Oil is NOT a fossil fuel...

[Zohaar818]

PS-- Still one of the best and most "objective" articles on the subject of "fossil fuels" theory vs. the Abiogenic view. Certainly raises enough questions to entertain the mind...

The End of Fossil Fuels

[HydrogenBond]

There are some arguments that suggest that all the oil does not have to be fossil in origin. One argument against all fossil, is nature does not just stack the dead bodies of life for disentregation into oil. Almost everything living is recycled. In other words, if a dinasaur died in the woods, scavengers would eat first. Then the ants, beetles and bugs would have their share, then bacteria, etc., There should be only bone-oil left and not a puddle of premium oil ooze. Recycle sort of reduces the original fossil estimates a very sizeable fraction.

 

If for the sake of argument, oil did come from life, how does it get into deposits. Were these deposits the specific spots animals piled in so they could outpace the rate of natural recycle? If oil was uniformly spread everywhere, all over the earth, more or less, the entire bio-process would make more sense. Water deposits under the land make sense since rain is constant such that the volumes are huge and constant. How does all the trace oil ,everywhere ,somehow concentration into deposits? One has to stretch things, to make some type of logical scenario.

 

To get to the root of the matter, one needs to do an atomic balance and look at some basic molecules. Irregardless of the mechanism, the oil needs mostly C, H. That means these atoms had to part of the original earth. One could argue, all the original C,H started with CO2 and H2O. If that was true, than the original earth was an oxidizing environment. It would need to use O as the central potential before the earth had an oxygen atmosphere or O2. The oxygen could not be the oxide or O-2 found in minerals. It would have to be at least atomic oxygen so there is enough potential to trap atomic C and H. Based on that assumption, the new place we need to begin, is with hot atoms, since the cool O2 is not yet available to account for the needed oxidation.

 

What will happen to the atomic O, depends on the original ratio of C, H and O on the primal earth. If oxygen was dominant, then CO2 and H20 are likely. But if this happened there could not have been an original N2 atomsphere. The N2 is a reduced state of nitrogen, relative to NOx. In other words, if we start with atoms, like O,H, C and N , if H2O and CO2 could form, than most of the N atoms of the earth would be NOx, such that there would not be much N2 in the original atmosphere. For the N2 to form, implies that there has to be a reduction potential.

 

It is likely that H was one of the dominant atoms. It had to be plentiful to form that much H2O. A likely scenario is the oxygen atoms were very preoccupied going after the hydrogen to make all the earth's water. This is the most exothermic reaction and is most favored. That would suggest the C was saved for last, so to speak. But in the mean time, some of the C reacted with the excess H to form some hydrocarbons in the glowing light of the H2O burn. After the water is mostly fomed, excess C would become quickly oxidized to CO and CO2.

 

Since N2 is reduced compared to NOx, this suggests a reduction potential was needed to form N2. This could not due to the H, since it contains no H. This suggests that the N2 within the atmosphere got there via some form of life before the plants. These got their oxygen in an anaerobic way from the NO3-. They got their food and building materiasl from the primal C,H and N,H compounds. Their waste would be N2. Once the nitrates fell to a safe level to support plant life, i.e., lower fertilizer toxicity, plants began to reduce the CO2 and make O2.

 

Using this logic, oil is from both the early earth, and from life. If you look at the soup of life, there had to be at least NH3, CH4, CHO, etc. These are all reduce materials. This suggests the original oxidation on the earth was relative weak, or was so preoccupied with making H2O, that it allowed H reduceable paths that formed at least some of the C,H oils.

[Zythryn]

As I recall, it is theorized that oil deposits are found in locations that allowed the biological material to decay without being heavily scavenged. Such as the bottom of lakes, sudden burials (avalanch, tar pits, etc).

It isn't so much a question of how the evenly distributed biological material found its way to these oil deposits. Instead the oil deposits are places where the deterioration process was allowed time to create oil.

Like frost on a grassy yard. When the sun rises does all the frost move to the shady areas? No, the frost only appears in the shady areas because it dissappeared from the other areas.

[Zohaar818]

It isn't so much a question of how the evenly distributed biological material found its way to these oil deposits. Instead the oil deposits are places where the deterioration process was allowed time to create oil...

 

Well, if someone could demonstrate that process, in a lab say..well we could all end the argument right here. But to date no one that I am aware of has managed to demonstrate just how does dead dinosaur or decaying microbial life create oil.

 

That hydrocarbons and super hot gasses rise from the super-heated earth core, through the mantle and cool into petroleum deposits at certain depths and temperatures,under certain rock layers, picking up trace elements of dead microbes and old fossils along the way seems far more likely than the idea that mass extinctions of life in some form somehow were magically compressed down to petroleum.

 

I say magically because, once again..no one has demonstrated the process of turning plant life, microbes, dinosaur bones, or fish or birds or indeed any other "fossil" material into crude oil.

[CraigD]

But to date no one that I am aware of has managed to demonstrate just how does dead dinosaur or decaying microbial life create oil.

I am likewise unaware of any such demonstration. The biogenic model of petroleum formation, thought by far the most accepted one, appears to be based on a number of likely conjectures and circumstantial evidence – large deposits appear in current or past seabed areas that had high volumes of primarily plant and microbe sediments (macrofauna appear to contribute only slightly), and various chemical mechanism are plausible, but not end-to-end experimentally verified. This is not an uncommon state in science – when a theory has good predictive and explanation value, and is accepted by nearly all people in its discipline, there’s little motivation to spend effort and money on experiments to prove conclusively prove it, or disprove its alternatives.

 

Zohaar, to clarify you position, are you arguing that both coal and petroleum is of a mostly or totally abiotic origin, or only petroleum?

[Zohaar818]

The End of Fossil Fuels

 

I make a distinction between coal and petroleum, specifically crude oils as found in those deep sea beds you mentioned.

I agree that coal has an organic origin..at least most coal anyway.

 

As for graphite, diamonds and other carbon compounds or crystals I am inclined to go with geologic, internal earth mechanisms over biotic decay and such to explain the huge oil deposits immediately under the crust or the sea.

 

I remind you t hat once upon a time "spontaneous generation" and the Steady State Universe" were widely accepted theories which few challenged until enough inquiring minds and rebel spirits dared call attention to some new facts, glaring inconsistancies and repeatable experiments.

 

If as, you s ay, the only evidence we have upon which to pin our belief on the biotic/ or biogenic origins of oil is circumstantial, then I don't understand why so many are so heated in defense of the biotic theory...and so violently opposed to even allowing the possibility that the theory is wrong or that the abiogenicists may be on to something.

 

Seems to me that more than the "science" is being debated, and that more than 'honor" is at stake.

 

But me..I just want to know the truth of things and to accept an answer that boils down to "take my word for it..or millions believe it to be true" just doesn't meet my standard of "proof".

 

Perhaps the abiogenic oil proponents are on to something..or perhaps not.

But like I said..if the biotic oil lobby could demonstrate the process..y'know like at what temeporature, humidity, pressure and with what catalyst do microbes, or dead animals of any kind mulch into petroleum?

 

Cuz I have to say..that whole process sounds more like alchemy than chemistry.

[rockytriton]

maybe god put the oil there to help the muslims? oh crap, I better go convert to islam, they must be right! :)

[rockytriton]

I haven't read through all the pages of this, but I found this link on Wikipedia that has some good info, sorry if someone else already posted it:

Abiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Nolan]

There are a number of basic unsolved problems (this list comes from a series of papers published by the APPG in “Origin of Petroleum” vol. 1 & 2. and recent papers.) with the organic theory of oil. The following are some of the key problems.

 

1) Chemical Reaction Issue. What chemical reaction at 90C to 120C can convert the long chain hydrocarbon molecules that make up organic sediments, to the lighter C2 to C14 hydrocarbons, which make up 50% of crude oil?

 

2) Mass Balance issue. Massive reservoirs of oil and methane gas are found where there is no matching massive organic source. For example in the ocean on the continental margins, organic debris is processed by other life forms (active evolved ecosystem) so there is not a large amount of organic material in ocean sediments. There are however massive oil and gas reservoirs on the continental margins.

 

3) Refilling Reservoirs. There is clear evidence of refilling reservoirs. For example in the Gulf Coast, Texas inland fields, and in the Middle East.

 

4) The migration problem. Petroleum engineering studies in the 1980’s noted that there is no physical explanation as to how the kerogin, if it could be converted to oil at 90C to 120C, can migrate out of the clays and mud that makes up shale. The organic material appears to be trapped in the shale. (I found a book of papers also published by AAPG entitled “The Migration Problem”.)

 

A) Chemical Reaction Issue.

 

Geologists have known for some time that the organic material in recent sediments lacks the lighter hydrocarbons C2 to C14 that makes up 50% of oil. (See the excerpt from Dunton and Hunt’s paper at the end of this comment.)

 

What process converts the organic heavy crude molecules to lighter crude molecules, if the source of crude oil is organic sediments? Those who support the abiogenic theory of oil formation assert that there is no biological or chemical process that can convert the heavy organic molecules hydrocarbons that are found in organic sediments to the lighter C2 to C14 hydrocarbons at the temperature and pressure where crude oil is found. They assert that petroleum oil comes from deep earth sources.

 

Crude oil is commonly found (both source and reservoir) rock where the temperature is less than 120C. How can the heavy organic molecules "kerogin" be converted to lighter crude molecules at 120C?

 

In a refinery, heavy crude molecules are converted to light crude molecules via the process called “hydrocracking” where the heavy crude is heated to 400C under pressure (200-300 bar), with a catalyst and hydrogen. Through this process heavy crude is converted to the lighter hydrocarbons found in gasoline, motor oil, and heating oil. The light crude is not stable at the temperatures and pressures in the “hydrocracker” and must be immediately cooled to prevent it breaking down into CH4 and carbon.

 

The abiogenic proponents assert that methane CH4 is converted to light hydrocarbons at 100 km below the earth’s surface where due to the very great pressure 30,000 bar (42,000 psi), this reaction will occur naturally and the light crudes are stable.

 

 

Distribution of Low Molecular Weight Hydrocarbons in Recent and Ancient Sediments, by M. Dunton and J. Hunt

 

"Recent sediments Sokolov (1957) could not be regarded as petroleum since the C2 to C14 hydrocarbons were not reported whereas these hydrocarbons make up about 50 per of many crude oils. Sokolov, Veber (1958), … found only traces, of no C2 to C14 hydrocarbons in organic rich sediments from the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea. Emery and Hoggan (1958) had previously reported a total of less than 1 ppm of these hydrocarbons in the basins off the California coast."

 

As noted earlier in this thread the paper published by Kenny et al, asserts that there is no chemical or biological process that can convert the organic heavy hydrocarbons to the C2 through C14.

 

The following is an excerpt from Kenny et al paper. (This paper generated a letter response in Nature. As far as I know the scientific issue outlined by Kenny is still unresolved.)

 

the theoretical analyses establish that the normal alkanes, the homologous hydrocarbon group of lowest chemical potential, evolve only at pressures greater than approx. 30,000 bar, excepting only the lightest, methane. …The pressure of 30 kbar corresponds to depths of approximately 100 km.

 

Comment:

See earlier in this thread for a link to Kerry's paper.