Public release date: 13-May-2009 (from EurekAlert)
Contact: Stephanie Murphy
508-289-3340
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Natural petroleum seeps release equivalent of eight to 80 Exxon Valdez oil spills
Study off Santa Barbara is first to quantify oil in sediments
A new study by researchers at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) is the first to quantify the amount of oil residue in seafloor sediments that result from natural petroleum seeps off Santa Barbara, California.
The new study shows the oil content of sediments is highest closest to the seeps and tails off with distance, creating an oil fallout shadow. 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.
The paper is being published in the May 15 issue of Environmental Science & Technology.
“Farwell developed and mapped out our plan for collecting sediment samples from the ocean floor,” said WHOI marine chemist Chris Reddy, referring to lead author Chris Farwell, at the time an undergraduate working with UCSB’s Dave Valentine. “After conducting the analysis of the samples, we were able to make some spectacular findings.”
There is an oil spill everyday at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara, California, where 20-25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years.
Earlier research by Reddy and Valentine at the site found that microbes were capable of degrading a significant portion of the oil molecules as they traveled from the reservoir to the ocean bottom and that once the oil floated to sea surface, about 10 percent of the molecules evaporated within minutes.
“One of the natural questions is: What happens to all of this oil?” Valentine said. “So much oil seeps up and floats on the sea surface. It’s something we’ve long wondered. We know some of it will come ashore as tar balls, but it doesn’t stick around. And then there are the massive slicks. You can see them, sometimes extending 20 miles from the seeps. But what really is the ultimate fate?”
Based on their previous research, Valentine and Reddy surmised that the oil was sinking “because this oil is heavy to begin with,” Valentine said. “It’s a good bet that it ends up in the sediments because it’s not ending up on land. It’s not dissolving in ocean water, so it’s almost certain that it is ending up in the sediments.”
To conduct their sampling, the team used the research vessel Atlantis, the 274-foot ship that serves as the support vessel for the Alvin submersible.
“We were conducting research at the seeps using Alvin during the summer of 2007,” recalls Reddy. “One night during that two-week cruise, after the day’s Alvin dive was complete and its crew prepared the sub for the next day’s dive, Captain AD Colburn guided the Atlantis on an all-night sediment sampling campaign. It was no easy task for the crew of the Atlantis. We were operating at night, awfully close to land with a big ship where hazards are frequent. I tip my hat to Captain Colburn, his crew, and the shipboard technician for making this sampling effort so seamless.”
The research team sampled 16 locations in a 90 km2 (35 square mile) grid starting 4 km west of the active seeps. Sample stations were arranged in five longitudinal transects with three water depths (40, 60, and 80 m) for each transect, with one additional comparison sample obtained from within the seep field.
To be certain that the oil they measured in the sediments came from the natural seeps, Farwell worked in Reddy’s lab at WHOI using a comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatograph (GC×GC), that allowed them to identify specific compounds in the oil, which can differ depending on where the oil originates.
“The instrument reveals distinct biomarkers or chemical fossils — like bones for an archeologist — present in the oil. These fossils were a perfect match for the oil from the reservoir, the oil collected leaking into the ocean bottom, oil on the sea surface, and oil back in the sediment. We could say with confidence that the oil we found in the sediments was genetically connected to the oil reservoir and not from an accidental spill or runoff from land.”
The oil that remained in the sediments represents what was not removed by “weathering” — dissolving into the water, evaporating into the air, or being degraded by microbes. Next steps for this research team involve investigating why microbes consume most, but not all, of the compounds in the oil.
“Nature does an amazing job acting on this oil but somehow the microbes stopped eating, leaving a small fraction of the compounds in the sediments,” said Reddy. “Why this happens is still a mystery, but we are getting closer.”
Support for this research came from the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the Seaver Institute.
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is a private, independent organization in Falmouth, Mass., dedicated to marine research, engineering, and higher education. Established in 1930 on a recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences, its primary mission is to understand the oceans and their interaction with the Earth as a whole, and to communicate a basic understanding of the oceans’ role in the changing global environment.
Or couldn’t care less 😉
Ric Werme (13:55:14) wrote: “Oh – another test. If petroleum reservoirs are being recharged by abiotic petroleum, then the biological “contaminants” should decline over time since the early draws will have flushed them out.”
An interesting thought, Ric. I would like to read comment on this.
@ur momisuglySandw15:
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?
@ur momisugly 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.
Acaconda asks:
“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?”
The answer is they are not. You appear to be citing geologic fallasies that would fit you theory. Read up on giant fields (not “wells”—there are no one well giant fields), and you’ll find many, the stratigraphic traps in particular, have absolutely no association with active faults.
In the case of the gas charged organic shales I mentioned, the main area of the tremendous new reserves, such as the Barnett, the Haynesville, the Fayetteville, are all on very stable inactive intra-cratonic sags. They are full of organic material and every well will produce some gas. Conversely, the massive Miocene shales such as the Gumai, the Baong in Indonesia overlay innumerable active faults and back up to a volcanic arc. They were deposited in a less restricted environment. They have nowhere nere the hydrocarbon content of the shales fron the cratonic basins, and rarely produce.
And then there is this odd claim:
“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. ”
Where ? what stratOgraphic (sic) levels? The basins I have worked may have different oil in different stratigraphic horizons but I can tie them all to a source rock, usually with good biomarkers.
Finally:”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.”
Certainly! The principals of biotic oil explain existing production and allow us to predict where we’ll find more. It enables us to make money. It works. The abiotic theory does not.
Somewhere on you-tube is a wonderfull clip of Richard Feynman explaning that no matter how elegant a theory, no matter how brilliant the author, if it does not hold up in the real natural world, it is wrong.
(6.) Halbouty, M., et al., “Worlds giant oil and gas fields, geologic factors affecting their formation, and basin classification [Part 1],” in M. Halbouty, ed., “Geology of giant petroleum fields,” AAPG Memoir 14, pp. 502-521. 1970.
(7.) Halbouty, M., “Giant oil and gas fields of the decade 1960-1978,” AAPG Memoir 30, p. 596, 1980.
(8.) Halbouty, M., “Giant oil and gas fields of the decade 1978-1988,” AAPG Memoir 54, 1990.
@ur momisugly 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.
:
@ur momisugly Doug:
I raised the fact that many sedimentary basins with organic detritus turned out to be dry holes — I raised this issue twice — to which you never responded. I guess oil geologist don’t like to be reminded that before 3D seimic, they struck out more than 9 times out of 10.
Which suggests oil geologist’s predictive abilities aren’t very good, which additionally suggests their “fossil” theory is not a good predictive “tool” because it is wrong.
Doug presents my [Anaconda’s] statement: ““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. ”
And then you [Doug] responded: “Where ? what stratOgraphic (sic) levels? The basins I have worked may have different oil in different stratigraphic horizons but I can tie them all to a source rock, usually with good biomarkers.”
Apparently, you couldn’t be bothered to to read this link that I previously presented, above:
http://www.gasresources.net/DDBflds2.htm
The link describes the Oil & Gas Fields in the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin along the Russian/Ukraine border, and, here, is the relevant passage:
“Bacteriological analysis of the oil and the examination for so-called “biological marker” molecules: The oil produced from the reservoirs in the crystalline basement rock of the Dnieper-Donets Basin has been examined particularly closely for the presence of either porphyrin molecules or “biological marker” molecules, the presence of which used to be misconstrued as “evidence” of a supposed biological origin for petroleum.
None of the oil contains any such molecules, even at the ppm level.”
Concentrate on, “None of the oil contains any such molecules, even at the ppm level.”
For an “oil man” you aren’t aware of a lot of things.
I stated, above, in regards to the Travis volcanic mounds (volcanic oil), “Yes, that mineral [Serpentine] which is a principle mineral of the deep crust. This mineral is an important mineral for Abiotic Oil, see, Peridotites, Serpentinization, and Hydrocarbons:
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2006/06088houston_abs/abstracts/keith.htm
This paper explains the reason for sweet oil (low sulfur and sour oil (high sulfur.
“Type I kerogen in black shale vents from Mg peridotite-sourced brines whereas Type II kerogen in black shale vents from quartz alkalic peridotite-sourced brines. Correspondingly hydrocarbon chemistry divides oil and gas into 2 major types: 1) magnesian sweet, low-sulfur paraffinic-naphtheric, 2) quartz alkalic sour, high-sulfur aromatic asphaltic. Geochemical markers that tie oil and gas to specific peridotite hydrothermal sources include nano-particle native metals and diamonds, and V-Ni porphyrins.”
“Serpentinization of peridotites by oceanic or metamorphic sourced brines under strongly reduced conditions and temperatures of 200-500 C produces hydrocarbon-rich, chloride and/or bicarbonate metal-bearing brines. Serpentinization is common on the ocean floor along fracture zones (Lost City), beneath conventional petroleum in rifts due to sedimentary burial (Gulf of Mexico) or thrust loading (Roan Trough), and at the top of flat subducting oceanic crust (Eocene beneath UT, CO, WY).”
Oh, and I mentioned “Asphalt Volcanoes” on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, I did not want it to appear I was talking through my hat like some others, so, here is the abstract: Chapopote Asphalt Volcano May Have Been Generated by Supercritical Water, by M. Hovland, Statoil ASA, Stavanger, Norway, and I. R. MacDonald, Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, Texas, USA.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005EO420002.shtml
“Asphalt volcanoes and lava-like flows of solidified asphalt on the seafloor (Figure 1) were first discovered and described by MacDonald et al. [2004]. The flows covered more than one square kilometer of a dissected salt dome at abyssal depths (˜3000 m) in the southern Gulf of Mexico. “Chapopote” (93°26’W, 21°54’N) was one of two asphalt volcanoes they discovered. MacDonald et al. determined that the apparently fresh asphalt must initially have flowed in a hot state, and subsequently chilled, contracted, and solidified, much in the same way as normal lava does on the surface of the Earth. The two asphalt-volcanoes discovered occur at the apex of salt domes that pierce through the seafloor. These “piercement salt domes,”
An abstract on a paper, How Abiotic Petroleum Systems Work: Tectonically Driven Deep Fluid Sources:
http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/2007int/techprogram/A112319.htm
“Origination, maturation, migration and accumulation of abiotic hydrocarbons are immanently linked to basin dynamics and in such a way to crustal evolution and tectonic differentiation of a basin roots through geological time. A new theoretical concept for abiotic origin of petroleum attributes world’s petroleum reserves to subcrust evolution of volatile-saturated zones (VSZ) characterized by high-density population of juvenile fluid inclusions enriched with hydrocarbons.”
I mentioned “rare Earth metals”, let it not be said I didn’t provide authority, here is a paper abstract: Inorganic Geochemistry of Oil: First Results of the Study Using the ICP-MS Method of the East-European and West-Siberian Oil Deposits, by Kirill S. Ivanov.
http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/2007int/techprogram/A112905.htm
The scientific evidence is contained in a vast body of scientific work supporting Abiotic Oil theory.
That some want to cling to a hypothesis that promotes scarcity and thus higher prices is not surprising, but the scientific evidence is clear:
Oil is abiotic, no oil is derived from organic detritus.
But as we have seen in the AGW debate, those that have a financial or ideological interest in a particular scientific conclusion, no matter how contradicted by the evidence at hand can convince themselves of the validity of their position, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
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.
Anaconda
“Dolomite is found in association with 80% of North American oil deposits, but it only forms at extremely high temperatures at depth..”
Ack! Anaconda!…just when I thought you were about to get rational! Get a grip man! At least read what wikipedia has to say about dolomite or some reputable site!
“And Travis volcanic mounds can produce for a long time. …Over half of the fields are still active including some of the early discoveries.”
See you don’t have to drill deep offshore wells to find abiotic oil! Pay no attention to those who point to the sedimentary source rock surrounding those things. Forget about Georgia…it’s ancient history. I know the location of two very similar volcanic features. I don’t think either has been drilled but oil is being produced from a sandstone reservoir within a 5 mile radius. Send $100,000 asap and I’ll get you the leases. I believe you could drill your first wildcat for under a mil.
You should come to Texas for the drilling. That’ll give you a chance to look at some dolomitic limestone outcrops. Then you’ll be ready to publish your work in JSP, The Journal of Sedimentary Petrography. While you’re here you can swing by the valandium mine and repair the perpetual motion machine…darn thing’s a little tempermental.
Doug
“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!”
See? Even Doug thinks it’s a good idea.
@ur momisugly 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.
From your own reference, which you clearly do not understand:
Continental passive margins fronting major ocean basins form the dominant tectonic setting that includes 35% of the world’s giant fields. Continental rifts and overlying sag basins, especially failed rifts at the edges or interiors of continents, form the second most common tectonic setting that includes 31% of the world’s giant fields. Terminal collision belts between two continents and associated foreland basins form the third setting with 20% of the the world’s giant fields. Other setting classes including foreland basins at collision margins related to terrane accretion, arc collision, and/or shallow subduction; basins within strike-slip margins; and basins within subduction margins are relatively insignificant with 14% or less of the total basin population. . Our result differs significantly from previously published giant classifications where collisional settings form the dominant tectonic setting for oil giants.
TRANSLATION THE MORE PASSIVE (see that term passive—it means the tectonis are not too active) AREAS HAVE MORE OIL. THE TECTONICALLY ACTIVE AREAS HAVE LESS.
We propose the following possibilities to explain the dominance of extensional rift and passive margin settings over all other tectonic settings: 1) localization of high quality source rocks in lacustrine and restricted marine settings during the early rift stage; 2) effectiveness of the sag or passive margin section above rifts to either act as reservoirs for hydrocarbons generated in the rift section and/or to seal hydrocarbons generated in the underlying rift section; 3) tectonic stability following early rifting that allows hydrocarbon sources and reservoirs to remain undisturbed by subsequent tectonic events
TRANSLATION: SOURCE ROCKS ARE IMPORTANT, AS WELL AS TECTONIC QUIESCENCE.
you can cite all the papers you wish, but if you don’t understand what you are reading they don’t help your case.
PS Most of the oil in Indonesia is in the back-arc basins, flanking the stable Sundaland Craton. they are as tectonically stable as one can hope to find in that country.
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.
Anaconda (11:19:11) :
Well, the article includes:
So it seems tectonic activity disturbs sedimentary rocks. I wouldn’t be surprised if some folding makes traps for hydrocarbons to collect, fracturing makes the sedimentary rocks more porous, subduction collects sedimentary rocks. Perhaps you could post a link showing the relationship between giants and types of sedimentary rocks. With your interest in oil from granitic areas, I’d like to see another map showing distribution of oil and igneous rocks. After all, I live in “The Granite State.” The foundation of my house is made from large granite blocks.
Well, maybe. I do note that the article makes no mention of abiotic sources (it does mention “high quality source rocks,” but apparently sedimentary rocks, not mantle). While the authors are “Mann et al” I’ll quickly point out it refers to “Dr. Paul Mann.” You’re new here, climate papers by a Dr. Michael Mann are roundly criticized here and elsewhere and we believe – with good reason – they do not have a base in reality. 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.” He’s as likely to be shill for the oil company as is Doug. I’m surprised you present Mann’s work in a positive light but insult people who disagree with some of your claims.
BTW, are you associated with the mines in the Anaconda Montana region? Not a problem, really, but you’d gain several credibility points if you used your full name.
Ultimately, readers here are predominantly interested in climate issue, but we like an interesting detour once in a while. Thank you for bringing it up.
@ur momisugly 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?
@ur momisugly 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.
A fascinating read on this thread. It’s the first time I’ve added a comment (a few days ago now) and the first time I’ve seen any real discussion on this topic.
I’m not a subject matter expert so cannot add anything to the discussion. When I empty my brain of all learnt and preconceived ideas on this subject I must say that the abiotic theory gets more traction with my observations of the actual world as I perceive it.
Thanks to everyone………
I’m just wondering why oil can’t be both biotic and abiotic?
I’ve got some first hand knowledge of this situation.
A couple of years ago my wife and I spent several days in Santa Barbara for our anniversary. We went on a catamaran cruise in Santa Barbara Channel.
Much to my surprise there was an oily sheen as far as the eye can see. The skipper explained to me about the seeps, which I found to be incredibly ironic, i.e. Mother Nature spoiling herself. The skipper explained that the oil company’s rigs in Santa Barbara Channel actually relieve pressure on the wells, and without them the seeps would leak even more oil. I confirmed this on my blog post on this subject about a year ago:
More wonderful irony: Big Oil saves the environment from itself!
Here’s a link to that post, including a couple photos I shot on that trip.
http://algorelied.com/?p=143
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.
“I have gone to the best geologists and the best petroleum researchers, and I can give you the authoritative answer: No one knows [how biogenic origin is possible].” — Edward Teller, physicist, 1979, “Father of the Hydrogen Bomb”
ken (16:57:31) :
You’re forgetting several things mentioned above. BTW, Wikipedia says Saudi Arabia produces more petroleum than Russia. Not by much, and things might have swapped places since 2006. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Petroleum_by_country . Perhaps you should look at production in terms of acreage. I don’t think it would be close anymore! I’ll leave natural gas to the interested reader, I wouldn’t be surprised if Russia is the top producer of that.
CALIFORNIA: RETHINKING OFFSHORE DRILLING BAN
California politicians woke up Wednesday morning with a political hangover, as all their budgetary smoke and mirrors were defeated at the polls by the voters.
(Except for the proposition that restricted their pay if they can’t balance the budget.)
Now, these same politicians must deal with a budgetary trainwreck of their own making.
There has always been one partial solution sitting on the table, revenue from offshore oil drilling.
Apparently, at least some politicians are taking another look at this option:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30830782/ns/us_news-environment/
Needing cash, Calif. rethinks offshore oil ban (msnbc), “LOS ANGELES – With California facing a huge budget deficit, officials at the state Department of Finance saw an opportunity to resurrect a controversial proposal for oil drilling off the coast of Santa Barbara as a way to boost revenue and potentially bring $1.8 billion into state coffers over time.”
Will the politicians wake up and smell the revenue?
Possibly.
Politicians usually have a nose for additional cash when financial disaster looms.