|May27-12, 06:41 PM||#52|
How Oil Is Formed
From the late Gold's Deep Hot Biosphere:
A possible hypothesis to explain the Canadian Rockies would be the out flow of CH4 from the liquid core as it solidified to form the solid core. (The CH4 is less dense the rocks of the mantel.) Observationally it is known that there has been massive natural gas deposits found in the Canadian Rockies. The following is quote that explains there is not continental plate collision to explain the formation of the Canadian Rockies.
(Comment: I will provide a link to this quote when I am allowed to provide links to quotes.)
|May30-12, 05:48 AM||#53|
Again, I point out that carbon is not a siderophile element. (e.g. Wikipedia) Do you have any evidence to demonstrate that it is? If it is not, then why would it be entrained in the core in quantity? If it is, then why would it subsequently be release by the core? There appears to be a logical impasse here. By what mechanism do you propose to overcome this?
Geochemical Characteristics and Origin of Natural Gas in Tarim Basin, China
The isotopic compositions of molecular nitrogen:implications on their origins in natural gas accumulations
Geochemical Characterization of Natural Gas: A Physical Multivariable Approach and its Applications in Maturity and Migration Estimates
UNDERSTANDING SOURCE, DISTRIBUTION AND PRESERVATION OF AUSTRALIAN NATURAL GAS: A GEOCHEMICAL PERSPECTIVE
Generation of nitrogen and methane from sedimentary organic matter: implications on the dynamics of natural gas accumulations
And so on, in textbooks, journal articles and internal documents of oil and gas companies the biogenic origin of natural gas is the consensus view - regardless of whether or not it is the correct view. Your assertion that you have seen no papers regarding this is a serious condemnation of your capacity to do an elementary literature search.
Timing and petroleum sources for the Lower Cretaceous Mannville Group oil sands of northern Alberta based on 4-D modeling
Please provide citations for the "others who have noted the late thin veneer hypothesis would have created a Venus like atmosphere".
Please further provide citations to justify your claim that carbonaceous chondrites could not provide suffcient water. This does not seem to be viewed as a problem by most workers in the field: for example, Determining the composition of the Earth.
I recommend you do a calculation of hydrogen loss and reveal to yourself how little has been lost over geologic time. If you think the loss has been substantial, show the calculation here. You are the one making an exceptional claim.
|May30-12, 10:39 PM||#54|
I must wait until I have posted 10 times before I can provide a link. I would highly recommending watching the lecture series from the Sloan Deep Carbon workshop as well as reading Gold's book "Deep Hot biosphere".
Your comment is correct, there are papers that state the origin of CH4 is organic.
There are also papers that state it is not and to provide observation evidence and logic to support that assertion. Your appeal to consensus is not logic. Consensus based on what logical argument and observation?
The 4-D model explanation as to the Alberta Oil sands source must explain where the sulfur came from, where the heavy metals come from, and a source of hydrocarbons that can cover a region the size of England.
As Gold notes the geological evidence is that carbon increased on the surface overtime and that the source of that carbon was deep earth based for example on C12/C13 analysis. Have look at his observation and explanation for the range of C12/C13 in the atmospheric CO2 as compared as to range of C12/C13 in CH4.
Also explain why there is very high amounts of Helium in that is common found with the CH4 and with oil fields. As Gold notes the helium concentration is significantly high in concentration than can be explained by the radioactive decay of uranium.
|May31-12, 02:35 AM||#55|
I will provide a more detailed response later.
In summary, you appear to be cherry picking your data to support the conclusion you have reached that Gold is right. You seem to have reached this conclusion because you like the idea and you enjoy the overturning of 'conventional wisdom'. Tell me I'm wrong.
Secondly, the consensus view is based upon a plethora of evidence and research. That is why I lean towards it, until other evidence points in another direction.
You can post any link you wish, it just won't be a live link, but I can copy and paste it and go there.
|May31-12, 06:45 AM||#56|
Sulphur in petroleum is thought to be derived from suphates present in the marine source rocks. For example, R.Francois, in A study of sulphur enrichment in the humic fraction of marine sediments during early diagenesis
You seem hung up on the notion that the oil sands cover an area the size of England.do you have any idea how small england is? I'll tell you - 130,000 square kilometres. do you have any idea how large Alberta is? 662,000 square kilometres. It is five times the size of England and the source rocks for the oil lie under a substantial part of it. You are raising problems that don't exist.
|May31-12, 10:43 PM||#57|
We should start with the Sloan Deep Earth hydrocarbon lectures.
The problem with defending one hypothesis over the other is the objective unfortunately becomes to win an argument as opposed to compare hypothesis to hypothesis and to attempt to explain what is observed. My comment that mountain formation is not understood for example as there are multi regions such as the Rockies or the Andes Mountains that occur at regions where there is not a collision of continental plates. The deep earth CH4 hypothesis might explain mountain formation at those regions, as the CH4 from the ocean plates is moved under the continent into the mantel, thereby releasing some of the entrapped CH4. Alternatively the movement of the ocean floor under the continent might provide a passage from the deep earth for CH4.
I continue back to the process which I fear is akin to a debate as opposed to comparison of hypothesis to hypothesis. I will continue this discussion for a couple of comments because I believe the subject is interesting.
You have not explained how the late veneer hypothesis can explain the observations such as the massive amount of water on the planet or the C12/C13 isotope ratio of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the lack of change in the C12/C13 ratio in the carbon that is deposited in geological formations. As Gold notes plants preferentially use C12 for photosynthesis. If the carbon in the atmosphere was thin veneer and recycled the atmosphere would over geological time become enriched with C13. That is not what is observed.
Your defense of the late veneer hypothesis is restricted to quoting papers that state emphatically that the source of natural gas or oil is from biological sources. The papers in question do not address the scores of unexplained observations that the biological source hypothesis appears to be unable to answer, related to natural gas or liquid hydrocarbon. (That observation is why I stated that I have not seen a paper that explains how biological sources could explain the massive super large deposits of natural gas and oil. I accept the the observation that the papers state the source of massive deposits is a biological source. The papers in question do not discuss the observations that appear to dispute that hypothesis.) There appears to be no paper that compares hypothesis to hypothesis and that discusses the observations which the late veneer hypothesis and the biogenic theory cannot explain.
The following is a subset of the issues with the thin late veneer hypothesis and the biological origin for massive hydrocarbon deposits.
The depleted ratio of C13 in “natural” gas for example (the carbon in natural gas is mostly C12) although C12 is significantly dominate, there is a higher range in the ratio of C13/C12 in natural gas than in the atmosphere. The C13/C14 ratio in the carbon in calcium carbonate deposits over time do not change over geological time and closely match that of the atmosphere. (The carbon in the calcium carbonate deposits is from the atmosphere and does not change over geological time. There is one exception which I will start a separate thread for. There is a massive deposit of carbon that is depleted in C13 and that matches natural gas.) Gold explained the C12/C13 ratio variance in natural gas from region to region do to isotopic fractionation that occurs as the molecule with the heavy isotope of carbon moves slower through the pores in the deep earth. The porosity of the mantel and the travel time varies from region to region which explains the variance in the ratio. The CH4 that is released to the atmosphere increases in C13 do to the cosmic rays that create C14 that decays to form the stable C13. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is deposited as calcium carbonate and in dead plants. If the CH4 has not added to the atmosphere from deep sources it would have become carbon dioxide would have become depleted over time in the atmosphere.
The massive hydrocarbon deposits in specific locations of the planet. The finding of extremely high amounts of helium at natural gas and oil deposits, for example.
This thread is the comparison of two fundamental hypotheses. The late thin veneer hypothesis and the deep earth hydrocarbon hypothesis. The deep earth hydrocarbon hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis. There are scientific papers that advocate that hypothesis.
The origin of CH4, “natural” gas and oil is a secondary and related question.
As Gold notes the deep ocean and the permfrost regions have vast amounts of methane hydrates. The carbon in the methane hydrates and in “natural” gas deposits is significant deficient in the carbon isotope C13. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the carbon that is deposited in geological formations is higher in C13. The ratio of C13/C12 in the atmosphere does not increase in time although plants preferentially use C12 which should over time result in a gradual increase in the ratio of C13/C12 if the origin of hydrocarbons was in accordance to the late veneer hypothesis.
The alternative hypothesis, Gold’s which is an extension to the Soviet abiogenic hypothesis for the origin of oil/natural gas, is the deep earth hydrocarbon hypothesis. Gold’s hypothesis has been further developed by research that shows the liquid core of the planet contains a significant amount of lighter elements. The deep core hypothesis is as the core solidifies the lighter elements are expelled. The very, very, high pressure liquid that is expelled breaks through the mantel and over time rises up to the surface gradually releasing CH4. Experimental work has confirmed under very high pressures CH4 is converted to long chain hydrocarbon molecules.
Observational evidence to support the deep earth hypothesis is that radon and xenon gas in the earth’s atmosphere does not match comets. The deep earth’s hypothesis explanation for that observation is the Mars sized object that struck the earth roughly 50 million year after the formation of the planet. The energy from that collision stripped the early earth’s mantle of its lighter elements including hydrogen (the most abundant element in the solar system/universe) and carbon the fourth most abundant element in the universe. The source of the unoxidized hydrocarbons on the surface of the planet (carbon on surface of the planet is 100 times more concentrated than the mantel. There are massive deposits of carbonates on the continents which supports the assertion that methane gas is released to the atmosphere from a deep earth source. The methane disassociates in the upper atmosphere forming water and carbon dioxide.
The massive methane hydrate deposits on the ocean floor and in permafrost regions is one observation that supports Gold’s hypothesis. The methane hydrates located on the ocean floor is many times greater than all known coal, oil, and natural gas deposits.
Another is the massive, deposits of unoxidized hydrocarbons that is concentrated in specific regions.
Source Article in Discovery of same name that describes the researcher's findings.
|Jun1-12, 05:16 AM||#58|
However I thank you for bringing your information to the table, the discussion is most interesting.
It is just a pity you didn't preface you opening salvo with this paragraph.
|Jun10-12, 05:57 PM||#59|
Oil presumably formed mostly from various types of microbes. Microbes sometimes don't fit in the kingdoms of animal or plant. For instance, blue-green algae is technically a bacteria. Bacteria are not considered animal or plant.
The conventional theory is that most petroleum comes from microbes. There is a theory that most petroleum comes from nonbiological hydrocarbons. I don't think this theory has been experimentally validated. However, I am not sure how well validated the conventional theory is, either.
Petroleum is a chemical fossil, if it is a fossil. There is no morphological remains that tell us for sure what the original microbes looked like. Furthermore, petroleum has been contaminated by bacteria and protozoa that live in ground water. There are no hard barriers that prevent microbes of more recent times from getting in. So it would be difficult to distinguish the fossil of a primordial bacteria from an intruder who came later.
On the other hand, oil is associated with limestone deposits. The limestone contains fossils, and definitely comes from biological sources. Geologists look for certain shells when they look for petroleum.
The shell icon is used by another oil company. I don't think the shell represents an animal that is thought to originate petroleum. There was a recent bivalve on one of the islands where the founder of the company got his start. So he chose that as a symbol.
As pointed out in another post, there were never enough large animals collecting in one place to explain where all that petroleum came from. However, there have always been a lot of microbes in the ocean.
Petroleum probably came from a lot of single celled organisms: bacteria, plant and protozoa. My conjecture is that petroleum mostly came from various types of bacteria.
There are even more viruses than bacteria in the ocean. However, I don't think they have enough hydrocarbons in their crystalline bodies to form oil. Bacteria are much larger than viruses, and have all sorts of organic materials that could form petroleum. Bacteria outnumber all other cellular life on earth.
If petroleum is a chemical fossil, and I believe it is, then the likely source of most of it is probably bacteria. Perhaps a little of it comes from plants. Plants are far more common than the animals that live off of them. I conjecture that the contribution to petroleum from animals is very low. I wonder about the protozoa, though.
In any case, I am sure much about petroleum still isn't fully known yet. Further research will be done as petroleum resources dwindle.
Here is a link to a Wikipedia article that reviews a biogenetic theory of the formation of petroleum.
“Petroleum is a fossil fuel derived from ancient fossilized organic materials, such as zooplankton and algae. Vast quantities of these remains settled to sea or lake bottoms, mixing with sediments and being buried under anoxic conditions. As further layers settled to the sea or lake bed, intense heat and pressure built up in the lower regions. This process caused the organic matter to change, first into a waxy material known as kerogen, which is found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons via a process known as catagenesis. Formation of petroleum occurs from hydrocarbon pyrolysis in a variety of mainly endothermic reactions at high temperature and/or pressure.”
|Jul9-12, 03:23 PM||#60|
Oil is formed from dead plant and animal biomass, mainly plankton. When these life forms died hundreds of millions of years ago they started to decompose and many of this life was in the ocean and the plants and mainly plankton fell to the bottom of the ocean and as the decomposed they were buried and eventually started to end up deeper, heat and pressure acted on the decomposed biomass forming hydrocarbons. Since carbon made up many of these life forms they became hydrocarbons. Many of the large oil deposits are now under where there were once ancient oceans, for example the Teyths ocean.
|Jul25-12, 03:24 AM||#61|
I am not competent to validate the theories of oil origins, all I can do is compare the logic of statements I am being offered.
This guy is pretty solidly in the biogenesis camp.
|Similar Threads for: How Oil Is Formed|
|When was the earth formed?||Earth||3|
|how are medicines formed?||Chemistry||6|
|how are stars formed?||General Astronomy||2|
|how are ions formed?||Atomic, Solid State, Comp. Physics||3|
|how are stars formed?||General Astronomy||21|