#Origin of petroleum?
36 messages in this thread
Hi. How's about a little discussion <snicker> —
The commonly accepted theory is that petroleum is derived from ancient
biological organisms that were "geologically processed" over eons into the
hydrocarbon mishmash known as petroleum. As far as I know though (which is
VERY little), this is more a logical conclusion than anything that has actually
been "proven". And indeed, I think at least a minority faction speculates that
oil is a by-product of formation of the earth, or other natural (non-bio)
processes, and even spent a lot of money to drill a well in a place where one
would expect oil according to the latter theory (don't think he found anything
though). (This is from a vaguely remembered PBS show.)
This letter is posted for discussion purposes. But please — what data is
"known" that supports that oil might be from bio origins (or not)? Try to
discuss data rather than essentially affirm that you follow one belief or the
other.
Cool! – Mike, Ph.D.
Mike;
Regarding you msg on the origins of petroleum – I will say I subscribe to
biological origins of petroleum. I believe the following gives credibility to
the biological origin theory
1. Porphyrin complexes are found abundantly in natural products AND they are
found in petroleum. One that comes to mind is the vanadyl-porphyrin complexes
that have been isolated in petroleum. I believe that nickel and cobalt have
also been isolated. These are COMPLEX molecules. I wonder how these could be
formed without having a biological source.
2. The presence of complex aromatic and napthenic molecules are very abundant
in crude oils. These include phenanthrenes, anthracenes, napthenes, etc. Note
that these compounds have very similar structures to known amino acids and
steroids.
3. The theory of inorganic sources for petroleum would require an explanation
for the source of these complex molecules. Although catalytic formation of
complex compounds might be possible over the eons, I have difficulty believing
the thermodynamics are right to form larger molecules. Indeed I would believe
that a
breakdown of larger molecules to smaller one (such as methane) would be
favored.
But I'm a little weak on the thermo here – perhaps there is someone who has
that tidbit tucked away and can elaborate on it.
Isnt pristane and phytane found biologically and in crude oil? I believe these
are considered "biomarkers" for source rock evaluation.
Whats the explanation for the origin of kerogen and coal?
Of course, this is just for discussion anyway
Regards
Bob
Bob E
Hey I totally agree that Petroleum is of biological origin.
My catastrophe theory easily buries billions & billions of tons of fresh
animal material deep in fissures that close up and pressure cook the material
into petroleum in a relatively short time preserving the complex molecules.
The process can be simulated in a pressure cooker in a few hours. The oils
floating on top of mamas stew will have a similar makeup as crude oil. The
variations in deposits are due somewhat to the types of animals that were
cooked in the batch. The density also depends on types of animal material
coupled with the degree of evaporation or dissipation of volatiles that
occurred.
What other thought do you have on this?
Kamron:
How does it taste with ketchup or if you prefer catsup?
The little stew or some of the big ones.
I read somewhere that a volcanoes or some volcanoes spew petroleum.
Back to the stew I was serious.
Kamron
Sri Kamron…just a bit of humor there
Re: Your stew…
The problem with a catastrphe as you describe is that it doesnt account for the
vast deposits of oil and gas found to date. I subscribe to the idea that these
deposits were formed over a long period of geologic time, and not suddenly. but
thats just a thought. The problem with sudden disasters (meteor impacts and the
like) is with material balance. Long term deposition at the bottom of seabeds,
in coral beds, etc is more appealing. No facts here, just a thought.
Bob
The long term deposits theory has a big problem accumulating a mass of
material to produce the deposit. I have done a bit of diving and organic
material doesn't stay on the bottom long enough to accumulate. It is all
eaten and recycled.
The bottom of the ocean is normally clean as a whistle and totally devoid of
any organic material. How do you propose it accumulates in the traditional
view?
Kamron
There are oxygen poor places in the world (deep trenches, etc.) where organic
material accumalates. You haven't dived deep enough. The theory is conditions
were such that these areas once covered (actually, several times in earths
history) very large areas. I suppose this could be a klug. Anyway, wouldn't
some fossils be left IN the oil if a sudden catastrophe buried it? The current
theory explains it because the oil organic materials have to travel through
sand to form oil.
>> There are oxygen poor places in the world (deep trenches, etc.) where
organic material accumulates. You haven't dived deep enough. The theory is
conditions were such that these areas once covered (actually, several times in
earths history) very large areas. I suppose this could be a klug. Anyway,
wouldn't some fossil be left IN the oil if a sudden catastrophe buried it? The
current theory explains it because the oil organic materials have to travel
through sand to form oil. <<
Some field reservoirs have the oil of billions of tons of heat rendered animal
material.
How was this all gathered together before it rotted and buried in a miles deep
hole?
Explain Gathered, buried, sealed, rendered in your sequence.
What's a klug?
There are fossils, fractures, biologicals, salt plugs and sands with most oil?
My theory predicts all these just like traditional.
My theory can get the volumes of meat to the stove.
How does yours?
Kamron
>> Some field reservoirs have the oil of billions of tons of heat rendered
animal material. <<
Hi, Kamron! Great to have input from everyone here, esp. you; looks like you
work in this field (? – excuse my ignorance; it's why I asked the question in
the first place <g>) —
The stew analogy was good, makes more sense.
Is it really true that oil would become tar if heated under *anoxic*
high-pressure situations?? I find it hard to believe that *all* oil was only
*briefly* heated a few days (was that you or someone else who said that). We're
talking *geological* here, where a short time is 100,000 years!
Do you have any info concerning percentages of the various kinds of stuff
(complex molecules and/or chirality) found in oil? Re: a "clincher" that it's
of bio origin and not bio "contamination". This may be a no-brainer but —
(no, not what you're thinking) — I "know nothing" about hard data when it
comes to this; it's why I started this thread.
Hey, here's a thought — where does Carbon-14 dating fit into all this? Anyone
done anything with that? is that how they tell what geologic time period oil
is from?
Thanks! – Mike
Mike,
>> Hey, here's a thought — where does Carbon-14 dating fit into all this?
Anyone done anything with that? is that how they tell what geologic time
period oil is from? <<
No, in general oil (and coal, and natural gas) deposits are dated by looking at
the age of the rocks they're in. C14 dating could easily confirm or deny a
recent origin for oil and coal. If there's any of it there, it's recent
origin; if none can be detected, it must be older than about 50,000 years.
C14's half-life is 5700 years, so no C14 means oil older than 10-12 C14
half-lives (57-68,000 years). But how much older is impossible to say. The
radioisotopes used in other forms of radiometric dating don't occur in useful
amounts in petroleum.
JSW
Mike
I really haven't given this much thought but I do believe it takes a very
specific set of events to produce petroleum.
The long term traditional theory can't put enough meat in the pot.
Another fact is that there are very shallow sand beds that have produced flows
for very long terms. These sand layers are being fed from an immense reservoir
that probably exists twenty or thirty miles down.
Kamron
I'm inclined to agree that petroleum is biological in origin. About the only
problem I'm aware of with the theory is the absence of known petroleum sources
in Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian sedimentary rocks. There's lots of evidence for
abundant life in those rocks, but, so far as I know, no formation older than
the Ordovician has petroleum deposits.
Any thoughts — like that, not being a petroleum geologist, I don't know what
I'm talking about?
Im not a geologist either but I do believe organic material has been found in
cambrian and precambrian era rock. i agree this is rare and there may be very
good reasons for it. one point is clear- petroleum is primarily found in
sedimentary rock that is associate with marine or plant life. it is not found
in igneous rock. this lends credence to an organic source.
The theory for inorganic sources for hydrocarbons has been around for many
years (1920's and earlier). New theories or a revival of old ones may be due to
the presence of methane detected on other planets where life presumably did not
exist. Methane and lighter hydrocarbons supposedly can also be produced in the
lab by inorganic sources. If the discussion were limited to the formation of
methane (and ethane) then an inorganic source may have credibility, but we're
talking about petroleum and that includes more than a couple of light gases.
The present effort to drill to and below granitic basement rock to find methane
has been tried before, as i recall, in the mid-1980's in europe (or
greenland?). I dont recall success there either.
I doubt if anyone can produce hard "data" to justify any arguement, but
if it walks like a duck
quacks like a duck
looks like a duck
maybe its just a duck
Thanks for your reply, Bob. All in the nature of debate — I am not a
"subscriber" to a geologic theory; it's simply, it seems interesting to me, so
I pose it as a straw man to see what folks have to say back.
As for your arguments: I am fairly familiar with the chemicals you mention.
Some are definitely quite complex. To constitute good "proof", would you know
if any of the below had been addressed:
1) What percentage do the comnplex ones make in the mixture? If only trace,
then it *could* indicate "contamination" over the eons, not true source. Then
again, one could get in a circular agrument about, if it *were* from bio
origin, there would not necessarily be many complex molecules left after eons
of subsequent geologic processing. Likely, the percentages found in
bio-organisms, likely especially ocean plants and microorganisms (most likely
the largest source of biomass over the eons — wouldn't you think?? or am I
straying). Anyway, an upper limit would likely be the percent found in these,
and one could see how much it is as a percent of *that*. (As in, porphyrins,
etc., are already practically a negligible percent of weight of "live"
organisms, so an "absolute" percent in petroleum could be the wrong
comparison.)
But then I see this is falling apart as I speak. Namely, how can you compare
a percent in a "live organism" with a percent in *petroleum*? Obviously, a huge
amount of processing has already occurred, inasmuch as live bodies have little
("real") petroleum. Perhaps as a percent of the carbon in live bodies would be
another approximation. But God only knows how much may have been lost due to
various processes/"natural extractions" of methane, etc., etc., over the eons.
I guess the only thing is just that it should not be incredibly small (trace
amounts) relative to what it would be as a percent of body carbon weight. This
is probably pushing the limits of detection and all the assumptions, though
(percent of *whose* organic body weight?) so may ultimately be a blind alley,
proof-wise.
2) I like the chirality(wording?) argument put forth in another message here
(name?). Chirality is somethign that would get around a lot of the problems of
the above "proof". Basically, if all complex molecules (or at least, of
certain classes) were *formed* in organisms, all those that are left,
regardless of "as percentage of original carbon content", should retain that
chirality. It could be lost in any compounds that are the result of
degradation of larger compounds — but any of the larger ones should have it,
as found in organisms. Regardless of whether they are trace or not.
Hmm. As I think about this more: All this could do is *disprove* that the
complex molecules could be made through non-bio processes. It could not by
itself disprove that they could have been contaminants! In other words, here
are the possibilities:
1) (Most) complex molecules reflect chirality, as expected from earth
organisms: Proves: Only that geologic processes did not produce the *complex*
molecules, not that oil as a whole is *from* organisms. Because it could be
from *contamination* of oil by some microorganisms (that could have been
*eating* the oil — or whatever) over time.
2) Most complex molcules (as a percentage basis of the number of complex
molecules *in the oil*) do not reflect chirality: Obviously argues against bio
origin.
REMEMBER, I am NOT "for" oil arising from geologic processes. Indeed, it
seems clear that the weight of the evidence is for it being from bio origin.
But (and I still encourage input!) I am just trying to say that given the
lmiited info folks have had the time to spare here so far, there still is not
clear "proof" that oil comes from bio origins. It does seem to be the weight
of evidence, but not shown beyond a doubt, *based on the limited stuff shared
here so far* (and/or my limited ability to grasp what was said). If there are
other points you neglected to make before, please jump in! Clearly this is
evaolving as new input is received.
Thanks for anybody crazy enough to spend time helping educate me while I
spar with them! <grin> This is one of those things in the back of my head for
awhile —
Mike
Ok Mike:
I agree your original question has brought forth quite abit of discussion,
which I too enjoy. In regards to your last posting, there is a bit more:
1. Yes optical activity in petroleum is attributed to biological sources. I
believe this adds to "circumstantial" evidence of the biological origin of
petroleum. Its certainly not "prima facie?"
2. Is oil just a contamination of what? Methane? or methane and ethane? hmmm..
good question. What comes first? the chicken or the egg? So we look again at
circumstantial evidence. What about coal, kerogen, or even "peat" from the
local bog? Is this contamination of a methane source? I dont think so. I
suggest they are immature forms of petroleum. On their way to the refinery in
the year 2,000,000 (g).
3. As a result of these discussions, I have read that porphyrins decompose
above 400 F. Seems this rules out some of the original volcanic sources…
4. Yes oil thickens when exposed to air. Simple oxidation occurs resulting in
formation of heavier organic acids (sludge). But many oils or condensates are
almost entirely paraffinic, and unless my chemistry is completely amiss, I
believe paraffins are difficult (but not impossible) to oxidize to tar. No
mechanism there either…
Just a few thoughts on the discussion… maybe it'll add a bit of fuel to the
fire
Thanks for responding Bob, it seems I did not make myself clear –
>> 2. Is oil just a contamination of what? Methane? <<
No, no – are the "bio" molecules (complex and/or optically active)
*contaminants of the oil*. I.e., in very small percentages. In other words,
has anyone published anything on precisely how much is there, besides just
saying they found "some". And then tried to compare that to what might be
expected, although this would be a very speculative projection. Please re-read
my original message since it would have made no sense if you did not understand
I was talking about testing whether the biomolecules might be contaminants of
oil. Let me repeat, I am not "against" oil being of bio origin. I am trying
to ascertain to what extent it (or any other theory) has been demonstrated. In
response to this, you folks have brought up the important points about complex
molecules and OA. In response to which I ask, does anyone know exactly *how
much* complex molecules and OA stuff is found there — trace amounts, or
substantial amounts? Simply following through on the thought. See what I
mean?
>> 1. Yes optical activity in petroleum is attributed to biological sources. I
believe this adds to "circumstantial" evidence of the biological origin of
petroleum. Its certainly not "prima facie?" <<
Certainly it does, but again dependent that greater than trace amounts are
found. ("Trace" subject to interpretation, sigh; see original email.)
>> 3. As a result of these discussions, I have read that porphyrins decompose
above 400 F. Seems this rules out some of the original volcanic sources… <<
Hmm… yes but… what are the theories about how it was formed from organic
origins? Do they all stipulate that geological processing was less than 400 F?
What I am saying is, I'm ignorant of conditions underground that are proposed
for this process (heat, pressure, how long), any one know?
* Thought flash * (uh oh!) In the environmental field, bacteria are under
culture that specifically eat (and process) petroleum hydrocarbons. Possibly
originally found *in* petroleum hydrocarbons, although I simply don't know. If
so, this could put a fly in everyone's oil — instant bio molecules in oil.
That could conceivably have been flowing around underground (anaerobically of
course) munching on oil for eons. And the biomolecules, etc., found in oil
would have to be screened so as to disregard what might arise from
micro-organisms that might be living there.
I would imagine that I'm unilaterally going speculative, that no work may have
been done on this question. But if anyone knows about the above two questions
(hard data on percentages of "biomolecules" found in oil, and to what extent
bacteria live in oil), please speak up.
Thanks! – Mike
Ok Mike I understand what you meant about the contamination, unfortunately when
I get to typing this in I get a bit sidetracked with other ideas. I dont know
about the quantification of such compounds as porphyrins. I do know that these
analyses are quite difficult due to the large size of the molecules.
Supercritical fluid chromatography was being used when it was first in vogue to
look at these oils. Simply put, there are many compounds in the heavier
fractions than has been analyzed (I suspect). I do not believe resins and
asphalts and their structures, much less quantity of individual components, has
been thoroughly investigated. I would also think quantity depends on the grade
of oil. The LaBrea? tar pits in California-or tar sands in Canada undoubtedly
contain more of the heavier hydrocarbons than say a gas condensate.
It appears that much of the interest in heavy hydrocarbons and coal, etc today
appears to be directed to environmental contaminants ie PAH's and the like.
Perhaps someone is on-line that has looked at the analysis of asphalts from a
component/structure point of view. I really think this is where some very
interesting analytical chemistry could come in.. There is still a lot we (I)
dont know about these heavier ends and I believe thats where the remnants of
biological components exist.
As far as heat applied to porphyrins – I believe these are considered
degradation products of chlorophyll, etc. It may be that these products are not
found in the hotter reservoirs. I just dont know.
Anaerobic bacteria action on oil is a thought I've had too. I know they exist
in some reservoirs but its hardto say how they got there. Ive sometimes
wondered about little prehistoric bugs running around getting "produced" .
Would make a good sci-fi movie… Perhaps "Attack of the Killer Spores from the
Permian Basin"
Cheers
Bob
Thanks, Bob, good discussion… looks like it is pushing the limits of what
folks here know and/or what IS known… I know from my work (environmental
health scientist) that there can be all kindsa stuff in oil, and percent
composition can be hard to know even on a crude basis, for stuff found at waste
sites… I had hoped some lab had looked at it more thoroughly with the
bio-origin end in mind but I guess not… this question is after all a
curiosity, not a necessity… perhaps you have a great idea for a new horror
movie in "Attack from the Permian Basin"… then again, anybody immersed miles
underground in an oil basin might have a little more to worry about than
anaerobic bacteria 😉
Hi, Bob and Mike–
While the rarity of pre-Cambrian oil and the chirality argument leave me
mainly convinced petroleum is biological in origin, I cannot resist tossing in
a stink bomb: carbonaceous chondrite meteorites, presumably the stuff of which
the Earth was originally made, contain "organic matter in the form of
complicated and very large molecules composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and
nitrogen. Such organic material occurs as rings (aromatic hydrocarbons),
straight, or slightly branching chains (alkanes), and carboxylic and amino
acids", according to "The Meteorite & Tektite Collector's Handbook" by Philip
Bagnall.
Nucleotides have recently been found in one of these meteorites; fragments of
this Murchison meteorite are actually smelly in an organic way.
This stuff was likely available as Earth formed, though I find it hard to
imagine much of the organic substances surviving the magma ocean I understand
covered the young Earth. Later meteorites would supply insufficient quantities
to explain petroleum deposits, I assume, though they add an interesting option
to theories on how life started.
–Doug
>>While the rarity of pre-Cambrian oil and the chirality argument leave me
mainly convinced petroleum is biological in origin, I cannot resist tossing in
a stink bomb: carbonaceous chondrite meteorites<<
Hi, Doug, thanks for jumping in —
Well, I would consider this good news, bad news; mainly not actually adding
much, re: the bio/non-bio debate. here's why I think this: These are still
relatively simple compounds you have enumerated, relative to something like
porphyrins and optically active stuff. Furthermore, the "how much WAS it"
argument applies here, too, undoubtedly to the end that a meteorite may have
gone through so much (atmospheric and god knows what else) "processing" that
the likely-trace amounts of organic compounds found only add a curious side
show to the direct question (i.e., nobody has a hope of showing how much "oil
reserves are in the asteroid belt", if any, at this point in time, so it's
moot). I don't think anyone doubts that trace or maybe even a little more than
trace amounts of organic compounds could have arisen from non-bio means. The
question is, though, what could have produced the vast *quantities* found
underground, and for this we need more than the simple demonstrated ability
(from the meteorites) that it is possible for them to form, even
extraterrestrially ("E.T., phone Mobil?"). I don't think anyone is debating
"qualitative", we're debating "quantitative", and for that "proof of mass
quantities" has to be a part of it.
Actually, in a more "art than science" kind of way, I might consider the
absence of oil in pre-Cambrian to be more an indicator that it might *be* bio
origin than the other way, due to inverted logic — while one might expect bio
activity to correlate with oil quantities using a biogenic theory, conversely,
one would also expect "smooth" production of oil from a non-bio theory over
time, which would, too me, be even more harmful relative to a non-bio theory,
since bio stuff is more complex and labile relatively speaking than geo stuff
(we're talking eons here), and bio could conceivably have had more reason why
no oil was produced even though life was ongoing, whereas there is less that
might be able to affect something like geo processes. Is anyone following
this? Any, this is purely handwaving since it's one way or the other;
obviously something as-yet-unknown occurred, any way you slice it, and one or
both theories are just wrong. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say it
appears to refute both theories. Whatever, enough talk.
Unrelated to all this, I think even something approximating buckeyballs have
been found in nature (bio origin — some kinda fungi growing in a rock crevice
or something??). What a wacky world – Mike
Hi, Mike–
The quantities are there in the meteorites, _if_ the hydrocarbons can survive
the early Earth. Carbonaceous chondrites often have a percent or three of
carbon compounds, as I understand it. Let a bunch of them clump together to
form the Earth, and the whole planet has a percent or three of hydrocarbons,
which is a _lot_ of potential proto-petroleum (say that 3 times fast!). Now
all we have to do is get the stuff through the magma ocean…
These meteorites are not easy to come by; it seems possible that they have
still more complex carbon compounds, not yet found because we don't have enough
in the way of samples.
I took the lack of pre-Cambrian oil as prime evidence of a bio origin; did
someone take it otherwise?
Buckyballs have been found in soot; while it was likely artificial soot, I
suspect the natural kind also has them.
–Doug
>>The quantities are there in the meteorites, _if_ the hydrocarbons can survive
the early Earth.<<
Thanks for the reply, Doug. I actually once spent a little (amateur) time
studying the kinds of asteroids in the asteroid belt. As you probably know,
there are differential distributions. If I remember right, the CC ones are
generally farther out, "rockier" ones (more metallic) farther in. (Consistent
with general layout of solar system, gas giants farther out?)
Well, I was hypothesizing off the top of my head about no preCambrian oil.
That can probably be filed in the circular bin – Mike
Mike:
<<spent a lot of money to drill a well in a place where one would expect oil
according to the latter theory (don't think he found anything though). (This is
from a vaguely remembered PBS show.)>>
This same group drilled a similar well in the summer of '94, here in Alberta,
Canada (the well–at least one, possibly two–you refer to was drilled in
Sweden), into granitic basement rocks underlying or adjacent to the Athabaska
Tar Sands, one of the world's biggest petroleum accumulations. Compared to the
media hype built up prior to the drilling of this well, the follow-ups have
been notable in their absence. The grapevine has it that hydrocarbons were, if
not completely absent, spectacularly negligible.
So far, the "inorganic origins" theory seems to have little empirical evidence
to support it, while the very extensive laboratory work such as that mentioned
by Bob Easterly continues to point to an organic origin. As in all
controversies, "proof" is in the eye of the beholder: last I heard, the Flat
Earth Society was still going strong.
Howard
I do not subbscribe entirely to the inorganic source of petroleum, because you
simply do not have the volume of material to account for discovered and yet to
be discovered petroleum. You can not make 20 pots of soup from a pot of
vegetables so to speak.
I do however believe that petroleum source has its origin from a combination
of organic and inorganic sources. The oganic source provides most of the
essential ingredients, the inorganic provides some ingredients as well and the
rest is left to thermodynamics. As a result of polymerization and
disproportination, volume can be accounted for
Thanks, Howard —
>> So far, the "inorganic origins" theory seems to have little empirical
evidence to support it, while the very extensive laboratory work such as that
mentioned by Bob Easterly continues to point to an organic origin. As in all
controversies, "proof" is in the eye of the beholder: last I heard, the Flat
Earth Society was still going strong <<
Good deal… As I've been saying, this is a straw man for me to learn about
something in the back of my mind for a while. But I would like the emphasis to
be on what is actually known/"provable" vs. what people feel most strongly.
Please take a look at the reply to Bob Easterly in this thread.
Thanks dude! – Mike
Optical activity has been measured in petroleum. In nature, almost the only
process that creates optical activity is biological action (yes, Kameron, there
are exceptions). I digress. Anyway, how do your theorists explain the optical
activity? I have references on OA.
Here I thought we agreed…that petroleum was organic in origin?
iF you don't agree then explain Bobs points and the variety of the exotic
molecules that we find in crude.
Re-read Bob Easterlys message #165806 it was very good.
And I may add that it is amazing how clean and light some crudes are like the
Mid Eastern Light, you could use it to lubricate you car.
How is it all so …..? fresh?
Open up a supply to the air and its tar in a few hundred years.
This almost proves it only cooked for a few days or weeks.
Kamron
Kamron,
>> How is it all so …..? fresh?
Open up a supply to the air and its tar in a few hundred years.
This almost proves it only cooked for a few days or weeks. <<
Sorry, I don't think so. If petroleum becomes tar on exposure to air, that
only means that air has something that reacts with the petroleum to thicken it
into tar. And it further shows that the petroleum was never in contact with
air before. It doesn't say anything about how long the petroleum was in the
rocks, sealed away from the air.
Jon W.
Jon
This is speculation on my part.
Petroleum is altered quickly if subjected to high heat.
The lighter gas and volatiles will vent off threw cracks and fractures as well
as into the air.
Based on these characteristics it appears to me the process of converting the
meat to oil was a short term event and probable the heat and pressure
conditions did not occur again.
Kamron
>> Based on these characteristics it appears to me the process of converting
the meat to oil was a short term event and probable the heat and pressure
conditions did not occur again.<<
This would seem to be a most important observation, if true. I don't think
anyone volunteered to fill in my ignorance and answer me, what *are*
temperature and pressure ranges underground (in depths oil may have
come from).
>>Petroleum is altered quickly if subjected to high heat.<<
Again, pardon my ignorance… this includes anaerobically at high pressure,
right? (I think you said this a while back?) and, just how high is high,
relative to what's found underground?
I guess "I know nothing". I don't know how oil forms in the first place (inc.
temp & pressure) and then I don't know what are good temps & pressures for
"maintaining" oil that has formed.
However it is logical that in general conditions underground where oil is
generally found *is* conducive to long-term "storage" of oil, because (of
course) that's where all kinds of oil is being found. So although I don't know
what the temps and pressures are there, I do know they are conducive to oil
storage (without significant degradation).
If anyone (Kamron?) is still interested in this thread <g>, can you recap
theories concerning how oil is thought to be initially formed? Please include
whatever is known about temps and pressures, relative to what they normally are
underground, if known???
Thanks folks – Mike, Ph.D.
Mike
I have a very different view of the formation of crude oil.
and its an armchair version so take it lightly.
The earth at one time was totally shrouded with a thick cloud cover.
The planet had only minor hills and and shallow seas and the temperature was
very stable probably tropical from pole to pole. Life was incredibly abundant
and lush.
A star cut a path through the solar system passing very close to the earth. On
approach its gravity caused the earths seas to be gathered in a great tide that
swelled in huge wave with the earth rotating under it. This huge wave gathered
all the life a carried it on its face. The earth became oval shaped causing the
crust to crack and fracture as it deformed to rotate in this oval shape. The
rotation actually caused the crust to open the fractures at the ends of the
oval and close the same along the less curved sides. Some of the fractures
opened very wide and very deep. As these passed by the area where the seas had
gathered the life the ocean with life poured into these mile wide and 50 mile
deep cracks. The intense heat at that depth cause the water to flash to steam
as the cracks closed. This was repeated for weeks as the star made its journey.
This is the only way I can see large volumes of fresh meat can get buried
under miles of rock.
>>As these passed by the area where the seas had gathered the life the ocean
with life poured into these mile wide and 50 mile deep cracks. The intense heat
at that depth cause the water to flash to steam as the cracks closed. This was
repeated for weeks as the star made its journey. This is the only way I can see
large volumes of fresh meat can get buried under miles of rock.<<
Kamron –
Thanks for laying this out, it puts the various comments you have made in the
thread into a good overall picture. The idea is of course pretty speculative
but also includes novel ideas for an old problem (I guess — actually I'm
pretty new to the problem!). It would hit me as quite remarkable that mega,
mega quantities of bio could be neatly wrapped up and tucked away deep
underground by *anything* (disregarding short time interval); that they
wouldn't just be smashed to smithereens.
How close would this star have had to come? withOut actually hitting the
earth, right? and then it hung around awhile somehow? I'm not sure I'm
catching the physics here… wouldn't an active star have baked the earth,
undoubtedly causing a major extinction, if close enough to greatly warp it? A
little black hole would do as well; at least it wouldn't fry the earth and does
not otherwise conflict with the theory… could have been a dwarf or something
though I suppose(??). Perhaps a humongous meteor impact(s) could at least get
a lot of bio stuff covered up, although not deep underground.
Would there (or not) be tectonic evidence left of a massive cataclysm like
that? I don't know whether it would still "show" in the plates or be lost in
"the noise of time".
Thanks for being brave(?!) to come forward with the alternate idea… what do
you think of my "alternate comebacks" <g>…
(P.S. It's frustrating to me to be "armchair" without knowing enough of the
field itself to even know what is the limits against which an idea can be
tested… like not knowing to what extent complex/OA molecules have been found
in oil, or even really knowing much at all about precise contents of oil…)
Cool! – Mike
Mike
Hey thanks for not just laughing it off.<g>
There is a lot more to the story. The star(if it was a star) did a straight
shot through our Solar System at a slight inclination 17-18 degrees similar to
the orbit of Pluto.
I don't imagine that it slowed any in its transit though our system, the whole
trip inside the whole system was maybe a year or less. I picture a massive star
passing by the Sun at around 3 AU or 250 to 300 million miles away.
AS you say a few different scenarios are possible to achieve the same result.
The meteor is also a possibility in the destruction of the earth and creation
of the Moon. While it could create most of the features it would not have the
hang time to gather the life and deposit it the fractures. The petroleum and
the gravel that covers the earth needs the transit time for their creation
sequences.
I have looked for good explanations for the creation of petroleum and this is
still the only way I can think of to put that amount of material that deep….
in such fresh condition. If it wasn't fresh it would not make oil.
Think about it life consumes almost immediately any living thing that dies. I
have hiked a lot of places and if an animal dies there is nothing left but
bones in a few short weeks or less. In the ocean if a fish even starts to die
it is consumed usually before it reaches the bottom. If it hits bottom the
crabs, shrimp and worms are all over it and it is gone in hours. So it takes a
catastrophe to kill millions of mammoth. If they piled up on the beach they
would rot and be gone before an inch of soil would cover them. How was it
buried fresh?
Kamron
Hi, Kamron–
Dig into a peat bog and find organic stuff buried for centuries. Once it gets
below the surface, air and organisms can no longer reach it to support decay.
There is so much carbon added so fast that what little oxygen diffuses down
there is consumed, leaving the deeper layers totally anaerobic. Some artifacts
millenia old have been turned up in such bogs, unusually well preserved by the
reducing conditions.
–Doug
Hello Doug
I haven't been to the bog
but being bogged down all the time I can imagine what they are like.
The bogs are probably the source of lignite formations. Some how covered up.
Coal seams are where the earlier era high carbon plant/bogs dies out for lack
of water then covered by a dust storm.
I think coal was a natural accumulation process in most cases. Slow and
traditional geology. The plant flourished and then the water dried up as the
area got buried. Sometimes repeating cycles. Not much grease in it.
Back to oil. It has the evidence of life also. It has much more of the
chemistry preserved than coal. Like a stew steeped in its juices. It retained
alot more of the volatiles. And delicate big molecules. The presence of these
fragile materials helps bolster my idea that the material was put rapidly in an
oxygen free environment.
Picture this….the huge star approaches gathering the waters of the earth
into a 50 mile high mountain like waves oceanwater breaking and rolling trying
to keep up with the 1,000 MPH high gravity point.
Herds of Dinos, mega tons of marine life and the lush forests are gathered by
the steep and breaking faces of these giant rolling waves.
The crust rotating with the earth rounds the tighter curve of the gravity
tugged bulge. As it does the cracks that have been forming in the crust open
wide. Miles wide and (30 to 50 mile deep) splits open up and the huge waves
of ocean water with their high content of animal, marine and plant life
approach and plunge to the fiery depths of the earths crust. These cracks
close as the crust rotates to the rounder arc of the backside. The process
repeated over and over. The intense heat (3,000 degrees) and extremely low
oxygen level preserved the batch and it cooked some but didn't burn or form
carbon.
How else did hugh batches of material get buried in fresh condition so deep
and process with out burning up or making carbon?
Kamron