Tackling mysteries about carbon, possible oil formation and more deep inside Earth
DENVER, Aug. 28, 2011 — How do diamonds the size of potatoes shoot up at 40 miles per hour from their birthplace 100 miles below Earth’s surface? Does a secret realm of life exist inside the Earth? Is there more oil and natural gas than anyone dreams, with oil forming not from the remains of ancient fossilized plants and animals near the surface, but naturally deep, deep down there? Can the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, be transformed into a pure solid mineral?
Those are among the mysteries being tackled in a real-life version of the science fiction classic, A Journey to the Center of the Earth, that was among the topics of a presentation here today at the 242nd National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS). Russell Hemley, Ph.D., said that hundreds of scientists will work together on an international project, called the Deep Carbon Observatory (DCO), to probe the chemical element that’s in the news more often than perhaps any other. That’s carbon as in carbon dioxide.
“Concerns about climate change have made millions of people aware of carbon’s role on the surface of the Earth, in the atmosphere and in the oceans,” Hemley said. “The Deep Carbon Observatory will uncover critical information about the movement and fate of carbon hundreds and thousands of miles below Earth’s surface. We call that the deep carbon cycle.”
Hemley said this basic research could have practical implications in the future. Using laboratory equipment that reproduces pressures deep within the Earth, which are thousands to millions of times higher than on the surface, scientists in these labs have discovered a way to convert carbon dioxide into a rock-like material called polymeric carbon dioxide. With further refinements, scientists could enhance its stability closer to the Earth’s surface.
The findings also may lead to new materials for commercial and industrial products. Hemley’s laboratory, for instance, has developed a way to produce “super” diamonds, or high-quality diamonds that are bigger and better than existing ones. Natural diamonds form slowly under the high-pressure, high-temperature conditions that exist deep within the Earth, while today’s synthetic diamonds form under similar conditions in the laboratory. Using a process called chemical vapor deposition, Hemley’s research group made diamonds rapidly and at low pressure. The new diamonds have superior qualities, including extreme hardness, improved transparency and better electrical and temperature properties. The diamonds could lead to improved computer chips that run faster and generate less heat than existing silicon chips, Hemley said. They also show promise for use in advanced cutting-tools, more durable and heat-resistant windows for spacecraft and other applications, he noted.
The DCO project will probe the big mystery about the formation of natural diamonds, including their chemical composition and how they shoot up quickly from deep within the Earth. Scientists can’t directly observe that process at present, as there’s no practical way to travel down 100 miles beneath the surface of the planet. Observations are limited to laboratory simulations of this process for now, said Hemley, who is director of the Geophysical Laboratory at the Carnegie Institution of Washington in Washington, D.C. His laboratory specializes in the chemistry and physics of materials under extreme conditions. Hemley’s presentation at the ACS meeting, entitled “Chemistry of Planetary Gases, Liquids, and Ices in Extreme Environments,” focused on what happens to planetary material under conditions of extreme pressure and temperature, as well as other insights relevant to Earth.
Another area that the DCO will explore is energy. The extent to which hydrocarbons in the Earth form from inorganic processes deep within the Earth rather than only from the fossilized remains of plants and animals remains an important unanswered question. Exploring the nature of carbon deep within the Earth may provide clues on how and to what extent this abiotic process might contribute to energy reserves, Hemley said.
Finally, DCO research has implications in the search for other life forms on Earth and even outer space. Scientists have already identified microbes at about a mile or so deep within the Earth under high temperatures. They suspect that some forms may exist at even deeper levels.
Past studies suggest that bacteria and other life forms can’t survive beyond several thousand atmospheres of pressure. But new studies by scientists in Hemley’s lab show that some bacteria are capable of surviving pressures of up to 20,000 atmospheres. That supports the theory that life might exist in extreme extraterrestrial environments, Hemley noted.
Funding sources for these studies include The Carnegie Institute of Washington, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
The American Chemical Society is a non-profit organization chartered by the U.S. Congress. With more than 163,000 members, ACS is the world’s largest scientific society and a global leader in providing access to chemistry-related research through its multiple databases, peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. Its main offices are in Washington, D.C., and Columbus, Ohio.
ABSTRACT:
Recent experiments are providing unprecedented insight into the chemistry of planetary materials over a broad range of the conditions, from ambient pressures to several multimegabars and cryogenic temperatures to several thousand degrees. Studies of hydrogen, the most abundant element, reveal new phenomena at high P-T conditions where new chemistry emerges. Related but characteristically distinct behavior is observed in heavier simple diatomics and other planetary volatiles. New phases and chemistry of H2O, CH4, and other planetary ices have been discovered, and the high P-T stability fields of CO2, including melting relations of the polymeric forms, have been documented. Studies of carbon-based materials more broadly are addressing outstanding questions such as the abundance of carbon within our planet, the depth and nature of the deep biosphere, and the implications of the deep carbon cycle for energy and the environment.
Steve Schaper says:
August 29, 2011 at 10:57 pm
I wasn’t aware that the Huygens probe had the ability to drill, and drill deep on Titan, and roam all over the moon to make sure that there was no oil.
It is purely illogical to claim that there is no oil on Titan.
————
Since all earth bound oil has been shown to be biological in deeply buried marine sediments (that is marine environments teaming with life), which has never existed in Titan, one can logically conclude the conditions for oil formation cannot happen on Titan.
Which hydrocarbon molecules have been identified on Titan? Find that out and you get your answer.
Pete H says:
August 29, 2011 at 10:11 pm
“There are presently more than 80 oil and
gas fields in the Caspian district alone which were
explored and developed by applying the perspective of
the modern theory and which produce from the
crystalline basement rock.(Krayushkin, Chebanenko et
al. 1994)
———-
Caspean Sea is the remains of the Tethys Sea, a huge ocean that was closed as India collided with Asia. This means two things. Lots of sedimentary marine sediments, and greatly fractured and thrusted deformed rocks (hence lots of igneous intrusions). Any oil in “crystaline basement” rock migrated there from its marine sedimenary source. The term “crystaline basement” is totally vague and useless term. Specifically what? That term has been used for basaltic oceanic crustal rock less than 200myo all the way to Archean aged granites (exposed roots of former mountains). If you want to see how geologically complex “crystaline basement rock” can be google “metasedimentary belt boundary zone” here in Ontario’s Precambrian shield. Specifically “Proterozoic tectonic evolution of the Grenville orogen in North America” See this for a description http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm which I did when debunking creationism. “crystaline basement rock” is any formation of igneous or metamophic origin, and has nothing to do with the mantel.
———–
Similarly, such exploration in the western
Siberia cratonic−rift sedimentary basin has developed
90 petroleum fields of which 80 produce either partly
or entirely from the crystalline basement”
————
Notice the cross-section diagram in this: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3050/pdf/fs2011-3050.pdf
The oil came from marine sedimentary deposits, which has migrated and pooled.
Sorry, nice try, but still no cigar. No abiotic deposits have been discovered.
G. Karst says:
August 29, 2011 at 7:38 pm
If most molecular compounds embed during migration and both biotic and abiotic theorized sources involve extensive migration – What differential should we expect to see? How does biotic better explain “thousands” of chemicals. Just trying to see your position, is all. GK
———-
Two different things. There are thousands of hydrocarbon molecules in oil, from very short chained (methane, ethane, butane, etc) to molecules with a thousand or more chained carbon atoms (which ends up as bitumen once the rest are removed). So any abiotic mechanism of oil formation would have to be able to make carbon chains many thousand of atoms long. Heat and pressure of the mantel would destroy such long chains into smaller chains.
Now I expect to see postings speculating on how that can happen. Irrelevant. What counts, and what we demand from the AGW alarmists, is EVIDENCE. No speculations, no guesswork. Show specific evidence of how that happens in the mantel.
I see abiotic oil in the same light as AGW, speculation based on models or lab experiments, with no physical evidence from the real world.
Alexander says:
August 29, 2011 at 7:20 pm
http://www.gasresources.net/KitchkaspaperforDCConference.htm
The ‘best estimate’ of the global crude-oil seepage rate was revised to 600000 mt/a, with a range of 200000 and 2000000 mt/a (Kvenvolden and Cooper, 2003). Simple calculations based upon conservative estimates of the average present rates of hydrocarbon seepages from the sea bed establish that the world’s proven reserves of conventional oil should disappear in less than 1 Ma. This fact fundamentally contradicts the conventional time period required by the bio-organic notion of the origin of petroleum
———
Obviously contradicted by the actual oil fields themselves. I highly suggest you read two books on oil formations Twilight in the Desert and Oil 101. Look up the geology of famous oil fields, like Ghawar, Cantarell, Tupi, Hybernia. All shown to be biological, all shown to be hundreds of millions of years of age. Before you post here, please, please, read up on the specific geological settings of oil fields. This research has all been done. Petroleum geologists are not stupid people, they know what they are doing, they know what to look for for potential oil fields. They ALWAYS use biological markers, specific marine species are used as markers (google: biological oil markers eg http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0016703785902108), or marine deposits. There is no oil in the Canadian Shield. However, that said, there are very small graphite deposits, associated with marble (deformed marine limestones), in one case I know of fossil stromatolites.
jrwakefield says:
August 29, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Steve T says:
August 29, 2011 at 3:01 pm
As I wrote at 3.03am
The following reource provides material to answer these questions and many of the others in this thread. This includes details of experimental proof that petroleum products in the ratios in which they are found can be spontaneously generated from CaCO3, FeO and H2O at the temps and pressure found close to the crust/mantle depths.
————
Exactly which “petroleum products” are produced in this experiment? You do realize there are THOUSANDS of individual molecular compounds in oil.
Just because a lab can make it does not mean the mantle is. That would have to be independently confirmed.
So I ask again, which oil field(s) have been shown to have an abiotic origin? None.
****************************************************************************************
The petroleum products I referred to are given at the link http://www.gasresources.net/ so it is clear that you have not gone there and read the articles.
Your second point: The linked articles also describe the experiment that reproduces the temp/pressure calculated for the depth at the mantle and shows that marble, iron oxide and water spontaneously generate the petroleum products found in oil basins. I’m not sure whether this has been done more than once, but it does seem to be generally accepted. You would like it independently confirmed by who/what? It seems likely that the mantle contains calcium carbonate iron oxide and water.
Last point: As far as I know there is not a single oil field in the world that has been shown to be biotic. There is no scientific explanation for the process of turning biotic material into the higher hydrocarbons and there are suggestions that the second law of thermodynamics will have to be overcome to do so. I am currently supporting the explanation that has experimental proof of a method by which oil could be made in natural (if unusual for us surface dwellers) conditions.
Alex the skeptic says:
August 30, 2011 at 2:53 am
What would happen to the price of oil if it is proven that it is mostly abiotic? The first thing to fall is peak oil theory, then the price would follow and getting to work would get much cheaper
—————
You might as well speculate on what would happen to the price of cheese should the moon be discovered to be made of it. Lets not let the fact that all the evidence suggests that it isn’t get in the way of things, we should just accept the fact that it could be as they haven’t drilled all the way to the center so the possibility is still there!
To Don K
“The Gravberg-1 borehole penetrated 7,500 m, through the deepest rock in the Siljan Ring in which proponents had hoped to find hydrocarbon reservoirs. Some eight barrels of magnetite paste and hydrocarbon-bearing sludge were recovered from the well; Gold maintained that the hydrocarbons were chemically different from, and not derived from, those added to the borehole, but analyses showed that the hydrocarbons were derived from the diesel fuel-based drilling fluid used in the drilling. This well also sampled over 13,000 feet (4,000 m) of methane-bearing inclusions. A second borehole, Stenberg-1, was drilled a few miles away, finding similar results”
No abiotic oil has been found.
Steve T says:
August 30, 2011 at 6:51 am
The petroleum products I referred to are given at the link http://www.gasresources.net/ so it is clear that you have not gone there and read the articles.
———
Not yet, but will. They are not “petroleum products”, they are hydrocarbon compounds. Big difference.
—————
Your second point: The linked articles also describe the experiment that reproduces the temp/pressure calculated for the depth at the mantle and shows that marble, iron oxide and water spontaneously generate the petroleum products found in oil basins. I’m not sure whether this has been done more than once, but it does seem to be generally accepted. You would like it independently confirmed by who/what? It seems likely that the mantle contains calcium carbonate iron oxide and water.
————–
Sounds like a very specific set of rare conditions. Again, just because the lab can do it, does not mean the mantel is. Now this is curious. “marble” is metamorphosed limestone, most limstone is biological in origin.
————–
Last point: As far as I know there is not a single oil field in the world that has been shown to be biotic. There is no scientific explanation for the process of turning biotic material into the higher hydrocarbons and there are suggestions that the second law of thermodynamics will have to be overcome to do so. I am currently supporting the explanation that has experimental proof of a method by which oil could be made in natural (if unusual for us surface dwellers) conditions.
———
I have already posted that EVERY OIL FIELD has been shown to have a biological source. Specifically the Green River Formation, Bakken (Oil cannot seep into shale, too tight), Tupi (the biological source rock is just below the host rock http://www.imog2007.org/files/Thursday%20Posters/Thursdays%20Posters%20Petroleum%20composition/P382-TH%20Koike.pdf and http://www.iongeo.com/content/documents/pdfs/spans/BrasilSPAN_PreSalt_Study.pdf). Hybernia, Texas fields, North Sea, Ghawar, Cantarell, I can list them all.
Do yourself a favour, get and read Oil 101.
Tupi oil field’s biological source rocks:
http://www.geoexpro.com/exploration/monstersofthedeep/
“Source and Reservoirs
Above the basement basalts, sandstones, stromatolithes, and coquinas made out of pelecipods deposited in structural highs are important reservoirs and are interbedded with the source rocks. Porosity ranges from 12% to 30% and permeability can be over 500 md. Recent data show the presence of well sorted sandstone reservoirs with very good permeability and porosity in the pre-salt sequence of Santos Basin. Carbonates and sandstones also are important reservoirs in the lower Albian, with permeability ranging from 1 to 2 darcies and intergranular porosity as high as 35%. However, from unofficial sources, stromatolithes are the primary reservoir for all the discoveries in the Santos Basin to date.”
Coquinas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coquina
That “basement basalts” is, at that location, the early rifting of the Atlantic starting some 200myo. It’s the same basaltic system which extends to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Thus, that basalt was extruded as undersea molten lava 200myo. As the Atlantic opened, life flourished in the new shallow sea, that life’s deposition on the ocean floor produce, once covered, the oil. The 6,000 ft of salt shows that sea dried up, likely several times, some time after. Just like the Mediterranean did.
Steve T says:
“Last point: As far as I know there is not a single oil field in the world that has been shown to be biotic.”
As every discovered oil field has a biogenic signiture I’m afraid it says more about what you know than about the orgin of petroleum.
Thanks for your reply, and for your efforts at maintaining a proper skeptical attitude.
I agree as do you, that there is insufficient evidence to modify current oil, biotic origin theory. However, I am not convinced that the door to abiotic sources has, in any way, been shut and locked (as in the case of CO2 driven AGW propaganda).
I also agree that P&T parameters during initial migration precludes very long carbon chains. However, is it not possible, that as migration moves into cooler sedimentary rock to its final reservoir, over Ma, that many long chains could be added or reformed? Wouldn’t biotic and abiotic compounds collect in the same reservoirs, forming a homogenized mix?
I remain skeptical, but am trying to maintain a open mind, to other possibilities, as I have not seen anything definitive yet. GK
G. Karst says:
August 30, 2011 at 9:01 am
I also agree that P&T parameters during initial migration precludes very long carbon chains. However, is it not possible, that as migration moves into cooler sedimentary rock to its final reservoir, over Ma, that many long chains could be added or reformed? Wouldn’t biotic and abiotic compounds collect in the same reservoirs, forming a homogenized mix?
——
A mechanism would first have to be proposed how that could happen, then look for evidence of that occuring in rocks.
———-
I remain skeptical, but am trying to maintain a open mind, to other possibilities, as I have not seen anything definitive yet. GK
———-
And that is how science works. I always go with the evidence. The abiotic people have a serious flaw in their proposal. Techonics churns up the crust, exposing once deep rock. So does errosion. Not one location on the planet shows any oil migration as per what the abiotics should exist. Especially precambrian. If there was ever a chance to see this process it would be exposed rock in precambrian shields. For example, that Metasedimentary Belt Boundary Zone (900-1400myo) here in Ontario is exposed mountain roots, once 25-30 kilometers into the crust. Yet, no evidence of any oil, or hydrocarbons for that matter.
Richard Wakefield says:
August 30, 2011 at 11:06 am
And that is how science works. I always go with the evidence. The abiotic people have a serious flaw in their proposal. Techonics churns up the crust, exposing once deep rock. So does errosion. Not one location on the planet shows any oil migration as per what the abiotics should exist. Especially precambrian. If there was ever a chance to see this process it would be exposed rock in precambrian shields. For example, that Metasedimentary Belt Boundary Zone (900-1400myo) here in Ontario is exposed mountain roots, once 25-30 kilometers into the crust. Yet, no evidence of any oil, or hydrocarbons for that matter.
=====
I’m pretty much on your side, but it should be pointed out that there isn’t a whole lot of Precambrian rock around that hasn’t been thoroughly cooked and probably isn’t pretty much impervious to migrating hydrocarbons. Many of our Greenville rocks in the NorthEast — including yours in Ontario were probably covered at one time by Paleozoic sediments but no oil leaked into the older rocks — presumably because the limestones are now marble and the clastics are now slate — neither of which is usually very permeable. IIRC some hydrocarbons have been found in very old rocks in Australia. There’s no reason to think that the oil isn’t biotic however. Algae have been around a long time.
SteveE says:
August 30, 2011 at 7:15 am
To Don K
“The Gravberg-1 borehole penetrated 7,500 m, through the deepest rock in the Siljan Ring in which proponents had hoped to find hydrocarbon reservoirs. Some eight barrels of magnetite paste and hydrocarbon-bearing sludge were recovered from the well; Gold maintained that the hydrocarbons were chemically different from, and not derived from, those added to the borehole, but analyses showed that the hydrocarbons were derived from the diesel fuel-based drilling fluid used in the drilling. This well also sampled over 13,000 feet (4,000 m) of methane-bearing inclusions. A second borehole, Stenberg-1, was drilled a few miles away, finding similar results”
=====
I don’t think that’s an entirely accurate description. FWIW, it doesn’t match either Gold’s papers http://origeminorganicadopetroleo.blogspot.com/2011/01/thomas-gold-professional-papers.html or Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gold#Drilling_in_Siljan Which don’t match each other all that well. My point is that Gold did find small quantities of liquid hydrocarbons in a location where it is somewht difficult to explain its presence.
Although Gravberg did use some diesel in the drilling fluids, the Stenberg well used only water-based drilling fluids so it’s unlikely that the “oil” from that well was imported during the drilling process.
I actually don’t think there is any significant amount of abiotic oil around. Abiotic Methane? More plausible perhaps, but really, I haven’t a clue and I don’t think anybody else knows either. However those are opinions, not facts.
jrwakefield says:
August 30, 2011 at 5:20 am
Alex the skeptic says:
August 30, 2011 at 2:53 am
What would happen to the price of oil if it is proven that it is mostly abiotic? The first thing to fall is peak oil theory, then the price would follow and getting to work would get much cheaper
——
No because you do not understand what peak oil is about. It is NOT about how much oil is in the ground, it NEVER has been. Peak oil is about FLOW RATES. Assuming abiotic to be true, it’s rate of oil formation must be very very very slow. No where near fast enough to keep up with our rate of extraction.
******************************************
jrwakefield,
Having discovered my own ignorance on peak oil, I would greatly appreciate telling on what science are you basing your claim that “it’s rate of oil formation must be very vert very slow.”
Do you have a flow meter buried somewhere deep in the earth?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091104123032.htm
Abiotic Synthesis Of Methane: New Evidence Supports 19th-Century Idea On Formation Of Oil And Gas
ScienceDaily (Nov. 6, 2009) — Scientists in Washington, D.C. are reporting laboratory evidence supporting the possibility that some of Earth’s oil and natural gas may have formed in a way much different than the traditional process described in science textbooks.
Their study is scheduled for Nov./Dec. issue of ACS’ Energy & Fuels, a bi-monthly publication. Anurag Sharma and colleagues note that the traditional process involves biology: Prehistoric plants died and changed into oil and gas while sandwiched between layers of rock in the hot, high-pressure environment deep below Earth’s surface. Some scientists, however, believe that oil and gas originated in other ways, including chemical reactions between carbon dioxide and hydrogen below Earth’ surface.
The new study describes a test of that idea, which dates to at least 1877 and famous Russian chemist Dimitri Mendeelev. They combined ingredients for this so-called abiotic synthesis of methane, the main ingredient in natural gas, in a diamond-anvil cell and monitored in-situ the progress of the reaction. The diamond anvils can generate high pressures and temperatures similar to those that occur deep below Earth’s surface and allow for in-situ optical spectroscopy at the extreme environments.
The results “strongly suggest” that some methane could form strictly from chemical reactions in a variety of chemical environments. This study further highlights the role of reaction pathways and fluid immiscibility in the extent of hydrocarbon formation at extreme conditions simulating deep subsurface.
…………………………
So abiotic oil theory is also supported by chemistry.
Alex the skeptic says:
August 30, 2011 at 1:09 pm
jrwakefield,
Having discovered my own ignorance on peak oil, I would greatly appreciate telling on what science are you basing your claim that “it’s rate of oil formation must be very vert very slow.”
Do you have a flow meter buried somewhere deep in the earth?
———
Do the abiotics? No but they sure give the impression that it would flow fast enough. A simple calculation could put us into the ball park, take known oil in the ground and divide by the number of years the abiotic process is assumed to have run. Except they never tell us that.
The bottom line is existing fields, once depleted don’t refill. Not one field has. So either abiotic is wrong, or the infill rate is too slow to measure.
Alex the skeptic says:
August 30, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Their study is scheduled for Nov./Dec. issue of ACS’ Energy & Fuels, a bi-monthly publication. Anurag Sharma and colleagues note that the traditional process involves biology: Prehistoric plants died and changed into oil and gas while sandwiched between layers of rock in the hot, high-pressure environment deep below Earth’s surface.
————
Oil doesn’t come from plants, it comes from marine animals. Coal comes from terrestrial plants.
Alex the skeptic says:
August 30, 2011 at 1:19 pm
So abiotic oil theory is also supported by chemistry.
———–
That passage says no such thing. It’s the same rehashing over and over. It’s been done in the lab hence it MUST happen in the mantle. Sorry, that’s not how science works.
There is a premise in all of science that one must follow. When more than one mechanism is proposed to explain an event, the one accepted is the most parsimonious. That is, nature tends to take the easiest and simplest path. Thus with all the evidence of all known fields, which is the most parsimonious? That some lab experiment suggest some chemical reaction MIGHT be happening, against much of known oil properties can survive, or that every oil field has a biological marker and source rocks?
Until someone provides prima facia evidence of abiotic oil, the current mechanism accepted for oil formation MUST be the one that is accepted. Especially since oil fields are predicted and found based on the current mechanism.
So I have shown specific geology of the Tupi field which shows a very high degree of certainty that the oil formed from a biological source. Yes or no. Or do you believe in co-incidences, with every oil field? Please explain why that is the case.
Just because a dill core finds hydrocarbons, but yet to find the source rock, does not mean that oil is abiotic.
why is helium detected in high quantities near oil fields?
anyone care to think about the reasons for that?
what does the gulf oil disaster say about the “oil window” said to be 15,000 feet, according to Stubborn’s Peak. Would BP be building rigs to drill 30,000 feet on a hunch?
max says:
August 30, 2011 at 4:34 pm
why is helium detected in high quantities near oil fields?
anyone care to think about the reasons for that?
———
Radioactive decay.
———–
what does the gulf oil disaster say about the “oil window” said to be 15,000 feet, according to Stubborn’s Peak. Would BP be building rigs to drill 30,000 feet on a hunch?
———
The oil window is about temperature and pressure, not just depth. http://www.oilandgasgeology.com/oil_gas_window.jpg
So then is this the same field as Lindsey Williams called “Gull Island” ?
It would certainly seem to be using the same giant Rig he talked about.
Why then are BP being so modest about the size claimed for the reservoir ?
The estimated recoverable reserves of the oilfield are approximately 100
million barrels of oil and 78 billion cubic feet of natural gas.
British Petroleum’s (BP) Liberty offshore oilfield is located four miles
off the northern coast of Alaska in Foggy Island Bay in the Beaufort Sea.
BP plans to develop the oilfield from its existing facilities in the Endicott
field in Prudhoe Bay. Production from the oilfield will be carried out using
the world’s first ultra extended reach drilling (u-ERD) technology.
Production due to start in 2013.
Read More: http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/liberty-project/
Good grief! This subject just keeps coming back.
A previous post stated correctly :”Produced from crystalline basement doesn’t mean charged from the basement. I’ve worked on oil fields in Vietanm with granitic reservoirs, however they are all charged from adjacent sedimentary rocks.”
Indeed, I have Russian seismic lines in front of me demonstrating that. Incidentally, the oil is not from a marine source, it is from laccustrian algae, botriococcus.
I guess all of you quoting old Russian papers have not been to an international conference lately.–All the Russians I talk to are up to date on their geochemistry, and look for oil by finding a biotic source, and following the oil to a producible trap, just like the rest of us in the profession.
I read “The Deep Hot Biosphere ” a couple of weeks ago. Seems to me Gold was quite fair in his speculation, called it when it was and suggested experiments to decide various unknowns. He did point out various problems with the biotic oil theory which seem to be explained by a lot of hand waving.
There is also the problem of all the methane, ethane etc on Titan and tarry substances on comets and carbonaceous chondrites. Seems like there’s lots of hydrocarbons in the solar system which is where all the carbon on Earth came from in the first place.
Gold doesn’t dismiss the biology associated with oil as he thought it modified the abiotic hydrocarbons.
I’m leaving this one open. There’s lots of research to do here and the biotic oil folks seem a little too sure of themselves.
Axel says:
August 30, 2011 at 5:59 pm
So then is this the same field as Lindsey Williams called “Gull Island” ?
It would certainly seem to be using the same giant Rig he talked about.
Why then are BP being so modest about the size claimed for the reservoir ?
The estimated recoverable reserves of the oilfield are approximately 100
million barrels of oil and 78 billion cubic feet of natural gas.
———–
You consider that large? The US consumes 7 BILLION barrels a year. 20 MILLION barrels per day. Thus that deposit would last less than a week of US consumption. That makes it puny.