OCtober 1st, 2023 | Allan Ray

What If Oil Is Not A Fossil Fuel?

There is a hypothesis that hydrocarbons are produced inside a planet's mantle.

There is a little known scientific hypothesis that challenges our conventional wisdom about oil and gas. The abiogenic petroleum origin hypothesis proposes that petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, rather than from the decomposition of organic matter. According to this hypothesis, hydrocarbons like oil and natural gas were formed from inorganic compounds deep within the Earth's mantle.

Here are some prominent scientists who have supported or contributed to the abiogenic petroleum origin hypothesis:

Thomas Gold - Austrian-born astrophysicist who was one of the early proponents of the abiogenic origin of petroleum in the West. He theorized hydrocarbons were trapped in the Earth's mantle from the formation of the planet.

Jack Kenney - Russian-born American physicist who claimed discovery of gas deposits at high pressures and temperatures supports abiogenic formation.

Vladimír Kutcherov - Russian physicist who argues that methane and other hydrocarbons can be produced inorganicially in the mantle under high pressure.

Emmanuil Chekaliuk - Ukrainian geologist who contributed to abiogenic theory. Argued that petroleum originated from primordial methane deep in the Earth.

Jean Kropotkin - Russian geologist who proposed an inorganic origin for petroleum in the 19th century, before organic theory became dominant.

Marvin Miller - American astronomy professor who supports the modern abiogenic theory based on planetary science.

If the abiogenic petroleum origin hypothesis were true, it would imply that petroleum resources like oil are not finite or derived from ancient biological matter, but instead are continuously generated through geochemical processes deep within the Earth's mantle and crust. This would have several implications for the abundance of oil and natural gas on Earth.

It would mean that the mantle contains vast amounts of methane, ethane, and other light hydrocarbons that originated when the Earth formed. These compounds occur in pockets hundreds of miles deep and under intense pressure. The weight and churning motions of the mantle continuously convert some of these simple hydrocarbons into longer chains like octane, forming oil and gas. This occurs in small amounts constantly over geological timescales.

Occasionally, shifts in the mantle push these hydrocarbon reservoirs upward. As they rise and the pressure drops, the oil and gas become less dense and can migrate through pores in the crust. Given the immense volume and depth of the mantle, even a tiny fraction being continuously converted into hydrocarbons could represent more oil and gas than humanity could use in millions of years.

Most oil deposits sit above large systems of hydrocarbon formation. We tap into the reservoirs, but the source below continuously leaks more hydrocarbons upward to recharge the reserves. If drilling extracted oil faster than the recharge rate, the pressure differences would increase the mantle leakage, providing more oil and natural gas. This abundance would be sustainable for the indefinite future. Even as we deplete shallower reserves, new deposits would gradually form from the mantle sources miles below, providing humanity with a vast and renewable supply from inorganic sources.

For interplanetary colonization, it would mean that planets that never harboured life, or very little of it, could have an abundance of fuels for humanity to extract.

Trust The Science?

Science has always taught us that oil is a fossil fuel, but what if that science is wrong? Worse yet, what if that science is deliberately wrong?

The scarcity of fossil fuels has been used to drive up costs and prices, but if these fuels were readily available with little fear of running out, prices would remain moderate and minimal. This would shrink profits for oil producers and corporations that have made billions on the idea that oil and gas are limited resources.

There have been concerns that the peak oil theory has been used to drive up oil prices. Some oil companies and countries might use the theory to create a sense of urgency and scarcity, which can lead to higher prices. This can also be achieved by limiting production, controlling supply, or simply by engaging in market speculation. Many companies, along with environmental groups, have suggested extracting less oil and gas in order to preserve Earth's reserves, or to save the environment. Both reasons act to limit production and, thus, to drive up costs. Both reasons lead to higher profits for American oil and gas companies.

Besides obvious challenges in extracting these fuels, the abiogenic petroleum hypothesis would debunk ideas of “peak oil”.

The peak oil theory was first proposed by scientists like David White as far back as 1919, and by M. King Hubbert in the 1950s, who used it to accurately predict the peak of oil production in the United States in 1970. The theory has since been applied to global oil production, with some analysts predicting that the world has already reached or is nearing the peak of global oil production.

The Rockefeller Public Service Award was awarded to M. King Hubbert in 1977. John D. Rockefeller is the patriarch of America's first oil company, Standard Oil, founded in 1870.

The peak oil theory is based on the principle of supply and demand. As the world consumes oil faster than it can discover and extract new reserves, the supply of petroleum will eventually decline. This decline in production can lead to increased competition for remaining resources, potentially driving up prices.

While some of these aspects could be true when it comes to costs and strains on extraction and production, the idea that the Earth will one day run out of oil would be entirely debunked if the abiogenic petroleum origin theory were ever proven true.