Volcanic flows...

[Externet]

Hi.

Magma is supposed to be in underground chambers and branches that may or may not be some day expelled by eruptions.

Petroleum is supposed to be in underground chambers and branches too.  

I have never known of a reported volcanic eruption that the magma flowed/passed trough into a petroleum deposit and both ended on earth surface as a fiery explosive combustion from hydrocarbons fuel + heat + fire + oxygen.  Is there a reason why such coincidental path event does not happen ?  😱

[iNow]

We cannot assume it's never happened nor wouldn't (magma flowing into/through oil deposits) as that's entirely possible. It's just less likely, however, because magma tends to sit higher / closer to the crust than oil deposits which generally are much deeper. 

It's a bit like placing a rock at the bottom of our cup and asking why the marshmallow you set floating on top isn't interacting directly with that rock. It's not that it's impossible, just that it's unlikely. 

[studiot]

13 hours ago, Externet said:

Hi.

Magma is supposed to be in underground chambers and branches that may or may not be some day expelled by eruptions.

Petroleum is supposed to be in underground chambers and branches too.  

I have never known of a reported volcanic eruption that the magma flowed/passed trough into a petroleum deposit and both ended on earth surface as a fiery explosive combustion from hydrocarbons fuel + heat + fire + oxygen.  Is there a reason why such coincidental path event does not happen ?  😱

Not exactly an explosion, but then it is difficult to ignite some hydrocarbon deposits.
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_Lake

[exchemist]

On 1/18/2022 at 2:33 AM, Externet said:

Hi.

Magma is supposed to be in underground chambers and branches that may or may not be some day expelled by eruptions.

Petroleum is supposed to be in underground chambers and branches too.  

I have never known of a reported volcanic eruption that the magma flowed/passed trough into a petroleum deposit and both ended on earth surface as a fiery explosive combustion from hydrocarbons fuel + heat + fire + oxygen.  Is there a reason why such coincidental path event does not happen ?  😱

I think that will be because of where volcanism occurs. Volcanism arises in three types of location:

- spreading centres, such as mid-ocean ridges,

- subduction zones, such as island arcs

- mid-plate hot spots

Whereas for hydrocarbon deposits one needs a sedimentary location that has not been subject to subduction or intense heating for several tens of millions of years.

Subduction zones and spreading centre, where crust is turning over or being newly formed, thus seem very unlikely to be places where hydrocarbons can accumulate. In principle one could get a new hot spot, from time to time, in the middle of a plate carrying continental crust, which might contain hydrocarbons. But the chance of that is pretty small, I'd have thought.

 

 

20 hours ago, iNow said:

We cannot assume it's never happened nor wouldn't (magma flowing into/through oil deposits) as that's entirely possible. It's just less likely, however, because magma tends to sit higher / closer to the crust than oil deposits which generally are much deeper. 

It's a bit like placing a rock at the bottom of our cup and asking why the marshmallow you set floating on top isn't interacting directly with that rock. It's not that it's impossible, just that it's unlikely. 

Other way round surely? Magma originates in zone of partial melting in the upper mantle or lower crust, whereas hydrocarbons form from living organisms on the surface that have become buried, in sedimentary formations.

[iNow]

You are of course correct. I zigged when I should've zagged in my brain and accidently switched them when typing. Appreciate the correction. 

[Area54]

There is a perceptual error in the opening post. Hydrocarbon deposits are not found in underground chambers. Blame a century or so of oversimplified explanatory diagrams for that false idea. Oil and gas are found in the pore spaces of rocks (typically sedimentary rocks as pointed out by others.) These pore spaces are typically small, sometimes microscopic. Calling such pore spaces "chambers" only contributes to sustaining the false impression of large cavern like voids.

Hydrocarbons and volcanism are often found in association. For example, the subduction of the Indian Ocean plate generated the volcanic arc of Indonesia and was responsible for the oil deposits lying in the back arc of the Java Sea. Or take the failed triple junction in the North Sea with its extensive oil deposits formed contemporeaneously with the active volcanism of the adjacent and effective Atlantic opening.

Where magma does come into contact, or proximity to oil bearing deposits these are going to be cooked. They are not going to flow into and be erupted along with the magma.

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, Area54 said:

There is a perceptual error in the opening post. Hydrocarbon deposits are not found in underground chambers. Blame a century or so of oversimplified explanatory diagrams for that false idea. Oil and gas are found in the pore spaces of rocks (typically sedimentary rocks as pointed out by others.) These pore spaces are typically small, sometimes microscopic. Calling such pore spaces "chambers" only contributes to sustaining the false impression of large cavern like voids.

Hydrocarbons and volcanism are often found in association. For example, the subduction of the Indian Ocean plate generated the volcanic arc of Indonesia and was responsible for the oil deposits lying in the back arc of the Java Sea. Or take the failed triple junction in the North Sea with its extensive oil deposits formed contemporeaneously with the active volcanism of the adjacent and effective Atlantic opening.

Where magma does come into contact, or proximity to oil bearing deposits these are going to be cooked. They are not going to flow into and be erupted along with the magma.

I agree that indiscriminate use of the word 'chamber' can lead to false impression.

However how big is a chamber ?

For instance how big is a vacuole in an amoeba?

Is that not. technically a chamber ?

And are we not a technical site here ?

[Area54]

Just now, studiot said:

I agree that indiscriminate use of the word 'chamber' can lead to false impression.

However how big is a chamber ?

For instance how big is a vacuole in an amoeba?

Is that not. technically a chamber ?

And are we not a technical site here ?

Certainly we are technical site, but that makes it appropriate that we use the terminology appropriate to the particular discipline we are discussing.  The term chamber is not used in reference to hydrocarbon deposits by reservoir engineers or petroleum geologists. They talk about reservoirs and pore spaces, not chambers. Leave that to a paleontologist who would certainly use it in relation to the chambers of an ammonite.

So, how big a chamber is depends on the context. And whether or not we use the word chamber at all depends, again, on context.