Where on Earth are possible coal and oil of tomorrow forming today?

[Spinnor]

Where on Earth are possible coal and oil of "tomorrow" forming today?

Where on Earth are possible coal and oil of tomorrow, as in many many years from now, forming today?

Thanks for your help!

 

[Phrak]

I looked around on the internet and found nothing very definative on the formation of oil. The prevailing theory places most of the orininal deposits or organic matter from 2.6 to 630 million years ago.

Seeing as geologists have found almost all of them, and the bulk in the accessible parts has been mined to near deplition, it's not likely natural production in this current era would keep up with demand. To put it simply, it's been mined-out to near deplition.

The very same occurred with gold in old word Europe. When the Americas were discoved by the Europeans they went bananas over the unmined deposits.

However, this is not the end of your question, by any means. Contending theories of crude oil generation exist, and there are some interesting reports of a bacterium found in the north east of North America that could be produce something that serves as oil. It's been qualified as something like jungle rot.

 

[Skyhunter]

The bottom of the sea and peat bogs.

http://www.hk-phy.org/energy/power/source_phy/flash/formation_e.html" that describes the processes.

 

[Phrak]

The bottom of the sea and peat bogs.

http://www.hk-phy.org/energy/power/source_phy/flash/formation_e.html" that describes the processes.

I don't think I buy the simple animation's story about plankton. What would kill the plankton without consuming it? Life in the sea is pretty efficient in gleaning any source of nutrition. The bulk remainder, that made it to bottom, should consist of redigested excrement mixed with the indigestible shells of diatoms.

 

[Skyhunter]

I don't think I buy the simple animation's story about plankton. What would kill the plankton without consuming it? Life in the sea is pretty efficient in gleaning any source of nutrition. The bulk remainder, that made it to bottom, should consist of redigested excrement mixed with the indigestible shells of diatoms.

Plankton are defined by their ecological niche, not taxonomically. They consist of many types of plants and animals, are born, live, and die of natural causes. There is no shortage of dead plankton littering the sea floor.

 

[Phrak]

There is no shortage of dead plankton littering the sea floor.

Source?

 

[Skyhunter]

Source?

Are you serious?

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yournews/39079"

http://www.teara.govt.nz/EarthSeaAndSky/OceanStudyAndConservation/SeaFloorGeology/6/en"

Google it yourself, every source agrees that plankton litters the sea floor, especially in dead zones.

 

[Phrak]

Are you serious?

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yournews/39079"

http://www.teara.govt.nz/EarthSeaAndSky/OceanStudyAndConservation/SeaFloorGeology/6/en"

Google it yourself, every source agrees that plankton litters the sea floor, especially in dead zones.

Certainly I'm serious. What key words did you use?

It is a fair question to ask about the origin of sea floor deposits that could one day become oil. I ask, what is the origin of these biogenic materisls broken down by percentage? I'm obviously on the wrong track with the keywords. No sources have graced me with this information.

I see nice pictures of the shells of diatoms as evidence of silcon deposits --not of organic deposits. What's in the shells; where they alive when they hit the bottom? Where are the numbers that make this more than a field trip, but science?

I have references declaring 'dead plankton' on the sea floor all over the internet, but no information as to how this deduction is obtained. For all I know they are only looking at diatom shells and jumping to conclusions.

 

[Phrak]

I see that 'dead zones' are regions of explosive algae or plankton life.

 

[Skyhunter]

Certainly I'm serious. What key words did you use?

It is a fair question to ask about the origin of sea floor deposits that could one day become oil I ask, what is the origin of these biogenic materisls broken down by percentage? I'm obviously on the wrong track with the keywords. No sources have graced me with this information.

I see nice pictures or the shells of diatoms as evidence of silcon deposits --not of organic deposits. What's in the shells?

I have references declaring 'dead plankton' on the sea floor all over the internet, but no information as to how this deduction is obtained. For all I know they are only looking at diatom shells and jumping to conclusions.

Diatoms are organic, the shells are silicon but the shells are not the source material for what will someday become oil. It is not so much the composition of the organisms that sink to the sea floor, as it is the oxygen levels in the mud and surrounding ocean area that determines the geologic fate of these microscopic corpses.

Here is a good primer.
"[URL
What is oil?[/URL]

Most crude oil formed from one-celled plants and animals, called plankton, which floated on the surfaces of ancient oceans. As these organisms died, they settled to the ocean floor and were covered with mud. If the mud did not contain enough oxygen for the soft parts of these organisms to decay, then the organic material was converted into kerogen. If enough kerogen remains, it may later be converted into oil.

 

[Phrak]

You've made a point of this twice. You should know that most on this forum will know that silicon is not carbon.

I understand the prevailing theory. I find it dubious for the above stated reasons.

 

[Skyhunter]

You've made a point of this twice. You should know that most on this forum will know that silicon is not carbon.

I understand the prevailing theory. I find it dubious for the above stated reasons.

Because silicon is not carbon?

That is not a very good reason. Especially since it is not the shell that becomes kerogen.

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/EarthScience/Geology/OilandGas/FormationHydrocarbon/HowOilandGas/HowOilandGas.htm"

 

[LURCH]

Skyhunter,
I think Phrak meant the reasons stated ni the above posts (not in post #11).

Phrak,
If I understand your skeptisism, it is based on the idea that the plankton would be consumed by other organisms. This is addressed by the references to lack of oxygen. Without bacteria, there are no microbes to consume the carbon parts.

 

[Skyhunter]

Skyhunter,
I think Phrak meant the reasons stated ni the above posts (not in post #11).

Phrak,
If I understand your skeptisism, it is based on the idea that the plankton would be consumed by other organisms. This is addressed by the references to lack of oxygen. Without bacteria, there are no microbes to consume the carbon parts.

I am not sure what reason he is giving. To simply assume that no scientist has ever sampled the sea floor, simply because Google fails to provide his precise answer is just not a good reason to be skeptical. Sea bed core samples are taken all the time.

http://www.eu-seased.net/frameset_flash.asp?v0=1"

He has all the information. What becomes of the organic matter depends on whether it suffers aerobic or anaerobic decay.

 

[Saul]

The source of surface hydrocarbons is an interesting topic. The mechanism must explain why there are massive hydrocarbon deposits in specific locations, such as the Canadian Oil sands or the Middle East formations. As one looks at the data in more detail, it becomes painfully evident that the current theory is not correct.

One basic problem for the current theory is how does one create long change oil molecules from kerogan. I found a interesting set of papers published by the American Petroleum Institute API that outlines and discussed a whole set of observational anomalies that cannot be explained by the current theory. The solution to the formation problem (The required reaction to change kerogen to oil does not take place at the temperature and pressure that oil is found at.) was to state the word "time" with an explanation mark. As rocks do not roll up hill and waiting a few or many years does not change gravity or the direction chemical reactions take place. Time does not fix the fundamental problem with the biological source mechanism (how does one covert and concentrate kerogen to form oil).

This long titled paper is interesting. The authors assert that chemical thermal dynamic analysis can be used to determine whether a reaction will or will not occur, at a specific temperature and pressure. They assert that using chemical thermal dynamic analysis, that it can be shown that long chain carbon molecules will not spontaneously be formed, except at great pressures (at depths greater than 100 km). Then they preform an experiment that produces long chain hydrocarbons using a diamond anvil that can recreate the pressure at great depths.

The following are excerpts from this paper.

The evolution of multi-component systems at high pressures: VI. The thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen–carbon system: The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum, By Kenney, Kutcherov, Bendeliani, and Alekseev

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/17/10976

The scientific problem of the genesis of hydrocarbons of natural petroleum, and consequentially of the origin of natural petroleum deposits, regrettably has been one too much neglected by competent physicists and chemists; the subject has been obscured by diverse, unscientific hypotheses, typically connected with the rococo hypothesis (1) that highly reduced hydrocarbon molecules of high chemical potentials might somehow evolve from highly oxidized biotic molecules of low chemical potential. The scientific problem of the spontaneous evolution of the hydrocarbon molecules comprising natural petroleum is one of chemical thermodynamic-stability theory. This problem does not involve the properties of rocks where petroleum might be found or of microorganisms observed in crude oil.

Natural petroleum is a hydrogen–carbon (H–C) system, in distinctly nonequilibrium states, composed of mixtures of highly reduced hydrocarbon molecules, all of very high chemical potential and most in the liquid phase. As such, the phenomenon of the terrestrial existence of natural petroleum in the near-surface crust of the Earth has presented several challenges, most of which have remained unresolved until recently. The primary scientific problem of petroleum has been the existence and genesis of the individual hydrocarbon molecules themselves: how, and under what thermodynamic conditions, can such highly reduced molecules of high chemical potential evolve?

The theoretical analyses establish that the normal alkanes, the homologous hydrocarbon group of lowest chemical potential, evolve only at pressures greater than approx. 30 kbar, excepting only the lightest, methane. The pressure of 30 kbar corresponds to depths of approx.100 km. For experimental verification of the predictions of the theoretical analysis, a special high-pressure apparatus has been designed that permits investigations at pressures to 50 kbar and temperatures to 1,500°C and also allows rapid cooling while maintaining high pressures. The high-pressure genesis of petroleum hydrocarbons has been demonstrated using only the reagents solid iron oxide, FeO, and marble, CaCO3, 99.9% pure and wet with triple distilled water.

The expression in the second line of Eq. 2 states further that for any circumstance for which the Affinity does not vanish, there exists a generalized thermodynamic force that drives the system toward equilibrium. The constraints of this expression assure that an apple, having disconnected from its bough, does not fall, say, half way to the ground and there stop (a phenomenon not prohibited by the first law) but must continue to fall until the ground. These constraints force a chemically reactive system to evolve always toward the state of lowest thermodynamic Affinity.

These constraints force a chemically reactive system to evolve always toward the state of lowest thermodynamic Affinity. Thus, the evolution of a chemically reactive, multicomponent system may be determined at any temperature, pressure, or composition whenever the chemical potentials of its components are known. To ascertain the thermodynamic regime of the spontaneous evolution of hydrocarbons, their chemical potentials must be determined.

 

[Saul]

The theory that the planet's hydrocarbons including oil and natural gas comes from deep Earth sources (core), is not new. The Soviets (Russia and the old Soviet empire countries) have found significant oil and natural gas deposits using that deep Earth hypothesis.)

This a letter from a Soviet scientist objecting to the statement that the deep Earth source for hydrocarbon theory is Thomas Gold's theory. As the Soviet points out there are over a 1000 Soviet science papers on the formation of oil and natural gas that support abiogenic theory.

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

Answer 1. [to the question: “Are there key Soviet papers and Soviet ideas Prof. Gold fails to cite ?] by Vladilen A. Krayushkin,

Yes, there are many Soviet papers, articles, books and ideas of key significance dealing with the subject of the deep petroleum (i.e., oil and gas) theory which Prof. Gold fails to cite correctly or adequately.

It should be recognized that Gold’s priority [related to the subject of the modern Soviet theory of abiotic petroleum origins] must be set at 1979 when he published his article: Gold, T, 1979, Terrestrial sources of carbon and earthquake outgassing, J. Petrol. Geol., Vol. 1, No. 3, p. 3-19.

Concerning this article, one must pay particular attention to the following fact: The references given in that article do not contain even one of the works of any of the Soviet scientists. The well-known key leaders of the problem of abiogenic petroleum origins had already published their ideas and theory on that subject in many books and articles, beginning in the year 1951. The quantity of such publications exceeds a thousand, and for short I shall limit myself with the list of several key sources following below:

2.) Kravtsov A. I., 1967, Geochemical scheme of the formation of methane and liquid hydrocarbons in magmatic processes, and the basic criteria of prospects for oil and gas deposits, in Genesis of Oil and Gas, Nedra Press, Moscow, p. 314-325. (In Russian).

3.) Kropotkin P. N. and K. A. Shakhvarstova, 1959, Solid bitumens, oil and fuel gas in ultrabasic intrusions, trap brilliants and volcanic pipes, in The Problem of Oil Migration and the Formation of Oil and Gas Accumulations, The State Fuel Technical Press, Moscow, p. 151-164. (In Russian).

4.) Kudryavstev N. A., 1951, Against the organic hypothesis of petroleum origins, Petroleum Economy, No. 9, Moscow, p. 17. (In Russian).

5.) - "-, 1955, The modern state of the problem of petroleum origin, in “Colloquium on Problems of the Origin and Migration of Petroleum”, Ukrainian Acad. Sci. Press, Kiev, p. 38-81. (In Russian).

6.) - "-, 1959, Geological Evidence of Deep Petroleum Origins, Trans. of the All-Union Research, Geol. Exploration Petroleum Inst., State Technical Press, Leningrad, 210 p. (In Russian).

7.) - "-, 1959, Oil, Gas and Solid Bitumens in Igneous and Metamorphic Rocks, State Technical Press, Leningrad, 230 p. (In Russian).

8.) - "-, 1967, The state of the question on genesis of oil in the year 1966, in Genesis of Oil and Gas, Nedra Press, Moscow, p. 262-291. (In Russian).

9.) - "-, 1973, The Genesis of Oil and Gas, Trans. of the All-Union Research, Geol. Exploration Petroleum Inst., Nedra Press Leningrad, 216 p. (In Russian).

10.) Porfir’yev, V. B., 1960, On the nature of petroleum, in Problems of Oil and Gas Origin and Conditions of the Formation of Their Deposits, The State Fuel Technical Press, Moscow, p. 26-40. (In Russian).

11.) - "-, 1967, The present state of the problem of petroleum formation, in Genesis of Oil and Gas, Nedra Press, Moscow, p. 292-324. (In Russian).

12.) - "-, 1971, On a criticism of the theory of the inorganic origin of petroleum, in “Colloquium on the Inorganic Origin of Petroleum”, Scientific Thought Press, Kiev, p. 34-54. (In Russian).

13.) - "-, 1971, Experience of geological analyses of questions of petroleum content, Ibid., p. 3-34. (In Russian).

14.) - "-, 1974, Inorganic origin of petroleum, Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., Vol. 58, No. 1, p. 3-33.

15.) - "-, 1975, Significance of theoretical complex of petroleum geology in the solution of the problem of commercial oil content, in Regularities of Formation and Distribution of Commercial Oil and Gas Fields, Scientific Thought Press, Kiev, p. 17-27. (In Russian).

16.) Porfir’yev, V. B., V. A. Krayushkin, V. P. Klochko, V. B. Sollogub, A. V. Chekunov, G. N. Ladyzhenskiy and V. I . Sozanskii, 1977, Geological criteria of prospects for new oil and gas reserves in the territory of Ukraine, Scientific Thought Press, Kiev, 150 p. (In Russian).

17.) Porfir’yev, V. B., V. A. Krayushkin, N. S. Erofeev, G. P. Ovanesov, N. A. Eremenko, I. M. Mikhailov, V. A. Moskvich, I. Ye. Kotelnikov, Z. V. Ulybabov and P. M. Zozula, 1977, Perspectives of prospects for oil deposits in the crystalline basement of the Pripyat’ Basin, Geological Journal, Vol. 37, No. 5, p. 7-25. (In Russian).

These Soviet publications and the ideas contained in them cannot be considered peripheral to the subject of deep gas and the abiotic origin of petroleum in any fashion such that one might conclude, - or claim, - that the key ideas are Gold’s. On the contrary, the ideas published in the references 1-16 given in the answer to question 1 are the key ideas and consist essentially of the whole of the basic but multi-faceted aspect of the modern abiotic theory of deep gas and petroleum origins. None of the key ideas are Gold’s. Please read, for example, Porfir’yev’s article of 1974 in the Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists; and you will recognize that my opinion is correct upon this subject.

It is particularly noticeable that Gold cites “selectively” all of the Soviet scientific publications in such fashion as to give them only peripheral significance ! An example of such improper quoting is the manner in which Gold includes one of the Soviet articles by A. I. Kravtsov ad G. I. Voitov.

20.) Kravtsov A. I. and Voitov G. I., 1976, “Evaluation of the role of faults in the gas exchange between the lithosphere and the atmosphere illustrated in southern Daghestan”, Proc. High. Educ. Institutions. Geology and Exploration, Vol. 19, No. 4, p. 18-26, (in Russian).

Refering to this article, Gold cites selectively Kravtsov’s attainments concerning the theory of inorganic origin of petroleum in such fashion as,

“... However, the calculation of the volumetric displacement necessary to produce the wave leads to values that are quite outside the range of known land-based displacements (Kravtsov and Voitov, 1976)”. (Gold, T, “Terrestrial sources ...”, 1979, J. Pet. Geol., Vol. 1. No. 3, p. 3-19)

 

[Saul]

As I noted it is difficult for a biological source mechanism to explain orders of magnitude concentration of oil and gas at specific locations on the planet.

The deep Earth hypothesis can explain why Saudi Arabia has 25% of the planet’s oil reserves half of which is contained in only eight fields. Half of Saudi Arabia production comes from a single field the Ghawar.

Excerpt from this wikipedia article on Oil Reserves

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

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.

The following is an excerpt from Thomas Gold’s book the Deep Hot Biosphere which that outlines some of the observations he believes supports an abiogenic origin (non-biological, primeval origin), for petroleum and natural gas.

(1) Petroleum and methane are found frequently in geographic patterns of long lines or arcs, which are related more to deep-seated large-scale structural features of the crust, than to the smaller scale patchwork of the sedimentary deposits.

(2) Hydrocarbon-rich areas tend to be hydrocarbon-rich at many different levels, corresponding to quite different geological epochs, and extending down to the crystalline basement that underlies the sediment. An invasion of an area by hydrocarbon fluids from below could better account for this than the chance of successive deposition.

(3) Some petroleum from deeper and hotter levels almost completely lack the biological evidence. Optical activity and the odd-even carbon number effect are sometimes totally absent, and it would be difficult to suppose that such a thorough destruction of the biological molecules had occurred as would be required to account for this, yet leaving the bulk substance quite similar to other crude oils.

(4) Methane is found in many locations where a biogenic origin is improbable or where biological deposits seem inadequate: in great ocean rifts in the absence of any substantial sediments; in fissures in igneous and metamorphic rocks, even at great depth; in active volcanic regions, even where there is a minimum of sediments; and there are massive amounts of methane hydrates (methane-water ice combinations) in permafrost and ocean deposits, where it is doubtful that an adequate quantity and distribution of biological source material is present.

(5) The hydrocarbon deposits of a large area often show common chemical or isotopic features, quite independent of the varied composition or the geological ages of the formations in which they are found. Such chemical signatures may be seen in the abundance ratios of some minor constituents such as traces of certain metals that are carried in petroleum; or a common tendency may be seen in the ratio of isotopes of some elements, or in the abundance ratio of some of the different molecules that make up petroleum. Thus a chemical analysis of a sample of petroleum could often allow the general area of its origin to be identified, even though quite different formations in that area may be producing petroleum. For example a crude oil from anywhere in the Middle East can be distinguished from an oil originating in any part of South America, or from the oils of West Africa; almost any of the oils from California can be distinguished from that of other regions by the carbon isotope ratio.

 

[Skyhunter]

The abiogenic theories of petroleum production has been found lacking.

Abstract: The two theories of abiogenic formation of hydrocarbons, the Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins and Thomas Gold's deep gas theory, have been considered in some detail. Whilst the Russian-Ukrainian theory was portrayed as being scientifically rigorous in contrast to the biogenic theory which was thought to be littered with invalid assumptions, this applies only to the formation of the higher hydrocarbons from methane in the upper mantle. In most other aspects, in particular the influence of the oxidation state of the mantle on the abundance of methane, this rigour is lacking especially when judged against modern criteria as opposed to the level of understanding in the 1950s to 1980s when this theory was at its peak. Thomas Gold's theory involves degassing of methane from the mantle and the formation of higher hydrocarbons from methane in the upper layers of the Earth's crust. However, formation of higher hydrocarbons in the upper layers of the Earth's crust occurs only as a result of Fischer-Tropsch-type reactions in the presence of hydrogen gas but is otherwise not possible on thermodynamic grounds. This theory is therefore invalid. Both theories have been overtaken by the increasingly sophisticated understanding of the modes of formation of hydrocarbon deposits in nature.

http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf"

I enjoy speculating and pondering alternative theories as much as the next guy, but I try and keep my conjectures in the right context. Both abiogenic theories have been soundly debunked.

 

[Saul]

The abiogenic theories of petroleum production has been found lacking.http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf"

I enjoy speculating and pondering alternative theories as much as the next guy, but I try and keep my conjectures in the right context. Both abiogenic theories have been soundly debunked.

The Fisher-Tropsch process is an industrial process that is used to hydrogenate hydrocarbon at a temperature of 150-300C in the presence of catalysts that adds hydrogen to create a long chain hydrocarbons. The Fisher-Tropsch process is a complex reaction that must be tightly controlled. The hydrocarbon will break down at those high temperature.

Paradox 1 - How does one convert Kerogen to Light Crude Oil? No answer.
It is a fact that Kerogen is chemically very different than liquid crude oil. No one has shown hydrogenation can take place at 100C in a natural setting rather than in industrial refinery.

The question how does kerogen which is chemically very different than crude get converted to crude oil however is one of a very long list of fundamental problems, paradoxes with the biologic source mechanism.

Any one of the fundamental problems with the biological source invalidate the theory.

2) Paradox 2 - Order of Magnitude Concentration of Liquid Hydrocarbon in specific locations.

The fact that 25% of the world's oil is found in one small country Saudi Arabia, half of which is contained in eight fields.

Think of the massive Saudi Oil fields. The light crude oil that is coming up from the ground has the consistency of light motor oil. It is under pressure it moves directly in 42" pipes to tanker ships. The same massive Saudi oil field Gawar field has been pumping for 25 years.

Ignoring paradox 1 (there is no physical means to convert Kerogen to light crude oil) there is no solution to paradox 2:

Paradox 2: How does one explain massive concentrations of crude oil along the fault lines such as along the continental crust margins or at the interception of plate boundaries? No answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch

Generally, the Fischer-Tropsch process is operated in the temperature range of 150- 300°C (302-572°F). Higher temperatures lead to faster reactions and higher conversion rates, but also tend to favor methane production. As a result the temperature is usually maintained at the low to middle part of the range. Increasing the pressure leads to higher conversion rates and also favors formation of long-chained alkanes both of which are desirable. Typical pressures are in the range of one to several tens of atmospheres. Chemically, even higher pressures would be favorable, but the benefits may not justify the additional costs of high-pressure equipment.

 

[Saul]

More on the Biological is Source of Crude Oil: Paradox 2 - Mass Balance Issue - This is also known as the migration problem. As there is no source rock that has kerogen in it in vicinity of the oil fields There is not interconnecting paths to allow the concentration of oil in sediments. What forms when kerogen is compressed is dark shale, not massive concentrations of light oil.

There is other evidence which appears to challenge the organic theory of oil formation. In a marine environment the biological plant material gets processed by different life forms as it falls to the ocean floor or on the ocean floor. Large amounts of plants therefore do not get deposited on the ocean floor. Hence, there is a relatively small amount of plant biological material deposited in the ocean sediments. It has a surprise then when massive petroleum fields where found on the continental margins.

The issue is even if plant material could be converted to light crude hydrocarbons, which is challenged by the proponents of the abiogenic theory, there are very large oil and gas fields which cannot be explained in terms of mass balance of ancient plant sediments.

For example the following notes the lack kerogen in sediments, however, as the next article notes a single area in the Gulf has appears to have an estimated 1000 billion barrels of oil.

Some Mass Balance and Geological Constraints on Migration Mechanisms by R.Jones.

http://search.datapages.com/data/doi/10.1306/2F91977E-16CE-11D7-8645000102C1865D

Origin of Petroleum in the Gulf Coast

Despite extensive literature on the subject, the origin of the oil in the Tertiary of the Gulf Coast remains an enigma. It is unlikely that the separation phase migration of oil from the pores adjacent to the generating kerogen can be the … There appears to be too little kerogen (TOCs approximately 0.3 to 1 wt. %).

http://www.geotimes.org/june03/NN_gulf.htmlPetroleum geology
Raining hydrocarbons in the Gulf, Geotimes June, 2003

Quote:

Below the Gulf of Mexico, hydrocarbons flow upward through an intricate network of conduits and reservoirs. They start in thin layers of source rock and, from there, buoyantly rise to the surface. On their way up, the hydrocarbons collect in little rivulets, and create temporary pockets like rain filling a pond. Eventually most escape to the ocean. And, this is all happening now, not millions and millions of years ago, says Larry Cathles, a chemical geologist at Cornell University.

"We're dealing with this giant flow-through system where the hydrocarbons are generating now, moving through the overlying strata now, building the reservoirs now and spilling out into the ocean now," Cathles says.

He's bringing this new view of an active hydrocarbon cycle to industry, hoping it will lead to larger oil and gas discoveries. ... with geologic models for the structures below the seafloor, petroleum geologists could tap into reserves larger than the North Sea, says Cathles, who presented his findings at the meeting of the American Chemical Society in New Orleans on March 27.

...area of about 9,600 square miles off the coast of Louisiana, source rocks a dozen kilometers down have generated as much as 184 billion tons of oil and gas — about 1,000 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalent. "That's 30 percent more than we humans have consumed over the entire petroleum era," Cathles says. "And that's just this one little postage stamp area; if this is going on worldwide, then there's a lot of hydrocarbons venting out."

 

[Saul]

The abiogenic theories of petroleum production has been found lacking.

http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf"

I enjoy speculating and pondering alternative theories as much as the next guy, but I try and keep my conjectures in the right context. Both abiogenic theories have been soundly debunked.

Skyhunter, This is a good start if you are interested in how the planet's oceans formed, what is the reason for the long term changes in the Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and in addition, what is the source of crude oil on the planet's surface.http://trilogynet.net/Thomas_Gold/usgs.html

"The Origin of Methane (and Oil) in the Crust of the Earth", By Thomas Gold"

 

[Skyhunter]

I find that neither one of those paradox's are particularly relevant. Most oil is discovered based on the biogenic origin theory. The predictive success of the theory alone leads one to conclude oil and natural gas are primarily of organic origins. The reason the Russians abandoned their earlier abiogenic theory was it's lack of predictive success.

Gold's theory also failed to find oil as well. Two wells at great expense resulted in 50 barrels of oil.

The fundamental flaw in Gold's theory is that even if these hydrocarbons formed in the upper mantle, how would they hold together as they migrate upward. The decrease in pressure would not be great enough to hold them together, yet the temperature would be great enough to break them apart.

Gold also fails to eliminate alternative explanations in his zeal to promote his theory. That is simply sloppy science.

[Edit] I have seen Gold's work, and do not consider it a good place to start. It is an interesting alternative explanation and I do agree that there are abiogenic hydrocarbons. That said, Gold's theory is fatally flawed since it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[Saul]

I find that neither one of those paradox's are particularly relevant. Most oil is discovered based on the biogenic origin theory. The predictive success of the theory alone leads one to conclude oil and natural gas are primarily of organic origins. The reason the Russians abandoned their earlier abiogenic theory was it's lack of predictive success.

Gold's theory also failed to find oil as well. Two wells at great expense resulted in 50 barrels of oil.

The fundamental flaw in Gold's theory is that even if these hydrocarbons formed in the upper mantle, how would they hold together as they migrate upward. The decrease in pressure would not be great enough to hold them together, yet the temperature would be great enough to break them apart.

Gold also fails to eliminate alternative explanations in his zeal to promote his theory. That is simply sloppy science.

[Edit] I have seen Gold's work, and do not consider it a good place to start. It is an interesting alternative explanation and I do agree that there are abiogenic hydrocarbons. That said, Gold's theory is fatally flawed since it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The organic theory of the formation of oil cannot explain why one small country Saudi Arabia has 25% of the reserves of oil on the planet, half of which is in 8 fields, one of which the Ghawar field accounts for half of all Saudi oil production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghawar_Field

Can you provide an explanation for Paradox 1 Order of Magnitude Concentration of Oil in certain locations on the planet? What is your explanation for the Athabasca Oil Sands?

If anyone is interested in Gold's theory. Read this.

Skyhunter, scientific discussion addresses the points raised by the author. Gold presents dozens of fundamental observations all of which support the deep Earth source for the planet's hydrocarbons.


http://trilogynet.net/Thomas_Gold/usgs.html

I provided a paper that shows both theoretically and experimentally that liquid oil (long chain hydrocarbon molecules) forms at high high pressure from Methane (CH4) which there are massive deposits at very great depths through out the planet.

Energy is required to convert Kerogen to oil. There is not sufficient energy and the reaction does not occur at 100C at the pressures where crude oil is found. Crude Oil is formed at great depths in the planet and then migrates through the mantel picking up heavy metals. Vast oil field (Southern Saskatchewan for example show similar amounts of heavy metals in the oil which shows that the oil migrated from the same source at great depths in the mantel.

The fact that diamonds require 40,000 atmospheres to form (150 km) depth at least to create a diamond shows there is massive hydrocarbons at great depths in the planet.

Thomas Gold found crude oil in granite, a non-sedimentary rock. There are naturally occurring natural gas leaks in the granite through region where he looked for crude oil.

Gold's theory is that hydrocarbons gradually were released from the Earth forming the oceans and hydrocarbon deposits on the planet's surface. The alternative theory which you are advocating is the late veneer theory which has special comets (special because current comets do not match the atmosphere which indicates the atmosphere formed by a filtering mechanism) depositing the Earth's atmosphere and the hydrocarbons.

Hydrocarbons are concentrated by a factor of 200 in the outer crust. The mantel is very dry and does not have hydrocarbons in it. The moon formed by a Mars size impact that removed all volatile element from the mantel. The lighter elements were protected in the core. Experimental and theoretical evidence indicates that light elements will form vast molecules at the very high pressures that are found in the core. As the core cooled the light elements are released and extruded to the surface, hence forming the oceans (Methane CH4 breaks down in the atmosphere and bonds with free oxygen.)

There is evidence that the oceans increased with volume with time.

The evolution of multi-component systems at high pressures: VI. The thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen–carbon system: The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum, By Kenney, Kutcherov, Bendeliani, and Alekseev

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/17/10976

The scientific problem of the genesis of hydrocarbons of natural petroleum, and consequentially of the origin of natural petroleum deposits, regrettably has been one too much neglected by competent physicists and chemists; the subject has been obscured by diverse, unscientific hypotheses, typically connected with the rococo hypothesis (1) that highly reduced hydrocarbon molecules of high chemical potentials might somehow evolve from highly oxidized biotic molecules of low chemical potential. The scientific problem of the spontaneous evolution of the hydrocarbon molecules comprising natural petroleum is one of chemical thermodynamic-stability theory. This problem does not involve the properties of rocks where petroleum might be found or of microorganisms observed in crude oil.

Natural petroleum is a hydrogen–carbon (H–C) system, in distinctly nonequilibrium states, composed of mixtures of highly reduced hydrocarbon molecules, all of very high chemical potential and most in the liquid phase. As such, the phenomenon of the terrestrial existence of natural petroleum in the near-surface crust of the Earth has presented several challenges, most of which have remained unresolved until recently. The primary scientific problem of petroleum has been the existence and genesis of the individual hydrocarbon molecules themselves: how, and under what thermodynamic conditions, can such highly reduced molecules of high chemical potential evolve?

The theoretical analyses establish that the normal alkanes, the homologous hydrocarbon group of lowest chemical potential, evolve only at pressures greater than approx. 30 kbar, excepting only the lightest, methane. The pressure of 30 kbar corresponds to depths of approx.100 km. For experimental verification of the predictions of the theoretical analysis, a special high-pressure apparatus has been designed that permits investigations at pressures to 50 kbar and temperatures to 1,500°C and also allows rapid cooling while maintaining high pressures. The high-pressure genesis of petroleum hydrocarbons has been demonstrated using only the reagents solid iron oxide, FeO, and marble, CaCO3, 99.9% pure and wet with triple distilled water.

The expression in the second line of Eq. 2 states further that for any circumstance for which the Affinity does not vanish, there exists a generalized thermodynamic force that drives the system toward equilibrium. The constraints of this expression assure that an apple, having disconnected from its bough, does not fall, say, half way to the ground and there stop (a phenomenon not prohibited by the first law) but must continue to fall until the ground. These constraints force a chemically reactive system to evolve always toward the state of lowest thermodynamic Affinity.

These constraints force a chemically reactive system to evolve always toward the state of lowest thermodynamic Affinity. Thus, the evolution of a chemically reactive, multicomponent system may be determined at any temperature, pressure, or composition whenever the chemical potentials of its components are known. To ascertain the thermodynamic regime of the spontaneous evolution of hydrocarbons, their chemical potentials must be determined.

 

[Skyhunter]

The organic theory of the formation of oil cannot explain why one small country Saudi Arabia has 25% of the reserves of oil on the planet, half of which is in 8 fields, one of which the Ghawar field accounts for half of all Saudi oil production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghawar_Field

Yes it does.

The source-rocks of the Arabo-Iranian Mega-Petroleum System (Laherrère J.H., Perrodon A., Demaison G. 1994 "Undiscovered Petroleum Potential" Petroconsultants report -383p - March) are described as follows:
All these source-rocks are almost entirely characterized by type II Kerogen, with often more than 10% TOC and high SPI: 14 t HC/m3 for the Hanifa-Nadrya Upper Jurassic sourcerocks of Saudi Arabia (Demaison and Huizinga 1991). Other Cretaceous source-rocks are of comparable quality. These organic-rich sediments spread over large surfaces, more than 400 km2 for Jurassic formations, and are within the oil window over much of the region. So the amount of hydrocarbons generated is around 5.6 Ttoe = 40 Tboe.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102104_no_free_pt1.shtml"

Can you provide an explanation for Paradox 1 Order of Magnitude Concentration of Oil in certain locations on the planet? What is your explanation for the Athabasca Oil Sands?

Yes.

The origins of the huge resource are believed to lie in the north-easterly migration of light crude from southern Alberta driven by the same geological forces that caused the formation of the Rocky Mountains – gradually being transformed into more viscous bitumen over time. The deposits accumulated in incised valleys within Devonian strata, which were subsequently modified by the rising sea levels in the early Cretaceous. The underlying sedimentary geology reflects a continuum of aquatic environments from fluvial through estuarine and finally marine shoreline.
http://www.mining-technology.com/projects/athabascasands/"

Skyhunter, scientific discussion addresses the points raised by the author. Gold presents dozens of fundamental observations all of which support the deep Earth source for the planet's hydrocarbons.

And all are explained with fewer assumptions and without violating fundamental laws of physics.

I provided a paper that shows both theoretically and experimentally that liquid oil (long chain hydrocarbon molecules) forms at high high pressure from Methane (CH4) which there are massive deposits at very great depths through out the planet.

How would such reactions take place in the oxidated state of the upper mantle?

Energy is required to convert Kerogen to oil. There is not sufficient energy and the reaction does not occur at 100C at the pressures where crude oil is found. Crude Oil is formed at great depths in the planet and then migrates through the mantel picking up heavy metals. Vast oil field (Southern Saskatchewan for example show similar amounts of heavy metals in the oil which shows that the oil migrated from the same source at great depths in the mantel.

Since crude oil has never been detected in the mantle, and is found in sedimentary rock where it has migrated from source rock, both upwards and downwards, the heavy metals are at best coincidental.

The fact that diamonds require 40,000 atmospheres to form (150 km) depth at least to create a diamond shows there is massive hydrocarbons at great depths in the planet.

How massive?
It is known that methane is found in the mantle, but methane is the simplest and lightest of the hydrocarbons. Diamonds are not evidence of crude oil in the Earth's mantle.

Thomas Gold found crude oil in granite, a non-sedimentary rock. There are naturally occurring natural gas leaks in the granite through region where he looked for crude oil.

He drilled in a meteoric impact crater where the granite crust was shattered 40 kilometers deep. The surrounding sedimentary rock as well as sedimentary rock that was eroded away by glaciers was also oil bearing. He was looking for methane and all he found was a few dubious barrels of oil. Hardly vindication of is theory.

The wells he drilled yielded 80 barrels of oil. The entire project cost $40 million or $500,000 per barrel. That is if the eighty barrels are more than drilling fluids and diesel fuel.

Gold's theory is that hydrocarbons gradually were released from the Earth forming the oceans and hydrocarbon deposits on the planet's surface. The alternative theory which you are advocating is the late veneer theory which has special comets (special because current comets do not match the atmosphere which indicates the atmosphere formed by a filtering mechanism) depositing the Earth's atmosphere and the hydrocarbons.

Hydrocarbons are concentrated by a factor of 200 in the outer crust. The mantel is very dry and does not have hydrocarbons in it. The moon formed by a Mars size impact that removed all volatile element from the mantel. The lighter elements were protected in the core. Experimental and theoretical evidence indicates that light elements will form vast molecules at the very high pressures that are found in the core. As the core cooled the light elements are released and extruded to the surface, hence forming the oceans (Methane CH4 breaks down in the atmosphere and bonds with free oxygen.)

There is evidence that the oceans increased with volume with time.

The evolution of multi-component systems at high pressures: VI. The thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen–carbon system: The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum, By Kenney, Kutcherov, Bendeliani, and Alekseev

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/17/10976

A different topic for another thread.

 

[Phrak]

The source of surface hydrocarbons is an interesting topic. The mechanism must explain why there are massive hydrocarbon deposits in specific locations, such as the Canadian Oil sands or the Middle East formations. As one looks at the data in more detail, it becomes painfully evident that the current theory is not correct.

One basic problem for the current theory is how does one create long change oil molecules from kerogan. I found a interesting set of papers published by the American Petroleum Institute API that outlines and discussed a whole set of observational anomalies that cannot be explained by the current theory. The solution to the formation problem (The required reaction to change kerogen to oil does not take place at the temperature and pressure that oil is found at.) was to state the word "time" with an explanation mark. As rocks do not roll up hill and waiting a few or many years does not change gravity or the direction chemical reactions take place. Time does not fix the fundamental problem with the biological source mechanism (how does one covert and concentrate kerogen to form oil).

This long titled paper is interesting. The authors assert that chemical thermal dynamic analysis can be used to determine whether a reaction will or will not occur, at a specific temperature and pressure. They assert that using chemical thermal dynamic analysis, that it can be shown that long chain carbon molecules will not spontaneously be formed, except at great pressures (at depths greater than 100 km). Then they preform an experiment that produces long chain hydrocarbons using a diamond anvil that can recreate the pressure at great depths.

The following are excerpts from this paper.

The evolution of multi-component systems at high pressures: VI. The thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen–carbon system: The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum, By Kenney, Kutcherov, Bendeliani, and Alekseev

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/17/10976

I haven't read the paper. If one extends the accepted theory to include subduction followed by upwelling of carbon compounds, couldn't this explain oil deposits?