Hydrocarbon reserves are serving important ecological functions.

[tsmspace]

claim: the recent discovery of microbial populations in deep hydrocarbon reserves should support the claim that there were microbial populations in shallow reserves.

claim: The density and quality of hydrocarbons within a reserve affects the type and volume of microbial activity (although it is something I've considered that after getting what we can from a reserve, there might be a short term bloom given the newly found relaxed environment. hydrocarbons of high complexity can be broken again and again for energy)

claim: Harvesting fossil fuels dramatically alters the subterranean environment, and therefore the biologic activity.

claim: This affect in turn affects the surface. Hydrocarbon seepage is reduced with reduced reserve pressure.

discussion: WE farmed and deforested nearly everything. We did a lot of replanting. the vegetation as it is today in nearly every location has changed 100% . Lots of things died on their own or were replaced by invasive species. actually, we can't ever know about invasive species of the time. If it's going on now, I would think it's ok to assume it happened already.

discussion: Due to the nature of oil science (get money), it is likely that the kind of data one would use to support these claims isn't available. Not until biological sciences really started producing wild food genetics and such would we have had available data. some independent environmentalist data collector from long ago (or even a bunch of them) would not have been able to collect data that anyone would have found useful. Data collection is huge.

discussion: There are so many things happening to the surface due to human activities, many of the effects that may have been from changes in hydrocarbon seepage were likely attributed to something else, such as pollution or infrastructure development.

 

Link list:

 

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/earthscience/geology/oilandgas/HydrocarbonMigration/Hydrocarbon/Hydrocarbon.html

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-05297-2_61#page-1

http://ipec.utulsa.edu/28.d/28_Abs.html

http://microbiology.okstate.edu/faculty/mostafa/publications/PetMicrorev.pdf

http://www.livescience.com/23126-bacteria-sucked-up-200-000-tons-of-oil-after-bp-spill.html

http://microbiology.okstate.edu/faculty/mostafa/publications/PetMicrorev.pdf

http://levin.ucsd.edu/publications/Levin%20OMBAR%2005.pdf

[Ophiolite]

An interesting topic. I hope tsmspace is still around and may respond.

 

claim: the recent discovery of microbial populations in deep hydrocarbon reserves should support the claim that there were microbial populations in shallow reserves.

Could you provide citations for the former. I would have expected the literature to show the reverse.

 

claim: The density and quality of hydrocarbons within a reserve affects the type and volume of microbial activity (although it is something I've considered that after getting what we can from a reserve, there might be a short term bloom given the newly found relaxed environment. hydrocarbons of high complexity can be broken again and again for energy

Are you taking into account that in most hydrocarbon exploitation the majority of the hydrocarbon is left in the ground?

 

claim: Harvesting fossil fuels dramatically alters the subterranean environment, and therefore the biologic activity.

The word dramatically is qualitative. The principle change is one of reservoir pressure, with - in some instances - some associated subsidence. What evidence would you produce to support the assertion that a pressure change - typically a reduction by half - would have a dramatic effect on the biology.

 

claim: This affect in turn affects the surface. Hydrocarbon seepage is reduced with reduced reserve pressure.

Seepage is not a widespread occurence. You seem to be arguing that it is. Could you clarify please.

 

More to the point reservoirs are generally isolated from the surface, which is why they are reservoirs rather than conduits. If their is seepage it is typically not coming from a reservoir.

 

 

 

I am not persuaded that seepage is widespread. I accept that it would have an impact on its local environment. I don't think that is disputed. So, I am not sure quite what your central point is.

[tsmspace]

I won't be able to fully respond all at once.

 

-I think that not always have hydrocarbon reserves been so deep. I think that seepage is not clearly stated at all times. there are various seepage types and quantities. There are hydrocarbons in minnesota's water from south dakotas reserves. I think that hydrocarbons directly from the seepage may not be necessary for an environment to be affected by the seepage. I think that there is not one place on earth that is truly isolated from the rest of earth. I recommend reading about oceanic seepage to benthic productivity, although there is very little. I have some resources which are interesting, but as time marches on the amount of data required to make a claim increases, and the available data becomes more questionable. I would like to argue : think about what people say compared to what is true, and how mostly shop talk is wrong.

 

- I like how most of the hydrocarbons remain, but seepage is dynamic. actually pretty much all reserves seep, which is how we found them. I like how we pump water into the reserve and see bacterial blooms which worry prospectors that the reserve will be eaten.

 

-I would love to argue with you about whether there were micro-organisms in shallower reserves. I would like to hear about the credibility of your sources suggesting that there is not and was not life in them.

 

- It is interesting how many trillions of barrels of oil we have removed from the subterrean, and yet how microseepage might be expected to drain the reserve...