Score another one for technology. Your wheelchair could have a V-8 too. :)

OK, so I read "crude oil may actually be a natural inorganic product" and was intrigued by the contradiction in terms. The hydrocarbons in question are organic by definition, even if they weren't created by living organisms.

As I read it, the proposal is that this oil was created by thermal cracking of methane, pockets of which are buried in great quantity. This is perfectly plausible.

The VERY weak and very unproven link in the argument put forth in that article is that that methane was somehow captured from outer space (where it exists in huge quantities but very low concentration) and wound up buried in concentrated pockets very deep in the earth; rather than that it was produced over very long periods of time by biological decay processes.

It's possible. It's also possible (in the sense of having a calculable, nonzero chance) that you could walk into a room and find most of the atmosphere pooled in a liquid puddle in the corner.

Until they can prove the methane is not biologic in origin (and I'm no expert on this, but isotopic ratios ought to tell the tale), I wouldn't get my hopes up.

Question:

What about that company with the experimental plant where they've been able to produce a form of crude oil out of poultry waste by using a process called Thermal Depolymerization?

Wikipedia entry on Thermal Depolymerization

Renewable Energy Solutions, LLC website

What's the point of having a V-8 if you don't get tailfins too.

Greetings,

Once I was a geology major, in the ancient years of 1982 (no, I did not meet any dinosaurs)and one professor mentioned in passing that there was this alternative theory about oil. He dismissed it almost immediately as wishful thinking. I thought about it (I was silly and thought that was what college was for) and asked him just how many pounds of dinosaur meat / fern tree trunks it would take to make a barrel of oil and how did they all wind up there at the same time. I barely passed the course following my folly of asking a question he couldn't answer. Personnaly, naturally occuring process makes a heck of a lot more sense than tons of wood rotting away to produce the millions of barrels of oil consumed and remaining in the ground.

Regards.

A little history. As an eighth generation Californian I can tell you these tales of oil running out have been around for a century.
When my grand father was young (1920) the "experts" all said the oil in Signal Hill (LB,Cal) would be pumped dry by 1935 or 1940. My father relayed the story to me in 1955 when the MSM/DNC was saying the same thing.
It is now 2005 and Signal Hill is still pumping, more than they did in 1920.
What they did was drill deeper after each layer ran dry. I am not sure how many layers they have gone through, but it was 5 in the 50's and 7 last time I heard a # and that was a while back.
Who knows how many dinos were here 100,000,000 years ago? Who knows how much of a dino it took to make a barrel?
If you can not answer these variables you can not solve the equation.
It is all tree hugger scare talk and has been going on out West for 100 years.

fwiw, this should bring up some serious doubts about the abiotic theory:

http://www.museletter.com/archive/150b.html

A wheelchair with a V8 AND tailfins!! Now wer'e talkin!!!

Uh, JPS, no one's saying the methane was captured from outer space. The argument is that the hydrocarbons are left over from the formation of the earth and have always been inside the earth.

I have heard this theory several times from oil-peak denialists - typically conservatives. I lack the org.chem background to evaluate it, but my instant thought is: Global warming had some pretty bad potential when we were reinserting carbon back into the atmosphere. If we are inserting carbon that never was there in the first place, we are on uncharted ground.

I'm fairly centrist on GW - I think it is happening, but I'm not convinced we can stop it at any rational type of cost, and I think the best potential solution (nuclear electric generation) is unlikely to be palatable to the people who think GW is a problem, at least in a timeframe in which it would make a difference. (We need to start construction yesterday, for best effect.) But if this theory were proved, it would have serious implications for that debate. For one, if oil and gas are running out, that will seriously retard predicted global warming. If they aren't, that increases potential warming stratospherically.

"An intriguing theory now permeating oil company research staffs suggests that crude oil may actually be a natural inorganic product, not a stepchild of unfathomable time and organic degradation..."

One version of this theory that I recall reading about suggests that there is a tremendous amount of biomass in the crust of the earth (such as fungus-like life-forms) that grow in rock fissures, cracks, etc.

According to theory, that material is being steadily tranformed into oil. The time-frame involved in the conversion to petroleum is supposed to be far less than that of the "transformed dino's" theory.

I have no idea whether or not to take the above theory seriously, but it is interesting.

Interesting scientific debate and one that has been going on for some time. Dr, Gold was the guy who predicted that our astronauts would step into oceans of dust miles deep. Obviously, he's not afraid to be proved wrong.

The practical effect is not as glorious and positive as one might expect. Note that most of that oil predicted by the alternate theory is VERY deep. That means it is much more expensive and energy-intensive to extract. Hence, gasoline prices are not going to plumemt any time soon.

re: Wood/plants/dinosaurs and oil.

My understanding is that the above end up as coal, not oil, when deposited on land or shallow water/swamp, and subsequently buried.

Oil, OTOH, is formed from marine deposition of plankton. This is consistent with, among other things, the brine which is often pumped from oil wells. Add time+plate tectonics,heat, and pressure, and you have petroleum...some of it deep enough/overlain by basement rock to support the abiotic theory in the absence of other evidence to the contrary.

Now, I really WISH the abiotic theory were true...at 14 mpg I could use a limitless renewable supply of Jeep-juice...but I can't believe it based on the spotty evidence offered by the article, and the (charitably) unserious nature of the sites that link it.
Not that Heinlein's not a kook too, but I think this time he's a kook with the facts on his side.

I'm with rvman on GW.

I forget the name of the physicist, but there was some fairly prominent physicist promoting the idea that oil is largely from aromatic hydrocarbons that exist naturally and can in spectrographic analysis of existing nebulas. He proposed testable hypotesis. He said if he is right, you ought to be able to find oil in areas largely composed of granite, and that if he is right the middle eastern oil fields should slowly refill themselves.

I have no opinion on the matter other than to suggest that extraordinary claims require strong evidence.

doug

Uh, Robert Speirs:

Since you're going to condescend, would you please explain to me--carefully, now--the exact contradiction between saying that the methane was present at the formation of the earth and that it was captured from space?

(I'll retract "outer")

I've heard this sort of thing before. Could turn out true, could be false (therefore it's science), but it's an interesting theory.

I used to summarize this theory as "some people think oil is a MINERAL, not a FOSSIL." It would be a useful one-sentence summary of the theory, except for the whole "deep biosphere" idea, which is hard to summarize but involved oil still being a byproduct of life, but instead of dead dinosaurs, you have a huge unknown subterranean realm of bacteria life. Or something.

P.S., Robert--

What would certainly put a hole in my atmosphere-in-the-corner snark above, I'll admit, is if the theory goes that at some point after the formation of the earth, before the origin of life, earth's gravity pulled in some of that methane until we had a pretty good atmosphere of the stuff. (Which certainly has happened elsewhere.) Pockets get buried, then compressed, through seismic activity, and you endup with deep-underground pools with no connection to life.

That I can buy, so I regret any (unintentional) smugness in the post you object to. I'll stand by the statement that isotopic ratios should bear out or refute the abiotic theory, and so far the established view seems more consistent with observations.

I remain unconvinced, but Mike's question is one that bothers me, too. The relatively small West Texas field I work with contained 150 million barrels of oil. This amounts to about 37 billion pounds of oil spread over a 2-square mile area within this one formation. For perspective, assume 6 billion people at 150 lbs each yields a current human biomass of 900 billion pounds. So, my little oil field contains a weight of oil equivalent to 4% of the entire human race. That's a lot of biomatter.

Granted, over geological time the biomatter piles up. But it's still a lot of matter.

The "inorganic" source theory of petroleum is NOT NEW. I read an article on that very subject in Scientific American at least five years ago.

That article also concluded that oil would have to be more abundant than once thought if this turned out to be true.

It is interesting that few if any of the enviromental alarmest, has realized that either peak oil, or global warming maybe a serious problem for the world. But they can't both be a serious issue

Joe:

Sure they can.

At present rates of energy onsumption, we've got enough coal to comfortably power the world for at least the next one or two thousand years. If oil gets scarce enough, industrial processes that make hydrocarbons from coal will become economically viable, and we'll switch to that.

I'm no fan of politicized environmentalism, but as a colleague of mine says, "For those of you who are skeptical that CO2 is contributing to climate change? Don't worry--we're doing the experiment."

Alas, no inexhaustible oil supply here. A few points which can be verified by some websearches:

1) The "inorganic origin of petroleum" theory has been around for at least ten years. Like the WND article says, its chief champion is a chap named Thomas Gold. His ideas have been tested and sadly found wanting, while conventional theories on where to look for oil have been tested and passed many, many times over the years.

2) The "mysterious" behavior of Eugene Island 330 has also been known for several years. I first read about it in a Wall Street Journal article on April 16th, 1999. This was not, as the WND article suggests, a case of the same wells suddenly producing new oil. The Eugene 330 platform was drilling new wells to get pockets of oil they had previously missed, when they hit these new and previously unknown reserves.

Rather ironically, they tried some exploratory techniques to further examine the 'deep fault line,' and managed only to cut it off.

3) Some very good friends of mine who are also professional oil geologists tell me that you can judge the age of an oil deposit by analyzing the specific hydrocarbons that it contains. The oil that is coming from Eugene 330 now is definitely older than the oil that was originally being pumped from it. But its age is still identifiable: Maastrichtian, toward the end of the Cretaceous period. Anybody got any ideas as to why this would be true if the "inorganic oil" theory was true? Neither do my geologist friends.

Conclusion: Gold's "deep hot biosphere" theory is wrong, and conventional geology has a perfectly sensible explanation for Eugene 330. Sorry.

As for Changing World technologies and their method of turning turkey guts into oil: it works, but so far it isn't cost-effective. Still costs 'em more to make a barrel than the barrel is worth on the open market. Personally, I'm more interested in coal-to-oil conversion methods and non-fossil-fuel-based energy generation methods, like nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.

Wikipedia on Thomas Gold.

Personally, I'm agnostic on this, but things like mass deposits of deep-water clathrates make me a little suspicious of current accepted theories too.

For all you peak oil people:

Malthus

Dow 100,000

Paperless Office

'Nuff said.

What would certainly put a hole in my atmosphere-in-the-corner snark above, I'll admit, is if the theory goes that at some point after the formation of the earth, before the origin of life, earth's gravity pulled in some of that methane until we had a pretty good atmosphere of the stuff. (Which certainly has happened elsewhere.)

Hm. Uranus and Neptune's atmospheres are roughly 2% methane, and it is scientific fact that there are large (by non-gas-giant standards) deposits of methane at the bottom of the oceans in the form of methane hydrate. So we know there's a lot of the stuff in the solar system.

Why is that a less plausible source of the stuff than organic processes during the age of dinosaurs?

One tiny indication that coal comes from prehistoric forest matter is that recognizeable bits of carbonized leaves and woody material are frequently found in coal.

Or is that the backyard charcoal, that was actually manufactured by Kingsford... (ooops, maybe)

Well, anyway, explorers & drillers of the benthic depths of the ocean seem to find frozen compressed methane in places all around the globe, usually in layers buried deep below other sediments. It has been conjectured that disturbed methane deposits may be responsible for the reported “instantaneous” sinkings of some ships. The theory is that the methane expanding as it rises, would form an enormous froth of bubbles, which being much lighter than seawater and surfacing coincidentally with a ship, would not support the weight of the ship’s hull, allowing it to plummet abrubtly from sight.

Kinda like the central African Volcanos, with placid lakes in their craters, which from time to time release a vast belch of CO2, laying waste to the surrounding herds and villages.

Come to think of it, Carbon Dioxide is more or less a building block for methane, eh? And it seems most volcanos release Carbon Dioxide from time to time, so it must form under a wide variety of conditions in the interior. Sorta suggests a mechanism for creating methane in ton lots, with Carbon Dioxide, pressure and heat.

Well, it’s been a long time since I balanced a chemical equation...

Thanks Rosignol and Charlie(colorado), you both put your fingers on the prize.

Methane Hydrate---Clathrates

Department of Energy has a website on the chemistry of Methane Hydrates, with explanations accessible to even a dilettante like myself.

Science News Online has a pretty extensive article from November of 1996 about Methane Hydrates (Clathrates): where they’ve been found, the estimated energy reserves they represent, and problems of delving the deposits.

This is an older theory and was even plugged on TV years ago in a NOVA episode (I think). the version then had deep oil released from meteor strikes or some calamity.

How much "organic" gets subducted in continental movements?

rosignol:
Problem with formation-era methane IIRC is that the Inner Solar System would have less than Outer due to temperature and solar wind effect.
And of that lesser amount captured a lot would be outgassed during the very high temperatures and collisions of formation.

Though you might get some abiotic, I'd bet most hydrocarbons including methane are biological in origin. That does not exclude there being a lot around that doesn't figure in the usual reckonings i.e. clathrates, deep oil and gas reservoirs, oil shales, tar sands etc.

As for the volumes of organic matter concerned; people sometimes underestimate the stupendous biomass of micro-organisms over prolonged time.

My favourite example is the White Cliffs of Dover: roughly a thousand feet thick, miles long, representing only one slice through a geological formation stretching hundreds of miles, made up of calcium carbonate from near-microscopic sea life.

V-8 engines?

I want my flying rocket car, dammit! I was promised flying rocket cars!

Gino,

Richard Heinberg is not a geologist. He has no scientific background. He is a writer. A lefty "new age" writer at that. He writes books about the evils of an oil-based economy and he's eager to slap anything down that may conflict with his opinions.

It's absurd to think that coal is abiotic, when the evidence is there that it plainly is.

Petroleum is a different matter. Our solar system is awash in methane. This is undeniable. Why is helium almost always found with petroluem? Why is petroluem found in regions with non-sedimentary rocks? Just some questions that people like Heinberg cannot answer.

Those who deny even the possibility of abiotic oil are almost always left-wing partisans who hate the idea of a continuation of our pleasant oil-based economy. Be wary of them and keep an open mind.

Lou,
Perhaps I read the article less carefully than more available time would permit, but it appeared quite fair, honest, and reasonable. Much moreso than is customary considering the type of source. I noticed Heinberg's "credentials"...that's why I characterized him as a kook. A little googling to find links/support/rebuttal to the original netted me the Heinberg rebuttal, a few shrill lefties in the 'anti' camp, and a few Lyndon LaRouche types in the 'pro' camp. None inspired much credibility...anti-capitalist luddites screaming about EEEVILL oil, versus wishful cheerleaders allied with anti-oil co. conspiracy theorists (referring to what I googled...not present company)? I'll wait for the science on this one.
I read the relevant Wiki articles, and based on that reading, the most I'm certain of is that the phenomenon of abiotic petroleum genesis is clearly fact. Whether it's the source of much of our commercially viable reserves is an open question, but I personally doubt it. Again, I wish that weren't the case, and I'm open to evidence either way...but I'm not convinced by what I've found.

Also...I stand corrected on my previous plankton statement...apparently not the only source of petroleum based on the Wiki article.

Regarding Helium...wouldn't strata suitable for retaining petroleum (against it's buoyant tendencies) also be suitable (albeit less so given gas vs. liquid viscosity) for retaining upwardly migrating helium? Spoken as an hydraulic engineer, not a geologist...but maybe one of the latter can answer? Would isotope ratios prove or disprove this?

Are there oil deposits in *purely* igneous formations, absent horizontal or vertical migration from adjacent sedimentary layers? I was under the impression that these cases were due to older igneous rock thrust over top of more recent sedimentary rock during tectonic activity.

The abiotic origin of oil was first postulated by Soviet geologists/geopphysicists decades ago (many current Russki geologists also support the theory). Dr. Gold tweaked it a bit, and called it his. The proof, however, is the way oil companies prospect for oil--and it isn't based on deep pre-Cambrian sources.

>>"For those of you who are skeptical that CO2 is contributing to climate change? Don't worry--we're doing the experiment."

Heh ... and what's the control?

It always amazes me when people extrapolate "EXTREME GEOLOGIC TRENDS and IMPENDING DOOM!" based on, at most, a couple hundred years of data. Back in school as an undergrad, I had a geology prof wrap toilet paper around a pretty large lecture hall 3 times ... as a "timeline." As he went around the room, he gave us a brief overview of what period the earth was in. At the end, he ripped a single square sheet of the wipin' paper in half, and said "this is how long humans have existed on the planet." That was one of the best visuals I ever had in my admittedly brief exposure to the geo-sciences. The trend data we are exposed to in these studies we see are less than tiny sand specs on the windshield of global history. That's not to say people shouldn't conduct these studies .... but it's important to keep perspective on what's being presented in their results.

Heh ... and what's the control?

Mars.... which is also warming up.

With Mars warming up, is now the time to be exploring and colonizing???? Didn't the Prez recently move towards 'visiting' Mars? I think he is looking for are few more red state territories. The evil master genius idiot strikes again!

Not really. While the idea is not without appeal, Mars is really, really frickin' cold, and the atmosphere is a long way from being breathable.

If humans want to live in really inhospitable terrain, there are plenty of places they can do it here on earth. The point of living on Mars should be to do things we can't do on Earth. I seriously expect to see a permanent moon base before Mars is colonized.

The cost of getting a pound of mass out of Earth's gravity well has to drop by around 99% to make colonizing the rest of the solar system affordable. Until that happens, all we can really do is exploration.