Is Crued Oil a Fosil Fuel or is it abiotic

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
6
Location
Michigan
The abiotic theory of the origin of oil
that oil and natural gas are abiotic products (generated from inorganic matter within the earth's mantle), not 'fossil fuels' that are biologically created by the debris of dead dinosaurs and ancient forests!

What do you believe?
 
I don't think it's a belief issue so much as a science issue. Wasn't it proven that at least some of the oil is abiotic? I believe someone drilled down into a layer of earth that predates our biology and found oil.

The way I look at it, other planets have significant amounts of methane (and no dinosaurs!), so it stands to reason that our planet has a more condensed form of organic matter tucked in the strata.
 
How is carbon (organic) generated from inorganic matter without transmutation at the atomic scale either through some decay process, like many radioactive elements are known to have, or nuclear fusion from lighter elements being combined, resulting in some miniature sun below the earth's surface? Our sun puts out plenty of energy just converting hydrogen to helium.
 
From a article in Forbs titled "The Center Of The Earth May Be Hotter Than The Sun's Surface" (Apr 28, 2013):

"The surface of the Sun is hot - over 5500 degrees Celsius (which is nearly 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit . But if new findings are correct, then the center of our own planet may actually be hotter - over 1,000 degrees hotter than previously thought".
 
Originally Posted By: CR94
Is coal abiotic now too?


It is *VERY* close to the surface......

unlike some crude oil that is 5,000+ down - how do you explain that?
 
Some crude oil fields are (were) very close to the surface too, but most of the easy to get to, easy to refine crude oil has long since been gotten to & refined. It all depends on the localized warps & folds in the earth's crust over time.

Natural seeps go way back in recorded history, valuable naturally occuring pitch for things like arks and baskets containing floating babies found in the bulrushes.

It's all still well above the mantle and mohorovicic discontinuity.
 
Last edited:
Chemical equilibrium at temperatures and pressures in the presence of metallic oxides (catalysts) means that of course SOME hydrocarbons can be produced abiotically.

THe fact that some CAN does not mean that all ARE, which is the leap of faith that certain groups like to propose to take the responsibility element out of the equation.

If the atmosphere was once predominantly methane and CO2, there's probably enough carbon around to get it back there.
 
But those routes still require carbon or carbon containing substances - hence organic.

OP posits generation from inorganic substances.
 
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Originally Posted By: CR94
Is coal abiotic now too?


It is *VERY* close to the surface......

unlike some crude oil that is 5,000+ down - how do you explain that?


No one has bothered to look for coal at great depths because it would be impractical to mine it, and there is plenty near the surface. On the other hand, the easy oil has been tapped out but it is possible to drill very deep.
 
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Originally Posted By: CR94
Is coal abiotic now too?

It is *VERY* close to the surface......
But, for some people, physical evidence is of little significance if it conflicts with one's political or religious agenda.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Chemical equilibrium at temperatures and pressures in the presence of metallic oxides (catalysts) means that of course SOME hydrocarbons can be produced abiotically.

THe fact that some CAN does not mean that all ARE, which is the leap of faith that certain groups like to propose to take the responsibility element out of the equation.

If the atmosphere was once predominantly methane and CO2, there's probably enough carbon around to get it back there.


That's the real issue. The earth has been hotter in the past, and has a vastly different atmosphere. The earth "as a planet" will survive. Will we ...

Most of the carbon in the vast oil, gas and coal reserves underground was once free in the atmosphere. It could be again, but that might not be the best idea ...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: phogstenjr
From a article in Forbs titled "The Center Of The Earth May Be Hotter Than The Sun's Surface" (Apr 28, 2013):

"The surface of the Sun is hot - over 5500 degrees Celsius (which is nearly 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit . But if new findings are correct, then the center of our own planet may actually be hotter - over 1,000 degrees hotter than previously thought".


Well, we know the nuclear reactions at our sun don't happen on its surface, so comparing its surface temperature to our planet's core temperature to support elemental formation of carbon via nuclear fusion of substances with lower atomic nubers than carbon is non sequitir.

Now compare our sun's core temperature to that of our planet, fusing hydrogen, the lightest element with atomic number 1, to helium, the second lightest element with atomic number 2, then extrapolate that to fusing even heavier substances to carbon, atomic number 12. How much lower is our planet's core temperature and energy release to space?

Here's a star made of carbon via nuclear fusion whose nuclear furnaces are stopped - check out the temperature

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.space.com/26335-coldest-white-dwarf-star-diamond.html
 
Last edited:
This debate arises from time to time. There are usually a couple events cited, I'm not going to go off and google them up to refresh my memory because I'm too lazy at the moment but it was a certain well in the Gulf of Mexico that was depleted and abandoned and ended up yielding oil again when it probably should've stayed "dry." That stoked the theory of abiotic oil moving up and refilling the strata or whatever. The other thing was the ultra deep wells Russia has drilled, to supposedly 40,000 ft depth, and was training Vietnam to do same.

^^^ All old info, and all I can remember about abiotic theory. There was a guy wrote a book about the Deep Hot Earth or something who was regarded as a sort of father of abiotic theory.
 
Since Mars and Venus has about a 95% carbon dioxide atmosphere, can some tell me if that is abiotic?
The theory that coal, oil, and natural gas was created from swamps and bogs never made sense to me. The vast quantities of the stuff in such huge reservoirs could not have accumulated from bogs and thus finite.
If that is tge case than riddle me this...
Since it is estimated that nearly 1 mill barrels of oil seep, naturally, into the Gulf of Mexico each year then after a million years, how is it that there is any oil left there???
 
Originally Posted By: Iowegian
The theory that coal, oil, and natural gas was created from swamps and bogs never made sense to me. The vast quantities of the stuff in such huge reservoirs could not have accumulated from bogs and thus finite.


Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not real. Don't use your lack of understanding to support a "it just got there"...as to finite, there's a finite globe isn't there ? ... therefore "things", "stuff" is finite.

Under my house (this is a black coal district, 3000 feet above sea level), I've got at least two full seams of black coal, separated by 6 feet of sedimentary rocks each time. And there are many "minor seams" that are unminable as we drive through cuttings...those same reserves stretch a couple hundred miles in any direction that you care from this point.

Our sister power station (in the company) runs lignite...as they mine, you can see the plant structures in the brown coal...often they get lumps of "wood" grain and all that won't mill as it goes through the milling equipment...

So in YOUR mental universe, how exactly did all those bits of tree, and leaf prints get there ?

Riddle me this...how do you get infinite oil out of a single globe ?
 
Originally Posted By: Iowegian
Since Mars and Venus has about a 95% carbon dioxide atmosphere, can some tell me if that is abiotic?
The theory that coal, oil, and natural gas was created from swamps and bogs never made sense to me. The vast quantities of the stuff in such huge reservoirs could not have accumulated from bogs and thus finite.
If that is tge case than riddle me this...
Since it is estimated that nearly 1 mill barrels of oil seep, naturally, into the Gulf of Mexico each year then after a million years, how is it that there is any oil left there???


On this planet anyway, loads of carbonate containing minerals are being subducted all the time, and vulcanism is well known to emit CO2 through geologic processes, so I see no link between geologic CO2 and petroleum, personally. Is there any reason to think these minerals and processes were never present or never occur elsewhere?

I think the fact we don't see petroleum emissions near hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor is quite significant. If petroleum was created in the mantle, shouldn't we see petroleum condensing out of the emissions of such vents in the deep cold ocean heat sink?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top