Expanding on a Patio Conversation

Last weekend, while sipping martinis on a friend’s patio, a far ranging conversation was engaged in.  Homosexuality was discussed, as were Artic trips, the percentage of left handed individuals in the world, and the origins of oil.  Though by no means does this cover the entire evening’s conversational whirlwind.

Availing ourselves of the benefits of a wireless internet connection, we determined that each individuals estimate (they ranged from 5 percent to 35 percent) of the percentage of left handed individuals in the world was correct.  As the study of left handedness, a study that we were informed has been ongoing for at least 160 years, has basically determined that there is no definitive answer, with estimates ranging from 5 to 30 percent of the population.

The question that we did not research, that night, dealt with the origins of oil.  Is oil a fossil fuel, as we so often hear it described, or, are the origins of oil from some other source?  I argued that oil is not the result of dead dinosaurs, as so advertised by the Sinclair dinosaur, and others, though I could not definitively state what the source of oil was, though I reasoned that the source of oil was a byproduct of forces within the earth.

Taking a moment this afternoon, I plugged into Google, “origins of oil.” The results are here. Though I cannot vouch for the veracity of the links supplied by the Google search engine, nevertheless, the links provide some interesting data on the subject.  Such as this link, which provides some data which support my thinking on the subject, though the majority of links that Google supplied, state that oil is the result of decayed plant and animial life.

I find this difficult to accept, and here is why.  Think about this.  A plant or animal dies.  You see it almost everyday, whether it be a road killed skunk, or the leaves decaying in a small pile in your backyard.  These dead plants and animals do not become a small puddle of oil, they become a compost type material which you can work into your soil as nourishment for plants, and animals, in next year’s growing season.

I still do not know, with certainty, that oil does not come from dead plants and animals, but my reasoning guides me to thinking that the origins of oil are simply byproducts of the earths life cycle of which we are, for the most part, still ignorant.

There you go, Pfeif.

Posted by on 09/04 at 01:16 PM

  1. Homosexuality, Artic trips, the percentage of left handed individuals in the world, and the origins of oil.

    There’s gotta be something of a simalie there somewhere....

    Posted by Bithead  on  09/04  at  10:17 PM

  2. arctic not artic

    Posted by  on  09/05  at  07:00 AM

  3. Dang it, a typo.

    Posted by  on  09/05  at  09:15 AM

  4. No, A ytop.

    Posted by Bithead  on  09/05  at  09:49 AM

  5. I find this difficult to accept, and here is why.  Think about this.  A plant or animal dies.  You see it almost everyday, whether it be a road killed skunk, or the leaves decaying in a small pile in your backyard.  These dead plants and animals do not become a small puddle of oil, they become a compost type material which you can work into your soil as nourishment for plants, and animals, in next year’s growing season.

      True enuf, but unlike roadkill, the plant and animal life that dies in (or is transported to) the ocean is relatively easily preserved in an anaerobic grave. Most, but by no means all hydrocarbons, are sourced in marine deposited sedimentary rocks.

    I still do not know, with certainty, that oil does not come from dead plants and animals, but my reasoning guides me to thinking that the origins of oil are simply byproducts of the earths life cycle of which we are, for the most part, still ignorant.

      You’re wise to be skeptical, John. But I can tell you this much, after having worked 20+ years in oil and gas exploration, petroleum geologists and geophysicists (the latter of which I am, by education anyway) assume in their predictive models a biogenic source of oil and gas. Further explanation is beyond the scope of a blog comment.

    Here’s something else for you to ponder on the patio: what do you think the source of coal was on this planet?

    Posted by RKN  on  09/05  at  02:30 PM

  6. True enuf, but unlike roadkill, the plant and animal life that dies in (or is transported to) the ocean is relatively easily preserved in an anaerobic grave. Most, but by no means all hydrocarbons, are sourced in marine deposited sedimentary rocks.

    This thought, actually a variation of it, passed through the patio conversation on this subject. Though I can accept it as a hypothesis for the origins of oil, and I am out of my depth here, I find it difficult to accept.  My reasoning for not accepting it as fact, is, the sheer numbers of plant and animal life which would needs be deposited into one area, the size of a large oil field, from which the black gold is then gleaned.  Not to mention, the diversification of areas, around the world, from which oil is profitably produced.  The scope of oil fields worldwide, and number of barrels of oil produced, in my mind, do not support the hypothesis, though I am speaking from a relative position of ignorance.

    Additionally, if you consider the oceans, and the watery grave it has become in various marine disasters, animal life, humans included, decay, rather than being absorbed into the anaerobic grave, and later becoming the oil that lubricates the engine in my car, or the gallon of gas I pour into my lawnmower.

    Posted by  on  09/05  at  04:18 PM

  7. It interests me, John, that you focus on oceanic disasters as a soruce of carbon, and not the life that has lived… and died… and decayed.... in said ocean for Milenia.... which I should think would produce far more in volume.

    And time is the key to your conversaion process, I think. You’re quite correct, a dead animal doesn’t turn into crude, at least within our lfetimes. It’s always struck me that the theory of oil being plant and animal life of itself suggests life has been around far longer than we’re admitting.

    How, for example, can it be suggested that so much carbon can be available below an area of the world that is one of the least populated.... the Sahara Forest.

    Oh, sure… it’s a desert NOW.....


    Posted by Bithead  on  09/05  at  05:31 PM

  8. It’s always struck me that the theory of oil being plant and animal life of itself suggests life has been around far longer than we’re admitting.

      Why? Most oil and gas is sourced in rocks that are roughly 250 million years old or younger. Fossil evidence of life on this planet dates back to the early Cambrian, about 600 million years ago.

    How, for example, can it be suggested that so much carbon can be available below an area of the world that is one of the least populated.… the Sahara Forest.

    Oh, sure… it’s a desert NOW..…

      I can’t tell if you’re joking or not.

      Suffice it to say Saudia Arabia wasn’t where it is today when much of it was trangressed by a paleo-ocean. Familiarizing yourself with the theory of plate tectonics and continental drift would help you understand how the reservoir rocks beneath Saudi Arabia, for instance, were deposited on the continental shelf of a paleo-ocean.

      The other thing to understand is that oil, gas, and condensate are highly mobil fluids in sedmimentary rocks. Under circumstances of good permeability and porosity, oil and gas can migrate hundreds of miles from where it was originally sourced. At least that’s the prevailing theory in petroleum geology.

    Posted by RKN  on  09/05  at  09:02 PM

  9. My reasoning for not accepting it as fact, is, the sheer numbers of plant and animal life which would needs be deposited into one area, the size of a large oil field, from which the black gold is then gleaned.

      Hmm. Do you have a calculation for, on average, how much biogenic material is required to be deposited such that when it is subjected to pressure from compaction, and high temperature, it will turn into one barrel of oil, or one cubic foot of methane? If not, then what “numbers” are making you incredulous that O&G has a biogenc origin?

    Not to mention, the diversification of areas, around the world, from which oil is profitably produced.  The scope of oil fields worldwide, and number of barrels of oil produced, in my mind, do not support the hypothesis, though I am speaking from a relative position of ignorance.

      The continents are in motion, John. They are literally “afloat” on the denser balsatic crust that makes up the sea floor. And, frequently in earth’s history, the seas have transgressed and covered the continents. For instance, at different times different parts of what is now the continental US used to be under water. If you were to drill beneath your feet in Michigan, before long you’ll run into marine limestone, dolomite, and shale chocked full of ancient marine fossils.

      Oil and gas deposits are scattered around the world because these two phenomena—plate tectonics and ocean transgression—have been at work worldwide since the Cambrian. (Alaska’s arctic North Slope used to be as temperate as Santa Barbara is today!). But of course these two things don’t tell the whole story. There are numerous other specific pre-conditions necessary to the formation of hydrocarbon, at least according to the biogenic theory.

    Posted by RKN  on  09/05  at  09:34 PM

  10. RKN - As mentioned above, I am mostly ignorant of this field of study.  Because of this, when I consider the subject, I can only theorize, at times poorly, by attempting to gather the disparate pieces of knowledge I do have of oil, plate tectonics and the forces at work within the earth.  The passage of time, the cataclysmic movements of the earths plates, and all the life that has come before do seem to argue in favor of plant and animal life as the source of “fossil” fuel.  I am woefully short of the necessary information to make a more informed opinion.

    Right now, I’m wondering if peat bogs could have played a role in the formation of the black gold.

    Posted by  on  09/06  at  06:38 AM

  11. ...the Sahara Forest.

    Oh, sure… it’s a desert NOW..…

    I can’t tell if you’re joking or not.

    The reason you’re having trouble is I’m only half joking.

    More than once I’ve seen what I would term scietific speculation that what is now the Sahara Desert was once among the most lush places on earth, with large animal populations and possibly large pre-human populations as well. 

    And I guess it make a kind of sense; If we accept that oil is decayed plant and animal, then we must assume that there was enough material in the area so as to make such reserves as we’ve found there. It also follows that since the reserves we’ve found there are larger than anyplace else we’ve found, that the populations of plants animals etc were larger there than anyplace else on earth at the time, and possibly even larger that we have now elsewehre on earth.

    Two possibilities come from this line of thought; That the amount of time involved in transitioning this area of the world from the green lush fertile place it must have been if our theory is correct, to the lifeless sandpile it is now, would take a long time indeed.... time beyond our reckoning.

    The other possibility is that if less time is involved in making oil from such marterial, that the oil came from some other process having nothing whatever to do with decay of things on or near the surface.... which in turn raises some serious questions about that area being so fertile at one time.

    Posted by Bithead  on  09/06  at  08:05 AM

  12. John:

    Wasn’t trying to draw attention to anyone’s ignorance on the matter, just wanted to keep you thinking. If you’re really interested, I have here an AAPG (Am. Assoc. of Petroleum Geologists) bulletin titled: “Origin of Petroleum” dating back to 1969. It’s a collection of papers that discsuss the various theories. Even Hoyle’s paper which suggested that oil came from carboniferous asteroids slamming into the earth, is in there. If you’d like to borrow it, I’ll snail mail it to ya. Just shoot me your address in email.

    As for peat bogs, they’re most often the source for coal deposits, not O&G.

    Bithead:

    Just a couple comments on this:

    It also follows that since the reserves we’ve found there are larger than anyplace else we’ve found, that the populations of plants animals etc were larger there than anyplace else on earth at the time, and possibly even larger that we have now elsewehre on earth.

    1. It doesn’t necessarily follow that the places where we now don’t find O&G were devoid of plant and animal life, or any less lush back then. As I pointed out, there are numerous critical preconditions for the formation of (commercial) O&G deposits. Plant and animal life, according to the biogenic theory, is one necessary condition, but it’s by no means sufficient. The depositional environment of the sedimentary rocks is critical as well. It has to be pretty much just right—burial not too fast, not too slow, not too hot, etc.—in order for hydrocarbon to form. And even then, if the rocks are later subjected to metamorphisis (extreme heat and pressure) the hydrocarbons could be “cooked” and destroyed. Petroleum geologists call this “outside the maturation window.”

    2. Or the hydrocarbon could migrate away if what geologists call a “trapping mechanism” is absent. Incidentally, this is what’s been happening for many years offshore California. There’s an oilifeorus sandstone there (Monterey formation) that leaks raw hydrocarbon directly into the ocean. I always thought this must really piss off the rabid environmentalists, watching mother nature foul her own nest.

    Posted by RKN  on  09/06  at  01:04 PM

  13. (Chukle) Yeah, that might casue some confusion for them, I’m sure.

    As for the Middle East, even assuming the other preconditions as you mention, one still needs to figure that there was at one time, a far larger amount of plant and animal life than one has found there for at least the last, say, 5000 year or more. How to create anything without raw material, after all?


    Posted by Bithead  on  09/06  at  04:14 PM

  14. As for the Middle East, even assuming the other preconditions as you mention, one still needs to figure that there was at one time, a far larger amount of plant and animal life than one has found there for at least the last, say, 5000 year or more.

      Quite right. The largest O&G fields in Saudi Arabia produce from reservoir rocks deposited in the Jurassic (about 60 million years old). The source for that oil is therefore at least that old, if not older, as oil often migrates from older rocks to younger rocks. During the Jurassic, Saudi Arabia was probably quite balmy and lush for a few million years or so.

    Posted by RKN  on  09/06  at  07:51 PM

  15. Which brings up a side thought; Does this mean that climactic chnage on this planet is the norm, and can and does occurr without the influence of Man?

    What will the Paul Ehrlichs of the world do now?

    Posted by Bithead  on  09/06  at  07:56 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: "I don't need you, John"

Previous entry: Bark, Bark, Bark, Pant, Pant, Pant, Wagging that Tail

<< Back to main