George Rebane
That the major sources of natural gas and oil are from earth’s chemical processes and not fossilized sources has been the subject of a quiet debate over the last decades. If chemistry wins, then earth will supply humans with literally endless amounts of energy that will benefit everyone living on the planet. And that debate is close to being resolved by research and testing that will soon be concluded.
The so-called abiotic theory of fuels production is one of the many reasons I have remained a skeptic on the wisdom of governments force feeding hundreds of billions of dollars into alternative energy sources like wind, waves, and solar. Another of those reasons is that with all the hullabaloo about carbon footprints and CO2, we still don’t know the earth’s ‘carbon cycle’. A major part that is now becoming clear is that oceans absorb tremendous amounts of atmospheric CO2 which is then used by marine critters and plants in their skeletons and structures. And which is then subducted by tectonics into the earth’s upper mantle where temperature and pressure give rise to chemical transformation of water and CO2 into oils and natural gas (90% methane). From there it bubbles and rises into huge reservoirs that literally cover ‘cover’ the earth’s subsurface.
The work at resolving this debate has been intensifying in recent years. Already in 2009 Science Daily reported, “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. The findings are revolutionary since this means, on the one hand, that it will be much easier to find these sources of energy and, on the other hand, that they can be found all over the globe.”
At more recent conferences (see WSJ) actual field test and laboratory results have been presented which point to endless supplies of abiotic natural gas and crude oil. Supposedly 60% of pumped crude is shown to be abiotic. Only coal remains as the unchallenged ‘pure’ fossil fuel.
What all this demonstrates is that the policies in place (with more to come) to combat the man-made global warming (AGW) hypothesis are economically and socially misguided at worst, and premature at best. All we know for sure is that support for the belief in correctible AGW comes from politically funded ‘mob science’ that cares only for maintaining the flow of its generous grants and subsidies guaranteed by the steady output of ‘correct results’. But then, all this has been argued here and elsewhere over the last many years.
Now what’s different is that we may soon resolve the infinite energy supply question. And if it’s there as all evidence portends, then there will be plenty of time to develop marketable alternative sources ranging from the renewables to nuclear fusion. In the meantime we wouldn’t have to promote corrupt public policies like California’s AB32 to create commercial catastrophes across the landscape. Cooking, heating, generating electricity, driving, ... with abundant and clean burning gas sounds like a great future to me.
That the major sources of natural gas and oil are from earth’s chemical processes and not fossilized sources has been the subject of a quiet debate over the last decades. If chemistry wins, then earth will supply humans with literally endless amounts of energy that will benefit everyone living on the planet. And that debate is close to being resolved by research and testing that will soon be concluded.
The work at resolving this debate has been intensifying in recent years. Already in 2009 Science Daily reported, “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. The findings are revolutionary since this means, on the one hand, that it will be much easier to find these sources of energy and, on the other hand, that they can be found all over the globe.”
At more recent conferences (see WSJ) actual field test and laboratory results have been presented which point to endless supplies of abiotic natural gas and crude oil. Supposedly 60% of pumped crude is shown to be abiotic. Only coal remains as the unchallenged ‘pure’ fossil fuel.
What all this demonstrates is that the policies in place (with more to come) to combat the man-made global warming (AGW) hypothesis are economically and socially misguided at worst, and premature at best. All we know for sure is that support for the belief in correctible AGW comes from politically funded ‘mob science’ that cares only for maintaining the flow of its generous grants and subsidies guaranteed by the steady output of ‘correct results’. But then, all this has been argued here and elsewhere over the last many years.
Now what’s different is that we may soon resolve the infinite energy supply question. And if it’s there as all evidence portends, then there will be plenty of time to develop marketable alternative sources ranging from the renewables to nuclear fusion. In the meantime we wouldn’t have to promote corrupt public policies like California’s AB32 to create commercial catastrophes across the landscape. Cooking, heating, generating electricity, driving, ... with abundant and clean burning gas sounds like a great future to me.
Lots of heads will explode if petroleum ends up being a renewable resource. The Romantic in me was saddened and the realist refreshed when that insanely deep well in Sweden failed to reveal any evidence for abiogenic hydrocarbons. Despite the hint here and there that it's a possibility, I'd not bet on it being true, not that it would make much difference at the moment anyway... with current known reserves and extraction technologies, in the least we've a couple centuries of supply.
Supporters of "The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006" will be slow to let go, and until they fry their inner Chicken Littles to an Extra Crispy they won't be happy, biogenic or abiogenic.
Posted by: Gregory | 09 June 2013 at 09:14 AM
The Romantic in me was saddened and the realist refreshed when that insanely deep well in Sweden failed to reveal any evidence for abiogenic hydrocarbons.
I think it did find evidence of the presence of non biologically derived petroleum if Thomas Golds book is to be believed.
Posted by: fish | 09 June 2013 at 11:56 AM
fish@11:56
That was my understanding also, but those denying it ever happened claimed the 'non-biological" was due to the drilling fluid. I am more inclined to believe the earth is creating more oil and gas. How did all those biological get buried thousands and thousands of feet up nonporous rooks? The deeper they drill the more oil and gas we find. While coal has biological evidence, I have not seen much in oil and natural gas.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 09 June 2013 at 03:11 PM
Whether abiogenic or not, it really doesn't matter much, as the issue is can we get to the stuff. An predominant abiogenic source wouldn't mean much if we only had a 50 year supply and it would take a million years to replenish.
Assume for the moment it takes a million years to replenish and we have a 250 year supply of known reserves. When should we panic... in 150 years, or now?
We will never run out of fossil fuels... they'll just get too expensive to extract just to burn, compared to other sources of energy. The market will balance it out better than politicians can, and much, much better than the carbon prohibitionists ever could.
Posted by: Gregory | 09 June 2013 at 06:54 PM
Assume for the moment it takes a million years to replenish and we have a 250 year supply of known reserves. When should we panic... in 150 years, or now?
That is the question. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell us that a government solution is at hand.
Posted by: fish | 10 June 2013 at 11:45 AM
fish 1145am - the question is incomplete since it doesn't acknowledge the historical dynamics of "known reserves", nor the science that estimates the total likely reserves given the disposition of the known reserves during, say, the last half century. And the entire concern revolves around the apprehension that the advance of technology has now stopped, and therefore will contribute nothing to solving our future energy problems. History speaks strongly against such a fear factor.
Posted by: George Rebane | 10 June 2013 at 11:54 AM
George I think my answer was directed more towards the pure abiotic vs. conventional theory of petroleum formation. I wasn't really considering reserves. Gregorys question was a reasonable one; abiotic formation of petroleum may be occurring....but it may happen far too slowly to be included as contributing to exploitable resources.
Posted by: fish | 10 June 2013 at 03:20 PM
fish 320pm - I guess I missed that one. But consider for a moment, what if we determined that abiotic formation stopped a million years ago - i.e. it is currently occurring at a zero rate. Would we still not include the extant and discoverable abiotic fuels as part of our exploitable energy resources? We do that with fossil fuels.
Posted by: George Rebane | 10 June 2013 at 03:27 PM
Would we still not include the extant and discoverable abiotic fuels as part of our exploitable energy resources? We do that with fossil fuels.
I suppose so....it might change how the resources were searched for eventually leading to an increase in bankable reserves. Believe me George nothing would make me happier than finding 500 (number off the top of my head) years worth of accessible oil!
Posted by: fish | 11 June 2013 at 12:25 PM
" Would we still not include the extant and discoverable abiotic fuels as part of our exploitable energy resources? We do that with fossil fuels."
Is there any reason to think we can tell them apart?
Posted by: Gregory | 11 June 2013 at 04:22 PM