• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abiogenic petroleum origin

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,071
Reaction score
8,133
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Abiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untill very recently this is something I did not take seriously, thinking it was arena for cranks nutters.

But a couple of articles got me thinking about where oil deep within the earths crust came from.

Abiogenic petroleum origin is an alternative hypothesis to the prevailing theory of biological petroleum origin. Most popular in the Soviet Union between the 1950s and 1980s, the abiogenic hypothesis has little support among contemporary petroleum geologists, who argue that abiogenic petroleum does not exist in significant amounts on Earth and that there is no indication that an application of the hypothesis is or has ever been of commercial value.[1]

The abiogenic hypothesis argues that petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to the formation of the Earth. The presence of methane on Saturn's moon Titan is cited as evidence supporting the formation of hydrocarbons without biology. Supporters of the abiogenic hypothesis suggest that a great deal more petroleum exists on Earth than commonly thought, and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids that migrate upward from the mantle.

Although the abiogenic hypothesis was accepted by some geologists in the former Soviet Union, most geologists now consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported.[1] Although evidence exists for abiogenic formation of methane and hydrocarbon gases within the Earth,[2][3] studies indicate they are not produced in commercially significant quantities (i.e. a median abiogenic hydrocarbon content in extracted hydrocarbon gases of 0.02%).[4] The abiogenic origin of petroleum has also recently been reviewed in detail by Glasby, who raises a number of objections, including that there is no direct evidence to date of abiogenic petroleum (liquid crude oil and long-chain hydrocarbon compounds).[1]

Although the biogenic theory for petroleum was first proposed by Georg Agricola in the 16th century, various abiogenic hypotheses were proposed in the nineteenth century, most notably by Alexander von Humboldt, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev and the French chemist Marcellin Berthelot. Since that time, the abiogenic hypotheses have lost ground to the view that petroleum is a fossil fuel.

Abiogenic hypotheses were revived in the last half of the twentieth century by Russian and Ukrainian scientists, and more interest was generated in the West by the publication in 1999 of The Deep Hot Biosphere by Thomas Gold. Gold cited the discovery of thermophile bacteria in the Earth's crust as new support for the postulate that these bacteria could explain the existence of certain biomarkers in extracted petroleum.[5]
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
This idea is not supported nor endorsed by any scientist with any sort of understanding regarding this idea. There is no objective proof that I have seen to support this.

I think it's a ridiculous idea.
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why is this relevant? Oil only matters if it is available in large quantities and is easy to drill. Even assuming such non-organic oil deposits exist, they are too hard to get at to be cost effective.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,071
Reaction score
8,133
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why is this relevant? Oil only matters if it is available in large quantities and is easy to drill. Even assuming such non-organic oil deposits exist, they are too hard to get at to be cost effective.
My post has nothing to due with economically recoverable oil, just the scientific thought of how oil was/is created.

My main question is

With the standard version of oil creation, (ie dead biological matter typically from sea being deposited on the sea bed, eventually being covered by sedimentary rock, how did oil that is a mile or more below the earths surface get there. Is the sedimentary rock that deep, or was it covered by other rock formation like igneous rock.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
My post has nothing to due with economically recoverable oil, just the scientific thought of how oil was/is created.

My main question is

With the standard version of oil creation, (ie dead biological matter typically from sea being deposited on the sea bed, eventually being covered by sedimentary rock, how did oil that is a mile or more below the earths surface get there. Is the sedimentary rock that deep, or was it covered by other rock formation like igneous rock.
The town I grew up in is about 1,200 feet above sea level. It's a frickin' desert. Rewind to the Paleocene-ish era and the entire area was 500 or so feet below the ocean. You can still find fish fossils in the mountains if you're lucky.

There is room for INCREDIBLE amounts of movement (relatively speaking) if geology is given enough time.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,071
Reaction score
8,133
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The town I grew up in is about 1,200 feet above sea level. It's a frickin' desert. Rewind to the Paleocene-ish era and the entire area was 500 or so feet below the ocean. You can still find fish fossils in the mountains if you're lucky.

There is room for INCREDIBLE amounts of movement (relatively speaking) if geology is given enough time.
I understand that, Alberta was once part of a massive sea, which is the reason given for the amount of oil and gas we have.

Overall it was a couple of articles that got me thinking about it. One mentioned the what I stated above as being the reason for oil and gas creation as part of an article about the gulf oil well blow out.

The other article was discussing the unintended consequences of certain aspects of human technology, from DDT to the possible problems of carbon capture and injecting into old oil wells. In that one the writer mentioned bacteria that live within the earths crust, that reduce carbon into methane
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I understand that, Alberta was once part of a massive sea, which is the reason given for the amount of oil and gas we have.

Overall it was a couple of articles that got me thinking about it. One mentioned the what I stated above as being the reason for oil and gas creation as part of an article about the gulf oil well blow out.

The other article was discussing the unintended consequences of certain aspects of human technology, from DDT to the possible problems of carbon capture and injecting into old oil wells. In that one the writer mentioned bacteria that live within the earths crust, that reduce carbon into methane
When someone can observe and document this process at work such that it can be checked and verified, I'll give it some thought. Until then, I refuse to waste brainspace on crackpottery.
 
Top Bottom