Natural Oil and Gas: Biotic or Abiotic?

I keep reading about how our natural gas and oil reserves are not fossil at all, but are caused by non-organic processes at depths greater than any fossil sediment has ever been found.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1151356/posts

This would seem to concur with the non-organic nature of methyl hydrates on the ocean beds (clathrates). They want to harvest those next, but I'm wondering if all this doomsday talk about our natural resources running out because of their non-replacable nature (fossils) is based on wrong assumptions, and worse, maybe even propagated for obvious financial reasons.

Any ideas?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Also here:

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03143.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oooops! The first seems to have got lost.

http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ees123/clathrate.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wonder what we're discussing here.

Cat's excellent links seem to do the trick.

Oceanic clathrate is assumed to be of organic nature, because it has a typical carbon isotope ratio (4-10% less heavy 13C isotopes compared to 12C) much simular to the methane that is produced by bacterea.

So Clathrate has been exploding thougout history of Earth, and caused the the Paleocene - Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), 55 million years ago. Yet, it is still abundant on the sea bottoms.

Hence, Clathrate must be replenishing and things on the sea bottom usualy get there from top to down. Hence a biotic origine of methane hydrate can be defended much better than it can be debunked. It is also clear that it has a distinct place in the carbon cycle.

The evidence is piling that clathrate is related to the ending of glacial periods in the last Pleistocene Ice ages

Fourth abstract:

So if there is any imminent danger to mankind, it could be a repetition of such an PETM event. Therefore it would be a great idea to harvest clathrate, especially the clathrate that is tought to be the most unstable (without sailing on top of it though).

Moreover, although not really important, burning methane produces the most heat for the smallest amount of CO2.

 

Thanks for the answers, and the links, and there *might* be something to discuss, anyway, although I fail to see exactly how mass extinctions in the past depend on a specific biotic nature of clathrates. I mean, Venus suffers from a runaway greenhouse effect, but not much life last time they checked.

a few problems:

the C13 vs C12 is not a single strong point, since I read that

Relative to the vent gas from which the gas hydrate formed, (l) methane-bound methane is enriched in 13C by as much as 3.8‰ PDB (peedee belemnite),(2) hydrate-bound methane is enriched in deuterium (D) by as much as 37‰ SMOW (standard mean ocean water),and (3) hydrate-bound carbon dioxide (CO2 ) is depleted in 13C by as much as 22.4‰ PDB. Hydrate-associated authigenic carbonate rock is also depleted in 13C. Bacterial oxidation of methane is a driving force in chemosynthetic communities, and in the concomitant precipitation of authigenic carbonate rock that modifies sea-floor geology. Bacterial oxidation of hydrate-bound methane expands the potential boundaries of life in extreme environments.

from:

http://159.226.136.229/Gas_Hydrate/library/lb_03.htm

Authigenic rock, and its close cousin (they sometimes cannot tell the exact difference between the two) metamorphic rock could well have *started* a cycle, and bacteria gladly taking up the opportunity to expand on it.

I understand it's not as clear cut as most would like to see it (no source gives 100% assurance on this matter, the deeper -scientifically speaking- you check, the more careful the phrasing).

Archaea bacteria live around hot vents. Without the hot vents, no Archaea, either.

They did not *cause* those hot vents, though. Any life uses mechanisms that work in a given environment. It does not start ex nihilo, you need some kind of bandwagen for it to jump on to.

The likeness of the 'products' of the two sources does not present a serious problem to me, I think it indicates that the cycle could well be essentially abiotic in nature, with life having expanded -greatly- on that theme. It would be more surprising if these lifeforms could have evolved easily, or at all, without such (similar) processes already in place.

Reminds me a bit of the theory of how life got some of its cellular characteristics from inorganic materials:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/11.06/01-liveclay.html

Maybe the whole discussion is not so interesting in the debate on non-renewable fuel, but maybe more so in the quest for the origins of life.

Although it does look like some people have big plans with those claths:

http://www.ecu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/new/methylhydrate.htm

added:

nice piece on some research they're doing on Europa (the moon):

Prebiotic synthesis of adenine and amino acids under Europa-like conditions has been reported [9]. Gas hydrates can act as reservoirs for huge amounts of molecules like CH4, NH3 or SH2, which can be the origin of more complex molecules by polymerization under certain conditions (e.g., sudden changes of pressure and temperature). Thus, clathrates might have been acted as an amalgam of prebiotic chemicals, as well as a structural agent for the polymerization of some simple biomolecules by means of their concentration in microvesicles. We are very interested in the role played the presence of these primordial molecules in the hydrate formation (CO2, N2, HCN, CH4, etc) and the analysis of the formation of organic molecules, polymerization, etc.

http://astrobiology.asu.edu/focus/europa/discuss/EFG_rpt0901.doc

 

I think not.

However you look at it, Venus things do not add up. Whilst the immense CO2 cocentration would be sufficient to generate a lot of Greenhouse effect, it's not enough to explain Venus surface features. The origine of the heat is now assumed to be radiogenic.

However there is a new, global warming free, -not yet debunked- hypothesis here.

 

I saw you've been at this a bit longer... well, I'm certainly not claiming your level of study, but I did notice something funny about the other thread on Venus, lime and the burning out of carbohydrates between 900-1100 degrees.

You don't really need that: CO2 dissolved in water can set up a chainreaction with limestone producing more CO2, since it becomes an acid.

quote:

Although "insoluble" in water, calcium carbonate dissolves in acidic solutions. The carbonate ion behaves as a Brønsted base.

CaCO3(s) + 2 H+(aq) Ca2+(aq) + H2CO3(aq)

The aqueous carbonic acid dissociates, producing carbon dioxide gas.

H2CO3(aq) H2O(l) + CO2(g)

In nature, surface water often becomes acidic because atmospheric CO2 dissolves in it. This acidic water can dissolve limestone.

CO2(aq) + H2O(l) + CaCO3(s) Ca2+(aq) + 2 HCO3¯(aq)

This reaction occurs in three steps.
CaCO3(s) Ca2+(aq) + CO32¯(aq)
CO2(aq) + H2O(l) H2CO3(aq)
H2CO3(aq) + CO32¯(aq) 2 HCO3¯(aq)

http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/CO2/CO2.html

 

I do not mean to be impolite but I don't believe you are a chemist are you?

I ask because you have missed out the 'reversibly equal to' signs in the equations you cut and pasted.

The overall reaction is:

CO2(aq) + H2O(l) + CaCO3(s) (is reversibly equal to) Ca2+(aq) + 2 HCO3¯(aq)

This shows that calcium carbonate dissolves in water containing carbon dioxide to form calcium bicarbonate. On standing, or if gently heated, this solution of calcium bicarbonate decomposes with the precipitation of calcium carbonate and the production of carbon dioxide. This reaction, taking place over very prolonged periods of time, has led to the formation of stalactites and stalagmites in caves.

Thus you are not looking at a chain reaction but a reversible reaction. The carbon dioxide assists in the formation of calcium bicarbonate which can later decompose releasing the "same" carbon dioxide.

 

No, I'm not a chemist. Or a geologer. Or astrophysicist. You?

Like you, I'm just very interested, and have a good enough head to follow this without too much trouble.

Reversible reactions (thanks for the emphasis used) are indeed different from chain reactions, and I didn't mean chain reaction as in a nuclear one, either.

My point is, that it may be reversible, but that depends on a few factors, like the water not being (photo)dissociated out of the process. In that case it would be a one-way process, in the longer run. We should not forget this happened under rather less than lab circumstances, nor inside a cool grotto.

If the reaction takes place under the circumstances that prevailed in earlier Venusian times, it might not so be clearly cut.

http://www.heliosat3.de/e-learning/ATM2022/Section1_02.pdf

FYI, stalagmites and stalactites normally form slowly, but sometimes they don't. In 1953 National Geographic had a picture showing a bat, not even properly decomposed yet, completely grown into one. Needless to say, there must be some exceptions to that rule. I also see them (small ones, 2-3 inches) a lot under bridges, when I go out on my boat. They paint those bridges every few years, and they just keep growing back... could be the salts they use in winter, dunno.

http://www.incrediblebats.com/finger/fp5.html

(No, I'm not a biologist or a bat fan either. Boat fan, yes.)

 

I am a chemical engineer by qualification but have done some pure research in chemistry (particularly the chemistry of 1-hydroxyethyl 2-alkyl imidazolines).

"and I didn't mean chain reaction as in a nuclear one, either."
I never thought you did.

"My point is, that it may be reversible, but that depends on a few factors, like the water not being dissociated out of the process. In that case it would be a one-way process, in the longer run. We should not forget this happened under rather less than lab circumstances, nor inside a cool grotto."

If you remove the water from the equation it is indeed one way. The water "removed" and the carbon dioxide discharged to the atmosphere you are left with calcium carbonate. How does that help?

 

Just to clarify for other non-chemists here:

A chain reaction would be if a reaction with carbon dioxide released two molecules of carbon dioxide ... which released four ... etcetera.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ah, that sounds like one mean chemical. I remember imidazolines (vaguely) from a study I once did in neurotransmitters. MAO's etc.

To answer your questions:

A few points first: whatever took place on Venus exactly is NOT what happened on Earth, or (maybe) Europa for that matter. No life evolved, because of one major difference, I guess: tidal energy (Sun-Moon/Jupiter).
I somehow think that's what blew Venus' chance to develop it, or maintain it.

So there are bound to be differences, enhanced with the introduction of life into the equation, at some point.

Secondly: Venus as it is now, is the endresult (well, for now) of a series of processes, I think, not just one simple ongoing thing from start to finish.

Outgassing is one factor, and removal/introduction of certain key chemical elements, like at certain stages reclaiming water, and finally losing it all irrevocably, in the case of Venus.

In this paper (1993, ok) I found a reasonable scenario:

http://courses.ncssm.edu/life/earths_early_atm.htm

Quote (sorry for the last mangled job - it was from a botconverted HTML doc, with some stuff missing in places, sorry):

"Once the main accretionary phase had ended, the surface heat flux would have dwindled, and the steam atmosphere would have rained out to form an ocean (25). The remaining atmosphere would probably have been dominated by carbon and nitrogen compounds, primarily CO2 , CO, and N2 (26-28). Next to water, carbon is the most abundant volatile at the Earth's surface. Most of it is in the relatively nonvolatile form of carbonate rocks (limestone and dolomite). The estimated crustal abundance of carbon, ==10 sup 23 g (29), would be sufficient to produce a partial pressure of 60 to 80 bars, were all of it present in the atmosphere as CO2 . As much as 15% of this carbon may have resided in the atmosphere before the continents began to grow and carbonate rocks began to accumulate (27). Thus, a primitive atmosphere containing 10 bars of CO2 + CO, along with approximately 1 bar of N2 , is possible during the first several hundred million years of Earth history. Climate modeling indicates that the mean surface temperature of such an atmosphere would have been ==85degC (30). Despite its warmth, such an atmosphere would be stable against runaway evaporation and against loss of water by photodissociation and hydrogen escape."

So what I think is: these H20/CO2 reactions with all their radical intermediates, and a possible introduction of formaldehyde (H2CO) or its precursor (acetone C3H6O) at some point - with *their* photodissociation by-products (formic acid, HCOOH), could have lead to a process where a CO2-dominant atmosphere eventually came up tops, with all H2 evaporated out to space, whereas on Earth (and who knows, Europa) life itself at some point became part of the whole process, and it's only for that fact we still have oceans and a breathable atmosphere with some oxygen. And oil and clathrates, too.

On photodissociation of formaldehydes and acetone (.pdf):

http://www.lisa.univ-paris12.fr/Gr_Pc/Pinceloup et al, 2003.pdf

 

Thanx for those contribution. Appreciate it. However, the an essential part seems to be missing on Venus, liquid water. Moreover we may need all the carbon of Venus' lithosphere / mantle to form such an heavy atmosphere. Most of the limestone carbon deep in the litosphere is not in contact with water.

The high dD ratio on Venus tells us that the planet had hold water in it's history. But the high temperatures made it dissociate and consequentely it is believed that the H2 vapor escaped into space.

It is believed that Venus is now in a state where Earth was over 4 billion years ago. Extremely hot, when the planet formed. If so, then Earth could not have held water in those quantities as well. Consequently, the compression warmth of Earth, during the early formation could not nearly be as high as Venus is right now. This in turn puts more question marks at the interior heat of Earth.

It appears that several paradigms may be still be negotiable.

Looking for sincere peer reviewer for the Venus paper (39 pages).

 

I'd love to read it to shoot some friendly holes in it, if I can. I'll activate my email option temporarily, so if you want to I'll take a peek.

Did you read this one?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/venus-young.html

It says the data from Pioneer about insulation not being sufficient explanation was misinterpreted at first, I don't know if that makes any difference in your theory?

About the water: those acids forming could have exposed the deeper layers while there was still enough H around.

addendum : About the compression: the moon also keeps our atmosphere in suspension, I forgot by how much exactly, but it was quite impressive.

What do you think of a tidal system making a difference btw?

 

Great, give me a few days.

Interesting link. I seem to remember it vaguely. I'm familiar with Velikovsky view of Venus.

The heating bill is interesting indeed. A moderate spinning energy would be enough to convert to heat the planet several ten thousands degrees. Obviously enough to melt all of it and allowing convection in the fluid planet to dissipate the heat quite rapidly, perhaps in a billion years or so. So what we see is the terminal result.

This hypothesis would require that Venus is just about dead tectonically, because the inner heat is not enough anymore to cause convective currents. And the (missing) tectonics of Venus is cause of a major dispute. Also missing is magnetism, and if Gary Glatzmaiers geodynamo is explaning Earth magnetism, then the BB hypothesis explains the lack thereof on Venus.

About the atmospheric tidal drag for Venus, that's the mainstay of Correia and Laskar (2003). Two problems however:

- The initial spinning rate could not have exceeded 3 days compared to 13,5 hours for Earth.
- It would require the current dense atmosphere from the beginning 4.5 billion years ago but the wet greenhouse gas hypothesis assumes a much more earthlike atmosphere for the early Venus.

Nevertheless, as soon as Venus develloped the heavy atmosphere I'm perfectly happy with their tidal drag solution for reaching the current end state of a slow retrogade spinning, but it was the big brake that did the heavy work initially.

 

Abiotic oil does exist, but it is in insignifigantly miniscule, noncommercially viable quantities, and the rate at which is produced hasn't shown to be any faster than biotic oil, which is around 20 million years.

Most of the time when people really dig into the chemical composition of crude oils, they find biomarkers. Things called hopanes and phytanes and such. These chemicals can be traced directly to, say, the lipids that make up cyanobacterial cell membranes (and only those membranes), or to the wax that coats the leaves of some extinct tree from Tasmania - and fossils of the same leaves are found 100 km away in coal of the same age.

The oil we've been using to power our world is a fossil fuel. While an indigenous origin has been proposed by several notable geologists, there are things that make this unlikely.

The first clue we find is, of course, that oil is carbon-based, much like life. The second is that nitrogen and porphyrins, found in living things, are found in many petroleum deposits as well. Porphyrins, FYI, cannot survive temperatures of more than around 200 degrees Celsius, common deep below the earth's surface.

A very important clue is the fact most oil occurs in or near sedimentary rocks of marine origin--if oil was leaking up from deep within the crust, we would expect most of it to occur in assorted rock near fault lines instead.

Coastal upwelling, a phenomenon associated with much of the hypothesized formation of organic oil, embeds larger amounts of phosphorus in the layers of dead marine plankton it creates, than the ocean at large. And what do we find in places like California and Montana, which were formerly coastal and possess oil deposits? Petroleum with much phosphorus content...

The carbon-12 / carbon-13 isotope ratio in oil deposits is a nice approximation to that in known living things.

Finally, and this is pretty much decisive, the molecular structure of hydrocarbons can often be directly linked to pigments, chlorophyll, leaf waxes, etc. of species that biology and paleontology tells us were dominant at those places during times when oil formed. (Source)

[Information about the various types of identifiable oil kerogens and the organisms they derive from]

This is not all of the evidence for a biological origin of oil, but it should be enough. Any of it can be explained with an appropriate ad-hoc rationalization, but this practice can weaken its explanatory power compared to the mainstream view.

Now, oil can be formed abiotically. This is no secret to geologists. There are a few known examples of this phenomenon, most notably a few Russian oil fields. But this oil (1) tends to differ in identifiable ways from the usual variety, and (2) is by far miniscule compared to our oil needs and reservoirs of organic origin.

Basically, the hypothesis that oil is formed abiotically:

• Cannot readily account for the geology or chemistry of known oil deposits, both of which render the indigenous origin implausible;
  
• Is true on a micro level, since small amounts of various hydrocarbons, and methane, are demonstrably formed by non-organic geologic processes;
  
• Does not match the predictive power of mainstream geology, which consistently and successfully tells us, in advance, which rocks are most likely to contain oil.

In other words, the fact that oil is produced by non-organic processes deep within the earth's crust in miniscule quantities is something no geologist is going to deny.

 

Golgo 13,

"In other words, the fact that oil is produced by non-organic processes deep within the earth's crust in miniscule quantities is something no geologist is going to deny."

Are you talking about petroleum geologists or any run of the mill geologists? Please show some evidence that most "geologists" accept that oil can be produced by non-organic processes. When you say, "deep within the earth's crust", what depth and conditions are condusive for formation of oil?

This leads up to my next question. If there exists a set of conditions and depth in the Earth's crust which are condusive for the formation of non-organic oil, how did you come up with "miniscule quantaties"? Is this based on any scientific method or did you just make this up?

 

Now that's an interesting typo... some people keep making it. Well, only a few, actually. :m:

 

Google Results 1 - 10 of about 39,600 for condusive

LOL, "only a few".

Mercurio, try to make sense of the following example which contains both of the words:

"The PBL tutor's role is to provide condusive environment conducive for these process to develop."

http://pbl.tp.edu.sg/tut_role.htm

Interestingly, my quick research on Google reveals that the word conducive was misspelled by Indians, Singaporeans, Australians, Americans, Arabs and English. More than a few.

 

I meant on this forum, silly. Try the advanced options next time to limit the results to this site only. You'll see there's only a few people who consistently misspell it, here. Wesmorris, QuantumQuack, OneRaven at least once, I think, and now you. Are you sure you're not trolling around a bit?

We're not supposed to feed, those, I think I remember reading about that in the house rules when I signed up for this forum...


:m: