abiogenic petroleum origin

[charityagape]

Not a debate really, just something interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Has anyone ever heard of this?

 

[philadiddle]

Not a debate really, just something interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Has anyone ever heard of this?

neat link. it's nice to have some scientific articles posted without intention of debate. thx for the read.

 

[charityagape]

your welcome

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Not a debate really, just something interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Has anyone ever heard of this?

I have heard of it, but I have my doubts about some of it. Except one or two freak cases old oil wells are not refilling, the one or two that are have such a different type of oil refilling them that it is best explained as being from another pocket rather than the a deeper source of the same oil that had run dry.



I highly doubt that, even if some or all oil turns out to have been produced an abiogenic process, there is a creamy oil center to the Earth and that we can pump all the oil we want, the Earth will make more. It sounds a little too much like the Russian wishful thinking that got them Chernobyl and every other environmental disaster.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I find it hard to believe that all the oil in the earth came from decaying plants. There were not enough, even with the billions of years given, to make enough oil that we are seeing now.
anyone have any calculations?

 

[KerrMetric]

I find it hard to believe that all the oil in the earth came from decaying plants. There were not enough, even with the billions of years given, to make enough oil that we are seeing now.
anyone have any calculations?

This is false. There is way more than enough.


Calculation to follow.


I just got some figures:

We use in a year about 50 trillion tons of ancient plant mass in the fossil fuels we burn in a year.

If we have say 1000 years worth (all previously used plus all deposits still in the crust - a fair guess) then that is 50 quadrillion tons of plants were needed to produce all the fossil fuels (oil, coal, and gas).

Now the Earths plant biomass is about 30 billion tons. Divide one by the other and you need about 1.6 million years worth of Earths biomass to make all the fossil fuels.

Now not all the biomass is processed this way but if just 5% is then you need about 30 million years to produce the fossil fuels.



Why the problem?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

The first equation that someone in Chemical Engineering education is

Mass in = Mass out


30 billion tons does not automatically change into 50 quadrillion. 5% mass cannot be taken out of the biomass each year without causing devastation to fertility. Life is only a rearrangement of preexisting atoms of carbon; it does not make new carbon. Where did this 50 quadrillion tons of carbon come from?

 

[KerrMetric]

The first equation that someone in Chemical Engineering education is

Mass in = Mass out


30 billion tons does not automatically change into 50 quadrillion. 5% mass cannot be taken out of the biomass each year without causing devastation to fertility. Life is only a rearrangement of preexisting atoms of carbon; it does not make new carbon. Where did this 50 quadrillion tons of carbon come from?

Are you serious? Read what I said. This is in principle a very simple calculation.

Estimates of the total fossil fuels in the Earth are around 1000 years of consumption. This includes material we cannot ever tap but it is rough estimate. We use about 50 trillion tons of equivalent ancient plant biomass per year. 1000 years X 50 trillion tons is 50 quadrillion tons of plant biomass were needed to produce all these fossil fuels.

Now the plant biomass at a give time is about 30 billion tons. Divide one by the other and you need 1.6 million times the biomass of plants. If just 5% of the biomass dies (and is replenished by new growth) then you need about 30 million years worth of dead plants to get the 50 quadrillion tons required.

And how do you get I am removing 5% of the biomass and not replacing it. Have you heard of life and death. More than 5% of the biomass in plants dies in a year and is replenished. Also the carbon resevoir is not just in preexisting organic form. Atmosphere anyone?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

you dont get it KerrMetric and I cannot help you to see when you refuse to open your eyes.

Mass in = Mass out The hydrocarbons come from some where. Where?

Your calculations are based on 5% of the carbon biomass turning into oil, and, by definition, not participating in life generation, and somehow some miracle new carbon is infused into the biosphere. You say the atmosphere? Glucogenesis? Is that where it is all coming from? Dont think so.

 

[KerrMetric]

you dont get it KerrMetric and I cannot help you to see when you refuse to open your eyes.

Mass in = Mass out The hydrocarbons come from some where. Where?

Your calculations are based on 5% of the carbon biomass turning into oil, and, by definition, not participating in life generation, and somehow some miracle new carbon is infused into the biosphere. You say the atmosphere? Glucogenesis? Is that where it is all coming from? Dont think so.

Do you know how plants function? They don't get their hydrocarbons from pre-existing hydrocarbons.

You are really misunderstanding metabolism. The atmosphere is a huge resevoir of carbon as is inorganic crustal material that gets broken down and released.

Where on Earth are you getting your idea from?


No one has ever said that all hydrocarbons are just reprocessed and it's a closed biosystem.

Why not Google "Carbon cycle".

Do you think you have really stumbled upon something the geology, biology, atmospheric science, ecology and chemistry community have not -there must be tens of thousands of articles, papers and discussions about the carbon cycle, plant metabolism, fossil fuels and global warming studies where this is vital information.