Hydrocarbons Could Form Deep In the Earth From Methane, Not Animal Remains

Popular Science ^ | April 15, 2011 | Rebecca Boyle

[2ndDivisionVet]

A new study demonstrates how high hydrocarbons could be formed from methane deep within the Earth, aside from the compression and heating of ancient animal remains over the eons. Fused-methane oil would be far less common than your typical petroleum, of course, but the study shows abiogenic hydrocarbons could conceivably occur in some of the planet’s high-pressure and high-temperature zones.

Scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory used supercomputers to simulate what would happen to carbon and hydrogen atoms buried 40 to 95 miles beneath the Earth’s crust, where they would be subjected to prodigious pressures and temperatures.

They found at temperatures greater than 2,240 degrees F and pressures 50,000 times greater than those at the Earth’s surface, methane molecules can fuse to form hydrocarbons with multiple carbon atoms. Interactions with metal or carbon sped up the fusion process, the researchers said. These conditions are present about 70 miles down, according to an LLNL news release.

Methane, CH4, has one carbon and four hydrogen atoms; high hydrocarbons, like propane and butane, have more carbon atoms.

About 99 percent of all the hydrocarbons in oil and natural gas are derived from the compressed, heated remains of ancient living organisms like zooplankton and algae. These critters were buried under layers of sediments five to 10 miles beneath the surface of the Earth.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, some scientists believed hydrocarbons could form from abiogenic (non-biological) processes, too. The existence of methane on several solar system bodies shows hydrocarbons can exist without organic ingredients. But the theory fell out of favor, in part because no one ever found any abiogenic oil deposits...

[alexander_busek]

This theory makes no sense at all.

Yeah, all those geophysicists and geologists who have studied this for hundreds of years have no idea. You have needed only a few minutes of armchair speculation to see right through them and expose them for the frauds they are!

How many animals/plants would it take to undergo this compression and heating in order to give us petroleum products for decades?

Giant (nearly global) forests which existed for hundreds of millions of years, back in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic Eras.

And how this byproduct seeps miles into the earth?

"Gee, and how did those fossilized clamshells get to the mountaintops? Are we supposed to believe that they climbed there somehow? That makes no sense at all!" /s

The Observer Effect: The byproduct didn't "seep" into the Earth - it was covered by, inter alia, orogenic processes (e.g., folding), the repeated retreat and advancing of coastlines, alluvial and aolian processes, etc.

I'm just an interested layperson; I'm sure that a real expert could explain it far better.

Regards,

[NewJerseyJoe]

P4L

[silverleaf]

Nikolai Alexandrovitch Kudryavtsev

[pingman]

I refer to methane as “earth farts”.

[Flick Lives]

How many animals/plants would it take to undergo this compression and heating in order to give us petroleum products for decades?

When pumping gas, I like to count "one brontosaurus, two brontosaurus, three brontosaurus...", as I fill the tank.

[John Valentine]

These critters were buried under layers of sediments five to 10 miles beneath the surface of the Earth...

Yep, these "critters" took their burials VERY seriously... LOL!

Fact is that there is NO CHANCE that the hydrocarbon stores of planet earth have a biogenic origin, despite the insistence of the traditional minded. First of all, the numbers just don't work out. Secondly, the traces of micro organisms found in many higher molecular weight hydrocarbon deposits did not necessarily precede the existence of the hydrocarbons. And there are quite a few locations were oil has been found in and beneath igneous formations. All in all, the biogenic theory of the formation of high molecular weight hydrocarbons is essentially a fairy tale, and like most fairy tales, they are meant for entertainment, not for edification.

[Oberon]

"...crude oil is, and will only be found in biogenic sediments.

Well, that's it then. No need to continue the thread, we've got the Received Wisdom on the matter.

Thanks for that.

[theBuckwheat]

I have often written that “peak oil” is a dangerously specious concept because we do not buy crude oil to burn in our cars, trucks and airplanes, we buy a very technical liquid fuel product that is manufactured by breaking down and reassembling the atoms and molecules of hydrocarbon-rich feedstocks.

At present the most economic source of those hydrocarbons is crude oil, but any hydrocarbon-rick source could be used and the ONLY ISSUE IS COST. We are almost literally awash in hydrocarbons from coal, to natgas, to crude oil, to garbage and sewage sludge.

How will environmentalists react to the news that the earth itself is a hydrocarbon factory? They will attempt to suppress their use through fretting about CO2 levels of course. But when Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) becomes a viable source of energy, how will they oppose it? Well, by fretting about waste heat. And thus we will see what “environmentalists” are really concerned about, which is human progress and prosperity.

[onedoug]

It is supported by evidence. Please indicate any that you have that would contest it.

[Oberon]

It is supported by evidence. Please indicate any that you have that would contest it.

My argument isn't empirical; it's epistemological. You speak with the certainty of one who witnessed the formation of the hydrocarbons in person, and I harbor strong doubts that this is in fact the case.

Absent the premise that you were physically present to witness these events, this is what we have: Your assertion is consistent with the current dominant theory on hydrocarbon formation. Your assertion is (presumably; I have no reason to doubt you on this point) defended by evidence that is also consistent with the current dominant theory... granted. It's probably true... also granted.

However, that's the most we can say about it.

[Dusty Road]

There is none that can contest it.

[Moonman62]

Fact is that there is NO CHANCE that the hydrocarbon stores of planet earth have a biogenic origin,

Your use of CAPS isn't very convincing. I'll stick with the experts on this one.

[John Valentine]

I'll stick with the experts on this one.

Don't you really mean that you will stick with the experts of your choice, and ignore all the others?

[canuck_conservative]

It is supported by evidence. Please indicate any that you have that would contest it.

OK, how about explaining the "sulphur problem".

i.e., all oil contains sulphur. But sulphur is found in no significant amounts in any biological organisms; it's a volcanic product from deep in the earth. So how did it get in the oil?

Yah, I know, the oil geologists explain it by saying sulfide deposits were beside the oil, and it seeped in. But every single oil deposit? Isn't that a bit of a coincidence?

And if it seeped in, wouldn't the distribution be uneven? i.e., higher near the edges, less near the center? Yet analysis of all oil produced shows that the sulfur content is always evenly distributed.

Care to explain?

[The Cajun]

You can never completely deplete a field.

True that, but if you can't produce it and turn a profit anymore, it's considered depleted.
Lots of older wells are P&A'ed because of pressure drop off or watering out and no amount of remedial work will help that zone produce again.
Had that happen on a well that produced on my property for over 30 years (part of Chacahoula oil and gas field).
They ran a TDT (Thermal decay tool), found that zone had watered out totally, but found another zone 2000ft. up the hole they had missed when equipment wasn't as sophisticated, plugged the old zone, perforated the new zone and cha-ching, viable well again, but different zone.
The outfit I worked for did a lot of work of that type on older *played out* wells in the Chacahoula field.

[PA Engineer]

Thanks. Reading up on his works (at least the english translations) now.

[onedoug]

From the Wikipedia article on sulfer:
Sulfur is an essential element for all life, and is widely used in biochemical processes. In metabolic reactions, sulfur compounds serve as both fuels and respiratory (oxygen-alternative) materials for simple organisms. Sulfur in organic form is present in the vitamins biotin and thiamine, the latter being named for the Greek word for sulfur. Sulfur is an important part of many enzymes and in antioxidant molecules like glutathione and thioredoxin. Organically bonded sulfur is a component of all proteins, as the amino acids cysteine and methionine. Disulfide bonds are largely responsible for the mechanical strength and insolubility of the protein keratin, found in outer skin, hair, and feathers, and the element contributes to their pungent odor when burned.

Crude oil is graded by type on its sulfur content, which varies from formation to formation. So it shouldn't really seem so odd that it would vary depending on the biogenic nature of buried material.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks 2ndDivisionVet.

The existence of methane on several solar system bodies shows hydrocarbons can exist without organic ingredients.

Hydrocarbons are organic -- that should be "can exist without organisms" or something along those lines.

---

join or quit view topics view or post blog bookmark post new topic subscribe

---

[SauronOfMordor]

It wont make one bit of difference unless the replenishment rate is comparable to the consumption rate.

[marron]

Hydrocarbons are the basic building blocks of the universe.