Earth may have more Crude Oil than we can imagine

[DreamSmoker]

Source: Science Daily

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.

The research does not address whether hydrocarbons formed deep in Earth could migrate closer to the surface and contribute to oil or gas deposits. However, the study points to possible microscopic mechanisms of hydrocarbon formation under very high temperatures and pressures.

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

---

If this is proved as fact?
The Earth continuously makes Crude Oil deep in the earths crust and does not occur as thought from Fossils in the soil at all..
The Big Oil Companies are studying this too.. But stick with the original theory because a finite amount of Crude keeps the Oil prices high..

[drm604]

1. Regardless,

we can't keep burning it forever.

[Eddie Haskell]

37. Size doesn't matter, if you can't get it up.

We need production and it's got to be cheap.

[Deep13]

2. Cool! More carbon to put into the atmosphere!

:-(

[HereSince1628]

3. Abiogenic oil has long been a topic of peak oil deniers

So far it seems to be mostly speculation for our planet.

[buddysmellgood]

4. We now know how to take biomass and turn it into hydrocarbons

without the billion years it takes the Earth. So while this is good to know, it's not going to make more oil for Exxon.

[RevStPatrick]

5. Or it may have less.

I prefer to behave as though it may have less, and as though pumping carbon into the atmosphere is kinda bad. Even though, when it comes right down to it, I don't really "know" for sure.

[harmonicon]

6. Not proven as fact. Two big points in the text above:

1. nearly all of the hydrocarbons in commercially produced crude oil ARE formed by decomposition of living organisms.
2. hyrdocarbons of of chemical origin COULD occur in some geologic settings.

[DreamSmoker]

9. It all theory

Even the Fossil Idea is just theory as no one has been able to prove that either..
Consider the Russians who are going with deep earth Oil theory and are having success..
If true.. This will also contain huge amounts of Natural Gas too...

As logic will tell you..We still need to figure out how to reduce Consumption and to reduce air pollutants..
The Point is Speculator fears would be gone.. The Prices for Oil would be rock bottom...

[jpak]

19. What success are the Russians having with "Deep Earth Oil Theory"

:D

[Warren Stupidity]

20. in practice? none at all

abiogenic oil is purely theoretical, as in it is of no interest to people actually putting money on the line out looking for real crude.

[harmonicon]

33. "Theory" has a real scientific meaning, and it's not what you're making it out to be.

Yes, it's theory, but that means that it is real; that's what a scientific theory is. Abiogenic oil is not theory, but something which is hypothesized by some scientists. Those are two totally different things.

[arcane1]

7. Even if true, and accessible, it's still finite.

On edit: I'd also add that the article does not justify your subject line.

[Thinking Chimp]

8. ...

"We don't say that higher hydrocarbons actually occur under the realistic 'dirty' Earth mantle conditions, but we say that the pressures and temperatures alone are right for it to happen."

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Abiogenic petroleum, oh that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Not that it couldn't happen, but there is scant evidence that it has. As for the 'near-infinite' quantities of crude: no evidence that this process, it if really occurs, it actually generating any crude at all, or any oil that is accessible to humans.

[Garbo 2004]

11. Your leap to your conclusions not supported by article. But at least Jerome Corsi agrees with you.

Why did you post this in LBN when it clearly didn't meet LBN guidelines? This thread clearly was moved from LBN since it wasn't LBN by article date & the title is your own view, not the article's title. Sourcing Science Daily while posting your own conclusion as the thread title in LBN is a tad.....bad form as it's misleading considering the actual article.

And your conclusion that oil is not from "fossils in the soil at all" is not supported by article. Note article says geologists believe nearly all (more than 99%) oil & nat gas formed from "decomposition of the remains of living organisms." Your conclusion in your last para leaps significantly far from what is actually said in or supported by article. It does not follow.

However, google "oil from fossils" & up comes a 2008 World Nut Daily article by famed scientist well no, actually famed swift boater, birther, right wing disinformation artiste Jerome R. Corsi who shares your view, conclusion, and analytical methodology: citing a science article to support his own views that are not in fact supported by the article he cited. Strange or perhaps just an interesting coincidence.

[hatrack]

12. Algae deposits - at least, that's the consensus - not the "dead dinosaurs" of popular imagination

And I don't doubt that hydrocarbons are forming beneath the Earth's crust as we speak - it's just happening on a time-scale far too slow for us to even comprehend, let alone exploit.

[DreamSmoker]

13. Planetary moons

Then explain why one of the moons around either Saturn or Jupiter is made up of frozen Methane???
Hydro Carbons have been found to be quit abundant in the Universe by scientists.. So rotting Vegetation AND animals rotting is out of the Picture when you look from this prospective..

[hatrack]

17. Maybe because carbon and hydrogen are really common elements?

Call me crazy, but I think that might have something to do with it.

[Odin2005]

25. Those moons are really cold and are made up of volatile substances like water and methane.

Earth formed too close to the sun for free volatiles to exist. we have oceans because of early comet impacts and from a tiny amount of water trapped in the mantle from the decomposition of hydrated minerals.

[jberryhill]

30. Because they are far away from the sun

Keyword there being "frozen".

Where is all the atmospheric methane we should have?

It's not there.

[Garbo 2004]

15. Of course geologic time for these processes is another matter, amt, accessibility, etc.

So much wrong with OP & intital method of posting in LBN.

[Uncle Joe]

14. I believe we have more than enough oil and coal in the ground to destroy life as we know it.

All we need to do is drill for it or dig it up as if there were no tomorrow and keep burning it.

Thanks for the thread, DreamSmoker.

[harmonicon]

28. sad, but true n/t.

[Yo_Mama]

16. I don't understand your point at all

Oil and gas prices logically relate to the difficulty and expense of getting at them, not how they were created.

A theory is just a theory, and this one has been around for a long time. The study is interesting, but even if large quantities of hydrocarbon fuels were being created, the fact that we have used up a lot of the easily exploitable deposits would indicate that prices would continue to rise.

[hatrack]

32. It's kind of like finding a billion-barrel field in 1,000-barrel increments . . .

. . . each requiring a separate rig and wellbore.

That field may as well not exist, because there's no way you can exploit it without going broke.

[Javaman]

18. Here we go again...

these types of stories seem to always pop up when the price of oil shoots up.

The operative world is "could", nothing has been proven yet. And I seriously doubt it ever will.

[jberryhill]

21. Along with the water-powered car, the "secret patents' on 100mpg engines

And assorted perpetual motion schemers.

[Javaman]

27. You forgot cold fusion. LOL

Cheers! :)

[jberryhill]

31. Cold fusion has been confirmed by Kirlian photography, you know /nt

[snot]

22. Don't we screw the environment if we even burn all the oil we already know we have?

[live love laugh]

23. Uh huh. nt

[Odin2005]

24. Abiotic Oil is RW woo-woo based in denying Peak Oil.

[caraher]

26. The abiogenic theory isn't very likely...

but (I say unfortunately) there's a lot of oil out there that may be extracted, or synthesized from other fossil carbon sources, at ever-increasing financial and environmental cost, should the markets develop in that direction. Figure 1 of http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/1/1/014004">Farrell and Brandt's 2006 paper is pretty scary to me, in that it suggests we've only scratched the surface of potential fossil fuel production. It certainly overestimates potential liquid fuel production in that the bars for synthetic fuels based on natural gas and coal assume those resources were used entirely for liquid fuels - an unlikely outcome. But it's instructive to see how little we've used so far - and with such tremendous impact - compared to what we could conceivably use.

[Dark]

29. Sigh.

The problem isn't that were running out of oil. Were running out of cheap oil.

There's plenty of oil, but we can only access about 40 percent of it with current tech, including the expensive stuff.

/that said, there are major costs on the enviro. So we needtoget off oil.

[NickB79]

36. Exactly. Anyone want to calculate the cost of boring a 10-mile deep oil well? NT

[Thunderstruck]

34. Oh brother...

:eyes:

[eppur_se_muova]

35. Unrec for fringe science with an obvious agenda. nt

[stuntcat]

38. spank me hard in 2040 if I'm wrong about this:

We will pull out and pump as much of it as we can.

I want a proud representative of the huMAN race to contact me before I die and publically shame me for how wrong I was about mankind.