Anyone out there a geophysicist?
Now we all know that oil is a fossil fuel. The vast quantities of it lying around are all biological in origin, even if the relevant organisms are ancient; even older than your grandma.
This isn’t open to question, there being, of course, a consensus.
So, what is this post about?
Ever heard of the abiotic, or abiogenic, oil hypothesis? What it boils down to is that given sources of carbon, hydrogen, pressure and energy hydrocarbons will form. Well, deep in the earth’s crust it is bloody hot, pressures are enormous and there is plenty of CO2 and H2O – as well as lots and lots of surface area on microfractured rocks to help catalyse reactions.
This, so some say, not dead bugs, is the source of our oil. The stuff gets made in the upper mantle and migrates its way up to the crust, forming near surface reservoirs which we exploit. The implication of this is that everything we think we know about petroleum reserves is a load of twaddle, there would be vast reserves still to be found, probably dwarving everything found so far, and those crowing with delight about the imminence of peak oil would have to consider the career advantages of keeping quiet (not that being comprehensibly wrong has ever hurt any lefties standing amongst other lefties).
If there is any truth to this hypothesis it means that oil will be found in places and at depths that biogenic theory would label absurd.
Now, not being in a position to judge, and not being interested enough to spend my time gaining the expertise, I have tended to accept the majority position – to go with the consensus as it were, while nonetheless reading whatever came my way.
So, a couple of questions for our geophysicist readers, oil is found over 10 Km deep in Texas – how the f&*@ did it get there if it is fossil? How is it that oil, a product of sedimentation, has been found under igneous rock formations? Most oil wells dry up eventually, but some just keep producing for decades past their expected life. Anyone got any idea why?
Researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have managed to prove that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated. The findings are revolutionary since this means, on the one hand, that it will be much easier to find these sources of energy and, on the other hand, that they can be found all over the globe.
(…)
Scientist working at the site discovered two important changes in the oil properties. Its age was was more recent than in previous years and its temperature was hotter. Using 3-D seismic technology scientist found a deep fault at the bottom of the well. What they saw startled, intrigued, and forced them to rethink the origins of oil. What they clearly saw was a deep fault gushing oil and refilling the well. There was no debate about it.
M. Simon at Power and Control has a worth reading posting on this topic, as well as a greenie annoying posting on the potential collapse in the cost of drilling. Seems these new drilling techniques use things like lasers, and jets of water heated by a 7200o F flame – these guys get to play with real high tech stuff AND piss off George Monbiot at the same time, how cool is that?
It’s funny, only last night I watched a documentary on National Geographic called “weirdest planets” which talked about planets nearer the centre of the galaxy (where carbon is more abundant than oxygen) which would have lakes and seas of butane, benzine and other hydrocarbons. Now, unless all these interstellar planets had dinosaurs running around on them this would seem to suggest that substances we derive from oil are naturally occurring, no?
I am not a geophysicist, nor do I play one on TV, but as I understand it, it is well known that hydrocarbons can be made either from simple chemical reactions, the rotting of vegetation, or from the processes that take place in the earth’s mantle when carbohydrates are subjected to intense pressures and temperatures.
Thus Methane, (CH4), is known to exist on Titan and also to be formed when vegetation rots. Some of the more complex hydrocarbons, (with lot’s of carbon and hydrogen atoms in chains and rings), don’t appear to occur from chemical only processes and appear to rely on life to build complex carbohydrates, (with lot’s of carbon ,hydrogen and oxygen atoms in chains and rings), and then geologic processes to turn them into hydrocarbons. In addition there are impurities, (most notably nitrogen), in hydrocarbon reservoirs which appear to suggest that at least some of the hydrocarbon comes from more complex amino acid and protein deoxification. Then there are often fossils in the reservoirs as well.
None of this precludes the abiogenic process of hydrocarbon formation, but the theory is not widely supported and what support it gets is mostly lukewarm and confined to some small amount of methane as the best possibility.
Nevertheless, it would be cool if it pans out.
As far as “abiotic oil” is concerned, I’ve kept an eye on that and the lack of any results - like, drilling in an unexpected place and finding oil - has counted against it.
The re-filling of old wells is not news; the Wych Farm oilfield in Dorset was kept going for much longer than expected, at one time they thought there might be a large oilfield off Bournemouth. Nothing, so far as I know.
That oil and gas is made in deep rocks; well, the thermophile bacteria that live there may well be generating it. Doesn’t help if the seep to the top is slower than we use it.
But I do so hope that oil and gas supplies could be limitless. Just the sight of the greenies looking at the evidence and trying to twist it round would be priceless.
And new drilling methods? Wouldn’t you back an engineer with a profit motive above an activist with an axe to grind?