Source of petroleum? Dinosaurs? - NOT!

[stugray]

Based on a discussion on another thread I would like to assert:

"Petroleum on the Earth is NOT primarily from plant & animal material".

I believe that complex organic "soup" is primordial in nature and is the precursor to the biologic process, NOT the result.

I also believe that if you were to drill for oil on almost ANY of the planets or moons in the solar system, you would find something resembling crude oil.

Originally Posted by stugray

The crude oil we get out of the ground did not all get here from decomposing animal & vegetable proteins. It was primordial ooze that was plentiful on this planet long before there was life.

If hydrocarbon deposits "i.e. petroleum" is only a result of biological processes, where did the oceans of ethane & methane on Saturn's moon titan come from? Dinosaurs?

This simple fact has made planetary scientists rethink the origin of "fossil fuels" on the primordial Earth if we have found other worlds with rivers of the stuff in a place that life is not even possible, much less abundant.

Originally Posted by projek_01

let's see here.. ethane, methane, one and two carbon chains long. Not the same as asphaltInes and paraffin which are hundreds of carbon chains long.

So the proof that Methane & ethane can be made without biotic processes is easy to accept, but the transformation of those two organic molecules to more complex molecules is just "crazy"? (see articles below).

Originally Posted by projek_01

How did the levels of CO2 drop though the evolution of earth? It just floated away? no, organisms died and brought the carbon with them to become fossil fuel. Is it a coincidence that fossil fuels contain molecules similar to chlorophyll or heme groups.

What the heck does that have to do with the formation of complex organic molecules prior to life forming? Of course early forms of life consumed and lowered the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere but the total contribution to the quantity of petroleum in the Earth's crust is minimal under BEST estimates.

Originally Posted by Tcoat

There are several theories about where oil came from and as I attempted to point out some permit for at least a couple of sources occurring in conjunction. Don't think that is unreasonable really.
Yes there is proof that at least one type of oil predates any life (which explains the extraterrestrial compounds) but that does not exclude the other theories of organically created oil.
The whole "dinosaurs turned into oil" things goes way back in history and is firmly implanted into common lore so will never truly be rebuked. The reality of course is that many different organic materials turned to oil with dinosaurs being a minute portion of that.

I agree with this.

Here are a few sources for further reading:
"Saturn's orange moon Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, according to new data from NASA's Cassini spacecraft. The hydrocarbons rain from the sky, collecting in vast deposits that form lakes and dunes"

"At a balmy minus 179 degrees Celsius (minus 290 degrees Fahrenheit), Titan is a far cry from Earth. Instead of water, liquid hydrocarbons in the form of methane and ethane are present on the moon's surface, and tholins probably make up its dunes. The term "tholins"was coined by Carl Sagan in 1979 to describe the complex organic molecules at the heart of prebiotic chemistry"

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ca...-20080213.html


"Washington, DC--The oil and gas that fuels our homes and cars started out as living organisms that died, were compressed, and heated under heavy layers of sediments in the Earth's crust. Scientists have debated for years whether some of these hydrocarbons could also have been created deeper in the Earth and formed without organic matter. Now for the first time, scientists have found that ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can be synthesized under the pressure-temperature conditions of the upper mantle --the layer of Earth under the crust and on top of the core.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-hit072409.php


"researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have managed to prove that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated."

"There is no doubt that our research proves that crude oil and natural gas are generated without the involvement of fossils"

"Our results support the suggestion that hydrocarbons heavier than methane can be produced by abiogenic processes in the upper mantle."

http://www.viewzone.com/abioticoil.html


"infrared data from Spitzer’s supercooled detectors is highlighted according to light frequencies: blue reveals what are thought to be older stars, green indicates organic dust streams, composed of “tholins” flowing in and around the SMC"

"Tholins are large organic molecules found outside our planet that arise when ultraviolet light interacts with smaller molecules. They cannot exist naturally on Earth, because the atmospheric oxygen would quickly destroy them. They can be synthesized in laboratory isolation, however, by sending electric arcs through various combinations of methane and ammonia.

Tholins are primarily a rusty color, which could help to explain the reddish-orange hue of Titan’s atmosphere, where there is almost no oxygen. The Cassini spacecraft, currently in orbit around Saturn, detected “large molecules” when it flew within 800 kilometers of Titan’s surface. The molecules remain unknown, however, because Cassini does not carry the necessary instruments to identify them."

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/201...es-in-space-2/

[Special_K]

[strat61caster]

Edit: @stugray's response

[HunterGreene]

Ok, so its possible. Whats your point?

[stugray]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

@stugray's response

I worked on the instrument that took the images from Titan's surface in 2005 (launched in 97), so I have been thinking about this topic a little longer than just today...

Originally Posted by HunterGreene

Ok, so its possible. Whats your point?

Just thought it an interesting topic, and one that invariably starts an good debate.
And I think of the topic every time someone says "Fossil Fuels".....

[Swift]

So does that mean we can create oil(crude) or petrol in a lab in the future you think?

[HunterGreene]

Originally Posted by stugray

Just thought it an interesting topic, and one that invariably starts an good debate.
And I think of the topic every time someone says "Fossil Fuels".....

I guess I don't see how this could be a "Good debate," as I don't think anyone would argue that forming complex hydrocarbon chains is something that is solely happening on life-bearing planets.

As Tcoat said, its just a idiom of the language that is incorrect, but accepted. It doesn't change anything or need to be proven correct or not. Just seems like wasted effort to debate this subject.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by stugray

I worked on the instrument that took the images from Titan's surface in 2005 (launched in 97), so I have been thinking about this topic a little longer than just today...

Edit: I don't mean to be an asshat, I just think it's funny. Which I guess makes me an asshat. Oh well.

[projek_01]

Stu, you are taking this debate to a whole different level. Yes, it is possible that hydrocarbons could have been made without organisms. I am just very skeptical of how the heavier/complex stuff could have been made from ethane and methane. Especially in the vast volumes.

The liquids on Titan for all we know is compressed methane and ethane. No one has proof that the same crude oil exists there.

Either way, your theory could be right but I see signs that crude is made from living organisms every day. Things like chemical structures found in living organisms to even small sea shells that comes up with heavy oil.

[themadscientist]

Can't wait to drive my BRZ on Titan.

[cdrazic93]

Originally Posted by stugray

I worked on the instrument that took the images from Titan's surface in 2005

Space dinosuars. Duh.

[HunterGreene]

Originally Posted by projek_01

Stu, you are taking this debate to a whole different level. Yes, it is possible that hydrocarbons could have been made without organisms. I am just very skeptical of how the heavier/complex stuff could have been made from ethane and methane. Especially in the vast volumes.

In all seriousness, the Universe is a big, complex place. There are stranger things out there, even on our own planet, that you wouldn't think exist that do, such as a natural nuclear reactor in Africa (long since dormant). All the ethane and methane need to react are pressure and time, they can easily react in the presence of an energy source, whether that be tidal, gravity, etc.

[Special_K]

I have nothing useful to add to this conversation. But at the same time, I feel nothing useful is really needed.

[Poodles]

Interesting topic as I've had this discussion before in other venues and it usually doesn't go so well.


The main reason that crude was deemed to be from fossils was because it has microbes (both alive and dead) in it, but the other explanation is that these microbes could simply be living it the stuff. It's a lot like saying the ocean water is made from the animals living in it...


Considering that the deepest borehole in the world encountered water that is below impermeable rock and massive amounts of hydrogen, we really don't have much of a clue where this stuff is coming from. There's also cases of older supposedly dry wells producing more.


Regardless, the amount we pay for crude and the fuels that come from it is artificially inflated because it's profitable to control the supply...