Is abiotic oil becoming mainstream..

[Derek]

Hi All,
Over at Greenworld trust Richard111 posted this, about an interesting workshop back in May 2008.
It is interesting and errr, quite surprising it seems to have slipped by us all here..

Richard111 posted,
There is more going on the world of carbon than you might realise.

http://www.gl.ciw.edu/deep_carbon_project

http://www.gl.ciw.edu/workshops/sloan_de...p_may_2008

[Questioning_Climate]

Derek,

The quick answer is 'yes'.  But the slightly longer answer is that it will take quite a long time to shift mainstream thinking.  It is already well accepted that methane can be abiotic.

Many of the recent large discoveries are in fractured basement formations. A nice summary though a little out of date can be found here:
Hydrocarbon production from fractured basement formations – Version 8 – December 2005.
http://www.geoscience.co.uk/downloads/fr...ntver8.pdf

One of the largest regions of basement fracturing in the world is the Gulf of Mexico.  You will recall that there have been some major widely reported finds there recently.  The Gulf is special because it is the site of a large meteorite impact which has shattered the basement formations.  Most of the present exploration is in relatively shallow waters around the edges and there is little doubt more will be found in deeper water.

Satellite images have shown natural leaks of oil which will have been occurring for a great many years.  These are good indicators of more to come.

There have been whole sections of exploration conferences devoted to the subject and a rapidly increasing number of papers being published.  One thing that has to be remembered here is that this is a competitive industry. As such data and processes are not generally made public.

J.F. Kenny has a good website more or less devoted to aboitic hydrocarbons:
http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm

Other links:
http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/345990

If you follow the citation trails of some of the papers you find more.

[Questioning_Climate]

I while I think about it, this is a good place to start reading too:

http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/Sess_182.html

[Richard111]

Now that JohnWho pointed out the search button, I can post this link.

Abiotic Oil and Gas: A Theory That Refuses to Vanish

The subject of "asphalt" volcanoes over at WUWT generated sveral comments about "natural" tar pits and stuff. Even Goerge E. Smith commented on the La Brea pits in LA and the beasties in the museum.

This subject could generate a lot of controversy!

---

Lots of interesting links in Q-C's post above.

This one gives me food for thought:

High production of hydrogen and abiogenic hydrocarbons by serpentinization of ultramafic rocks between 12°N and 40°N on the mid-Atlantic Ridge- Methane plumes and hot fluid geochemistry

Quote:This is clearly the result of hydration of olivine with conversion of Fe(II) in olivine to Fe(III) in magnetite during serpentinization, process which leads to production of H2 and conversion of dissolved CO2 to reduced-C species including methane, ethane, propane and straight chain hydrocarbons in ultramafic rocks through Fischer-Tropsch type (FTT) reactions. These results show that hydrogen and methane issued from the slow-spreading MAR have to be considered in the global budget of the Earth. Methane anomalies in the seawater column, fluid geochemistry, high hydrogen and abiogenic methane fluxes issued from serpentinization along the MAR will be discussed.

To my laymans mind it looks like CO2 in the oceans is being used to produce abiogenic hydrocarbons! What goes around, comes around, Hey?

[Derek]

Hi All,
Over at WUWT, on this thread regarding (the irony that) the BP oil spill / leak, and it's possible political effects in the US,
Drill spill kills bill.
ie, will the oil spill / leak kill off some of "climate science" influenced political measures / bills...

I noticed this comment by Robin Kool (May 7, 2010 at 2:44 pm), which I'll post here in full,
why should be self evident upon reading.

" There are natural underwater oil and natural gas seeps.
Worldwide these seeps are probably vast, many times what humans spill – it seems that little is known about them.
They continue day after day, as they have done for millions of years.
Obviously microorganisms have developed the capacity to eat this resource of energy – which is what microorganisms do.

http://convergence.ucsb.edu/article/goo-and-gas
In this article about the ‘Coal Oil Point Seep Field’ in the Santa Barbara Channel, Bruce Luyendyk, a professor of marine geophysics says:
"More hydrocarbons have leaked out of the earth than are in the earth.
It’s happening all over the planet. It’s not a trivial phenomenon".

http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?...5071012489
In this article researchers tell that most of the oil that seeps out into the Santa Barbara Channel disappears,
only a little bit sinks down to the bottom of the ocean:
“The oil that remained in the sediments represents what was not removed by “weathering”
— dissolving into the water, evaporating into the air, or being degraded by microbes.
Next steps for this research team involve investigating why
microbes consume most, but not all, of the compounds in the oil".

Oil spills are a natural, everyday phenomenon.
Hey, it’s annoying if you are a sea otter and you suddenly find yourself swimming in oil – sadly, even deadly.
Of course I love sea otters – how can you not love those funny, lively, playful creatures -, but
the sea itself cleans the oil spill efficiently and speedily.

Here is a well-researched, pre-global warming hysteria example of an oil spill:
the Shetland Islands spill of 1993, then the 12th largest spill in history.

A year later, in 1994 I read in a Dutch newspaper that divers hadn’t been able to see any damage anymore.
Here is a report from the Trade and Environment Database (TED) of the American University in Washington DC from 1994.
http://www1.american.edu/ted/SHETLAND.HTM
“A year after the incident occurred there is no glaring sign that the oil spill even happened.
Except for shellfish in a very limited area,
all official restrictions on seafood originating from the Shetlands have been removed”.

I particularly love this comment:
”The official death tolls – the number of carcasses recovered – included
1,542 seabirds,
several thousand pounds of commercially farmed salmon,
10 gray seals, and
4 otters.
Two of the otters were run over by a camera crew covering the spill, however,
and the other two probably died of old age” (Ibid.)".

Doesn’t this sound pre-global warming hysteria?
Not even a call for more research. "

[Richard111]

This ties in with Post #4 above. Hydrocarbons are being generated close to the mid ocean ridges. This is all NEW sea floor. Absolutely no fossils involved unless you claim fossiled CO2.

[Sunsettommy]

Quote:There are natural underwater oil and natural gas seeps.

I knew about it when I was a teenager back in the early 1970's.It was from history books that mentions them.

The ancients knew about burning petroleum pools in the middle east.

Quote:Obviously microorganisms have developed the capacity to eat this resource of energy – which is what microorganisms do.

I knew this from the late 1990's when that large oil spill caused by poor piloting happened in Alaskan waters.

There is no mystery here,just not well known.

[Sunsettommy]

An old report from NASA,

Tons of Oil Seeps into Gulf of Mexico Each Year

EXCERPT:

Scientists find that tons of oil seep into the Gulf of Mexico each year

Twice an Exxon Valdez spill worth of oil seeps into the Gulf of Mexico every year, according to a new study that will be presented January 27 at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Antonio, Texas.

But the oil isn't destroying habitats or wiping out ocean life. The ooze is a natural phenomena that's been going on for many thousands of years, according to Roger Mitchell, Vice President of Program Development at the Earth Satellite Corporation (EarthSat) in Rockville Md. "The wildlife have adapted and evolved and have no problem dealing with the oil," he said.

LINK

[Questioning_Climate]

The BP spill needs to be put into perspective:

Present BP spill estimate = 5000 barrels per day = 800,000 litre per day
Natural seepage (Gulf Basin) = 60,000,000 litre per year
Reference: http://sarsea.com/natural_seapage.html

Therefore it will take 75 days before the natural annual seepage is exceeded by the BP spill, and that, of course, is assuming that none of it is recovered/cleaned-up.

Compare it to:
Exxon Valdez lost 40,000,000 litre (250,000 barrels) – Canada
Torrey Canyon lost 120,000,000 litre – Cornwall
Amoco Cadiz lost 255,000,000 litre – Brittany

Much of the oil from Torrey Canyon and Amoco Cadiz hit the shores around Cornwall. I was a youngster when the oil was on the beaches and remember getting tar on my feet and/or clothes just about every time I played on them. It gradually disappeared over the years and is now difficult to find or at least not a noticeable problem.

The biosphere evolved with oil in the environment and is perfectly adapted to cope with cleaning it up by itself over a decade or so. Yes, spills cause a mess and upset wildlife for a while, but only in the short term.

Oil seepage is natural, oil is natural, and man is part of that natural world.

[JohnWho]

The oil "leak" in the Gulf could, and should, be stopped immediately - explosives placed around the base of the drilling would plug it up.

Why hasn't this been done?

Simple - BP doesn't want to lose it's investment in the drilling project by plugging up the hole. They'd rather find a way to reclaim the oil revenue stream from it.

We, the people, and our government should not accept this and demand that the leak be plugged immediately. In fact, I see no reason why our Navy couldn't effect this if BP/etc. will not.

The environmental damage is not only tragic, but mostly it is totally avoidable. It's the greed around protecting the investment in that rig that is causing the event to become catastrophic. In this case, Obama shares in the blame, too.

[Questioning_Climate]

(05-15-2010 12:33 PM)JohnWho Wrote:  The oil "leak" in the Gulf could, and should, be stopped immediately - explosives placed around the base of the drilling would plug it up.

Why hasn't this been done?

JohnWho,

Whilst I agree that it should be stopped, igniting explosives at the well-head is not the answer, nor an option. An explosion would not stop the flow and the damage would make it virtually impossible to regain control later. Significant damage/fracturing to the surrounding ocean floor could well cause multiple additional seepage paths.

The oil is under pressure and being forced out. You may have seen pictures of 'gushers' in old video footage which gives an idea of the problem. This is not a situation where the oil is being pumped; that is the nodding-donkey scenario and would almost certainly be relatively simple to fix (on land).

There will be valves in the well-head that should be able to prevent this type of incident but for whatever reason they cannot be operated. Presumably the shut-off system was damaged by the initial incident.

It is extremely difficult to operate remotely, particularly underwater and at a depth of about 5,000ft (1,525m). The hydrostatic pressure will be over 2000 psi which is something like half the pressure in the cylinder of an internal combustion engine at full power. Thus it will be a very complex and potentially dangerous task sorting it out.

[strogoff]

I found this one... interesting (and drastic):

Use nukes to contain the oil spill

EXCERPT:

• Some analysts are against the use of nuclear explosions on fear of the effects on the environment. But the world has already done underwater testing of nuclear devices and if there was a huge environmental disaster as a result of it, we'd have known by now. Indeed, Commandant Cousteau, renowned biologist led numerous dives following French underwater nuclear explosions in the Mururoa atoll and noted very little impact on sea life.
  

• using nukes to stop the leak is the most ecological alternative. Stopping the leak before too much oil leak is the key, speed is of the essence. Nukes would allow this to be resolved in a matter of days. This would save thousands of miles of shoreline, millions of animals by not allowing this toxic sludge to contaminate the shore.
  

• One of the main issues with using nukes is public opinion. Even though it's the most ecological alternative, nukes have a huge public stigma hard to overcome, mostly due to ignorance. Nuclear bombs are not intended to be used for peaceful, ecological purposes and educating the public on this possibility is an uphill battle.
  

• This technology was used by the Russians, the USA's sworn enemy at the peak of the cold war. Never mind the relatively high success rate of 80%, no politician in his right mind would sell a Russian solution to the public
  

• Of course, BP does not have nukes. The US military does, of which the Army Corps of Engineers would probably have to design a plan to use them on the leak. The United States has about 5,113 nuclear war heads, as revealed by Pentagon according to the Strategic Arms Reduction purpose. So, why not use them for peaceful purpose for once?
  

[JohnWho]

@ Questioning_Climate

Perhaps.

I'm thinking more of properly placed shaped charges that would collapse the well. Maybe it's possible, or maybe it is not, but I'm sure that it isn't something high on the list for those who would want to preserve the possible revenue stream.

[Questioning_Climate]

I missed this article earlier:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...130944.htm

As I pointed out, oil is naturally degraded.

[Derek]

Luther Haave sent me this link. It is well worth a watch,
but it might annoy you all when you hear the next news article
regarding the cost of the clean-up operation in the Gulf...

http://www.wimp.com/solutionoil/

[Questioning_Climate]

Since the topic seems to have migrated to the BP oil leak it, here is a slightly different facet that maybe ought to be considered as it applies to AGW too:

http://www.edn.com/blog/Practical_Chip_D...ocracy.php

Quote:Blowouts, elementary school, and the future of democracy
June 7, 2010

The weekend edition of the Financial Times this week carried a story that gave me pause. It was a long piece of straight reporting, mostly from inside BP’s command center in Houston, on that company’s struggle to control the discharge from their now-infamous Macondo well. The piece is detailed, well-written, and timely, as one might expect from the Financial Times. But it made me realize just how technically vacuous has been the deluge of coverage on the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and how totally unprepared the citizenry of the USA is to deal with the questions today’s world thrusts before them.

For example, the general impression created by the US press is that BP has spent most of its time wringing its hands about the blowout, while consulting movie stars, letters from school children, and perhaps a psychic or two in the search for solutions, while occasionally taking a stab at some scheme or other. But the Times article suggests a reality more like the rescue of Apollo 13: hundreds of engineers, 160 companies including ExonMobile and Chevron, and some of the world’s leading sea-floor engineering contractors, driving themselves to exhaustion testing plans and directing a navy of remotely-operated submersibles.

In the litany of Web video, photos, and blurbs, and on the decrying of the evening news reports, this drama is simply missing. Where are the discussions of strategy, profiles of the leading engineers, descriptions of the ships and submersibles-even an accurate description of a blow-out preventer? Where a discussion of the communications network that links equipment, crews, and engineers with live video? The sad answer, I fear, is that all this is missing because the news providers either don’t understand it themselves, or because they assume their audiences wouldn’t understand it.

Unfortunately, on this count they are probably correct. An article in a local newspaper earlier in the week gloated that Oakland had become the only school district in California to require science classes below the high-school level. Kids who have no clear idea of science or the workings of the natural world at 14 are unlikely to become adults who can form a clear idea of a complex deep-water petroleum-engineering project, or for that matter of what is likely to be an equally complex problem in ecological engineering.

Therein lies a deeper issue. Our culture will continue to face complex choices that posit an obvious benefit-energy, health, employment-against a range of technical risks, and even more complex proposals to mitigate those risks. In our political system these challenging optimization problems will be set before the court of public opinion as emotionally-charged black-vs.-white choices. The ability of a woefully undereducated public to see through the oversimplifications into the richness of the problems, and at least not to obstruct the search for useful solutions, will influence the future of the republic. All we who have had the privilege of a technical education owe some thought to capping this gusher of technological ignorance that is poisoning not just our beaches or our wildlife, but the very bedrock of civil discourse upon which our system of government must rest.
Posted by Ron Wilson

[Richard111]

""An article in a local newspaper earlier in the week gloated that Oakland had become the only school district in California to require science classes below the high-school level.""

Deliberate dumbing down of future citizens.

[Richard111]

Given the area, this seems to me an amazing discovery!

Natural Gas Bonanza for Israel, Possible Oil Field as Well]

A geopolitical game changer

Quote:A door has been closed. But amid the roar, the creak of an opening window was faintly audible. This window, a gigantic deposit of natural gas called Leviathan, 6.5 times the size of Tel Aviv, was found, roughly 100 nautical miles from where the flotilla fiasco took place and well within Israel's extended territorial waters.

""well within Israel's extended territorial waters"" yes, well that's okay then, right!!

[Derek]

Great find Richard111.
Geopolitically this will undoubtedly have effects.

Excerpt from Richard111's first link above.
" Globes also stated that Noble Energy is planning to bring another offshore platform to Israel.
The platform will be imported from the Gulf of Mexico.

A massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has left several companies unable to operate their drilling platforms in the area.
For that reason, Noble Energy was able to secure a long-term lease deal for the platform at an unusually low rate. (IsraelNationalNews.com) "

Ironic...

[Questioning_Climate]

Several environmentally prominent countries have now banned deep-water drilling. The UK has not followed this lead so far. Norway is one of these and it supplies much of the hydrocarbons used in western Europe and in particular the UK. The chances are that this will cause an increase in prices at some stage in the near future. If the UK government was smart - not much chance of that - they would be encouraging more activity in the North Sea with the aim to cover this period of higher prices and potentially low supply. The UK could then be well placed to exploit the favourable prices through export and the tax revenue could be used to pay down some of the country's debt. This might be a win-win situation and Scotland would without doubt do nicely from it.

Will it happen? Probably not. There are too many vested interested in UK Government, such as the deputy PM's wife, while Scotland just seems to love to kill the golden goose.