Oddbean

The abiogenic theory of petroleum was first proposed in the 19th century, but gained further development and visibility in the 20th century thanks to several prominent scientists. Some of the first to postulate and explore this theory include: Dmitri Mendeleev (1834-1907) : The Russian chemist, known primarily for the periodic table, suggested in 1877 that petroleum could originate from chemical processes in the Earth's interior, beyond organic debris. Mendeleev proposed that methane and other simple hydrocarbons could be formed from reactions between water and carbon compounds deep in the Earth's mantle. Nikolai Kudryavtsev (1893-1971): Russian geologist who, in 1951, formalized the modern version of the abiogenic theory. Kudryavtsev argued that oil found in sedimentary rocks actually migrated from deep within the earth's crust through geological faults. He also pointed out that some oil reservoirs were associated with geological formations where not enough organic matter was found to account for the amount of oil accumulated. Vladimir Porfiryev (1899-1982): Another Russian geologist who expanded on Kudryavtsev's work, proposing that hydrocarbons are primordial compounds formed in the Earth's mantle. Porfiryev investigated the composition of reservoirs in Siberia and other regions, concluding that hydrocarbons form independently of biological processes. 4. Thomas Gold (1920-2004): Austrian-American astrophysicist and geologist who took up and popularized the theory in the West during the second half of the 20th century. Gold argued that oil and natural gas are continuously produced in the mantle and that bacteria found in oil fields could have colonized the hydrocarbons after their formation. His book The Deep Hot Biosphere (1999) revitalized interest in the theory. The abiogenic theory of petroleum proposes that hydrocarbons, including oil and natural gas, did not form from decaying organic remains (plants and animals) under conditions of pressure and temperature, as suggested by conventional biogenic theory. Instead, it holds that petroleum has a primordial origin, related to chemical and physical processes occurring deep in the earth's mantle. Main postulates of the abiogenic theory: Deep origin: hydrocarbons are formed from carbon and hydrogen present in the Earth's mantle. This process does not depend on superficial organic material. Chemical reactions: Under high pressures and temperatures, elements such as carbon and hydrogen react to form methane and other more complex hydrocarbons. These molecules can migrate into the earth's crust through geological fractures and faults. Renewable reservoirs: According to this theory, petroleum reservoirs could be “renewable” on a geological scale, as processes in the mantle continue to generate hydrocarbons. Evidence in favor: Presence of hydrocarbons in meteorites: Hydrocarbons have been found in meteorites, suggesting that these molecules can form in the absence of life. Petroleum deposits exist in ancient and deep rocks: In areas where there is no evidence of previous organic matter. Hydrocarbons on planets and moons: Saturn and Jupiter have an abundance of methane and other hydrocarbons in their atmospheres, where there is no known biological activity.

That was a nice AI response you got there cowboy! Oi! You got a license for that AI?! Anyways, here is an AI counter argument. (This is not representative of my own views. I’m far too retarded to have an opinion). While the abiogenic theory of petroleum provides an intriguing alternative to the traditional biogenic theory, there are several arguments against its validity as the primary explanation for petroleum formation. Here’s a counterpoint: 1. Lack of Direct Evidence for Mantle-Origin Petroleum • While hydrocarbons like methane are observed on other planets and in meteorites, their presence does not prove that crude oil forms deep in the Earth’s mantle. Methane is a simple hydrocarbon and can form through abiogenic processes, but crude oil is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons and other compounds typically associated with biological precursors. • There is no conclusive evidence that large-scale, commercially viable petroleum deposits originate directly from abiogenic processes. 2. Isotopic Signatures Favor Biogenic Origins • The carbon isotopic signatures (specifically the ratio of ^{12}C to ^{13}C ) of most petroleum deposits align closely with those found in biological materials. These signatures are difficult to reconcile with a mantle origin. • Abiogenic hydrocarbons, when produced in laboratory settings or observed in natural phenomena (e.g., volcanic gases), typically show isotopic ratios inconsistent with those of petroleum found in sedimentary basins. 3. Geological Context of Oil Reservoirs • Most oil and gas reservoirs are found in sedimentary rocks that are rich in organic material (e.g., kerogen and ancient biomass). The spatial correlation between these reservoirs and the burial and maturation of organic matter supports the biogenic theory. • Although hydrocarbons can migrate through faults and fractures, the majority of oil fields are located where organic-rich source rocks have been subjected to appropriate pressure and temperature conditions over millions of years. 4. Renewable Reservoirs Are Hypothetical • The abiogenic theory’s claim that reservoirs are “renewable” on a geological scale is speculative and not observed in practice. Reservoir depletion has not been shown to be replenished by deep mantle processes within human timescales or even over millions of years in extensively studied fields. 5. Misinterpretation of Deep Hydrocarbons • The discovery of hydrocarbons in deep and ancient rocks, or in regions with limited organic material, does not necessarily support the abiogenic theory. Migration processes can explain the presence of these hydrocarbons, as oil can move significant distances through permeable rocks and faults. 6. Abiogenic Processes Cannot Explain the Complexity of Oil • The complexity and variety of compounds in crude oil, including biomarkers (molecules derived from ancient living organisms), are best explained by the transformation of organic matter over geological time. These biomarkers, such as steranes and hopanes, are chemically linked to specific biological sources. Conclusion While the abiogenic theory provides a plausible mechanism for the formation of hydrocarbons like methane in extraterrestrial or extreme Earth environments, it lacks substantial evidence to explain the large-scale, economically significant petroleum reserves found on Earth. The biogenic theory remains the most robust and widely supported explanation, grounded in extensive geological, chemical, and isotopic evidence.

good reading! seen ATOP briefly mentioned in a youtube video with the trite "yeah, all us experts in oil and gas have known this" without much followup... the youtube video used the terminology "abiotic" theory, but i expect it's meaning is related, similar or same. thanks for sharing!