Richard Heinberg on abiotic oil (from the Yahoo Energyresources thread, from several months ago). Here is the piece:
The "Abiotic Oil" Controversy
In recent months two web sites that cater to people critical of the official
account of the events of 9/11/2001 have attacked the idea of peak oil. Joe
Vialls, who is located in Western Australia and runs a site called "Exposing
Media Disinformation," displays an article titled "Russia Proves 'Peak Oil' a
misleading Zionist scam."(1) Meanwhile Dave McGowan, whose site is titled
"Center for an Informed America," devotes several of his newsletters (numbers
52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 66) to the charge that the notion of peak oil is a petroleum
industry plot to gain more power and wealth, and a ploy by the Bush-led US
intelligence community to "sell" the Iraq invasion to anti-war groups (I won't
try to explain his logic on either of those scores, as I'm not sure I follow
it).(2)
As one of the most prominent authors on the subject of peak oil, I must say that
the news that I am involved in a Zionist scam, or an oil industry plot, or an
effort to justify the US invasion of countries in the Middle East, comes as a
bit of a surprise.
I would prefer to ignore this controversy, and there are good reasons for doing
so. Vialls's web site is more than a bit quirky, with other articles titled
"Americans [sic] Perverts Pack Rape Defenseless Iraqi Women" and "Yisraelim
Terrorists Ready to Invade America." Meanwhile, since McGowan seems to be using
the peak oil issue as a club with which to personally attack Mike Ruppert
(<www.fromthewilderness.com>), one has to wonder what his "expos?" really stems
from-a clash of egos, perhaps? Investigator envy? Or a Cointelpro operation to
destroy Ruppert's credibility?
In any case, while Mike Ruppert is perfectly capable of defending himself
against the likes of Vialls or McGowan, the notion of peak oil per se really
doesn't have to be defended by anyone, since the event is occurring in real time
as we sit here.
Nevertheless, as these sites are magnets for large numbers of people who are
just beginning to find their way out of the consensus societal trance, they
appear to be doing some palpable harm. I have received at least a couple of
dozen e-mails from sincere people wanting to know my response to Vialls's or
McGowan's claims that peak oil is a scam, and that oil is actually an
inexhaustible resource.
So, once and for all, here is my take on the "abiotic oil" controversy.
The Gist of the Situation
The debate over oil's origin has been going on since the 19th century. From the
start, there were those who contended that oil is primordial-that it dates back
to Earth's origin-or that it is made through inorganic process, while others
argued that oil was produced from the decay of living organisms (primarily
oceanic plankton) that proliferated millions of years ago during relatively
brief periods of global warming and were buried under ocean sediment under
fortuitous circumstances.
During the latter half of the 20th century, with advances in geophysics and
geochemistry, the vast majority of scientists lined up on the side of the biotic
theory. A small group of mostly Russian scientists-but including a tiny handful
Western scientists, among them the late Cornell University physicist Thomas
Gold-have held out for an abiotic (also called abiogenic or inorganic) theory.
While some of the Russians appear to regard Gold as a plagiarist of their ideas,
the latter's book The Deep Hot Biosphere (1998) stirred considerable controversy
among the public on the questions of where oil comes from and how much of it
there is. Gold argued that hydrocarbons existed at the time of the solar
system's formation, and are known to be abundant on other planets (Jupiter,
Saturn, Uranus, and some of their moons) where no life is presumed to have
existed in the past.
The abiotic theory holds that there must therefore be nearly limitless pools of
liquid primordial hydrocarbons at great depths on Earth, pools that slowly
replenish the reservoirs that conventional oil drillers tap.
Meanwhile the oil companies have used the biotic theory as the practical basis
for their successful exploration efforts over the past few decades. If there are
in fact vast untapped deep pools of hydrocarbons refilling the reservoirs that
oil producers drill into, it appears to make little difference to actual
production, as the tens of thousands of oil and gas fields around the world are
observed to deplete, and refilling (which is indeed very rarely observed) is not
occurring at a commercially significant scale or rate except in one minor and
controversial instance discussed below.
The abiotic theorists also hold that conventional drillers, constrained by an
incorrect theory, ignore the sites where deep, primordial pools of oil
accumulate; if only they would drill in the right places, they would discover
much more oil than they are finding now. However, the tests of this claim are so
far inconclusive: the best-documented "abiotic" test well was a commercial
failure.
Thus even if the abiotic theory does eventually prove to be partially or wholly
scientifically valid (and that is a rather big "if"), it would probably have
little or no practical consequence in terms of oil depletion and the imminent
global oil production peak.
That is the situation in a nutshell, as I understand it, and it is probably as
much information as most readers will need or want on this subject. However, as
this summary contradicts some of the more ambitious claims of the abiotic
theorists, it may be helpful to present in more detail some of the evidence and
arguments on both sides of the debate.
Oil at the Core?
Gold is right: there are hydrocarbons on other planets, even in deep space. Why
shouldn't we expect to find primordial hydrocarbons on Earth?
This is a question whose answer is only partly understood, and it is a
complicated one. The planets known to have primordial hydrocarbons (mostly in
the form of methane, the simplest hydrocarbon) lie in the further reaches of the
solar system; there is little evidence of primordial hydrocarbons on the rocky
inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars). On the latter, possibly the
hydrocarbons either volatized and escaped into space early in the history of the
solar system, or-as Gold theorizes-they migrated to the inner depths. (Note:
very recent evidence of methane in the atmosphere of Mars is being viewed as
evidence of biological activity, probably in the distant past. See New Scientist
www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996425)
There is indeed evidence for deep methane on Earth: it vents from the
mid-oceanic ridges, presumably arising from the mantle, though the amount vented
is relatively small-less than the amount emitted annually in cow farts.
A new study by the US Department of Energy and Lawrence Livermore Lab suggests
that there may be huge methane deposits in Earth's mantle, 60 to 120 miles
deep.(3) But today oil companies are capable of drilling only as deep as six
miles, and this in sedimentary rock; in igneous and metamorphic rock drill bits
have so far penetrated only two miles.(4) In any attempt to drill to a depth
remotely approaching the mantle, well casings would be thoroughly crushed and
melted by the pressures and temperatures encountered along the way. Moreover,
the DOE study attributes the methane deposits it hypothesizes to an origin
different from the one Gold described.
More to the point, Gold also claimed the existence of liquid
hydrocarbons-oil!-at great depths. But there is a problem with this: the
temperatures at depths below about 15,000 feet are high enough (above 275
degrees F) to break hydrocarbon bonds. What remains after these molecular bonds
are severed is methane, whose molecule contains only a single carbon atom. For
petroleum geologists this is not just a matter of theory, but of repeated and
sometimes costly experience: they speak of an oil "window" that exists from
roughly 7,500 feet to 15,000 feet, within which temperatures are appropriate for
oil formation; look far outside the window, and you will most likely come up
with a dry hole or, at best, natural gas only. The rare exceptions serve to
prove the rule: they are invariably associated with strata that are rapidly (in
geological terms) migrating upward or downward.(5)
The conventional theory of petroleum formation connects oil with the process of
sedimentation. And, indeed, nearly all of the oil that has been discovered over
the past century-and-a-half is associated with sedimentary rocks. On the other
hand, it isn't difficult to find rocks that once existed at great depths where,
according the theories of Gold and the Russians, conditions should have been
perfect for abiotic oil formation or the accumulation of primordial
petroleum-but such rocks typically contain no traces of hydrocarbons. In the
very rare instances where small amounts of hydrocarbons are seen in igneous or
metamorphic rocks, the latter are invariably found near hydrocarbon-bearing
sedimentary rocks, and the hydrocarbons in both types of rock contain identical
biomarkers (more on that subject below); the simplest explanation in those cases
is that the hydrocarbons migrated from the sedimentary rocks to the
igneous-metamorphic rocks.
Years ago Thomas Gold recognized that the best test of the abiotic theory would
be to drill into the crystalline basement rock underlying later sedimentary
accumulations to see if there is indeed oil there. He persuaded the government
of Sweden in 1988 to drill 4.5 miles down into granite that had been fractured
by a meteorite strike (the fracturing is what permitted drillers to go so deep).
The borehole, which cost millions to drill, yielded 80 barrels of oil. Even
though the project (briefly re-started in 1991) was a commercial failure, Gold
maintained that his ideas had been vindicated. Most geologists remained
skeptical, however, suggesting that the recovered oil likely came from drilling
mud.
The Russians (I must remind the reader that I am actually taking about a
minority even with the community of Russian geologists) claim successes in
drilling in basement rock in the Dneiper-Donets Basin in the Ukraine. Professor
Vladilen A. Krayushkin, Chairman of the Department of Petroleum Exploration,
Institute of Geological Sciences, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Kiev, and
leader of the exploration project, wrote:
The eleven major and one giant oil and gas fields here described have been
discovered in a region which had, forty years ago, been condemned as possessing
no potential for petroleum production. The exploration for these fields was
conducted entirely according to the perspective of the modern Russian-Ukrainian
theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins. The drilling which resulted in
these discoveries was extended purposely deep into the crystalline basement
rock, and it is in that basement where the greatest part of the reserves exist.
These reserves amount to at least 8,200 M metric tons [65 billion barrels] of
recoverable oil and 100 B cubic meters of recoverable gas, and are thereby
comparable to those of the North Slope of Alaska. (6)
However, independent assessments of the situation not support these claims.
First, the US Geological Survey does not agree that the Dneiper-Donets reserves
are that large (it cites 2.7 billion barrels for total oil endowment). Second,
the appearance of oil in basement rocks is unusual but not unheard of, and there
are various ways in which oil can appear in basement rock. In the process of
drilling through overlying sedimentary tock, oil can be expelled downward so
that it appears to come from below. Then there are situations where igneous or
metamorphic rocks have migrated upward (or sedimentary rocks have migrated
downward) so that basement rock covers sedimentary rock. In his paper "Oil
Production from Basement Reservoirs-Examples from USA and Venezuela", Tako
Koning of Texaco Angola, Inc., cites source rocks such as marine shales in
nearly all instances.(7) More to the point, numerous studies cite the existence
of sedimentary source rocks in the Dneiper-Donets region. (8)
Refilling Fields?
Abiotic theorists often point out evidence of fields refilling. The most-cited
example is Eugene Island, the tip of a mostly submerged mountain that lies
approximately 80 miles off of the coast of Louisiana. Here is the story as
related by Chris Bennett in his article "Sustainable Oil?" on WorldNetDaily.com:
A significant reservoir of crude oil was discovered nearby in the late '60s, and
by 1970, a platform named Eugene 330 was busily producing about 15,000 barrels a
day of high-quality crude oil. By the late '80s, the platform's production had
slipped to less than 4,000 barrels per day, and was considered pumped out. Done.
Suddenly, in 1990, production soared back to 15,000 barrels a day, and the
reserves which had been estimated at 60 million barrels in the '70s, were
recalculated at 400 million barrels. Interestingly, the measured geological age
of the new oil was quantifiably different than the oil pumped in the '70s.
Analysis of seismic recordings revealed the presence of a "deep fault" at the
base of the Eugene Island reservoir which was gushing up a river of oil from
some deeper and previously unknown source.(9)
A "river of oil" from an unassociated deep source? This does sound promising.
But closer examination yields more prosaic descriptions and explanations.
According to David S. Holland, et al. in Search and Discovery (10), the
reservoir is characterized by
1. Structural features dominated by growth faults, salt domes, and
salt-related faulting.
2. Thick accumulations of predominantly deltaic deposits of
alternating sand and shale.
3. Young reservoirs (less than 2.5 m.y. old) with migrated
hydrocarbons whose origins are in deeper, organic-rich marine shales.
4. Rapidly changing stratigraphy, due to deposition and subsequent
reworking.
5. Numerous oil and gas fields with stacked reservoirs, long
hydrocarbon columns, and high producing rates.
While it is true that the estimated oil reserves of Eugene have declined less
than had been predicted, the numbers are not extraordinary. The authors note
that "From 1978 to 1988, these operations, activities, and natural factors
[including better exploration and recovery technology] have increased ultimate
recoverable reserves from 225 million bbl to 307 million bbl of hydrocarbon
liquids and from 950 bcf to 1.65 tcf of gas." Other estimates now put the
estimate of totally recoverable oil as high as 400 Mb.
Production from Eugene Island had achieved 20,000 barrels per day by 1989; by
1992 it had slipped to 15,000 b/d, but recovered to reach a peak of 30,000 b/d
in 1996. Production from the reservoir has presumably dropped steadily since
then (though current figures are not available on the Internet).
None of this is especially unusual for a North American oil field: most fields
report reserve growth over time as a consequence of Securities and Exchange
Commission reporting rules that require reserves to be booked yearly according
to what portion of the resource is actually able to be extracted with current
equipment in place. As more wells are drilled into the same reservoir, the
reserves "grow." Then, as they are pumped out, reserves decline and production
rates dwindle. No magic there.
The evidence at Eugene Island suggests the existence of deep source rocks from
which the reservoir is indeed very slowly refilling-but geologists working there
do not hypothesize a primordial origin for the oil. In "Oil and Gas-'Renewable
Resources'?" Kathy Blanchard of PNL writes, "Recent geochemical research at
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution has demonstrated that the wide range in
composition of the oils in different reservoirs of the Eugene Island 330 field
can be related to one another and to a deeper source rock of Jurassic-Early
Cretaceous age."(11) Her article explains that this kind of migration from
nearby source rocks is hardly unique, and discusses it in the context of
conventional biotic theory. A technical paper by David S. Holland et al.,
"Eugene Island Block 330 Field-U.S.A. Offshore Louisiana," published by AAPG
notes that the Eugene Island oils show
abundant evidence of long-distance vertical migration. Based on a variety of
biomarker and gasoline-range maturity indicators, these oils are estimated to
have been generated at depths of 4572 to 4877 m (15,000 to 16,000 ft) at
vitrinite reflectance maturities of 0.08 to 1.0% and temperatures of 150 to
170°C (300 to 340°F). Their presence in shallow, thermally immature reservoirs
requires significant vertical migration. This is illustrated on Figure 36, which
represents a burial and maturation history for the field at the time of
petroleum migration, that is, at the end of Trimosina "A" time approximately
500,000 years ago. A plot of the present measured maturity values versus depth
is superimposed on the calculated maturity profile for Trimosina "A" time to
illustrate the close agreement between measured and predicted maturity profiles.
The clear discrepancy between reservoir maturity and oil maturity is striking
and suggests that the oil migrated more than 3650 m (12,000 ft) from a deep,
possibly upper Miocene, source facies. Petroleum migration along faults is
indicated based on the observed temperature and hydrocarbon anomalies at the
surface and the distribution of pay in the subsurface. These results are
consistent with those of Young et al. (1977), who concluded that most Gulf of
Mexico oils originated 2438 to 3350 m (8000 to 11,000 ft) deeper than their
reservoirs, from source beds 5 to 9 million years older than the reservoirs.(12)
Biomarkers
The claims for the abiotic theory often seem overstated in other ways. J. F.
Kenney of Gas Resources Corporations, Houston, Texas, who is one of the very few
Western geologists to argue for the abiotic theory, writes, "competent
physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics
have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological materials
since the last quarter of the 19th century."(13) Reading such a sentence, one
might assume that only a few isolated troglodyte pseudoscientists would still be
living under the outworn and discredited misconception that oil can be formed
from biological materials. However, in fact universities and oil companies are
staffed with thousands of "competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers
and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics" who not only subscribe to the biogenic
theory, but use it every day as the basis for successful oil exploration. And
laboratory experiments have shown repeatedly that petroleum is in fact produced
from organic matter under the conditions to which it is assumed to have been
subjected over geological time. The situation is actually the reverse of the one
Kenny implies: most geologists assume that the Russian abiotic oil hypothesis,
which dates to the era prior to the advent of modern plate tectonics theory, is
an isolated anachronism. Tectonic movements are now known to be able to
radically reshuffle rock strata, leaving younger sedimentary oil- or gas-bearing
rock beneath basement rock, leading in some cases to the appearance that the oil
has its source in Precambrian crystalline basement, when this is not actually
the case.
Geologists trace the source of the carbon in hydrocarbons through analysis of
its isotopic balance. Natural carbon is nearly all isotope 12, with 1.11
percent being isotope 13. Organic material, however, usually contains less C-13,
because photosynthesis in plants preferentially selects C-12 over C-13. Oil and
natural gas typically show a C-12 to C-13 ratio similar to that of the
biological materials from which they are assumed to have originated. The C-12 to
C-13 ratio is a generally observed property of petroleum and is predicted by the
biotic theory; it is not merely an occasional aberration.(14)
In addition, oil typically contains biomarkers-porphyrins, isoprenoids,
pristane, phytane, cholestane, terpines, and clorins-that are related to
biological chemicals such as chlorophyll and hemoglobin. The chemical
fingerprint of oil assumed to have been formed from, for example, algae is
different from that of oil formed from plankton. Thus geochemists can (and
routinely do) use biomarkers to trace oil samples to specific source rocks.
Abiotic theorists hypothesize that the oil has picked up its chemical biomarkers
through contamination from bacteria living deep in the Earth's crust (Gold's
"deep, hot biosphere") or from other buried bio-remnants. However, the observed
correspondences between biomarkers and source materials are not haphazard, but
instead systematic and predictable on the basis of the biotic theory. Biomarkers
in source rock can be linked with the depositional environment; that is, source
rocks with biomarkers characteristic of land plants are found only in
terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, while petroleum biomarkers associated
with marine organisms are found only in marine sediments.
The Bottom Line
The points discussed above represent a mere sampling of the issues; it would be
difficult if not impossible for me to address all of the arguments put forward
by the abiotic theorists in a brief essay of this nature. A book is needed, but
I am probably not the right person to write it. Rather than continuing along
these lines, I would prefer now to pull back from a focus on details and again
emphasize the bigger picture.
There is no way to conclusively prove that no petroleum is of abiotic origin.
Science is an ongoing search for truth, and theories are continually being
altered or scrapped as new evidence appears. However, the assertion that all oil
is abiotic requires extraordinary evidence, because it must overcome abundant
evidence, already cited, to tie specific oil accumulations to specific
biological origins through a chain of well-understood processes that have been
demonstrated, in principle, under laboratory conditions.
Now, I like scientific mavericks; I tend to cheer for the underdog. Peak oil is
itself a maverick position, and for the past several years I have been promoting
a view that the Wall Street Journal recently described as "crackpot." So I feel
a bit unaccustomed and even uncomfortable now to be on the side of the
scientific "establishment" in arguing against the abiotic oil theorists. The
latter certainly deserve their day in the court of scientific debate.
Perhaps one day there will be general agreement that at least some oil is indeed
abiotic. Maybe there are indeed deep methane belts twenty miles below the
Earth's surface. But the important question to keep in mind is: What are the
practical consequences of this discussion now for the problem of global oil
depletion?
I have not personally inspected the oil wells in Saudi Arabia or even those in
Texas. But nearly every credible report that I have seen-whether from the
industry or from an independent scientist-describes essentially the same
reality: discoveries are declining, and have been since the 1960s. Spare
production capacity is stretched. And the old, super-giant oil fields that the
world depends upon for the majority of its production are nearing or past their
all-time production peaks. Not even the Russian fields cited by the abiotic
theorists as evidence for their views are immune: in June the head of Russia's
Federal Energy Agency said that production for 2005 is likely to remain flat or
even drop, while other officials in that country have said that growth in
Russian production cannot be continued for more than another few years.
What if oil were in fact inexhaustible-would this be good news? Not in my view.
It is my opinion that the discovery of oil was the greatest tragedy (in terms of
its long-term consequences) in human history. Finding a limitless supply of oil
might forestall nasty price increases and catastrophic withdrawal symptoms, but
it would only exacerbate all of the other problems that flow from oil
dependency-our use of it to accelerate the extraction of all other resources,
the venting of CO2 into the atmosphere, and related problems such as loss of
biodiversity. Oil depletion is bad news, but it is no worse than that of oil
abundance.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this essay, the notion of "peak oil" hardly
needs defending these days. We are seeing the phenomenon unfold before our eyes
as one nation after another moves from the column of "oil exporters" to that of
"oil importers" (Great Britain made the leap this year). At some point in the
very near future the remaining nations in column A will simply be unable to
supply all of the nations in column B.
While the non-scientist abiotic cheerleaders (Vialls and McGowan) accuse
peak-oil authors of ulterior motives, I cannot help but wonder about their
motives for seeking to divert public attention from a very real and mounting
global problem.
Footnotes
1. joevialls.altermedia.info
2. www.davesweb.cnchost.com
3. www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-09/dlnl-mid091304.php
4. wow.osu.edu
5. See Kenneth Deffeyes, Hubbert's Peak, pp. 21-22, 171; Walter Youngquist,
Geodestinies, p. 114.
6. www.gasresources.net/energy_resources.htm
7. www.dur.ac.uk/react.res/RRG_web/hydrocarbons_meet.htm
8. www.911-strike.com/pfeiffer.htm (link expired; click on "cached")
9. www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645
10. #20003, 1999, www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/97015/eugene.htm
11. www.pnl.gov/er_news/08_95/er_news/oil1.kb.html
12. www.datapages.com/97015/eugene.htm
13. See footnote 9.
14. www.giss.nasa.gov/gpol/abstracts/1997/FungFieldB.html
15. "As Prices Soar, Doomsayers Provoke Debate on Oil's Future |
