doubt it. although organic material could exist in some nebulas floating in space and they could've hitched a ride on a huge ass asteroid i doubt that enough of that stuff fell to earth

Originally posted by kinglizard

Originally posted by groingrinder
I have heard of this theory before, but could not remember where I heard it from. Thanks for posting. I do not think we have been bombarded by enough asteroids to account for all the oil in the earth though.

I think the earth is 4.6 billion years old, plenty of time to accumulate oil from meteorite impacts. I’m not suggesting that every comet and meteorite impact contributed to oil buildup on earth because they are made of different “stuff”. Take a look at the moon through binoculars and you will see craters on top of craters. The earth would look similar if we didn’t have an atmosphere and weather to erode the marks. It’s likely that earth would be more “pot marked” and struck more often because of the greater gravity this planet creates. It can “pull in” more stuff.
I don’t think we can have it both ways, oil is from organic life or it’s not.

Actually if you consider thatthe Earth was formed by the accretion of space material, then yes it was all asteroids. Certainly this is a good argument for the source of carbon on the planet. but oil is not carbon nor is it carbon dioxide. it is hydrocarbon.

That's the first time I've heard that theory, but regardless of where the oil came from it's not being replaced as fast as we use it right? If there's oil in our solar system maybe we can utilize it somehow.

I have heard that water came from comets & I read recently that there is some kind of water objects bombarding us on a regular basis even today. Anyone recall that?

Originally posted by outsider
That's the first time I've heard that theory, but regardless of where the oil came from it's not being replaced as fast as we use it right? If there's oil in our solar system maybe we can utilize it somehow.

I have heard that water came from comets & I read recently that there is some kind of water objects bombarding us on a regular basis even today. Anyone recall that?

earth's atmosphere is an open system. spacebourne and earthbound gases and particles are trapped or released from the upper atmosphere. it's almost like earth is breathing, the way i see it.

Originally posted by Polar Bear
Well let's see,

Even if there is a inexaustable supply of abiotic oil coming from somewhere in the core and feul is free. What are we to do about global warming or is that a myth also?

Polar Bear

Hey, we have a winna! Right on both counts, my friend.

Oil reserves once thought tapped out are being re-filled from the bottom upward.

The concept of Global Warming was merely a political tool based upon a model which actual measured data have not proven. In fact, the Earth is still in an Ice Age but the good news is we live in a time of moderate de-glaciation.

The bad news is, the powers that be are filling both the educational and scientific communities with such BS thats its really tough separate the lies from the truth...whatever that may be.

There is more information about this if you dig a bit deeper into the past of this discovery. I think it was the Russians scientists in about 1957 that first published a paper on this? Good reason for the oil holding families to sell off their oil companies, which they have.

If the moon was formed in the same way as the Earth, shouldn’t it have oil as well?

If this is the case, then all of the planet in our solar system as well as the sun should have signifigant amount of hydrocrabons on them. We have yet to come across evidence for high concentrations of hydrocarbons on most of the bodies in our solar system.

Also, what becomes of these hydrocrabons once an asteroid or comet enters an atmosphere? If they reside on the exterior of the space rock then virtually all of it would be burned up on entry. This leave only the possibility that all oil on a body was deposited before the development of an atmosphere.

I doubt this theory, but I also don't cling to the fossil fuel theory either. One thing can be said though, the oil field are NOT filling themselves back up. If you disagree with me then rather than look at the claims of oil companies and thier purchased science and look at thier fields. Why shut down pumps and rigs if the reserve is filling back up, at least fast enough to maintain our oil supply?

This is a THEORY as is the fossil origins of oil.

In all the talk of the source of oil I can't help but think people are over looking the fact that oil reserves in known wells are dry or dropping while discovery of new ones is slowing (stopped at this point, but may be short term).

2) Hydrocarbons from a particular oil field do not exhibit chemical changes as the depth of their extraction increases. But the fossils above them have constantly changing biologi-cal "signatures," which relate to their particular paleontological periods.

So.... if you are saying that all oil around the world is identical except for a few trace metals....

The North Sea oil reserves consist mainly of 'fractions' (what each different hydrocarbon is called - ie Octane and Butane are two different fractions) that are in the Octane range - that means that the oil is ideally suited for petroleum and driving cars. Brum brum brum.

The Texan oil has longer chained hydrocarbons for heavy fuel oils used to power ships. If all oils are supposed to be the same and come from the same source, why such a big difference??

Only the fact that differing plants and animals making the oils could account for this.

Originally posted by Quest

One thing can be said though, the oil field are NOT filling themselves back up. If you disagree with me then rather than look at the claims of oil companies and thier purchased science and look at thier fields. Why shut down pumps and rigs if the reserve is filling back up, at least fast enough to maintain our oil supply?

Actually, I did here a blurb in the news that some off shore oil reservours are refilling albeit slowly but some have prompted production to begin once more. The rigs were shut down because it was thought once depleted, a reserve was gone but as with many other things we knew for sure, we are being educated once more.

Someone once said :"We can say one thing for sure, the earth is flat. If you disagree with me then why don't we see people sailing around it?" I guess we'll always have this kind of thinking but thats what makes the undiscovered really worth going after. The "They said it couldn't be done factor." Of course more oft than not someone's personal politics are at the root of such statements. These, thankfully nearly always fail the test of time as truth is finally reluctantly accepted evetually.

Crikey there are some strange thoughts out there. This one about the origin of oil crops up regularly on internet forums, and always quotes Thomas Gold's theory of abiotic oil formation. It is always accompanied by a host of uninformed speculation and wild theories with no scientific back-up, as it is here. Usually I just flick to another web page but I thought I'd dive in and respond to this one just in case anyone still cares! Someone suggested "If you ask any geologist or biologist how oil is formed from organic material they won’t be able to tell you because they simply don’t know." This is just not true. I'm a petroleum geochemist (for the uninitiated, that basically means I analyse oil and gas, and correlate it back to where it comes from) and I can categorically state we have an excellent idea of where oil comes from. Oil does not = carbon. Oil = hydrogen + carbon = hydrocarbons. Thus the presence of carbon alone does not guarantee oil formation.

It is actually quite difficult to find oil, because there are special conditions required for its formation and preservation. These are the elements of the so-called "petroleum system". Firstly we need rocks that contain abundant hydrogen and carbon - so called "source rocks". Coal is rich in carbon but not particularly rich in hydrogen, so most coals source gas, and coal-sourced oils are rare. Most oil in fact comes from sediments deposited at the bottom of the sea, which contain relatively large volumes of plankton. If there are not enough of these dead plankton in the sediment, then there are not enough hydrocarbons to form oil. The "source rocks" must be buried to temperatures of about 250-300°F to achieve oil generation. This corresponds to depths of anything from 5000 ft to 30000 ft depending on temperature gradient and water depth - shallow in hot onshore basins like Indonesia, deep in cold deep water basins like the Gulf of Mexico. Less than this and no oil is formed. Higher than this and oil cracks to gas. This limit to the thermodynamic stability of oil is one of the main reasons that mantle-sourced oil is nonsense. The temperature in the mantle is thousands of degrees (think lava!), whereas oil rapidly breaks down to gas above about 350°F. Apart from good source rocks there are three or four other requirements for a successful petroleum system. Oil is not found in its source rock but migrates to shallower levels due to buoyancy (it floats on water). To be able to extract the oil at commercial rates we need to find "traps" formed where the rocks form an inverted pudding basin-like structure. These traps must consist of a coarse grained reservoir rock (e.g. sandstone) overlain by a fine grained sealing rock (e.g. shale). The timing of the structuration needs to be just right. There is no use having great source rocks expelling loads of oil if there are no traps to catch it, and it all just leaks to the surface. If the source rock gets buried to higher temperatures then it will form loads of gas which will follow the oil and may displace it (because gas floats on oil), so again, no oil there! Because traps are leaky, they will eventually empty themselves, so we need to find this oil in a relatively narrow time interval of a few tens to a couple of hundred million years. Sounds easy, but the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and many basins are either too old to have preserved their generated petroleum, or too young to have formed any in the first place.

So, why am I so sure that oil is formed from micro-organisms buried in sediments? Well firstly, because all organic life forms leave tell-tale traces of themselves in the form of complex chemicals - a bit like DNA. These "biomarker" compounds are found in both source rocks and oils. The patterns they produce can be quite distinctive of a particular source, and can be matched with oil from that source rock. Secondly there is evidence from isotopes of carbon and hydrogen. Isotopes are atoms of an element containing different numbers of neutrons. Most carbon is carbon-12, with 6 neutrons and 6 protons. We have all heard of carbon-14 dating. This is a radioactive form of carbon with two extra protons. Because we know very precisely the speed at which carbon-14 disintegrates, and the initial ratio of 14C/12C in living organisms, the ratio of 14C/12C is a good indication of the age of a dead organic sample (e.g. bone, wood etc). Well there is another isotope of carbon with one extra proton called carbon-13. By determining the ratio of 12C/13C in an organic substance we have another method of fingerprinting that substance. This ratio does not change with time as carbon-13 is "stable" i.e. not radioactive. 12C/13C ratios can be measured either on the whole oil, or its individual constituents. These measurements produce a fingerprint that can also be matched between oils and source rocks, and are quite distinctive for different source rocks. The same goes for ratios of hydrogen isotopes. Hydrogen with an extra proton is called deuterium. Deuterium/hydrogen ratios can also be used as fingerprints for hydrocarbons. This is a more convincing piece of evidence of the biogenic source of petroleum, as biomarkers could potentially be picked up from the rocks through which they migrate (though they are usually not). My last piece of evidence is the empirical one, that oil is found where we expect to find it, and not where we don't expect to find it. If abiogenic petroleum were a reality, we would find it coming out of the ground (as seeps) in areas where we don't expect to find it, e.g. around volcanoes or kimberlite pipes (where diamonds are found), which have direct access to the mantle.

My last point is an economic one. The commercial success rate of finding hydrocarbons in Australia is only 6%. I.e. we have to drill about 17 wells at $5-20M a pop before finding any hydrocarbon deposits big enough to produce. That includes gas as well as oil, so the success rate of finding oil (which is much more easily Why do you think think we would be wasting all that shareholder value if abiogenic petroleum was as abundant as some people say?

Professor Bob

I'm qualified geologist, and I personally I think this theory is a load of rubbish. Their are a few points which I would like to make

Firstly this guy is obviously intelligent, but he is a Prof of Astrophysics, not of geology, by the looks of it he has no formal training in geology, if it was a prof of geology saying it then maybe I would take notice

Secondly theirs is this oppinion of oil reservoirs re-charging and oil being in places were their are no fossil horizons. It has to be realised that oil migrates and were you actually extract the oil is NOT were it was formed. It is simply their as the oil has been trapped by a seal, if this was not their it would simply escape to the surface.

This is why the oil is foind in relation to large scale geological structures such as basins, as these contain traps, such as faults, anti-clines etc. The oil we see now is the result of a complicated interplay of timing of diffrent events that all need to occur in exactly the right order and the right time to get the oil.

As for fossils, then what hasn't been realised is fossils we actually see are inordantly biased. In normal situations fossils are not preserved. For example most fossils we see are marine, as fossils on land tend not to undergo the right condtions to be preserved. Many geologists and paleontologists are very carefull in the use of fossils as the fossil record is so biased, but the problem is that it is very difficult to estimate how biased it is, so I think the statment

"The geographical patterns that emerge from the oil fields, whether in the Middle East or Indonesia, all exhibit a correspondence to deep-Earth geological structure. This is in stark contrast to the haphazard deposition we find with surface life, and its subsequent fossils, which have never exhibited such patterns"

Is very unreliable.

This entire theory seem to far fetched for myself. Yes there is a lack of understanding regarding exactly how oil is formed, however once you get into the world of academia you quickly realise that hardly anything in Geology is completely understood, most of it is a highly educated guess. Plate Tectonics is a prime example, it doesn't explain everything but most of the time it does. Yes equally you could get into a debate saying that this theory might be the new theory which everybody criticises "like plate tectonics was" and it may be correct, but the evidence we have support that organic fossil origin of oil from decaying matter turning into sapronol etc etc

I didnt read this whole thread so if Im repeating someone my bad.

You said, or the article you posted said, oil is being found below fossils, couldnt the oil have slowly drained down over time? Im sure the rock is pretty solid down there, but over time couldnt earthquakes or other siesmic activity cause oil to slowly move deeper into the earth?