• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Where does Oil come from?

In view of the way oil migrates and collects in traps, would the abiogenic theory actually predict different results from the biogenic one?

The difference would be that in the abiogenic hypothesis, you wouldn't need a source rock, or at least not a conventional one like an oil shale. The hydrocarbons would come from mantle fluids. So if you could find oil in areas without conventional source rocks, you might be onto a winner. As you say, the oil would still collect in the sort of traps you would normally expect.

ETA: Also, you would expect geochemical and isotopic signatures to be distinct.
 
Last edited:
Show me evidence of fossils in coal.
What a shame it is that you don't have some sort of vast information source at your fingertips which could answer you that in milliseconds. But no, we're still living in the Middle Ages, the monks keep all the books chained to the shelves, and you probably can't read Latin anyway; so I guess I'll just have to flagellate myself extra hard and pray that the Blessed St Ignatius Of The Bleedin' Obvious will vouchsafe you a vision of Carboniferous fossils.
 
To answer the OP, when a mummy oil field and a daddy oil rig love each other very much…
 
The difference would be that in the abiogenic hypothesis, you wouldn't need a source rock, or at least not a conventional one like an oil shale. The hydrocarbons would come from mantle fluids. So if you could find oil in areas without conventional source rocks, you might be onto a winner. As you say, the oil would still collect in the sort of traps you would normally expect.

ETA: Also, you would expect geochemical and isotopic signatures to be distinct.
Thanks.
 
I've never seen or heard of a fossil being found in coal. Aren't most fossils found in, you know, rocks?
Coal is old plants (think very, very old), oil is old animal (think very,very old). Coal is loaded with fossils - almost all ferns (at least all the ones I have found were ferns). Do not assume that that means every piece of coal you find/open will have a fossil in it. Shale also has fossils, most commonly (in my personal experience) plant - but most shale I have popped open had none at all (might have had micro-fossils but I am not set up to catch those).

I 'spects you have no concept of how many billions of tons of living matter was buried in the past. I certainly don't and I am familiar with the concept.
 
I'd say that too, but for this discussion, rocks = silicates and limestone (which actually contains carbon, btw). But not the type of rock that fossils are found in.

And you find fossils in rocks too. So rocks are made from fossils too, not just coal? I don't think so.

Show me evidence of fossils in coal. Show me evidence of fossils being more likely in coal than in limestone. etc.
Incompetant is a word I tend to use for, among other things, people so incapable of doing things for themselves they challenge others to do it/ or are who are just of a lower magnitude or two of intelligence. I do not know which applies to you, but it took a total of under five minutes on the net (could have done it faster in any reasonable kids book on the topic of fossils) to locate a pictorial (passed by 10 + verbal slapdowns of your silliness):
http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/research/coal/fossil-forest/treeferns.shtml
 
I knew about *some* limestone being created biologically, without a doubt. But all?

Alright, I didn't know there's so many fossils in coal, but are there? Isn't it equally possible that the coal simply preserves fossils better than say, silicate? And what proof is that, that *all* coal, or *all* oil, for that matter has an organic origin?

1 - Almost all. Except for some rare evaporites, and eroded limestone sediments that are re-buried and re-lithified.

2 - Coal IS compressed and lithified plant material. Compress and lithify something else and you get something other than coal.

Putting the E in JREF, one embarassing lesson at a time.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe, apparently you lack the mental facilities required to understand irony.

Rest: I don't know squat about geology or paleontology. Chemistry and stuff, yeah, but geology? I barely find my way to the grocery store which means I suck at geography as well.

But check out space. You'll find plenty of hydrocarbons in space. What's so improbable about hydrocarbons forming a part of a planet's crust without any life involved?

Obviously I was wrong and large amounts of "Rock", and quite possibly even petroleum, have indeed a biological origin. But still, my argument stands.

Carbon and hydrocarbons are pretty diffuse in space and deep inside the earth.
Biologic activity concentrates organic materials at the surface of the earth.
Erosion and other natural process concentrate and bury the organics. Time and temperature and pressure cook the organics into gas and oil and coal.
Simple.
 
I think the theory is that it is deposited under anoxic conditions, which would limit the number of microorganisms that would act on it.

Specifically, the ocean floor, which would have been dark, cold, and under higher pressure than nearer the surface.

Just because there are microbes around today that can survive these conditions doesn't mean they have evolved when the layers were deposited.
 
Specifically, the ocean floor, which would have been dark, cold, and under higher pressure than nearer the surface.

Just because there are microbes around today that can survive these conditions doesn't mean they have evolved when the layers were deposited.


In any case, under anoxic conditions, what would microorganisms have been able to convert organic remains into? Hydrocarbons to (ultimately) CO2 and water wouldn't have been an option.
 
What a shame it is that you don't have some sort of vast information source at your fingertips which could answer you that in milliseconds. But no, we're still living in the Middle Ages, the monks keep all the books chained to the shelves, and you probably can't read Latin anyway; so I guess I'll just have to flagellate myself extra hard and pray that the Blessed St Ignatius Of The Bleedin' Obvious will vouchsafe you a vision of Carboniferous fossils.

Nominated for extreme biting wit.
 
For all you know-it-alls that have also figured out evolution did not need any other force allowing that process to happen, maybe you'll enjoy this alternative article that contradicts what the commonly believed source of crude oil is...at least some of it:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645

Yeah, that is some tee-shirt! :balcony

Oh, the article, yes, the article. You can't be serious! This guy can't even spell Mendeleev's name right? Oil formed under the mantle? You'll feel better once you sober up.
 
Rest: I don't know squat about geology or paleontology. Chemistry and stuff, yeah, but geology?

Nah, sorry. I'm calling you on chemistry too. Everyone knows the diff between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates. If you knew chemistry, you'd also know that petroleum is organic. That is, it must have an organic source.

I have no idea what you do or what you know but, please, leave poor chemistry alone. It has done nothing to you! :covereyes
 
Actually, the theory is that unlike coal, which formed from terrestrial plants (and then peat, lignite, etc.), oil ultimately formed from algae, plankton and other sea biomass (and then kerogen, bitumen, etc.).

Having said that, let's be generous and estimate the total known crude oil deposits in the world at 4 trillion barrels. Over a hundred million years, this works out to about 40,000 barrels, or about 5,000 tonnes deposited per year.

This is of course very tiny amount compared to the hundreds of billions tonnes of living biomass on Earth.

In fact, the biogenic theory has to account for this and actually explain why there is so little petroleum in the world! Naive calculations would predict much more of it.

The common explanation is that almost all dead sea biomass is eaten and only a fraction gets preserved under just the right conditions. And, in addition to that, even most of the crude oil that had formed in the past has also already been consumed by oil-eating bacteria.

I am impressed!

I threw that out there thinking, surely he's just saying there's "too much oil" without there being any real way to approximate how much biomass it would take.
 
Nah, sorry. I'm calling you on chemistry too. Everyone knows the diff between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates. If you knew chemistry, you'd also know that petroleum is organic. That is, it must have an organic source.

I have no idea what you do or what you know but, please, leave poor chemistry alone. It has done nothing to you! :covereyes

I'm not choosing sides, but it has been done in the lab without organic sources.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0405930101v1?view=abstract

I heard or watched a presentation about two years ago by Henry Scott on the experiment. It was quite intriguing.
 
Last edited:
Just getting here thanks to a heads-up from Hokulele (Thanks, my little Island Princess). As a petroleum geologist, let me weigh in on a few of these topics. I do have one caveat. My knowledge is not completely up to date, having graduated more than two decades ago, but I try to stay reasonably well-informed.

As to inorganic hydrocarbon compounds, yes, they happen. There is a lot of non-organic carbon in the earth and a lot of "laboratories" where heat and pressure can do odd things. The abiogenic theory of petroleum formation had it's most fervent adherent in Thomas Gold, and he convince enough others to actually try some drilling tests. The most famous of these tests was the drilling project at the Siljan Ring, an ancient meteorite impact area. A few complex hydrocarbons were found which did appear to have inorganic origin (at least partially), but not in anything close to economic quantities. However, it is widely accepted that the vast majority of complex organic compounds (greater than two carbons) are produced by organic activities. The evidence is simply overwhelming.

Possibly the greatest piece of evidence is found in what are called "source beds", which are organic-rich layers of sediment that can be shown to be creating petroleum even at this time. What we call "oil shale" is often little more than a source bed that has still retained much of the oil it has generated due to limited access to reservoir rock. But oil does most often migrate upward, since it is less dense than the surrounding rock and the other fluids (mostly water). We have found migration paths complete with trace amounts of oil adhering to migration paths. However, even without finding these tracks, it is possible to run analysis of the oils found in reservoirs and "fingerprint" them, using gas chromatography, mass spectrometry and other tools, and tie them to specific source beds with the same "fingerprints". I used to do this for a living.

Of the inorganic hydrocarbons, methane (CH4) is by far the most common. Methane has existed in our atmosphere long before life appeared on earth. It is a fairly common breakdown product of numerous inorganic reactions, including the breakdown of carbonate rocks. Ethane (C2H6) is another, much more rare breakdown product. Other inorganic hydrocarbons occur by synthesis, rather than breakdown, but only under very rare circumstances of heat and pressure (such as a meteor impact).

Coal and oil, as might be expected, are closely related, and the main difference is the type of organic material that creates them. Coal (which is, in fact, a rock) is mostly formed from woody plants in swamps and marshes. These were most common during the Carboniferous period when the gigantic tree-ferns were one of the dominant life-forms. Coal is absolutely chock full of fossils, mostly of the tree ferns that created it. Calamites and Lepidodendron are two of the most common fossils you will find in coal and the surrounding beds.

The quality of coal varies depending on the burial history. Anthracite coal is essentially a metamorphic rock in which most of the volatile compounds have been extruded and the remaining carbon compounds are quite pure, relative to other coals. As a result, it burns with high heat and low ash, though it is difficult to light. Bituminous coal is found as layers of sedimentary rock and varies widely in quality depending on location. It is much more common than Anthracite and much dirtier to burn, especially because of sulfur compounds. Lignite is very low-grade coal which is of such low carbon content that it is rarely transported, but often used as fuel when it is locally available. And of course, peat is common around the world, found in peat bogs (where else?) and often cut and burned as fuel. Peat has not undergone lithification, so it is not truly a rock. Give it time.

One common misconception of oil is that it comes from dinosaurs (or animals). This is not totally incorrect, as animals may contribute a small amount of hydrocarbons, but overwhelmingly, oil comes from plants too, mostly planktonic algae and diatoms. They die, they sink, they get buried, they give up their precious bodily fluids.

The most important factor in petroleum formation is basin history, but there are a number of basin types that can lead to petroleum formation. They are not necessarily (as one poster suggested) near tectonic margins. Without going into too much detail, the basin history must provide for (at least) five things in order for oil to be found.
  • Source: There must be deposition of organic compounds in the basin. This is not usually a problem as most basins are teeming with life. There are some places though, like the dead sea, which are hostile to life and would not generate significant amounts of petroleum.
  • Maturity: Oil is not simply "squeezed out" of the kerogen (oil-producing compounds). It essentially "cooked out" by the heat and pressure of burial. The amount of heat and pressure often determine whether the product is tars and asphalts (very immature), oil (fairly mature), condensate (a mixture of oil and gas), or gas only (extremely mature). Rock maturity can be analyzed by a number of methods, most of which examine the rock, kerogen and vitrinite mineralogy for temperature history.
  • Migration paths: There must be a way for the oil to migrate from the source to the reservoir. Source beds cannot usually be produced due to low permeability. Oil shales are an exception, but they require much different technology.
  • Reservoir: There must be some sort of rock with permeability and porosity that allows significant volumes of hydrocarbons to "fit in" and "flow out".
  • Trap. Something has to stop the hydrocarbons from "migrating" all the way to the surface. Typically these are areas of impermeability, caused by lithology changes. There are a large number of trap configurations, ranging from simple domes to complexly faulted and salt-intruded structures.
Okay, end of lesson. I'll be happy to answer specific questions to the best of my ability.
 
If you knew chemistry, you'd also know that petroleum is organic. That is, it must have an organic source.

Nyet. The organic stuff must have an organic source idea was knocked out in 1828.

If you want a really clear example of a organic molicule with no life based source look at the long chain carbon stuff you get turning up in the other layer of stars.
 

Back
Top Bottom