this to us....I haven't had a good laugh today.

I strongly reccomend you read the book THE DEEP HOT BIOSPHERE, Thomas Gold. Maybe you will learn much more about coal, peat, oil and natural gas and its real process of formation.

[rockdoc123]

I strongly reccomend you read the book THE DEEP HOT BIOSPHERE, Thomas Gold. Maybe you will learn much more about coal, peat, oil and natural gas and its real process of formation.

Well lets see I have a PhD in geology....a combination of rock mechanics and ....wait for it...geochemistry made up much of my doctoral dissertation. I think I know something about the subject and I certainly am familiar with Gold's theory. Each and every oil field example he uses in the book you reference has been shown unequivocally to have come from an organic source. This is not something that is being debated anymore.

What we have are chemists making arguments about reactions that they can create under limited conditions in a laboratory. There are numerous arguments why these reactions cannot occur in the real world, certainly not unless you dispel all belief in thermodynamics. There is no oil accumulation that can be explained in this manner.

Basically a tempest in a teapot.

[efarmer]

I think part of Thomas Gold's potency as a scientist and astronomer was his ability to develop alternative theories for cosmology and other subjects that drove defense of generally accepted theories and new discoveries related from the fresh perspective requiring research and defense from peer groups. He was right on many things, drove discovery and knowledge, and was sometimes wrong. I like the notion of shaking disciplines up and making them take another hard look and put their ducks in a row, but I tend to agree with rockdoc123 that this indeed took place, and the ducks stayed essentially in the line they were already formed into by geologists, chemists, and huge field experience and data collection.

He was a great scientist and I think he will be remembered for his contributions as being equal to his contrary style of pursuing them.