A whole "new" world?

[jacks]

Just thought I'd pass on this article on I found on "Deep Carbon Observatory." I'm constantly amazed at what we discover about our world. Apparently there is a huge subterranean biosphere. Where microbes use rocks as energy sources and up to 70 percent of Earth's bacteria and single-celled microorganisms known as archaea likely live. They estimate the size of this deep biosphere at about 2.3 billion cubic kilometers, almost twice the volume of all of the oceans combined.

Maybe this is common knowledge to many of you, but it was amazing to me.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Could those organisms be the true source of petroleum?

 

[jacks]

Could those organisms be the true source of petroleum?

That's an interesting thought, I was always told it was from dead dinosaurs, etc. (Fossil Fuel).

 

[DogmaHunter]

Could those organisms be the true source of petroleum?

Not very likely, as oil fields are found by prediction based on knowledge of ancient geology and fauna and flora in those area's millions of years ago.

If these organisms would be the "true" source of oil, then it makes no sense that the current ways of finding oil (based on something completely different) are actually successfull.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Could those organisms be the true source of petroleum?

That's the "deep biotic petroleum hypothesis", one of several hypotheses that petroleum oil may have alternative sources to the conventional ideas.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

Could those organisms be the true source of petroleum?

Probably not because petroleum contains sufficient biomarkers to indicate the presence of chlorophyl and derivatives thereof (porphyrn rings, pristane/phytane).

Oil appears to come mostly from algae and bacteria in oceans and water bodies. (Now I'm not going to say 100% certainty that no deeper biosphere can contribute, but I would be surprised if there was a significant change in what we know about where oil comes from).

 

[GlabrousDory4]

Not very likely, as oil fields are found by prediction based on knowledge of ancient geology and fauna and flora in those area's millions of years ago.

If these organisms would be the "true" source of oil, then it makes no sense that the current ways of finding oil (based on something completely different) are actually successfull.

And indeed the source rocks that we know of are usually marine shales or some other known "surface" source. Which is also why we are experiencing a boom in "shale oil" and other non-conventional sources I should think

 

[juvenissun]

Probably not because petroleum contains sufficient biomarkers to indicate the presence of chlorophyl and derivatives thereof (porphyrn rings, pristane/phytane).

Oil appears to come mostly from algae and bacteria in oceans and water bodies. (Now I'm not going to say 100% certainty that no deeper biosphere can contribute, but I would be surprised if there was a significant change in what we know about where oil comes from).

How do you distinguish an organic chemist from an organic geochemists? We may not want to automatically call an organic chemist who works on petroleum as an organic geochemist.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

How do you distinguish an organic chemist from an organic geochemists? We may not want to automatically call an organic chemist who works on petroleum as an organic geochemist.

I wouldn't worry about the differentiation if I were you.

Organic Geochemists should have a pretty solid foundation in organic chemistry in general.

 

[juvenissun]

I wouldn't worry about the differentiation if I were you.

Organic Geochemists should have a pretty solid foundation in organic chemistry in general.

There has to be some differences, worried or not.
The vice versa of what you said may not be true.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

There has to be some differences, worried or not.
The vice versa of what you said may not be true.

Not all organic chemistry will be necessary to be a good organic geochemist, but all organic geochemistry should be underlain by organic chemistry.

I wish I knew what the point of this part of the discussion is. But then I'd struggle to care.

 

[juvenissun]

Not all organic chemistry will be necessary to be a good organic geochemist, but all organic geochemistry should be underlain by organic chemistry.

I wish I knew what the point of this part of the discussion is. But then I'd struggle to care.

The life philosophy of these two organic chemists should be statistically different. One is earth oriented and one is not. I won't talk geology to an organic chemist, but I would to an organic geochemist.

In this thread, the issues of discussion would also be very different between the two.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

The life philosophy of these two organic chemists should be statistically different. One is earth oriented and one is not. I won't talk geology to an organic chemist, but I would to an organic geochemist.

Like I said, if I were you I wouldn't overly limit sources of information. Having done my graduate work in organic geochem I was able to leverage a lot of that to help me make a living as a chemist.

 

[juvenissun]

Like I said, if I were you I wouldn't overly limit sources of information. Having done my graduate work in organic geochem I was able to leverage a lot of that to help me make a living as a chemist.

This is off the topic, but since you are here.
I was alerted by knowing that some of our food (for example, fish) is contaminated by a lot of micron or submicron sized plastic particles (not sure what kind). If true, is it a concern to you? I asked this to my chemist friend, and she does not worry about it and said we can not digest that anyway. But would very small particle be more chemically active and may be disintegrated and be absorbed?