THE TRUE ORIGIN OF HYDROCARBONS

Written by Suresh Bansal

Is the oil we rely on for energy really derived from organic sources (as per fossil fuel theory), or is it constantly being regenerated within earth’s mantle from rocks (as per abiogenic oil theory)? oil drilling

Scientists have sufficient evidence showing that commercially interesting hydrocarbons have been expelled from organic rich source rock and are trapped in the reservoir rocks. We also have compelling evidence demonstrating the presence of biological molecules in commercial oils.

But in addition to the evidence of an organic origin to oil and natural gas, we have observed the abundance of similar hydrocarbons on many other planetary bodies viz. comets and moons (eg. Titan) etc. For example, Uranus’ atmosphere is about 83% hydrogen, 15% helium and 2% methane; Saturn is composed of mostly helium and hydrogen with traces of methane; Neptune’s atmosphere is made up predominately of hydrogen and helium, with some methane.

These extra-terrestrial sources are therefore determined to have been formed without any involvement of any biological material.

The common association of hydrocarbons with the inert gas helium is also not explainable in current theory of biotic origin of petroleum. We have observed presence of some traces element like V, Ni, Cu, Co, Zn.. etc in hydrocarbons which also do not clearly explain the biotic origin of petroleum (Szatmari et al,2005). According to the author of the paper they have analyzed 68 Brazilian oil and nine foreign oils and determined 24 metal traces in the oils showing fine correlation of the oils with CI chondrite and mantle peridotites, and less correlation with oceanic and continental crust, with none with seawater.

So we require a new theory that can reconcile the strong evidences of both the current theories. Relying on the best evidences of both the theories we should be able to resolve it.

Majority of commercially interesting hydrocarbons accumulations have been expelled from the organic rich sedimentary source rocks; but essentially from those which has been formed with the involvement of abiotic hydrocarbons. And these abiotic hydrocarbons were once hugely present on the surface of the earth in past geological time.  Thus, biotic (“fossil”) theory advocates have some important evidence on their side but on the other hand the followers of abiotic theory also have strong evidence which cannot be denied.

Without doubt, sedimentary rocks that have been formed with no involvement of these abiotic hydrocarbons are not suitable to form commercial hydrocarbons deposits and thereby lead to dry holes. So abiotic sources are the major contributor in the commercial accumulations of hydrocarbons. Hence a well-balanced theory is today’s major requirement which will help future hydrocarbon exploration efficiently.

References:

1) http://www.universetoday.com/12800/titan-has-hundreds-of-times-more-liquid-hydrocarbons-than-earth/

2) http://cdn.intechweb.org/pdfs/14082.pdf

AUTHOR: SURESH BANSAL, PB, INDIA, sureshbansal342@gmail.com

Comments (10)

  • Avatar

    Panayota Yeorgopoulou

    |

    Some questions: 1. What makes you so confident that the extra terrestrial sources mentioned in the article have not been imposed to extreme conditions of heat and high pressures,factors that are necessary for Hydrocarbons to be formed.
    2. V, Ni, Co, Zn, Cu, are not explain the NON biotic origin of HC. Contrary, they give evidence to the fact of extreme heat and pressure conditions to have been preceded.

  • Avatar

    Alfredo Espinosa López

    |

    I am completly accord with the Swapan opinion a Out the Hidrocarburcarbons origen,

  • Avatar

    Alfredo Espinosa López

    |

    Dear SSwan your comentar y and apología a boutique the hidrocarburo árboles ir ge gen I this so ver y accede.
    I am a la yerno and my more in portant costurera ishas very important mineral license mineral explotation in Colombi with several pre ious metalls, I don ‘t know your científicos Ann técnica background in hidrocarburo and les in hidricarbourcarborns

  • Avatar

    suresh bansal

    |

    Earlier there was wrong discussion between the followers of biotic v/s abiotic theory ,whether commercial interesting oils has been expelled from sedimentary source rocks or not . while the correct discussion should be whether these expelled oils from sedimentary source rocks are biogenic or abiogenic in origin . second phase of current fossil fuel theory that expulsion of hydrocarbons from sedimentary source rocks is scientific but these hydrocarbons has been formed from deceased biological matter is just a assumption only and first phase of this theory is “EMPTY” . Majority of commercial oils has been expelled from sedimentary source rocks but only from those essentially has been formed with the involvement of abiotic hydrocarbons,once huge present on the surface of the earth in past long time ago . sedimentary rocks that has been formed without any involvement of these abiotic hydrocarbons are not suitable to form commercial oils and leads us to dry holes . so abiotic sources are the major contributor in commercial interesting hydrocarbons also and these abiotic hydrocarbons has obtained some biotic characteristics in the burial history on the mixture of abiotic hydrocarbons along with the deceased biological matter . Existing method suggested by the fossil fuel theory to find new locations of oils is correct and no need to change it but some more signatures can be added in this to make more viable . hence this balanced hypothesis can help the future petroleum exploration Industry

  • Avatar

    abbass

    |

    salam mr.suresh kumar
    Would you please refer to Geomicrobiology the new science to check with origin of petroleum?
    A.Rocky

    • Avatar

      suresh bansal

      |

      [quote name=”abbass”]salam mr.suresh kumar
      Would you please refer to Geomicrobiology the new science to check with origin of petroleum?
      A.Rocky[/quote]
      AS YOU LIKE YOU CAN .

      • Avatar

        suresh

        |

        [quote name=”suresh bansal”][quote name=”abbass”]salam mr.suresh kumar
        Would you please refer to Geomicrobiology the new science to check with origin of petroleum?
        A.Rocky[/quote]
        AS YOU LIKE YOU CAN .[/quote]please advise me an appropriate link or site

  • Avatar

    sureshbansal342

    |

    Dear Swapan, I think you are talking about the very long discussion we have already done at AAPG . In this discussion you people ( follower of fossil fuel theory ) tried to convince some conclusive evidence in favor of biotic theory like chiral,handedness left or right handed amino acids etc but your own people has rejected all these .even than you believe this is a scientific correct theory . on the other hand I suggested tons of other evidences like case of diamonds,FTT , sulfur and metal contents , and many many others and you denied all by saying that this do not disprove the biogenic theory . actually you have habit to deny all because you understand that fossil fuel theory is correct and scientific . yes, there are many strong evidences in this theory like 1)Source rocks and oils contain the same organic marker 2)between the biomarkers and environment of deposition
    3)of oil from kerogen in the laboratory on heating and its correlation with the produced oil

    4)complete presence of oil in sedimentary rocks

    5)complete absence of significant oil in igneous and metamorphic rocks

    6)cracking of oil with depth due to increase in temperature pressure regimes.
    I have fully respect for all these and requested you to prove that kerogen and asphalt are also fossil fuel but you have never given an proper reply that can scientifically prove this . you suggested me that kerogen is an organic compound by the definition . but when i told you that not all organic compounds are created by living organism and you refused to accept this scientific point . even you do not care the science . Many many time I have told you that after portion of kerogen and asphalt ,biotic theory is scientific but first portion of formation of kerogen and asphalt is “EMPTY” . both are fossil fuel is just a assumption only and this theory has no legs and standing in the air . you failed to provide any scientific paper proving both are also fossil fuel . Expulsion of hydrocarbons with some biotic characteristics from sedimentary source rocks do not scientifically prove the biogenic origin of hydrocarbons and this is a big mistake only and major obstacle to solve other mysteries like origin of life on earth and planet formation etc . so please stop teaching this wrong theory in school and universities . Pre mind set up is a big problem . In my balanced hypothesis there is a respect for all valid strong evidences of both biotic v/s abiotic . please do not expect more comments from me as earlier already 3290 comments has been passed at AAPG site . Finally majority followers of biotic theory agreed that commercial oils are mixture of both biotic and abiotic but significant portion is biotic only . when i asked you how you concluded this ratio you never replied this question and fair enough to believe this is just your assumption only and your loving theory is standing on assumptions only .
    BYE BYE AND CHEERS .Please do not spoil this paper on the basis of pre setup mind or provide any conclusive and scientific evidence in favor of fossil fuel theory .

  • Avatar

    Swapan Kumar Bhattacharya

    |

    Presence of methane in extraterrestrial bodies does not prove that origin of petroleum is not biogenic. Is there any evidence of aromatic and napthenic hydrocarbons in the extra terrestrial bodies?
    Presence of Transition metals in porphyrins are common in organic matter. Therefore Correlation of transition metals with other rocks alone cannot justify petroleum is not biogenic.
    Presence of He is not universal in gas fields. It is only present in selective gas fields with high gamma source rocks suggesting adsorption of radioactive minerals that contributed He.
    I have repeatedly mentioned these arguments to the author but he does not accept them. It is fine not to accept others opinion but if he cannot disprove existing theory then he should not propose a new theory to confuse young generation.

  • Avatar

    Joseph A Olson

    |

    See….”Fracturing the Fossil Fuel Fable”….in archive here at PSI.

Comments are closed