Abiotic Oil!!!

[Darkblade]

Seems our abiotic oil theorists here may have something after all:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090726150843.htm

[F9thRet]

That is very interesting indeed.

Stephen

[Greyclouds]

This appears to be an interesting find, but the problem making the process energy efficient! I think that it takes far more energy to generate the longer-chain hydrocarbons than they expel when burnt!

[Darkblade]

nah. some oilmen here were reporting that depleted oil deposits appear to be refilling and theorized that oil was abiotic in origin rather than due to decomposing dinos. other than the russians no one else took that seriously. but what makes more sense deep temperature cracking and combining of hydrogen and carbon or that our oil is a product of biomass? coal certainly is biomass but that does not mean oil is or that all of it is. we know that there are hydrocarbons everywhere in this solar system and in the depths of space as well.

[Quid]

C2H6 and CH4 is not petroleum.

Just because some Hydrocarbons can be produced abiotically doesn't mean every hydrocarbon can.

Methan and Ethan do not equal Bubblin' Crude.

[Fitz]

We're starting to tread into dangerous waters.

If we begin mining this material who knows what kind of horrible sci-fi movies will come about.

[Clamp]

I think its a feasible theory that abiotic oil production does occur on a small scale, but all & all I think the "new oil" appearing is from shifting tectonic activity joining unknown reserves with known.

A crack in the crust that lets an underground "river" of crude flow into something we are already drilling would most definitely make it appear that the drill site is "filling back up", because technically, it is.

[Fitz]

There was a tangentially related story a while ago that was pretty interesting about some new technologies that could possibly allow drilling down to reach magma for a great source of geothermal energy.
http://gizmodo.com/5291538/romulan-planet-drill-now-in-testing-stages-for-real

[Samm]

This appears to be an interesting find, but the problem making the process energy efficient! I think that it takes far more energy to generate the longer-chain hydrocarbons than they expel when burnt!

You would be correct. Abiotic oil is produced using the enormous energy of the Earth itself; we might be able to harness that energy to make oil, but clearly, this is not a high production process. It probably took billions of years to fill the natural reservoirs.

[Quid]

You would be correct. Abiotic oil is produced using the enormous energy of the Earth itself; we might be able to harness that energy to make oil, but clearly, this is not a high production process. It probably took billions of years to fill the natural reservoirs.

The problem is that Petroleum, which is crude oil, IS NOT being produced by abiotic processes. only certain hydrocarbons which make up but a small part of petroleum are being formed.

[Samm]

The problem is that Petroleum, which is crude oil, IS NOT being produced by abiotic processes. only certain hydrocarbons which make up but a small part of petroleum are being formed.

The verdict is still out on that, but regardless, if indeed there is an abiotic process that does produce crude oil, it is very minor compared to the biotic process and it is very slow. The information is interesting, but this is no breakthrough toward having an inexhaustible source of oil.

[Quid]

The verdict is still out on that, but regardless, if indeed there is an abiotic process that does produce crude oil, it is very minor compared to the biotic process and it is very slow. The information is interesting, but this is no breakthrough toward having an inexhaustible source of oil.

Not so much, they jury has found that there is no evidence on abiotic formation of petroleum:

The abiogenic origin of petroleum has also recently been reviewed in detail by Glasby, who raises a number of objections, including that there is no direct evidence to date of abiogenic petroleum (liquid crude oil and long-chain hydrocarbon compounds).[1]

simple Abiotic hydrocarbons are fine and dandy, we see them on other planets and moons in the solar system, but you can't have crude oil with out some form of precursor life.

[Samm]

Not so much, they jury has found that there is no evidence on abiotic formation of petroleum:

simple Abiotic hydrocarbons are fine and dandy, we see them on other planets and moons in the solar system, but you can't have crude oil with out some form of precursor life.

The key words in the quote are "... no direct evidence to date ..."

In terms of the scientific method, finding no evidence "for" is not the same as finding evidence "against." QED... the jury is still out.

[Quid]

The key words in the quote are "... no direct evidence to date ..."

In terms of the scientific method, finding no evidence "for" is not the same as finding evidence "against." QED... the jury is still out.

Actually, the evidence AGAINST it is overwhelming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin#The_geological_argument _against

[Samm]

Actually, the evidence AGAINST it is overwhelming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin#The_geological_argument _against

I have a computer problem that does not allow me into any Wiki page...

But I stand by the Scientific Method... unless your link unquestionably shows otherwise... nobody has proven that crude oil cannot be produced abiotically.

But this is straying away from my point... that being that the linked information is no breakthrough toward having an inexhaustible source of oil.

[Darkblade]

C2H6 and CH4 is not petroleum.

Just because some Hydrocarbons can be produced abiotically doesn't mean every hydrocarbon can.

Methan and Ethan do not equal Bubblin' Crude.by way of analogy do you think it reasonable to believe DNA or at least RNA was created by random chemical reactions in hydrothermally and electrochemically active primordial soup but that simpler (relatively speaking) hydrocarbon molecules could not be formed under the even more energetic and chemically unique (presense of platinum and other catalysts, high pressure, high temperature, radioactivity...) circumstances?

I'm just saying...

[mboncher]

Why aren't both possible? As far as I can see, there are reasons to believe in both. Nothing precludes both from being simultaneously true. One could just be quicker than the other.

That being said. This is science, not popularity contests. Science is never truly settled as long as a new theory can be found and proven.

I still think Peakers are so fulla **** they squeek going into the turn, though

[Quid]

by way of analogy do you think it reasonable to believe DNA or at least RNA was created by random chemical reactions in hydrothermally and electrochemically active primordial soup but that simpler (relatively speaking) hydrocarbon molecules could not be formed under the even more energetic and chemically unique (presense of platinum and other catalysts, high pressure, high temperature, radioactivity...) circumstances?

I'm just saying...

DNA/RNA ≠ Hydrocarbons

your analogy is specious.

Simple Hydrocarbon can and do occur in abiogenic conditions, just look at Titan. The point of debate is the formation of petroleum, to which ALL evidence points to as biotic in origin.

[Darkblade]

DNA/RNA ≠ Hydrocarbons

your analogy is specious.

Simple Hydrocarbon can and do occur in abiogenic conditions, just look at Titan. The point of debate is the formation of petroleum, to which ALL evidence points to as biotic in origin.no its not. DNA is much harder to fathom coming about from random interactions than complex (though far simpler than DNA) hydrocarbons in an even more extreme environment.

[Quid]

no its not. DNA is much harder to fathom coming about from random interactions than complex (though far simpler than DNA) hydrocarbons in an even more extreme environment.

Like I said, that analogy is specious. DNA is not the material under discussion, if you want to talk about abiogenesis then start a new thread. This thread has nothing to do with nucleic acids, and thus your blind watchmaker analogy is inappropriate. It seems you are implying the impossibility of a natural development of DNA when this conversation is about natural development (biotic or abiotic) of hydrocarbons.

You are trying to bring God into a debate where he wasn't even a factor in the outcome. The formation of hydrocarbon biotically or abiotically is of little importance if you believe that both processes were created by a god. Therefore, BOTH processes are too complex to occur naturally, by that reasoning.

[Darkblade]

Like I said, that analogy is specious. DNA is not the material under discussion, if you want to talk about abiogenesis then start a new thread. This thread has nothing to do with nucleic acids, and thus your blind watchmaker analogy is inappropriate. It seems you are implying the impossibility of a natural development of DNA when this conversation is about natural development (biotic or abiotic) of hydrocarbons.

You are trying to bring God into a debate where he wasn't even a factor in the outcome. The formation of hydrocarbon biotically or abiotically is of little importance if you believe that both processes were created by a god. Therefore, BOTH processes are too complex to occur naturally, by that reasoning.

No i didn't. but evidently you feel jumpy on the subject of the Deity. i merely said, correctly i might add) that DNA is believed to have come about from random chemistry in a friendlier environment than the simpler hydrocarbons in a more extreme reactor vessel type environment. none of which singly you can dispute. :dance:

[Quid]

No i didn't. but evidently you feel jumpy on the subject of the Deity. i merely said, correctly i might add) that DNA is believed to have come about from random chemistry in a friendlier environment than the simpler hydrocarbons in a more extreme reactor vessel type environment. none of which singly you can dispute. :dance:

We don't know the exact conditions that gave rise to RNA and DNA, and while they were surely harsh, they did give rise to the DNA, we have proof of that in the form of every DNA strand.

There is no known mechanism for producing oil abiotically, and to date all oil extracted has been biogenic in origin, thus casting extreme suspicion on abiogenic theories.

With DNA, we have the result, so we know for a fact that the method, whatever it is, did happen.

But we don't have a single drop of abiogenic petroleum and no known method to make it happen, so in all certainty, it didn't happen and never will.

Science.

[Darkblade]

To my knowledge science has only ever witnessed the creation of amino acids and combinations of amino acids that do not anywhere approach RNA in complexity let alone DNA. therefore there is no scientific evidence that it can be created in the way posited by you. in oil on the other hand we also have seen only simpler hydrocarbons not approaching the complexity of oil though certainly natural gas is proven. now perhaps you can cite evidence for biological origin of oil since you say there is such evidence...what is it? isotopic? microfossil artifacts? what?

[Quid]

To my knowledge science has only ever witnessed the creation of amino acids and combinations of amino acids that do not anywhere approach RNA in complexity let alone DNA. therefore there is no scientific evidence that it can be created in the way posited by you. in oil on the other hand we also have seen only simpler hydrocarbons not approaching the complexity of oil though certainly natural gas is proven. now perhaps you can cite evidence for biological origin of oil since you say there is such evidence...what is it? isotopic? microfossil artifacts? what?

The limited creation of simple amino acids in the lab in no way means that DNA could not have arisen naturally, after all we have the finished product in abundant supply, just because we are unsure of the method doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means that the natural method is still awaiting discovery.

To date no one has ever produced a single drop of abiotic oil, nor proposed a convincing method by which it could arise. Why is that? If there was a method, we should be able to examine the final result, despite not knowing the method.

And the biotic origin for petroleum is well documented and supported: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Formation

[Darkblade]

yet you accept that (precursor) creation as evidence in one case but not the other...do you see a logical problem with that?

[Quid]

yet you accept that creation as evidence in one case but not the other...do you see a logical problem with that?

Let me put this very simply so you can understand my meaning

DNA: We don't know the cause was but we have evidence of that cause.

Abiotic Oil: We don't know the cause and we have no evidence to support that the cause ever happened.

Thus the fact that DNA exists in the first place is evidence that the cause DID happen.
No Abiotic Oil means that the cause DIDN'T happen.

[Darkblade]

the creation of amino acids is directly analogous to the creation of say methane or other simple hydrocarbons.

amino acids are the building blocks of RNA and DNA.

simple hydrocarbons are the building blocks of more complex hydrocarbons. for example ethane and methane are components of not only the mixture we call natural gas and these compounds are found where it is not disputed that there are no biological origin like on titan and Jupiter and all the outer planets in fact. these compounds can also be combined into more complex hydrocarbons ultimately for our purposes of discussion oil.

it has not been observed that the amino acids synthesized in nature further react or combine to form DNA.

and you are claiming the same is true of methane, ethane pentane and other simple hydrocarbon compounds in a natural environment. even if i accept that as true for the sake of argument that leaves us with exactly the same objection to the amino acid to DNA case. it too has never been observed in nature.

Furthemore; based on observed creation of the progenitors of both in the wild but not the final steps in the creation of both i fail to see how you can assign unequal weight to either one in a scientific sense.

[Darkblade]

here is something for you to ponder...natural nuclear reactors. ever heard of them? they are pretty rare but a couple of them exist and we are ever so lucky that they were not plutonium rich. there are a couple of spots however where enough uranium was compacted into a small enough volume for a natural sustained nuclear reaction to take place. so nature "replicated" (invented would be a better description) a nuclear reactor. thats just one example of the varied and extreme environments that nature provides for all sorts of bizarre chemical reaction chambers. what about if this sort of high temp high pressure radioactive distillation chamber also had rare earth catalysts? because it certainly does in places. you can bet on it.

[Quid]

Furthemore; based on observed creation of the progenitors of both in the wild but not the final steps in the creation of both i fail to see how you can assign unequal weight to either one in a scientific sense.

your whole post can be answered in a response to this final point.

As I said before we have a final result to the DNA problem, DNA physically exists. The processes by which it arises from simpler components happened in the past, even though it may not be happening today, for whatever reason.

The problem of abiotic oil as not been solved because abiotic oil doe not physically exist, therefore there is no process that could have created it. The creation of abiotic oil from simpler components did not happen in the past and is probably not happening today.

do SOME of the precursors to petroleum occur abiotically, yes of course. But that in no way means that there is an abiotic process by which to produce the finished product of petroleum.

Therefore I MUST give more consideration to one over the other, because one exists and the other does not.

Your argument that because the precursors exist the theorized finale product must result is specious. By your argument, because the precursors to aluminum foil exist in nature then aluminum foil itself must occur in nature, yet I don't see people mining rolls of Reynolds Wrap.

[Quid]

here is something for you to ponder...natural nuclear reactors. ever heard of them? they are pretty rare but a couple of them exist and we are ever so lucky that they were not plutonium rich. there are a couple of spots however where enough uranium was compacted into a small enough volume for a natural sustained nuclear reaction to take place. so nature "replicated" (invented would be a better description) a nuclear reactor. thats just one example of the varied and extreme environments that nature provides for all sorts of bizarre chemical reaction chambers. what about if this sort of high temp high pressure radioactive distillation chamber also had rare earth catalysts? because it certainly does in places. you can bet on it.

I am familiar with the geologic process.

But once again, this process, like abiogenesis of DNA, has nothing to do with the topic of this thread and only serves to point out extreme geologic processes previously not considered, yet still supported by evidence.

Evidence is what your Abiotic Oil theory is lacking.

[Darkblade]

your whole post can be answered in a response to this final point.

As I said before we have a final result to the DNA problem, DNA physically exists. The processes by which it arises from simpler components happened in the past, even though it may not be happening today, for whatever reason.

The problem of abiotic oil as not been solved because abiotic oil doe not physically exist, therefore there is no process that could have created it. The creation of abiotic oil from simpler components did not happen in the past and is probably not happening today.

do SOME of the precursors to petroleum occur abiotically, yes of course. But that in no way means that there is an abiotic process by which to produce the finished product of petroleum.

Therefore I MUST give more consideration to one over the other, because one exists and the other does not.

Your argument that because the precursors exist the theorized finale product must result is specious. By your argument, because the precursors to aluminum foil exist in nature then aluminum foil itself must occur in nature, yet I don't see people mining rolls of Reynolds Wrap.

what signatures are there for biotic as opposed to abiotic oil? how can you tell if a sample of oil is biological in origin?

[Quid]

what signatures are there for biotic as opposed to abiotic oil? how can you tell if a sample of oil is biological in origin?

Kerogens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerogen

and vanadium porphyrin which is a compound found in petroleum and is a molecular analog to Chlorophyl, which is consistent with the theory that petroleum was formed from deposits of dead algae.

[Darkblade]

how can they differentiate between integral vanadium porphyrin, kerogen et al; and contaminants added as the oil moves around in the crust or into the crust from the mantel as the case may be?

[Quid]

how can they differentiate between integral vanadium porphyrin, kerogen et al; and contaminants added as the oil moves around in the crust or into the crust from the mantel as the case may be?

I think you need to start doing your own research. I don't want to spend another afternoon and evening jumping around Google looking for answers to your inane questions.

The jist of this all is that biogenic oil is well evidenced and well supported , and abiogenic oil has no evidence and thus has little to no support.

If you want to know more specifics than what can be found on a google search, I suggest you ask a geologist or an organic chemist as I am neither*. I am just a guy with an excellent understanding of the scientific method.


*well I WAS going to be a geologist once upon a time, but I changed my major when I realized I liked making art better.

[Darkblade]

LOL. yeah you keep "scientifically" assuming that your respondents have no science background or understanding of the scientific method there Mr Curie...

When bored; i challenged out of and won an Associates degree worth of 3.8 GPA equivelent credits through CLEP; DANTES, ACT/PEP and GRE programs then Applied for and Acquired said degree (Assoc of Science) from the University of New York Regents which is a fully accredited ACE certified school. the only reason i did not challenge out a BA was that those examinations do not have 3rd and 4rth year credits in programs i am interested in and the ones that do; GREs are a bit harder to prep for and not given as frequently under proctored conditions by proper educational officials. still i had 104 credits in first and second year credits by the time i was losing interest. And i keep abreast of a myriad of scientific periodicals, journals and other literature.

[Quid]

LOL. yeah you keep "scientifically" assuming that your respondents have no science background or understanding of the scientific method there Mr Curie...

When bored; i challenged out of and won an Associates degree worth of 3.8 GPA equivelent credits through CLEP; DANTES, ACT/PEP and GRE programs then Applied for and Acquired said degree (Assoc of Science) from the University of New York Regents which is a fully accredited ACE certified school. the only reason i did not challenge out a BA was that those examinations do not have 3rd and 4rth year credits in programs i am interested in and the ones that do; GREs are a bit harder to prep for and not given as frequently under proctored conditions by proper educational officials. still i had 104 credits in first and second year credits by the time i was losing interest. And i keep abreast of a myriad of scientific periodicals, journals and other literature.

Um, so what? A decent educational background doesn't change the fact that your arguments were specious and questions bordering on inane.

Given your history you should know that the conclusions you jumped to were premature and ultimately incorrect.

[Darkblade]

Um, so what? A decent educational background doesn't change the fact that your arguments were specious and questions bordering on inane.

Given your history you should know that the conclusions you jumped to were premature and ultimately incorrect.not really. it does mean that there is a counterargument of some merit. as you know the scientific method does not allow for declarative pronouncements based upon contemporary lack of evidence. for that reason most often science does not try to address causes as you said earlier in the thread but does try to describe directly or indirectly observed nature.

[Quid]

not really. it does mean that there is a counterargument of some merit. as you know the scientific method does not allow for declarative pronouncements based upon contemporary lack of evidence. for that reason most often science does not try to address causes as you said earlier in the thread but does try to describe directly or indirectly observed nature.

Not necessarily, formal education is not required to raise valid questions and pose challenges to established knowledge, likewise having said education does not make your arguments more valid if they are specious.

Education does not mean 100% valid arguments.

and you are right, declarations are somewhat frowned up in scientific principle. so allow me to rephrase my point:
Due to the lack or evidence and the lack of sound theory on the method by which oil may arise abiotically it must be concluded that there is most likely no petroleum that is abiogenic in origin.

Happy now? :rolleyes: