
Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Oil and Gas - yters
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090910084259.htm
======
mechanical_fish
These folks' _Nature Geoscience_ paper appears [1] to say nothing more than
that, if you take methane and squeeze it a lot under high temperature and
pressure, some of it becomes ethane, propane, and butane:

 _Here we use in situ Raman spectroscopy in laser-heated diamond anvil cells
to monitor the chemical reactivity of methane and ethane under upper-mantle
conditions. We show that when methane is exposed to pressures higher than 2
GPa, and to temperatures in the range of 1,000–1,500 K, it partially reacts to
form saturated hydrocarbons containing 2–4 carbons (ethane, propane and
butane) and molecular hydrogen and graphite._

Although, of course, when you continue to squeeze the ethane, propane, and
butane some of it turns back into methane:

 _Conversely, exposure of ethane to similar conditions results in the
production of methane, suggesting that the synthesis of saturated hydrocarbons
is reversible._

That's equilibrium for you.

It's hard to believe that any of this is really news to organic chemists, but
maybe it is. Or maybe this paper got reviewed by the scientists' best friends.
Whatever. I'm neither a geologist nor an organic chemist.

In any case, I really admire the phrasing of the final sentence of the
abstract:

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

Very judiciously stated. But this is like saying that the fact that engineers
can make diamonds in the laboratory "supports the suggestion" that many of the
diamonds under South Africa _could_ have been made in ancient underground
laboratories. Yes, A is a necessary condition for B, but the fact that A is
true doesn't really say much about the extent to which B is true.

Better evidence, please. Preferably in a journal I can actually read.

\---

[1] I can't read it, of course, without paying $18. Because why should the
public be allowed to read the results of the research that we pay for? For-
profit journals _delenda est_.

------
fnid
This kind of hopeful news comes out every time there is an oil shock. But it
doesn't contradict the math behind peak oil. It is getting harder and harder
to find oil.

Perhaps it could be argued it is because of our incorrect assumptions about
the production of oil that we are looking in the wrong places, but I don't
think so.

~~~
cwan
I assume you haven't been paying attention to the developments in
unconventional natural gas: [http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/03/climate-
action-game-ch...](http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/03/climate-action-game-
changer-unconventional-natural-gas-shale/)

------
psranga
The most informative series I have read on the abiotic origins of oil and gas:
[http://www.google.com/search?q=abiotic+oil+site%3Adavesweb.c...](http://www.google.com/search?q=abiotic+oil+site%3Adavesweb.cnchost.com)

------
numair
This has been a point of contention for quite a while now -- see, for example,
"Deep Hot Biosphere." Wonder what the peak oil folks will say...

~~~
easp
Probably something like "show me the oil and tell me what the extraction and
production costs are."

What people like you who like to build peak oil straw men conveniently either
fail to remember or consistently overlook is that the modern argument for peak
oil is an economic argument. It is an argument about the amount of oil that
can be extracte at a price people are willing to pay. It is not an argument
that we've burned up all the oil that exists on/in earth.

------
nosse
If no fossils are needed, where does the carbon come from?

Carbon is a chemical element, chemical elements just don't appear magically to
random places. Carbon is too light to exist in the bedrock by pure geological
reasons, some sedimentation is needed.

~~~
psranga
I know this doesn't directly address your question. But large liquid ethane
pools have been discovered on Titan. Dinosaurs certainly didn't live there;
where do you suppose the carbon came from (it comes from the fusion of dying
stars).

