Petroleum from decayed marine life? Maybe not say Russian geophycists

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by SlowMo, Jun 10, 2015.

  1. The standard doctrine of original oil and gas formation in the Earth is that it is the byproduct of the accumulated decay of vast quantities of mostly primitive marine life. Everyone has accepted this as gospel for the last century. However, it's becoming more popular among Russian geophysicists to view this with a suprising degree of skepticism.
     
    Instead, they are proposing that the hydrocarbon synthesis that results in petroleum formation takes place on a continuous basis deeper in the Earth's asthenosphere and then migrates upward through the deep faults, fissures, and microfractures and finally accumulating in reservoirs  in the suitably porous sedimentary material of the Earth's crust.
     
    See Chapter 1 of the 2013 book, Hydrocarbon -  Abiogenic Deep Origin of Hydrocarbons and Oil and Gas Deposits Formation; edited by Vladimir Kutcherov and Anton Kolesnikov
     
    Interesting theory. I always like it when some long held notion is challenged from within the particular field of inquiry and for reasons that aren't trivial.

     
  2. #2 yurigadaisukida, Jun 10, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2015
    This would suggest that its an abundant resource. And that it could hypothetically bebe found on planets devoid of life.

    It also throws out half the case against the use of "fossil" fuels.

    -yuri
     
  3. Well, it's just a theory, like its more established, life-based.counterpart. And apparently not a very popular theory outside of the Russian school of geophysicists that advanced it.
     
    But, if it turns out they are correct, depending on the rate of the hypothesised hydrocarbon synthesis in the mantle coupled with the rate that those compounds are able to migrate into subsurface reservoirs vs. their rate of removal by humans and other source of depletion, I suppose it's possible that these hydrocarbons could then be considered a replenishable resource. And they certainly could no longer be called "fossil fuels".
     
    I'm about as skeptical of this proposal as any other alternative to long established explanations. I just thought it interesting that there even was an alternative explanation. I just never ran into it before I guess. 
     
  4. #4 BRZBoy, Jun 11, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 11, 2015
     
    That already has been thrown out. In the most anti petro climate ever America is now the number one producer of Natural Gas and Oil. All the stops have been taken out to attempt to stop it and by and large failed. Made headlines last week that the most restrictive EPA in history thinks Fracking is just great. In nearly all cases of environmental damage...it came down to improperly made water wells, and procedures not followed by the frackers...which is something that can happen in any industry.
     
    Oil has been, will be, and for probably as long as were around be critical to modern humans. To many things besides just gas comes out of it. Pharma products, plastics, ashpalt for roads, roofing you name it.
     
    As a energy source for cars its cheap, proven and easily used and its price per unit of measure for energy density can't be beat. In fact you cant buy Coke for cheaper then what it costs for a equal amount of oil. The high price is mostly the taxes that are put upon it.
     
    Then stuff like Airplanes well you can forget them going electric. A 747 uses over 50,000 gallons of jet fuel to make a trans Atlantic flight. The new 787 is the most efficent engine ever built for a plane and that plane holds I think about 35,000 gallons.
     
    Take transportation trucks...they get less then 10 miles per gallon and that is high. Its about 5-8. When your hauling the mass of cargo it takes alot of gas to do it.
     
    No one ever thinks of that though.
     
    Also we have just barely tapped oil reserves. The vast majority of off shore oil rigs are less then 10 miles away from the shore line world wide. Deep oil drilling has been proven to be successful and they know there is more oil out there then has been used in human history.
     
    The entire Rocky Mountains just about is composed of Tar Sands and Oil shale. One day we will exploit that to.
     
  5. Clearly you just read the quick abstract of the study or some bullshit article. The study states that fracking has been found to cause environmental damage, just not on a massive scale. If you actually read the study they did a shit job and it's really not worth putting to much stock into. They basically have no control sample as they were denied by many companies to take sample before fracking. On too of that there were several other limiting factors and shortcomings of this study that make it hard to put to much faith into this one study. Even the study itself cautions using the results to make political decisions and calls for much more in depth studies.
     

Share This Page