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
DC
February 18, 2017 3:45 pm
A few observations:
1. I can’t be the only one who remembers Chevron’s ‘dinosaur in your tank’ commercials of the late 70’s. Dino’s to oil was all the rage back then.
2. In oil exploration ‘basement’ usually meant ‘there is nothing to find below this’. In the LA Basin the ‘basement’ was usually the top of the Cretaceous.
3. In Oklahoma we drilled through the ‘basement’ and encountered sediments with oil, a sub thrust play.
4. Off shore Oxnard the oil source and reservoir seemed to be the same.
The get out of jail card was “economic” basement.
So oh yes we have the technology now and prices are better now but we actually always knew it was there.
In NZ we have the same sub-thrust targets but so far not prolific and one further comment our HC’s are dominated by coal source.
We are minor players in the greater scheme.
I mentioned the Conoco commercial in the post. There were even a few gag seismic lines which depicted the “seismic image” of a brontosaurus. Inside jokes aren’t theories.
David, You have probably noticed (as I have) that most people who promote biogenic / mantle derived oil are not explorers . They are not putting their money where their mouth is and risking $s to drill for oil with this concept … where as explorers, using conventional source / maturation & migration models are putting their money where their mouth is … and finding oil.
I think that pretty much sums it up as far as what’s really going on.
One more thought … if oil was mantle sourced, we ought to see seeps and fields randomly distributed across the whole globe…. but in reality , we only see oil in areas with a migration pathway from mature source rocks (or in the case of shale oil … in mature source rocks). It could not be any more obvious where the oil is coming from if you actually know anything about petroleum geology.
Great read, thanx. I personally think abiogenic hydrocarbon liquid and gas inevitable. I have little doubt that there are huge deposits of biogenic oil. I see the earth and other planets/moons as chemical factories where, especially on planetary/geological timescales, an enormous variety of chemical processes occur at one time or another.
Concerning the last point that abiogenic hydrocarbons would be flowing out of the mid atlantic ridge if that process was producing same. I would question this – the slow formation of same and the fact that at that ridge there is nothing to ‘capture’ it, i.e. a layer of rock it can’t get thru, under which it builds up significant reserves. Could it be seeping out as we speak? At the slow rate it is being produced and migrating to the surface of the ridge. Could it have seeped out already? Could the ridge have altered the conditions that hydrocarbons would form below? Could it even be the source of the ‘frozen’ methane deposits/layers we have yet to tap? If it were there seeping out, what rate would/could we expect it so to do?
Does David and the mainstream support abiogenic major gas reserves then? If the Earth’s mantle has been producing methane for the last few billion years…
From what I gather : the biogenic process is that carbo-hydrates decompose to kerogen in a very tight rock, which strips off the oxygen and hydrogen to leave a lump of mostly carbon with a ratio to hydrogen of roughly 1:1 . But oil needs a H:C ratio of at least 3:1. Where does the kerogen get its hydrogen from?
I don’t think carbon will strip off hydrogen from the deep crustal waters, but aside methane, the mantle also produces plenty of raw hydrogen gas ( see Kola deep borehole ), which is capable of reacting with carbon at lower crust temperatures and pressures.
If it is true that low crustal pressure in a tight formation will strip off hydrogen and oxygen from carbon biomass to leave kerogen, then we might expect a similar thing to happen if mantle methane is trapped in a lower crustal rock, again producing a lump of kerogen. From there on, the biogenic and abiogenic processes are the same.
I would have liked to read a description of how kerogen gains hydrogen to become oil in the article. I don’t think the mainstream accepts its from mantle hydrogen. So from where?
Natural gas is rarely biogenic. This is why the use of the phrases biogenic and abiogenic is misleading, I explained this in the post.
Kerogen is a fracking hydrocarbon…
Kerogen, complex waxy mixture of hydrocarbon compounds that is the primary organic component of oil shale. Kerogen consists mainly of paraffin hydrocarbons, though the solid mixture also incorporates nitrogen and sulfur. Kerogen is insoluble in water and in organic solvents such as benzene or alcohol. Upon heating under pressure, however, the large paraffin molecules break down into recoverable gaseous and liquid substances resembling petroleum. This property makes oil shale a potentially important source of synthetic crude oil. https://www.britannica.com/science/kerogen
It doesn’t gain hydrogen to become oil. Kerogens are primarily composed of hydrogen-carbon compounds, This is why it is a fracking hydrocarbon.
An interesting, comprehensive and well explained article, thanks David.
Obviously back in the late 70s early 80s the CSIRO was still doing good objective science “Petroleum generation by laboratory-scale pyrolysis over six years simulating conditions in a subsiding basin”. Alas a far cry from the pathetic propaganda agency we see today – sad.
Gamecock
February 18, 2017 4:27 pm
(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.
================================
No, it’s not.
The term optical activity is derived from the interaction of chiral materials with polarized light. Chirality is a marker of biological origin. That they have found some oil without chirality is good evidence that it is indeed abiogenic.
But note the anecdote, even if true, is extremely rare. An irrelevant oddity. Not ‘abject nonsense.’
I was assuming that “optical activity” refered to vitrinite reflectance. Oil that was generated prior to the evolution of woody plants doesn’t contain vitrinite.
Please show an analysis of a crude oil with these characteristics and absence of biomarkers. I’ve never seen one, and I’ve analyzed thousands of samples. A publication of a valid and verified analysis of such would be ground breaking, so to speak.
Thank you David. I’ve been out of this field for over 20 years, but in any case, I just did a literature search on petroleum without biomarkers and came up empty.
If Gamecock could provide a reference to any report of petroleum without biomarkers, this would be appreciated. I would note that chirality can be readily lost through isomerization resulting from exposure to high temperature.
My search did appear to indicate, however, that the abiotic theory proponents simply dismiss the presence of biomarkers as being the result of deep earth bacterial contamination.
A minor quibble, chirality is a marker of biological use, not necessarily origin, for certain chemical compounds. I recall some work in the 70s that showed zeolites has having an enantiomeric excess, under certain conditions. There are differences between surface chemistry on condensed substrates when compared to fluid chemistry, especially gas phase chemistry.
Thomas Graney
February 18, 2017 4:29 pm
David, thanks so much for the fascinating and illuminating post. I also want to thank you for the prominent display of my company’s logo. Regarding the “cracking temperature” of crude oil, in geologic time, 300 F may be enough for thermal decomposition to occur, but in my world (refineries), we do it at 900 to 1000 F. I’ve always thought the onset of thermal decomposition of hydrocarbons was around 500F, but if you have enough time, 300F may do some work.
We have a genuine, large Sinclair gas station sign hanging on our driveway fence and I always hit the Sinclair booth at NAPE to pick up another inflatable Dino… Just picked another up on Thursday. I’d venture a guess that most geo’s are fans of Sinclair’s dinosaur.
300F with the right conditions, considering condensed surfaces to work on under pressure, should crack some longer chains in to shorter ones and/or combine some shorter chains into longer ones. I recall some zeolites being used for this purpose back in the 70s.
I probably should have phrased this differently… “Crude oil cracks at temperatures above about 300°F. It generally can’t exist at depths anywhere close to the mantle.”
“Cracks” probably wasn’t the most accurate word. When I say crude can’t exist very long “above about 300°F,” I am using “very long” in a geological context.
Doug
February 18, 2017 4:31 pm
THANK YOU, thank you, thank you, David. I have endured many posts from to the inorganic zealots here, and am so glad to see this well done and thorough article.
The amazing thing to me has been how often they invoke “the Russians” . I have worked with many Russians in the oil business, and never hear the inorganic version from them. I do have excellent Russian seismic lines over Bach Ho, demonstrating the organic rich sedimentary source rocks in contact with the fractured granite, just as you so nicely depict.
It is ironic that the revolution of horizontal multi stage fracking has not put the whole thing to rest. We are fracking the very source rocks that produce the oil for conventional fields. The hydrocarbons could not have gotten into those impermeable rocks any way other than during deposition. It the oil and gas oozed up from a deep abiotic source, it would have had to frack its way into the shale. It was deposited with the rock, and we frack to let it out.
Another strong argument that fossil fuels are produced from plants is the fact that the 13C/12C ratio in F.F. resemble that in living plants, but does not resemble that in volcanic CO2 or marine limestone.
Vinod Kholsa bet a bunch on this. Lost. I used their purported yield to show biofuels cannot get there. And I turned down Vinod’s pathetic offer to invest in my energy storage materials company based on my own inventions. That proved a wise decision.
A remnant of Kior still exists: http://www.inaeristech.com/
as do at least a couple of other ventures of Khosla in this area, e.g. Gevo and Lanzatech, but while he lost money in these, taxpayers lost much more.
great post! I taught an industry course on “basic geophysics” where i showed an old
SEG movie titled “the world is full of oil”. In the movie they interviewed Gold when he was drilling in Sweden..He made an interesting comment: “if we could find methane @ur momisugly 40000ft we’ed have a whole world to explore”. Oil is in the minds of men!
seg
John W. Garrett
February 18, 2017 5:01 pm
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
× 1,000,000
I seem to run into all the nutters who subscribe to the abiogenic theory. This wonderful piece will save me enormous amounts of time and effort.
Dave in Canmore
February 18, 2017 5:11 pm
Great article! I always meant to have a look at the whole abiotic argument. Thanks for writing such a thorough outline.
No, they are not. Science is a process for ascertaining truth. A social process.
Social. “We” all agree to tentatively support a conjecture if it fits a certain test:
the a priori hypothesis tested by observation test.
Where did this come from? God?
[Well, yes: Book of Daniel. But no – we failed to catch the lesson for millenia.]
No. It was schemed by humans. And trotted out to other humans for consideration.
Etc., Etc., peer review, “PhD,” etc. There is no “peer review” or “PhD” in the philosophy of science. All of that is consensus. —review Feyerabend. Ultimately, “science” is a social endeavor entirely dependent on consensus of many aspects.
H. D. Hoese
February 18, 2017 5:50 pm
Great article. Would it be that such thoughtful analyses could be exported, especially to those fields claiming, but now lacking, the scientific method. I have been on the edge of your business since my daddy worked briefly for the Flying Red Horse before WWII. We liked it better than Sinclair dinosaurs, but never were taught that there were any horse wing fossils in Eocene deposits. Don’t recall pollen, but lots of interest in forams.
There has been an argument out there for several decades that energy, however you properly measure it, is a better economic long term indicator than the coin represented in its production and consumption. While presented as closer to reality, economic theory may not yet be successful enough to help us much.
I think that the self-appointed climatologists would be well served to endorse “Chamberlain’s Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses.” Unfortunately, I’m left with the impression that most have never heard of it!
Khwarizmi
February 18, 2017 7:14 pm
David keep saying things like this…
* * * * “Oil Does Not Come From Dinosaurs or Dead Vegetation … this has never been the theory of hydrocarbon formation.”>
* * * *
..while fastidiously ignoring any evidence that undermines his faith-based, evidence-free assertion, e.g.:
QUOTE:
==================================
October, 1917…
Owing to most oil fields being associated with limestone, many theorists conclude that petroleum is the result of animal fats of pre-historic animals. This query is well set at rest by Sir James Hector, when he says : “It is not so much the result of limestone as its capacity to store it.” http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/123538155?searchTerm=petroleum%2C%20oil&searchLimits=
==================================
Animal fats of prehistoric animals. You may as well call that Dinosaur Fat Theory, a theory David says never existed, even though you can see it old newspapers.
Here’s another fact that fossil fanatics refuse to acknowledge:
Cntrl+f , comet haley.
No mention of it in the article..
Comet Haley is 1/3 kerogen, aka, “oil shale,” equivalent to 500 years of OPEC output: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale#Extraterrestrial_oil_shale
WHERE DID IT COME FROM?
Khwarizmi ,
When I moved to Ohio from California I was surprised to discover how abundant aromatic, volatile hydrocarbons were in the limestone quarries I collected minerals in. I’ve presumed that they were the result of pyrolysis of the fleshy parts of the reef-dwelling organisms and plankton settling on limey bottoms.
As an historical point, I remember as a child asking an uncle living with us, while he was going to college in 1953, where oil came from and he handed me his geology textbook. I remember it referring to organisms in the ocean with nary a mention of mosasaurs or pleisiosaurs or even what were formerly called brontosaurs, as found as a logo. While is is conceivable that such creatures got washed out to sea, and a few.actually didn’t get devoured by the equivalent of the hag fish that now live off dead whales, it is inconceivable that enough large creatures got buried to produce the billions of barrels of crude oil that have been recovered.
Stefan in Houston
February 18, 2017 7:17 pm
David, as another oil and gas geologist (40 yrs U.S and international, now retired) I really appreciate your lucid post, and equally apt replies to reader comments. Thank you.
JohninRedding
February 18, 2017 7:58 pm
What great information! Just the other day I asked on this website what is the current science on how oil is formed. What perfect timing. And all the charts and sketches were so easy to understand. Again, great job. Thanks.
Nashville
February 18, 2017 8:09 pm
‘Those who can’t do teach’
I was, years ago, considered an expert snow skier.
I was at that time also a ski instructor, aka teacher.
That phrase always had given me a laugh.
He he, and yes, I’ve heard that one, too; but it is based on differential ability among people. I also heard this: “See one, do one, teach one”, for that to work best, you can’t really teach something you can’t do. At best, under that circumstance, you’re pointing people to those who can teach by demonstration.
I remember professor Thomas Gold talking about this when I was an undergraduate a Cornell. In principle, it’s very simple. Methane is indeed primordial considering how much of it we see in the Universe. Pressure and temperature (along with catalysts since the required temperature and pressures are hard to come by on the surface) is how we we turn short chain hydrocarbons into longer chain hydrocarbons. Nature can achieve the required temperatures and pressures more easily than man.
Conceptually possible. Except there is roughly zero evidence this has ever happened on earth. And tons of evidence that oil came from catagenesis of mainly marine kerogens. Note two quals articulated above. 1. Lucuastrine woody plants. 2. Archaea methanogens, mainly in clathrates. There can be no scientific doubt that massive abiogenic methane exists. Only question is how much on Earth, now?
The origin of natural gas is harder to determine. But there’s also the possibility of primordial methane bubbling up through biological residue. So the question becomes how much of the primordial methane got buried as the planet formed? Could a massive collision buried some of it deep within the mantle?
It seems to me that this is more a case for why the dominant theory is dominant, rather than a general overview of both strengths and weaknesses.
The crux of the write-up appears to be that the question is moot. Wherever the oil came from, we are using it faster than it is being produced. But, I do not see substantial confirmation of this claim.
Are we? How do we know? How much of the world has been explored?
I am curious – have attempts been made to revive old fields that were previously considered depleted? Given the technologies that have been developed for extracting more product, it seems there would be a record of such activity. Have there been any surprises?
My POV is that I neither believe nor disbelieve. I am not knowledgeable enough about this field to be able to discern who is knowledgeable, and who is either blowing smoke, or relying on hidebound paradigms that they cannot see past.
What I do know is that every cri de coeur thus far, and there have been many, has been wrong. And, I am not too exercised about it because I know when push comes to shove, we have ample energy resources in nuclear power. I am very exercised against environmentally destructive wind and solar power, though.
“My POV is that I neither believe nor disbelieve.’
This is the best way to approach science.
If you don’t see substantial evidence that we produce oil much faster than the Earth generates it, you’ve never looked at production data. If the Earth generated oil at a rate comparable to our production of it, decline curves wouldn’t exist.
“If you don’t see substantial evidence that we produce oil much faster than the Earth generates it, you’ve never looked at production data.”
It does not follow. As a very simple example, suppose you had two reservoirs R1 and R2 with total input rate F. R1’s supply increases according to
R1(k) = R1(k-1) + F/2
We are drawing down R2, so it evolves according to
R2(k) = R2(k-1) +F/2 -A
If A if greater than F/2 but less than F, then R2 is going to decrease, even as overall supply is increasing.
So, again, I am left wondering what data exist on revival of old fields? How comprehensive is our knowledge of the entire Earth’s inventory?
This is the decline curve for EI 330 field, often cited as evidence of abiogenic oil, where some reservoir recharge has actually been observed…
If the Earth was generating oil at a rate comparable to our production, the curve would be more of a flat line. The field, one of the largest in the Gulf of Mexico, has been producing since 1972.
Once a field has been plugged and abandoned, there is nothing to reenter.
Most large fields produce for decades. Many are now monitored with 4d seismic. If they were recharging at an economically meaningful rate, there would be some evidence of this.
“If the Earth was generating oil at a rate comparable to our production, the curve would be more of a flat line.”
Again , it does not follow. I’m not sure you read through and understood my example. Let me try again. If you have 100 such reservoirs, and all are being slowly recharged, then you can deplete one yet still have an overall gain. What matters is if you are depleting all reservoirs faster than the combined rate of recharge. If you are not, then you can hop from one reservoir to the next indefinitely, but by the time you have drained the last, the first will be full again.
I’m not saying this is what is happening. I am saying you have not provided enough information to determine whether it is or not. You come close with the last paragraph, but I have no information on how comprehensive the information is. I have the known unknown – how many such sources have been monitored? – and I have the unknown unknown – how many such potential sources are there in all the world?
If fields were recharging at a rate comparable to production, there would be no decline curves.
A water-drive reservoir produces an increasing fraction of brine until the well ceases to be economic. If you shut in a water-drive well for a period of time, the water-cut will briefly decline. But, it will quickly be right back where it was before the well was shut in.
A pressure depletion drive exhibits a pressure decline until the well will no longer flow. If you shut in a depletion drive well, there will be a minor build up in pressure. However once you start producing it again, the pressure will rapidly drop to where it was before you shut it in.
If a field is large enough to justify the cost and the geology is compatible with direct hydrocarbon indicators, toy can monitor the reservoir drainage with 4d seismic surveys. Many of the larger fields have been monitored with 4d for nearly 20 years. If the Earth was recharging the reservoirs at a rate comparable to production, you would “see” it on the 4d seismic… You don’t see this happening.
“If fields were recharging at a rate comparable to production, there would be no decline curves.”
No, that is not necessarily so. I’ve explained why.
I’m not saying there is some vast cornucopia awaiting us if we just have patience. I’m not suggesting your analysis is not actionable. The discussion is more or less academic at this point. I’m just interested in what information we do have, and how conclusive it is. At this point, I’m not convinced, but neither am I sanguine. Thank you for your time and effort.
John F. Hultquist
February 18, 2017 9:41 pm
Thanks David.
I’ve always been amazed at the depths of the deposits of the Mississippi Delta and beyond.
The River is often called the Big Muddy, but there is a smaller river with that actual name.
Another source of oil from the Gulf is the Menhaden. Likely you have seen this harvest. Also, amazing.
William
February 18, 2017 9:49 pm
Hello David:
An excellent article; however, I do have two cents to throw in.
Many decades ago, I was chief engineer on a pilot synoil project.
We used an inorganic catalyst, high temperature and high pressure to convert methane to long chain hydrocarbons.
What killed the project was the fact that the catalyst was constantly becoming plugged with organic sludge. On analysis, this sludge was found to be essentially indistinguishable from crude heavy oil, straight from the well.
I always found this puzzling, and it gave the idea of abiogenis some credibility.
That being the case, is the creation of oil an “either, or” proposition? Or can both theories exist side by side?
The theory and hypothesis can exist side-by-side from an exploration and production standpoint because neither one is really relevant to how we find and produce oil.
Yes, good point.
But given my observations of the plugged catalyst, does this not suggest that a similar process is occuring naturally?
Would it not be reasonable to assume that some proportion of oil is created by this process?
In fact, what would be the definitive empirical observation that would bury the hypothesis of abiogenesis?
Philip
February 18, 2017 10:11 pm
On the “oil from dinosaurs” thing: in school in England, 50ish years ago, I never heard anything of the sort. It was taught that it was vegetable matter, possibly with small amounts of animal matter which formed either coal or oil, depending upon temperature/pressure/depth.
There was no real explanation of the processes involved, other than pressure and heat.
The only time dinosaurs were mentioned was that this all occurred during the time they were around. Textbook illustrations showed the odd dinosaur in swampland wth lots of vegetation, growing and dead.
I think the dinosaur oil thing may be purely American.
A few observations:
1. I can’t be the only one who remembers Chevron’s ‘dinosaur in your tank’ commercials of the late 70’s. Dino’s to oil was all the rage back then.
2. In oil exploration ‘basement’ usually meant ‘there is nothing to find below this’. In the LA Basin the ‘basement’ was usually the top of the Cretaceous.
3. In Oklahoma we drilled through the ‘basement’ and encountered sediments with oil, a sub thrust play.
4. Off shore Oxnard the oil source and reservoir seemed to be the same.
The get out of jail card was “economic” basement.
So oh yes we have the technology now and prices are better now but we actually always knew it was there.
In NZ we have the same sub-thrust targets but so far not prolific and one further comment our HC’s are dominated by coal source.
We are minor players in the greater scheme.
I mentioned the Conoco commercial in the post. There were even a few gag seismic lines which depicted the “seismic image” of a brontosaurus. Inside jokes aren’t theories.
Dinosaur tongue in cheek from Chevron.
I forgot all about that one… A classic! I wish I could find the old Conoco commercial with the Vibroseis truck hunting a buried dinosaur.
David, You have probably noticed (as I have) that most people who promote biogenic / mantle derived oil are not explorers . They are not putting their money where their mouth is and risking $s to drill for oil with this concept … where as explorers, using conventional source / maturation & migration models are putting their money where their mouth is … and finding oil.
I think that pretty much sums it up as far as what’s really going on.
One more thought … if oil was mantle sourced, we ought to see seeps and fields randomly distributed across the whole globe…. but in reality , we only see oil in areas with a migration pathway from mature source rocks (or in the case of shale oil … in mature source rocks). It could not be any more obvious where the oil is coming from if you actually know anything about petroleum geology.
Oil would be flowing out of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge if there was any merit to the Abiogenic hypothesis.
Great read, thanx. I personally think abiogenic hydrocarbon liquid and gas inevitable. I have little doubt that there are huge deposits of biogenic oil. I see the earth and other planets/moons as chemical factories where, especially on planetary/geological timescales, an enormous variety of chemical processes occur at one time or another.
Concerning the last point that abiogenic hydrocarbons would be flowing out of the mid atlantic ridge if that process was producing same. I would question this – the slow formation of same and the fact that at that ridge there is nothing to ‘capture’ it, i.e. a layer of rock it can’t get thru, under which it builds up significant reserves. Could it be seeping out as we speak? At the slow rate it is being produced and migrating to the surface of the ridge. Could it have seeped out already? Could the ridge have altered the conditions that hydrocarbons would form below? Could it even be the source of the ‘frozen’ methane deposits/layers we have yet to tap? If it were there seeping out, what rate would/could we expect it so to do?
Does David and the mainstream support abiogenic major gas reserves then? If the Earth’s mantle has been producing methane for the last few billion years…
From what I gather : the biogenic process is that carbo-hydrates decompose to kerogen in a very tight rock, which strips off the oxygen and hydrogen to leave a lump of mostly carbon with a ratio to hydrogen of roughly 1:1 . But oil needs a H:C ratio of at least 3:1. Where does the kerogen get its hydrogen from?
I don’t think carbon will strip off hydrogen from the deep crustal waters, but aside methane, the mantle also produces plenty of raw hydrogen gas ( see Kola deep borehole ), which is capable of reacting with carbon at lower crust temperatures and pressures.
If it is true that low crustal pressure in a tight formation will strip off hydrogen and oxygen from carbon biomass to leave kerogen, then we might expect a similar thing to happen if mantle methane is trapped in a lower crustal rock, again producing a lump of kerogen. From there on, the biogenic and abiogenic processes are the same.
I would have liked to read a description of how kerogen gains hydrogen to become oil in the article. I don’t think the mainstream accepts its from mantle hydrogen. So from where?
Natural gas is rarely biogenic. This is why the use of the phrases biogenic and abiogenic is misleading, I explained this in the post.
Kerogen is a fracking hydrocarbon…
It doesn’t gain hydrogen to become oil. Kerogens are primarily composed of hydrogen-carbon compounds, This is why it is a fracking hydrocarbon.
How would any crude oil, abiotic or biotic, survive the pillow lava eruptions that occur along sea-floor rift zones?
forgot to add: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmMlspNoZMs
Pillow basalts a waaayyy cool!
An interesting, comprehensive and well explained article, thanks David.
Obviously back in the late 70s early 80s the CSIRO was still doing good objective science “Petroleum generation by laboratory-scale pyrolysis over six years simulating conditions in a subsiding basin”. Alas a far cry from the pathetic propaganda agency we see today – sad.
(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.
================================
No, it’s not.
The term optical activity is derived from the interaction of chiral materials with polarized light. Chirality is a marker of biological origin. That they have found some oil without chirality is good evidence that it is indeed abiogenic.
But note the anecdote, even if true, is extremely rare. An irrelevant oddity. Not ‘abject nonsense.’
I was assuming that “optical activity” refered to vitrinite reflectance. Oil that was generated prior to the evolution of woody plants doesn’t contain vitrinite.
Please show an analysis of a crude oil with these characteristics and absence of biomarkers. I’ve never seen one, and I’ve analyzed thousands of samples. A publication of a valid and verified analysis of such would be ground breaking, so to speak.
I think there’s one somewhere. I vaguely recall a paper on a European oil field which supposedly had no biochemical markers.
Thank you David. I’ve been out of this field for over 20 years, but in any case, I just did a literature search on petroleum without biomarkers and came up empty.
If Gamecock could provide a reference to any report of petroleum without biomarkers, this would be appreciated. I would note that chirality can be readily lost through isomerization resulting from exposure to high temperature.
My search did appear to indicate, however, that the abiotic theory proponents simply dismiss the presence of biomarkers as being the result of deep earth bacterial contamination.
A minor quibble, chirality is a marker of biological use, not necessarily origin, for certain chemical compounds. I recall some work in the 70s that showed zeolites has having an enantiomeric excess, under certain conditions. There are differences between surface chemistry on condensed substrates when compared to fluid chemistry, especially gas phase chemistry.
David, thanks so much for the fascinating and illuminating post. I also want to thank you for the prominent display of my company’s logo. Regarding the “cracking temperature” of crude oil, in geologic time, 300 F may be enough for thermal decomposition to occur, but in my world (refineries), we do it at 900 to 1000 F. I’ve always thought the onset of thermal decomposition of hydrocarbons was around 500F, but if you have enough time, 300F may do some work.
We have a genuine, large Sinclair gas station sign hanging on our driveway fence and I always hit the Sinclair booth at NAPE to pick up another inflatable Dino… Just picked another up on Thursday. I’d venture a guess that most geo’s are fans of Sinclair’s dinosaur.
300F with the right conditions, considering condensed surfaces to work on under pressure, should crack some longer chains in to shorter ones and/or combine some shorter chains into longer ones. I recall some zeolites being used for this purpose back in the 70s.
I probably should have phrased this differently… “Crude oil cracks at temperatures above about 300°F. It generally can’t exist at depths anywhere close to the mantle.”
“Cracks” probably wasn’t the most accurate word. When I say crude can’t exist very long “above about 300°F,” I am using “very long” in a geological context.
THANK YOU, thank you, thank you, David. I have endured many posts from to the inorganic zealots here, and am so glad to see this well done and thorough article.
The amazing thing to me has been how often they invoke “the Russians” . I have worked with many Russians in the oil business, and never hear the inorganic version from them. I do have excellent Russian seismic lines over Bach Ho, demonstrating the organic rich sedimentary source rocks in contact with the fractured granite, just as you so nicely depict.
It is ironic that the revolution of horizontal multi stage fracking has not put the whole thing to rest. We are fracking the very source rocks that produce the oil for conventional fields. The hydrocarbons could not have gotten into those impermeable rocks any way other than during deposition. It the oil and gas oozed up from a deep abiotic source, it would have had to frack its way into the shale. It was deposited with the rock, and we frack to let it out.
The Russians hacked the oil reserves.
Another strong argument that fossil fuels are produced from plants is the fact that the 13C/12C ratio in F.F. resemble that in living plants, but does not resemble that in volcanic CO2 or marine limestone.
This now bankrupt company did that process in a lab.
Vinod Kholsa bet a bunch on this. Lost. I used their purported yield to show biofuels cannot get there. And I turned down Vinod’s pathetic offer to invest in my energy storage materials company based on my own inventions. That proved a wise decision.
A remnant of Kior still exists: http://www.inaeristech.com/
as do at least a couple of other ventures of Khosla in this area, e.g. Gevo and Lanzatech, but while he lost money in these, taxpayers lost much more.
David, I am wondering if MEOR has been effective in well/oil field production?
http://www.iom3.org/sites/default/files/iom3-corp/Adel%20Sharif%20MEOR.pps
I’m sure it has some utility in certain reservoirs… But I don’t think there’s enough data to draw any general conclusions.
great post! I taught an industry course on “basic geophysics” where i showed an old
SEG movie titled “the world is full of oil”. In the movie they interviewed Gold when he was drilling in Sweden..He made an interesting comment: “if we could find methane @ur momisugly 40000ft we’ed have a whole world to explore”. Oil is in the minds of men!
seg
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
× 1,000,000
I seem to run into all the nutters who subscribe to the abiogenic theory. This wonderful piece will save me enormous amounts of time and effort.
Great article! I always meant to have a look at the whole abiotic argument. Thanks for writing such a thorough outline.
This is why I love this site. Well done, David. Thank you!
So what you’re saying is that there is a 97% consensus among petroleum geologists about where oil comes from?
Sarcasm!
I wouldn’t assert that because consensus and science are two different things.
No, they are not. Science is a process for ascertaining truth. A social process.
Social. “We” all agree to tentatively support a conjecture if it fits a certain test:
the a priori hypothesis tested by observation test.
Where did this come from? God?
[Well, yes: Book of Daniel. But no – we failed to catch the lesson for millenia.]
No. It was schemed by humans. And trotted out to other humans for consideration.
Etc., Etc., peer review, “PhD,” etc. There is no “peer review” or “PhD” in the philosophy of science. All of that is consensus. —review Feyerabend. Ultimately, “science” is a social endeavor entirely dependent on consensus of many aspects.
Great article. Would it be that such thoughtful analyses could be exported, especially to those fields claiming, but now lacking, the scientific method. I have been on the edge of your business since my daddy worked briefly for the Flying Red Horse before WWII. We liked it better than Sinclair dinosaurs, but never were taught that there were any horse wing fossils in Eocene deposits. Don’t recall pollen, but lots of interest in forams.
There has been an argument out there for several decades that energy, however you properly measure it, is a better economic long term indicator than the coin represented in its production and consumption. While presented as closer to reality, economic theory may not yet be successful enough to help us much.
I’m a big fan of Mobil’s Pegasus too. It’s one of the symbols of my adopted home town, Dallas, Texas.
Like you I have come to think of energy as the real money. That is why most of my retirement is in Exxon stock.
Better choice than Kior or Gevo, but as a general investment rule, you should diversify to some extent.
https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/GEVO#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%3D%3D
I think that the self-appointed climatologists would be well served to endorse “Chamberlain’s Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses.” Unfortunately, I’m left with the impression that most have never heard of it!
David keep saying things like this…
* * * *
“Oil Does Not Come From Dinosaurs or Dead Vegetation … this has never been the theory of hydrocarbon formation.”>
* * * *
..while fastidiously ignoring any evidence that undermines his faith-based, evidence-free assertion, e.g.:
QUOTE:
==================================
October, 1917…
Owing to most oil fields being associated with limestone, many theorists conclude that petroleum is the result of animal fats of pre-historic animals. This query is well set at rest by Sir James Hector, when he says : “It is not so much the result of limestone as its capacity to store it.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/123538155?searchTerm=petroleum%2C%20oil&searchLimits=
==================================
Animal fats of prehistoric animals. You may as well call that Dinosaur Fat Theory, a theory David says never existed, even though you can see it old newspapers.
Here’s another fact that fossil fanatics refuse to acknowledge:
Cntrl+f , comet haley.
No mention of it in the article..
Comet Haley is 1/3 kerogen, aka, “oil shale,” equivalent to 500 years of OPEC output:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale#Extraterrestrial_oil_shale
WHERE DID IT COME FROM?
Khwarizmi ,
When I moved to Ohio from California I was surprised to discover how abundant aromatic, volatile hydrocarbons were in the limestone quarries I collected minerals in. I’ve presumed that they were the result of pyrolysis of the fleshy parts of the reef-dwelling organisms and plankton settling on limey bottoms.
As an historical point, I remember as a child asking an uncle living with us, while he was going to college in 1953, where oil came from and he handed me his geology textbook. I remember it referring to organisms in the ocean with nary a mention of mosasaurs or pleisiosaurs or even what were formerly called brontosaurs, as found as a logo. While is is conceivable that such creatures got washed out to sea, and a few.actually didn’t get devoured by the equivalent of the hag fish that now live off dead whales, it is inconceivable that enough large creatures got buried to produce the billions of barrels of crude oil that have been recovered.
David, as another oil and gas geologist (40 yrs U.S and international, now retired) I really appreciate your lucid post, and equally apt replies to reader comments. Thank you.
What great information! Just the other day I asked on this website what is the current science on how oil is formed. What perfect timing. And all the charts and sketches were so easy to understand. Again, great job. Thanks.
‘Those who can’t do teach’
I was, years ago, considered an expert snow skier.
I was at that time also a ski instructor, aka teacher.
That phrase always had given me a laugh.
He he, and yes, I’ve heard that one, too; but it is based on differential ability among people. I also heard this: “See one, do one, teach one”, for that to work best, you can’t really teach something you can’t do. At best, under that circumstance, you’re pointing people to those who can teach by demonstration.
I remember professor Thomas Gold talking about this when I was an undergraduate a Cornell. In principle, it’s very simple. Methane is indeed primordial considering how much of it we see in the Universe. Pressure and temperature (along with catalysts since the required temperature and pressures are hard to come by on the surface) is how we we turn short chain hydrocarbons into longer chain hydrocarbons. Nature can achieve the required temperatures and pressures more easily than man.
Conceptually possible. Except there is roughly zero evidence this has ever happened on earth. And tons of evidence that oil came from catagenesis of mainly marine kerogens. Note two quals articulated above. 1. Lucuastrine woody plants. 2. Archaea methanogens, mainly in clathrates. There can be no scientific doubt that massive abiogenic methane exists. Only question is how much on Earth, now?
The origin of natural gas is harder to determine. But there’s also the possibility of primordial methane bubbling up through biological residue. So the question becomes how much of the primordial methane got buried as the planet formed? Could a massive collision buried some of it deep within the mantle?
It seems to me that this is more a case for why the dominant theory is dominant, rather than a general overview of both strengths and weaknesses.
The crux of the write-up appears to be that the question is moot. Wherever the oil came from, we are using it faster than it is being produced. But, I do not see substantial confirmation of this claim.
Are we? How do we know? How much of the world has been explored?
I am curious – have attempts been made to revive old fields that were previously considered depleted? Given the technologies that have been developed for extracting more product, it seems there would be a record of such activity. Have there been any surprises?
My POV is that I neither believe nor disbelieve. I am not knowledgeable enough about this field to be able to discern who is knowledgeable, and who is either blowing smoke, or relying on hidebound paradigms that they cannot see past.
What I do know is that every cri de coeur thus far, and there have been many, has been wrong. And, I am not too exercised about it because I know when push comes to shove, we have ample energy resources in nuclear power. I am very exercised against environmentally destructive wind and solar power, though.
“My POV is that I neither believe nor disbelieve.’
This is the best way to approach science.
If you don’t see substantial evidence that we produce oil much faster than the Earth generates it, you’ve never looked at production data. If the Earth generated oil at a rate comparable to our production of it, decline curves wouldn’t exist.
“If you don’t see substantial evidence that we produce oil much faster than the Earth generates it, you’ve never looked at production data.”
It does not follow. As a very simple example, suppose you had two reservoirs R1 and R2 with total input rate F. R1’s supply increases according to
R1(k) = R1(k-1) + F/2
We are drawing down R2, so it evolves according to
R2(k) = R2(k-1) +F/2 -A
If A if greater than F/2 but less than F, then R2 is going to decrease, even as overall supply is increasing.
So, again, I am left wondering what data exist on revival of old fields? How comprehensive is our knowledge of the entire Earth’s inventory?
This is the decline curve for EI 330 field, often cited as evidence of abiogenic oil, where some reservoir recharge has actually been observed…
If the Earth was generating oil at a rate comparable to our production, the curve would be more of a flat line. The field, one of the largest in the Gulf of Mexico, has been producing since 1972.
Once a field has been plugged and abandoned, there is nothing to reenter.
Most large fields produce for decades. Many are now monitored with 4d seismic. If they were recharging at an economically meaningful rate, there would be some evidence of this.
“If the Earth was generating oil at a rate comparable to our production, the curve would be more of a flat line.”
Again , it does not follow. I’m not sure you read through and understood my example. Let me try again. If you have 100 such reservoirs, and all are being slowly recharged, then you can deplete one yet still have an overall gain. What matters is if you are depleting all reservoirs faster than the combined rate of recharge. If you are not, then you can hop from one reservoir to the next indefinitely, but by the time you have drained the last, the first will be full again.
I’m not saying this is what is happening. I am saying you have not provided enough information to determine whether it is or not. You come close with the last paragraph, but I have no information on how comprehensive the information is. I have the known unknown – how many such sources have been monitored? – and I have the unknown unknown – how many such potential sources are there in all the world?
Every oil field in the world exhibits a decline curve.
When it’s being pumped, sure. So what? My questions are still valid.
If fields were recharging at a rate comparable to production, there would be no decline curves.
A water-drive reservoir produces an increasing fraction of brine until the well ceases to be economic. If you shut in a water-drive well for a period of time, the water-cut will briefly decline. But, it will quickly be right back where it was before the well was shut in.
A pressure depletion drive exhibits a pressure decline until the well will no longer flow. If you shut in a depletion drive well, there will be a minor build up in pressure. However once you start producing it again, the pressure will rapidly drop to where it was before you shut it in.
If a field is large enough to justify the cost and the geology is compatible with direct hydrocarbon indicators, toy can monitor the reservoir drainage with 4d seismic surveys. Many of the larger fields have been monitored with 4d for nearly 20 years. If the Earth was recharging the reservoirs at a rate comparable to production, you would “see” it on the 4d seismic… You don’t see this happening.
“If fields were recharging at a rate comparable to production, there would be no decline curves.”
No, that is not necessarily so. I’ve explained why.
I’m not saying there is some vast cornucopia awaiting us if we just have patience. I’m not suggesting your analysis is not actionable. The discussion is more or less academic at this point. I’m just interested in what information we do have, and how conclusive it is. At this point, I’m not convinced, but neither am I sanguine. Thank you for your time and effort.
Thanks David.
I’ve always been amazed at the depths of the deposits of the Mississippi Delta and beyond.
The River is often called the Big Muddy, but there is a smaller river with that actual name.
Another source of oil from the Gulf is the Menhaden. Likely you have seen this harvest. Also, amazing.
Hello David:
An excellent article; however, I do have two cents to throw in.
Many decades ago, I was chief engineer on a pilot synoil project.
We used an inorganic catalyst, high temperature and high pressure to convert methane to long chain hydrocarbons.
What killed the project was the fact that the catalyst was constantly becoming plugged with organic sludge. On analysis, this sludge was found to be essentially indistinguishable from crude heavy oil, straight from the well.
I always found this puzzling, and it gave the idea of abiogenis some credibility.
That being the case, is the creation of oil an “either, or” proposition? Or can both theories exist side by side?
The theory and hypothesis can exist side-by-side from an exploration and production standpoint because neither one is really relevant to how we find and produce oil.
Yes, good point.
But given my observations of the plugged catalyst, does this not suggest that a similar process is occuring naturally?
Would it not be reasonable to assume that some proportion of oil is created by this process?
In fact, what would be the definitive empirical observation that would bury the hypothesis of abiogenesis?
On the “oil from dinosaurs” thing: in school in England, 50ish years ago, I never heard anything of the sort. It was taught that it was vegetable matter, possibly with small amounts of animal matter which formed either coal or oil, depending upon temperature/pressure/depth.
There was no real explanation of the processes involved, other than pressure and heat.
The only time dinosaurs were mentioned was that this all occurred during the time they were around. Textbook illustrations showed the odd dinosaur in swampland wth lots of vegetation, growing and dead.
I think the dinosaur oil thing may be purely American.