I am a petroleum geologist/geophysicist with about 36 years of experience in oil & gas exploration mostly in the Gulf of Mexico. In light of Andy May’s recent post, Oil – Will we run out?, I thought I might post an essay on oil formation.
Over the past six years, I have been fortunate to have the opportunity to write guest posts for Watts Up With That thanks to Anthony Watts. Many of my posts have been about issues related to oil production and each of these posts usually triggers comments from Abiogenic Oil advocates. So, this post’s main thrust will be to explain why the Abiogenic Oil hypothesis is not widely accepted and why we think that the original source of crude oil is organic matter.
It’s possible that oil forms in the mantle all the time. The chemical equations can be balanced. So, as an olive branch to Abiogenic Oil aficionados, I will unequivocally state that their favored hypothesis is not impossible.
Biogenic vs abiogenic is really a poor way to characterize the issue. It implies that the formation of crude oil is either a biological or non-biological process. The process is thermogenic. The original source material is considered to be of organic origin because all of the evidence supports this.
The Generally Accepted Theory for Hydrocarbon Formation
I’m not going to go into a lot of detail on this. OffshoreEngineering.com has a very good basic primer here.
The basic steps are:
Algae, plankton and other marine and lacustrine photosynthesizers die and sink to the bottom of the ocean.
They are buried in mud under anoxic conditions.
As more sediment is deposited, they are buried deeper.
The geothermal gradient gradually raises the temperature of the buried critters.
Diagenesis and catagenesis lead to the formation of kerogen, then oil, then wet gas.
Metagenesis leads to the formation of dry gas and then high temperature methane.
The depth scale is generalized. It can vary a great deal depending on the nature of the overburden. http://www.offshoreengineering.com/oil-and-gas/petroleum-geology/1-hydrocarbon-formation
Or the old Conoco commercial which showed a Vibroseis crew hunting for a buried dinosaur, this has never been the theory of hydrocarbon formation.
Methane and Other Simple Hydrocarbons vs Crude Oil
What is a Hydrocarbon?
hydrocarbon
1. n. [Geology]
A naturally occurring organic compound comprising hydrogen and carbon. Hydrocarbons can be as simple as methane [CH4], but many are highly complex molecules, and can occur as gases, liquids or solids. The molecules can have the shape of chains, branching chains, rings or other structures. Petroleum is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons. The most common hydrocarbons are natural gas, oil and coal.
It’s important to note that “organic” doesn’t necessarily mean “related to life,” although it usually is.
Organic chemistry is the chemistry discipline that is concerned with the study of compounds containing carbon that is chemically bonded to hydrogen. Organic chemistry encompasses the synthesis, identification, modeling, and chemical reactions of such compounds.
Methane, ethane and other alkanes, alkenes, alkynes, cycloalkanes and alkadienes are simple hydrocarbons. Inorganically sourced methane is massively abundant on Earth and elsewhere in our Solar System and probably throughout our Galaxy. Other simple hydrocarbons are also often associated with inorganically sourced methane, usually in trace quantities.
The Saturnian moon, Titan, has seas of liquid methane and there is evidence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Titan’s atmosphere. PAH’s are pollutants that occur naturally in crude oil and coal deposits and as the result of burning of carbon-based fuels.
The fact that Titan’s methane-rich atmosphere can generate PAH’s and trace amounts of heavier hydrocarbons has no relevancy to how petroleum and natural gas liquids form on Earth. Even if it was relevant to the formation of petroleum, it would be totally irrelevant to how oil and gas accumulate in the Earth’s crust.
Methane and simple hydrocarbons are not even remotely close to crude oil.
There’s a fairly standard litany of Abiogenic Oil “evidence.” I am sure that the following does not cover all of the erroneous “evidence.”
Dniepr–Donets Basin, Ukraine
This is usually cited as proof of Abiogneic Oil because some Russians said there were no source rocks.
Palaeozoic source rocks in the Dniepr–Donets Basin, Ukraine
Reinhard F. Sachsenhofer, Viacheslav A. Shymanovskyy, Achim Bechtel, Reinhard Gratzer, Brian Horsfield, Doris Reischenbacher
DOI: 10.1144/1354-079309-032 Published on November 2010, First Published on October 20, 2010
ArticleFiguresInfo & Metrics PDF
Abstract
ABSTRACT The Dniepr–Donets Basin (DDB) is a major petroleum province in Eastern Europe. In order to understand the regional and stratigraphic distribution of source rocks for the dominantly gas-prone petroleum system, 676 fine-grained rocks from 30 wells were analysed for bulk parameters (total organic carbon (TOC), carbonate, sulphur, RockEval). A subset of samples was selected for maceral and biomarker analysis, pyrolysis-gas chromatography and kinetic investigations. Organic-rich sediments occur in different intervals within the basin fill. Maximum TOC contents (5.0 ± 1.9%) occur in the Rudov Beds, several tens of metres thick. The oil-prone rocks (Type III–II kerogen) were deposited in basinal settings above an unconformity separating Lower and Upper Visean sections. While maximum TOC contents occur in the Rudov Beds, high TOC contents are observed in the entire Tournaisian and Visean section. However, these rocks are mainly gas condensate-prone. Highly oil-prone black shales with up to 16% TOC and hydrogen index values up to 550 mgHC g–1TOC occur in Serpukhovian intervals in the northwestern part of the DDB. Oil-prone Lower Serpukhovian and gas condensate-prone Middle Carboniferous coal is widespread in the southern and southeastern part of the basin. Although no source rocks with a Devonian age were detected, their presence cannot be excluded.
The Dneiper-Donets Basin has clearly identifiable sedimentary source rocks.
Eugene Island 330 Field, Gulf of Mexico
The sudden, mysterious, inexplicable reversal of fortunes for the Eugene Island 330 field has often been cited as evidence for Abiogenic Oil…
Something mysterious is going on at Eugene Island 330. Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, was supposed to have declined years ago. And for a while, it behaved like any normal field: Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330’s output peaked at about 15,000 barrels per day (2,400 m3/d). By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels per day (640 m3/d). Then suddenly — some say almost inexplicably — Eugene Island’s fortunes reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels per day (2,100 m3/d), and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million.[5]
Firstly, there is nothing unusual about EI 330’s production curve…
Rate vs Cumulative Production https://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011205_no_free_pt2.shtml
Eugene Island 330 is one of the largest oilfields in the Gulf of Mexico. However, there is nothing unusual about its production curve. The “bump” in the late 1990’s was largely due to drilling activities. The field is still in decline. From 1972 through 2016, the field has produced 452 million bbl of oil, 1.88 TCF of gas and 484 million barrels of salt water. Last year, the field averaged about 11,500 BOPD, 14,400 MCFD and *28,400 BSWD*. Most of the reservoirs are strong water drives. These types of reservoirs can exhibit 50% or better primary recoveries.
The only odd thing about EI 330 has been relatively clear evidence (4d seismic) of oil migrating up a fault plane (which is how the oil got there in the first place). The source rocks in the Gulf of Mexico are still generating hydrocarbons, which are still migrating into geologic traps.
Ultradeep Oil Accumulations Are Too Deep and Hot to be in the Oil Window
Oil comes from organic material, mostly algae,which was quickly buried in mud at the bottom of oceans and lakes – So, it never had a chance to fossilize. Pressure, heat and time converted the organic material into kerogen, oil and natural gas…
As the biomass is buried more deeply in the sedimentary column, increasing pressure compacts it, increasing temperature cooks it and over time, the hydrocarbons slowly migrate toward the surface because they are less dense than connate/formation water. The kerogen first cooks to heavy oil, then light oil, then wet thermogenic gas, then thermogenic light gas, then high temperature methane…
Crude oil cracks at temperatures above about 300°F. It generally can’t exist at depths anywhere close to the mantle.
Walker Ridge 758 Chevron #1 is the deepest active oil producer in the Gulf of Mexico; drilled to a true vertical depth (TVD) of 28,497’ (8.7 km) in a water depth of 6,959’. It was completed in a Lower Tertiary Wilcox sandstone (26,831’ – 27,385’). The bottom hole temperature was 226°F. The oil migrated upward from deeper Mesozoic and Lower Tertiary source rocks. Even deeper oil reservoirs have been discovered in the oil window, many of these will be coming on production over the next few years.
There are no oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico with bottom hole temperatures outside of the oil window. The ultra-deepwater Lower Tertiary oil discoveries are well within the oil window. The shallow water Lower Tertiary gas discovery at Davy Jones is well out of the oil window, but in the gas window…
The depths on the chart are approximations based on a generalized geothermal gradient. The geothermal gradient is highly variable. Water and halite (salt) are less dense than most rocks. When the overburden consists of 8,000’ of seawater and 2,000’ of halite, 30,000’ of overburden weighs a lot less than it does when it’s all composed of more dense rocks.
The ultra-deepwater Lower Tertiary play in the Gulf of Mexico and the deep subsalt plays offshore Brazil are often cited as examples of abiotic oil because the reservoirs are supposedly too deep, too hot and/or too highly pressured to be in the oil window. This is simply wrong.
Tabular salt acts like a radiator. It conducts heat away from the substrata toward the surface. The combination of thick layers of salt and deep water depths enable oil to exist at depths previously unexpected. Salt and water are also less dense than most other overburden. This enables reservoir quality rocks to exist at deeper depths than previously expected.
I’ve drilled wells deeper than 20,000’ in the Gulf of Mexico. The bottom hole temperatures were in the range of 215°F (100°C). Ten wells in the Gulf of Mexico, drilled to true vertical depths greater than 20,000’ have each produced more than 20 million barrels of oil. The maximum bottom hole temperature (213°F) was encountered in the Mississippi Canyon (MC) 777 TF001 well, drilled by BP. The average bottom hole temperature of those ten 20 million barrel producers was 197°F.
For further reading about the geology and petroleum systems of the Gulf of Mexico, I recommend:
Offshore Vietnam and other Fractured Basement Reservoirs
Some oilfields produce from fractured basement rocks, usually granitic rocks. The Cuu Long Basin, offshore Vietnam is often cited as an example of Abiogenic Oil.
Petroleum Geology of Cuu Long Basin – Offshore Vietnam*
By Nguyen Du Hung and Hung Van Le
Search and Discovery Article #10062 (2004)
*Adapted from “extended abstract,” entitled “Hydrocarbon Geology of Cuu Long Basin – Offshore Vietnam,” for presentation at the AAPG International Conference, Barcelona, Spain, September 21-24, 2003.
[…]
Source Rocks
The effective source rocks are the Upper Oligocene shale that is present throughout the basin and the Lower Oligocene interbedded shale. They contain mostly kerogen type I/II generated from lacustrine sediments. The average TOC is from more than 1% up to nearly 10%; the hydrogen index ranges from 300 to more than 600 mg/gTOC (Figure 5).
Fractured Basement Reservoir
Fractured basement reservoirs are the unique characteristics of the Cuu Long basin, although there are other oil discoveries in clastics and volcanics plays. The first oil discovery in basement was made by Vietsopetro in the Bach Ho field in 1988. Oil was stored in macro-fractures, micro-fractures, and vuggy pores. The matrix porosity of the magmatic body is negligible. Fractures inside the basement may originate from one or a combination of the following factors:
Organic markers in the oil match the kerogen in the Oligocene shale. For the “abiotic theory” to work, the oil would have had to migrate out of the granite, leach the organic material from the shale and then migrate back into the granite.
There’s Not Enough Organic Matter Buried in the Oceans to Account for all of the Oil
Here’s the math…
The crust is ~1% of the Earth’s volume.
Sedimentary rocks comprise ~5% of the volume of the crust.
Total world crude production since 1900 has been ~1.3 trillion barrels.
If there are ~3.0 trillion barrels remaining to be found and produced, sedimentary rocks contain an average of 0.01 barrels of recoverable crude oil per acre*ft.
A typical oil reservoir has a recovery factor of ~300 barrels per acre*ft.
This means that only 0.003% of the Earth’s sedimentary rocks would have to be charged with crude oil to explain all of the crude oil ever likely to be produced on Earth.
The volume of organic carbon-rich sediment in the Earth’s crust is massively large. The Gulf of Mexico has accumulated more than 60,000′ of sedimentary column over the last 200 million years. The Cenozoic section, alone, is more than 40,000′ thick in places. The Quaternary can be more than 30,000′ thick in some locations. Most of the sedimentary column is composed of thick, organic-rich shale.
Oil is still being formed and migrating from source to reservoir rocks in the Gulf of Mexico. The Pleistocene reservoirs are less than 2.5 million years old and many have only been charged over the last 275,000 years. The reservoirs simply aren’t being charged as quickly as we are producing them.
Red areas indicate ~20,000 meter sediment thickness.
The Cretaceous, in particular, was a hydrocarbon “kitchen.” Marine conditions couldn’t have been more favorable for the deposition of source rocks even if they had been designed for such a purpose…
“DSDP sites at which Cretaceous sediments rich in organic matter were encountered. From Dean and Arthur, 1986.”
The Lower Tertiary Eocene was also a hydrocarbon kitchen (up to 21% TOC).
There is no shortage of organic matter in the sedimentary basins of the Earth’s crust.
The Siljan Ring
Proof of abiogenic oil would consist of the discovery of a significant volume of abiogenic oil.
So far, the closest thing to evidence has been the recovery of an “asphaltenic-type material removed from the drillstem at 5945 m [19,505 ft] in Well Gravberg-1 from the Precambrian granite, Siljan, Sweden.”
The chemical characterization showed that this material contains small amounts of hydrocarbons maximizing in the diesel range. No heavy hydrocarbons were identified, except for trace amounts of polycyclic aliphatics. From the chemical and stable isotopic characterizations, we concluded that the black gelatinous material is derived predominantly from the alteration of biodegradable nontoxic lubricant (BNTL) additives by caustic soda, admixed with diesel oil and trace amounts of polycyclic hydrocarbons from recirculating local lake water. No evidence for an indigenous or deep source for the hydrocarbons could be justified.
Unfortunately, the “asphaltenic-type material” was most likely derived from the drilling fluid used in the well.
Other Odd Arguments
These arguments, supposedly from Thomas Gold’s book, demonstrate a total ignorance of the conventional theory of hydrocarbon formation and accumulation…
(8) Petroleum and methane are found frequently in geographic patterns of long lines or arcs, which are related more to deep-seated large-scale structural features of the crust, than to the smaller scale patchwork of the sedimentary deposits.
Oil is generally trapped by structural features, commonly fault systems. Structural trends tend to follow linear and arc-like patterns…
The black blobs are salt bodies and the curvilinear line segments are major fault systems. Source: U. of Idaho
(9) Hydrocarbon-rich areas tend to be hydrocarbon-rich at many different levels, corresponding to quite different geological epochs, and extending down to the crystalline basement that underlies the sediment. An invasion of an area by hydrocarbon fluids from below could better account for this than the chance of successive deposition.
This is just plain ignorance. The conventional theory of oil formation and accumulation doesn’t state that oil forms in situ. It forms in deeper sedimentary rocks and migrates upwards to accumulate in structural and stratigraphic traps… In other words, “an invasion of an area by hydrocarbon fluids from below.”
“Hydrocarbon-rich areas tend to be hydrocarbon-rich at many different levels” because structural deformation creates traps at many levels and the oil migrates into them from below.
(10) Some petroleum from deeper and hotter levels almost completely lack the biological evidence. Optical activity and the odd-even carbon number effect are sometimes totally absent, and it would be difficult to suppose that such a thorough destruction of the biological molecules had occurred as would be required to account for this, yet leaving the bulk substance quite similar to other crude oils.
Abject nonsense.
(11) Methane is found in many locations where a biogenic origin is improbable or where biological deposits seem inadequate: in great ocean rifts in the absence of any substantial sediments; in fissures in igneous and metamorphic rocks, even at great depth; in active volcanic regions, even where there is a minimum of sediments; and there are massive amounts of methane hydrates (methane-water ice combinations) in permafrost and ocean deposits, where it is doubtful that an adequate quantity and distribution of biological source material is present.
The methane straw man. No one has argued against inorganically sourced methane.
(12) The hydrocarbon deposits of a large area often show common chemical or isotopic features, quite independent of the varied composition or the geological ages of the formations in which they are found. Such chemical signatures may be seen in the abundance ratios of some minor constituents such as traces of certain metals that are carried in petroleum; or a common tendency may be seen in the ratio of isotopes of some elements, or in the abundance ratio of some of the different molecules that make up petroleum. Thus a chemical analysis of a sample of petroleum could often allow the general area of its origin to be identified, even though quite different formations in that area may be producing petroleum. For example a crude oil from anywhere in the Middle East can be distinguished from an oil originating in any part of South America, or from the oils of West Africa; almost any of the oils from California can be distinguished from that of other regions by the carbon isotope ratio.
This is because the source rocks are “independent of the varied composition or the geological ages of the formations in which” the oil has been tapped.
This argument from Kenny et al., 2002 fundamentally misstates the conventional theory of hydrocarbon formation, migration and accumulation and then argues against a strawman of their own construction.:
The spontaneous genesis of hydrocarbons that comprise natural petroleum have been analyzed by chemical thermodynamic-stability theory. The constraints imposed on chemical evolution by the second law of thermodynamics are briefly reviewed, and the effective prohibition of transformation, in the regime of temperatures and pressures characteristic of the near-surface crust of the Earth, of biological molecules into hydrocarbon molecules heavier than methane is recognized.
The conventional theory of hydrocarbon does not bear any resemblance to a “spontaneous genesis of hydrocarbons” and the sources of energy are heat, pressure and chemical reaction resulting from heat and pressure.
Conclusions
One of the more inane criticisms of the generally accepted theory of hydrocarbon formation is the notion our adherence to an ancient theory prevents us from finding Abiogenic Oil. This is abject nonsense. We don’t look for oil using any theories about hydrocarbon formation. The theory was developed from the observations of hydrocarbon accumulations. When exploring a new basin, we do look for total petroleum systems; however, when I am prospecting in the Gulf of Mexico, I’m not looking for the source rocks.
Geologists generally adhere to Chamberlin’s Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses and most of us have an open mind to the Abiogenic Oil hypothesis. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) has even hosted conferences on the subject…
ABSTRACTS
AAPG Research Conference
Origin of Petroleum
June 18, 2005, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Search and Discovery Article #90043 (2005)
Posted July 26, 2005
Note: Items preceded by asterisks(*) designate extended abstracts, most with illustrations.
The conventional theory explains all of the observations.
It wouldn’t affect the process of oil & gas exploration.
The process of hydrocarbon formation is very organized, has been observed at all stages in nature, can be quantified in a rigorous scientific theory and can be largely simulated under laboratory conditions. The only part of the process that cannot be directly repeated in the laboratory is time.
Petroleum generation by laboratory-scale pyrolysis over six years simulating conditions in a subsiding basin
J. D. SAXBY & K. W. RILEY
CSIRO Division of Fossil Fuels, PO Box 136, North Ryde, New South Wales 2113, Australia
[…]
Consequently, we have heated potential source material from 100 to 400 °C over six years, increasing the temperature by 1 °C per week. This was done in an attempt to simulate the thermal history of a sample being buried in a continuously subsiding basin with a constant geothermal gradient. After four years, a product indistinguishable from a paraffinic crude oil was generated from a torbanite, while a brown coal gave a product distribution that could be related to a wet natural gas. Of great significance is the absence of olefins and carbon monoxide in all products. We believe the present experiments, which are possibly as slow as can be realistically planned within a human time scale, have for the first time successfully duplicated hydrocarbon generation in a continuously subsiding sedimentary basin.
While it is possible for oil to form through mantle serpentinization or the Fischer–Tropsch process, there simply isn’t any evidence that any crude oil has ever naturally formed through these processes on Earth. If oil was forming in the mantle, it would be flowing out of mid-ocean ridges (methane flowing out of mid-ocean ridges is not oil).
There are very few crude oil accumulations that are even consistent with the abiogenic hypotheses and no significant accumulations inconsistent with the generally accepted theory of hydrocarbon formation.
Ultimately, the entire debate is academic. “Oil is where you find it.” However it originally formed, it has to be found in economic accumulations. Igneous and metamorphic rocks are rarely porous and permeable… And rarely contain crude oil. Even if oil was commonly formed inorganically… It wouldn’t alter how and where oil companies look for oil. It still has to be trapped in porous and permeable reservoirs – Sandstones, limestones, shales and other sedimentary rocks. Even the oil that’s trapped in fractured granites and other basement rocks, had to migrate through and be trapped by sedimentary rocks.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
399 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
nn
February 18, 2017 12:35 pm
The circumstantial evidence is that oil has an organic signal, which gives rise to a popular hypothesis of its unique origin, which may actually be caused through contamination.
As for what is known about oil with certainty, is that it is a finitely available and accessible resource, which does not remark on its origins or chaotic distribution.
For the sake of argument…
Let’s assume that the biochemical markers in oil were leached out of organic rich shale as the oil migrated from the mantle to geologic traps in sedimentary rocks…
How would this alter oil exploration and production?
How would this alter oil exploration and production?
================
could the method by which oil forms could affect the vertical distribution of deposits? I would think that organic oil would favor shallower deposits, while abiotic would favor deeper deposits. Taking into consideration the need for a barrier to prevent the oil from simply working its way to the surface and being consumed for energy by microorganisms.
The Trinidad asphalt deposits comes from seeps. The oil comes from below, as it approaches the surface the light hydrocarbons evaporate or get eaten by bacteria (Trinidad crudes are waxy coming out of the source rock, but as they arrive at say 6000 feet the wax is mostly gone, leaving a medium to heavy crude). As the crude seeps it just loses the good stuff. I assume you mean the Tar lake over by Point Lisas and San Fernando, where the road tends to have those large bumps?
Sheri
February 18, 2017 12:46 pm
If it “never was the theory that dinosaurs made oil”, why did every single school science class teach that???
It was a cheap shot at teachers…
“Those who can’t do, teach. Those who can’t teach become guidance counselors.”
Personally, I don’t recall any of my grade school or high school teachers teaching anything about oil, much less it coming from dinosaurs.
So, I can’t explain why some schools taught this in science classes. Ignorance of the subject matter is the only logical reason I can come up with.
Where did oil come from? We will cover that subject much more thoroughly in the next section, but for now, we need to take a quick look at where it did not come from.
Many people, think that the oil we use today came from dinosaurs of long ago. In fact, that is what was taught in some schools for a long time. People were taught that dinosaurs, either through natural death or some calamity — like an earthquake or landslide — were buried and eventually turned into oil.
There is no doubt that some dinosaurs probably became the source of some oil — but actually very little of it. One of the reasons is simply this: when a dinosaur died, as land dwelling animal, it was exposed to an oxygen rich environment which would lead to rapid decay and prevent the processes necessary to convert something to oil from taking place. Not only that, but dead dinosaurs were food for many scavengers — again preventing the necessary natural processes from converting the animal to oil.
[…] http://www.dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/TAD/education/BGBB/2/mis_formation.html
I have very clear memories of being taught oil came from dinosaurs and so do many people my age (60). We have discussed how the theory was flawed and why. Not sure what school didn’t teach about oil, but mine was one that did.
Ignorance by thousands of teachers. I’m not buying it. This is to me rewriting of history to serve the current theory, just as we see in climate science. Maybe I can find a textbook and prove this. Guess I will have to do so since just like climate science, apparently some fields of science are entirely dependent on complete memory loss by society. It’s really quite terrifying.
It is.
Although this is the first time I have encountered this particular bizarre conspiracy theory. I have encountered idiots who assert that petroleum geologists are intentionally refusing to adopt the abiogenic theory in order to prop up oil prices and I have encountered the truly idiotic conspiracy theory that the oil industry bought and hid the formula to make gasoline out of water. But this is the first time that I have encountered the amazingly idiotic notion that we have rewritten history to get rid of the Dino theory.
Thank you for showing how scientific you are by labeling the rewriting of history as idiotic. I must then assume there was indeed no Little Ice Age, no Midieval Warming period and that all of that was just ignorant people thinking such a period existed. Now that EXPERTS have told us that never existed, we MUST believe. Therefore, I am joining the millions who do not believe in said periods so I won’t have an “idiotic” theory. Thank you for enlightening me. Your endorsement of the accuracy of science is much appreciated.
Yes, before your explanation, that made sense. And is very amusing. YOur explanations are very informative, and your writing style is easy and enjoyable. Thanks for the lesson. If every teacher was as good as you, Johnny would be reading! But then your joke would not be true if you were a teacher.
I am 57. I don’t think any of my science teachers tought that dinosaurs were the source of oil. However it is possible that some of my classmates may believe that they were together this…probably just inaccurate memories.
I guess some grade school and high school teachers must have taught this somewhere. I don’t ever recall being taught this. But, I do recall my 5th grade science teacher explaining the relationship between heat and pressure using piles of blankets as an analogy.
I got my BS from 1976-1980 and we were definitely not taught that oil came from dinosaurs.
Sheri,
Clearly the wide-spread urban legend of oil-from-dinosaurs has some basis in the educational system. However, I can assure you that this has not been part of a petroleum geology curriculum since at least 1976. And I’m 99% certain that it never has been.
Sure, back in the late ’50s I was taught the dinosaurs theory as well. But, by the time I got to college in the early ’60s geologist had discovered organic chemistry and were rewriting one heck of a lot of their theories.
I suppose that there must be a (very) small proportion of oil that originates from marine reptiles like plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs and mosasaurs, but none from dinosaurs, since there never was any marine dinosaurs (birds excepted).
There could be some from dinosaurs. It’s just highly unlikely that they could be transported to the deep oceans without having been eaten my marine reptiles, fish and scavengers and then buried in anoxic sediment before they decomposed.
David: I didn’t say any petroleum geology curriculum ever contained this. I got my BS in 1978 and I don’t remember any of this being taught in chemistry or biology. However, I remember very well being taught this in grade school or thereabouts and I have found many references to the teaching thereof. I am still searching for a copy of a textbook from the 60’s that will show this, since many people now seem to insist this never actually happened. Only a textbook is going to clarify the matter, I guess. I note there are others that do remember this being taught, so I’m not alone in that.
Joe: I realize scientists revise theories all the time. That’s science. I do not object to that—only to people attempting to say a theory “never” existed when people have clear memories of its existence. The theory may have been wrong—or at least superceded by a different theory. That’s fine.
David,
I’m a little older than you, having graduated from high school in 1960. I can assure you and Sheri that oil from dinosaurs was never a part of my curriculum at any point in time. It was always just a metaphor for something that was not known in as much detail as it is now.
Incidentally, a version of the old saw that I prefer is that “Those who can’t do, teach. Those who can’t teach, teach teachers. Those who can’t even teach teachers become politicians.”
Ditto – it’s pretty common in my circle to refer to non-synthetic motor oil as “Dino Blend” but no one actually thinks that. It comes with a wink and a smile. (I’m in my mid-forties.)
Question though – and I have been under this impression – that ancient swamps were the source of much of the vegetable matter that eventually produced oil. It sounds as though I have been mistaken about that. Am I?
” It’s just highly unlikely that they could be transported to the deep oceans without having been eaten my marine reptiles, fish and scavengers and then buried in anoxic sediment before they decomposed.”
Dinosaur carcasses were occasionally carried out to sea and buried in (fairly) deep sea sediments, bur it is very rare. The “Talkeetna dinosaur” from the Wrangelia terrane in Alaska is probably the best known case, but there are others: http://pubs.dggsalaskagov.us/webpubs/dggs/pr/text/pr118.pdf
However, I remember very well being taught this in grade school or thereabouts and I have found many references to the teaching thereof.
I seem to remember the oil dinosaur although don’t recall if it was in any textbook. In 1964 Richard Feynman was invited to review text books on the State Curriculum Commission for the state of California. The results weren’t pretty. http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm
Applying Occam’s razor, I would suggest that the poor quality of text books is a better explanation than geologist changing history.
I wonder if someone told the teachers “much oil came from the AGE of the dinosaurs” and they ran with a misunderstanding of that? My teachers in NZ certainly never said anything about dinosaurs.
I meant that they never said anything about Dinosaurs and *OIL*. Does any reader have (access to) a copy of the “How and Why Wonder Book” about oil? (UK number 6598 according to the Wikipedia catalogue.) I don’t have physical access to the encylopaedia I had as a child (born in 1955), but a recent edition says “Oil and gas formed when organic material (land plants and marine plankton) was laid down in peat swamps, estuaries and shallow seas. Sediments buried this material, preserving it from decay” and I’m pretty sure the edition I used said something similar. Remember when encyclopaedia salesmen were a thing? There must be lots of encyclopaedias from the 50s and 60s that could be checked.
Richard, I still have the 1929 edition of Enc. Britannica that I grew up with (along with 4 other encyclopedias no longer in our hands). Anything you’d like me to look up? (I also have our “new” copy, the Britannica ’62 edition.)
“I wonder if someone told the teachers “much oil came from the AGE of the dinosaurs” and they ran with a misunderstanding of that?”
That was always my understanding when I heard something along those lines.
“Several famous chemists devoted themselves to the study of petroleum, among them Mendeleeff, Sir Boverton Redwood, Lissenko, Engler, Beilstein. They are not yet agreed as to its precise origin. …Engler maintains that it must be due to the liquefaction of animal remains; he has actually exhibited products, exactly similar to those of petroleum, which he had made from animal fats. Another chemist, C.M. Warren, has obtained synthetic oil through distillation of fish and other organic matter.” The Book of Popular Science (Edison Memorial Edition), edited by Dexter S Kimball, LLD, (Cornell University, Dean of the College of Engineering), Vol I: Article ” Life in the great Oil Fields”, p 118. Published by The Grolier Society, New York, in 1924 (the edition from which this is quoted is the 1931 edition).
Sheri, where did you grow up? I am 64, grew up in Ohio and was not taught that dinosaurs ‘made oil’. My daughters are 28 & 30, grew up in Houston and were not taught that dinosaurs ‘made oil’. Sampling bias?
I’ve been a professional Geoscientist for more than 40 years, worked E&P in a super major oil company and agree with everything David has posted. He has, in no way, posted revisionist history on this matter.
I am 62, a professional Geo who grew up in Ohio, and was indeed taught that oil came from dinosaurs. It was however, from a history teacher, who was just there to coach basketball.
Had to kick in. We were taught in grade school by nuns that oil came from buried dinosaurs and vegetative matter. I was always by nature a skeptic (Irish and German) so I always thought that’s a whole lotta dinosaurs.
It is very refreshing to see Mr. Middleton’s review of oil – well written fro us non-professionals – and it prompts me to see why some are pursuing hydrogen cars.Much thanks to a solid exposition by a true professional with a wealth of knowledge.
In Iowa. My husband is from Missouri. Both of us were taught that oil came from dinosaurs. I was very surprised to find that had been changed to krill and plankton. (I would note that this was remembered in part because both of us thought it was a problematic theory and questioned it. That was a no-no and there were consequences.)
Again, I have to find a text because people simply do not believe that this was done. I can find many, many references on the internet, but a hard copy of a school text is harder to come by.
As for the old encyclopedias, that may be difficult in this digital age. LIbrary book sales couldn’t even unload them. Paper and ink are fast becoming dinosaurs themselves.
In one respect it is common sense dinosaurs did not make oil. What happens when something dies? The carcass is quickly devoured by other animals, or maggots do the job. Decomposition happens quickly.
worms and microbes are going to digest organic material on the ocean bottom, even if buried in mud. maybe oil comes from worm turds, sort of like spice on Arrakis.
Not my school. I think this is more a TV Cartoon idea than anything else. I had a Earth Sciences teacher who asserted that most crude oil was formed from the accumulation of dead forams on the sea floor, but there is a lot more to it than just that. Plate subduction over eons of time shoves the (foram & organics laden) deep ocean floor sediments down into the upper mantle. It is my understanding that this is where the ‘cooking’ at high pressures and high temperatures takes place. As David said, the factor of time is seldom referred to in many of these discussions.
One thing I am curious about with reference to Thomas Gold: In “Deep Hot Biosphere” he suggests that Gas, Oil, and Coal are often found superposed vertically. In some places this is true, but I suspect some of these findings may be merely coincidental and not the general case.
Sheri, I was taught an enormous amount of ahistorical and just plain wrong nonsense in public (and to some extent private) schools. And so were you. I learned early on to distrust pat pronouncements from legally mandated babysitters.
I think the larger part of the error here is assuming that any of these errors were made at a “higher level” than a schoolteacher or a textbook editor. Or TV scriptwriter, just as likely.
Standup Philosopher
February 18, 2017 12:56 pm
What are the organic markers in the oil that show it was originally, you know, organic?
I used to analyze biomarkers in crude and source rock for a major oil company. In the thousands of samples I analyzed I never saw a sample that did not contain them. From that I would conclude that most or all crude oil is either of biological origin, or abiotic oil at some point has been contaminated biologically.
Biomarkers are the smallest fossils. They are fossil long chain molecules. For example, the presence of oleanane indicate the source was from younger flowering plants. Oleanane is present in modern waxy plants such as the lilypads which clog tropical rivers and flush out into the delta each rainy season. You can find the fossil oleanane molecules in oils sourced from many rocks deposited in such an environment, but you will not see it in older rocks which predated the evolution of higher plants. https://labs.weatherford.com/oiltracers/geochemistry-for-exploration/oil-biomarkers-in-exploration
I have a friend working on some remarkably young fields in Azerbaijan. They are producing from Pleistocene sediments below 10,000 feet. It is rare to pile up sufficient sedimentary column for thermal maturity that fast.
No simple answer. The catagenic reaction rate depends on how much water is also present. Water slows things down. One of the youngest US oildfields is California’s shallow Kern River, emplaced ~4mya and sourced from the underlying Monterey shale about 2500 meters down, itself only formed ~ 15mya. So a few million years. Blink of a geological eye.
Firstly, Professor McDonald should stick to economics.
Secondly, the “oil-rich” rocks of Campeche probably weren’t oil-rich in the Cretaceous. So, I doubt the Chicxulub impact required a hydrocarbon assist, particularly since the Deccan Traps super-eruptions probably doomed Dino before the impact.
Thirdly, these dinosaurs are made from oil…
The mass extinction of life 66 million years ago at the Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary, marked by the extinctions of dinosaurs and shallow marine organisms, is important because it led to the macroevolution of mammals and appearance of humans. The current hypothesis for the extinction is that an asteroid impact in present-day Mexico formed condensed aerosols in the stratosphere, which caused the cessation of photosynthesis and global near-freezing conditions. Here, we show that the stratospheric aerosols did not induce darkness that resulted in milder cooling than previously thought. We propose a new hypothesis that latitude-dependent climate changes caused by massive stratospheric soot explain the known mortality and survival on land and in oceans at the Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary. The stratospheric soot was ejected from the oil-rich area by the asteroid impact and was spread globally. The soot aerosols caused sufficiently colder climates at mid–high latitudes and drought with milder cooling at low latitudes on land, in addition to causing limited cessation of photosynthesis in global oceans within a few months to two years after the impact, followed by surface-water cooling in global oceans in a few years. The rapid climate change induced terrestrial extinctions followed by marine extinctions over several years.
Although the Deccan Traps may have already doomed the dinosaurs before the impact…
Deccan Traps Volcanism May Have Contributed to Dinosaur Extinction
Dec 15, 2014
A massive volcanic eruption in what is now India about 250,000 years before the cataclysmic Chicxulub asteroid impact may have played a role in the extinction of dinosaurs, say scientists who have dated rocks from the Deccan Traps, east of Mumbai.
[…] http://www.sci-news.com/geology/science-deccan-traps-volcanism-dinosaur-extinction-02345.html
As a matter of fact it is the impact layer from Chicxulub that forms the seal over the oil in the Cantarell oilfield, in Yucatan so it most definitely didn’t exist before the impact.
The Chicxulub crater was actually discovered by Pemex, IIRC.
sexton16
February 18, 2017 1:19 pm
Brilliant explanation.Thank you.
tony mcleod
February 18, 2017 1:41 pm
David, very interesting dissection. What, in your opinion, is the psychology behind the need to invent an abiotic origin? Is it merely misguided peak-oilism?
I find both sides to be zealots. I think the Abiogenic Oilers think that the adoption of this hypothesis would suddenly create a limitless supply of cheap oil. While many of the Peak Oilers seem to think that the acceptance of Peak Oil will suddenly force us to adopt alternative energy.
I am a ‘weak’ peak oiler. It won’t be abrupt, and has little to do with alternative energy schemes. But it will take decades to adjust to and has the potential for serious societal disruption. By maybe 2040 the shoe really starts to pinch if my estimates are halfway decent, with a shallow peak ~2023-2025. The only real problem is liquid transportation fuels. Biofuels are insufficient in quantity to sufficiently substitute, EV’s arent there in range and cost, and you cannot electrify most ships, ag and construction machinery, heavy trucks, or airplanes. Wrote a scenario about this as the last chapter in Gaia’s Limits. There are several obvious partial solutions with sufficient lead time. But waiting til post peak to start with a strongly rising price signal (World Bank modeling says $200/bbl) means a very short adaptation runway. 15 years isn’t a lot of adaptation time when the vehicle fleet average age is 10 years.
Rud,
Peak oil is a real thing. At some point we will have consumed half of the total recoverable resource. So, you can count me as a luke warmer, weak peak oiler… 😉
DM, we agree to agree. Your post was terrific. BTW, my grandfather was an early petroleum geologist who among other things helped develop Kern River and Williston Basin conventional. My sister still gets residual royalties from both.
David, while you have elevated yourself into the reference point of schooling and now even the thoughts of others, care to clarify the origins of the term ‘fossil fuel’?
Yeah. I’m a weak peak oiler. Oil will cease to be commercially viable at some point: that its not already is down to improving extraction techniques and the artificially high price of nuclear power.
At some point synthetic fuels d will be as cheap as drilled/mined fuels, and that will be peak oil.
David, we ARE running out of places to look for oil. Therefore decision makers do need to take into account this fact. This is extremely important for energy security, because the bulk of remaining reserves are located in OPEC nations and Russia. The extra heavy oil in Canada and Venezuela requires high prices, and Venezuela is a narcostate ruled by a nutty communist with tangible help from the Castro Mafia and “moral support” from the extreme left in USA, Latinamerica and Europe.
This means we do need to figure out a way out of a looming crisis. Also, this problem has to be treated considering what happens in poor countries. An energy crisis triggered by oil scarcity will drive nations like Pakistan, Mexico, and Egypt into highly unstable states. And we really don’t need that.
Sheri,
A skeptic that is not skeptical is an oxymoron. A warmist that is not skeptical is a moron.
Joe Crawford
February 18, 2017 1:43 pm
Thanks for the excellent overview. I wish I’d had it 35 to 40 years ago while working on a geophysical imaging research project. The geologist we had at the time, hell-of-a nice guy, seemed to know his business but couldn’t explain his way out of a paper bag.
The first GPS I bought didn’t have any map data in it. It was basically a GPS-guided pace and compass traverse. I spent many hours making traverse maps with it.
While at Mot late 1990’s , my guys worked for years on the first hand held GPS units. Given the then microprocessor clock rstes, a minor miracle they could get GPS to work at all. Now, we take unbelievale precision for granted in smartphones with more procesding capability than main frame computers of that mid 1990’s era.
Excellent post! Very informative. Thanks!
I have worked in the Permian Basin for the last 16+yrs. In all that time I can say that not once has the abiotic theory ever come up in any discussion. IIRC the abiotic theory did come up in my course work when I was in school. It was in the “wacky ideas” section.
The Permian Basin is the only place I’ve been (up near Andrews) where at night you can see the street lights on a highway overpass 20 miles away. I guess pumping all that oil actually leveled it… :<)
On balance I believe in the existence of abiotic oil.
However, I don’t believe in the existence of economically extractable abiotic oil. There’s no reason for abiotic oil to be where it can be extracted from.
And there’s no reason to look everywhere on the off chance that it will be there. That costs too much anyway.
Pharos
February 18, 2017 1:59 pm
I am a retired petroleum geologist, and I want to congratulate the author for a truly excellent summary on the sedimentary habitat of oil and gas.
Don K
February 18, 2017 1:59 pm
Excellent. Nothing significant to argue with. A couple of nitpicks.
1. You didn’t address oil shales. I think the petroleum in formations like the Marcellus and Utica is probably indigenous, not migrated. My understanding is that the porosity of the unfracked Utica is about zero. And in many areas the Utica contains numerous periodic thin carbonate intervals that are probably even less permeable.
2. I have no doubt about your point that we are using petroleum far faster than nature is producing it. But you might add coal to the list of petroleum source rocks. Coal To Liquid is a bit pricey compared to current petroleum pricing. But it certainly works. The South Africans have been doing it for decades. OTOH, if we used coal to produce liquid fuels for the transportation of 7 billion or so people, there’s little doubt we’d be burning through it way faster than it’s being created also.
Coal isn’t a source rock. We can take coal, old furniture, sticks, and dead horses, feed them to a high pressure high temperature vessel, burn it to make carbon monoxide, feed steam, and push that mess through a catalyst bed and get crude oil. It takes about $100 per barrel sale price and/or a very friendly government.
Predecessor to coal is in fact a source rock in special situations. Norway’s western offshore Haltebanken is a specific example. Not the usual, granted.
I would say shale is the most common caprock in the world… Of course my world mostly consists of the Central Gulf of Mexico.
William Astley
February 18, 2017 2:05 pm
There are two theories to explain how water and hydrocarbons came onto the earth: the late veneer theory and the deep CH4 theory.
Roughly 100 million years after the earth was formed a Mars sized object struck the earth. That event formed the moon and stripped the mantel of light elements. There are two theories to explain why there are light elements on now on the earth’s surface. The late veneer theory hypothesis: Comets struck the early earth after the big splat event covering the very hot earth with hydrocarbons. The late veneer hypothesis requires that the earth had a Venus like atmosphere (atmospheric pressure of say 60 atmospheres) for the early earth, except with methane.
There are multiple problems with the later veneer hypothesis (See Thomas Gold’s Book Deep Hot Biosphere for details. One of the key problems is the observation that the percentage of heavy gaseous elements in the earth’s current atmosphere does not match that of comets (Comets are residues of the early solar systems.
The comet elemental composition does match that of the sun). The late veneer theory’s explanation for the miss match of isotopes in the earth’s atmosphere to that of comets is that the early solar system had a close encounter with another solar system which temporary provided a limited source of comets to cover the earth but not significantly change the element composition of the sun.
The second hypothesis is the deep earth hydrocarbon theory. This theory hypothesizes that massive amounts of hydrocarbons (5% of the total core mass) are located in the earth’s core. As the core cools these hydrocarbon (CH4) are released. At very high pressures the CH4 forms longer chain molecules.
The release of CH4 is still occurring as the upper surface of the ocean is saturated with CH4 which indicates that CH4 is being released from some source.
The deep earth CH4 provides the force, the deep earth core extruded CH4 is pushed by the enormous core pressure to drive tectonic plate movement. As the deep earth CH4 moves through the earth’s crust it picks ups heavy metals in solution. At specific pressures portions of the heavy metals are released which explains why there are super concentration of heavy metals (million times concentrated in the crust).
Massive concentrations of heavy metals in the crust require a fluid which dissolves the metals at high pressure and a force that moves that liquid through the earth’s crust.
This movement of the liquid CH4 through the crust explains why there is heavy metals in crude oil and why geological separate regions (from the standpoint of the fossil theory that has no mechanism to move the oil about) have the same characteristic amounts of heavy metals. i.e. the liquid CH4 that forms the oil moves feeds geologically separate regions.
It should be noted that what drives plate tectonics is an unsolved problem. The deep earth CH4 hypothesis proves the force to drive plate tectonics.
The earth’s core started to solidify roughly a 1 billion years ago. At that time, there would be a large increase in CH4 pushed to the surface which explains why there was a dramatic increase in life at that time. The CH4 raises the continents above the shallow oceans, there is a great deal of CO2 for plants to eat to create the sudden increase in O2 for animal life, and so on. http://www.newgeology.us/Plate%20Tectonics.pdf
Plate Tectonics: too weak to build mountains
For this discussion, the assumptions and ideas of plate tectonics are used unchallenged to show their internal problems regarding mountain building (orogeny). Quotes are from professional journals.
What drives the plates?
Study of the motions of plates is called kinematics, while study of the driving forces is called dynamics. “A key to the simplicity of plate tectonics is that the strength of lithospheric plates enables the analysis of their kinematics to be isolated and treated separately from the dynamic processes controlling plate motions; relative velocities of plates can be analysed without reference to the forces that give rise to them”34.
Around the end of the first decade of dominance by plate tectonics, in 1975, the situation was described this way: “In recent years, the kinematics of continental drift and sea-floor spreading have been successfully described by the theory of plate tectonics. However, rather little is known about the driving mechanisms of plate tectonics, although various types of forces have been suggested”14. Seven years later, in 1982, the assessment was: “At the present time the geometry of plate movements is largely understood, but the driving mechanism of plate tectonics remains elusive”3.
By 1995 we find that: “In spite of all the mysteries this picture of moving tectonic plates has solved, it has a central, unsolved mystery of its own: What drives the plates in the first place? ‘[That] has got to be one of the more fundamental problems in plate tectonics,’ notes geodynamicist Richard O’Connell of Harvard University. ‘It’s interesting it has stayed around so long’ “25. In 2002 it could be said that: “Although the concept of plates moving on Earth’s surface is universally accepted, it is less clear which forces cause that motion. Understanding the mechanism of plate tectonics is one of the most important problems in the geosciences”8. A 2004 paper noted that “considerable debate remains about the driving forces of the tectonic plates and their relative contribution”40.
“Alfred Wegener’s theory of continental drift died in 1926, primarily because no one could suggest an acceptable driving mechanism. In an ironical twist, continental drift (now generalized to plate tectonics) is almost universally accepted, but we still do not understand the driving mechanism in anything other than the most general terms”2.
The problem has always been that it is hard to discern what is going on deep in the Earth, motion is almost imperceptably slow, and different combinations of forces, perhaps varying over time, could apply to particular areas. “When the concepts of convection and plate tectonics were first developing, many thought of mantle convection as a process heated from below, which in turn exerts driving tractions on the base of a relatively stagnant ‘crust’ (later, ‘lithosphere’) to cause continental drift. In the early 1970s, more sophisticated understanding of convection led to the opposite view. It was realized that only a fraction of the Earth’s heat flow originates in the core, while most results from radioactivity and/or secular cooling of the mantle.
Computer models showed that internally heated (and/or surface cooled) systems have no upwelling sheets or plumes and that all concentrated flow originates in the upper cold boundary layer, which stirs the interior as it sinks. Thus it became natural to regard plates of lithosphere as driving themselves and, incidentally, stirring the rest of the mantle”5. Some researchers make the point emphatically: “convection does not drive plates.” Upper mantle convection is a product, not a cause, of plate motions20. Thus the location and orientation of a sinking slab is the best indicator of which way upper mantle flows.
Methane-derived hydrocarbons produced under upper-mantle conditions
Anton Kolesnikov1,2, Vladimir G. Kutcherov2,3 & Alexander F. Goncharov1
There is widespread evidence that petroleum originates from biological processes1, 2, 3. Whether hydrocarbons can also be produced from abiogenic precursor molecules under the high-pressure, high-temperature conditions characteristic of the upper mantle remains an open question. It has been proposed that hydrocarbons generated in the upper mantle could be transported through deep faults to shallower regions in the Earth’s crust, and contribute to petroleum reserves4, 5. Here we use in situ Raman spectroscopy in laser-heated diamond anvil cells to monitor the chemical reactivity of methane and ethane under upper-mantle conditions. We show that when methane is exposed to pressures higher than 2 GPa, and to temperatures in the range of 1,000–1,500 K, it partially reacts to form saturated hydrocarbons containing 2–4 carbons (ethane, propane and butane) and molecular hydrogen and graphite. Conversely, exposure of ethane to similar conditions results in the production of methane, suggesting that the synthesis of saturated hydrocarbons is reversible. Our results support the suggestion that hydrocarbons heavier than methane can be produced by abiogenic processes in the upper mantle.
Bob Limbach
February 18, 2017 2:13 pm
An excellent summary understandable even to those of us without degrees in the sciences. Regardless of how much petroleum yet exists underground, whether known or unknown, the EROI is the only thing that matters, correct? I recall reading a summary of the historical decline of EROI from approximately 75:1 to in some cases 5:1 for fracked oil. In essence “Peak Oil” is more about the inability to economically produce petroleum products in increasing amounts leading to a permanent slide in prosperity for as long as we depend on these products for the bulk of our energy. Even new discoveries will be irrelevant if the EROI ratio is low. If my memory is correct I recall a 25:1 EROI ratio or so is necessary to maintain continued growth in economic output. EROI less than 10:1 cannot support meaningful economic growth absent massive debt creation which has kicked the can down the road the last 15 plus years. 10:1 EROI sounds great until you factor in transportation, refining costs, distribution costs etc. I am interested if it is realistic to hope for huge leaps in technology and innovation to economically produce future hard to develop reserves?
The EROI method can be flawed, because we can use natural gas, hydropower, nuclear power, or coal generated power to produce the oil. This means we take energy from those sources and use it to make oil which makes kerosene, gasoline and diesel. I prefer to stick to the actual cost to produce the crude, which has been climbing as we have to develop lousier reservoirs.
Let me give you an example: we use natural gas to heat produced fluids to separate oil and water. We also generate electricity using natural gas. But in some cases the electricity comes from hydro and nuclear. In Argentina some fields are pumped using a mix of wind power and natural gas turbine generated electricity. In Venezuela some fields used to draw electricity from the giant Guri dam project. What counts in the end is the cost of the inputs. So as oil prices increase (as they surely will), we will be able to pay for the needed energy input. However, we will demand more and more energy as fields age. And this drives up costs.
Eric
February 18, 2017 2:19 pm
Interesting article. I read Thomas Gold’s book “The Deep Hot Biosphere” from cover to cover. I also found Wikipedia’s article of value: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
I don’t think your article actually rebuts the Abiotic hypothesis. Gold’s hypothesis revolves around evidence that oil originates below the locations where it is found, or using his words, below the “crystalline basement that underlies the sediment”. You seem to agree with him. For example you write: “Even the oil that’s trapped in fractured granites and other basement rocks, had to migrate through and be trapped by sedimentary rocks.”
He assumes there is no deeper sedimentary layer under the basement, and uses this to justify that the oil must originate by some other means. Whereas you say there is a deeper sedimentary layer below the basement, where the oil originates.
So what is the evidence for oil bearing sedimentary layers below the basement? You don’t present any in this article.
Thanks.
I clearly did not rebut Gold’s hypothesis because it is irrelevant. I even stipulated that it was possible.
If Gold “assumes there is no deeper sedimentary layer under the basement, and uses this to justify that the oil must originate by some other means,” he is clueless as to the generally accepted theory of hydrocarbon formation.
There is no need for “oil bearing sedimentary layers below the basement;” nor is this bizarre notion part of the theory.
Mr. Middleton,
Having attended a number of Thomas Gold’s lectures when I was a student and later having briefly discussed the Abiogenic theory with him after one of his lectures at the Royal Institution, I was a disciple. Your comprehensive but open-minded exposure has changed my opinion. Thank you.
What’s the evidence for anybody ever making money producing oil using Gold’s ideas?
Keith J
February 18, 2017 2:22 pm
Well done! One of the impediments to understanding of many geologic processes is how water behaves at high pressures and temperatures. This is why gold is found in quartz. The two dissolve in supercritical water.
Thank you! Old chemistry trained greybeard granddad here and many don’t get how fast things can go, chemically, when the necessary conditions are present. One of the projects I worked on in the 70s was ‘biogenic’ oil from pyrolysis. Fisher-Tropsch is a pyrolytic process at relatively low temperatures and pressures.
mellyrn
February 18, 2017 2:34 pm
Very interesting articles, this one and Andy May’s. I have a question:
Years ago I was informed(?) that in the early 20thc century, the oil EROEI — “energy return on energy invested” — was on the order of 50:1. That is, the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil yielded, for society’s use, 50 (if not more) barrels of oil worth of energy. By ~2000, this had fallen to 4:1 — one barrel’s worth of effort yielded only 4 barrels of usable energy.
My source’s concern was that, if the ratio ever fell to 1:1, that would be true “peak oil”. We could have an infinite reserve but, if one barrel’s worth of effort only produced one barrel of result, why bother?
His logic is impeccable; the real world tends to be rather messier, however. I am wondering what the current EROEI might be and, especially, what the trend is, if anyone can say.
My 2¢ on EROEI… EROEI
It doesn’t matter how much energy it takes to extract, refine and transport fossil fuels. EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) is even dopier than AGW. I don’t spend energy to fill my tank. I don’t give energy back to the gas & electric companies in exchange for them being nice enough to heat and light my home. My company doesn’t drill for oil & gas to make energy.
I spend money to fill my tank. My company drills wells for oil & gas to make money. My gas & electric bills are paid for with money. My pay check, ExxonMobil & Shell credit card statements and checks to the gas & electric companies aren’t denominated in joules, kilowatts or btu – They are denominated in $.
I don’t give a rat’s @ur momisugly$$ if 1 barrel of amoeba farts uses less energy to produce than 1 barrel of crude oil… Because the barrel of amoeba farts costs $1,100 and can’t be produced in sufficient quantities to be waiting for me at the Exxon or Shell station when I need it.
If oil companies (or any businesses) used EROEI to guide their investment decisions, they would go out of business (unless the gov’t was footing the bill).
And, for that matter, most fossil fuels actually have better EROEI than most alternative sources do.
Oil, natural gas and coal are concentrated biofuels. They represent thousands to millions of years of condensed solar energy.
It’s effectively the same as tapping natural gas out of the pipeline to run the compressor station. There are losses in the process.
Poor biodiesel. Guess I gotta go eat more grilled sausage and pasta so there’ll be more cooking oil to convert.
On second thought if I eat more grilled sausage and pasta, I’ll be driving to the gym more often…and they’ll have to keep the lights on and the equipment powered, and I don’t think the energy I expend on the treadmill and weights actually gets captured and fed back into someone’s Tesla, so…
Not interested in “alternative” energy.
“Oil, natural gas and coal are concentrated biofuels. They represent thousands to millions of years of condensed solar energy.”
Yes. And in order to put gas in my gas tank I must use a ?few days? of condensed solar energy in the form of the fats and sugar in my body, that I got from the sausages and beans I’ve eaten, that were processed (either by someone hand-stuffing the sausage casings or by an electric sausage-stuffing machine run on electricity from a power plant, to say nothing of the pig-feed sown, harvested, and transported with energy), then delivered by gas-powered vehicles to a convenient place which I also needed energy to get to (and from). The money I use to buy the gas did not come from the money fairy but by my exchange of my time and — oops — energy to my employer for that money.
Before petroleum, society was much smaller and ran much more slowly. It is the injection of that “millions of years of condensed solar energy” into society that has allowed the spread and speed we have today. I’m not complaining.
I’m wondering: the oil is not bestowed, in the tanks and ready to go, by the oil fairy. We have to do some amount of work, expend some amount of energy, to get the oil out where we can use it.
It used to be easier: oil seeped out in many places; just go scoop some up. Then we had to pump it — that costs more energy than just scooping it up. Now we have to process the hell out of shale to get enough.
If you can’t tell that some energy must be burned in order to get at this energy source, and that the energy used does not have a fixed relationship to the energy retrieved, you are unlikely to be of help in this matter.
David,
you really need to sneak ameoba farts into that graph … maybe just above solar.
AP
February 18, 2017 2:48 pm
David, if all oil is of marine origin, how do you explain the kerosine that is often found in coal measure rocks?
Also, where does the pollen found in oil come from? Is it exclusively wind-borne?
All oil is not of marine origin. Some is of lacustrine origin.
Coal oil and kerosene are similar; but not the same thing.
I’ve never heard of pollen in crude oil
“I’ve never heard of pollen in crude oil”
Me either, but I suppose it could happen. I do think there are fossil pollen grains associated with Green River formation kerogens in some beds.
It probably does happen. The little bits of terrigenous plant matter used for vitrinite reflectance were washed into the oceans by rivers and streams. Pollen grains were probably deposited in a similar manner. I’ve just never seen any references to it.
Coal is often a source rock, though more often for gas than oil. Coals usually have too low of a hydrogen index to be an oil source, though some of the coals in SE Asia are oil source rocks. They tend to be from a form of coal referred to as alginite coal, with origins more from laccustrine algal mats than woody plants.
Just to back up Sheri’s memory on the dinosaurs thing, in my around-1980 Canadian high school classes I absolutely did read oil came from dinosaurs in my science textbooks, and it was also definitely accepted convention in science for kids publications like _National Geographic World_ magazine in the mid-70’s, along with stories about The Ice Age Coming Back (40 years later I can still picture this one two-page spread of cavemen leading mammoths in front of an advancing ice sheet. Scary stuff to a kid living in a place where you can look at the scars that last ice sheet left). Never had any particular reason to look into it deeper until this article came along, so I tended to assume that oil formation theories were as well supported by the evidence as the plant-food-will-kill-the-planet theories. This article increases my confidence greatly that geologists can be considered actual scientsts 🙂
The circumstantial evidence is that oil has an organic signal, which gives rise to a popular hypothesis of its unique origin, which may actually be caused through contamination.
As for what is known about oil with certainty, is that it is a finitely available and accessible resource, which does not remark on its origins or chaotic distribution.
For the sake of argument…
Let’s assume that the biochemical markers in oil were leached out of organic rich shale as the oil migrated from the mantle to geologic traps in sedimentary rocks…
How would this alter oil exploration and production?
How would this alter oil exploration and production?
================
could the method by which oil forms could affect the vertical distribution of deposits? I would think that organic oil would favor shallower deposits, while abiotic would favor deeper deposits. Taking into consideration the need for a barrier to prevent the oil from simply working its way to the surface and being consumed for energy by microorganisms.
No. Wrong at every conceivable level.
I’m not sure I’ve got the right name in my question above: I mean the bituminous like stuff seeping up in places like Trinidad.
Natural asphalt is essentially “overcooked” oil. Crude oil generally contains asphaltics.
The Trinidad asphalt deposits comes from seeps. The oil comes from below, as it approaches the surface the light hydrocarbons evaporate or get eaten by bacteria (Trinidad crudes are waxy coming out of the source rock, but as they arrive at say 6000 feet the wax is mostly gone, leaving a medium to heavy crude). As the crude seeps it just loses the good stuff. I assume you mean the Tar lake over by Point Lisas and San Fernando, where the road tends to have those large bumps?
If it “never was the theory that dinosaurs made oil”, why did every single school science class teach that???
For the same reason the teachers became teachers.
Your reply makes no sense. Please expound upon this. (I’m skeptical.)
It was a cheap shot at teachers…
“Those who can’t do, teach. Those who can’t teach become guidance counselors.”
Personally, I don’t recall any of my grade school or high school teachers teaching anything about oil, much less it coming from dinosaurs.
So, I can’t explain why some schools taught this in science classes. Ignorance of the subject matter is the only logical reason I can come up with.
I have very clear memories of being taught oil came from dinosaurs and so do many people my age (60). We have discussed how the theory was flawed and why. Not sure what school didn’t teach about oil, but mine was one that did.
Ignorance by thousands of teachers. I’m not buying it. This is to me rewriting of history to serve the current theory, just as we see in climate science. Maybe I can find a textbook and prove this. Guess I will have to do so since just like climate science, apparently some fields of science are entirely dependent on complete memory loss by society. It’s really quite terrifying.
I think it’s a riff on “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach”
It is.
Although this is the first time I have encountered this particular bizarre conspiracy theory. I have encountered idiots who assert that petroleum geologists are intentionally refusing to adopt the abiogenic theory in order to prop up oil prices and I have encountered the truly idiotic conspiracy theory that the oil industry bought and hid the formula to make gasoline out of water. But this is the first time that I have encountered the amazingly idiotic notion that we have rewritten history to get rid of the Dino theory.
Thank you for showing how scientific you are by labeling the rewriting of history as idiotic. I must then assume there was indeed no Little Ice Age, no Midieval Warming period and that all of that was just ignorant people thinking such a period existed. Now that EXPERTS have told us that never existed, we MUST believe. Therefore, I am joining the millions who do not believe in said periods so I won’t have an “idiotic” theory. Thank you for enlightening me. Your endorsement of the accuracy of science is much appreciated.
The original version is actually:
“Those who can, do, those who can’t, teach, those who can’t teach, administrate”
its all an offshoot of the “fossil fuel” stuff we were taught in the 70’s in grade school.
–My wife and I run across this issue as we review our grade-school kids’ homework.
Yes, before your explanation, that made sense. And is very amusing. YOur explanations are very informative, and your writing style is easy and enjoyable. Thanks for the lesson. If every teacher was as good as you, Johnny would be reading! But then your joke would not be true if you were a teacher.
I lack the patience to be a teacher… And couldn’t afford the pay cut… 😉
I am 57. I don’t think any of my science teachers tought that dinosaurs were the source of oil. However it is possible that some of my classmates may believe that they were together this…probably just inaccurate memories.
“Taught” not “together.” Auto correct strikes again.
I always understood it as a joke, like storks bringing babies. Does anyone seriously teach that?
I guess some grade school and high school teachers must have taught this somewhere. I don’t ever recall being taught this. But, I do recall my 5th grade science teacher explaining the relationship between heat and pressure using piles of blankets as an analogy.
I got my BS from 1976-1980 and we were definitely not taught that oil came from dinosaurs.
Yes, seriously they did. Millions of people learned it.
Sheri,
Clearly the wide-spread urban legend of oil-from-dinosaurs has some basis in the educational system. However, I can assure you that this has not been part of a petroleum geology curriculum since at least 1976. And I’m 99% certain that it never has been.
Sure, back in the late ’50s I was taught the dinosaurs theory as well. But, by the time I got to college in the early ’60s geologist had discovered organic chemistry and were rewriting one heck of a lot of their theories.
I suppose that there must be a (very) small proportion of oil that originates from marine reptiles like plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs and mosasaurs, but none from dinosaurs, since there never was any marine dinosaurs (birds excepted).
There could be some from dinosaurs. It’s just highly unlikely that they could be transported to the deep oceans without having been eaten my marine reptiles, fish and scavengers and then buried in anoxic sediment before they decomposed.
I’ll have to see if I can dig up a 1st Edition of Levorsen (1956)
https://www.amazon.com/Geology-Petroleum-I-Levorsen/dp/B000H4RFY8
David: I didn’t say any petroleum geology curriculum ever contained this. I got my BS in 1978 and I don’t remember any of this being taught in chemistry or biology. However, I remember very well being taught this in grade school or thereabouts and I have found many references to the teaching thereof. I am still searching for a copy of a textbook from the 60’s that will show this, since many people now seem to insist this never actually happened. Only a textbook is going to clarify the matter, I guess. I note there are others that do remember this being taught, so I’m not alone in that.
Joe: I realize scientists revise theories all the time. That’s science. I do not object to that—only to people attempting to say a theory “never” existed when people have clear memories of its existence. The theory may have been wrong—or at least superceded by a different theory. That’s fine.
David,
I’m a little older than you, having graduated from high school in 1960. I can assure you and Sheri that oil from dinosaurs was never a part of my curriculum at any point in time. It was always just a metaphor for something that was not known in as much detail as it is now.
Incidentally, a version of the old saw that I prefer is that “Those who can’t do, teach. Those who can’t teach, teach teachers. Those who can’t even teach teachers become politicians.”
Ditto – it’s pretty common in my circle to refer to non-synthetic motor oil as “Dino Blend” but no one actually thinks that. It comes with a wink and a smile. (I’m in my mid-forties.)
Question though – and I have been under this impression – that ancient swamps were the source of much of the vegetable matter that eventually produced oil. It sounds as though I have been mistaken about that. Am I?
” It’s just highly unlikely that they could be transported to the deep oceans without having been eaten my marine reptiles, fish and scavengers and then buried in anoxic sediment before they decomposed.”
Dinosaur carcasses were occasionally carried out to sea and buried in (fairly) deep sea sediments, bur it is very rare. The “Talkeetna dinosaur” from the Wrangelia terrane in Alaska is probably the best known case, but there are others:
http://pubs.dggsalaskagov.us/webpubs/dggs/pr/text/pr118.pdf
I seem to remember the oil dinosaur although don’t recall if it was in any textbook. In 1964 Richard Feynman was invited to review text books on the State Curriculum Commission for the state of California. The results weren’t pretty.
http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm
Applying Occam’s razor, I would suggest that the poor quality of text books is a better explanation than geologist changing history.
I wonder if someone told the teachers “much oil came from the AGE of the dinosaurs” and they ran with a misunderstanding of that? My teachers in NZ certainly never said anything about dinosaurs.
I meant that they never said anything about Dinosaurs and *OIL*. Does any reader have (access to) a copy of the “How and Why Wonder Book” about oil? (UK number 6598 according to the Wikipedia catalogue.) I don’t have physical access to the encylopaedia I had as a child (born in 1955), but a recent edition says “Oil and gas formed when organic material (land plants and marine plankton) was laid down in peat swamps, estuaries and shallow seas. Sediments buried this material, preserving it from decay” and I’m pretty sure the edition I used said something similar. Remember when encyclopaedia salesmen were a thing? There must be lots of encyclopaedias from the 50s and 60s that could be checked.
Richard, I still have the 1929 edition of Enc. Britannica that I grew up with (along with 4 other encyclopedias no longer in our hands). Anything you’d like me to look up? (I also have our “new” copy, the Britannica ’62 edition.)
“I wonder if someone told the teachers “much oil came from the AGE of the dinosaurs” and they ran with a misunderstanding of that?”
That was always my understanding when I heard something along those lines.
“Several famous chemists devoted themselves to the study of petroleum, among them Mendeleeff, Sir Boverton Redwood, Lissenko, Engler, Beilstein. They are not yet agreed as to its precise origin. …Engler maintains that it must be due to the liquefaction of animal remains; he has actually exhibited products, exactly similar to those of petroleum, which he had made from animal fats. Another chemist, C.M. Warren, has obtained synthetic oil through distillation of fish and other organic matter.” The Book of Popular Science (Edison Memorial Edition), edited by Dexter S Kimball, LLD, (Cornell University, Dean of the College of Engineering), Vol I: Article ” Life in the great Oil Fields”, p 118. Published by The Grolier Society, New York, in 1924 (the edition from which this is quoted is the 1931 edition).
Sheri, where did you grow up? I am 64, grew up in Ohio and was not taught that dinosaurs ‘made oil’. My daughters are 28 & 30, grew up in Houston and were not taught that dinosaurs ‘made oil’. Sampling bias?
I’ve been a professional Geoscientist for more than 40 years, worked E&P in a super major oil company and agree with everything David has posted. He has, in no way, posted revisionist history on this matter.
I am 62, a professional Geo who grew up in Ohio, and was indeed taught that oil came from dinosaurs. It was however, from a history teacher, who was just there to coach basketball.
Funny, Doug… 😉
Those that can, do. Those that can’t , teach. Those that can’t teach, coach.
Had to kick in. We were taught in grade school by nuns that oil came from buried dinosaurs and vegetative matter. I was always by nature a skeptic (Irish and German) so I always thought that’s a whole lotta dinosaurs.
It is very refreshing to see Mr. Middleton’s review of oil – well written fro us non-professionals – and it prompts me to see why some are pursuing hydrogen cars.Much thanks to a solid exposition by a true professional with a wealth of knowledge.
In Iowa. My husband is from Missouri. Both of us were taught that oil came from dinosaurs. I was very surprised to find that had been changed to krill and plankton. (I would note that this was remembered in part because both of us thought it was a problematic theory and questioned it. That was a no-no and there were consequences.)
Again, I have to find a text because people simply do not believe that this was done. I can find many, many references on the internet, but a hard copy of a school text is harder to come by.
As for the old encyclopedias, that may be difficult in this digital age. LIbrary book sales couldn’t even unload them. Paper and ink are fast becoming dinosaurs themselves.
In one respect it is common sense dinosaurs did not make oil. What happens when something dies? The carcass is quickly devoured by other animals, or maggots do the job. Decomposition happens quickly.
worms and microbes are going to digest organic material on the ocean bottom, even if buried in mud. maybe oil comes from worm turds, sort of like spice on Arrakis.
That’s part of the process of creating anoxic conditions.
Never heard of anyone teaching that. Certainly I wasn’t taught that. Of course, I went to school in Australia.
Links on the subject:
http://www.dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/TAD/education/BGBB/2/mis_formation.html
Department of Natural Resources, LA
http://www.starsatnight.org/blog/educational-blog/chemically-speaking-the-elements/
“We are located at the campus of Central Texas College in Killeen, Texas.”
http://www.boone.kyschools.us/olc/blogComments.aspx?id=32551&s=13
https://blogs.ksbe.edu/lenelson/2015/11/16/pedal-power-hawaii/
Last two are students saying in school in 2014 and 2015 that oil comes from dinosaurs. Note the Hawaii one has multiple students stating definitively that oil comes from dinosaurs.
(I’ll leave it to you to skim or use the find function for the comments on dinosaurs and oil.)
Not my school. I think this is more a TV Cartoon idea than anything else. I had a Earth Sciences teacher who asserted that most crude oil was formed from the accumulation of dead forams on the sea floor, but there is a lot more to it than just that. Plate subduction over eons of time shoves the (foram & organics laden) deep ocean floor sediments down into the upper mantle. It is my understanding that this is where the ‘cooking’ at high pressures and high temperatures takes place. As David said, the factor of time is seldom referred to in many of these discussions.
One thing I am curious about with reference to Thomas Gold: In “Deep Hot Biosphere” he suggests that Gas, Oil, and Coal are often found superposed vertically. In some places this is true, but I suspect some of these findings may be merely coincidental and not the general case.
Sheri, I was taught an enormous amount of ahistorical and just plain wrong nonsense in public (and to some extent private) schools. And so were you. I learned early on to distrust pat pronouncements from legally mandated babysitters.
I think the larger part of the error here is assuming that any of these errors were made at a “higher level” than a schoolteacher or a textbook editor. Or TV scriptwriter, just as likely.
What are the organic markers in the oil that show it was originally, you know, organic?
https://labs.weatherford.com/oiltracers/geochemistry-for-exploration/oil-biomarkers-in-exploration
I used to analyze biomarkers in crude and source rock for a major oil company. In the thousands of samples I analyzed I never saw a sample that did not contain them. From that I would conclude that most or all crude oil is either of biological origin, or abiotic oil at some point has been contaminated biologically.
Either way, the oil has to accumulate in economically recoverable accumulations.
“Either way, the oil has to accumulate in economically recoverable accumulations.”
I think that goes to the heart of the matter.
Biomarkers are the smallest fossils. They are fossil long chain molecules. For example, the presence of oleanane indicate the source was from younger flowering plants. Oleanane is present in modern waxy plants such as the lilypads which clog tropical rivers and flush out into the delta each rainy season. You can find the fossil oleanane molecules in oils sourced from many rocks deposited in such an environment, but you will not see it in older rocks which predated the evolution of higher plants.
https://labs.weatherford.com/oiltracers/geochemistry-for-exploration/oil-biomarkers-in-exploration
Excellent piece; amazing planet we inhabit.
The more I learn about the Earth, the more amazing it seems.
Once the carbon gets to the right depth/pressure/temperature, how long does it take to make it oil?
It depends on the sediment deposition rate. The time-consuming part is in burying the critters deep enough to trigger catagenesis.
I have a friend working on some remarkably young fields in Azerbaijan. They are producing from Pleistocene sediments below 10,000 feet. It is rare to pile up sufficient sedimentary column for thermal maturity that fast.
It’s actually rather common in the Gulf of Mexico.
Standup – about 1-30 minutes in the laboratory depending on conditions.
Biofuel breakthrough: Quick cook method turns algae into oil
Green Oil Scientists turn algae into petroleum in 30 minutes.
The challenge is to get the cost of algae down to an economically competitive range.
No simple answer. The catagenic reaction rate depends on how much water is also present. Water slows things down. One of the youngest US oildfields is California’s shallow Kern River, emplaced ~4mya and sourced from the underlying Monterey shale about 2500 meters down, itself only formed ~ 15mya. So a few million years. Blink of a geological eye.
Now oil killed the dinosaurs:
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Did-Oil-Kill-The-Dinosaurs
htmlhttps://phys.org/news/2016-07-oil-dinosaurs.html
I have may to go back to philosophy—it’s not supposed to make sense.
Firstly, Professor McDonald should stick to economics.
Secondly, the “oil-rich” rocks of Campeche probably weren’t oil-rich in the Cretaceous. So, I doubt the Chicxulub impact required a hydrocarbon assist, particularly since the Deccan Traps super-eruptions probably doomed Dino before the impact.
Thirdly, these dinosaurs are made from oil…
lol! Thank you very much.
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep28427 Nature should stay out of this too, I take it.
The Nature article actually makes sense…
Although the Deccan Traps may have already doomed the dinosaurs before the impact…
The McDonald and Nature articles reference the same study, same authors.
I was NOT expecting that! I’m still laughing.
Hence, why Professor McDonald should stick to economics.
Nice Google pic. Found it when researching.
As a matter of fact it is the impact layer from Chicxulub that forms the seal over the oil in the Cantarell oilfield, in Yucatan so it most definitely didn’t exist before the impact.
The Chicxulub crater was actually discovered by Pemex, IIRC.
Brilliant explanation.Thank you.
David, very interesting dissection. What, in your opinion, is the psychology behind the need to invent an abiotic origin? Is it merely misguided peak-oilism?
I find both sides to be zealots. I think the Abiogenic Oilers think that the adoption of this hypothesis would suddenly create a limitless supply of cheap oil. While many of the Peak Oilers seem to think that the acceptance of Peak Oil will suddenly force us to adopt alternative energy.
I am a ‘weak’ peak oiler. It won’t be abrupt, and has little to do with alternative energy schemes. But it will take decades to adjust to and has the potential for serious societal disruption. By maybe 2040 the shoe really starts to pinch if my estimates are halfway decent, with a shallow peak ~2023-2025. The only real problem is liquid transportation fuels. Biofuels are insufficient in quantity to sufficiently substitute, EV’s arent there in range and cost, and you cannot electrify most ships, ag and construction machinery, heavy trucks, or airplanes. Wrote a scenario about this as the last chapter in Gaia’s Limits. There are several obvious partial solutions with sufficient lead time. But waiting til post peak to start with a strongly rising price signal (World Bank modeling says $200/bbl) means a very short adaptation runway. 15 years isn’t a lot of adaptation time when the vehicle fleet average age is 10 years.
Rud,
Peak oil is a real thing. At some point we will have consumed half of the total recoverable resource. So, you can count me as a luke warmer, weak peak oiler… 😉
DM, we agree to agree. Your post was terrific. BTW, my grandfather was an early petroleum geologist who among other things helped develop Kern River and Williston Basin conventional. My sister still gets residual royalties from both.
David, while you have elevated yourself into the reference point of schooling and now even the thoughts of others, care to clarify the origins of the term ‘fossil fuel’?
Yeah. I’m a weak peak oiler. Oil will cease to be commercially viable at some point: that its not already is down to improving extraction techniques and the artificially high price of nuclear power.
At some point synthetic fuels d will be as cheap as drilled/mined fuels, and that will be peak oil.
jaakkokateenkorva,
Fossil fuels: Combustible hydrocarbon based fuels formed from the remains of living organisms in the geologic past.
David, we ARE running out of places to look for oil. Therefore decision makers do need to take into account this fact. This is extremely important for energy security, because the bulk of remaining reserves are located in OPEC nations and Russia. The extra heavy oil in Canada and Venezuela requires high prices, and Venezuela is a narcostate ruled by a nutty communist with tangible help from the Castro Mafia and “moral support” from the extreme left in USA, Latinamerica and Europe.
This means we do need to figure out a way out of a looming crisis. Also, this problem has to be treated considering what happens in poor countries. An energy crisis triggered by oil scarcity will drive nations like Pakistan, Mexico, and Egypt into highly unstable states. And we really don’t need that.
Fernando,
“The best places to find oil are in spots where it’s already been found.”
–Oilpatch maxim
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mergermarket/2013/03/22/the-best-places-to-find-oil-are-the-oldest-places/#63b70892438c
What is the psychology behind skeptics that are not skeptical?
Sheri,
A skeptic that is not skeptical is an oxymoron. A warmist that is not skeptical is a moron.
Thanks for the excellent overview. I wish I’d had it 35 to 40 years ago while working on a geophysical imaging research project. The geologist we had at the time, hell-of-a nice guy, seemed to know his business but couldn’t explain his way out of a paper bag.
I bet he could have done a pace and compass traverse out of that bag… 😉
Very funny. Didn’t know anyone still knew how to do that. GPS and all.
The first GPS I bought didn’t have any map data in it. It was basically a GPS-guided pace and compass traverse. I spent many hours making traverse maps with it.
While at Mot late 1990’s , my guys worked for years on the first hand held GPS units. Given the then microprocessor clock rstes, a minor miracle they could get GPS to work at all. Now, we take unbelievale precision for granted in smartphones with more procesding capability than main frame computers of that mid 1990’s era.
I did a couple of stints at Mot. Some areas were very good. The automotive dept got their 2nd best engineers.
Well done David.
Thanks Andy…Your recent thread inspired me to finally put this post together.
Thank you David.
Excellent post! Very informative. Thanks!
I have worked in the Permian Basin for the last 16+yrs. In all that time I can say that not once has the abiotic theory ever come up in any discussion. IIRC the abiotic theory did come up in my course work when I was in school. It was in the “wacky ideas” section.
I’m gonna guess that the oil-from-dinosaurs “theory” never gained traction in the Permian Basin either… Since dinosaurs evolved after the Permian… 😉
You don’t get a lot of oil out of a dinosaur, and they take forever to grow.
Oil palms, on the other hand, produce 600 gallons per acre, per year….
The Permian Basin is the only place I’ve been (up near Andrews) where at night you can see the street lights on a highway overpass 20 miles away. I guess pumping all that oil actually leveled it… :<)
On balance I believe in the existence of abiotic oil.
However, I don’t believe in the existence of economically extractable abiotic oil. There’s no reason for abiotic oil to be where it can be extracted from.
And there’s no reason to look everywhere on the off chance that it will be there. That costs too much anyway.
I am a retired petroleum geologist, and I want to congratulate the author for a truly excellent summary on the sedimentary habitat of oil and gas.
Excellent. Nothing significant to argue with. A couple of nitpicks.
1. You didn’t address oil shales. I think the petroleum in formations like the Marcellus and Utica is probably indigenous, not migrated. My understanding is that the porosity of the unfracked Utica is about zero. And in many areas the Utica contains numerous periodic thin carbonate intervals that are probably even less permeable.
2. I have no doubt about your point that we are using petroleum far faster than nature is producing it. But you might add coal to the list of petroleum source rocks. Coal To Liquid is a bit pricey compared to current petroleum pricing. But it certainly works. The South Africans have been doing it for decades. OTOH, if we used coal to produce liquid fuels for the transportation of 7 billion or so people, there’s little doubt we’d be burning through it way faster than it’s being created also.
Oops. I think I probably meant permeability, not porosity. Apologies. I’m a computer guy, not an oil guy.
Since shales are generally also the source rocks for conventional reservoirs in their respective basins, the shale oil probably did form in situ.
Coal isn’t a source rock. We can take coal, old furniture, sticks, and dead horses, feed them to a high pressure high temperature vessel, burn it to make carbon monoxide, feed steam, and push that mess through a catalyst bed and get crude oil. It takes about $100 per barrel sale price and/or a very friendly government.
Predecessor to coal is in fact a source rock in special situations. Norway’s western offshore Haltebanken is a specific example. Not the usual, granted.
IIRR, that’s Occidental’s “Garboil” process. The reactor product is very acidic, and you have to make everything of special alloys.
Oil shale is the wave of the future. And always will be.
It is worth noting that the shales are of such low permeability that they serve as caprocks on some underlying oil and gas sand reservoirs.
I would say shale is the most common caprock in the world… Of course my world mostly consists of the Central Gulf of Mexico.
There are two theories to explain how water and hydrocarbons came onto the earth: the late veneer theory and the deep CH4 theory.
Roughly 100 million years after the earth was formed a Mars sized object struck the earth. That event formed the moon and stripped the mantel of light elements. There are two theories to explain why there are light elements on now on the earth’s surface. The late veneer theory hypothesis: Comets struck the early earth after the big splat event covering the very hot earth with hydrocarbons. The late veneer hypothesis requires that the earth had a Venus like atmosphere (atmospheric pressure of say 60 atmospheres) for the early earth, except with methane.
There are multiple problems with the later veneer hypothesis (See Thomas Gold’s Book Deep Hot Biosphere for details. One of the key problems is the observation that the percentage of heavy gaseous elements in the earth’s current atmosphere does not match that of comets (Comets are residues of the early solar systems.
The comet elemental composition does match that of the sun). The late veneer theory’s explanation for the miss match of isotopes in the earth’s atmosphere to that of comets is that the early solar system had a close encounter with another solar system which temporary provided a limited source of comets to cover the earth but not significantly change the element composition of the sun.
The second hypothesis is the deep earth hydrocarbon theory. This theory hypothesizes that massive amounts of hydrocarbons (5% of the total core mass) are located in the earth’s core. As the core cools these hydrocarbon (CH4) are released. At very high pressures the CH4 forms longer chain molecules.
The release of CH4 is still occurring as the upper surface of the ocean is saturated with CH4 which indicates that CH4 is being released from some source.
The deep earth CH4 provides the force, the deep earth core extruded CH4 is pushed by the enormous core pressure to drive tectonic plate movement. As the deep earth CH4 moves through the earth’s crust it picks ups heavy metals in solution. At specific pressures portions of the heavy metals are released which explains why there are super concentration of heavy metals (million times concentrated in the crust).
Massive concentrations of heavy metals in the crust require a fluid which dissolves the metals at high pressure and a force that moves that liquid through the earth’s crust.
This movement of the liquid CH4 through the crust explains why there is heavy metals in crude oil and why geological separate regions (from the standpoint of the fossil theory that has no mechanism to move the oil about) have the same characteristic amounts of heavy metals. i.e. the liquid CH4 that forms the oil moves feeds geologically separate regions.
It should be noted that what drives plate tectonics is an unsolved problem. The deep earth CH4 hypothesis proves the force to drive plate tectonics.
The earth’s core started to solidify roughly a 1 billion years ago. At that time, there would be a large increase in CH4 pushed to the surface which explains why there was a dramatic increase in life at that time. The CH4 raises the continents above the shallow oceans, there is a great deal of CO2 for plants to eat to create the sudden increase in O2 for animal life, and so on.
http://www.newgeology.us/Plate%20Tectonics.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090910084259.htm
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/abs/ngeo591.html
An excellent summary understandable even to those of us without degrees in the sciences. Regardless of how much petroleum yet exists underground, whether known or unknown, the EROI is the only thing that matters, correct? I recall reading a summary of the historical decline of EROI from approximately 75:1 to in some cases 5:1 for fracked oil. In essence “Peak Oil” is more about the inability to economically produce petroleum products in increasing amounts leading to a permanent slide in prosperity for as long as we depend on these products for the bulk of our energy. Even new discoveries will be irrelevant if the EROI ratio is low. If my memory is correct I recall a 25:1 EROI ratio or so is necessary to maintain continued growth in economic output. EROI less than 10:1 cannot support meaningful economic growth absent massive debt creation which has kicked the can down the road the last 15 plus years. 10:1 EROI sounds great until you factor in transportation, refining costs, distribution costs etc. I am interested if it is realistic to hope for huge leaps in technology and innovation to economically produce future hard to develop reserves?
The EROI method can be flawed, because we can use natural gas, hydropower, nuclear power, or coal generated power to produce the oil. This means we take energy from those sources and use it to make oil which makes kerosene, gasoline and diesel. I prefer to stick to the actual cost to produce the crude, which has been climbing as we have to develop lousier reservoirs.
Let me give you an example: we use natural gas to heat produced fluids to separate oil and water. We also generate electricity using natural gas. But in some cases the electricity comes from hydro and nuclear. In Argentina some fields are pumped using a mix of wind power and natural gas turbine generated electricity. In Venezuela some fields used to draw electricity from the giant Guri dam project. What counts in the end is the cost of the inputs. So as oil prices increase (as they surely will), we will be able to pay for the needed energy input. However, we will demand more and more energy as fields age. And this drives up costs.
Interesting article. I read Thomas Gold’s book “The Deep Hot Biosphere” from cover to cover. I also found Wikipedia’s article of value:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
I don’t think your article actually rebuts the Abiotic hypothesis. Gold’s hypothesis revolves around evidence that oil originates below the locations where it is found, or using his words, below the “crystalline basement that underlies the sediment”. You seem to agree with him. For example you write: “Even the oil that’s trapped in fractured granites and other basement rocks, had to migrate through and be trapped by sedimentary rocks.”
He assumes there is no deeper sedimentary layer under the basement, and uses this to justify that the oil must originate by some other means. Whereas you say there is a deeper sedimentary layer below the basement, where the oil originates.
So what is the evidence for oil bearing sedimentary layers below the basement? You don’t present any in this article.
Thanks.
Have a good look at the diagram of the Chu Long field above, and you will understand how it works.
I clearly did not rebut Gold’s hypothesis because it is irrelevant. I even stipulated that it was possible.
If Gold “assumes there is no deeper sedimentary layer under the basement, and uses this to justify that the oil must originate by some other means,” he is clueless as to the generally accepted theory of hydrocarbon formation.
There is no need for “oil bearing sedimentary layers below the basement;” nor is this bizarre notion part of the theory.
Mr. Middleton,
Having attended a number of Thomas Gold’s lectures when I was a student and later having briefly discussed the Abiogenic theory with him after one of his lectures at the Royal Institution, I was a disciple. Your comprehensive but open-minded exposure has changed my opinion. Thank you.
What’s the evidence for anybody ever making money producing oil using Gold’s ideas?
Well done! One of the impediments to understanding of many geologic processes is how water behaves at high pressures and temperatures. This is why gold is found in quartz. The two dissolve in supercritical water.
Yup. All other metals, also. Just takes rock, water, heat and pressure.
Thank you! Old chemistry trained greybeard granddad here and many don’t get how fast things can go, chemically, when the necessary conditions are present. One of the projects I worked on in the 70s was ‘biogenic’ oil from pyrolysis. Fisher-Tropsch is a pyrolytic process at relatively low temperatures and pressures.
Very interesting articles, this one and Andy May’s. I have a question:
Years ago I was informed(?) that in the early 20thc century, the oil EROEI — “energy return on energy invested” — was on the order of 50:1. That is, the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil yielded, for society’s use, 50 (if not more) barrels of oil worth of energy. By ~2000, this had fallen to 4:1 — one barrel’s worth of effort yielded only 4 barrels of usable energy.
My source’s concern was that, if the ratio ever fell to 1:1, that would be true “peak oil”. We could have an infinite reserve but, if one barrel’s worth of effort only produced one barrel of result, why bother?
His logic is impeccable; the real world tends to be rather messier, however. I am wondering what the current EROEI might be and, especially, what the trend is, if anyone can say.
My 2¢ on EROEI…
EROEI
It doesn’t matter how much energy it takes to extract, refine and transport fossil fuels. EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) is even dopier than AGW. I don’t spend energy to fill my tank. I don’t give energy back to the gas & electric companies in exchange for them being nice enough to heat and light my home. My company doesn’t drill for oil & gas to make energy.
I spend money to fill my tank. My company drills wells for oil & gas to make money. My gas & electric bills are paid for with money. My pay check, ExxonMobil & Shell credit card statements and checks to the gas & electric companies aren’t denominated in joules, kilowatts or btu – They are denominated in $.
I don’t give a rat’s @ur momisugly$$ if 1 barrel of amoeba farts uses less energy to produce than 1 barrel of crude oil… Because the barrel of amoeba farts costs $1,100 and can’t be produced in sufficient quantities to be waiting for me at the Exxon or Shell station when I need it.
If oil companies (or any businesses) used EROEI to guide their investment decisions, they would go out of business (unless the gov’t was footing the bill).
And, for that matter, most fossil fuels actually have better EROEI than most alternative sources do.
Oil, natural gas and coal are concentrated biofuels. They represent thousands to millions of years of condensed solar energy.
It’s effectively the same as tapping natural gas out of the pipeline to run the compressor station. There are losses in the process.
Poor biodiesel. Guess I gotta go eat more grilled sausage and pasta so there’ll be more cooking oil to convert.
On second thought if I eat more grilled sausage and pasta, I’ll be driving to the gym more often…and they’ll have to keep the lights on and the equipment powered, and I don’t think the energy I expend on the treadmill and weights actually gets captured and fed back into someone’s Tesla, so…
Not interested in “alternative” energy.
“Oil, natural gas and coal are concentrated biofuels. They represent thousands to millions of years of condensed solar energy.”
Yes. And in order to put gas in my gas tank I must use a ?few days? of condensed solar energy in the form of the fats and sugar in my body, that I got from the sausages and beans I’ve eaten, that were processed (either by someone hand-stuffing the sausage casings or by an electric sausage-stuffing machine run on electricity from a power plant, to say nothing of the pig-feed sown, harvested, and transported with energy), then delivered by gas-powered vehicles to a convenient place which I also needed energy to get to (and from). The money I use to buy the gas did not come from the money fairy but by my exchange of my time and — oops — energy to my employer for that money.
Before petroleum, society was much smaller and ran much more slowly. It is the injection of that “millions of years of condensed solar energy” into society that has allowed the spread and speed we have today. I’m not complaining.
I’m wondering: the oil is not bestowed, in the tanks and ready to go, by the oil fairy. We have to do some amount of work, expend some amount of energy, to get the oil out where we can use it.
It used to be easier: oil seeped out in many places; just go scoop some up. Then we had to pump it — that costs more energy than just scooping it up. Now we have to process the hell out of shale to get enough.
If you can’t tell that some energy must be burned in order to get at this energy source, and that the energy used does not have a fixed relationship to the energy retrieved, you are unlikely to be of help in this matter.
oh come on. What is nuclear doing amongst chemical fuels? Its on the order of 1 million times more energy dense.
David,
you really need to sneak ameoba farts into that graph … maybe just above solar.
David, if all oil is of marine origin, how do you explain the kerosine that is often found in coal measure rocks?
Also, where does the pollen found in oil come from? Is it exclusively wind-borne?
All oil is not of marine origin. Some is of lacustrine origin.
Coal oil and kerosene are similar; but not the same thing.
I’ve never heard of pollen in crude oil
“I’ve never heard of pollen in crude oil”
Me either, but I suppose it could happen. I do think there are fossil pollen grains associated with Green River formation kerogens in some beds.
It probably does happen. The little bits of terrigenous plant matter used for vitrinite reflectance were washed into the oceans by rivers and streams. Pollen grains were probably deposited in a similar manner. I’ve just never seen any references to it.
Coal is often a source rock, though more often for gas than oil. Coals usually have too low of a hydrogen index to be an oil source, though some of the coals in SE Asia are oil source rocks. They tend to be from a form of coal referred to as alginite coal, with origins more from laccustrine algal mats than woody plants.
David
FYI
http://www.biblio.com/book/geology-petroleum-levorsen-i/d/845006823?aid=aa&t=1
http://used.addall.com/Used/
I may just order it… $2.50 is a bargain. I was thinking more along the lines of checking with my coworkers to see if they had a copy of it.
Thanks for the free education, this was a very interesting write up David, cheers.
Wow. Great post. Really thorough and covered many issues premptively.
Just to back up Sheri’s memory on the dinosaurs thing, in my around-1980 Canadian high school classes I absolutely did read oil came from dinosaurs in my science textbooks, and it was also definitely accepted convention in science for kids publications like _National Geographic World_ magazine in the mid-70’s, along with stories about The Ice Age Coming Back (40 years later I can still picture this one two-page spread of cavemen leading mammoths in front of an advancing ice sheet. Scary stuff to a kid living in a place where you can look at the scars that last ice sheet left). Never had any particular reason to look into it deeper until this article came along, so I tended to assume that oil formation theories were as well supported by the evidence as the plant-food-will-kill-the-planet theories. This article increases my confidence greatly that geologists can be considered actual scientsts 🙂