Peak Oil : Abiotic-vs-Biological
This topic seemed to elicit a far amount of interest before, so I thought I would open the can of worms again.
However, I have a little more information, which should help this be a little more informative. I read The Deep Hot Biosphere.
First, let me summarize the book, because I doubt most of you would like to read it. It was both and interesting and very boring book. Gold repeats himself frequently, and often does so while delving into specific details regarding chemistry, biology, and geology.
He positions two important and distinct hypotheses, and then describes many pieces of evidence he believes either support his hypothesis or can be better described by his hypothesis than by conventional theories.
Hypothesis #1 is that petroleum and other fossil fuels (natural gas, oil shale, tar sands, etc) are created by an abiotic(non-living) source. His assertion, which makes some sense, is that hydrogen and carbon are two of the most common elements. When the earth was formed, large quantities of these elements were lodged deep within the earth. Then either in their initial state, or via some process (heat and pressure), the hydrogen and carbon bonded to form hydrocarbon chains. Hydrocarbons are light compared to most other molecules (like metals), so the hypothesis is that they are slowly bubbling up from deep in the earth.
Hypothesis #2 is that a vast number of microbes live off of the hydrocarbons miles beneath our feet. His further assertion is that abiogenesis (beginning of life) occurred in this deep hot hydrocarbon region of the earth. Gold suggests that chemical energy is preferable for abiogenesis over surface energy sources, which would quickly rely on solar energy or be starved.
He makes several further assertions, some more interesting than others. He believes deep hot gases are the cause of Earthquakes. He thinks deep life will be found inside other planets in our solar system. Gold suggests that the methane gas coming from the earth is actually a key ingredient in the formation of peat. And most interesting to our discussion, he believes that hydrocarbons can be found in many different locations than the sedimentary rock we typically drill.
Enough book review, now back to peak oil. Let's ignore the biosphere argument now completely, since we are interested only in oil and not in life.
An abiotic source for oil may or may not benefit us. Let's assume that it is true. Peak Oil does not characterize where or how oil originates, but rather how quickly we can tap into underground reserves when we need more of it. If Gold's assertion that oil is more plentiful than is commonly believed is true, he may be correct that we could drill in more locations than we usually do. If this activity opens up a greater number of oil wells, it could in fact delay peak oil for a long time.
However, Gold never argues that vast reserves of cheaply available oil are sitting beneath us, and that we just need to look. It could be that he wasn't interested in it. He is clearly far more interested in whether or not we'll find deep hot life on Mars, Venus, or even the Moon.
Let me add one thing that I gleamed. Gold explains how methane gas might prevent dead biological matter from rotting. To some degree, this matter is needed to form sedimentary layers of rocks, which suggests that high levels of methane might actually encourage the formation of sedimentary rocks. I think it's possible that even if oil is abiotic, and there is a lot of it, we might still find that the easy (cheap) stuff is still found in conventional ways. If that is true, Gold could be dead on about everything and it still won't help us out down the road when our blog shuts down because of no power.
Sorry about the long post, but it was a long book.
However, I have a little more information, which should help this be a little more informative. I read The Deep Hot Biosphere.
First, let me summarize the book, because I doubt most of you would like to read it. It was both and interesting and very boring book. Gold repeats himself frequently, and often does so while delving into specific details regarding chemistry, biology, and geology.
He positions two important and distinct hypotheses, and then describes many pieces of evidence he believes either support his hypothesis or can be better described by his hypothesis than by conventional theories.
Hypothesis #1 is that petroleum and other fossil fuels (natural gas, oil shale, tar sands, etc) are created by an abiotic(non-living) source. His assertion, which makes some sense, is that hydrogen and carbon are two of the most common elements. When the earth was formed, large quantities of these elements were lodged deep within the earth. Then either in their initial state, or via some process (heat and pressure), the hydrogen and carbon bonded to form hydrocarbon chains. Hydrocarbons are light compared to most other molecules (like metals), so the hypothesis is that they are slowly bubbling up from deep in the earth.
Hypothesis #2 is that a vast number of microbes live off of the hydrocarbons miles beneath our feet. His further assertion is that abiogenesis (beginning of life) occurred in this deep hot hydrocarbon region of the earth. Gold suggests that chemical energy is preferable for abiogenesis over surface energy sources, which would quickly rely on solar energy or be starved.
He makes several further assertions, some more interesting than others. He believes deep hot gases are the cause of Earthquakes. He thinks deep life will be found inside other planets in our solar system. Gold suggests that the methane gas coming from the earth is actually a key ingredient in the formation of peat. And most interesting to our discussion, he believes that hydrocarbons can be found in many different locations than the sedimentary rock we typically drill.
Enough book review, now back to peak oil. Let's ignore the biosphere argument now completely, since we are interested only in oil and not in life.
An abiotic source for oil may or may not benefit us. Let's assume that it is true. Peak Oil does not characterize where or how oil originates, but rather how quickly we can tap into underground reserves when we need more of it. If Gold's assertion that oil is more plentiful than is commonly believed is true, he may be correct that we could drill in more locations than we usually do. If this activity opens up a greater number of oil wells, it could in fact delay peak oil for a long time.
However, Gold never argues that vast reserves of cheaply available oil are sitting beneath us, and that we just need to look. It could be that he wasn't interested in it. He is clearly far more interested in whether or not we'll find deep hot life on Mars, Venus, or even the Moon.
Let me add one thing that I gleamed. Gold explains how methane gas might prevent dead biological matter from rotting. To some degree, this matter is needed to form sedimentary layers of rocks, which suggests that high levels of methane might actually encourage the formation of sedimentary rocks. I think it's possible that even if oil is abiotic, and there is a lot of it, we might still find that the easy (cheap) stuff is still found in conventional ways. If that is true, Gold could be dead on about everything and it still won't help us out down the road when our blog shuts down because of no power.
Sorry about the long post, but it was a long book.
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth's_crust
One thing to keep in mind however, is that we may not have especially great estimates of what the earth is composed. Doing a quick Google, I found this link. Some of this information may still be influenced by Newton, and you know he wasn't boring holes into the earth to calculate it's composition.
Another point is that lighter elements are less likely to leave lasting imprints of their existence. If you look at rock formations around volcanoes, you might miss carbon and hydrogen, both of which will readily bond with oxygen and float away from the site.
Seriously though, I don't peak oil matters in the grand scheme of things. I've never subscribed to doom and gloom theories of the breakdown of society, a la Mad Max, or anything even close.
Oil will continue to get more expensive, so will gasoline, so we'll use less of it and research new materials/energy sources and move over to them instead. Voila. If anything, I wish oil was significantly more expensive right now so we didn't have to produce so much CO2 in the interim while we use the rest of it up.