Crude oil is produced as a natural biproduct of the Earth's core. True or false.

[Precambrianmollusc]

@Chronos

Even if true, it would be irrelevant. We all know that there are natural processes which produce hydrocarbons. But it doesn’t matter, for practical purposes, whether those processes are biological or not. What matters is how big the reserves are, and how quickly those reserves are replenished.

Understanding the petroleum generation and migration systems in a basin is quite relevant to practical matters in exploration and production.

.

[Precambrianmollusc]

@jayjay

It’s more of an attempt by people financially involved in the petroleum industry to try to allay fears that there will come a time when all the oil is pumped and burned/used up to keep governments from supporting research on alternative energy than a religious thing.

Do you have a citation to support any of the above, maybe a slew of news articles, research funding etc that indicates those with a financial interest in oil have been advancing this theory?
.

[DrDeth]

@El_Kabong

Guy with some background in oil and gas exploration here. There may be some abiogenic methane (the lightest, simplest hydrocarbon compound) but this has not been proven definitively.

Oil, however, is mainly made up of much more complex molecules than methane, ones that are naturally broken down by heat into simpler compounds, and likewise do not spontaneously form in the absence of heat. It gets hotter the deeper one goes in the earth, and beyond some threshold depth that varies from location to location, the thermal conditions are such that oil simply cannot exist.

In addition, oil and gas are almost exclusively found in sedimentary rocks; i.e. rocks laid down from surface. And not just any sediments, but ones laid down in marine (oceanic) environments. This strongly suggests that the source materials for oil and gas are laid down at the same time as the rocks enclosing them. And they are: countless numbers of single-celled marine organisms that live briefly, die, sink to the ocean bottom, end up covered in sediment and over a long time, their organic molecules are very slowly ‘cooked’ into oil and gas.

Yes. It is very very likely this is true.

But those proposing abiogenic oil as a *hypothesis *are not necessarily crackpots. Since we are not sure where oil comes from, it is possible (but very unlikely) it comes from a abiogenic source. It is a interesting hypothesis. Geologists also were doubtful (rightly) about continental drift before a mechanism was found.
Those simply saying that it does- those might be crackpots.

[Muffin]

In 1863, Mineralogy Professor Otto Lidenbrock of Hamburg’s Gelehrtenschule des Johanneums headed an exploratory team that determined first hand that there is no crude oil in the mantle, despite there being evidence of both Ichthyosaurus and Plesiosaurus being present. He did not investigate the core.

[DrDeth]

@Muffin

In 1863, Mineralogy Professor Otto Lidenbrock of Hamburg’s Gelehrtenschule des Johanneums headed an exploratory team that determined first hand that there is no crude oil in the mantle, despite there being evidence of both Ichthyosaurus and Plesiosaurus being present. He did not investigate the core.

He was just following in the footsteps of Arne Saknussemm.

[PatrickLondon]

@jayjay

It’s more of an attempt by people financially involved in the petroleum industry to try to allay fears that there will come a time when all the oil is pumped and burned/used up to keep governments from supporting research on alternative energy than a religious thing.

I’d have assumed that’s so close to “magical thinking” as to be damn nearly a religion in itself.

[El_Kabong]

@Leaffan

Pardon my ignorance, but I’d always assumed oil was organic matter of all kinds (plants, dinosaurs, etc.) trapped and decaying for millennia. Is it true that single-celled organisms are more the cause of oil creation?

My understanding is that in terms of biomass, simple marine organisms dwarf all the rest. Plant matter tends to form coal, not oil, although there is some producible methane associated with coal deposits.

Or, what lazybratsche said.

[El_Kabong]

(missed edit window) Well, except for the ‘subduction zones’ part. Direct burial in a low-oxygen environment is sufficient.

[TriPolar]

Perhaps my memory is incorrect but wasn’t there some evidence that oil was found near impact craters that might have cracked the mantle? It doesn’t seem like it was ridiculous to investigate this. There was just no evidence of significant abiogenic oil found.

[Precambrianmollusc]

Ames crater , buried under 10,000 of sediments. I doubt the meteor cracked the mantle. The oil found there can be explained through regular petroleum geology. Oil produced in some formations and migrated up and the impact crater forms either the seal or the reservoir.
.