Climate Research News Nature Geoscience Study: Abiogenic Oil and Gas Forever? Scientists are re-thinking the theory that dead plant and animal matter plus geo-forces are the only source of crude oil, natural gas etc. GREAT NEWS for emerging economies and the world's poor! Peer-reviewed paper: KTH – Royal Institute of Technology METHANE-DERIVED HYDROCARBONS PRODUCED UNDER UPPER-MANTLE CONDITIONS Nature Geoscience 2, 566 – 570 (2009), 26 July 2009 | doi:10.1038/ngeo591 Anton Kolesnikov 1,2, Vladimir G. Kutcherov 2,3 & Alexander F. Goncharov 1 Abstract: 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. 1 Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, District of Columbia 20015, USA 2 Lomonosov Moscow State Academy of Fine Chemical Technology, 117571 Moscow, Russia 3 Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden Correspondence to: Alexander F. Goncharov1 e-mail: [email protected] FULL PAPER at http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/abs/ngeo591.html
Do you actually read anything that you post? The abstract says that with enough heat and pressure, you can observe ethane and methane join to produce structures as large as butane, and break back down again. Observed using a diamond anvil in a lab. They didn't actually (e.g.) drill a hole in the ground or anything, or find such compounds from deep structures, or whatnot. Given that they did not, in fact, find or even attempt to find any hydrocarbon fuels, the thread title is misleading. My recollection is that a) people have spent a fair bit of money drilling for abiogenic oil before and come up with nothing, and b) the cases where abiogenic oil was suspected (e.g., oil reservoirs with atypical changes in pressure under oil extraction) have all been explained by geology, that is, but links to other, biogenic oil reservoirs. We have plenty of hydrocarbons available, there's no need to appeal to (so far) imaginary limitless supplies of abiogenic oil. There's nothing to stop (e.g.) the conversion of abundant natural gas or coal to synthetic oil, other than modestly higher cost than conventional oil. Serious studies (e.g., those sponsored by DOE) have pointed out that the hard part is the transition -- we risk having conventional oil run far short of needs before we have capacity in place to produce from unconventional sources. And, of course, that most of mankind will probably die off from the results of climate change as we actually release all that carbon into the atmosphere. Probably, starting with the world's poor.
I'm not concerned about the source of the hydrocarbons. In fact, it would be a great and wonderful world if we had a never-ending and infinite source of energy we could tap into at ever-growing levels year after year ad infinitum. What bothers me is that burning this type of fuel - regardless of its origins - releases toxic chemicals into our environment and threatens our very existence.
The title was meant to be provocative. Yes, I read the abstract and I also read this, which, apparently, you didn't bother to: ...He adds that there is no chance that fossil oils, with the help of gravity or other forces, would have been able to seep down to a depth of 10.5 kilometres in, for example the US state of Texas, which is rich in oil deposits. This is, according to Vladimir Kutcherov, in addition to his own research results, further evidence that this energy sources can occur other than via fossils – something which will cause a lively discussion among researchers for a considerable period of time. “There is no doubt that our research has shown that raw oil and natural gas occur without the inclusion of fossils. All types of rock formations can act as hosts for oil deposits,” asserts Vladimir and adds that this applies to areas of land that have previously remained unexplored as possible sources of this type of energy. This discovery has several positive aspects. Rate of success as concerns finding oil increases dramatically – from 20 till 70 percent. As drilling for oil and natural gas is an extremely expensive process, costs levels will be radically changed for the petroleum companies and eventually also for the end user... As to your suggestion that we will kill ourselves by continuing to burn hydrocarbon-based fuels, the evidence (from scientists, not government bodies) continues to mount in contradiction.
A Russian study? By RUSSIANS?! It actually got a lot of hype in the Motherland, and a few groups who want to believe in things like perpetual motion, but in the real world there has been no evidence of such a process We have plenty of hydrocarbons to draw on, just not cheaply. Eg the methane clathrates in the Canadian Arctic are potentially the largest source of natural gas on earth, and similar deposits are found off the coasts in deep water, in the Siberian region and Russian Arctic, etc UCSB Press Release: "Gas Escaping From Ocean Floor May Drive Global Warming " Peculiarities of Methane Clathrate Hydrate Formation and Solid-State Deformation, Including Possible Superheating of Water Ice -- Stern et al. 273 (5283): 1843 -- Science Alexander's Gas & Oil Connections - Ice on fire: The next fossil fuel As Arctic Ocean warms, megatonnes of methane bubble up - environment - 17 August 2009 - New Scientist Otherwise known as methane hydrate, it's fascinating how the methane is trapped within the ice.
To clarify: the Soviet era petroleum geologist Nikolai Kudryavtsev gained popularity in the USSR by proposing the theory in the 1950's
And you can cite these growing number of qualified scientists? This isn't a list like the Discovery Institutes' List of Scientists Doubting Darwin, is it? I mean, I'm just asking...
Well, you tout the abstract of the peer-reviewed article. I read the abstract of the peer-reviewed article. It was as I described it -- this fellow has in fact found zero abiogenic oil. Now, in the interview, not peer review, this fellow asserts that you cannot possibly find biogenic oil at 10.5 KM or lower below the surface. That's about 34,500 feet or so. But BP just made a major Gulf discovered at around 31,000 feet. They found it by looking where they expected to find biogenic oil. They sure as heck have not been touting it as abiogenic. So, what, I'm supposed to believe that BP can find regular old oil at about 31,000 feet, but nowhere on earth could there possibly be biogenic oil that's 3500 feet deeper? Nah. This guy's just touting his analysis with the diamond anvil.
I worked in the gold business. There are potentially 10 trillion dollars worth of gold in the world's oceans. But sadly, at approximately 13 parts per trillion, no one can profitably mine the ocean. What has this to do with Oil? Even if the papers claims are true, it offers no hint that any of the potential oil exists in a profitable concentration. If they can find a theory that correctly predicts new oil in profitable concentrations, THAT will be news.
This is an old idea the pops up once in a while, much like the 100 mpg carburetor. It has been pretty well disproved for many years. Tom
c'mon now ... we're talkin' about the folks that brought us chernoby ... how could they be wrong ... be wrong ... be wrong ...
It just occurred to me that the problem with the thread is that the OP got the title wrong. It should have read: Planet Earth has an ENDLESS Supply of Hydrocarbon Fools
I am a geophysicist. This is saying that it is possible to get the chemical reactions necessary to generate hydrocarbons. It does not say that that it actually happens. Evidence suggests that it does not happen. Simply, there are rocks that are observed at the surface that originated in the upper mantle, but they do not contain hydrocarbons. And people have looked. The title of this post (not the paper) does not pass the giggle test.
Am I reading this right? You're saying that there is mounting evidence that buring hydrocarbon fuels is NOT bad for us? Have you tried firing up some hydrocarbon fuels in an enclosed space while you stand there trying to breathe? It might not be scientifical enough, but it sure drives the point home! I'm still giggling about the whole thing. Yeah, I've been reading about this since... well before I was born. I'm smart that way. Yeah, the title is provocative - as are most things that go against logic, reality and the giggle test.
And to think, I was worried I might be missing something worthwhile posted in this forum. I come back and waste time reading this garbage. Boy I sure hope the rest of the super political wackos do better research than the OP does. I would like to think that they have a valid point somewhere in their arsenal of denial.
The OP admitted, in his second post, that the title was meant to be provocative. One might notice that the title of the linked article suggests a similar idea. It is interesting that this same tactic is repeatedly used in articles touting the dire situation of AGW and draws no criticism from the gallery here, indeed quite the opposite.
