Abiotic Oil and Barack Obama
I call it strange, but in fact it repeats a pattern familiar in the history of geology, the downfall of attractive, first-principles approaches in the face of field evidence. Biblical flood theory (Diluvialism) and the antiquity of the Earth are two familiar topics from the 1800s where the rocks prevailed over the arm-wavers. Rather than go into the history of abiotic oil (try Geoffrey Glasby's review in Resource Geology), I'll just note that the theory deals with an Earth before plate tectonics, and it relies on first principles and laboratory physics (points of Soviet pride) rather than geologic evidence.
The rhetoric of today's abiotic-oil campaign also repeats a familiar circular pattern, this one from the creationist "intelligent design" and "anti-global-warming" campaigns:
- A contrarian passion—I don't like it, so it must be wrong
- A black-and-white worldview—everything they know is totally wrong
- Accusations of mental flaws in the mainstream—they hate me because they hate being wrong
- Eager jumping to wishful political conclusions—oil cannot ever run out
Enjoy a bracing dip into this paranoid school from its foremost proponent at gasresources.net.
It may go without saying that the blogs are full of this style of discourse, including those devoted to the Obama and McCain campaigns.
Comments
been there:
http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2008/05/greasy-lazy-pythons.html
done that:
http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2007/07/abiotic-snake-oil.html
Oh, I have a long love/hate relationship with these nay-sayers of the scientific dogma. It is really sad that they are as fringe as the UFO/yeti/ghost crowd and don’t even know it.
The argument I always go back to, and it applies to all of these, is fundamental to science. We, as scientists, are glory hogs. If there is something to prove wrong, we love it. There is never a ‘grassy knoll’ community that suppresses the evidence for the greater good, most scientists make their living from proving others wrong. If you could prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt that 1)abiotic oil existed 2) God/Creation existed 3) Global warming was a big hoax 4) any other fringe theory, you would do it, because you would have riches and fame beyond your dreams. Who’s going to pass that up, and more importantly, how do you get hundreds of scientists worldwide to bypass that for the cover-up?
WE MUST teach science in the classrooms of America! It is as important as math. and English (which are) sort of being emphasized today. We MUST attract more students into the fields of science before they enter college.
You may possibly be falling into your own rhetoric here? While the evidence of Global warming seems pretty conclusive, the evidence of why is not quite so clear-cut.
So to refer to “anti-global-warming campaigns” in the way you do, seems to fall under your own point of “A contrarian passion—I don’t like it, so it must be wrong”.
Please note that I am not saying that Gobal warming is or is not due to human actions, just pointing out that to condemn completely something that does still have a (slight) doubt, seems to convay your own scientific prejudices – Something you then go on to warn about.
“Sisters,” please assume that I wrote some convoluted other description instead, one that doesn’t make you infer secret hidden agendas.
If you are saying that science always has the answers you certainly must not be familiar with what passed a science in the past. You are really missing the point. Science is being used right now to force the adoption of social /economic policy regarding global warming that will impact people in terrible way without really “knowing” if it is correct or not. That is not science- remember we were all going to freeze to death just a couple of decades ago, was that science – quit insulting the word.
Against my better judgment I tried engaging in discussion w/ some abiotic oil enthusiasts a couple months ago … I was told I was arrogant and a disgrace to my profession because I thought crude oil could possibly come from organic matter. Kenney, the gasresources.net guy, is their messiah. It’s wacky stuff.
It is wacky, and abrasive as the examples here display.
The scientific evidence for Abiotic Oil is solid. Check it out for yourself, don’t let somebody else tell you,”move along,no story here.”
Oil Is Mastery
“Fossil” theory has a corollary called the “oil window” which states that deeper than 15,000 feet deep oil breaks down into methane because of the heat so oil can’t exist.
But off the coast of Brazil on the outer continental shelf, Petrobas, the Brazil oil company has found oil that is beyond the salt barrier, 500 degrees Fahrenheit, and deeper than 15,000 feet., actually the oil ranges from 18,000 feet to 30,000 feet deep. These conditions all directly contradict “fossil” theory.
Petrobas is investing $12 billion in 40 drilling ships (rigs) at $30 million a piece. These rigs can drill 40,000 feet deep. Including up to 12,000 feet of water and 28,000 feet below the sea floor. That’s a lot of money to be spending on a “wacky” theory.
“Fossil” theory has no experiments that prove it even exists. Abiotic theory does have experiments published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science demonstrating that hydrocarbons form in conditions of ultra-high heat and pressure consistent with the Earth’s mantle.
“I don’t think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic source of hydrocarbons.” — Michael D. Lewan, 2002, Unites States Geological Survey.
Oil has been found that is over 3 billion years old. The title of the published scientific paper: Archean oil; evidence for extensive hydrocarbon generation and migration 2.5-3.5 Ga by Roger Buick.
this is the link.
“It’s at least plausible that the 3.2 billion year old oil we found did in fact have an abiotic origin.” — Roger Buick, 2008
Check out the science.
I’m tempted to say that the second law of thermdynamics is the last refuge of a scoundrel. It’s certainly a touchstone for a lot of quackery. Whoever it is runs the Oil Is Mastery blog argues in the tendentious, lawyerly fashion familiar from the creationists and warming deniers, with an equally tenuous grasp of science and logic and the same petulance of a thwarted child simmering underneath. Thanks for the classic example of what I’m taking about.
To Geology Guide:
You say, “tempted to say.” Well, I’d say, you went ahead and said it. You go on to say, “It’s certainly a touchstone for a lot of quackery.” How so? The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a physical law that has never been known to be violated. It’s a constraint on all chemical and physical processes. Anybody, who argues for a chemical and physical process without demonstrating that process conforms to the constraints of the Second Law of Thermodynamics has failed to present evidence the “process” can actually happen. Can “fossil” theory demonstrate or present any evidence it conforms to the constraints of the above stated law of nature?
It would seem the burden of scientific proof is on the supporters of “fossil” theory to show that it does. So far, I haven’t seen that scientific evidence.
You say, “tendentious,” I’d say you sound pretty “partial” in your above comments, here. Your comments seem to be an attempt to generate bias and prejudice against Abiotic Theory without offering any positive argument on behalf of “fossil” theory. Is that necessary? Does it promote “fossil” theory in any manner?
A founder of geology Charles Lyell was a lawyer by training, so by “lawyerly,” do you mean citing scientific facts and evidence and drawing reasonable conclusions from them? That sounds like a basic component of the scientific method.
If it’s not a part of the scientific method, why not?
GG says, “Thanks for the classic example of what I’m talking about.”
Presumably, you are refering to my comment above. But you offer not one scientific fact or piece of evidence to dispute my comment, rather, you attempt to elicit bias and prejudice by saying it’s in the same “fashion” as “creationism and warming deniers,” again, without offering one reason, other than it is presented in a “lawyerly” manner.
You might make a better case against Abiotic Theory by refuting my above comment with contradicting scientific facts and evidence, as opposed to your present tactics.
Is it fair to conclude, if you could, you would? But because there aren’t any readily available facts at hand to dispute my above comment, you have engaged in an ad hominem attack designed to “discourage” people from checking out the Oil Is Mastery website or check out the scientific evidence supporting Abiotic Theory?
Surely, supporters of “fossil” theory can do better than that?
Keep digging that hole, Jim. You do know that the Second Law only applies to closed systems, don’t you?
I’m calling Oil Is Mastery tendentious and a classic example of the airtight, punctureproof circle of logic and rhetoric outlined in my post. By “lawyerly” I mean obfuscatory, rhetorically manipulative and prone to assertion over argument. There’s no prejudice involved against abiotic oil. The mechanisms exist in the lab, but the real Earth is different and its history points to biotic oil. Look at that Archean oil — it has a perfectly good biotic explanation, whereas in Archean time there was no subduction to put carbon into the mantle. Did you not know that?
I didn’t discourage visits to your blog, I pointed out what a good example it is of what I’m talking about. How is that discouraging? That’s the scientific evidence you’re talking about, isn’t it?
Sure I’m partial. The high-pressure chemical experiments are important, but Oil Is Mastery can’t show that the mantle environment matches them. Oil Is Mastery can’t show that the Russian oil program relies on abiotic oil (when did they do their double-blind random drilling program?). Oil Is Mastery can’t even tell that serpentinization happens in the crust, not the mantle. The writer of that blog is pitifully ignorant of geology, physics, and the scientific method. There’s nothing “ad hominem” about that. What would be ad hominem is me accusing the author of ginning up his site just to get people into his hedge fund. But since he’s anonymous, that couldn’t be the case.
Geology Guide:
Published scientific papers supporting Abiotic Theory are on the side-bar available to be linked. Readers can judge the papers on their own merits. Readers are also free to judge the merits of the comments, too.
Yes, I know the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a closed system, therefore, it is encumbent for “fossil” theory to demonstrate that the crustal environment’s level of heat and pressure, low compared to the mantle’s heat and pressure, is sufficient to cause the low potential chemical energy molecule (organic detritus) to transform to a high potential chemical energy molecule (hydrocarbons). Without added energy to the system, any sytem, molecules will not increase in potential chemical energy — the energy has to come from somewhere and it has to be in sufficient amount.
“Fossi” theory has never presented laboratory experimental results which support its central contention that the energy of crustal heat & pressure causes “fossil” hydrocarbon formation from organic detritus.
I’m open to reading any scientific paper that states there was no subduction during the Archean time, but your statement presupposes there wasn’t large amounts of carbon already in the mantle.
A basic contention of Abiotic Theory is that there were carbon and hydrogen in the primordial Earth.
All oil has traces of daimondoids, molecular daimonds. All authorities agree daimonds are only formed in the ultra-high heat and pressure of the mantle.
Cheveron scientists were only able to produce diamondoids in the laboratory mimmicing the ultra-high heat and pressure consistent with the mantle. This suggests that daimondoids, like their molecular big brother daimonds, form in the mantle, in conjunction with oil, then are transported with the oil towards the surface.
The above diamondoid example is a strong piece of scientific evidence that “does show that the mantle environment matches” with oil’s formation.
There are other trace minerals in oil that are not consistent with levels in the crust, but are consistent with the levels in the mantle, like nickel, valandium, and helium.
“The elemental distribution in the crude oil from all studied deposits does not match such of any known crustal rock.” Inorganic Geochemistry of Oil:…, (Kirill S. Ivanov1, et. al. 2007).
Another piece of evidence supporting Abiotic Oil. Dispute it or obect to it, with accompanying reasons, that is the nature of the scientific method.
“All authorities agree daimonds are only formed in the ultra-high heat and pressure of the mantle.”
Which authorities are those?
P. DiCarli?
T. L. Daulton?
M. Ozima?
J. Jamieson?
D. S. White?
W. B. White?
R. S. Lewis?
T. Ming?
J. F. Wacker?
E. Anders?
E. Steel?
X. Zhao?
The difference between lawyering and science is that lawyering simply tries to build up support for a particular position. Science tries to develop predictive models which try to use all known data to constrain systems which we haven’t managed to measure yet.
So in order for an abiotic hypothesis to be more useful than a biotic one, you need to link not only abiotic papers, but also the normal petroleum literature, with annotations showing how your hypothesis explains the migration paths, trace molecules, chemical history, and petrogenesis of traditional oil better than the standard model.
lab Lemming:
Your long list is all very well and good. But your list doesn’t offer a single quote, with reasoning, nor a single piece of scientific evidence.
What do they say? Surely a quote or a citation, or something, so I can at least look up what they say on my own and other readers could, too, on the matter at hand.
Abiotic Oil builds a predictive pattern. Tectonic fault systems or fields overlaid with sedimentary trapping structures. Volcanic activity as in Indonesia where active faults trends toward and run into active volcanoes with those faults covered over in sedimentary deposits, so, too, in New Zealand.
Historically, in ages far removed from our own the Siberian traps was an active volcanic area, and today, Russian oil geologists report large deposits of petroleum overlaid with coal, basault and natural gas.
Travis volcanic mounds are volcanic mounds in the State of Texas where, since there discovery have been associated with oil wells. Oil is found in the fractured ‘tuff’ in the center of the mounds.
Some very long producing oil wells.
California’s coast range is impregnated with oil seeps, as well as there being oil seeps in the near offshore. The valley has numerous heavy oil deposits. The near shore and offshore are riddled with fault networks, and a few offshore production platforms are still producing oil after 30 years. Evidence of high pressure oil deposits exist.
Lab Lemming say:
“So in order for an abiotic hypothesis to be more useful than a biotic one, you need to link not only abiotic papers, but also the normal petroleum literature, with annotations showing how your hypothesis explains the migration paths, trace molecules, chemical history, and petrogenesis of traditional oil better than the standard model.”
Agreed. Solid edict.
Anaconda, you continue to demonstrate that you don’t understand either thermodynamics or redox chemistry, and I suspect you don’t know much about catalysis either. Nor do you appear to appreciate that there is any kind of science other than lab experiments and the Physics for Poets version of scientific method.
Nor do you appear to understand why Earth must have formed hot and why mantle scientists find “primordial” reservoirs increasingly problematic. The old Soviet assumption is invalid.
It may interest you to learn that diamondoid science has barely begun. The reason they are known in petroleum and not elsewhere is that they cause abrasion in pipelines. We don’t know where else they are found, nor can we say how they form. It’s a closed mind that insists they be the same as ordinary diamonds.
As for this: “The elemental distribution in the crude oil from all studied deposits does not match such of any known crustal rock.” That’s because oil is a biological product, just as soil has different elemental distributions from the rock beneath it.
Now moving on to your next comment, how does abiotic oil explain the Gulf of Mexico deposits, where there is no volcanism and no plate boundary? How does it explain the deep Brazilian deposits, which are in an exactly analogous setting? And in general, how do faults prove anything more than that oil likes cracks?
I don’t see any sign that you understand the stratigraphy of the Siberian Traps; I look forward to you providing a source arguing that no possible source beds underlie the Permian basalts there.
You really aren’t making much of a case for yourself.
I did fail to mention that daimonds have been artifically created in the laboratory using ultra-high heat and pressure, and that this process has been industrialized. The same heat and pressure used to create the daimondoids in the laboratory and consistent with laboratory experiments creating the hydrocarbon suite.
The gentlemen, whose names were provided by Lab Lemming, have conducted experiments focussing on artificial diamond formation in the laboratory. Three types of forces have been applied in these experiments: high pressure impacts; radiation, including ion-beam, and catalysts.
Thank you, Lab Lemming, for bringing these men’s name to my attention. The experiments are important, and have possible wide-ranging application to nano-technology.
Diamonds can be created in other conditions besides ultra-high heat and pressure consistent with the mantle. I was wrong.
Although, two of the areas of research, high pressure impact and radiation, seem to have relative little to do with the environment consistent with the Earth’s crust. These seem to be exotic (space debris, and meterorite impacts, count as exotics), in relation crustal conditions. And radiation seems to be more of a space, or deep Earth phenomena, again, not crustal.
The third, catalayst is different. Using catalysts in the smelting and seperation of metals, is an ancient recognized process. Catalysts that facilitate chemical reactions are known, but this diamond experimental research suggests under specific catalytic environments, diamond crystallization can happen.
Again, this is useful for nano-technology.
Although, all experiments tend toward small samples, and production amounts.
Still, I stand corrected.
Actually, more and more scientists are subscribing to a “cold” formation of Earth, and there is evidence of a relative “cold” aggregation, then radiation processes and heat and pressure fueled by gravity stocked the internal heat of Earth.
Obviously, not all scientists agree.
To make a sweeping statement of invalidity when more and more scientists are coming to the conclusion of a “cold” Earth formation is unwarrented.
Yes, Diamondoids clog pipelines, but they are almost unknown elsewhere because oil is one of the few if only substances containing daimondoids. Because oil is one of the few substances to transport from the mantle to the crust.
GG says: “We don’t know where else they are found, nor can we say how they form. It’s a closed mind that insists they be the same as ordinary diamonds.”
First, Chevron scientists were able to create diamondoids in the laboratory using ultra-high heat and pressure. Second, it’s a reasonable scientific conclusion that daimondoids are formed in the same heat and pressure conditions as the molecularly similar larger daimond polymorphs.
Strange, you want an open mind for a process that you claim is “unknown,” but are unwilling to make any accomodation in regards to Abiotic Theory which has many lines of scientific evidence supporitng it.
Sorry, if oil is a remant of organic detritus, it could only pick up rare trace minerals, by being formed in and moving around an environment that had those rare trace elements. Since, the crust doesn’t have these minerals it’s inconsistent that oil would “miraculously” pick up these trace minerals. These minerals are also rare in biotic material, too.
Very simple, there are all kinds of faults and fissures formed as a result of subsidence in the Gulf floor that pull apart to form deep fissures. Where do you get organic detritus that could be 25,000 feet below the sea floor in the Gulf of Mexico.
Sorry, the continental margin and Gulf of Mexico have their differences and similarities. And it’s well known that volatiles and other tectonic fault activity occures on the continental margins.
As well as volcanic activity in specific instances.
I understand enough to know the Siberian Traps were an ancient volcanic area and now it’s an oil and gas producing area.
The Russians clearly consider the provenance of the oil in the Siberian Traps to be abiotic in origin.
I’ll let readers decide what kind of a case I’ve made.
Catalysts in smelting? Well I was right, you don’t know much about catalysis either. Clue: catalysis is how organisms get around energy barriers, like how they manufacture hydrocarbons in the upper crust. Biotic catalysts are called enzymes.
Cold accretion is a discarded hypothesis. It is impossible for the Earth to have assembled without gravitational energy melting the whole ensemble. Even little asteroids have iron cores, and Earth is not only much larger but was also subjected to an extra gigantic impact to create the Moon.
Perhaps my argument wasn’t clear: diamondoids are best known in petroleum because that’s the first place we looked for them, to see why pipelines were wearing out. They’re “almost unknown elsewhere” because we only just started looking.
Vanadium, uranium and other elements with a high level in petroleum are what geochemists call incompatible elements. They don’t live in the mantle, but in the upper crust. They’re also mobilized under the redox conditions in oil-bearing strata. Biotic processes aren’t involved, redox conditions are. Helium is an exception because it’s actually created throughout the crust and parts of the upper mantle during radioactive decay; it has no chemical activity because it’s the most inert element.
The organic detritus in the deep Gulf mud was buried there by sedimentation.
So far you’ve flunked physics 101, chemistry 101 and geology 101. I don’t think you can demonstrate what “the Russians” — meaning the actual drillers, not the same handful of authors stuck in the Soviet 1960s — think about Siberian oil. That’s my next bet.
Geology Guide: My interest is in petroleum formation, closely related to mineral formation. Certainly, the Diamond experiments using catalysts such as nickle to induce diamond formation didn’t involve “enzymes” at all. I was reporting a line of experimentation that didn’t involve enzymes, so why mention enzymes, they have little or nothing to do with Abiotic Oil.
Whereas, catalysts involved in mineral and crystal formation is important in the Abiotic Oil debate and scientific investigation.
I’m surprised, Geology Guide, at your overweening desire to distract and denigrate, it’s clouding your judgment.
GG says: “Clue: catalysis is how organisms get around energy barriers, like how they manufacture hydrocarbons in the upper crust.”
There is no scientific evidence that ‘natural’ strains of flora or fauna “manufacture hydrocarbons in the upper crust.” There is an ‘artificial’ gene manipulated, algae, a company has developed that produces hydrocarbons. But that’s a far cry from ‘natural’ or dead detritus.
Organic detritus (the stuff oil derives from according to “fossil” theory) is dead. Enymes only work in ‘live biotic material’ not dead ‘detritus’. Please, Geology Guide, you’re making this too easy.
Scientists disagree on Earth’s formation. Your “say so” won’t change the truth of the debate.
Actually, Adamantane was first discovered in 1933 in Czechoslovakian petroleum. Simple, single cage diamondoids. So, it’s been known, in it’s simplest form for over 70 years. So, no, we haven’t “just started looking.” You’re distracting from the science, again, that’s unbecomming of you, GG. The truth is that diamondoids started clogging oil pipelines when Chevron started piping “deepoil” from the Gulf of Mexico.
News article on Chevron’s diamondoids.
Again, let the readers decide from the news story.
Geology Guide, your treatment of “mantle minerals” is embarrassing you. Competent science doesn’t put these minerals “in the upper crust.” Rather, as stated previously: ““The elemental distribution in the crude oil from all studied deposits does not match such of any known crustal rock.” Inorganic Geochemistry of Oil:…, (Kirill S. Ivanov1, et. al. 2007).
As I said in the earier comment: “Dispute it or obect to it.” Your “say so” doesn’t carry water.
To allow readers to know what you are refering to when you say “redox” here is a definition. Complex, but it certainly doesn’t involve transmutation one element to another. GG, we’re not in alchemy class, here, you know. You’re spinning like a ginny.
GG says: “The organic detritus in the deep Gulf mud was buried there by sedimentation.”
I thought petroleum was the result of organic detritus building up in stagnant, shallow warm seas, what you propose is non of those things. That’s the problem with “fossil” theory. The closer you look and the more you are unwilling to accept all the presuppositions cast by “fossil” theory, the less it makes sense.
GG, you cast down 50 years of rigorous scientific discipline. Whether, Soviet or Russian, these scientists have demonstrated their competence, from putting the fist satellite into space and the first man in space to cobbelling together the hydrogen bomb. Your denigrating arrogance toward Russian science is unworthy of a “scientist” who should know better.
That’s sad.
Check out Abiotic Oil science for yourself, don’t take somebody else’s word.
I apologize for upsetting you; I don’t need to be so snarky.
Diamondoid research has clearly focused on petroleum because that’s where the money is. The article you pointed to is about industrial research, which is cool stuff, but diamondoids should appear elsewhere, like kimberlites and ultrahigh-pressure metamorphic rocks. Maybe they’re everywhere, even in soil. That research is not visible.
“I thought petroleum was the result of organic detritus building up in stagnant, shallow warm seas.” No, you must be thinking of coal or limestone.
I have nothing but admiration for Soviet-era physics, and Soviet geologists have much to be proud of. But Soviet oil drillers didn’t send Sputnik and Gagarin into space or devise an H-bomb. This isn’t a convincing argument. None of your arguments are convincing, and they get weaker as we go along. But you may now declare victory and go brag about it on Oil Is Mastery.
What’s important about the revival of the long-abandoned inorganic oil hypothesis is the way it fits into the anti-”peak oil” battle. I happen to think that peak oil predictions are worthless because of the human and political complexities of petroleum production. I think peak oil arguments should be ignored as we debate responses to the greenhouse situation. (We need to stop burning carbon regardless.) But peak oil is a weapon in the policy debate, and the dishonest skeptics lobby is attacking it with specious arguments like yours. The hope is that people like you will fasten on a self-reinforcing, contrarian belief set and sow doubt across the media.
Some people enjoy being misunderstood underdogs; others enjoy manipulating them. For the rest of us, high-school physics, chemistry and Earth science are enough to confer immunity to both. For those who didn’t do well in high-school science, the Internet can help them try again as adults.
Geology Guide:
GG says: “[B]ut diamondoids should appear elsewhere, like kimberlites and ultrahigh-pressure metamorphic rocks.” Exactly, materials which have their origin in the mantle, just like oil.
GG says: “Maybe they’re everywhere, even in soil.” That statement is nothing but rank speculation, made without explanation or reasoning. That doesn’t even qualify as a hypothesis.
GG is happy to engage in rank speculation when it serves his agenda, but rails against Abiotic Theory, even though it’s supported by several lines of scientific evidence.
Do you see the inconsistency in your position?
GG says: “I have nothing but admiration for Soviet-era physics, and Soviet geologists have much to be proud of.”
I’m glad because these are the people who developed the Russian-Ukrainian theory of modern abiotic petroleum.
GG says: “But Soviet oil drillers didn’t send Sputnik and Gagarin into space or devise an H-bomb.” True, but neither did they develope Abiotic Oil theory, it was the physicists and the geologists who did.
What is becoming clear in this discussion is that you don’t know a lot about Abiotic Oil because you didn’t study it in geology school (nobody does) and it’s ridiculed in geology circles, just like you are doing here. In reality, you are lashing out at Abiotic Oil, as does a bull towards the matador’s red cape.
Calm down, relax, and look at the science. Say, “I’ll take a look at the science.” That’s the mature course of action to take — take it.
Your “Peak” oil paragraph lays out your agenda plain to see. Anything that contradicts “Peak” oil is an enemy that needs to be denigrated and dismissed — damn the science.
Which explains the intemperate tone you have used during much of this discussion.
Tone is often a substitute for actual facts and evidence, in that regard you and other commentors, here, have acted true to form.
My motive is simple: Truth for its own sake. Apparently, your agenda is something different.
“Peak” oil as an over-arching agenda or dogma limits one’s thinking as if one is wearing blinders.
That’s not good science.
I already looked at the abiotic-oil sites, Jim. I pointed to them way up top, remember? I read the articles and the screeds, too. I wouldn’t call abiotic-oil a “paranoid school” without looking at it. That wouldn’t be open-minded.
Geology Guide:
Agreed. “Cold” Earth formation is scientifcally disputed, therefore, it’s problomatic for scientific theories to rely upon it.
But what science does know is that carbon and hydrogen are present in the mantle and crust chemically combined in various minerals in various concentrations. On a slightly different line of reasoning, nitrogen, which makes up 78% of the atmosphere, had to come from somewhere, unless, it came from meteorites, an unlikely prospect. Water, H2O, also had to ccme from somewhere as well. So, science does know there are abundant sources for carbon and hydrogen to combine by way of thermo-molecular bonding into hydrocarbons, regardless of the exact Earth formation process.
These abundances, by the way, are at least a piece of scientific evidence supporting “cold” formation, but admittedly not conclusive.
(Earth formation science probably will always be somewhat tentitive by its nature of attempting to understand a process seperated from the present by 4.5 billion years.)
G.G., “taking a look” is not the same as a “good faith” effort to understand the science. And with the “tone” you have displayed, here, one can wonder whether someone, so firmly commited to the idea that “peak oil is a weapon in the policy debate,” has actually made a “good faith” effort to understand the science.
And, yes, that does make me bristle from time to time. You got me there.
Anaconda … I’ve already been through this cycle with you … so I’m not here to dicuss/debate. What I am here to say is that you and/or OilIsMastery can talk the talk, but it’s time to walk to walk. Abstracts for American Geophysical Union annual meeting are due on Sept. 10th.
The annual AGU meeting has numerous sessions where you can sumbit your science. You continue to talk about how mainstream science needs to hear this stuff. Given what you talk about above (and elsewhere) the technial theme “Rock and Mineral Physics” ought to be appropriate. There’s a session called “Diffusion and Related Transport Processes in Geomaterials” … that might work. There’s another called “Minerals in the Early Solar System”. Since you think oil is an ultramafic mineral, that would be appropriate. There’s another called “Melt and Melt Properties Under Pressure”. That sounds right up your alley. There’s also a theme called “Study of Earth’s Deep Interior”, you might submit to a session entitled “The Deep Earth’s Mantle Above the CMB: Structure, Composition Dynamics, and Evolution”.
AGU is pretty good about accepting abstracts, they want a well-attended conference (i.e., it’s not crazy competitive).
BrianR:
I am not a scientist, there are plenty of scientists to present scientific papers on Abiotic Oil.
Check out this geologist’s resume:
Stanley B. Keith has over 30 years of successful exploration experience in minerals and energy. Upon earning BS and MS degrees in geology from the University of Arizona, he became a field and research geologist focused on mineralogy, geologic mapping, stratigraphy, tectonics, and isotopic age dating. At Kennecott and the Arizona Geological Survey in the mid-1970s he recognized an empirical relationship between mineral deposits and magma series. He co-founded MagmaChem Exploration in 1983 for mineral exploration, working on numerous exploration and research projects for both mineral and energy exploration companies. Currently he is a founding researcher with Sonoita Geoscience Research, an industry-supported consortium that applies hydrothermal and economic geological theory and techniques to petroleum exploration.
Mr. Keith is the lead author of this scientific paper Cracks of the World: Global Strike-Slip Fault Systems and Giant Resource Accumulations, along with two other established geologists.
Published in the HGS (Houston Geological Society) Bulletin April 2003.
That’s as mainstream oil industry as you can get.
Check out this co-author’s resume: Jan C. Rasmussen earned her BS and MS in geology, specializing in sedimentary petrology and stratigraphy, and a PhD in economic geology, from the University of Arizona.
Same area you are specializing in BrianR.
I should also point out that Sonoita Geoscience Research is an industry-supported consortium. To make that clear: The oil industry finances research on Abiotic Oil.
So you see BrianR, I don’t have to publish anything, there are plenty of geologists already doing that. You should study your peers’ work, it would be informative.
You’re still digging, aren’t you? That paper doesn’t contain any contradiction to standard petroleum theory. I read it, didn’t you?
Your appeal to credentialism and (perceived) prestige, I should point out, is a typical defense mechanism of cranks; the Kenney site (gasresources.net) uses it, for example, and of course the creationists.
Another typical rhetorical flourish of cranks is inflation. A typical consulting firm becomes an “industry-supported consortium.” And a single article in a minor local journal becomes “plenty of geologists.”
You’re really quite transparent.
Geology Guide:
You didn’t read the paper closely.
Nowhere in the paper is there any reference to “fossil” theory or any of it’s nomenclature.
Here is a quote from the the paper:
“At a more local scale, introduction of magma and hydrothermal fluids into the global “crack system” commonly is coincident with kinematic activity in the faults. Indeed, analysis of mineral and chemical fractionation patterns produced during sequential introductions of the hot fluids offers new tools for kinematic and dynamic analysis of the global-scale fracture system.”
That is no accident. You didn’t read his resume either: “…in the mid-1970s he [Keith]recognized an empirical relationship between mineral deposits and magma series. He co-founded MagmaChem…”
“Magma,” as in volcanic and hydrothermal processes consistent with Abiotic Theory.
But I thought you might come back with that kind of response.
So, here is another paper Keith authored, which should make it crystal clear Hydrothermal Hydrocarbons. There is even a diagram at the bottom of the paper past the references readers can link to.
And a quote from that paper:
“We suggest a third possibility–the generation of methane and heavier hydrocarbons through reactions that occur during cooling, fractionation, and deposition of dolomitic carbonates, metal-rich black shales, and other minerals from hydrothermal metagenic fluids.”
Now, I haven’t seen enough catalyst experiments to subscribe into Keith’s theory, but it quite clear it’s an Abiotic theory, as is the paper I linked to above.
That’s why Keith provides the following quote:
“We’ve barely tapped, from the exploration point of view, the hydrocarbon potential that’s out there on this planet.” — Stanley B. Keith, 2005
The geologists cited, I would be willing to wager have more field, research, and commercial experience than you do. And have more scientific papers to their credit.
G.G. says: “Another typical rhetorical flourish of cranks is inflation. A typical consulting firm becomes an “industry-supported consortium.” And a single article in a minor local journal becomes “plenty of geologists.”
The Houston Geological Society is not a minor local journal in the oil industry.
And I’m quoting his resume on the “industry-supported consortium,” so now you’re attacking other geologists apparently without reading their work.
G.G. you’re only exposing how closed-minded you are because you don’t even take the time to read and comprehend the work.
Sad.
You keep firing blanks. His paper doesn’t contradict standard petroleum theory. It’s about prospecting using a novel tectonic model, not about the origin of petroleum.
“Nowhere in the paper is there any reference to ‘fossil’ theory or any of it’s nomenclature.” Well QED, buddy, they don’t talk about abiotic theory either.
The abstract you’ve fallen back on introduces a third theory of petroleum. It isn’t the Soviet model, is it?
It’s a nice speculation; I appreciate it. You notice that he includes the whole familiar biogenic system in his larger vision, though that isn’t part of the point he’s making. He makes oil through hydrothermal, metal-catalyzed mechanisms, but that oil is made from existing, that is to say organic, hydrocarbons. That’s right there in the abstract. He does claim that ultimately all carbon is from the mantle, but that conclusion is both unnecessary (after all, subduction puts organic carbon in the mantle) and irrelevant to today’s situation.
He mentions diamondoids, but I simply can’t give any weight to diamondoids. If they’re indestructible enough to occur in all petroleum, they should be everywhere, like zircons. They should be thoroughly recirculated by plate tectonics. In a word, they should be contaminants. Where is the basic research that has looked for them, in an unbiased way, outside petroleum? What firmly ties their origin to petroleum’s origin? Coincidence isn’t sufficient. And given the overwhelming preponderance of evidence for biotic oil, diamondoids have no conclusive significance yet.
Well, congratulations. After two weeks, you’ve finally managed to unearth one creative attempt at a new petroleum theory that might have practical consequences—a presentation at a Canadian meeting in 2005.
Geology Guide:
G.G. says: “It’s about prospecting using a novel tectonic model, not about the origin of petroleum.”
I see you thought better of attacking one of your peers, who obviously has a lot more professional experience and expertise than you do.
And at least you read the paper, whether you comprehended it or not, is still an open question.
Since, apparently you didn’t know that tectonic faults are how Abiotic Oil reaches the crustal sedimentary layers.
And you ignore Keith’s quote, so lets state it again: ““We’ve barely tapped, from the exploration point of view, the hydrocarbon potential that’s out there on this planet.”
But that’s been par for you in this discussion: Ignore and distort.
From Hydrothermal Hydrocarbons, Keith states: “…the generation of methane and heavier hydrocarbons through reactions that occur during cooling, fractionation, and deposition of dolomitic carbonates, metal-rich black shales, and other minerals from hydrothermal metagenic fluids.”
Sorry, G.G., that’s an Abiotic Oil hypothesis. And if you read the entire paper that comes through loud and clear. And in the first paper cited, it’s also clear Keith is referring to “cracks” all the way out to the mid-ocean ridge — no shallow seas out that way, and little organic detritus in any event.
Oh, and in case you didn’t notice, Keith’s paper supports Abiotic Theory, Russian style.
Anyway, your perspective is clear:
G.G. says: “I happen to think that peak oil predictions are worthless because of the human and political complexities of petroleum production. I think peak oil arguments should be ignored as we debate responses to the greenhouse situation. (We need to stop burning carbon regardless.) But peak oil is a weapon in the policy debate.”
You wear your politics on your sleeve and cast your objectivity over the side.
Some geologist.
Heck, you don’t even believe in “Peak” oil, but are willing, just the same, to use it as a “political” weapon. So I guess you’re okay with the “ends justify the means” reasoning — and in politics some people may pat you on the back. I call it hypocrisy.
The readers will decide which it is.
Whatever the case, it doesn’t speak much for your respect for the scientific method.
And your “politics” blinds you to what others see. Even if you don’t.
This will be my last comment in this thread. It’s clear that you have a serious problem comprehending written English, whether it’s a scientific paper or a simple blog post.
“I am not a scientist, there are plenty of scientists to present scientific papers on Abiotic Oil.”
Cool, I look forward to seeing these presentations at AGU this year. If you find out the exact abstract titles, please post … will make the talks/posters easier to find.
For the Record:
Readers can decide who is right.
Here is follow up that shows Keith’s hypothesis is abiotic:
The scientific paper is entitled Hydrothermal Oil, by Stanley Keith, MagmaChem, et al.
It is available here, as one of several scientific papers.
The relevant quote from the paper’s conclusions is below:
“If the hydrothermal point of view summarized above is viable, it has revolutionary implications for petroleum geology in general:
1) A significant amount of the world’s oil may be derived from abiogenic sources in the basement.
2) Migration and trapping may be accompanied by abiogenic depositional reactions and transport mechanisms.”
Abiogenic is the same as abiotic for the record.
The nutcase story regarding the second law of thermodynamics,
is pumped into the net by the well known con man Jack Kenney.
He is best know for having claimed that he has found 20 or
65 billion barrels of oil in a small area of Ukraine. This number
is 10 to 30 times bigger than anything ever discovered in Ukraine.
I checked with the Ukrainians: the whole story is a scam. Nobody by Kenney and comrades have ever heard about this oil.
Regarding the second law, Kenney simply gives the silly examples of methane or highly oxidized organic matter. Oil-prone kerogen, the highly reduced highly aliphatic polymeric mixture you find in source rocks have free energy of formation more than an order of magnitude larger than any of the oil molecule examples Kenney is listing.
Anaconda.
I am calling your bluff ! First; the oil window has nothing to do with depth. It is about stability of oil (time and temperature). I followed the 500 degrees link you have referenced previously. Totally unrelated to what you are claiming !
You are simply making up the story about oil in the Santos basin at 500 degrees F. So again Anaconda. I am calling your bluff.
Give us a list of of all the reservoirs in the world were oil is produced at temperatures as high as 500 degrees fahrenheit.
And with oil I mean oil; bubble point behaving fluid. So again Anaconda; you have the chance to prove you are not simply fabricating the story and really do know the difference between the temperature rating of a tubing, vs. reservoir temperature.
To Michael:
Good thing I wanted to find a quote, or I wouldn’t have seen your comments.
J.F. Kenney is a published scientist, his scientific paper on thermodynamics was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 2002.
Kenney has other published scientific papers to his credit, available here.
The Dnieper-Donetsk basin oil field is a fact — how much oil will ultimately be recovered, can only be estimated.
Dispute the science, but calling Kenney a “con man” says more about you than about him.
Regarding your reference about kerogen: The question is how did kerogen form? Where is the energy to form kerogen out of organic detritus? After all “fossil” theory postulates that kerogen forms from organic detritus, yet “we still don’t know in complete detail how it forms.”
And, even before the assumed “diagenesis” process (converting organic detritus to kerogen), what scientific evidence suggests enough organic detritus survives rapid decomposition? Most organic detritus breaks down almost immediately.
As to your second comment: 15,000 feet is an approximation. The key factor for the “oil window” is temperature. Supposedly, the temperatures at depths below about 15,000 feet are high enough (above 275 degrees F) to break hydrocarbon bonds (Heinberg).
Here is the link to the Bloomberg report of 500 degree Fahrenheit temperatures. April 28 (Bloomberg) — “Brazil’s plan to become one of the world’s biggest oil exporters hinges on exploiting crude 6 miles below the ocean surface in deposits so hot they can melt the metal used to carry uranium to nuclear plants.”
Another report: May 6 (Bloomberg) — “Wells drilled 7 kilometers beneath Louisiana into a formation known as the Tuscaloosa Trend encountered temperatures of 485 degrees Fahrenheit, said John Rogers Smith, a petroleum engineering professor at Louisiana State University.” News report available here. From the same news report: “The U.S. Energy Department predicted temperatures reaching a metal-melting 500 degrees Fahrenheit.”
Here is a McClatchy news report: “Temperatures 30,000 feet below the ocean floor can reach 400 degrees Fahrenheit, hot enough to turn oil into natural gas.”
Michael, if you have a better explanation for the temperatures quoted in the above reports, please provide it. The reports are linked, I’m not fabricating anything. If you believe I’m failing to correctly interpret the reports, fine, I’m happy to stand corrected, if you provide a convincing explanation.
There is a significant body of scientific evidence that suggests serpernization produces hydrocarbons which in turn then form commercial petroleum deposits.
“The Nordic Coutries invite you to the 33rd IGC — International Geological Congress, Olso 2008, August 6-14th.”
The above linked website has a number of scientific abstracts regarding abiotic oil and serpentization.
The congress is sponsored by StatoilHydro, a Norwegian oil company.
Here is the AAPG regional conference in Athens, Greece, Nov. 2007 Un-Conventional Resources – The Modern Theory of Abiotic Genesis of Hydrocarbons: Challenge or Myth? abstracts that can be read.
So, there is a significant body of scientific literature on abiotic hydrocarbons.
Always a thermodynamic argument.
You have no idea how oil is produced deep in the earth, under extream pressure and heat.
It may be more of a quantum mechanical thing, and then there is no thermodynamic action to consider.
Petroleum Oil is not from vegitation or animal matter.
In the end, with all the constant new discoveries, someday the thermodynamic relationship will be tossed out of some scientific discoverys. Like in the old days of medicine when they would bleed someone to cure them of some unrelated malady.
Ya need to learn to think outa the thermodynamic box, cause if ya stay there nothin new is gona come from it.
August 27, 2008 at 11:29 pm (28) Geology Guide says:
“I simply can’t give any weight to diamondoids. If they’re indestructible enough to occur in all petroleum, they should be everywhere, like zircons. They should be thoroughly recirculated by plate tectonics. In a word, they should be contaminants”
You may dismiss diamondoids in crude oil as contaminants, but can you do the same to inclusions of hydrocarbon fluids in diamonds? Or do you postulate diamonds of biological origins? Now, that would be an interesting track to take.
Hydrocarbons Encapsulated in Diamonds From China and India
Leung, I.; Tsao, C.; Taj-Eddin, I.
The fact that you site Geoffrey Glasby to support your argument that hydrocabrons are biological is hilarious.
Geoffrey P Glasby doesn’t understand abiotic theory. He says the following not realizing what he is actually saying:
“Formation of higher hydrocarbons in the upper layers of the Earth’s crust occurs only as the result of Fischer-Tropsch-type reactions in the presence of hydrogen gas but is otherwise not possible on thermodynamic grounds.” — Geoffrey P. Glasby, geologist, 2006
In other words, according to Glasby, biogenic origin is impossible.
For more information: http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/
OilIsMastery’s comment is one more nail in the coffin of “fossil” theory.
Surely natural hydrocarbons are abiogenic in origin because they are primordial materials.
Where does como from hydrocarbons that form lakes in Titan (saturn moon)? Hydrocarbons are common in the universe. Carbon is the forth element in order of cosmic abundance. The petroleum paradox still occur because most part of geologists don’t understand or don’t know Deep Hot Biosphere theory as proposed by Dr. Thomas Gold.
Scientists, reserchers, we are in XXI century not in middle age or spontaneous generation was true?
google: The Fake Oil Crisis of 1973