Replies

[Hint: The vast majority of petroleum is from *plant* matter.]

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

If you think that there's no organic matter found below 18,000 feet anywhere, you're a complete idiot. In the Tarim basin, for example, fossil-bearing strata extend to a depth of 25,000 feet.

Nor is finding oil down in "basement rock" any actual problem for biogenic petroleum, which you would know if you actually had as much background in petroleum geology as you falsely pretend to. There are many known ways in which biogenic petroleum can end up in basement rock, including:

1) Overlying organic rock from which the oil was expelled downward during compaction.

2) Lateral, off-the-basement but topographically lower, organic rock from which oil was squeezed into an underlying carrier bed through which it migrated updip into the basement rock.

3) Lower, lateral reservoirs from which earlier trapped oil was spilled due to tilting or overfilling.

And that's just for pure unadulterated basement rock. Since all you're giving is raw depth, you also have the possibility of deep oil due to subduction from originally higher strata. Etc., etc.

Try suggesting something that is *actually* a challenge for petroleum of a biogenic origin, instead of just stuff that only *appears* that way to someone who is actually ignorant of the field (such as yourself).

Hint: Oil wells pumped dry have been found to be replenished.

Yes, and I know *why* they have in the rare cases in which they have, unlike you. I also know that the amounts are small and quickly taper off, hardly the "unending supply" you wild-eyed contrarians would like to fantasize they are. "Refilling" is due to additional migration from the source rock due to relieved pressure gradients caused by the initial pumping. No big mystery, and no "infinite" supply either.

There have also been cases of "refilling" waved by the wild-eyed "infinite oil" folks which have turned out to be simply upward reassessments from originally pessimestic estimates. No "new" oil, just a revision "on paper".

Hint: The volume of oil pumped thus far is not accountable from organic material alone according to models of organic material growth from Cambrian period to present.

ROFL!!!!! MAN, you're funny. Please present your alleged math on this, this should be a real knee-slapper.

Wait, I'll do some math myself, to show how stupid your claims are. Here's a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, using carbon mass as an indicator.

The annual biomass net production of carbon is 0.57x10¹¹ tons (a href="http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e54/54d.htm">source). The annual carbon emission from burnt "fossil fuels" was 25,162 million tons in 1993 (source). This is *all* fossil fuels, including coal, not just the "oil" you mention, I included all forms of fossil fuels in order to show that even under the worst possible scenario, your claim is *still* utter bollocks.

Now let's do the math: Let's use only 400 million years "since the Cambrian" -- too small, but I'm *really* trying to give your claim the benefit of the doubt. That makes for a produced carbon biomass of 2.28x10¹⁹ tons.

Meanwhile, if mankind had been producing/using fossil fuels at the prodigious 1993 rates for *every* year for the past 145 years (the first oil well was drilled in 1859), then the total fossil fuel carbon budget would be 3.52x10¹² tons.

So contrary to your goofy claim that, "The volume of oil pumped thus far is not accountable from organic material alone according to models of organic material growth from Cambrian period to present", the ACTUAL truth is that the Earth has produced so much biomass during that time, that it could have resulted in over SIX MILLION TIMES as much fossil fuels as mankind has actually produced/used.

So would you care to revise your b***s*** claim?

Hint: There might be plant matter between your ears.

Fact: You really don't have any clue what you're talking about, but you're awfully belligerent in your ignorance.

Furthermore, your wild-eyed pie-in-the-sky wishes and beliefs about "infinite oil" don't stand up well in the face of the actual science employed by the real-world petroleum geologists, who routinely research the actual source layers of the oil reservoirs they locate, sleuth out the exact nature of its biogenic origins using such techniques as Oil Biomarkers, test biogenic versus abiogenic oil production via such techniques as the following, and so on:

Abiogenic formation of alkanes in the Earth's crust as a minor source for global hydrocarbon reservoirs.
Abstract: Natural hydrocarbons are largely formed by the thermal decomposition of organic matter (thermogenesis) or by microbial processes (bacteriogenesis). But the discovery of methane at an East Pacific Rise hydrothermal vent and in other crustal fluids supports the occurrence of an abiogenic source of hydrocarbons. These abiogenic hydrocarbons are generally formed by the reduction of carbon dioxide, a process which is thought to occur during magma cooling and-more commonly-in hydrothermal systems during water-rock interactions, for example involving Fischer-Tropsch reactions and the serpentinization of ultramafic rocks. Suggestions that abiogenic hydrocarbons make a significant contribution to economic hydrocarbon reservoirs have been difficult to resolve, in part owing to uncertainty in the carbon isotopic signatures for abiogenic versus thermogenic hydrocarbons. Here, using carbon and hydrogen isotope analyses of abiogenic methane and higher hydrocarbons in crystalline rocks of the Canadian shield, we show a clear distinction between abiogenic and thermogenic hydrocarbons. The progressive isotopic trends for the series of C1-C4 alkanes indicate that hydrocarbon formation occurs by way of polymerization of methane precursors. Given that these trends are not observed in the isotopic signatures of economic gas reservoirs, we can now rule out the presence of a globally significant abiogenic source of hydrocarbons.

If you want to discuss the science, fine, but if you just want to be snotty and attack well-established science and industry practices which have been carefully vetted because there's a lot of money at stake and people want to use only the methods that actually *work* -- and apparently you *do* just want to be snotty and attack with bumper-sticker slogans -- then go find someone else to pester.

Oh, you cruel man! Do you get satisfaction out of posting actual facts and rational analyses thereof, and thus creating an embarrassing contrast between the real world and the fantasies of internet blowheads?

(I certainly find it satisfying.)

Good post!

Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark.

I'd love to discuss the science. My snotty comments to you were based on a perceived snottiness and arrogance on your part in your reply to my facetious comments about dinosaurs and oil production.

I've never pretended to have any background in oil geology. I'm just interested in the current debate about biogenic vs abiogenic origins of oil.

Question: what about the theory that bio-markers in oil are not an indication of plant life, but are an indication of thermophilic bacteria which can exist in extreme environments. As you're in the industry, why or why wouldn't this be a valid theory?