Thursday, July 3, 2008

Everything You Know About Oil Is Wrong



Myth Vs. Reality:

Myth: Oil Comes From Biological Organisms

Reality: No biological organism has ever been observed miraculously transforming into hydrocarbons. The Second Law of Thermodynamics prevents that from ever happening.

Myth: Oil Is Formed In The Earth's Crust

Reality: In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences published a paper which proves that the complex polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in outer space and on Earth can only be formed at pressures above 30 kilobar, which corresponds to a depth of about 100 kilometers deep in the Earth's mantle. (No biological molecule can survive at such a depth because it is hotter than the critical point of water).

Myth: Oil Is Only Found In Sediments

Reality: Oil is found in volcanic igneous rocks. See here, here, here, and here.

Myth: Biomarkers Are Found In Oil

Reality: In 2007 ICP-MS analysis proved that all oil has inorganic geochemistry. Also see here.

80 comments:

Quantum_Flux said...

Apparently so! Yep, igneous rock along the inactive fault lines instead of sedimentary rock or metamorphic rock. Mantle pressures of 30 kPa are necessary instead of the arbitrarily determined "oil window" in the crust. NASA is saying so...etc.

But now it just remains to be seen if the genetically modified bug can photosynthetically produce crude oil or if that is just a hoax. Also, I can't quite believe that all of the oil geology textbooks in the west are incorrect though. Do you know of any Oil Geology textbooks that teach abiotic origins of oil?

BrianR said...

OilIsMastery ... do you think the examples of petroleum reservoirs found in igneous rocks reflect a direct connection to the mantle source?

Anaconda said...

To Quantum_Flux:
I hope the "genetically modified bug can photosynthetically produce crude oil." It would be fantastic, both scientifically and economically.

I have no sentimental attachment to petroleum, but I do have a commitment to the truth. And, the current "rage" of Peak oil is destructive and completely unnecessary, as it's completely false.

Yes, economics is important -- it makes the world go round -- in terms of human affairs.

Petroleum is the most productive substance on Earth.

While mankind should continue the "push" for 'alternative' energy, civilization as we know it depends on petroleum, today, and it will, tomorrow, and the next day.

There is plenty of petroleum to be discovered and produced.

That's a good thing.

The knowledge of petroleum's origin is the best knowledge, which is generally unknown, today, but that could easily become widespread.

In terms of oil's economic importance to our civilization, this superstition of "fossil" theory has as much impact as the "superstition" that the Sun rotated around the Earth, if not more. To cast this "superstition" into the dust bin of history would be the equivalent of Galileo's proving the Earth rotates around the Sun.

Truth for its own sake has always benefitted mankind, if admittedly it is hard to see at first.

Yes, all the oil geology textbooks in the West are wrong.

And, no, I don't know of any oil geology textbooks that "teach abiotic origins of oil.

But I'm not in a good position to know.

What I understand, is that at least some oil geology textbooks mention Abiotic Theory, but carefully discredit abiotic oil in the same breath.

But I'd love to be proven wrong and be shown an Abiotic Theory textbook.

But Abiotic Theory is a revolutionary idea in the geology community.

There is no geology "school" that teaches Abiotic Theory, so therefore, no texbook has been prepared.

Obviously a textbook could be prepared.

And in a sense, this website, Oil Is Mastery, is that textbook.

And the world is starting to pick up the book and turn the pages.

History is being made right here.

BrianR said...

Who says oil is only found in sedimentary rocks?

BrianR said...

By the way, the third example from your igneous rock reservoir list states the following about the sources of oil in basement reservoirs:

"1. Overlying organic rock from which oil was expelled downward during compaction.
2. Lateral, off-the-basement, but topographically lower organic rock from which oil was squeezed into an underlying carrier bed through which it migrated updip into the basement rock.
3. Lower, lateral reservoirs from which earlier trapped oil was spilled due to tilting or overfilling."

The author of that article also states:

"Younger sediments, which act as hydrocarbon sources, either flank or directly overlie the basement, providing an opportunity for entrapment of oil in the basement rock."

How does the fact that igneous rocks can be reservoirs address the origin of the oil?

Which goes to my first question above ... are these basement reservoirs directly connected to the mantle source of the hydrocarbons?

What's the connection to an abiogenic origin of oil?

The editors for the GSL book you link to chose this statement from Landes (1960) regarding basement reservoirs as the intro to the entire book:

"Commercial oil deposits in basement rocks are not geological “accidents” but are oil accumulations which obey all the rules of oil sourcing, migration and entrapment; therefore in areas of not too deep basement, oil deposits within basement rocks should be explored with the same professional skill and zeal as accumulations in the overlying sediments."

The 'rules of sourcing' Landes cites are those of biogenic concepts. Furthermore, he states that the occurrence of the oil is in 'not too deep basement'.

Citing those examples of basement reservoirs does nothing to strengthen the case that biogenic oil cannot exist. The authors/editors themselves indicate that they think the occurrence of basement reservoirs and biogenic concepts are perfectly compatible.

In other words, why would you even link to them?

Anaconda said...

To Brian:

Your comment: "Who says oil is only found in sedimentary rocks?"

A lot of the "Peak" oil pushers, whether geologists or just "interested parties" have stated that any oil that does get into igneous or metamorphic rocks originated in sedimentary rocks.

After all, that is what "fossil" theory says, isn't it?

But the evidence is as clear as day: Oil has been found in non-sedimentary rocks, and there are plenty of examples where there is no evident connection to sedimentary rocks.

Brian asks: "In other words, why would you even link to them?"

The answer is simple: To demonstrate what "fossil" theory geologists have to say about oil located in basement rock.

That's full disclosure.

And If you know something about the subject, you can read the paper and "see" the "back flips" made by the geologists to maintain their illusion that all oil originates from sedimentary rocks.

There is no "hiding the ball" here.

BrianR said...

OilIsMastery or Anaconda ... who says oil is ONLY found in sedimentary rocks? Specifically.

OilIsMastery or Anaconda ... let's leave the peak oil crap aside ... I don't care about that, let's stick to the science.

Are these basement reservoirs connected to their mantle source?

Quantum_Flux said...

At least I think that what I know about coal is correct though. Coal is formed from plant detritus, right? Didn't the use of coal precede the use of oil, and thereby the leap was made?

Quantum_Flux said...

Say, isn't coal a hydrocarbon?

Anaconda said...

To Quantum_Flux:
Please read The End of Fossil Fuels. It's linked at the side-bar under Introduction To The Science Of Abiotic Petroleum Origin.

I think you will find it an interesting composition.

"Seams of coal are sometimes fifty or more feet thick. No forest could make such a layer of coal..."

"What about an 800 foot thick coal seam in Australia?"

Also, it's noted that coal has been found in Archaean and precambrian rocks.

What's so special about that, you ask?

Simple: Land plants hadn't evolved yet. So coal can't have come from land plants.

The End of Fossil Fuels is a good read.

Quantum_Flux said...

Ha! Life is a series of being lied to I guess. Okay, abiotic hydrocarbon production makes much better sense than the dinosaur=oil and plant=coal idea that some simpleton thought up and popularized.

It makes sense that the Earth's original atmosphere ought to have resembled something like what volcanos spew up, right?

(Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Ammonia, Water Vapor, hydrogen sulfide, metals)

OilIsMastery said...

To Quantum Flux's question, "Do you know of any Geology textbooks that teach abiotic origins of oil?"

Yes of course. "Elements of Petroleum Geology" by Selley. See Chapter 5 "Generation and Migration of Petroleum". The author then concludes "the apparently unquestionable instances of indigenous oil in basement are rare and not commercially important." LOL

The best treatment I have yet seen is "Sourcebook For Petroleum Geology," AAPG Memoir 5, 1969, by Dott.

OilIsMastery said...

To Brian R's question "do you think the examples of petroleum reservoirs found in igneous rocks reflect a direct connection to the mantle source?"

Yes I do. Igneous rocks come from volcanoes and the mantle.

OilIsMastery said...

To Brian R's question "who says oil is ONLY found in sedimentary rocks? Specifically."

"Burying the sediments, or the oil, deeper than 15,000 feet continues the molecular breaking until the remaining product has only one carbon atom per molecule. That gas, almost pure methane (CH4) is often referred to as "dry" natural gas. The limit of 15,000 feet is the bottom of the oil window. If you are looking for oil, you need organic-rich sediments that have been buried, at some point in their history, into but not deeper than the oil window." -- "Dr." Kenneth Deffeyes

"the temperatures at depths below about 15,000 feet are high enough (above 275 degrees F) to break hydrocarbon bonds. What remains after these molecular bonds are severed is methane, whose molecule contains only a single carbon atom. For petroleum geologists this is not just a matter of theory, but of repeated and sometimes costly experience: they speak of an oil “window” that exists from roughly 7,500 feet to 15,000 feet, within which temperatures are appropriate for oil formation; look far outside the window, and you will most likely come up with a dry hole or, at best, natural gas only." -- Richard Heinberg

OilIsMastery said...

To Brian R's question, "Are these basement reservoirs connected to their mantle source?"

There must be. How else would petroleum seep to the surface?

Eugene Island for example.

From The Wall Street Journal:

All of which has led some scientists to a radical theory: Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some continuous source miles below the Earth's surface. That, they say, raises the tantalizing possibility that oil may not be the limited resource it is assumed to be.

"It kind of blew me away," says Jean Whelan, a geochemist and senior researcher from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. Connected to Woods Hole since 1973, Dr. Whelan says she considered herself a traditional thinker until she encountered the phenomenon in the Gulf of Mexico. Now, she says, "I believe there is a huge system of oil just migrating" deep underground.

OilIsMastery said...

To Quantum Flux's question, "Say, isn't coal a hydrocarbon?"

Coal contains hydrocarbons (PAHs) in it.

BrianR said...

OilIsMastery ... can you draw (or point me to) a sketch diagram of a generalized model of how mantle oil is connected to the crust?

Are they always along faults?

BrianR said...

OilIsMastery ... you missed my point ... being found in igneous rocks and being sourced from igneous rocks are two different things. While biogenic theorists would say that most of the oil we've produced is sourced from sedimentary rocks, they've known for a long time that oil can be found in igneous rocks. The majority of your links on your 'igneous rock oil' list on the sidebar subscribe to the idea that the oil migrated into the igneous rock from a sedimentary source rock. You might want to remove those ones.

So, I'm not really sure this is such a myth as you purport. Who says that oil can only be FOUND in sedimentary rocks?

BrianR said...

Anaconda says: "Also, it's noted that coal has been found in Archaean and precambrian rocks."

This is very interesting indeed ... can you provide a reference for the Archean coal, specifically? I never heard that but I haven't studied the Archean in any detail. Thanks.

OilIsMastery said...

To BrianR in response to "can you draw (or point me to) a sketch diagram of a generalized model of how mantle oil is connected to the crust? Are they always along faults?"

Excellent question. You can start with the following links and then use your imagination because you are smarter than I am.

Oil Volcano

100 Kilometers Deep

The Earth's Crust

OilIsMastery said...

To BrianR in response to "The majority of your links on your 'igneous rock oil' list on the sidebar subscribe to the idea that the oil migrated into the igneous rock from a sedimentary source rock."

How is it possible for petroleum to migrate through impermeable sedimentary rock into impermeable igneous rock?

BrianR said...

OilIsMastery ... thanks ... the second two images don't address hydrocarbon migration. Those show idealized/generalized crustal and upper mantle structure w/r/t to magma. The first one is a very small image, it was hard to see (that's not your fault).

But, that's the idea ... I'd like to see some diagrams like that for abiotic concepts.

Would you expect to see different hydrocarbon chemistry in different plate tectonic settings (e.g., divergent vs. convergent boundaries)? Basalt chemistry at mid-ocean ridge (MORBs) differ from OIBs (which some think are related to plumes) ... would you expect the petroleum chemistry to also differ? How do the chemical transformations of rising magma affect the hydrocarbons?

As I said to Anaconda in a different thread ... if I accept the thermodynamical and chemical foundation of abiotic theory as Kenney lays out, I need to then see the concepts within the context of plate tectonics and what we think we know about the composition and evolution of the upper mantle and lower crust.

OilIsMastery said...

To BrianR in response to "can you provide a reference for the Archean coal, specifically?"

Archaean Coal

BrianR said...

OilIsMastery says: "How is it possible for petroleum to migrate through impermeable sedimentary rock into impermeable igneous rock?"

Most papers (I haven't read every single one) state that the basement reservoirs are naturally fractured ... that's where the permeability is.

The paper in your third link states:

"Most basement rocks are hard and brittle with very low matrix porosity and permeability. Consequently, reservoir quality depends on the development of secondary porosity. Secondary porosity may be divided into two main kinds by origin: (i) tectonic porosity (joints, faults, fractures, etc. at a range of scales from microfractures to
seismic scale faults and their damage zones) and (ii) dissolution porosity (ranging from solution effects in weathering zones or fault zones to effects associated with hydrothermal circulation)."

You have unequivocally said, over and over again, that biogenic theory is 100% false. It is a done deal, right? All your writing says this. Why explore the details of that theory. You asking me to explain details of those concepts (e.g., migration of oil from source rock) is a diversion. You've already thoroughly debunked this! As Anaconda said, all the evidence is on this website.

Do you want to spend your time critiquing a widely-accepted theory over and over or pushing the envelope with NEW science? The former might be fun on internet forum debates full of non-scientists, but does absolutely nothing to progress science. Abiotic theory will go nowhere until you move on to further testing. I am open to abiotic ideas and testing them with these further questions.

OilIsMastery said...

To Brian R in response to the following questions:

(1) "Would you expect to see different hydrocarbon chemistry in different plate tectonic settings (e.g., divergent vs. convergent boundaries)?"

Sure, why not? Nevertheless, hydrogen and carbon are always hydrogen and carbon.

(2) "Basalt chemistry at mid-ocean ridge (MORBs) differ from OIBs (which some think are related to plumes) ... would you expect the petroleum chemistry to also differ?"

Sure, why not? Nevertheless, hydrogen and carbon are always hydrogen and carbon.

(3) "How do the chemical transformations of rising magma affect the hydrocarbons?"

Good question. I have no clue. I wish I knew. I expect that when molten magma hits a hydrocarbon deposit it causes a subterranean explosion and an eathquake.

BrianR said...

Thanks for the reference for 'Archean coal' ... only problem is that coal is never mentioned. I'll paste the abstract here:

"The Late Archaean Witwatersrand Supergroup of South Africa hosts the largest known gold-uranium-pyrite ore deposits. Oil preserved in fluid inclusions in quartz grains in siliciclastic sedimentary rocks of that supergroup implies that hydrocarbon generation and migration occurred during the Archaean, and may have been involved in mineralization processes. Through reference to Phanerozoic analogues, oil-bearing fluid inclusions entrapped in healed microfractures in detrital quartz grains and in early syntaxial quartz-overgrowths imply, that the onset of oil migration coincided with early to intermediate stages of burial, while intra-granular porosity was still preserved. Multiple generations of oil migration are indicated by: (i) oil inclusions within early diagenetic cements at different levels in the stratigraphic succession; (ii) more than one type of oil in entrapment sites; (iii) oil entrapment in multiple stages of the quartz paragenetic sequence. Oil generation and migration are considered to have occurred throughout, and for some considerable time after, development of the Witwatersrand Basin, consistent with progressive burial and kerogen maturation in more than one tectonic regime. Oil-bearing fluid inclusions within detrital sandstone fragments suggest that oil migration also occurred in a sedimentary succession on the Kaapvaal Craton prior to 2.9 Ga. Oil in the Witwatersrand Supergroup was most likely derived from multiple source areas, with the principal source probably being shales within the lower Witwatersrand Supergroup. The hydrocarbon migration history of the basin has important implications for understanding the textural relationship between gold, bituminized oil and uraninite in the giant gold-uranium-pyrite ore deposits."

-

Not only does it not mention coal, which was the claim, it discusses the oil within the context of biogenic sourcing and maturation.

BrianR said...

OilIsMastery says: "I expect that when molten magma hits a hydrocarbon deposit it causes a subterranean explosion and an eathquake."

An explosion as in a release and expansion of gas? Would this earthquake behave differently from fault-movement earthquakes? Could we detect that difference in the data? How deep would it be (generally)?

Since the hydrocarbons are sourced from the mantle and rising into the crust, I would expect this is a very common phenomenon, no?

OilIsMastery said...

Sorry. Whenever I see bitumen I think coal. I don't know what the diference is. Hydrocarbons are hydrocarbons.

Here is the link Anaconda pointed you to: The End of Fossil Fuels.

I believe the following articles discuss Archaean coal: The Volcanic Origin of Natural Gas and Petroleum

Also here The Volcanic Origin of Oil.

And here Rock Disturbances Theory of Petroleum Emanations

BrianR said...

"The End of Fossil Fuels" article says this:

"Hydrocarbon deposits are vast and diverse: oil, coal, natural gas, methane hydrate, etc. They appear in all geological strata from Precambrian (pre-life!) to Recent..."

Firstly, it doesn't say Archean specifically. Secondly, who says Precambrian is devoid of life? This is hardly a reference for Archean coal.

The Coste book you cite mentions carbon in the Archean (this isn't an issue), but not coal specifically. I didn't read the whole thing, so if you can point me to the specific passage where Archean coal is discussed, that'd be great.

Those other references don't seem to mention Archean coal either ... but again, if you can quote the specific passage, then I'd be satisfied.

OilIsMastery said...

What is the difference between bitumen and bituminous coal? I have no idea.

Quantum_Flux said...

Aren't I correct in assuming that the energy and carbon involved in creating all of the organic detritus on the Earth comes from 2 main sources?

(1) initially comes from photosynthesis of carbon dioxide outgassed by volcanos into the atmosphere or (2) comes from thermosynthetic processes in the deep anoxic or anaerobic oceanic zones utilizing the Earth's volcanic heat generated from the ridges in the oceanic sea floor .... with the initial sources of the food chain carbon always starting from the carbon emissions from magma.

If so, then there must certainly still be much more carbon at the 30 kilobar 5000+ Celcius parts in the Earth's mantle than has already been outgassed over the millions of years by volcanos (which, technically originally came from star fusion, but that is beside the point). The point is that the Russian oil experiment combined with the knowledge of the origins of Earth's carbon would mean that the organic detritus in sedimentary rock layers, which is typically exposed to much lower pressures and temperatures than is in the mantle, would also happen to be a much less likely source of oil and coal than the Earth's mantle.

Similarly, I also find it fascinating that Australia has an 800 foot thick layer of coal, and that coal has also been found in odd shapes that you would expect only fluids to take the form of. Of course, such things do need further analyzing on my own part because it is possible for a solid to act as a liquid if given enough heat and pressure since everything has a melting point or a point of viscoplastoelasticity, even neutron stars and spacetime itself can be stretched and compressed.

BrianR said...

OilIsMastery says: "What is the difference between bitumen and bituminous coal? I have no idea."

The coal rankings are defined by measured carbon content. You can learn all about the different types of coal in many places (e.g., here or here are just two).

There's an entire journal devoted to coal geology here.

The vast majority of what you'll find, however, is within the framework of biogenic theory of coal formation ... so, you may not find it satisfactory. It will be up to you and other leading abiotic theorists to explain the genesis of coal w/in your framework.

This is a publicly-available database of coal samples. If you don't like the biogenic interpretations, analyze the data yourself, and publish a paper. Databases like this are great because it's all about the measurements ... you can skip the subjective interpretations and just get the data.

Cameron Snow, PhD said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cam Snow said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quantum_Flux said...

Why is migration into igneous rock necessary at all though!?

OilIsMastery said...

BrianR: If you can't explain the difference between bitumen and bituminous coal in just a few sentences in your own words in language a ten year old can understand I see problems.

OilIsMastery said...

To Cameron. What source rocks? Have you ever seen a source rock? Can you go to the refinery, buy some crude oil, and useing your own chemical analysis tell me what source rock it came from?

See the Eugene Island example posted above.

All of which has led some scientists to a radical theory: Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some continuous source miles below the Earth's surface. That, they say, raises the tantalizing possibility that oil may not be the limited resource it is assumed to be.

"It kind of blew me away," says Jean Whelan, a geochemist and senior researcher from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. Connected to Woods Hole since 1973, Dr. Whelan says she considered herself a traditional thinker until she encountered the phenomenon in the Gulf of Mexico. Now, she says, "I believe there is a huge system of oil just migrating" deep underground.

OilIsMastery said...

To Cameron in response to the questions:

(1) "If oil can be readily found in volcanic zones, why aren't companies drilling on the flanks of volcanoes?"

They are. New Zealand fields Maui, Kupi, the Kupi satellite fields, and Pohokura are all flanking Mount Taranaki. Similarly all the Chevron wells in Indonesia are flanking volcanic activity.

and (2) "Also, there have been several geothermal wells drilled around the world. Why is it that none of these have produced hydrocarbon?"

The geothermal wells are operateed by Chevron Indonesia which is more evidence of the close association between hydrocarbon and volcanic activity. Hydrocarbons are combustible. If they are hit by molten lava the effect can be explosive. See Mount Pelee 1902.

OilIsMastery said...

To Quantum Flux in response to the question "Why is migration into igneous rock necessary at all though!?"

Migration into impermeable igneous rock and molten igneous rock is necessary in order to warp and twist the universe and reality to conform with biogenic theory.

OilIsMastery said...

oilandgasgeology.com

"The oil window is a temperature dependant interval in the subsurface where oil is generated and expelled from the source rocks. The oil window is often found in the 60-120 degree Celsius interval (aprox. 2-4 km depth), while the corresponding gas window is found in the 100-200+ degree Celsius interval (3-6 km depth).

After expulsion from the source rock, the oil and gas migrates upwards through permeable rocks (sandstones) or fractures until they are stopped by a tight, non-permeable layer of rock, like a shale. In this case, they are trapped, and may be produced from the hydrocarbon accumulation (reservoir) through an oil well. If not trapped, the hydrocarbons may migrate up to the surface, where they can be seen as seeps."

Um...no. As every biogenic theorists knows, the hydrocarbons migrate down into impermeable or molten igneous rocks...:P Nevermind, blowouts.

Quantum_Flux said...

[Oil Is Mastery] said "Migration into impermeable igneous rock and molten igneous rock is necessary in order to warp and twist the universe and reality to conform with biogenic theory."

Quantum_Flux: lol... good one!

[Oil Is Mastery] said "Hydrocarbons are combustible. If they are hit by molten lava the effect can be explosive. See Mount Pelee 1902."

Quantum_Flux: yeah, in oxidized conditions that is exactly what should happen. However, oil and hydrocarbon molecules form in anoxic conditions, and so a storage or reservoir would need to be exposed or near the surface to explode, or if the lava contains large concentrations of oxygen...although, I'm still trying to imagine such a flow path, perhaps the lava would siphon the oil into the flow and then explode upon contact with the air or perhaps the hydrocarbons would be oxidized by some other chemical means, such as with halogen atoms and sulfur (assuming those aren't already in the reduced state to begin with).

Quantum_Flux said...

Does sandstone contain silicate?

Cam Snow said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cam Snow said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cam Snow said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cam Snow said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quantum_Flux said...

Fluids usually flow from higher pressures to lower pressures, often times even against gravity. I think oil should flow laterally instead of downward once it reaches a certain depth or confining layer.

Quantum_Flux said...

Well, if moltent lava flows through and melts silicone dioxide, then you have an oxygen source and hence an explosion.

OilIsMastery said...

To Cameron in response to "Yes, we have measured the properties of these oils, and the oils found in the overlying source rocks (Lower Los Molles shale), and found that the chemical signature is identical."

What oil are you referring to? What wells are you referring to? What chemical signature does the oil have that tells you it was generated in the Lower Los Molles shale?

Quantum_Flux said...

Hydrogen Silicide, etc.

Cam Snow said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quantum_Flux said...

No, but at magma p-t conditions

OilIsMastery said...

To Cameron in response to "Al sur de la Dorsal and Al norte de la Dorsal in the Neuqen basin. You should aso look into the production that Chevron has had in the Tobifera formation in the Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego areas (on the Chilean side)."

And how do you know all that oil is from the Lower Los Molles shale "source rock"? Just a few sentences in your own words will do.

BrianR said...

OilIsMastery says: "If you can't explain the difference between bitumen and bituminous coal in just a few sentences in your own words in language a ten year old can understand I see problems."

This is why scientists write papers and textbooks ... we can try to summarize complex concepts in a few words, but most of the time those few words don't fully explain the phenomenon.

You know that the links I provided are enough. If not, buy a book on coal (e.g., here) or, better yet, take a class. Nowadays you can take online classes (while these classes at MIT don't list a petroleum-specific course, some might provide some good background).

I realize you want a few words, so then you can respond with another witty remark and try and get one of these idiotic exchanges going. I am disappointed you had to resort to that. I assume the "problems" related to me not responding in a short phrase implies I have other problems in comprehension? That's a good one.

You've stated you are interested in pursuing a PhD:

"I think I want to write a book or a PhD thesis on abiogenic petroleum origin" [link]

Perhaps you don't want my advice, but your internet-forum style of debate of witty remarks that try to change the subject, or worse, cut people down personally, has zero chance in academia. If you try to write a paper in this tone or give a talk at a conference, you will certainly embarrass yourself. Just a warning.

There are certainly strong egos in academia ... these people can and do act immaturely, but they can usually get away with this because they've actually collected new data and published those results. You have no original analyses. You cannot get away with it (at least not yet). Several times I've linked to databases available to the public where you can take the objective data, re-analyze, and re-interpret. This could be a source of data for your desired Ph.D. ambitions. Remember ... science does require data. A Ph.D. requires new data, or, in some cases, reinterpretation of existing data.

If you're not into actually doing science, then maybe you should write the book instead. I look forward to reading it.

OilIsMastery said...

Brian: Hmmm. Thanks for your advice. Sorry if I come off as a jerk: that's not really my intention. I haven't decided yet. I like to keep an open mind.

Quantum_Flux said...

It is highly admireable to explain things in nontechnical jargon. The great American Physicist Richard Feynman once said something along the lines of "If I can't fully explain it to a 10 year old child, then I don't understand it myself"....that guy was one of the greatest professors in all of academia.

BrianR said...

OilIsMastery says: "As every biogenic theorists knows, the hydrocarbons migrate down into impermeable or molten igneous rocks"

What does this even mean?

Who says it migrates into either impermeable or molten rocks?

I'm sorry ... I simply don't understand what your point is. Maybe it's just me.

BrianR said...

Quantum Flux ... I'm not Feynman ... I don't claim to be. Believe me, I wish I had those talents.

OilIsMastery said...

To BrianR in response to "Who says it migrates into either impermeable or molten rocks?"

Biogenic theorists say oil migrates from impervious sedimentary rock at 15,000 feet down into impervious igneous rock at 35,000 feet. Noone says that? OK I guess we're all happy then.

BrianR said...

Okay ... sweet, one reference from 1914 for 'impervious' ... how 'bout molten?

Quantum_Flux said...

There seems to be a lot of dishonesty here, Drills, Spills, and Chills , kind of like the old shot-flask trick where the flask is hidden below the shot glass shaped funnel. Literally, I don't appreciate the no-scale or cartoon cross-sections or any of the confidentiality agreements that these speakers are presenting. If oil companies can scare the American public with the idea of peak oil, then they can continue producing for years to come all the while tricking gullable America....at least that is what it seems like.

OilIsMastery said...

To BrianR in response to "how 'bout molten?"

In this case the "biogenic" hydrocarbons obviously migrated from marine sediments into molten lava without combusting or cracking: solid bitumen from pillow lavas of Proterozoic age from Mítov (Bohemian Massif, Czech Republic)

BrianR said...

OilIsMastery ... thanks ... I don't have access to that article, maybe you can post the abstract?

Anaconda said...

Guys, this is good stuff. Kinda like "Rock-Em, Sock-Em Robots" when I was a kid! Gosh, I missed a free-for-all, I'm a little bit jealous.

But it gives me an opportunity to clean up.

BrianR: I have made an original analysis on "shale oil" pre your request and after rigorous questioning from you -- My hypothesis of an abiotic origin of shale oil came out like a champ.

But I acknowledge I'm not a scientist, but rather an analyst and a synthesizer.

A few words:

Bitumus: Solid petroleum consisting of ultr-heavy hydrocarbons. Almost no volatile hydocarbons. Long chain hydrocarbons predominate.

Coal: Mostly carbon but in irregular masses that are hard to determine the acutal chemical structure. Fullerines are a mantle example of the multiple molecular structures carbon can assume. Coal is a multi-molecular carbon mass with low percentage hydrogen component.

Is this short enought?

Doctor Snow, how good of you to join us.

Doctor Snow, of all the repetitive examples you gave us. None explained the "proof" that the oil came from the sedimentary rock and not the other way round.

Yes, I read the whole thread, quite a treat really.

But nowhere did you offer anything other than "geologists say." Of course, geologists will say: "It comes from the sedimentary layer above." But where's the proof?

I haven't seen it. So please:

At least an explanation.

But I forgot BrianR has made it a rule that "fossil" theory never has to explain a thing in this discussion.

No, J.F. Kenney offers proof that the oil comes from below into the sedimentary layer. He shows this by looking at the lack of so-called "bio-markers" in the basement oil at the Dnieper-Donets basin.

A pertinent quote from Kenney:

3.) Bacteriological analysis of the oil and the examination for so-called “biological marker” molecules: The oil produced from the reservoirs in the crystalline basement rock of the Dnieper-Donets Basin has been examined particularly closely for the presence of either porphyrin molecules or “biological marker” molecules, the presence of which used to be misconstrued as "evidence" of a supposed biological origin for petroleum. None of the oil contains any such molecules, even at the ppm level. There is also research presently under progress which has established the presence of deep, anaerobic, hydrocarbon metabolizing microbes in the oil from the wells in the uppermost petroliferous zones of the crystalline basement rock in the Dnieper-Donets Basin.

This is proof Doctor Snow.

How do you care to answer it?

In your own words please.

You, too, BrianR.

This paragraph from Jack Kenney's scientific paper on that oil field lays out his results and it disproves your "empty talk" Dr. Snow.

On the other hand, you offer us nothing, but empty assertions: "Geologists say."

Well, I, for one, am sick and tired of "geologists say."

Until you can lay out proof in your own words as to your assertions:

I gotta start calling you: "Doctor Snow Job."

And you, too, BrianR -- speak for yourself, use your own words to express your understanding:

I do.

If you can't, then you're blowing smoke through your hat.

Socratic Dialogue is a two way street.

So far, you think that doesn't apply to you and "fossil" theory -- Wrong.

Come on, Brian, or are you just going to hide behind Doctor Snow job's skirt?

Yes, if you can't articulate the ideas, you, obviously, still support, then you ain't worth your salt.

So far, BrianR and, now, Dr. Snow, don't defend their theory on the scientific merits -- they defend it on "a prioria" -- which means: "Geologists say."

You got to do better than that.

Anaconda said...

"OBJECTION"

Objection...objection!

Ananonda cites J.F. Kenny and provides a pertinent, lengthy quote, but doesn't explain the concept in his own words.

Response:
It's really rather simple: The observations and scientific data collected demonstrates the petroleum starts out in the basement with no so-called "biomarkers" and as the oil travels up out of the basement it collects the bio-contaminates as it rises through the various sediment levels.

Jack Kenney does acknowledge the possibility that there could be thermophile bacteria remnants in the "basement" oil, but this would still be consistent with Abiotic Theory because it's known in science that there are ultra-deep thermophile bacteria -- but they aren't the "source" of the oil, either, rather, they are, also, another bio-contaminate.

There's your explanation in "my" own words.

Do you still have an objection:

"In your own words."

BrianR said...

Anaconda ... I see, so if I can't break down an entire field of study in a short sentence, it must not be valid? Is that what you're saying?

It's a fascinating tactic that other non-scientist contrarians use: force people to boil complex subjects into short phrases that don't satisfactorily explain that subject and then attack it because it doesn't satisfactorily explain it. I may not be very smart, but I'm not THAT dumb ... I waste my time researching all the details and then you guys say: "wait! wait! the 2nd law of thermodynamics ... blah blah blah". Right? Good times.

I'm not asking you guys to do that ... in fact, I'm asking the opposite. I'm trying to get at a systematic framework for abiotic theory. I realize you guys love tearing down abiogenic concepts and poking holes here and there ... that's clearly a fun hobby ... but, it should be able to stand by itself, no? Someone should be able to write long article or textbook that discusses abiotic theory w/out having to debunk biogenic concepts ... something that shows how it fits into the other parts of earth science and, most importantly, provides predictive value.

If my lack of short 'in my own words' explanations that you so desire leads you to conclude that this is just another piece of evidence for your ideas, then so be it. An internet exchange with a random geologist still won't constitute a systematic abiotic framework. There's that pesky issue of data and original analysis.

Anaconda says: "But I acknowledge I'm not a scientist, but rather an analyst and a synthesizer."

That's what scientists are. They collect/compile, analyze, interpret, and synthesize data. I guess you don't want to do deal with the data collection part?

I've linked to numerous databases (open to the public) for you guys to gather information to test your ideas. The ODP data for the deep-sea methane, the water-quality data for the tar-pit-leaching-turns-to-oil-shale idea, and the coal data for whatever it is you think about that. Test your ideas!

I'm open to abiotic theory, but I want to see it rigorously tested. You've rejected biogenic theory, for you it's a done deal. Why spend your time poking holes in it when you could be strengthening YOUR idea? Good luck to you.

Anaconda said...

Blackwell publishing

Precambrian Sedimentary Environments (SP 33)A Modern Approach to Ancient Depositional Systems
Edited by: Wladyslaw Altermann (Ludwig Maximilians Universitat, Munchen) and Patricia Corcoran (University of Quebec)

A salient quote from the publishers description:

"Many of these elements are associated with sedimentary rocks and some important hydrocarbon, coal and graphite deposits are also hosted by Precambrian rocks."

This book was cited, here, on Oil Is Mastery, in a previous post:

Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Bounties Of The Deep, Comment #1, 5/28/08, Petroleum Found In Precambrian Sediments At Least 543 Million Years Old.

In reviewing the internet for "coal in Archean rocks" it has been skimpy:

I may have been too bold -- Precambrian rocks can be considered of the Archean eon, but most geologists tend to seperate the two labelled ages.

There is scientific discussion as to when land plants made their appearance in the geological record.

The question is can coal beds be identified that challenge the idea that giant land plant swamps created the coal: Based on the coal beds' age being before land plants evolved?

An interesting cite: Deep petroleum and the non-organic theory. On a different note, but one discussed in this thread.

A quote as follows:

"No wonder the non-organic theory is slowly gaining wider acceptance as an alternative to the organic theory. Robert O. Russell, a wellsite geologist at the first well in North America (at Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada) drilled into crystalline basement granitic shield rocks for the express purpose of commercial hydrocarbon exploration, has pointed out that there are more than 400 wells and fields worldwide, both off-shore and on-shore that produce or have recently produced oil from igneous rocks7. This fact alone indicates that many aspects relating to the origin of petroleum need to be revised."

That's the point.

Anaconda said...

To BrianR:

You demonstrate a lot of defensive indignation as a distraction to avoid the basic point I raised to your and Dr. Snow's assertion:

Paraphrasing your assertion:
"All petroleum originates in the sedimentary crustal environment."

I raised Kenney's report and analysis from the Dneiper-Donets oil field to rebutt your assertion.

And I asked that you and Dr. Snow respond to Kenney's findings: "How do you care to answer it?"

Instead, we get your long winded comment.

Including the following:

"It's a fascinating tactic that other non-scientist contrarians use: force people to boil complex subjects into short phrases that don't satisfactorily explain that subject and then attack it because it doesn't satisfactorily explain it."

Respond and explain using any amount of words and types of words you judge effective at conveying your ideas.

That's for you to decide.

So far, all I see is somebody who refuses to answer direct questions. And this, after I have made a good faith effort to answer your questions.

And then this derisive and indefensible quip, "... blah blah blah".

That tells me, your real attitude & position is thus: "Having to defend my ("fossil") theory against a perspective I hold beneath contempt is below my dignity."

No. It just tells me and other readers when geologists are confronted with facts and evidence that contradicts their "theory," instead of grapling with those facts and evidence and mashalling their own responses that can be examined -- would rather make repeated and threadbare excuses for their refusal to engage in Socratic Dialogue.

I guess the next thing you'll write is "the Socratic Method, blah, blah, blah."

Sorry, the contempuous attitude you displayed at the first, is the attitude you displayed at the last.

Sad.

OilIsMastery said...

To BrianR in response to "Someone should be able to write long article or textbook that discusses abiotic theory w/out having to debunk biogenic concepts ... something that shows how it fits into the other parts of earth science and, most importantly, provides predictive value."

I agree 100% and that is exactly what I plan on doing. For example, abiogenic theory predicted that oil can be found in igneous rock and past the mythological biogenic "oil window" at 15,000 feet true vertical depth. Those predictions turned out to be correct. Oil companies have been drilling past the mythological "oil window" at 15,000 feet TVD since 1938.

Isn't it ironic that noone has been able to write a text book explaining biogenic concepts that doesn't spend all it's time debunking abiotic theories? Or do you hold each theory up to a different standard?

The Biogenic theory, was what Karl Popper would call, a good scientific theory: it made definite predictions, which could be tested by observation, and possibly falsified. Unfortunately for the theory, they were falsified.

Quantum_Flux said...

I wonder if an asteroid impace on a large tectonic plate can trigger a pressure wave through the Earth's core and then trigger a huge supervolcano on a much smaller tectonic plate on the other side of the Earth, and thus pumping up oil/natural gasses with it.

Cam Snow said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cam Snow said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anaconda said...

To Dr. Snow:

I see you have responded to the Kenney quote with what can be characterized loosely as a "geologists say" response. So as a rejoinder, the Kenney quote is placed again in answer. But before the Kenney quote, my interpretation of how crude oil travels up toward the near surface is placed for consideration.

Dr. Snow states:
"You should contact the Earth and Geoscience Institute of the University of Utah www.egi.utah.edu - they have extensive geochemical databases that can show you links between the chemical characteristics of the shales the oil was produced in, and the oil found in the reservoir rocks."

I appreciate the link, however, they make a huge ASSUMPTION. That the oil originates from the so-called "source rock" and migrates into the reservoir rock.

They never consider the following travel mechanism: The oil originates from a source fault and travels upward in a fracture network, then it hits your "source rock" and travels though that structure, picking up contaminates as it passes through, because crude oil is a effective solvent, then continues traveling up to the reservoir rock where it lodges in respose until brought to the surface by a well drilled into the trapping reservoir rock formation.

J.F. Kenney offers proof that the oil comes from below into the sedimentary layer. He shows this by looking at the lack of so-called "bio-markers" in the basement oil at the Dnieper-Donets basin.

A pertinent quote from Kenney:

3.) Bacteriological analysis of the oil and the examination for so-called “biological marker” molecules: The oil produced from the reservoirs in the crystalline basement rock of the Dnieper-Donets Basin has been examined particularly closely for the presence of either porphyrin molecules or “biological marker” molecules, the presence of which used to be misconstrued as "evidence" of a supposed biological origin for petroleum. None of the oil contains any such molecules, even at the ppm level. There is also research presently under progress which has established the presence of deep, anaerobic, hydrocarbon metabolizing microbes in the oil from the wells in the uppermost petroliferous zones of the crystalline basement rock in the Dnieper-Donets Basin.

Dr. Snow, do you have a specific response to the Kenney quote?

I put that direct question to you before and you were non-responsive.

"geologists say" is not responsive, neither is "you should contact" so and so.

Dr. Snow states: "This evidence in no way will disprove abiotic oil, but instead serves as evidence that biogenic oil is generated, at least in several hundred reservoirs around the world - including many that are deeper than 15000 feet."

Sorry, your offer of proof -- "you should contact..." a website -- doesn't prove oil is generated biogenically.

Dr. Snow, you make too many assumptions based on what "geologists say." Rather, you should look for actual scientific proof of the "processes" you state in summary fashion: Diagnenesis, catagenesis, oil window, generating kitchen, source rock, kerogen, all of these are assumed without scientific proof.

I gotta say this next quote of Dr. Snow is ironic: "If it did, we would have stopped doing research long ago."

From what I have read in my researches of both fossil and abiotic oil theories, I'd say research stopped long ago in regards to the origin of oil in the fossil "school" of petroleum.

What research there is in "fossil" theory is devoted to refining an increasingly untenable and dubious
hypothesis made 250 years ago in the "dark age" of science.

Anaconda said...

To Dr. Snow:
Let me rephrase the question:

Do you have any specific objections to any portions of Kenney's findings that basement oil from the Dnieper-Donets oil field does not have so-called bio-markers?

A follow up question: How do you explain the lack of biomarkers (down to ppm) in the basement oil?

OilIsMastery said...

To Cameron Snow: in response to "the 15000 feet number you keep throwing out was a generalization made by one man in the 1960's!"

You say that based upon absolute ignorance of petroleum geology and a lack of education. So-called "Dr." Kenneth Deffeyes published Hubbert's Peak in 2001 and Beyond Oil was published in 2005. So-called "musician" Richard Heinberg published the "Abiotic Oil [so-called] Controversy" in 2004.

"Theories change, and the publication of one book or article does not speak for the entire geoscience community! If it did, we would have stopped doing research long ago."

Unfortunately biogenic theory hasn't changed since the Middle Ages.

Anaconda said...

To OilIsMastery:
Excellent pick up -- I think Doctor Snow Job has been thoroughly exposed as a "parrot" escaped from his cage.

"Polly, want a cracker?"

Quantum_Flux said...

Gosh, I don't know if it was the salad dressing I had for lunch or this thrashing/name-calling, but something is making me sick to my stomach. Perhaps it's just the nightmare that conventional western oil geologists got it all wrong and are making certain statements in the face of high uncertainties.

Steve Hoffmann said...

Where did you come up with the title for this discussion? The reason I ask is because about a month ago I sent out an email to my list with the exact same title including links to various articles on your site. Just wondering if that email is being spread since I don;t recognize any of the pen names in this discussion.
Many thanks for your site by the way, I hope together, all the believers in abiotic theory can change a few minds.

OilIsMastery said...

Hi Steve. Thanks for stopping by. The title comes from bond investor Bill Gross's book of a similar name...=)

Geologist said...

In all discussions above I couldn't see mention to Dr. Thomas Gold. The book - The Deep Hot Biosphere - The Myth of "Fossil" Fuels - surely have answers for all questions.
Of course, hydrocarbons are primordial and coal form due deep methane upwelling.
Hydrocarbons come from earth's mantle but they are primordial material accreted in the begginings of earth formation. Oil contain metals such as nickel, vanadium, arsenic, mercury, lead, zinc, chromium. Helium and nitrogen are driven gases that bring oil to shallow levels in crust. Earthquakes are related to deep gas migration.
Hydrocarbons also have tiny diamondoids, mainly in condensates and natural gas.
We are in 21 century and geology science needs learn more about chemistry, physics (thermodynamics), biology, astrophysics to leave behind its dogmas.