Deep, abiotic petroleum - Could it be?

[AlwaysQuestion]

This is where serendipity took me today--to the discovery that there is good scientific evidence to suggest that oil is a renewable energy source and that peak oil is a complete and utter farce.

I would recommend http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/ (and all its pointer sites) to those of you who may not be aware that there exists a rather compelling competing theory about the origins of oil.

I'm looking at this newly discovered (for me) information as yet more possible evidence to prove that abject greed drives the capitalistic system--and that Bushco & Associates have catapulted it into the stratosphere. Somewhere in all that reading lies the idea that the oil companies are actually "in the know" but for obvious reasons continue to tout oil as a fossil fuel--the better to keep prices heading north.

And who among the free, "Liberal" press have or are giving this competing theory any air-time or paper space? I mean, surely abiotic oil vs. fossil oil deserves some discussion. Has this topic been covered by the media at any length? I've not heard of it, but then, perhaps I more insular than most.

Back to the point. It is further suggested that as "Peak Oil" becomes recognized as "truth" by the masses, the oil companies will then come to the minions as gods bearing a bone. The upside the companies will say is that they've "just learned" about the existence of another type of oil--an abiotic type. Heavens! Not "quite" the same as that made from dinosaurs but by gawd, a bloody good facsimile all the same.

But surprise, surprise, they will also claim a downside--no kidding!--they will say that in order to fund exploration they will need to raise already exorbitant prices yet again--proving that there's an endlessness to greed.

Anyway, I'd be interested to know how many of you were aware of the competing theory to the origin of oil. Gawd, I hope not many, else I'll feel that I've been living under a rock and qualify as fossil fuel myself.

[Daphne08]

1. Been there. Read that. Don't Believe it. n/t

[AlwaysQuestion]

11. Gee.....

why not? I really do want to be enlightened by the smart ones here.

[skids]

23. Here's a link to read.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_3_27/ai_100755208

Basically the gist is this:

1) The oil we use now comes from fossil deposits. Noone reputable seriously believes that it comes from abiotic processes.

2) While abiotic oil formation is theoretically possible, the main push for this theory is from a huckster trying to make a buck. It may exist, but prospectors aren't interested in it because:

3) Reaching the depths of theoretical abiotic oil deposits (and drilling through the different materials covering them) is very likely to be less economical than various other options like processing oil shale/sands.

I would add, personally: 4) by the time we get to seriously working with oil shale/sands on a large scale, the earth will be in ruin. Further, even if somehow the biosphere survives intact, alternative energy will have evolved technically to the point where, by the time we need to look at abiotic oil, there will be little or no use for mined oil.

It's a dead end.

[Taxloss]

2. Even if it exists, it will still release carbon into the atmosphere.

A "bad thing", in technical terms.

[BlueEyedSon]

5. Not unless the "abiotic" process is sucking in carbon from somewheres

else.

[skids]

19. I don't recall that being postulated...

...in the articles I read about it. Not that I believe them.

But seriously. This. Oil sands/shale. Alaska. Deep water. Whatever. We should definitely NOT being spending our efforts trying to find more carbon to burn off into the atmosphere at this point.

[AlwaysQuestion]

13. Could you elaborate?

I'm not certain that I understand how releasing carbons disproves the theory of abiotic oil--and as far as the technical terms are concerned, could you give me your view about what you mean?

[Filius Nullius]

22. "Could you elaborate?"

Alright, I'll take a shot at it. "Releasing carbons" does not disprove the theory of abiotic oil. It is a silly theory that has been otherwise disproved. If these notions of abiotic oil were true, we would be awash in CO2, CH4 and other carbon compounds that would long ago have caused run-away global warming. The Earth would be as hot, dry, bleak and desolate as Mars.

[SnowGoose]

24. Pssst. Not to nitpick, but Mars is not hot.

It's way, way cold. And the atmosphere is extremely thin compared with Earth's atmosphere.

I understand the point you're making, but Mars probably isn't the best example.

[Massacure]

28. Mars? Try the other side of Earth. Venus is a better example.

;)

[bonito]

3. No coment but you got a great user name. keep at it.

[AlwaysQuestion]

10. Why thank you........

I love "snide" but perhaps your comments to an honest question wouldn't have been worth much, so best remain silent.

[bonito]

33. Sorry, wasn't a snide remark

I guess miscommunication thats all.Peace

[BlueEyedSon]

4. No, there is no scientific evidence of "abiotic oil". Sorry.

Unless you believe in I.D. too, I supppose....

Wells are discovered, tapped, peak, get depleted, go into decline. The US peaked in 1973 for example.

[AlwaysQuestion]

14. Wow!

I truly didn't believe the folks here would be so dismissive without providing anything but perfunctory remarks--which is strange cuz so many of you are so certain about your answers, albeit with nothing backing it up.

[BlueEyedSon]

16. Sorry, my grasp of organic chemistry is just too good.

Maybe you are into the "faith based sciences"?

[AlwaysQuestion]

21. Whooops, did you forget something?

--like providing us with a pertinent sample of your good grasp of organic chemistry. As for your "faith based sciences," I think you probably meant 'faith-based "sciences".'

[kikiek]

6. Say it is true doesn't it say that it is only part of the problem? Sounds

like it is still fossil fuels. Mute point since the planet won't be sustainable.

[kaygore]

7. Heard this from a far right Baptist months ago

She also is waiting for the Rapture and believes in Intelligent Design.

Given her other beliefs, I wrote this one off.

From a scientific point of view, it makes no sense, also.

[AlwaysQuestion]

15. Can you tell me why it doesn't make any sense to y ou?

n/t

[Viking12]

8. Just look at the sources cited...

rense.com = a seriously tinfoil hat site :tinfoilhat:

worldnet daily = a seriously loony RW site :evilfrown:

Dave McGowan = Peak oil is "Wall Street Propaganda." According to his website "Dave has also nailed down the brainwashing inculcation by our covert manipulators of the passive acceptance of death as mundane. With kids, it's video games and movies. With adults, it's movies and TV; the promotion of a 'dog eat dog' mentality and 'survival of the fittest' as clearly promoted in all those TV brainwahing programs about Survival, the Weakest Link, Extreme This, Extreme That, Divorce Court, etc. The manipulation couldn't be more obvious. Why don't more people recognize it?" :tinfoilhat:

Yes, folks, bad TV is deliberately created to promote the passive acceptance of death. :scared: :sarcasm:

[AlwaysQuestion]

17. Wow! Tinfoil hat!

That's pretty bad--and right wing, too. That's worse. Good gracious, I can see that even here labels are what counts. Ooookay.

[Viking12]

18. If you want to be taken seriously. Use good sources.

I'm not about to waste my time reading or responding to known idiots. Citing those idiots is not the way to initate reasonable conversation.

Nevertheless for your reading pleasure here's a quick debunking:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100404_abiotic_oil.shtml

[AlwaysQuestion]

20. Ooooo, Viking12, how forceful you are

Would you please be kind enough to provide me with list of approved "good sources." It's just that I wouldn't want to bring up another serendipitous find based on an unapproved link. Methinks you protest too much whilst offering nothing.

[Viking12]

29. Yawn.

[Filius Nullius]

9. Abiotic Oil = Snake Oil

I have virtually no doubt that the theory that oil is produced from abiotic processes deep within the earth is a big load of steaming manure. If the American people start funding the drilling of deep abiotic dry holes, I hope that Nurse Ratched is standing by to administer an emergency collective lobotomy.

However, let's assume arguendo that all of the oil in deposits near the surface did, in fact, ooze up from far, far below. To the best of my knowledge, none of the depleted wells are filling up again. Even if a little crude is seeping into these sediments, it is so little as to be virtually undetectable. Unless the rate of replentishment suddenly goes into overdrive, it is unlikely that playing the abiotic card will produce any results whatsoever.

[Coastie for Truth]

12. Basic Petroleum Geology 101

Petroleum exists in porous rock formations (not unlike sand stone - when you built a hot dog or burger fire on top of sand stone - the entrapped water boiled and threw off sand stone shrapnel).

The petroleum is a complex mixture. Just from simple biology 101 and biochem 101 - as the vegetation/flora/fauna decomposes you get a complex mixture of everything from natural gas (methane - CH4) to complex asphalts and tars - C35H72 (with all manner of ether and ester oxygen, and mecapto Sulfur).

The lighter stuff evaporates off first - that is "swamp gas" or "coal mine gas" or "abiotic methane" - we are talking about the CH4 (methane) to C4H10 (propane) fraction. That is the "biotic hydrocarbons."

Meanwhile - over geologic time, even the C5H12 and C6H14 fractions slowly evaporate. This leaves behind the "heavies".

As the CH4 to even trace amounts of C8H18 evaporate - the residue left behind becomes "richer" in the gooo and gunk of the tars and asphalts. That is the Alberta Tar Sands and Oil Sands.

Now, another point, the deep ocean abiotic hydrocarbons (which percolate up through nanopores in the seabed) form "clathrates" with sea water.

A clathrate is a molecular size hollow "ice cube" - with a few hydrocarbon molecules inside the hollow. The sea water freezes quickly when it contacts super-cooled hydrocarbon. Why - we have a fancy word for it - "Joule Thompson Expansion" - just means when the hydrocarbon comes out of the seabed nanopores - it expands quickly -- and cools quickly.

[SnowGoose]

25. You could probably convince yourself with some isotope analysis

The same kind used for carbon dating. If the carbon in the oil is from once-living matter that has decayed, it should be depleted in the less stable isotopes of carbon, the same way as any other very old biological material.

I don't know the answer, but if you're motivated to determine the accuracy of the abiotic theory, that might be a place to start.

[BlueEyedSon]

26. Sigh.

A WORD ABOUT ABIOTIC OIL

There is some speculation that oil is abiotic in origin -- generally asserting that oil is formed from magma instead of an organic origin. These ideas are really groundless. All unrefined oil carries microscopic evidence of the organisms from which it was formed. These organisms can be traced through the fossil record to specific time periods when quantities of oil were formed.

Likewise, there are two primal energy forces operating on this planet, and all forms of energy descend from one of these two. The first is the internal form of energy heating the Earth's interior. This primal energy comes from radioactive decay and from the heat energy originally generated during accretion of the planet some 4.6 billion years ago. There are no known mechanisms for transferring this internal energy into any secondary energy source. And the chemistry of magma does not compare to the chemistry of hydrocarbons. Magma is lacking in carbon compounds, and hydrocarbons are lacking in silicates. If hydrocarbons were generated from magma, then you would expect to see some closer kinship in their chemistry.

The second primal energy source is light and heat generated by our sun. It is the sun's energy that powers all energy processes on the Earth's surface, and which provides the very energy for life itself. Photosynthesis is the miraculous process by which the sun's energy is converted into forms available to the life processes of living matter. Following biological, geological and chemical processes, a line can be drawn from photosynthesis to the formation of hydrocarbon deposits. Likewise, both living matter and hydrocarbons are carbon based.

Finally, because oil generation is in part a geological process, it proceeds at an extremely slow rate from our human perspective. Geological processes take place over a different frame of time than human events. It is for this reason that when geologists say that the San Andreas fault is due for a powerful earthquake, they mean any time in the next million years -- probably less. Geological processes move exceedingly slow.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/04_04_02_oil_recession.html

More: http://www.oilempire.us/abiotic.html

[Dogmudgeon]

27. A good idea gone bad

Abiotic Oil was first proposed in the early 1950s by several Russian and Ukrainian petrologists. They noticed that some of their deeper wells were "magically" replenishing themselves, without evidence that oil was seeping in from other deposits. Their work was solid, but required world-wide confirmation under a number of conditions.

The idea is that methane gas, under high pressure and temperatures, is converted into the rich soup of alkanes that becomes petroleum. And it probably does generate some oil; petroleum is produced by many different strata from different epochs and "systems", and abiotic processes may indeed play significant roles.

But the idea was picked up about a decade ago by anti-environmentalists and libertarians who want no limits placed on business, whether that limit is from the Government or from Nature. They spun a story that abiotic oil would replenish all the Earth's oil fields so rapidly that we'd never run out. And that is where the Abiotic Oil changed into Snake Oil.

Some of us here get testy about Abiotic Oil questions because we've had several wise-ass Freepers stop by and try to "engage us in a battle of the wits". This usually turns into a two-week-long drag. Believe me, we'd all like a magical source of energy that never runs out and has no downside. There's even a lively give-and-take over the risks and benefits of nuclear power.

But Abiotic Oil just doesn't pass muster. In fact, at this point, we're more open to the possibility of Cold Fusion than of Abiotic Oil, that's how political the issue has been.

If you have an interest in geology, by all means, look for the original papers on Abiotic Oil. But avoid the modern "advanced thinkers" from Larouche's fan club and the Libertarian Party. They occasionally have some good insights and scoops, but this isn't one of them.

--p!

[Vogon_Glory]

30. Let's Assume Petroleum Is A Renewable Resource

Let's assume for the sake of argument that petroleum is a renewable resource (I don't, but this is for the sake of argument). Does this also mean that depleted oil wells are being quickly replenished with this other type of petroleum? Does this mean that petroleum is being replenished faster than it is consumed? Does this also mean that this new oil supply will be as cheap as the petroleum pumped out from such "elephant" oil fields as the East Texas oil fields or the area around Baku around the time of the Russian Czars, let alone as cheap as the stuff coming from current oil wells?

I don't think so.

[rustydad]

31. bunk

There are 6 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Abiotic Oil Series Now Available Free
From: Nathan_Payne2003 payne32 <[e-mail]>
2. No Free Lunch, Part 1: A Critique of Thomas Gold's Claims for Abiotic Oil
From: Nathan_Payne2003 payne32 <[e-mail]>
3. No Free Lunch, Part 2: If abiotic oil exists, where is it?
From: Nathan_Payne2003 payne32 <[e-mail]>
4. Sorry about Identification Problems
From: Dale Allen Pfeiffer <[e-mail]>
5. No Free Lunch, Part 3 of 3: Proof
From: Dale Allen Pfeiffer <[e-mail]>
6. RE: Abiotic Oil Series Now Available Free
From: "Mike Ruppert" <[e-mail]>


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nathan_Payne2003 payne32 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Abiotic Oil Series Now Available Free

I am going to begin posting my pieces from FTW here
once they have moved into non-subscriber status.

Here is Ugo Bardi's short piece which served as an
introduction to the Abiotic series.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100404_abiotic_oil.shtml

© Copyright 2004, From The Wilderness Publications,
www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights Reserved. May be
reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web
site for non-profit purposes only.

Abiotic Oil: Science or Politics?

By
Ugo Bardi

www.aspoitalia.net

of Florence, Italy. He is also member of the ASPO
(Association for the study of peak oil). He is the
author of the book "La Fine del Petrolio" (the end of
oil) and of several studies on oil depletion.

Ugo Bardi offers a simple assessment of the abiotic
theory. His logic is so clear, and the culmination of
his argument is so cogent, that even a child could
understand it. And the conclusion is inescapable - at
least to honest enquiry - abiotic theory is false, or
at best irrelevant. -DAP]

OCTOBER 4, 2004: 1300 PDT (FTW) -- For the past
century or so, the biological origin of oil seemed to
be the accepted norm. However, there remained a small
group of critics who pushed the idea that, instead,
oil is generated from inorganic matter within the
earth's mantle.

The question might have remained within the limits of
a specialized debate among geologists, as it has been
until not long ago. However, the recent supply
problems have pushed crude oil to the center stage of
international news. This interest has sparked a heated
debate on the concept of the "production peak" of
crude oil. According to the calculations of several
experts, oil production may reach a maximum within a
few years and start a gradual decline afterwards.

The concept of "oil peak" is strictly linked to a view
that sees oil as a finite resource. Several economists
have never accepted this view, arguing that resource
availability is determined by price and not by
physical factors. Recently, others have been arguing a
more extreme view: that oil is not even physically
limited. According to some versions of the abiotic oil
theory, oil is continuously created in the Earth's
mantle in such amounts that the very concept of
"depletion" is to be abandoned and, by consequence,
that there will never be an "oil peak."

The debate has become highly politicized and has
spilled over from geology journals to the mainstream
press and to the fora and mailing lists on the
internet. The proponents of the abiotic oil theory are
often very aggressive in their arguments. Some of them
go so far as to accuse those who claim that oil
production is going to peak of pursuing a hidden
political agenda designed to provide Bush with a
convenient excuse for invading Iraq and the whole
Middle East.

Normally, the discussion of abiotic oil oscillates
between the scientifically arcane and the politically
nasty. Even supposing that the political nastiness can
be detected and removed, there remains the problem
that the average non-specialist in petroleum geology
can't hope to wade through the arcane scientific
details of the theory (isotopic ratios, biomarkers,
sedimentary layers and all that) without getting lost.

Here, I will try to discuss the origin of oil without
going into these details. I will do this by taking a
more general approach. Supposing that the abiogenic
theory is right, then what are the consequences for us
and for the whole biosphere? If we find that the
consequences do not correspond to what we see, then we
can safely drop the abiotic theory without the need of
worrying about having to take a course in advanced
geology. We may also find that the consequences are so
small as to be irrelevant; in this case also we
needn't worry about arcane geological details.

In order to discuss this point, the first task is to
be clear about what we are discussing. There are,
really, two versions of the abiotic oil theory, the
"weak" and the "strong":

- The "weak" abiotic oil theory: oil is abiotically
formed, but at rates not higher than those that
petroleum geologists assume for oil formation
according to the conventional theory. (This version
has little or no political consequences).

- The "strong" abiotic theory: oil is formed at a
speed sufficient to replace the oil reservoirs as we
deplete them, that is, at a rate something like 10,000
times faster than known in petroleum geology. (This
one has strong political implications).

Both versions state that petroleum is formed from the
reaction of carbonates with iron oxide and water in
the region called "mantle," deep in the Earth.
Furthermore, it is assumed (see Gold's 1993 paper)
that the mantle is such a huge reservoir that the
amount of reactants consumed in the reaction hasn't
depleted it over a few billion years (this is not
unreasonable, since the mantle is indeed huge).

Now, the main consequence of this mechanism is that it
promises a large amount of hydrocarbons that seep out
to the surface from the mantle. Eventually, these
hydrocarbons would be metabolized by bacteria and
transformed into CO2. This would have an effect on the
temperature of the atmosphere, which is strongly
affected by the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in it.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
is regulated by at least two biological cycles; the
photosynthetic cycle and the silicate weathering
cycle. Both these cycles have a built-in negative
feedback which keeps (in the long run) the CO2 within
concentrations such that the right range of
temperatures for living creatures is maintained (this
is the Gaia model).

The abiotic oil-if it existed in large amounts-would
wreak havoc with these cycles. In the "weak" abiotic
oil version, it may just be that the amount of carbon
that seeps out from the mantle is small enough for the
biological cycles to cope and still maintain control
over the CO2 concentration. However, in the "strong"
version, this is unthinkable. Over billions of years
of seepage in the amounts considered, we would be
swimming in oil, drowned in oil.

Indeed, it seems that the serious proponents of the
abiotic theory all go for the "weak" version. Gold,
for instance, never says in his 1993 paper that oil
wells are supposed to replenish themselves.1 As a
theory, the weak abiotic one still fails to explain a
lot of phenomena, principally (and, I think,
terminally): how is it that oil deposits are almost
always associated to anoxic periods of high biological
sedimentation rate? However, the theory is not
completely unthinkable.

At this point, we can arrive at a conclusion. What is
the relevance of the abiotic theory in practice? The
answer is "none." The "strong" version is false, so it
is irrelevant by definition. The "weak" version,
instead, would be irrelevant in practice, even if it
were true. It would change a number of chapters of
geology textbooks, but it would have no effect on the
impending oil peak.

To be sure, Gold and others argue that even the weak
version has consequences on petroleum prospecting and
extraction. Drilling deeper and drilling in areas
where people don't usually drill, Gold says, you have
a chance to find oil and gas. This is a very, very
weak position for two reasons.

First, digging is more expensive the deeper you go,
and in practice it is nearly impossible to dig a
commercial well deeper than the depth to which wells
are drilled nowadays, that is, more than 10 km.

Secondly, petroleum geology is an empirical field
which has evolved largely by trial and error.
Petroleum geologists have learned the hard way where
to drill (and where not to drill); in the process they
have developed a theoretical model that WORKS. It is
somewhat difficult to believe that generations of
smart petroleum geologists missed huge amounts of oil.
Gold tried to demonstrate just that, and all that he
managed to do was to recover 80 barrels of oil in
total, oil that was later shown to be most likely the
result of contamination of the drilling mud. Nothing
prevents others from trying again, but so far the
results are not encouraging.

So, the abiotic oil theory is irrelevant to the debate
about peak oil and it would not be worth discussing
were it not for its political aspects. If people start
with the intention of demonstrating that the concept
of "peak oil" was created by a "Zionist conspiracy" or
something like that, anything goes. In this case,
however, the debate is no longer a scientific one.
Fortunately, as Colin Campbell said, "Oil is
ultimately controlled by events in the geological past
which are immune to politics."

1 Thomas Gold, of Cornell University, has been one of
the leading proponents of the abiotic oil theory in
the West. The theory, actually, had its origin in the
work of a group of Ukrainian and Russian scientists.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nathan_Payne2003 payne32 <[e-mail]>
Subject: No Free Lunch, Part 1: A Critique of Thomas Gold's Claims for Abiotic Oil

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102104_no_free_pt1.shtml

© Copyright 2004, From The Wilderness Publications,
www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights Reserved. May be
reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web
site for non-profit purposes only.

No Free Lunch, Part 1:
A Critique of Thomas Gold's Claims for Abiotic Oil

by
Jean Laherrere

edited by
Dale Allen Pfeiffer

Thomas Gold, written by Jean Laherrere. It is a
scientific dialogue and contains many technical terms
and references which may be nearly unfathomable to the
layperson. However, it is a very important discussion
because it lays bare many of the errors in Gold's
arguments. Unfortunately, Thomas Gold is no longer
with us to respond to these criticisms. However, this
critique has been floating around in one form or
another for a few years now, and it is not
unreasonable to assume that Thomas Gold was aware of
it.

Jean Laherrere has told me that he sent a copy of this
critique (along with other materials critical of
abiotic theory) to V.A. Krayushkin, the main Russian
proponent of abiotic oil, in 2001, shortly before a
conference where both men were to present papers. Dr.
Krayushkin canceled his appearance and has since gone
out of his way to avoid addressing Jean Laherrere's
criticism. Jean's comments on the Dneiper-Donets Basin
will be presented in the second part of this series.
If a scientist cannot or will not defend his theory
against fair scientific scrutiny, then his argument is
immediately cast into doubt.

For the layperson, before attempting to read this
paper it is first necessary to recognize that
hydrocarbons are a large and complex family of
compounds. At one end of this family, we have single
carbon compounds such as Methane (one atom of carbon
surrounded by 4 atoms of hydrogen, chemical formula:
CH4) and Carbon Dioxide (one carbon atom bonded to two
oxygen atoms, chemical formula: CO2). At the other end
of this family we have complex hydrocarbons where
numerous carbon atoms form linked chains of up to 24
carbon atoms with attached hydrogen and hydroxyl
(Oxygen and Hydrogen: OH) combinations, and 6 carbon
rings (benzene rings). An example of a complex
hydrocarbon with a branched chain is
2,2,4-Trimethylene (isooctane), a component of
gasoline with an octane rating of 100. An example of a
compound based on a carbon ring is Toluene, another
component of gasoline with an octane rating of 120.
Petroleum is a mixture of thousands of different
complex hydrocarbons, which are classified into useful
groups based on their boiling points. Here is a
breakdown of various major components of petroleum
with their corresponding number of carbon atoms.

No scientist has ever argued that simple hydrocarbons
such as methane cannot originate inorganically.
Methane and carbon dioxide are the major components in
the atmosphere of the gas giants of our outer solar
system (Saturn, Jupiter, et cetera). And it is
believed that the early atmosphere of the Earth
consisted mostly of these gases, until they leaked
into space. Nor is there much question that simple
hydrocarbons could possibly be generated abiotically
within the Earth. However, the quantity of methane
which might be generated abiotically is likely to be
insignificant.

When we move on to more complex hydrocarbons, this
becomes another matter. Here we must look at how
stable these molecules are at varying combinations of
temperature and pressure similar to what is found at
depth in the Earth. While some lab experiments have
produced somewhat complex hydrocarbons at pressures
and temperatures consistent with the upper mantle,
they have not explained how these compounds would
remain stable as they slowly rose to the crust though
zones where pressure was not sufficient to hold them
together but where temperatures were still high enough
to break them down into methane.

Also, when testing a scientific hypothesis, it is
necessary to ascertain whether a phenomenon can be
achieved by any mechanism other than that which is
central to the hypothesis. If there are other possible
mechanisms, then they must be ruled out before any
particular test can be claimed to support a certain
hypothesis. As Jean Laherrere points out in his
critique, Thomas Gold repeatedly failed to take other
possibilities into account. This results in sloppy
science, and it cannot hold up.

The papers referred to in this article can be found at
the following web site:
http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/vita.html.
Quotations from Gold's papers are italicized, followed
by Jean Laherrere's critique.
-D.A.P.]

The Deep Hot Biosphere June 1999
http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/index.html
The basic idea that a large amount of microbial life
exists in the pore spaces of the rocks down to depths
of between 6 and 10 kilometers arose in the following
way: natural petroleum almost always contains elevated
levels of the chemically inert gas helium and at the
same time it contains molecules that are
unquestionably of biological origin. How these two
different substances meet up in oil has long been a
puzzle.
A: There is no problem finding microbial life in
sediments (or basement via waters) down to 6-10 km.
But that does not mean that petroleum will be
generated by these microbes. Every sedimentary basin
contains some organic matter, but to generate
petroleum requires a certain threshold of organic
matter concentration, along with various other
important maturation conditions. Helium coming from
the mantle can meet hydrocarbons in reservoirs; being
together does not mean that they come both from the
same source.

"Drilling deep into the crystalline granite of Sweden
between 1986 and 1993 revealed substantial amounts of
natural gas and oil. 80 barrels of oil were pumped up
from a depth between 5.2 km and 6.7 km."
A: Here failure is transformed into success. Ask the
Swedish private investors who put their money (along
with the government) in the drilling of two wells,
trusting Gold that there should be a gas field in the
basement (fractured by an asteroid 368 Ma years] ago). The American Association of Petroleum
Geologists (AAPG) Explorer of a few years ago
described seepage of oil in the area coming from
sedimentary Silurian rocks. Tar seeping from the
granite had been used by the Vikings to seal their
ships long ago, and lakes in the Siljan Ring sometimes
bubble up methane. Sediments have been stripped away
recently by Ice Age glaciers. With oil seepage tracked
to nearby sedimentary rocks, it is very likely that
these stripped away sediments were also oil rich. Oil
migrates in any reservoir up or down, so it is not
surprising to find oil in many basement reservoirs. I
do not know of any tar seep in granite which is not an
overthrust over sediments (as in Glacier National Park
in Canada, which was the first discovery: 200 m of
granite thrust overlaps a sedimentary basin). The goal
was commercial gas and Gold claimed that finding a few
barrels of oil is a scientific success.

From Science Frontiers #69, MAY-JUN 1990:
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf069/sf069g09.htm
The 72-kilometer-diameter Siljan Ring in central
Sweden is generally believed to be of meteoric origin.
The granite here has been shattered, perhaps to a
depth of 40 kilometers. If Gold's hypothesis about the
origin of methane is correct, methane might well be
found seeping up through this wound in the earth's
outer skin. Further, the shattered granite might prove
to be a gigantic reservoir of valuable methane. The
Swedes decided to drill.

After three years and the expenditure of $40 million,
drilling at the Siljan Ring has been terminated. The
drill penetrated to 6.8 kilometers before it got
stuck. No significant methane had been found.

From Science Frontiers #79, JAN-FEB 1992
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf079/sf079g10.htm
(http://www.knowledge.co.uk/frontiers):
Three years ago, at a depth of 6.7 kilometers, the
"misguided" Swedish drillers pumped 12 tons of oily
sludge from the granite rock. "Just drilling fluids
and diesel-oil pumped down from the surface," laughed
the experts. This autumn (1991), more oil was struck
in a new hole only 2.8 kilometers deep. This time,
only water was used to lubricate the drill. How are
the skeptics going to explain this? Well, about 20
kilometers away, there are sedimentary rocks; perhaps
the oil seeped into the granite from there. Rejecting
this interpretation, the drillers are going deeper in
hopes of finding primordial methane.

Gas Research Institute report 90/0010:
"Analysis of Drill Core from the Siljan Ring Impact
Structure and Related Processes in Shear-Zone" by
Valley, John W. & Komor, Steve.
Summary: Sampling was conducted at the Siljan Ring,
Sweden on the surface from inside and outside of the
ring, from drill cores in pilot holes, and from drill
core cuttings in the deep Gravberg hole. Fluid
inclusion and carbon isotope data were studied to
evaluate implications for the Deep Earth Gas
hypothesis. Results indicate that carbon in the
calcite may be derived from two sources (organic decay
and limestone dissolution) and is carried downward
with variable mixing by groundwater. This suggests
that the calcite formation in the Siljan Ring does not
require a contribution from mantle methane.

"Drilling into crystalline bedrock is now underway in
Russia on a large scale. More than 300 wells have been
drilled to a depth of more than 5 km and are
productive, as also is the giant White Tiger field
offshore Vietnam, mostly producing also from basement
rock."
A: Where are the fields found in a crystalline bedrock
away from sedimentary basins? There is no drilling on
a large scale in bedrock. The Soviet superdeep well in
the Kola peninsula in the basement has not progressed
beyond 12000 m for more than 10 years. Furthermore,
drilling deep wells over 5000 m does not mean drilling
in crystalline bedrocks. The White Tiger field in
basement (as many others) is perfectly explained with
hydrocarbons generated from sedimentary source-rock.

Natural Gas and Oil Thomas Gold January 1997
http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/Natgas.html
"The presence of helium and of numerous trace metals,
often in far higher concentrations in petroleum than
in its present host rock, has then an explanation in
the scavenging action of hydrocarbon fluids on their
long way up."
A: Hydrocarbons can migrate down, as very well
demonstrated in the Hassi Messaoud field where the
Cambrian reservoir was exposed during Hercynian time
more than 100 km away from immature Silurian
grapholitic shales. Later covered by Triassic
sandstones and sealed by thick evaporites, within
mature conditions Silurian shales generate oil which
migrates through the Triassic sandstones down to the
Cambrian reservoirs.

"A 6.6 km deep well drilled in the granite of Sweden
shows petroleum and gas, and bacteria that can be
cultured, all in the complete absence of any
sediments, and hence of any biological debris."
A: what about the oil seepage not far away, and the
recently removed sediments?

The Origin of Methane (and Oil) in the Crust of the
Earth
Thomas Gold U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 1570, The
Future of Energy Gases, 1993
http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/usgs.html

".the well known association of hydrocarbons with
helium."
A: The two are associated in some fields, but not all.
Helium is rarely found outside hydrocarbon fields as
wells are drilled mainly in search of hydrocarbons.

".there perhaps still remain more uncertainties
concerning the origin of petroleum than that of any
other commonly occurring natural substance. (H.D.
Hedberg, 1964)"
A: In 1964, geochemistry for hydrocarbons was at
infancy level. Fortunately, since that time there has
been great progress in hydrocarbon geochemistry: see
Tissot and the IFP Rock-Eval, Welde, Demaison and
others. There are few uncertainties remaining about
the origin of hydrocarbons.

"The capital fact to note is that petroleum was born
in the depths of the Earth, and it is only there that
we must seek its origin." (D. Mendeleev, 1877)
A: This is not what every oil company is doing,
drilling in the depths of the earth. They drill where
they are most likely to find hydrocarbons: mainly in
sedimentary rocks. The first oil seep in Canada was in
basement. Some wells in Canada were drilled in a
structural setting where faulted basement rock was
overthrust atop younger sediments.

"(1) Petroleum and methane are found frequently in
geographic patterns of long lines or arcs, which are
related more to deep-seated large-scale structural
features of the crust, than to the smaller scale
patchwork of the sedimentary deposits."
A: These areas are characterized by rapid
sedimentation (like the Gulf of Mexico) and structures
favorable for oil entrapment.

"An invasion of an area by hydrocarbon fluids from
below could better account for this than the chance of
successive deposition."
A: oil does not deposit, it migrates everywhere, up
and down

"(4) Methane is found in many locations where a
biogenic origin is improbable or where biological
deposits seem inadequate: in great ocean rifts in the
absence of any substantial sediments; in fissures in
igneous and metamorphic rocks, even at great depth; in
active volcanic regions, even where there is a minimum
of sediments; and there are massive amounts of methane
hydrates (methane-water ice combinations) in
permafrost and ocean deposits, where it is doubtful
that an adequate quantity and distribution of
biological source material is present."
A: Methane belongs to hydrocarbons, but it differs as
it can be biogenic or abiotic from chemical reactions.
Methane (and ethane) exists in space when life does
not exist. For hydrates it is said to be mainly
biogenic (see my article in Offshore). Methane is the
simplest hydrocarbon, consisting of a single carbon
atom surrounded by four hydrogen atoms. As such, it is
a common occurrence wherever there is carbon &
hydrogen. This is not the case with other complex
chains of hydrocarbons.

"(5) The hydrocarbon deposits of a large area often
show common chemical or isotopic features, quite
independent of the varied composition or the
geological ages of the formations in which they are
found."
A: Of course as oil migrates, its isotopic features
are those of the source-rocks as is well known to
petroleum geochemists. Correlations between
source-rocks and oils are very well documented.

"He (Kudryavtsev (1959)) pointed out that oil pools in
sedimentary strata are often related to fractures in
the basement directly below."
A: Of course, as most of sedimentary structures are
correlated to basement features. Sediments move mainly
as basements move; this is a function of plate
tectonics.

"He stressed that petroleum is present, in large or
small quantity, but in all horizons below any
petroleum accumulation, apparently totally independent
of the varied conditions of formation of these
horizons. This statement has since become known as
'Kudryavtsev's Rule.'"
A: This "Kudryatsev's rule" is only known as "keep
drilling as long as there is a possible reservoir
which can be fed by a possible source-rock." But the
capacity of the rig (and economics) halts drilling
often before this limit is reached. It is difficult to
find reference to this rule anywhere.

"Columns of flames have been seen during the eruptions
of some volcanoes, sometimes reaching 500 meters in
height, such as during the eruption of Merapi in
Sumatra in 1932. (We since know of several other
instances.) The eruptions of mud-volcanoes have
liberated such quantities of methane, that even the
most prolific gas field underneath should have been
exhausted long ago."
A: It is illogical to mix real volcanoes coming from
the mantle and mud-volcanoes coming from overpressures
in sediments as in Bakou area. Methane (not complex
hydrocarbons) is present in the mantle.

"Profir'ev (1974) argued that so-called source rocks
have no identification that proves their hydrocarbons
to be primarily biogenic."
A: This reference is terribly outdated. There is now a
thousand times more proof for biogenic than for
abiogenic origins.

"He also discounted the hypothesis, often
advanced, that the transport and deposition of oil
from supposed source rocks to the final reservoir was
accomplished by solution in gas."
A: Most oil is transported with water from the
source-rock to the reservoir: this is why in the
reservoir there is oil over water with generally a
water-oil contact being horizontal except when there
is a strong dynamic aquifer causing a tilting (such as
King Hubbert was the first to mention). Hubbert was
better known in exploration for his hydrodynamic
theory than for his peak.

"There were several voices also outside Russia (or the
Soviet Union), who argued for a nonbiogenic origin.
Most notable among them was Sir Robert Robinson (1963,
1966) who, like Mendeleev, can be considered among the
most distinguished chemists of his day. He studied the
chemical make-up of natural petroleums in great
detail, and concluded that they were mostly far too
hydrogen-rich to be a likely product of the decay of
plant debris. Olefins, the unsaturated hydrocarbons,
would have been expected to predominate by far in any
material that was derived in that way."
A: Geologists have tried to study geochemistry as much
as they can before saying anything on the origin of
oil; geochemists such as Robinson should have studied
geology before making statements on the origin of oil.
Conclusions should come from a team of geochemists and
geologists and not from one side.

"Diamonds are known to have high-pressure inclusions
that contain CH4 and heavier hydrocarbons, ... it must
therefore have been a hydrocarbon that laid down the
diamonds."
A: How much heavier? Up to 4 or 7; this is not enough
to speak of complex hydrocarbons. Furthermore, if
these hydrocarbons are as rare as diamonds, it is
difficult to hope for any field coming from them.

"It has been argued that hydrocarbons could not come
from these deep levels, because they could not survive
at temperatures that are reached in the crust at a
depth below 20 kilometers (Hunt, 1975); but these
discussions in the petroleum literature have not
included the effects of pressure."
A: The graph used to back this assertion gives the
stability of hydrocarbons (paraffins & aromatics)
below 30 km down to 300 km (100 000 bars and 2000°C)
but it does not show it at 10 km. What is the use of
showing hydrocarbons to be stable at 30 km if they are
not stable at 10 km? Furthermore, there are huge
amounts of gas in the over-pressured brines of the
Gulf of Mexico and the experimental production was a
failure. It is not necessary to go so deep to find
unconventional resources.

"Everyone now thinks of Arabia, the Persian Gulf, Iran
and Iraq as being the oil region of the world. There
is no feature that the geology or the topography of
this entire large region has in common, and that would
give any hint why it would all be oil and gas rich."
A: it is obvious from such a statement that Thomas
Gold, an astronomer, does not know anything about
geochemistry and oil exploration.
The source-rocks of the Arabo-Iranian Mega-Petroleum
System (Laherrère J.H., Perrodon A., Demaison G. 1994
"Undiscovered Petroleum Potential" Petroconsultants
report -383p - March) are described as follows:
All these source-rocks are almost entirely
characterized by type II Kerogen, with often more than
10% TOC and high SPI: 14 t HC/m3 for the Hanifa-Nadrya
Upper Jurassic sourcerocks of Saudi Arabia (Demaison
and Huizinga 1991). Other Cretaceous source-rocks are
of comparable quality. These organic-rich sediments
spread over large surfaces, more than 400 km2 for
Jurassic formations, and are within the oil window
over much of the region. So the amount of hydrocarbons
generated is around 5.6 Ttoe = 40 Tboe.

"Yet it is a striking fact that the detailed chemistry
of these oils is similar over the whole of this large
region (Kent and Warman, 1972)."
A: Of course the chemistry is similar; these oils are
from the same source-rocks.

"The island arc of Indonesia, of which Java and
Sumatra are the main components, belongs to a much
larger pattern of an arc. Along the whole of this arc
petroleum is very abundant."
A: Correlation is not causality. Furthermore it is
illogical to show only the oilfields on the arc while
omitting the oilfields outside the arc (Kalimantan,
for example). As was said above, rapid sedimentation
occurs within an arc and oil deposits occur in rapid
sedimentation (as in the Gulf of Mexico).

"Yet it has been said by the Russian investigators
(Makogan, 1988) that, so far as they could see, in
every location on the ocean floor and in the
permafrost of the North where the temperature-pressure
situation would make methane hydrates stable, they are
found."
A: Out of the several thousands boreholes cored at
more than 1000 sites of the JOIDES-ODP (Joint
Oceanographic Institutions for Deep Earth
Sampling-Ocean Drilling Program), only a few cores
have recovered more than one foot of hydrates. Many
sites with the Bottom Simulating Reflector (BSR) did
not find any hydrates, and hydrates were found at
sites without BSR. (Laherrère 19991)

"The helium concentration in a gas is then mainly an
indication of the depth from which this gas has come."
A: It must be proved first that the gas contains this
helium since the beginning, and that the helium is not
coming from a different source.

"Yet if helium could flow without a carrier gas, there
should be many locations where amounts of helium had
accumulated that were similar to the amounts of helium
in some gas fields, but now, in the absence of methane
or nitrogen, they would be pure helium fields. Such
fields would have been discovered, and would be very
valuable. Their absence thus certifies the carrier gas
concept for helium transport."
A: Pure helium fields should have been found only if
they were searched for. Drilling is done looking for
hydrocarbons and not for helium, as there is not lead
or approach to such deposits.

"During the episodes of the Krakatoa eruption below
the sea surface, a large region of flames above the
water were observed, in this case of course in the
complete absence of any confusing sprays of lava. But
even at quiet times some volcanoes emit enough
combustible gases to burn above the lava lake. There
are strong indications that small amounts of gases
coming out of volcanoes at quiet times are largely
oxidized, while in violent eruptions the unoxidized
gases--hydrogen and methane--are prominent."
A: Most volcanic gases are water, and at high pressure
water dissolves large quantities of methane (see
Bingham's solubility curve (Laherrère 1999); at 6000 m
water depth, water dissolves 150 times more methane
than at surface-hydrates contain 150 times the volume
of methane compared to the volume of hydrates). It is
obvious that volcanoes occur at tectonic subduction
zones, and the waters come from the sediments where
methane is present everywhere. Deep waters can contain
a lot of methane and volcanoes discharge these waters
and methane coming from sediments or the mantle. So
much for the flares in real volcanoes (also in mud
volcanoes!).

"Results in Sweden It is with this consideration in
mind that I persuaded the Swedish Government to study
the region of a giant meteoritic impact crater, the
"Siljan Ring" in Central Sweden. An impact that left a
circular formation 44 kilometers in diameter would
undoubtedly have fractured the rock to great depth,
and one might therefore have expected this to be a
particularly favorable location for finding upwelling
hydrocarbons. It was quickly ascertained that just the
area of the Siljan structure was quite anomalously
rich in soil methane and other light hydrocarbons,
that many ordinary water wells produced copious
amounts of gas and that a number of stone quarries in
the area had oil seeping out of the rocks and making
oil pools in the ground. It is true that the stone
quarries were in the sedimentary rock which fills a
ring shaped depression, but those sediments are
nowhere deeper than 300 meters. Oil seepage generated
after 360 million years from such a small quantity of
sediments seemed improbable."
A: The age of the source-rock is not the age of
generation. The two wells recovered 80 barrels, which
is a very small proportion of the seepage known for
centuries on surface. So the origin of the oil from
these sediments should not been excluded as it was by
Gold.

"Some biological molecules, steranes, were found to be
from the same set and in closely similar ratios as had
been seen in the surface seepage oils. and this
strengthened the case that the two oils had a common
origin."
A: Of course they come from the same source rocks:
they should have been compared to the sedimentary
source rock which is known to be the source of the
seepages. Oils migrate with waters to any porosity,
either in a sedimentary rock or in a fractured
basement.

Can There Be Two Independent Sources of Commercial
Hydrocarbon Deposits, One Derived from Biological
Materials, the Other from Primordial Carbon and
Hydrogen, Incorporated into the Earth at its
Formation? Thomas Gold, November 1996
http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/origins.html
"For the second, the primordial origin of commercial
hydrocarbons, we have the comparison with the
abundance of similar hydrocarbons on many other
planetary bodies, also in interplanetary grains, in
comets, and also in the interstellar gas clouds
thought to be similar to the cloud that formed the
solar system. We also see abundance of methane in the
volcanic ocean vents where there are no substantial
biological sediments."
A: Methane does not represent all hydrocarbons; it can
come from simple chemical reaction. Its solubility
with water increases drastically with pressure.

"Nickel and vanadium porphyrins are found in varying
proportions, but in all petroleum deposits. An
explanation that on every occasion in all oils the
original metal atoms had been exchanged for just
nickel and vanadium from the rocks in their
surroundings, seems extremely improbable."
A: Why not-as oil moves with waters coming from
everywhere, waters from sediments and from the mantle.

"The overall hydrocarbon composition corresponds to
the equilibrium state at temperatures 1,300 to 1,500
°C and pressures of 20 to 40 kb. The estimate is that
this is the condition in the upper mantle at depths of
60 to 160 km. (This information comes primarily from
the publications of two chemists and thermodynamicists
from the Ukraine, G.E. Boiko and E.B. Chekaliuk, over
the years from 1950 to 1982, I have found no other
reference to these in the U.S., British, German or
French literature).
A: No more reference after 1982 in Russian papers, and
none in the rest of the world, may mean that it is
considered wrong.

On the Association of Petroleum with Helium and with
Biological Molecules
Thomas Gold July
1992 http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/assoc.html
"The only circumstance I could see that would account
for the hydrocarbon-helium association, was that the
hydrocarbons have ascended from deep levels far below
any sediments, from materials similar to those of
carbonaceous chondrite meteorites, which were a major
component of the materials that formed the Earth"
A: Why not the simplest explanation: that the helium
comes from a different origin. Gold has forgotten
about Occam's Razor.

Eye-witness Accounts of Several Major Earthquakes
Thomas Gold 1987
http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/eyewit.html
Earthquakes disturb soil which contains gas (as marsh
gas) and most of the gas reports during earthquakes do
not bring much. As for prediction, I read about a
radon study not mentioned by Gold.

The Deep, Hot Biosphere Thomas Gold July 1992
http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/DHB.html
"The large quantities of methane hydrates
(methane-water ices) found in many areas of the ocean
floor, and thought to contain more methane than all
other known methane deposits (5,6), suggest a widely
distributed methane supply from below."
A: This is based on comparing the amount of carbon in
the dispersed methane in the oceanic sediments with
unreliable high concentration (in fact about 1% of the
porosity for the last survey in the Blake Ridge) to
the recoverable fossil reserves (for oil & gas less
than 1% of the generated hydrocarbons). The comparison
with the amount of carbon in fossil fuel is completely
different. It is not Gold's fault: he just repeats
incorrect statements.

"While drilling to a depth of 6.7 kilometers in an
ancient meteorite impact crater called the "Siljan
Ring", and the oil was largely a simple, light,
hydrogen saturated petroleum, completely different
from plant oils."
A: In a paper above, Gold said that this oil is
similar to the oil seepage, which has been known for
centuries, coming from a sedimentary source-rock.
"It may be that we shall find a simple general rule to
apply: that microbial life exists in all the locations
where microbes can survive."
A: No objection.

Metal Ores and Hydrocarbons Thomas Gold June 1994
http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/metal.html
"Which fluids have the capability to take into
solution such substances as heavy metals or metal
compounds? At high pressures and temperatures many
metals will form organometallics, that means molecules
that combine metal atoms with such elements as carbon
and hydrogen, possibly with some nitrogen and oxygen
also. Most organometallic compounds are soluble in
hydrocarbon oils. Such oils, being forced through the
rocks, will have a chance to combine with metals in
the rocks to make organometallic compounds. In turn
those that are soluble in the oils can then be
transported by that same flow. This will be so also
for many metals that have very low solubilities in
aqueous liquids. What process can be so selective that
it will deposit one metal ore in one location and
another often nearby? What liquid stream will just
leach out copper from the rocks, while another nearby
stream will leach out zinc? Or why platinum here and
gold there? The hydrocarbon flow."
A: Good point. But if it is so, metal deposits should
be found only in places where there were hydrocarbons,
and this is not the case.

"In the drilling in the Siljan Ring structure in
Sweden, large quantities of magnetite were found. Some
twelve tons of a mix of very fine grained magnetite
and natural petroleum were pumped up from one
wellbore,"
A: It is reported that only 80 barrels of oil were
recovered and that "oil-based drilling fluid had been
in use for several months."

1 Oceanic Hydrates, an Elusive Resource, Laherrère,
Jean. Offshore, August 1999 and September 1999. "The
Deep Sea Drilling Program (DSDP), which was extended
in 1985 as the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP),
stimulated an interest in hydrates. Russian research
suggested that they could occur at a depth of a few
hundred meters below the seabed in deep water areas.
Geophysicists simultaneously identified what was known
as the Bottom Simulating Reflector (BSR) on deepwater
seismic surveys (Markl 1970, Shipley 1979). It was
soon assumed that the BSR marked the occurrence of
hydrates, trapping freegas below, and several Joides
sites were designed to investigate them. These sites
were planned by universities not oilmen, although the
latter were called in to advise on safety on the PPSP
panel (I was one of them during the first half of the
80s). A total of 625 sites were drilled by the Glomar
Challenger between 1963 and 1983 under the auspices of
the DSDP, (see Figure 1), but it was ruled not to
drill through the BSR to avoid any blow out."





____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nathan_Payne2003 payne32 <[e-mail]>
Subject: No Free Lunch, Part 2: If abiotic oil exists, where is it?

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011205_no_free_pt2.shtml

(Graphs and other images can be found at the address
above.)

No Free Lunch, Part 2:
If abiotic oil exists, where is it?

by

Dale Allen Pfeiffer

© Copyright 2005, From The Wilderness Publications,
www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights Reserved. May be
reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web
site for non-profit purposes only.

Introduction
Here we will survey some of the geological sites
mentioned most often in support of abiotic oil. We
will see if there are other, biotic, explanations for
the phenomenon found at these sites. Let us remember,
that in order to prove the hypothesis of abiotic oil,
it is not enough simply to point at sites and say
"Here we are producing oil from bedrock" or "Here the
reserve is refilling mysteriously." When proving a
scientific hypothesis, you must be very careful to
disprove any alternative explanations. This is the
onus of the abiogenic oil hypothesis.

Furthermore, as Ugo Bardi has pointed out in this
newsletter (Abiotic Oil: Science or Politics?), if you
insist that the standard explanation of oil formation
is the result of some conspiracy, then you have
already stepped outside of the realm of scientific
investigation. The theory of the organic origin of oil
evolved gradually and has been refined through many
decades of investigation and observation. It does a
superb job of explaining the observed phenomenon and
predicting new discoveries, and it is consistent with
the mechanics of geology.

While everyone is free to form his or her own opinion,
when people start talking about a conspiracy of
scientists to cover up the supposed abiotic origin of
oil, then all an honest scientist can do is to shrug
her or his shoulders and say that he or she is not
aware of any such conspiracy. In fact, such a
contention makes numerous logical errors; based on the
logical fallacies listed at
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html, I
can count at least 17 errors of logic frequently made
by those who argue that the biological origin of oil
is a conspiracy. Such errors of logic are the province
of a politician, not a scientist.

Siljan, Sweden
One of the most notable efforts to prove the existence
of abiotic hydrocarbons was undertaken by the Swedes
at the urging of Thomas Gold. Dr. Gold had pointed to
the Siljan meteorite impact crater as the ideal place
for discovering hydrocarbon seepage from the mantle.
Although Dr. Gold pronounced the effort a success, as
Jean Laherrere has pointed out,1 this venture could be
used as the definition of a bust.

From 1986 to 1992, two commercial wells were drilled
in the Siljan crater, at a reported cost of over $60
million.2 Only 80 barrels of oily sludge were taken
from the field. While Dr. Gold claimed this oil to
have an abiotic origin, others have pointed out that
the early drilling used injected oil as a lubricant,
and that this is the likely origin of the oily
sludge.3 It has also been mentioned that sedimentary
rocks 20 kilometers away could have been the source of
hydrocarbon seepage.4 Others have observed that during
World War II, the Swedish blasted into the bedrock to
produce caverns in order to stockpile petroleum
supplies. The Swedes now face environmental problems
as these petroleum stockpiles are leaking into the
groundwater.5 These stockpiles could well provide the
source of the oil produced from the Siljan crater.

Even if we grant that these hydrocarbons are abiogenic
(though it is a highly dubious claim), this
exploration could only be termed a success in the most
attenuated sense of the word. These 80 barrels of oily
sludge cost investors three quarters of a million
dollars per barrel. And if they had gone to the
trouble of extracting the oil from the sludge and
refining it, they would have had even less oil, and
their expenses would have increased by the cost of
extraction and refining.

In 1984, a Swedish state-owned power company had an
independent team of geoscientists evaluate the Siljan
crater for commercial abiogenic gas production. The
research team found only minor hydrocarbon gas shows
in the crater. However, they did prove through
geochemical analysis of oil, oil-stained rocks and
organic rocks, that an Ordovician aged bituminous
shale was the source rock for hydrocarbons found in
the Siljan crater. They concluded that claims that
this oil was abiogenic were without merit. Dr.
Donofrio updated these findings in 2003 and stated
that nothing has happened since 1984 to change their
conclusion. There are no abiogenic hydrocarbons in the
Siljan crater, nor are there commercial amounts of
hydrocarbons in any form.6

Offshore, South Vietnam
The region of interest has a complicated geology which
must be understood before we can discuss the oil
reserves. The rock sequence in this area has, at its
basement, PreCambrian rocks, that is granulites and
gneisses. During the Paleozoic Era, it is believed
that this area comprised an emerged continent, with no
deposition. In the Jurassic Era, this region was
submerged again with the resulting deposition of
sedimentary rocks. Then, during the late Mesozoic and
early Cenozoic, this area became part of a mountain
building chain which extended from Southern China to
Southwest Borneo. This was a mountain chain of the
Andean type, driven by sea floor subduction along the
edge of the continent. As the subducted seafloor
basalts and sediments rode down into the
asthenosphere, they were partially melted by the heat
at this depth. This resulted in rising magma bodies
which breached the overlying PreCambrian bedrock and
Jurassic sediments. Volcanism built the mountain
chain. The subduction and resultant mountain-building
began in southern China in mid Jurassic through early
Cretaceous time and proceeded southward through
Vietnam during the mid Cretaceous, reaching Borneo in
the late Cretaceous and earliest Paleocene. The
subduction and mountain-building halted in the early
Paleocene as a result of rifting in Southeast Asia,
which was itself induced by the collision of India
with Eurasia. Finally, this area was submerged once
more, resulting in more sediment deposition up to the
present day, including the Early Moicene Age shale
that serves as the main petroleum seal.8


Block Illustration of Plate Tectonics,
taken from Earth; an introduction to physical geology,
Tarbuck & Lutgens.
Prentice Hall, sixth edition, 1999.

Convergent boundaries occur where subduction takes
place; divergent boundaries are mid ocean ridges where
new oceanic crust is formed. Note the partial melting
and emplacement of magma bodies within the overriding
plates.

So we have recent sedimentary rocks overlying folded
sedimentary rocks of Jurassic age, which are intruded
by late Mesozoic granitoids, all lying atop fractured
basement rocks of PreCambrian age. The area is crossed
by numerous faults which have been closed and
reactivated several times during various episodes of
compression, extension, compaction due to differential
loading of sediments, and decompaction due to
backstripping of the sediments.9 Most recently, the
area has formed the horst and graben topography common
to pull apart basins such as the basin and range of
Nevada. The resulting basins have been filled during
post-rift burial phases.10 Extension halted during the
Oligocene, and has been followed by the slow
post-tectonic thermal cooling of the area.11 It has
become tectonically deactivated.

The source rock for the hydrocarbons is an algal-rich
lacustrine rock which matured during the
Oligocene-Miocene pull-apart basin and subsequent
burial phases. Migration of the oil occurred from the
Miocene to recent times, and filled the available
fracture and grain space in the highly fractured
basement rocks and overlying sedimentary rocks.12 The
Boch Ho field is estimated to contain 1 billion
barrels of oil, and is produced mainly from the
intrusive granitoid plutons.13 (Jean Laherrere states
that a better estimate is between 1.2 and 1.5 Gb.) The
hydrocarbons are not abiotic, they originate from the
lacustrine sedimentary rock.

Volcanic Outgassing
Thomas Gold and other proponents point to volcanic
outgassing as evidence of abiotic hydrocarbons. While
Jean Laherrere dealt with this contention more
thoroughly in the first portion of this series,14 I
would like to quickly reiterate his argument.

First, volcanic outgassing from mud volcanoes and
subduction related volcanics cannot be claimed as
evidence of abiotic hydrocarbon production within the
mantle. Volcanic outgassing of methane is easily
explained by the tectonic model. Subducted ocean
floor, along with overlying sediments rich in organic
detritus, undergoes partial melting as it rides down
into the asthenosphere. This partial melting explains
the difference between continental (granitic) igneous
rock and oceanic (basaltic) igneous rock. It also
explains how organic rich sediments subducted along
with ocean floor could be cooked into methane well
above the mantle.

In order to back the claim of abiotic outgassing,
proponents must look to the mid ocean ridges, where
new ocean floor basalt is created through the
upwelling of the mantle. Sampling has been done along
the mid ocean ridges, and while the results do suggest
the production of methane and equally simple
hydrocarbons from the mantle, the amount is
negligible.15 More methane is produced annually from
cow farts than from outgassing at the mid ocean
ridges.

Eugene Island, Gulf of Mexico, US Territorial Waters
Eugene Island is one of the darlings of abiotic
theorists. Cornucopians point to Eugene Island as
proof that oil reserves are mysteriously refilling.
There have been many bold and unreliable claims about
the amount of oil held in these reserves, and the rate
of recharge. These claims fall flat upon examination.
Here we will stick to reserve data as reported by the
Oil & Gas Journal (OGJ) and the Minerals Management
Service (MMS), two reliable sources of information.

In 1978, the OGJ reported estimated reserves of 325
million barrels (Mb). The figure was increased to 388
Mb by 1998, due to the standard US practice of
initially only reporting proven reserves and
neglecting the probable reserves. This practice
evolved due to Security and Exchange Commission rules
on the reporting of oil reserves, but is a boon to US
company profiles because it allows them to regularly
add to their reserve numbers over time, making it
appear that they are discovering more oil. Jean
Laherrere has said that the noted explorer Klemme
estimated 500 Mb in 1977.16 The MMS estimated reserves
at 464 Mb in 1986, and at 416 Mb in 1998, which would
mean that reserves declined. Production peaked in 1996
at around 30,000 barrels/day (b/d)-28,000 b/d reported
in OGJ, and 33,000 b/d reported by MMS.

Jean Laherrere created the following graph. It shows
monthly production in relation to total production,
and demonstrates quite clearly that Eugene Island is
in decline. It also shows two distinct periods of
recharge, both of them minor in relation to the
overall graph.

Eugene Island 330 oil decline from 1972 to 2000
Courtesy of Jean Laherrere.

That some recharge of the reservoir is occurring is
not to be denied. 4D seismic studies suggest migration
along Red Fault (one of the best studied faults in the
world).17 But refilling is considered to be minor,
reflected in a strong decline, then a slight rebound
due to refilling followed by a new decline.

In the early 1990's an ambitious investigation of
Eugene Island was undertaken through the joint
auspices of the Global Basins Research Network, the
Department of Energy and the oil industry.18 The
purpose of the project was to develop new technologies
to extract hydrocarbons from the streams which feed
reservoirs instead of merely draining the reservoirs
themselves, or to enhance the streams so that they
will better feed the reservoirs. The study focused on
Eugene Island and on the Gulf of Mexico in general
because newly migrating hydrocarbons were well
documented in this region, and migration approached
rates of extraction. The project first had to
determine the pathway of the migrating hydrocarbons
and their origin.

The study determined that hydrocarbons were indeed
migrating along the Red Fault. They concluded that as
oils at depth are over-cooked and cracked into gas,
this results in an increase of pressure. This is due
to the expanding volume of gas produced from the more
compacted volume of oil. When the pressure grows to
hydraulic fracturing stress, the faults open and
release a stream of oil and gas upward toward the
surface. The migration pathways seem to branch from
what appear to be three primary source areas at
depth.19

The migrating hydrocarbons contain biomarkers, heavy
metals, and sulfur isotopes which indicate a carbonate
marine source of Cretaceous age. The three sourcing
depobasins are believed to be turbidite sands: organic
detritus rich sands stirred up and deposited by deep
sea turbidity currents. These turbidites were capped
by a salt sheet and then buried beneath 3 million
years of deltaic sands, resulting in the geopressures
and temperatures necessary to transform the organic
detritus into oil and gas.20

Anderson, et al., concludes that a conservative
estimate might place undiscovered hydrocarbons in the
Northern Gulf at 20 billion barrels. The report
suggests that a concerted effort to explore the entire
U.S. Gulf of Mexico for similarly situated reserves
might result in the discovery of greater than 50
billion barrels of unrecovered hydrocarbons.

There is no doubt that the hydrocarbons of Eugene
Island are of organic origin. The recharging of Eugene
Island reserves is simply the result of complicated
geological structure.

Russia
Proponents of abiotic oil like to point out that
although Russia's oil production peaked in 1987, their
output has increased tremendously over the past
several years. They link this to the Russian
development of the abiotic oil hypothesis, which is
held by a small minority of Russian scientists, to
claim that Russia's production is growing because of
abiotic oil. This is nonsense. In the first place,
Russian oil production dropped precipitously in the
early 1990s following the collapse of the Soviet
Union. The current surge in oil production is in large
part due to the revival of the Russian oil industry.
Oil is just about the only thing currently holding up
the Russian economy. They are overproducing their oil
fields and, as we have said numerous times, this
overproduction will catch up with them. Russian
discovery peaked in 1960, and has since diminished to
almost nothing. Colin Campbell's model suggested a
secondary peak around 2010, followed by another steep
decline due to overproduction.21 However, it now
appears the Russian production is already approaching
its second peak.

Russia Oil Production matched to discovery and
forecast
Courtesy of Jean Laherrere.
Taken from, Le rebond de la production petroliere en
Russie :
Quelles perspectives a long terme? Quelles
opportunites industrielles?,
Fontaine J-M., Laherrere J., Perrodon A. Revue de
l'Energie n°538, juillet-aout p421-432
Note that the graph of discovery (in green) has been
shifted by 20 years in order to
impose it over the graph of production.

Oil Discovery and Production Profile
Oil Discovery and Production Profile, Colin Campbell
taken from ASPO Newsletter No.31,
http://www.asponews.org/ASPO.newsletter.031.php

The Moscow News has reported that Yuri Shafranik, the
head of the Russian Union of Oil and Gas Producers,
stated on November 9th 2004 that Russia has almost
reached its maximum production and the decline will
start within two years. Mr. Shafranik referred to
experts from the International Energy Agency.22 The
Moscow News also recently reported that Russian oil
producers have cut back on drilling. Production
drilling fell by 3.4% in the first nine months of
2004, while exploratory drilling fell by 20.6%.23 Such
a large drop in exploratory drilling could indicate
that investors see a trend of diminishing returns from
further exploration.

Investment Company Finam, headquartered in Moscow,
reported on its investigation into the Russian oil
industry in a special investment bulletin issued on
August 17, 2004. In this report, Finam stated that the
boost in Russian oil production was no miracle, but
was entirely due to capital expenditures to rejuvenate
old fields using enhanced and aggressive recovery
methods. Western investors and subcontractors have
pressed Russia into adopting these more aggressive
recovery techniques. The production techniques
traditionally employed in Russia result in a gentler
production profile, with a longer build up time to
peak, a lower but longer peak, and a gradual decline.
The more aggressive western techniques build quickly
to a higher but shorter lived peak and then diminish
more rapidly. These western techniques, which include
intense hydraulic fracturing, submersible electric
pumps and hydro-fracturing on newly drilled horizontal
wells, damage the fields and result in short-lived
production and even the collapse of fields. These
techniques are applied by the global majors outside of
the U.S. and Europe because of regulations on maximum
rates of hydrocarbon production in developed countries
which effectively ban such practices.24

The so-called western production techniques result in
a production spike with no plateau at peak, and
decline rates that seldom fall below 20%. Mature
Russian fields are seeing water cut oscillating
between 60% and 90%. Just this year (2004), Yukos,
Sibneft and Rosneft have all announced plans to cut
production. According to Finam, Yukos faces big
problems due to declining production.25 And they will
likely be only the first Russian oil company to feel
the pinch.

From this discussion, it can be seen that Russian oil
production is no miracle of abiotic oil. It is
entirely due to capital investment and the switch to
aggressive recovery techniques. And the Russian oil
industry will pay a heavy price for overproduction.

Dneiper-Donetsk Basin, Ukraine
Most abiotic supporters point to the Dneiper-Donets
basin as the major support for their argument. The
basis for these claims rests upon a paper delivered
before a symposium in 1994, authored by V.A.
Krayushkin, J.F. Kenney and others, "Recent
applications of the modern theory of abiogenic
hydrocarbon origins: drilling and development of oil
and gas fields in the Dneiper-Donetsk basin."26 While
Dr. Krayushkin appears to avoid any debate with
skeptics, Dr. Kenney has been most vociferous in his
attacks upon the biological theory of oil generation.

The authors of this study claim that the
Dneiper-Donetsk basin was chosen as the area for their
study because it had already been deemed to possess no
potential for petroleum production.27 However, the
authors did not mention that the Dneiper-Donetsk basin
is the home to most of Ukraine's proven oil reserves,
and has been the focus of traditional oil exploration
within the country for some years.28 The report claims
the discovery of abiotic reserves totaling some 8,200
million metric tons of oil, or about 60 billion
barrels of oil.29 There are many conflicting reports
on the estimated reserves of Ukraine, and
inconsistencies related to the Krayushkin study only
complicate matters (see note 26 below).

In their 2003 country analysis brief, the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) only recognizes 395
million barrels of proven reserves for the entire
Ukraine, most of which resides in the Dneiper-Donetsk
basin.30 The USGS has stated that the Dneiper-Donetsk
basin holds reserves of about 1.4 Gb.31 Meanwhile, the
Oil and Gas Journal reports current Ukrainian reserves
at 0.40 Gb, and Colin Campbell estimates total
providence-including future discoveries-will be in the
range of 4.00 Gb.32 Not one of these sources credits
Ukrainian reserves to abiotic origin. Russian
petroleum geologist A.A. Kitcha, himself a supporter
of the abiotic hypothesis, has been quoted as saying
these claims of abiotic reserves in the
Dneiper-Donetsk basin are. "difficult to demonstrate,
partly because of multiple completions in basement and
overlying cover."33

1.4 Gb is sizable enough to have drawn the attention
of the majors. Yet the only major to take an interest
in the region is BP, which plans to set up a joint
venture in Dneiper-Donetsk basin to develop gas
reserves. Several smaller players are also setting up
ventures to produce gas reserves.34 No mention of oil.

Regal Petroleum Plc. is a small British company which
listed on the London Stock Exchange in September of
2002. The core business of the company is production
of oil and gas in the Ukraine's Dneiper-Donetsk basin.
Regal is the first western company to be officially
registered as an oil and gas producer in the Ukraine
by the Ukraine oil department. Regal Petroleum's
operations in the Ukraine are totally geared toward
gas production. On their website, they estimate that
their licensed areas of the Dneiper-Donetsk basin
contain an estimated 25 billion cubic metres of proven
and probable gas reserves, along with 5.8 million
cubic metres of gas condensate reserves.35 Nowhere
does the company mention the existence of or
exploration for oil reserves in the Dneiper-Donetsk
basin.

In the USGS World Petroleum

[struggle4progress]

32. The stable carbon isotopic ratio evidence against abiotic hydrocarbons ..

.. is reasonably convincing. The stable isotopes are C12 and C13; as a result of small differences in reaction rates for chemical bonds involving C12 or C13, photosynthesis tends to slightly enrich C12 relative to C13 (compared to atmospheric ratios): this can be measured accurately enough that, for example, organic matter produced by C-3 photosynthesis can be distinguished from material produced by C-4 photosynthesis. Stable isotope ratios have also been used to decide whether diamonds come from primeval mantle or whether they represented carbon recycled through the biosphere; that surface carbon can be subducted to depth has been shown, if I remember correctly, by measurement of trace C14 in volcanic gases.

Coal deposits, which are obviously biogenic (since fossil plants have regularly been found in coal), have stable carbon isotopic ratios which clearly indicate biological origins. So, by the way, do petroleums.

[progressive_realist]

34. The important question, I believe. . .

Is whether abiotic oil regenerates at the same rate as biotic oil, or not. Even if abiotic oil exists, it does not make a bit of difference so long as it is only being created and trapped in accessible reservoirs at minuscule rates.

Petroleum is important not because of some miraculous essence trapped within its substance, but because we can obtain a high ratio of energy released relative to energy required to obtain it. The more difficult oil is to obtain, the less useful it is. There could be gigantic pools of petroleum at great depth beneath thousands of feet of granite, and they would be useless to us if the energy required to drill and pump from those reservoirs was as much as or more than the energy we got from the oil extracted therein.

"Peak oil" is all about the end of cheap oil, not the complete depletion of all available oil. When our available energy sources become less efficient, our economy will go into decline. Period.