Deep Hot Biosphere, oil production line?

[PaulS]

The Deep Hot Biosphere - by Thomas Gold, Ph.D. (2001)

This theory claims that some or all oil is produced in the earth crust at great depth by heat loving microbes, which then oozes out through porous rock to the oil fields we observe.

Supporting Evidence is claimed briefly:

Oil being discovered at 30,000 feet, far below the 18,000 feet where organic matter is no longer found.

Wells pumped dry later replenished (I have not come across such examples!)

Volume of oil pumped thus far not accountable from organic material alone according to present models. (??)

In situ production of methane under the conditions that exist in the Earth's upper mantle. (PhysicsWeb; Sept. 14, 2004)

In situ Production of Inorganic-Derived Petroleum - Scientists in the US have witnessed the production of methane under the conditions that exist in the Earth's upper mantle for the first time. The experiments demonstrate that hydrocarbons could be formed inside the Earth via simple inorganic reactions -- and not just from the decomposition of living organisms as conventionally assumed -- and might therefore be more plentiful than previously thought. (PhysicsWeb; Sept. 14, 2004)

Who knows anything about this?

[snow hope]

I think it is referred to as Abiotic oil. Most people discount it as untrue. I think it is pretty unlikely and I am quite open-minded.

[MacG]

Who knows anything about this?

Know and know, but I've come across this stuff a couple of times. There is just one tiny little problem with these theories, hardly worth mentioning at all really: We have been mopping up oil at an ever accellerating pace for 150 years. If oil is produced deep inside the earth in amounts matching our current consumption, where did all that oil go during the billions of years when we not consumed any oil at all? It must have gone somewhere, otherwise the earth would be an ever swelling globe of pure oil until we started to burn the stuff.

As I said, just a tiny little detail hardly worth mentioning.

[RevdTess]

As I said, just a tiny little detail hardly worth mentioning.

[PaulS]

Hmm, so no specific arguments disproving the theory.

Just wondered, as I came across this argument elsewhere in my discussions. It is a pretty feeble straw to hang on to.

[fishertrop]

I like to start start by saying that we shouldn't be like the PO-naysayers and just dismiss unusual or radical ideas out of hand.

In the case of abiotic oil, I don't discount it as either possible in the lab or inside the earth, but:
1) For it to be true it would mean that the whole of geological science to date has completely missed this huge fact, in spite of not missing lots of other obscure bits of information
2) If it's true, the existsing wells clearly do not refill themselves in less than a couple of decades at least (look at the lower48 for example), so we at least need something to plug the gap between now and a full refill
3) It sounds almost neo-religeous - that we happened to find this one source of energy out of all the others, build a whole society on this one form and then - as if it was a gift from above - we find that the one energy type we really need and is so vital happens to be unlimited, we are truely the chosen ones.....
4) Who's gunna fix the climate when we carry on as we are, burning ever increasing amounts of oil for ever and ever?
5) Big oil companies have assesed all sorts of technologies and theories - look at the work they have done on coal shale, coal-gasification, tar sands etc. If you presume they have looked seriously at abiotic theory then why would all the oil majors be into higher-cost energy sources such as the ones mentioned above and also natural gas - the oil companies want MONEY, lots of it, they don't want to spend on diversifying into gas or tar sands they want just one energy type with the least costs - which they would have with abiotic oil. In fact we wouldn't have gas-fired power stations we'd have oil-fired ones.
6) Why do big oil companies give up or sell off spent fields if they are going to refill?

If something sounds too good to be true, then it probably ........

[RogerCO]

Here's a piece I wrote for the last issue of GreenSWord - the SWGP newsletter. There is also a longer article in it on Peak Oil by Adam Whaley, and another by myself on Contraction & Convergence - you can download from http://southwest.greenparty.org.uk/greensword0605.htm

-----------------
Abiotic Oil

If you start to look in to the Peak Oil debate sooner or later you will come across some sceptic talking about how Peak Oil is all a mad chimera and there is something called abiotic oil which means we don?t have to worry. Abiotic oil means oil that is not formed from biological material over millions of years, but is supposed to be spontaneously created from carbon and hydrogen deep inside the earth.
Beware!

Three points to be aware of:

1. There is no concrete evidence for the existence of non-biological oil in a form which we could exploit. The two most commonly cited stories centre around Russian deep drilling finding oil at greater depths than normal, and a particular field in the Mexican Gulf which appears to be re-filling. Both of these can be explained by conventional geology and do not prove the existence of non-biological (abiotic) oil.

2. Even if oil can be formed by a non-biological process it is certain that this cannot be extracted with our existing or envisioned future technology. It would have to be brought up through a region where the pressure & temperature would cause it to break down, and where our drilling technology and borehole liners will not work (there is some weak evidence that some hydrocarbons - particularly methane - can be produced in the type of conditions found deep in the earth?s mantle)

3. Even if abiotic oil existed, and could be extracted, it is still oil and burning it still generates greenhouse gases and pollution. In practice there is no way that abiotic oil exists in any form that can be economically exploited. If we had the technology to drill that deep inside the earth then we would do far better by extracting geothermal energy- now there is a story whose time may yet come. Remember the 'Hot Rocks' project ?

[PaulS]

Thanks Roger, that's the type of explanation that one needs in discussion with people who are hooked on that idea.

Maybe we could now transfer this thread to the 'Energy beyond Oil' section to provide a permanent record of the explanation for future

[peaky]

Hi Paul,

Hmm, so no specific arguments disproving the theory.

Just wondered, as I came across this argument elsewhere in my discussions. It is a pretty feeble straw to hang on to.

Take a trip to Richard Heinberg's site as well: http://www.museletter.com/archive/150b.html

That should do the trick

[biffvernon]

I recall a paper, suggesting the abiotic origin of oil, being published in one of the serious geological journals in about 1972. It sounded hopeful at the time but over 30 years of searching in non-sedimentary rocks has produced nothing but a few traces of dubious origin.