Hydrocarbons Deep Within Earth: New Computational Study Reveals How

[Moontanman]

Hydrocarbons Deep Within Earth: New Computational Study Reveals How

 

 

A snapshot taken from a first-principles molecular dynamics simulation of liquid methane in contact with a hydrogen-terminated diamond surface at high temperature and pressure. The spontaneous formation of longer hydrocarbons are readily found during the simulations. (Credit: Eric Schwegler, Lawrence Livermore National Lab)

 

ScienceDaily (Apr. 17, 2011) — A new computational study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveals how hydrocarbons may be formed from methane in deep Earth at extreme pressures and temperatures.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110415104540.htm

 

Thomas Gold must be smiling in his grave now!

[mississippichem]

A snapshot taken from a first-principles molecular dynamics simulation of liquid methane in contact with a hydrogen-terminated diamond surface at high temperature and pressure.

 

Wow! They did this Ab Initio! This computation must have taken weeks. Ab Initio methods are notorious for requiring huge amounts of RAM to be taken up for very log intervals. I've heard of simulations running for a week before.

[Moontanman]

The idea of methane, oil and coal being fossils fuels is entrenched deeply in current scientific thought but this may be the first steps to show that so called fossil fuels are really a natural part of the Earth left over from the Earths formation not ancient plants some how magically turned to gas oil and coal. Thomas Gold made a good argument that natural gas, oil and coal are geology reworked by biology not biology reworked by geology and this would seem to support his ideas.

[jackson33]

There is an alternative theory about the formation of oil and gas deposits that could change estimates of potential future oil reserves. According to this theory, oil is not a fossil fuel at all, but was formed deep in the Earth's crust from inorganic materials. The theory was first proposed in the 1950s by Russian and Ukranian scientists. Based on the theory, successful exploratory drilling has been undertaken in the Caspian Sea region, Western Siberia, and the Dneiper-Donets Basin.[/Quote]

 

http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html

 

Wish I had a quarter for every name I've been called just for mentioning "Abiosynthsis" over the years, but the theory is really not new. It was sometime in the 50's that this idea caught on, and Russia basically changed their exploration policy, think starting in the 70's, finding crude where before thought not possible. Heat and pressures were thought to be the cause even then and in my day the "Peak Oil Crowd", had a fit.

 

Thanks Moon, for passing this link on. I hope becomes a viable theory, with a little research money going that direction.

[lemur]

This news has the potential to drive down market prices for fossil fuels if investors legitimately believe that there is practically unlimited reserves available. It would probably help if there were actual drilling methods developed and tested with some proven finds. Imagine what the roads, skies, and waterways will be like if there is a re-emergence of 1950s levels of faith in energy abundance.

Edited April 25, 2011 by lemur

[Moontanman]

I think the political left is mainly responsible for suppressing this information although the right has to take some of the blame as well. Oil is a heated political issue, the left can't embrace this because it calls into question some of their most favored ideas about peak oil and the need for alternate energy sources. The right has problems with it because it was the main theory of the Soviets and of course they can't be right about anything. It's sad when politics gets in the way of seeking the truth. Most scientific journals wouldn't even accept papers that discussed even the possibility of abiogenic oil.

 

Thomas Gold makes a great case for oil being geology reworked by biology instead of the current theory of biology reworked by geology. Thoma Gold's book "The Deep Hot Biosphere" will one day be recognized as an important step in the direction of understanding not only oil but planetary formation and the formation of life it's self.

 

Great link BTW Jackson...

Edited April 26, 2011 by Moontanman

[jimmydasaint]

Moontanman, good find. However, a note of caution:

 

Geologists and geochemists believe that nearly all (more than 99 percent) of the hydrocarbons in commercially produced crude oil and natural gas are formed by the decomposition of the remains of living organisms, which were buried under layers of sediments in Earth's crust, a region approximately 5-10 miles below Earth's surface.

 

But hydrocarbons of purely chemical deep crustal or mantle origin (abiogenic) could occur in some geologic settings, such as rifts or subduction zones said Galli, a senior author on the study

 

[emphasis is mine)

 

ScienceDaily

[Moontanman]

Moontanman, good find. However, a note of caution:

 

 

 

[emphasis is mine)

 

ScienceDaily

 

I understand that at this time the main stream view is that almost all hydrocarbons are biology reworked by geology but as I said there are other schools of thought and they do have considerable evidence that mainstream science seems to be less than willing to look at. In his book Thomas Gold give a huge amount of evidence as to why mainstream science is incorrect in this assumption. While i am not an expert and do not pretend to be, the evidence of abiotic hydrocarbons being the main source of hydrocarbon in the Earth is over whelming, the evidence against is somewhat less than overwhelming to say the least... Science in the former Soviet Union used this evidence to find oil in places mainstream science predicts there would be no oil. Thomas Gold used his theory to find oil in places where there should be no oil, not to mention life in those places as well. Naturally occurring hydrocarbons contain undeniable evidence of it's deep abiotic origins, evidence that is ignored by mainstream science because it is not possible, not because it does not exist...

[John Cuthber]

While it's perfectly possible that some hydrocarbons are not biological in origin, could someone who believes that most petroleum is geological please explain the presence of things like phytane and pristane in crude oil?

Unless you can explain how these molecules ( which are clearly derived from things like chlorophyll) are present in oil then you haven't explained where the oil came from.

[imatfaal]

Where does all the methane come from before it is buried deep in the earth?

[Moontanman]

While it's perfectly possible that some hydrocarbons are not biological in origin, could someone who believes that most petroleum is geological please explain the presence of things like phytane and pristane in crude oil?

Unless you can explain how these molecules ( which are clearly derived from things like chlorophyll) are present in oil then you haven't explained where the oil came from.

 

According to wikki the chemical phytane occurs in Archaea bacteria, which are the bacteria Gold says eat the upwelling hydrocarbons, but Gold does address porphyrins in oil on page 134 to 138 of his book.

 

Porphyrins such as hemoglobin and chlorophyll are attributed to biologic debris but the ones found in oil do not contain iron or magnesium but only vanadium and nickle neither of which are used by surface life forms. I'm not doing his book much credit i am sure but he does address this issue. If you like I'll try to quote him verbatum.

 

Where does all the methane come from before it is buried deep in the earth?

 

According to Gold and other earlier authors it comes from deep in the earth via hydrocarbons from accretion debris like carbonnaceous chondrites and elemental hydrogen upwelling from the mantle, catalysts cause the reaction that makes methane, bacteria use the hydrogen and leave behind every larger molecules of hydrocarbons with less and less hydrogen. the end result is coal, intermediary results are the various hydrocarbons. Coal is often associated with oil deposits as well as other hydrocarbons like methane. All of these hydrocarbons contain helium in concentration 100's of times higher than the surrounding rocks. There is no chemical means to have concentrated helium the helium is dissolved in the oil because it comes from deep under ground where they both come from.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Moontanman

[jimmydasaint]

According to wikki the chemical phytane occurs in Archaea bacteria, which are the bacteria Gold says eat the upwelling hydrocarbons, but Gold does address porphyrins in oil on page 134 to 138 of his book.

 

Porphyrins such as hemoglobin and chlorophyll are attributed to biologic debris but the ones found in oil do not contain iron or magnesium but only vanadium and nickle neither of which are used by surface life forms. I'm not doing his book much credit i am sure but he does address this issue. If you like I'll try to quote him verbatum.

 

 

 

According to Gold and other earlier authors it comes from deep in the earth via hydrocarbons from accretion debris like carbonnaceous chondrites and elemental hydrogen upwelling from the mantle, catalysts cause the reaction that makes methane, bacteria use the hydrogen and leave behind every larger molecules of hydrocarbons with less and less hydrogen. the end result is coal, intermediary results are the various hydrocarbons. Coal is often associated with oil deposits as well as other hydrocarbons like methane. All of these hydrocarbons contain helium in concentration 100's of times higher than the surrounding rocks. There is no chemical means to have concentrated helium the helium is dissolved in the oil because it comes from deep under ground where they both come from.

 

Is Gold saying that most of the oil made by the Earth originates from meteors, then is made under conditions of high pressure and temperatures at depths about 45-90 miles deep inside the Earth? I am not doubting this Moontanman, but this overturns what I thought to be scientific orthodoxy, and I feel deeply uneasy that I believed the orthodox view without question. Any links to other articles?

[Moontanman]

Is Gold saying that most of the oil made by the Earth originates from meteors, then is made under conditions of high pressure and temperatures at depths about 45-90 miles deep inside the Earth? I am not doubting this Moontanman, but this overturns what I thought to be scientific orthodoxy, and I feel deeply uneasy that I believed the orthodox view without question. Any links to other articles?

 

 

He is saying the material that formed the primordial Earth consisted of hydrocarbon bearing asteroids and that as the earth warms up these hydrocarbons are being released (possibly great heat disassociated them) and as they up well up microbes that exist at these depths metabolize them and form the familiar hydrocarbons we see today. He is suggesting this has been going on since the formation of the Earth and these hydrocarbons form the basis of a Deep hot biosphere who's end result is oil and coal, methane would be the original gas being produced abiotically (if i understand correctly) but microbes turn it into heavier hydrocarbons as they feed on it. If you are really intrigued I suggest you read his book, any good library should have it, it's not along book 300 pages or so, took me only three hours to read it but it changed my mind completely about the origin of oil. coal was the hardest part to swallow but he explained it quite well too.

 

Oil wells up naturally all over the earth, some estimates put the natural upwelling of oil as greater than the oil being harvested by humans, satellites can see it as it wells up in the oceans and spreads out, black smokers deep in the ocean produce lots of methane as well from igneous rocks. .

 

Oh yeah, according to Gold helium is a big indicator that hydrocarbons are abiotic, helium is most often associated with oil and natural gas.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Moontanman

[jimmydasaint]

A couple of questions come to mind Moontanman:

 

1) To which depth can bacteria exist in terms of miles under the crust (on average 20 km deep)?

2) More importantly, what is the evidence for biological origin of oil?

 

The latter question is more important to me because I had considered this to be a 'fact' with a weight of empirical evidence in its favour.

 

I also found this information and have to read it in more detail until I can formulate thoughts on the matter (thoughts, not opinions):

 

Abstract: The two theories of abiogenic formation of hydrocarbons, the Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins and Thomas Gold's deep gas theory, have been considered in some detail. Whilst the Russian-Ukrainian theory

was portrayed as being scientifically rigorous in contrast to the biogenic theory which was thought to be littered with invalid

assumptions, this applies only to the formation of the higher hydrocarbons from methane in the upper mantle. In most other

aspects, in particular the influence of the oxidation state of the mantle on the abundance of methane, this rigour is lacking

especially when judged against modern criteria as opposed to the level of understanding in the 1950s to 1980s when this theory was at its peak. Thomas Gold's theory involves degassing of methane from the mantle and the formation of higher hydrocarbons from methane in the upper layers of the Earth's crust. However, formation of higher hydrocarbons in the upper layers of the Earth's crust occurs only as a result of Fischer-Tropsch-type reactions in the presence of hydrogen gas but is otherwise not possible on thermodynamic grounds. This theory is therefore invalid. Both theories have been overtaken by the

increasingly sophisticated understanding of the modes of formation of hydrocarbon deposits in nature.

 

Geological paper

[Moontanman]

Gold suggest life as we know it could exist down to 10 kilometers, if the temp thresh hold is higher (and some scientists suspect it is as much as twice as high as we now know) life could exist much deeper, this deep hot biosphere uses upwelling hydrocarbons and oxides of metals and sulfer as an energy source and a source of hydrogen. The bio markers often cited in oil are from microbes eating the oil not from surface life crushed by over burden.

 

I read your link, it is obvious I am not qualified to argue this and Gold is dead, I'll have to reread Gold's book but if my memory serves me correctly his theory is not being interpreted the way Gold asserts in his book. Gold argues that microbes can convert methane to heavier hydrocarbons in the deep hot biosphere, your link asserts they cannot...

 

I'll let Gold speak for himself.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/89/13/6045.full.pdf

Edited April 29, 2011 by Moontanman

[jimmydasaint]

Gold suggest life as we know it could exist down to 10 kilometers, if the temp thresh hold is higher (and some scientists suspect it is as much as twice as high as we now know) life could exist much deeper, this deep hot biosphere uses upwelling hydrocarbons and oxides of metals and sulfer as an energy source and a source of hydrogen. The bio markers often cited in oil are from microbes eating the oil not from surface life crushed by over burden.

 

I read your link, it is obvious I am not qualified to argue this and Gold is dead, I'll have to reread Gold's book but if my memory serves me correctly his theory is not being interpreted the way Gold asserts in his book. Gold argues that microbes can convert methane to heavier hydrocarbons in the deep hot biosphere, your link asserts they cannot...

 

I'll let Gold speak for himself.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/89/13/6045.full.pdf

[Moontanman]

Jimmy, what were you trying to say?

[John Cuthber]

I think the paper Jimmy cites, which says

"However, there is a fundamental flaw in Thomas Gold's theory of abiogenic petroleum formation. As previously pointed out, methane can only be converted to higher hydrocarbons at pressures >30 kbar corresponding to a depth of ~100 km below the Earth's surface.

The proposed reaction of methane to produce higher hydrocarbons above this depth and, in particular, in the

upper layers of the Earth's crust is therefore not consistent with the second law of thermodynamics .

Furthermore, bacteria can not catalyze thermodynamically unfavourable reactions. Gold's deep gas theory in

which hydrocarbons are supposedly formed from methane in the upper layers of the Earth's crust is therefore invalid."

 

Pretty much nails the idea.

The fact that the archetypal reaction

2 CH4 --> C2H6 +H2

occurs without a change in volume implies that the effect of pressure will be small.

And the overall reaction

n CH4 --- CnH2n+2 + n H2

will not be entropically favoured by high temperatures leads me to suspect that this reaction won't work any better at high temperatures.

.

Given the choice between thermodynamically measured heats of reaction and computed changes I tend to believe the former.

[jimmydasaint]

Jimmy, what were you trying to say?

Moontanman, failing to get on to the desktop computer, I had to turn to my wife's cellphone and it automatically sent out a response - without including any of my words. I need to read the paper thoroughly, that criticises Gold, and must say that I don't always trust information from single papers. JC does make a good case though. IMHO, we need to critically analyse and evaluate the current theories of how oil is made - the scientific consensus, if you will- in order to properly make a relatively objective judgement.

 

Peace

 

jimmy

[imatfaal]

Jimmy - apart from healthy scientific scepticism why do you see the need to re-evaluate the current state of knowledge? Is there any major gap that a new theory is needed to fill, or a glaring error that present thinking cannot explain? I am not doggedly defending dogma - just curious why the creation of oil is being re-problematized.

[jimmydasaint]

Anyone care to comment on this article. There may room for doubt about the apparent consensus view of fossil fuel formation. If someone has overwhelming evidence on how fossil fuels are generated, please submit the original papers or references.

 

Chemical analysis of the most varied organic sediments, including coal and petroleum, reveals a surprising commonality: all derive much of their organic matter from once unknown microbial lipids. This field of study, which might be called molecular paleontology, is still relatively young, but already the work has yielded interesting results. A striking similarity in hundreds of sediment samples from throughout the world was found: they all seem to be made up principally of microbial cell debris. The compounds in petroleum are derived from precursors found in the cell membrane of unicellular plankton and of bacteria and other microorganisms that inhabit the sea floor. In the case of coal the conclusion is more tentative. Nevertheless, this anlaysis suggests that many of the substances that can be extracted from coal are not derived directly from trees and higher plants but instead have been reworked by bacteria and fungi dwelling onthe bottom of the swamp.

Link to Abstract

[Ophiolite]

I liked Gold's tilt at windmills. There is a lot of carbon in the mantle. There is no particular reason some of it should not migrate upwards. The helium data is odd, but there are alternative explanations. There is, indeed, a deep hot biosphere, although how large and active it is is ill defined.

 

On balance I should not be surprised if some hydrocarbons do originate in the depths, by methods not yet clearly identified. I would be amazed if the majority of hydrocarbons originated in this way.

 

One of the practices in oil exploration is to analyse potential source rocks, generally shales, for suitable organic material. There we find all the biological markers mentioned earlier in this thread and many more besides. These can be chemically linked to the petroleum reservoirs into which the hydrocarbons have migrated. The industry spends considerable sums of money carrying out such analyses, or certainly did so in the 70s and 80s when I was involved with that side of things. This is not an industry that knowingly throws money away.

 

Mootanman brings up two objections that need to be challenged. Firstly he asserts that the Russians adopted this concept of hydrocarbon generation and thereby made many new finds. This is not wholly true. A segment of the Russian industry pursued these concepts for a time. I can find no evidence that it currently seen as viable concept within Russia. I base this on a) a (limited) literarure search that turned up little or nothing b) conversations with several (half a dozen) graduates of Moscow's Oil and Gas University, none of whom had ever heard of the theory.

 

Secondly, the contention contained above that oil was thereby discovered in 'impossible' places. The story of oil exploration has always been one of finding oil in impossible places. This has much more to do with the shallow imaginations of many oil men than with the deep sources of hydrocarbons.