Natural petroleum seeps release equivalent of eight to 80 Exxon Valdez oil spills

You might fix your headline, its not “equivalent” to 8 – 80 Exxon Valdez spills because it was deposited over tens of thousands of years. So the deposits might be equivalent, but the seeps are not. That said one of the joys of Coal Tar beach north of UCSB was always getting out the mineral oil and cleaning the tar splotches off when you got home.
REPLY: It is not “my” headline, but in fact the one that came with it from the press release. Click on the word “EurekAlert” to see the original. The same statement is also in the body of the PR as “It estimates the amount of oil in the sediments down current from the seeps to be the equivalent of approximately 8-80 Exxon Valdez oil spills.” – Anthony

And???
Oil is a naturally occuring substance. It has always moved from the ground to the water and some major oil field discoveries were made by following an oil sheen on water, for instance the fields around Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela.
SInce oil is naturally occurring, continually occurring and contains carbon there are microbes that have evolved to eat it. They clean up after us and after natural processes. But since oil rigs are ugly and oil companies are evil, there are good potential oil resources that wll not be tapped in our life times.

There are even larger seeps in the Gulf of Mexico. In the early 1900’s the beaches were covered with tar. Offshore drilling has reduced the seepage somewhat. New drilling off the coast would further reduce seepage and result in a cleaner environment.
There are even seeps on land in that area. In fact, in very hot days you can sometimes find oil running down the ditch along the side of the road. There is much more natural seepage than human caused spillage. Coal Oil Point leaks more oil in one month than spilled from human operations over the entire decade of the 1990’s.

Don’t kid yourself, as long as oil has been in the Earth’s crust (millions of years?) there have been oil seeps. It’s as natural as a mother breast feeding her child.
(If the oil has been seeping for millions of years how come it never runs out? Could it be that oil isn’t a product of squashed plants and algae?)
The oil industry has made amazing technological advances in recent years in off shore drilling techniques.
Believe it or not environmental groups have encouraged drilling off Santa Barbara.
Why?
To reduce the amount of oil going into the environment by reducing the pressure in the faults where the oil seeps.
Talk about a WIN/WIN situation — More domestic oil for America, less oil in the marine environoment, and, yes, more tax revenue for cash strapped coastal states and the federal government, and jobs, too. Don’t forget those jobs in today’s economy.
Off shore oil drilling — Good for America — Good for the Environment.
That’s a winning proposition!

JohnB (08:32:52) :
The healine says that the seeps “release” the equivalent of 8-80 Exxon Valdez oil spills. But, over what period of time? Daily?
From the article:
“…where 20-25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years.”

JohnB…. I don’t think you read it properly…. It says that it has been leaking about 20 to 25 tons of oil every DAY for hundreds of thousands of years.
That’s a lot of oil….

Because of drilling restrictions, the oil industry DOES actually attempt to recover oil from some of the more active seeps. They have structures they place on the sea floor over active seeps that are sort of like an inverted funnel that collect the oil and gas. They don’t collect as much oil as a well would, though.
The parents of a friend of mine grew up in Santa Barbara in the 1920’s and 1930’s. They said the beaches there were constantly covered with oil and the sea air smelled like kerosene. Once drilling started off the coast, the amount of beach oiling reduced considerably to the point where you could actually walk barefoot on the sand. Before that, nobody walked barefoot and the beach, to hear them tell it. Their mother would make them get the oil off their skin with turpentine before they went in the house whenever they got home from the beach and it would ruin a pair of shoes.
With modern drilling techniques such as directional drilling, they wouldn’t need as many rigs as in the past when wells serviced by the current platforms were drilled. One platform could service many wells drilled in different directions. Allowing new drilling might result in more oil from FEWER platforms and less environmental damage.
But I wonder if we could also extract more oil offshore from land-based wells using directional drilling technology.

Isn’t some of the oil consumed by bacteria?
REPLY: Yes, see this this from the same researchers. – Anthony
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080930135303.htm

Yes, but oil from the sea floor is NATURAL, why oil from a tanker or pipeline is artificial and tainted by human sin.

Anthony, a new bit of news you may want to cover:
http://deepseanews.com/2009/05/deep-ocean-conveyor-belt-reconsidered/
REPLY: Done, thanks – A

What surprises me is that the study was conducted at all. Very politically incorrect. Was there an ulterior motive? Will Arnold use this study to press his request that the legislature allow offshore drilling?

Saying that as happened with the discovery of oil in the first place (natural seeps) is this area one of those banned for drilling in the US?

A word from the oilpatch:
Seawater has a specific gravity of ~1.03.
Crude oil density (that is, specific gravity) is measured on the “API Gravity” scale.
API Gravity of 10 = 1.0 Specific Gravity (fresh water)
Api Gravity 10.3 (therefore) = 1.03 Specific Gravity (sea water)
Since most of these “seeps” SINK in seawater, they are <10.3 API Gravity, which is HEAVY OIL, actually officially “bitumen”, i.e. the skinny cousin of TAR.
Fact 1: Heavy (low gravity) oil is NOT nearly as valuable as the lighter oils (e.g Bonny Light, WTI, etc). Just ask Hugo Chavez what he’s getting for his average barrel; it’s typically about 70% of the “[light] oil price” you read in the paper.
Fact 2: It IS possible to drill for bitumen, as Shell Canada is doing in the Athabasca tar sands in Northern Alberta, but it iscomplex and VERY expensive. Breakeven off CA would likely be $50-60 per barrel WTI, as a guess. IF you were even allowed to get a permit in the first place. Frankly, no oil company would bother to ask due to what’s politely called “sovereign risk”, which is to say that CA is the Land of Fruits and Nuts.
Fact 3: Various “Capping” schemes (involving large steel caps over the seeps, in which seeps could be collected and pumped to shore) have been proposed over the years, but frankly NOTHING substantial ever gets built in CA anymore, so that’s a dead issue.
In this case, the recent advent of reliable, subsea multiphase pumps would actually now make this a practical project (albeit a GOVERNMENT project, because private capital won’t touch it). In any case, the energy derived from such a project would likely be HALF as expensive (say, equivalent ot $80 per barrel light crude) and infinitely more reliable than wind or solar as (a) heavy oil is still loaded with calories! and (b) you can still burn heavy oil products on a windless night, for example.

What’s up with this research – it isn’t predicting the end of the world or requiring massive investment in a solution?
Maybe it’s just that they are the good, old-fashioned sorts of scientists!

About 25 years ago, a evil oil company deployed a large underwater tent like contraption over one of the oil seeps off of Isla Vista in order to capture some oil and mostly natural gas that was bubbling up from one of the seeps. As I recall they negotiated a deal for some pollution trade offs with the state to make it feasible.
I don’t know if it’s still in operation or not. There was a study done in the the 80’s that determined based on air samples that 86% of the non-methane hydrocarbons pollution over the Santa Barbara Channel was from the seeps and not from human sources.
http://www.mms.gov/omm/Pacific/enviro/seeps-coal-oil-pt.pdf

A barrel of crude is 42 gallons. I just watched a big grizzly walk right by our ugly oil facility a few minutes ago. But, that’s nature for you.

Can’t fix this problem if this has been going on well before people even started drilling for oil.
I like the Billy Mays reference, seal them with MightyPutty unless the increased pressure pops the seal off or it finds a new place to seep O.o

A little History.
Before there were movies and Hollywood starlets (okay they both got up and running about the same time), there was oil in California. The pioneers noted land based oil seeps with the first coverd wagons.
See a map of both on shore and off shore oil & gas seeps.
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/seeps/where.html
In fact a major component of early 20th century California’s wealth and economic power came from the burgeoning oil industry.
New wealth was created.
There is a reason why classic songs pass the test of time: They still make men’s skin tingle — and get the girls to dance.
Oil can do the same for California — it’s a classic that never goes out of style.

Do you remember the Shell oil rig “scandal”? The Europeans beneath you for sure.
Shell wanted to sink a small oil platform into the Northsea. Result was a MASSIVE protest of Greenpeace against that. Shell and others said, this amount of oil (there were a few tons of oil left in the platform) spills into the sea naturally within one hour (or so).
Did anyone listen? No! Shell was boycotted in Europe, everone said “To Hell with Shell” and stupid things like that.

Its the UCSB/Woods hole numbers from their own PR, go complain to them. – Anthony

My post contained nothing other than arithmetic, no complaint.

WUWT tumbled down another windmill!. It is good to know that also good oil will never end as long as nature processes organics.

Just a thought to throw in the discussion:
There is the theory that oil and gas is abiotic (i.e. produced naturally beneath the earth’s crust). When the earth broke up the oil found its way in large quantities to the surface along the faults that were created where we find our oil fields today. Russian scientist have been researching this for a long time and there is the thought that they have mastered the technology to tap in on the gas which they appear to have in abundance.
Also the find of hydrocarbons on Titan tends to lend support to this theory.

That’s why exploration geologists have such a hard time finding oil. Most of it has leaked out of the reservoirs.
Gas seeps are everywhere too. Shallow gas pockets and gas pock marks in the North Sea provide ample evidence.

Could someone who’s much smarter than I am comment on this:
http://www.independent.com/news/2009/may/15/west-coast-threatened-human-activity/

I used to dive in that area of coal oil point for sea urchins and it was always a mess. I spoke with Fish and Game about some oil company pumping those areas of natural seepage and they speculated that if some one was to start drilling in that area they would become legally responsible for any oil spilled from the process. If you follow that line of thought its a non starter. You can’t win here in California. The greenies got it sown up no matter how your lookat it.

Drilling near natural seeps can indeed reduce the flow. Conversely, some of the secondary recovery methods such as injecting water, gas, or CO2 have actually increased the flow at the natural seeps.
There’s some irony for you,,,injecting CO2 reduces the oil viscosity and maintains reservoir pressure. One popular idea is using CO2 from power plants for secondary recovery,,,,which could increase the rate of natural seeps.

I was maintaining a list of misconceptions (and why they are wrong) shouted by anti-oil people until I figured out that they don’t really care about facts. Here is some stuff about seeps:
Misconception #10. Any oil in the ocean is from a spill.
Come and listen to my story ‘bout a man named Rudesindo Cantarall. In 1971, this fisherman complained to PEMEX (the National Oil Company of Mexico) about thick tar that was fouling his nets in the Bay of Campeche. The oil people were puzzled, having no pipelines or drill rigs in that area. He took some PEMEX geologists to the spot where it was happening. What they found was natural seepage from what turned out to be one of the largest offshore oil fields ever found. It became the economic heart of Mexico’s oil industry is only now waning. Alas, Rudesindo did not retire to Acapulco Bay amongst swimin’ pools and movie stars, as we might like to believe. He died in 1997 in poverty and obscurity.
Seeps of petroleum happen anywhere petroleum occurs in abundance. It is not in the least surprising that someone would decide to drill where seeps occur. Venezuela is replete with such oil seepage and natural gas eruptions. I myself have seen these with my own eyes. In the Gulf of Mexico oil seeps out at a rate equal to 2 “ExxonValdez’s” per year (Science Daily).
So, when you see an oil platform and blame it for the tar balls on the beach, you have quite probably put cause and effect backward. Petroleum, after all is a naturally occurring substance that sometimes comes to the surface, as at the La Brea tar pits, to pick a well-known example
Misconception #11. But won’t drilling cause more seepage?
Au contrare, mon ami, pumping the oil out of the ground reduces seepage. Studies by the University of California done around an oil rig (Platform Holly) off Santa Barbara (Yes – oil platform – California) show that natural seepage has dropped by more than 50 % over 22 years as a result of oil production.
Studies of natural seepage in that area indicate that the amount of oil released in four years is equivalent to the Exxon Valdez spill.

Father Earth despoils Mother Gaia – Film at 11!
As previous comments have suggested, the solution is obvious; implement the Louisianna model.
1. Build a chain or series of drilling platforms.
2. Extract the oil – cleans up environment.
3. Realize tax revenues from that oil production.
4. When a platform stops production, cut off its legs and drop the rig.
5. Voilà, California’s own Great Barrier Reef.
6. Fishing industry booms – more tax dollars realized.
It’s a winning situation all around. Therefore, since environmentalists don’t want mankind to win, it won’t be allowed to happen.
Here’s a better idea. Environmentalists unite! Leave this modern society you so despise. Build yourselves an isolated communal retreat amongst the trees and rocks and dirt, grow your own natural organic foods, let the wife steer the plow while the husband pulls it (don’t forget animal rights!), and let the rest of society wallow in its misery of a rich productive lifestyle with all its amenities. And in fifty or so years, we can all sit back and watch on our huge flat screen TV’s, a CBS special about some strange environmentalist cult high up in the mountains living in harmony with nature and dying at the ripe old age of 46.

This study of Santa Barbara oil seeps confirms prior research concerning how best to treat oil spills.
I am aware of research done by Bettelle’s Sequim, WA marine laboratory that analyzed how best to mitigate damage from oil spills. The study concluded that the best choice was to do nothing. The toxins in crude oil evaporate in one or two days. The spilled crude that is not recovered will either sink or reach shorelines where it degrades over time from various reactions and phenomena into inert tar. (excuse this layman’s recollection of details).
As I recall scientists from the Bettelle lab recommended against steam cleaning the shoreline zone of Prince William Sound after the Exxon Valdez spill. The informed responsible authorities that cleaning would destroy the biota and their habitat, especially the microorganisms that process crude oil.
Hysteria and ignorance, and the need to do something produced disastrous decision making. We know now that steam cleaning caused potentially irreparable harm to Prince William Sound. The recovery is incomplete and partial at best. Billions have been spent on cleanup and reparations. But, that is only a fraction of the true cost of the disaster, most of which could have been avoided.

Well it is only a month ago I was fishing in a middle California lake not too far from SB, and we had fossil fuels popping up allaround us in the water; lots of natural gas, and some oil too. Wouldn’t you know it, the lake is just a few miles from a sizeable oil field with literally thousands of pumps going all the time.
They haven’t started drilling under the lake yet, but there’s black gold to be had if they do.

Jack Simmons (12:30:25) :
Thomas Gold also gave credit to Russian scientists who have known this for many decades. (Russian scientists also say preparations for the coming ice age should be made). In his book he makes a good argument that hydrocarbons do not come from dead life. Hydrocarbons have been found in large quantities on planets which have no life on the surface, but like Earth may have life which feeds on existing hydrocarbons using chemical energy from sulfates or iron oxides. Gold was an astrophysicist and his theories were taken seriously by NASA in their search for extraterrestial life.
The big secret is we have a lot of oil and gas left to consume. If this were known, we would have cheap, abundant energy for the world. But that is the neo-malthusians who rule us worst nightmare, so this is suppressed. Big Oil is happy to go along with the ride since it means more profits per barrel of oil. They would rather sell 80 billion barrels of oil per year at 60 dollars a barrel than 800 billion barrels at 6 dollars a barrel.
Many of the oil wells that have been depleted have refilled (they refill slower than oil is removed allowing them to appear to be depleted) , and as Thomas Gold said, these fuels continue to upwell from the deep hot biosphere as they have for millions of years. Peak Oil is a myth on a larger scale than Alarmist warming due to CO2.

“Tim J (12:14:50) :
Just a thought to throw in the discussion:
There is the theory that oil and gas is abiotic (i.e. produced naturally beneath the earth’s crust).”
My compliments to you guys that have already responded with the geochemical evidence for the organic genesis of oil. I can only add the observations made by my petroleum geology prof back in the early 70’s.
The Soviet Union, being predisposed to state dictated science, proclaimed that petroleum was formed inorganically. This led Russia to years of abject failure in its attempts to find oil reserves. They kept looking for oil around volcanoes and other igneous features. The rest of the world was content to follow an approach that yielded immediate results – oil is produced organically. Or maybe it was more simple-minded…let’s look in places that are like the places where oil has already been found. The bottom line is that in the early 90’s Russia was bringing in American oil companies to help them find oil and gas.
And then there was the other prof who told the story of the Soviet fondness for Lamarckism. (the inheritance of acquired characteristics) Apparently this was very attractive for those with a communist view of the world. His point was that this approach was responsible for the yearly crop failures that the USSR became famous for back in the day. Meanwhile, “politically incorrect” people at places like Texas A&M were developing crops which produced surpluses we could sell to the starving Russians. They were using that other theory…natural selection.
Anyway, back to the point, don’t put your money on inorganic sourced oil…it’s been done.
And the other point: Politically dictated science is bad. It doesn’t bother me that you are intrigued by an abiotic source for hydrocarbons. It doesn’t bother me that somebody once thought that if you cut off a rat’s tail it would have short tailed babies. I’ll throw this in for the heck of it…it doesn’t bother me that my father-in-law believes he invented a perpetual motion machine but can’t quite remember how it works. It will bother me if the government dictates that I have to believe these things.

pft-
Continued migration of hydrocarbons does nothing to prove abiotic oil.

I worked in Camarillo, CA for a few months in ’07. The wife and step-kid came out to visit over Easter and we went whale watching. We were very surprised to see so much oil in the water. It washes up on shore and there’s tar in a bunch of places. One of my shoes is still stained from it.
Lots of oil in the water out there. All 100% natural seepage…

The consensus on a biological origin for petroleum hold primarily due to the presence of most reservoirs in sedimentary rock and the lack of solid evidence in an alternative explanation.
I recall learning as a graduate student of a granite hosted oil reservoir in California, but this was explained as oil migrating from its source to a suitable host – a process that is apparent in areas adjacent to oil shales (thought to the source) where the reservoir is within more porous sandstones and carbonates.

Its not seeping only from the site talked about here. It seeps all around the continental shelf, west coast, gulf coast etc. Oil from any oil drilling is a spoonful compared to this natural seepage.
Yes, the oil has been here a long long time.
I worked on some rigs on the California coast just above Malibu. I doubt if the Hollywood brats even know its there. When you drive along the coast highway and look to those hills on the East side of the highway , just over the top of them are THOUSANDS of oil wells. The field I was in had over 1100 on our lease. They have been there since the 1920-30’s.
To bad that now that Calif. is going broke they wont allow the coast to be drilled. There are thousands of jobs and billions of dollars out there. With today tech, very little oil would be lost…and even it is is. So what. Pick it up and that left will be naturally eaten by various bacteria. Messy for a bit, but it can be cleaned up, just as it always has been.
Looks like Calif. had its teat in a wringer for money, maybe they would break loose and allow it.
Then we can all watch in wonderment as Waxmans head explodes. Which would be a good thing.

Tim J (20:25:04) :
Following on from previous post (12:14:50) about abiotic hydrocarbon:
I got interested in this some years ago as I could not imagine that the quantities of oil and gas that we experience could have come solely from degraded bio-mass. It just did not gel with me and it seems many others from my bit of research.
Tim—Expand your imagination. Not only is most of it biotic, when we produce oil we are only recovering a few percent of what was deposited. Most of the world is covered with sedimentary rock. It all contains a trace of organic matter. It adds up.
It is disturbing how many people here with no in depth knowledge of oil and gas feel qualified to post on the subject. I hope we do better with climate science.

I am a retired chemist who worked for the U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency for 35 years. I worked out of the San Franscisco office (region 9). During the early 1970s there was a bad oil spill in the Santa Barbara Channel. There was a blow-out at platform alpha. The underground/underwater oil reservoir was under pressure sufficient to drive the oil to the surface. The well tubeing/caseing became seperated and a large quantity of oil was lost to the surrounding water before the well was repaired. After that incident drilling in the channel was no longer allowed.
My duties included charicterizing the oil from the spill and differentiating it from the natural seep at Coal Oil Point. This was easly accomplished with the gas chromatography technology of 35 years ago. We also provided analytical support to the U.S. Coast Guard identifying the vessels from which illegal spills and discharges originated.
To collect the oil from Coal Oil Point I gathered dried hard “sand dollars” from the beach, soft sticky globs from the beach, and actually swam into the surf and beyond to collect more pristine oil samples.
The physical properties of the oil were somewhat as described in the article. However, weathering included evaporation, oxidation, microbal degradation along with incorporation of sand into the oil globs. Much of the oil washed onto the beach and back into the surf and carried away with the tide. The sand particles contributed to the oil sinking. I question the quantities stated in the article as they seem unreasonably high. Platform Alpha was leaking oil on the same magnitude as the article attributes to the seep. The oil spill was a major event that made national headlines for weeks until it was cleaned up. The oil slick extended for miles and fouled the beaches of Santa Barbara.
The oil from the underground reservoir at Coal Oil Point was part of the same system as the the platforms in the channel. This was determined by their similar nickel/vanadium ratioes. The local people could not understand that by pumping down the reservoir they would eleminate much of the seepage at Coal Oil Point and in effect clean up the channel. Instead they put an end to further drilling. I find the article interesting, however, it offers little in the way of new information.

Further reading on the Abiotic Theory for anyone interested…
Fuel’s Paradise (Wired)
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/gold_pr.html
Gas and oil may exist in miles-deep wells (The Times, UK)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article482178.ece
Petroleum From Decay? Maybe Not, Study Says (The New York Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/science/14meth.html?n=Top/News/Science/Topics/Space
The Deep Hot Biosphere : The Myth of Fossil Fuels (Thomas Gold, 1999)
http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Hot-Biosphere-Fossil-Fuels/dp/0387952535

Tim J (20:25:04) wrote: “I was therefore very interested in the Cassini mission to Titan where hydrocarbons were discovered in great abundance in many forms.”
At the very least that must inspire some thinking, Tim.
________________
Poptech (00:29:25) wrote: “Further reading on the Abiotic Theory for anyone interested…”
Thank you!

Basil (08:25:12) :
Actually, I believe there is a bacteria that feeds off of crude that leaks out.
But why feed the bacteria when you can outfit some deep-sea dredges and fill up supertankers off the coast? Joe Dredger to the rescue.

I was the first commenter to raise the Abiotic Oil angle on this post, but did it in oblique way because I didn’t want to be accused of hijacking the post (its main point being that oil exploration and production are not a burden on the environment).
But others have now followed up.
I have spent the over the last year intensely and thoroughly investigating Abiotic Oil theory.
It proves out at every level — from micoscopic examination to geologic formations — Brasil’s substalt oil is a perfect illustration of Abiotic Oil: The oil is found as deep as 25,000 feet below the sea bottom under two kilometers of salt at as high a temperature as 450 degrees Fahreneit, 170 miles off shore, under tremendous pressure in waters as deep as 7,000 feet.
Oil has been found as deep as 30,000 feet deep.
(Oil companies now have drilling ships that can drill in as deep as 12,000 feet of water.)
All of the above violates the so-called Oil Window corollary of “fossil” theory.
With all due respect to doug, he is wrong.
Oil is abiotic.
This is not the place to fully debate the merits. I have, however, exhaustively debated the merits of Abiotic Oil theory with the most determined “debunkers”, oil geologists and other wise, all comers have failed to falsify Abiotic Oil theory and in the process “fossil” theory has been falsified numerous different ways.
So-called “fossil” theory is a hypothesis that was proposed in 1757 over 250 years ago before almost anything was known about deep geo-chemistry.
The Earth’s deep crust is a chemically active place, indeed, and hydrogen and carbon have a strong chemical affinity for each other.
Oil geologists admit abiotic hydrocarbon formation takes place, but while claiming it only happens in small quanities, fail to identify what limits would restrict hydrocarbon formation from being abundant given the huge amount of necessary chemical elements available deep in the crust.
Abiotic origins of hydrocarbons was first proposed by Humbolt and others shortly after 1800 and has been followed up ever since.
Regrettably, certain “strong personalities” doggedly retained the primitive “fossil” hypothesis, and Group-think took over and a “consensus” emerged.
Obviously, certain interests are happy to maintain this prespective in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary (sorry Doug and others).
One example: heavy rare Earth metals are found in great abundance in oil there is no explanation how or why heavy rare Earth metals like valandium and others would be concentrated in a supposedly surface derived residue (organic detritus sinking to the bottom of a lake or shallow warm sea).
All arguments and evidence of an organic detritus origin for oil fail on close inspection. Organic detritus is a pollutant of the oil, which is a very effective solvent and collects organic impurities as it rises toward the surface. Sedimentary basins are the best oil TRAPPING structures. The largest oil fields are sedimentary basins above deep tectonic faults leading from chemically active deep-crust geologic profiles.
A oil well (field) in Northern Iraq produces 400,000 barrels of oil a day, it has been producing since 1934 and shows no signs of letting up. Ghawar, the largest oil field in the world (Saudi Abrabia) produces over 5 million barrels a day, it has been producing since 1951.
The scientific evidence is clear and unambiguous — Oil is abiotic.
That some cling to “fossil” theory is testiment of socio-psychological inertia in the field sciences.
Where have we seen that before — or are seeing now?

Anaconda tells us:
“Oil has been found as deep as 30,000 feet deep.
“(Oil companies now have drilling ships that can drill in as deep as 12,000 feet of water.)
All of the above violates the so-called Oil Window corollary of “fossil” theory.
With all due respect to doug, he is wrong.
Oil is abiotic.”
Actually, Doug is right
Thermal gradients vary all over the globe.
Take a look at the Paris Basin. Wildcat success rate at depths shallower than the “thermal oil window” is about 1 in 20. In the oil window 1 in 5, below the oil window 1 in 40. How does all that hydrocarbon coming up from the depths bypass all those deep structures?
Read with an open mind:
Petroleum Geochemistry and Basin Evaluation (Aapg Memoir) (Hardcover)
by Gerard Demaison (Editor)
The oil companies, with all their financial ability, have hired so pretty sharp scientists, and given them the resources to do a vast body of research..

@Sandw15:
Sandw15 states: “Exploration based on abiotic oil theories has been tried. It failed.”
You totally ignore the Brazil example. Your avoidance of that example and the long producing oil wells in Iraq and Saudia Arabia is telling.
Your statement is completely false. There is a reason Russia is the # 2 producer in the world. Yes, Russia pioneered deep drilling.
Your castigation with silly detrogatory hypothestical is again telling.
You fail to address any of the facts or examples given.

I’m sorry, I left out responding to one of the two assertions Doug made (the other one was the “success” rate): “Thermal gradients vary all over the globe.”
Yes, thermal gradients vary (how hot it is at various depths in different regions of the world), but oil is being found at depth all around the world where the temperature is hotter than the 275 degrees Fahrenheit that the “Oil Window” corollary states oil either never forms (too hot) or breaks up into methane gas (once formed). Notice Doug never responded to the specific temperature I cited (450 degrees F). This “hot” oil is the deepest oil and under the most pressure (can crush hardened steel).
Again, don’t take my word for it.
And as far as Doug’s memoir, what is the date of publication and does it serve to propagate the “standard line” of the oil industry?
Talk to retired oil geologists and they will tell you oil geologists never expected to find oil below the “salt abyss” — they thought it was impossible (for all the reasons I cited) — but they have.
When scientists are “surprised” or find something “unexpected” it usually is because their “theory” is incorrect about the processes that cause the result.
The study of the Earth’s climate is not the only field of study where assumptions were made that on closer and more acute observation & measurement don’t pan out.

Anaconda
“Your castigation with silly detrogatory hypothestical is again telling.”
My hypothestical is detrogatory? That’s alarming. Will antibiotics help?
I thought for sure that you would want to get in on the ground floor of the coming abiotic oil boom. Is it the name? SAOLP really doesn’t have much of a ring to it. Well, it’s your money…what if we call it Anaconda Petroleum Exploration? The headlines would read, “A.P.E. Discovers Abiotic Oil in Georgia.”
Yep, we better stick with Georgia. I don’t think you can afford to drill subsalt wells in offshore Brazil. And besides, you wouldn’t believe the engineering problems involved with drilling through salt.
“heavy rare Earth metals like valandium”
Ah yes, valandium. I think that all scientists agree that valandium is the rarest Earth Metal of them all and as such is very valuable. I just happen to have a valandium mine in west Texas, and I can say, with confidence, that it has valandium deposits as large as any known to exist on Earth. I’ve got this cash flow problem and I’d be willing to sell it to you cheap if you’re interested.

Anaconda (13:21:02) noted: “I was the first commenter to raise the Abiotic Oil angle on this post…”
Meant to include you in my “thank you” post ( Roger Carr (06:29:46)), Anaconda, as your original (Anaconda (08:39:16)) post certainly snatched my attention, as “abiotic oil” theory has a very nice ring to it, and, as you note: Where have we seen that before — or are seeing now?

@ Doug:
Doug states: “The deep stuff in Brazil produces because inspite of being deep, the vitrinite reflectance is below 2.2, tmax below 500C, and is within the oil window.”
This is a meaningless statement meant to look authoritive, but in all my discussions and research have never seen that justification offered for the temperature of the oil.
Doug, is there any written authority you can cite for that proposition?
Commonly, it is assumed that the salt layer is put down by evaporation (two miles below the sea bottom?), but more likely it is a product of supercritical water, where seawater under pressure and temperature drops its salt out of solution, then the salt acts as a barrier and traps the oil as it rises from below the salt barrier. There is no so-called “source rock” there.
Shale is impermeable, it acts as a trapping structure, not a source.
Doug states: “I can show you long lived oil wells everywhere…they are continuously recharged fron their organic source.”
Now, Doug is attempting to suggest that supposed organic detritus regenerates? That is novel. But is a fiat statement.
Actually, Abiotic Oil has been generated in the laboratory by known chemical processes(chiefly metal – acid reactions), the supposed chemical pathway for “fossil” theory has never been duplicated in a laboratory.
Doug states: “I’m an independant consultant. I wrote ‘The Petroleum Geology and Future Exploration Potential of Indonesia’ …”
Then obviously you have a strong financial incentive to maintain that oil is derived from organic detritus. Such widespread understanding would presumably render your knowledge less valuble.
Your “explanation” for pillow lava containing solid bitumen is actually no explanation at all, it’s an avoidance.
“No one doubts that inorganic hydrocarbons may occur in association with hydrothermal systems.” — Michael D. Lewan, geologist, 2005
“I don’t think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic source of hydrocarbons.” — Michael D. Lewan, geologist, 2002
Michael D. Lewan is a well respected geo-physicist, let me be clear, Lewan would go on to state the amounts of ‘inorganic’ hydrocarbons is limited to small amounts, but neither he nor anybody else has identified what constraints would limit Abiotic Oil formation in the Earth’s deep crust to the small quanity he would postulate is produced.
As for papers:
http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/keith/keith.htm
These are just two papers. There are more.
@Sandw15:
Sandw15 states: “I’m really kind of curious about where you get your info about the Brazil subsalt wells. It doesn’t seem that Petrobras agrees with you on the source of the oil.”
Publically assessable records. Do you dispute the physical conditions and circumstances the oil is found in?
I understand that is what Petrobas claims, but it offers hardly any evidence that in those conditions and circumstances and at those depths in the stratographic profile a shallow sea ever existed, 25,000 feet on average below the current sea level a 175 miles out to sea in the Atlantic ocean. The evidence is actually that ocean levels were higher millions of years ago, not less, that’s why scientists find aquatic fossils ON the North American continent.
This completely contradicts the idea that world ocean levels ever were 25,000 feet lower than today.
And, all kidding aside — what about it, seriously — how do you explain rare Earth metals’ abundance in oil that far exceeds any concentrations in the surrounding rock?
Your sarcastic humor is simply a distraction for not having an answer.

“If you get skepticism about AGW tangled up with arguing for a license to pollute, you will do skepticism a grave disservice. ”
Huh??
Who suggested that. What this is saying clearly is don’t think all the oil you may see on beaches is from Nasty-Nasty Man, Nature, too, pollutes.
The other message is that Nature can clean it up too, which it takes a twisted mind to see as a license to pollute. But the crypto-Marxist anti-capitalism of Alarmism constitutes a twisted mind I suppose.

Re: Anaconda (00:42:31) et al:
Astronomy and space exploration have demonstrated the existence of complex hydrocarbon molecules within interstellar nebulae and the Solar System’s own planetary/sub-planetary bodies, Titam being one such example. Consequently, abiotic sources of hydrocarbons are not controversial. So, why should it be so controversial to expect Petroleum systems to have abiotic origins on the Earth?
The Earth’s petroleum systems are well known to have indisputable biotic origins, and we know this by a variety of means up to and including the molecular genetic fragments from the biological organisms which compose the petroleum. If other worlds have massive quantities of abiotic hydrocarbons, why doesn’t the Earth have them in its geological petroleum systems?
The Earth does not have the same massive quantities of abiotic hydrocarbons in its petroleum systems as other worlds in the Solar System because the Earth has experienced profound chemical transformations of its original abiotic hydrocarbons which the environments of other known worlds have not experienced.
The Earth’s original atmosphere was a couple hundred times more massive than our present atmosphere. This primeval atmosphere also had a profoundly different composition. In addition to dihydrogen monoxide (water vapor) there was also some amounts of methane, ammonia, and other gases from which more complex hydrocarbon compounds would eventually be formed.
As the Earth cooled from its intitial formation and the Late Heavy Bombardment events, this early atmosphere underwent dramatic changes in mixtures and chemical compositions. Likewise, the Earth’s lithospere underwent dramtaic changes in chemistry and differentiation of densities. As the early Sun brightened, some of the Noble gases, methane, and other gases were lost from Earth’s earlt and more massive atmosphere, and were pushed to the planetary bodies of the outer Solar System. Some small portions of the hydrocarbons found on Titan today likely came from the Earth’s origial atmosphere. So, what became of the early methane, ammonia, and other abiotic hydrocarbons in the Earth’s original atmosphere? Answer: The Earth ate them.
Am I serious and speaking literally, or am I speaking figuratively. Some of both, actually.
During the early stages of the Earth’s formation, the Earth’s core, mantle, and crust were differentiated by density and chemistry. This tended to expel the more volitile matter into the Earth’s original atmosphere and proto-crust, leaving little opportunity for complex hydrocarbon chains to remain present and intact in the mantle as more than trace amounts. Further geological activity in the crust also tended to destroy more complex hydrocarbon molecules or expel them into the Earth’s early atmosphere. Consequently, the Earth’s original supply of hydrocarbons which remained undestroyed during the early formaiton of the Earth tended to be re-concentrated within the Earth’s atmosphere and the Earth’s crust to a much lesser extent. What little hydrocarbons remained in the crust’s igenous geology were relatively insignificant in concentration. The hydrocarbons overwhelmingly re-concentrated the Earth’s atmosphere were an altogether different matter.
Anaerobic life got a very early start, even while the Earth was still in the process of cooling down and and making drastic changes in the chemistries of its rocks, minerals and proto-crust. In addition to the precipitation of the hydrosphere from the atmosphere, Life or the biosphere is responsible for consuming and chemically transforming the atmosphere and reducing its mass from a couple of hundred atmospheres to the present one atmosphere.
Geochemical and biochemical processes were highly efficient in removing Earth’s original supplies of hydrocarbons from the atmosphere and integrating those hydrocarbons into the biosphere and sedimentary rocks of the crust. In other words, the Earth’s original abiotic hydrocarbons were almost universally incorporated and highly concentrated into the Earth’s biological organisms and biosphere, before large quantities of this organic matter became recycled through the biosphere and sequestered into the Earth’s crust as sedimentary and metamophic rock formations.
This is the reason why abiotic oil has not been found to constitute a significant pool of petroleum and remains an implausibe source for the future. Today’s biotic pools of petroleum are composed from the Earth’s original supplies of abiotic hydrocarbons. Life has had an uncanny ability to seek out and consume or eat hydrocarbons and abiotic oil over the past 4 billion years, leaving too little of the abiotic hydrocarbons free to produce pools of abiotic petroleum in the Earth’s mantle or crust.

Anaconda
“I understand that is what Petrobas claims”
“Regarding the Brazil oil, the “head guy” has boasted that they “have found oil every time” below the salt.”
Make up your mind Anaconda. Is Petrobras credible or not?
“but it offers hardly any evidence that in those conditions and circumstances and at those depths in the stratographic profile a shallow sea ever existed, 25,000 feet on average below the current sea level a 175 miles out to sea in the Atlantic ocean.”
What’s your theory on how the sediments got there? If you’re hazy on how the rocks got there, how can you be so sure how the oil got there?
“Your sarcastic humor is simply a distraction for not having an answer.”
That’s just downright unfriendly. I’m afraid I can’t get into a partnership with somebody that has an attitude like that. On the other hand, I’ll still sell you that valandium mine and I’ll even throw in my father-in-law’s plans for a perpetual motion machine. They aren’t finished but I’m sure you can get it working in no time. You’ll need that free energy to mine the valandium. It’s heavy, ya know;) Now you might be skeptical about perpetual motion, but I guarantee this device will produce enough free energy to extract all the valandium in the continental U.S.

@ D. Patterson:
I appreciate your response. but it is riddled with assumptions that have no scientific verification, they are educated speculations at best, and at worst wild conjecture.
The simple answer is that Science doesn’t have solid answers for the early formation of the Earth. To suggest otherwise is presumptuous.
Face it, Science doesn’t have a strong handle on what is going on, now, in the atmosphere concering the Earth’s climate, how can you or anybody else for that matter have a strong handle on the processes of early Earth formation billions of years ago.
D. Patterson stated: “The Earth’s petroleum systems are well known to have indisputable biotic origins, and we know this by a variety of means up to and including the molecular genetic fragments from the biological organisms which compose the petroleum.”
Your, above, statement is not born out by close inspection of the scientific evidence available.
Did read or review the scientific paper I linked to: Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum authored by J. F. Kenney, et al.
It would appear that you did not. As it goes into detail why your statement, above, is wrong.
Here is an additional scientific report on a Russian oil field, The Drilling & Development of the Oil & Gas Fields in the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin authored by V. A. Krayushkin, et al., which goes into detail on field observations & measurement, it solidly contradicts your assertions:
http://www.gasresources.net/DDBflds2.htm
D. Patterson states: “This is the reason why abiotic oil has not been found to constitute a significant pool of petroleum and remains an implausibe source for the future.”
Your rational as stated, above, is speculation not based on scientific evidence. Geo-physicists know that abundant perodites (a deep crust Earth rock) have carbon and also there are abundant sources of hydrogen (not free hydrogen, of course, but bound up in various chemical molecules in rocks).
D. Patterson states: “Life has had an uncanny ability to seek out and consume or eat hydrocarbons and abiotic oil over the past 4 billion years, leaving too little of the abiotic hydrocarbons free to produce pools of abiotic petroleum in the Earth’s mantle or crust.”
No.
Abiotic Oil formation is an ongoing process.
So-called “fossil” fuel theory is an artifact of primitive hypothesis first proposed over 250 years ago in 1757.
Modern scientific techniques to not support that hypothesis.
The pressures and heat in the shallow sedimentary crust don’t support the “fossil” theory, it is a violation of the Law of Entropy, you can’t get high energy molecules (oil) produced from low energy molecules (organic detritus.

@ Ric Werne:
Your comment is welcome.
Ric Werne states: “…but I’ll assume there’s some depth that “cokes” oil, leaving carbon and methane.”
It really depends on the pressure, as you note oil has been found as deep as 30,000 feet deep below the salt layer with increadible pressure, it would seem that there are cases of oil being “cracked” into natural gas (methane).
Ric Werne states: “Volcanoes are one, though I’d imagine oil and magma don’t mix well and looking for abiotic oil around volcanoes at plate boundaries and at hot spots would be unproductive. So those might be “too deep” or at least “too hot.”
You would be surprised how many times in the historic record hydrocarbons are associated with volcanic activity and solfetaric vents (sulfur vents). There are numerous scientific accounts of hydrocarbons and bitumens found next to volcanic by 19th century scientists. This is still true today.
So-called “fossil” fuel proponents almost always do their best to disavow this association because if the general public ever associated oil and volcanic activity, the “fossil” fuel gig would be up.
As I mentioned earlier pillow lava (underwater) has been found with solid bitumens (a hydrocarbon) this suggests that without oxygen and under some kind of pressure (what pressure would lava have?) hydrocarbons are fairly stable, much more than generally understood.
Ric Werme states: “Another source are undersea vents. The water in “black smokers” is several hundred degrees, oil ought to be able to survive that. They are a source of several metals, so oil found there would help confirm that association.”
Yes, but mostly as methane. There is significant anticipation of ultra-deepwater, ultra-deep drilling farther out toward the mid-ocean ridges in the faults that run perpendicular to the main mid-ocean ridges.
Interestingly enough to further the vocanic connection, there are asphalt volcanoes on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico in the abyssal part, 9,000 feet deep below sea level where ashpalt (a heavy hydrocarbon) flows out on to the seafloor just like lava, and these have oil and methane too. The area is known to be an old tectonically active region.
“Volacanic gas, get an eruption of power evertime you put your foot to the floor.”

Anaconda (10:11:51) :
“It would appear that you did not. As it goes into detail why your statement, above, is wrong.”
It’s unfortunate you would presumptuously and wrongly assume I was not familiar with the works of Kenney et al. They are well known, and so are their their many self-contradictions, and mis-statements of facts. Unfortunately, your apparent unquestioning faith in their statements does not allow the intrusion of contradictory scientific evidence which you incorrectly dismiss as “speculation not based on scientific evidence.” Consequently, the discussion of this is well beyond the scope of the topic of this thread. I can only suggest that you study and question the works of Kenney et al until you understand the arguments of their critics and can identify the many mis-statements in the works of Kenney et al.
You may want to begin your studies by asking how it is possible for the basalts originating in the mantle to be so highly deficient in hydrogen while also allegedly serving as a rich source of hydrogen for the genesis of complex hydrocarbons?

Well, I guess if Ric is going to keep this beaten horse alive, I’ll chip in a bit more.
Ric—indeed, there are places in which sediments have becone too hot for the hydrocarconns to survive. Nice oil and gas accumulations end up a scum of graphite.
Anaconda—– Explain this claim to me:
“So-called “fossil” fuel proponents almost always do their best to disavow this association because if the general public ever associated oil and volcanic activity, the “fossil” fuel gig would be up.”
What are you implying here? That if the fools in the oil companies realized they could drill anywhere and find oil, we would have a glut of the stuff? We’ll just bring on one granitic reservoir after another? Siljan ring was another Ghawar, they just keep it a secret?
One thing the oil companies do well is produce oil anywhere they can find it. It is produced fron granite in Viet Nam, diabase sills in Arizona, volcanic ash in Nevada, glacial till in Siberia. They will produce anything they can find and make a profit on. If there were economic deposits of abiotic oil around, they’d be after them.
Here’s a nice article by one of the French researchers I’ve worked with. If you can refute him point by point, have at it.
“The following paper is a critique of the writings of 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.”
http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/102104_no_free_pt1.shtml

@ Doug, et al.:
Doug states: “Oh yes, I read your nice acticle by the Russians. They explain the biomarkers by the abiotic oil acting as a solvent as it passes through the source rock. I’m still puzzeled though: why does this abuiotic oil only migrate in basins with an organic source from which to become contaminated? Why are the other basins devoid of hydrocarbon?”
What your comment betrays is a failure to note that oil pumped from the deepest stratographic levels DID NOT have the so-called “biomakers” in it AT ALL. If oil is a product of organic detritus how would any oil fail to have “biomarkers”?
Doug states: “Why are the other basins devoid of hydrocarbon?”
Simple, sedimentary basins that aren’t above deep fissures or faults don’t have a “source fault” that allows hydrocarbons to rise to the surface. Why are the vast majority of giant and supergiant oil wells above tectonically active faults?
Sandw15 states: “Make up your mind Anaconda. Is Petrobras credible or not?”
The “head guy” is credible for whether they found oil or not, but is not credible about the oil’s origin — he wants to promote the idea of scarcity.
Much as the rest of the oil industry. He knows his “lines”.

Caleb (16:09:45) :
“I wonder if you could give me the theory of what happens to coal, gas and oil when the continents undergo the process of Subduction.”
The upper mantle was enriched with hydrogen compounds by the melt from subducted basaltic ocanic plates and silicate continental plates over the past eons. The oldest known rocks from the mantle 3 to 4.3 billion years old have different compositions from the basaltic rocks coming from the upper mantle in today’s volcanic eruptions. Today’s basaltic rocks indicate enrichment with percentages of hydrogen compounds not present in the earliest such basalts.
Natural diamonds have a composition which indicates they were formed at about the time of the continental plates and earlier.

@ Sandw15:
“Do these fuels result always and necessarily in one way from the decomposition of a pre-existing organic substance? Is it thus with the hydrocarbons so frequently observed in volcanic eruptions and emanations, and to which M. Ch. Sainte-Claire Deville has called attention in recent years? Finally, must one assign a parralel origin to carbonaceous matter and to hydrocarbons contained in certain meteorites, and which appear to have an origin foreign to our planet? These are questions on which the opinion of many distinguished geologists does not as yet appear to be fixed.” — Marcellin Berthelot, chemist, 1866
Sandw15, I appreciate the humor, but the fact is that exploring for oil is expensive — ultra-deepwater, ultra-deep drilling like off the coast of Brazil or the Gulf of Mexico is very expensive, a slight profit is achieved at $70 a barrel (mostly treading water).
I have no problem with oil companies making a profit — they have to, but claiming scarcity when none exists is bogus.
Note that the, above, French chemist, very respected in his time, comments on all the hydrocarbons associated with volcanic activity. The point is simple enough, the general public knows how powerful vocanic activity is, and if hydrocarbons are associated with that most basic of geological processes, they will also know that no physical shortages of oil are in store in the near future (actually within the economic horizon of 30 years at least).
The French chemist goes on:
“One can, then, conceive the production, by purely mineral means, of all natural hydrocarbons. The intervention of heat, of water, and of alkaline metals — lastly, the tendency of hydrocarbons to unite together to form the more condensed material — suffice to account for the formation of these curious compounds. Moreover, this formation will be continuous because the reactions which started it are renewed incessantly.” — Marcellin Berthelot, chemist, 1866
This is indeed the case.
Oil is abiotic — get to know it.

And “Big Oil” could care less.

Or couldn’t care less 😉

@Sandw15:
You live in Texas, then you know about Travis volcanic mound oil wells, referred to as such because they were first discovered in Travis county, Texas in 1915. More technically referred to as ‘Serpentine Plugs’. Essentially, small extinct volcanoes that have oil in them. Please see link below:
http://search.datapages.com/data/doi/10.1306/A1ADDA86-0DFE-11D7-8641000102C1865D
Thirty-eight oil fields in central Texas are associated with Travis volcanic mounds. Yeah, that’s right 38 volcanic oil wells right in your neck of the woods, partner.
The mounds are commonly called “serpentine plugs” because the mineral serpentine commonly occurs in the mounds. Yes, that mineral which is a principle mineral of the deep crust.
The oil is found principly in the fractures in the serpentine “stem” in the middle of the mound.
And Travis volcanic mounds can produce for a long time. “Most of the oil fields that are associated with Travis volcanic mounds were discovered in the 1930’s, 1940’s, and 1950’s, although six fields were discovered between 1913 and 1929 and three fields were discovered between 1964 and 1977. Over half of the fields are still active including some of the early discoveries.
Spindle Top, discovered Beaumont, Texas, 1901, you know about that, right?
A giant salt dome with large deposits of dolomite and sulfur, plus oil, of course. Dolomite is found in association with 80% of North American oil deposits, but it only forms at extremely high temperatures at depth. At Spindle Top, there was a cavity of oil entirely encased in dolomite.
Strangely, only a little way from the dome, in supposedly organic detritus bearing sediments, not even trace residual amounts of oil was found.
That is the case, both “oil men” ignore, much more often than not (9 times out of 10), organic detritus bearing sediments are dry holes.
Now if organic detritus is what determines where oil is found, then how come so many times organic detritus bearing sedimentary basins are dry holes…hmm?
@ D. Patterson:
D. Patterson states: “It’s unfortunate you would presumptuously and wrongly assume I was not familiar with the works of Kenney et al. They are well known, and so are their their many self-contradictions, and mis-statements of facts.”
Too bad you don’t provide a SINGLE example — not one single example — sounds like somebody talking through their hat.
D Patterson states: “Unfortunately, your apparent unquestioning faith in their statements does not allow the intrusion of contradictory scientific evidence which you incorrectly dismiss as ‘speculation not based on scientific evidence’.”
Frankly, you tried to pass off a entire “early Earth formation” passage without any authority for your position — I just called you on it. Apparently, you are making naked assertions again without even providing an example, let alone some authority.
That doesn’t suggest your comments should be taken seriously by readers.
Actually, it seems it is you who unquestioningly takes it on faith that oil is a “fossil” fuel because that is what “they” have always told you and the general public since birth with little cutzy dinosaurs and other animations.
I wanted to make my on decision based on the best scientific evidence currently available, not on what “oil men” patronizingly told me.
I decided to investigate the evidence at length and in detail, both pro and con, to review the scientific evidence objectively, just like readers are asked to review the scientific evidence on AGW objectively, here, on this website.
I have reviewed the evidence based on the substantial body of scientific work by dozens of different scientists from around the world supporting Abiotic Oil theory.
I have studied the arguments of “fossil” theory closely. They don’t bear up to close scrutiny.
When “oil men” talk of about the origin of oil, remember this old adage:
When somebody says, “it’s not the money,” it’s the money.

@ Doug:
Doug states: “The answer is they are not. You appear to be citing geologic fallasies that would fit you theory.”
I stand correct, I should said “fields” as opposed to wells.
But Doug you have met your Waterloo. The facts are as I stated them, you are simply unaware of the geologic reality, as set out in the following passage:
“In this talk, I present maps showing the location of all 877 giants located on tectonic and sedimentary basin maps of these 27 key regions. I classify the tectonic setting of the giants in these regions using six simplified classes of the tectonic setting for basins in these regions: (1) continental passive margins fronting major ocean basins (304 giants); (2) continental rifts and overlying sag or ‘‘steer’s head’’ basins (271 giants); (3) collisional margins produced by terminal collision between two continents (173 giants); (4) collisional margins produced by continental collision related to terrane accretion, arc collision, and/or shallow subduction (71 giants); (5) strike-slip margins (50 giants); and (6) subduction margins not affected by major arc or continental collisions (8 giants). ”
Doug, and readers please link and read the following abstract: Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields
http://www.hgs.org/en/articles/printview.asp?236
This paper was presented to the Houston Geological Society in 2004.
The abstract also states: “Remarkably, almost all of these 877 giant fields, which by some estimates account for 67% of the world’s petroleum reserves…[are on tectonic faults or margins].”
Want more evidence (a different version of the same paper, but with more links and citations) for my statement: “Why are the vast majority of giant and supergiant oil wells above tectonically active faults?”
http://www.ig.utexas.edu/research/projects/giant_fields/
Surely, The University of Texas at Austin would not present this paper if it didn’t have a base in reailty.
Take note of the map of the world with the box superimposed over areas with large oil & gas fields and see they are concentrated at tectonic faults and margins.
A “fallacy”? No, just a statement of the evidence which apparently, Doug, you have no knowledge of. Your credibility is diminishing with your baseless statements.
And, Doug, just to bring it closer to your neck of the woods, like I did with Sandw15, I will link to a map of Indonesia, titled: Petroleum and Tectonic Map of S. E. Asia:
http://thomasbrown.org/EndofFossilFuels/gold10.gif
Take a look at the map, the correlation between the oil & gas fields and the tectonic setting is remarkable.
Really, Doug, you shouldn’t make unsupported statements that come back and bit you.
:

Wow! You are one true believer.
The fact some Russian can’t find a biomarker doesn’t impress me at all. You should see their seismic data.
This concept really fascinates me:
<>
You actually believe we use the biotic theory to ensure we drill dry holes to keep the price high? Your theories of economics, and understanding of oil company expenditures is as bizzare as your ability to ignore the entire science of organic geochemistry.
You’re right about one thing: in spite of all the oil I’ve found, I sure have drilled some dry holes. SandW15 is right: raise some money, get a rig and find all that oil I’ve missed. Your science is settled, now go produce the stuff!
ps: start with the sepentine mounds—don’t drill one in some sedimentary basin, go right into an ophiolite zone. That should be well conected to the good deep source.

@ Doug:
Doug states: “Wow! You are one true believer.”
I follow the scientific evidence where it leads me.
What would YOU have me do, simply ignore the scientific evidence?
Note, Doug has nothing to say about the map of Indonesia or the paper titled: Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields, which backs up my statement and contradicts his statement.
Doug states: “You actually believe we use the biotic theory to ensure we drill dry holes to keep the price high? Your theories of economics, and understanding of oil company expenditures is as bizzare as your ability to ignore the entire science of organic geochemistry.”
Let’s look at this statement, shall we:
“You actually believe we use the biotic theory to ensure we drill dry holes to keep the price high?”
This is an example of a strawman argument. Is that what Doug is reduced to, making strawman arguments and then knocking them down?
Actually, I noted that before 3D seismic (where the oil can actually be seen on the images drived from it), geologists struck out 9 times out of 10 in sedimentary basins impregnated with organic detritus. That is a fact that apparently doug does not dispute. What “theory” did they use to gain this record of accuracy? The “fossil” theory. What is the reasonable conclusion to draw from it? It would seem that the model, “fossil” theory, does not have very good predictive value. Is it reasonable to then conclude that failure rate was because the “fossil” model was inaccurate?
Of course, I never stated that oil geologists intentionally drill dry holes. Rather, my statement was clear, a faulty theory provides poor results.
Doug seems to intentionally conflate another statement I made that “oil men” prefer to promote the “fossil” theory inspite of the scientific evidence to the contrary because “fossil” theory connotes a finite resource, and eventual scarcity, which was the justification for the higher prices in the recent run up in oil prices. This is basic economics, limited supply and increasing demand equals higher prices. Interesting that Doug calls that description of economic theory “bizzare”.
Doug calls my understanding of oil company expenditures “bizzare”.
I’m sure oil companies didn’t relish throwing money down a dry hole. Of course, now, with seismic 3D that doesn’t very often (fortunately for oil geologists).
Doug states: “…your ability to ignore the entire science of organic geochemistry [is bizzare].”
Of course, this statement is made without producing one iota of evidence in support of the statement — it a raw, naked assertion — or offer a specific example. Earlier, in the discussion I stated that oil has never been generated in a laboratory to which Doug was silent. Most likely he knows it true, as it most assurely is.
The scientific evidence is that organic detritus in shallow sedimentary deposits under relatively low temperature and pressure does not have the energy imput to turn into oil. Why? Because a low potential energy molecule like organic detritus will not spontaneously turn into a high potential energy molecule like oil because of the Law of entropy (the temperature and pressure postulated by the “fossil” theory doesn’t provide the energy required).
But Doug would have the readers ignore that little stumbling block.
Funny, I didn’t know the whole entire science of organic geochemistry was devoted to the study of petroleum. It’s not. Any ‘carbon’ bearing substance is considered organic, whether it is biological or not. But Doug would play that off because it is commonly assumed that ‘organic’ equals ‘biological’, of course many times it does, but it’s not exclusively biological. Doug should know that, but he states it anyway. Why?
The claims of biological origin for oil don’t pan out under close inspection. See, Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum:
http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm
Doug, you have made much of “source” rocks. Here is a paper that discusses solid hydrocarbons, bitumens, that don’t have any “source” rocks to explain the bitumen’s presence in the basalt. The paper is titled: Inorganic Origin in Upper Mantle Seen likely for Solid Hydrocarbon in Syria Plateau Basalt by Robert F. Mahfoud, James N. Beck, McNeese State University, published in Oil & Gas Journal, October 28, 199.
http://www.gasresources.net/Mafoud-91.htm
“Drilling to more than 1,100 m in the alkaline plateau basalt did not reveal the presence of sedimentary rocks or any mother rocks (petroleum bearing). The absence of mother rocks [source] along with the difficulty of explaining otherwise the sources of all mentioned compounds suggested an inorganic or abiogenic origin in the mantle and/or along rift and fractures in basalt for the concerned hydrocarbon. This abiogenic origin explained with ease all reactions, sources of elements, and their relationship with the tectonic events in southern Syria.”
I provide scientific evidence for my position.

Oops. I meant Journal of Sedimentary Petrology. Well no, come to think of it I really meant MAJIC – The Monthly American Journal of Imaginary Chemistry.

@ Doug:
Doug states: “Wow! You are one true believer.”
Apparently, Doug is a true believer, too! Such is his determination to keep coming back to the discussion. Obviously, a comment like that offers no probative value. It’s the pot calling the frying pan black.
I stand corrected: Active was the wrong word, but the title speaks for itself: Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields (and the discussion I address below).
Too bad Doug won’t do the same, and acknowledge valid points raised by the other side, instead he ignores the points he can’t respond to.
And, yes, I do understand. All too well from Doug’s point of view, I’m sure. That is what keeps Doug coming back. I present the evidence which I have linked to, so the readers can see for themselves. My desire is that people research the question on their own. Doug’s attitude seems to be, “move along, no story, here.”
“Keep thinking the same old thoughts.”
I don’t expect to convince people on one comment thread, rather, I hope to raise their interest so they do follow up research on their own — ultimately each individual has to come to their own conclusion which is true for all scientific questions.
Which is the better scientific attitude?
@ Ric Werme:
Dr. Paul Mann versus Dr. Michael Mann, not the same person, so why even bring up the issue? Frankly, I’m not trying to insult anyone, other than disagree with their position. Note my first comments only brought up the issue obliquely, but I certainly wasn’t going to let Doug engage in patronizing comments, to the effect of, “I know better than you, pipe down.”
Ric Werme states: “A bio on Paul Mann mentions “He is presently co-leader of a industry-supported synthesis of the tectonics and petroleum geology of the Trinidad area.” Mann’s paper sets out the geologic setting of giant oil fields, that he is looking for oil around Trinidad which sits on a transform tectonic boundary, the same one Venezuela sits on (and like it or not Venezuela has a lot of oil), only states he is taking action on his findings.
Speaking of transform tectonic boundaries, to bring these comments back to the post: Transform tectonic boundaries are places where tectonic plates slide past each other. There certainly are deep fissures and faults associated with tranform tectonic boundaries (and that was my point in bringing up the paper, however inartfully worded). Interesting, Santa Barbara sits on a transform tectonic boundary.
See, Earth Floor: Plate Tectonics, transform boundary:
http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/msese/earthsysflr/plates4.html
Note the schematic in the link uses California as an example with the San Andreas Fault.
I link a map of the California oil & gas seeps:
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/seeps/where.html
Superimpose the two maps together and one can see the congruence of the oil seeps and the transform tectonic boundary.
Continental passive margins are the transition from continental crust and oceanic crust which have ancient rifts, often tearing and shearing occur causing fissures and cracks. Rifts are where the crust pulls apart, yet, another form of fault or fissure for oil to rise up through.
TRANSLATION: Faults and fissures, “cracks” if you will, are where the vast majority of giant oil fields are located above.
It does not surprise me that a conventional oil geologist, such as Paul Mann, would make reference to “source” rocks, in fact, it would surprise me if he didn’t.
Interestingly, I’ve read a few stratigraphic reports of oil finds and descriptions (not near as many as Doug, I have no doubt) and the reports are constantly referring to faults and fissures as well as sedimentary trapping structures.
Ric Werme states: “I wouldn’t be surprised if some folding makes traps for hydrocarbons to collect…” Yes, that is exactly the case, the question is where the hydrocarbons come from.
Ric Werme states: “With your interest in oil from granitic areas…”
Where did you get that idea from? No, the hydrocarbons rise up through, as I stated, above, fissures, cracks, and faults. Those tend to be focussed at tectonic boundaries, but detailed geologic maps will show that, indeed, “cracks”, fissures, and faults exist even within cratonic settings.
Look at the scientific evidence with reasonable sceptism, yet also with an open-mind, not easy to do, especially with ideas that have been ingrained literally since childhood. But such is the Scientific Method that we all strive to apply.

I’m just wondering why oil can’t be both biotic and abiotic?

Abiotic oil is fact, proven by the Russians at least 310 times, they have drilled oil wells alot deeper than fossils can be found. Maybe that’s why they are the world leader in the production of oil and natural gas. Fossil fuel theory as far as oil and natural gas is not true. Fossils get caught in the oil that comes from deeper in the earth, hence the wrong theory of fossil fuel. So oil and natural gas are not finite, you could look at them as being renewable energy being churned out by the earth all the time. The people in California should drill off the coast, It seems like its worked elsewhere. Just a last thought the co2 theory should go the same way as the fossil fuel theory. They are both wrong.