Oil - Where does the O go?

>>7909489

>When they get buried, they become hydrocarbons. But coal and oil don't have O atoms. Where does the Oxygen from the water go?
kill yourself you stupid troll.

I assume it would evaporate or leave the body during decomposition.

File: Screen Shot 2016-03-05 at 10.54.36 AM.png (138KB, 502x463px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 502x463px

>>7909489
I'm not sure what you think coal is, but I've included a partial structure here for you with source

>>7909489
Put a chicken in a vice.
Watch the juices get squeezed out.

>>7909489
Here's a fun experiment you can do at home: heat refined sugar or starch without letting it catch fire. It turns into a black mass that is almost pure carbon.

C6H12O6 -> C6 + 6 H2O

...and this is why carbohydrates become carbon in coal. The thermal decomposition of carbohydrates produces water and carbon. Of course, as pointed out elsewhere in the thread, even dry coal is not pure carbon.

Now look at fatty acids: (CH2)nO2H

If you cook water off, you still end up with lots of hydrogen to go with the carbon. Hence: oil and natural gas.

>When they get buried, they become hydrocarbons.
/b/ is back at it again...

>>7909497
wew. Most fossil fuel was plant material anyway. Peat bogs can turn into coal eventually.

>>7909789
>If you cook water off, you still end up with lots of hydrogen to go with the carbon. Hence: oil and natural gas.

So you are saying that the hydrogen in the hydrocarbons doesn't come from water, just other molecules in the plants? The water stays water, gets separated, and goes somewhere else? Thank you. :)

>>7909489
>Where does the Oxygen from the water go?
it goes where the two hydrogen atoms its covenaltly bonded to go ,into the ground.
and from there into the great ecological water cycle .

>>7910276
All the hydrogen comes from water at some point, generally during photosynthesis.

Coal comes from plants, which are mostly lignin and cellulose.

Oil comes from dead animals (zooplankton) and algae, which contain a lot of fatty acids, as well as proteins, many of which have carbon chains on them, giving them a surplus of hydrogen relative to oxygen.

It transmutates into carbon. Where did you think diamonds came from?

>>7910312

The Oxygen transmutes into carbon? I don't think so.

>>7909489
>>7909807
>The Peak Oil school rests its theory on conventional Western geology textbooks, most by American or British geologists, which claim oil is "fossil fuel" a biological residue or detritus of either fossilized dinosaur remains or perhaps algae, hence a product in finite supply. Biological origin is central to Peak Oil theory, used to explain why oil is only found in certain parts of the world where it was geologically trapped millions of years ago...

>An entirely alternative theory of oil formation has existed since the early 1950's in Russia, almost unknown to the West. It claims conventional American biological origins theory is an unscientific absurdity that is un-provable. They point to the fact that western geologists have repeatedly predicted finite oil over the past century, only to then find more, lots more.

>Not only has this alternative explanation of the origins of oil and gas existed in theory. The emergence of Russia and prior of the USSR as the world's largest oil producer and natural gas producer has been based on the application of the theory in practice. This has geopolitical consequences of staggering magnitude.

>Western geologists do not bother to offer hard scientific proof of fossil origins. They merely assert as a holy truth. The Russians have produced volumes of scientific papers, most in Russian. The dominant Western journals have no interest in publishing such a revolutionary view. Careers, entire academic professions are at stake after all.

F. William Engdahl has interesting books on the subject with lifetime of research, industry insider information and whatnot.

Wikipedia has also some worthwhile information on the abiogenic origins of petroleum with several possible mechanisms listed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

>>7910333
Surely it's both. Carbonaceous asteroids, the methane seas of the outer solar system, and deep-Earth hydrogen didn't come from life, and the smooth continuum of materials from peat to anthracite coal provides ample evidence of biotic origins for much of what we find.

Despite this sort of fringe bullshit claim:
>Western geologists do not bother to offer hard scientific proof of fossil origins. They merely assert as a holy truth.
...there are loads of evidence for biotic origins of many fossil fuel deposits, and no hard evidence that any particular deposit is abiotic.

The mainstream scientific position is that biological activity is the origin of most or all of the oil and coal we've found so far, but there are almost certainly also abiotic deposits of carbon and hydrocarbons. How much of abiotic fossil-fuel-equivalents there are, where we should find them, and whether they're worth drilling for are matters of controversy.

>>7910375
>That radically different Russian and Ukrainian scientific approach to the discovery of oil allowed the USSR to develop huge gas and oil discoveries in regions previously judged unsuitable, according to Western geological exploration theories, for presence of oil. The new petroleum theory was used in the early 1990’s, well after the dissolution of the USSR, to drill for oil and gas in a region believed for more than forty-five years, to be geologically barren—the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the region between Russia and Ukraine.

>Following their a-biotic or non-fossil theory of the deep origins of petroleum, the Russian and Ukrainian petroleum geophysicists and chemists began with a detailed analysis of the tectonic history and geological structure of the crystalline basement of the Dnieper-Donets Basin. After a tectonic and deep structural analysis of the area, they made geophysical and geochemical investigations.

>A total of sixty one wells were drilled, of which thirty seven were commercially productive, an extremely impressive exploration success rate of almost sixty percent. The size of the field discovered compared with the North Slope of Alaska. By contrast, US wildcat drilling was considered successful with a ten percent success rate. Nine of ten wells are typically “dry holes.”

>>7910276

do you have no clue how organic molecules work and what they're made of?

holy shit go take an orgo class

t. a physicist

>>7910408
That unsourced greentext is really convincing me, especially after you demonstrated a sympathy for fringe views.

>>7910375
>Surely it's both
They literally can see the makeup of fossil fuels with current tech, carbon based life it was, can even determine the time frame - era - epoch of the deposit.

>>7910408
Sounds interesting but suspicious since an analysis of the oil or gas would provide a clue to when and how it formed, they also used techniques used for the location of biotic deposits by the sounds of it. It really proves nothing for the argument of abiotic fossil fuels - an oxymoron anyway and nobody is in a rush to change the language around it.

>>7910375
>the smooth continuum of materials from peat to anthracite coal provides ample evidence of biotic origins for much of what we find.

How does that prove anything?

>>7910477
>They literally can see the makeup of fossil fuels with current tech, carbon based life it was, can even determine the time frame - era - epoch of the deposit.

Presence of fossils does not prove that oil was biotic in origin.

>>7910477
>They literally can see the makeup of fossil fuels with current tech, carbon based life it was, can even determine the time frame - era - epoch of the deposit.
Those are educated guesses, based on assumptions.

There's evidence, but no decisive test for most deposits. It's not like they come with piles of dinosaur bones in them.

What if the pools of oil are from abiotic sources that are just contaminated with old life?

It disappears, because there's no oxygen underground. That's why people suffocate when you bury them.

>>7910506
>>the smooth continuum of materials from peat to anthracite coal provides ample evidence of biotic origins for much of what we find.
>How does that prove anything?
Peat is obviously biological, and just as obviously, heat and pressure can turn it more coal-like. We catch stuff in the right conditions for this change, and at every stage of metamorphosis between peat and glossy black hard coal.

Similarly, we find pre-oil biomatter and kerogen on the way to becoming oil, and we can change organic material into oil in the lab with heat and pressure.

To say that any one deposit is abiotic or biotic can be difficult, but clearly there are fossil fuel deposits.

>>7910530
>We catch stuff in the right conditions for this change, and at every stage of metamorphosis between peat and glossy black hard coal.
>Similarly, we find pre-oil biomatter and kerogen on the way to becoming oil, and we can change organic material into oil in the lab with heat and pressure.

You can turn organic material into oil with just heat and pressure, without any chemical reagents or catalysts, in the lab?

How much pressure and heat is required?

>>7910511
>Those are educated guesses, based on assumptions.

yeah, like evolution.

>>7910578
>You can turn organic material into oil with just heat and pressure, without any chemical reagents or catalysts, in the lab?
You have opinions about where oil comes from, but this is news to you?

>How much pressure and heat is required?
The heat and pressure mostly determines rate. Chemical recombination toward higher entropy states will occur gradually at almost any temperature and pressure.

>>7910603
More like specific theories about extinct species, like whether t. rex had feathers.

>>7910511
A lot of coal deposits do actually come with carbon based fossilization. The oil and gas have had these compressed out by extreme pressure, heat and time. The assorted flavors of coal and tar goo are graded by how much water remains fused into them.

>>7910512
Companies are free to explore for oil, gas, coal where they want. I wish there was more evidence to believe in abiotic hydrocarbons but over the last century it has been determined where these deposits are likely to have formed and why. Other mineral wealth like gold, silver and copper form in very different locations, usually along fault lines with a lot of historical metamorphic activity, and not in ancient sedimentary basins like the fossil fuels.

Diamonds are found in volcanic pipes and are the only instance we know of where carbon is seemingly pumped out of the mantle. There is I suppose a small chance carbon and water could be forced into elaborate compounds this way but no evidence of this yet.

>>7910609
>You have opinions about where oil comes from, but this is news to you?

So you don't know of any such processes. Got it.

>The heat and pressure mostly determines rate. Chemical recombination toward higher entropy states will occur gradually at almost any temperature and pressure.

Irrelevant. Oil will not spontaneously form without high pressure no matter how long you wait.

>>7910639
>A lot of coal deposits do actually come with carbon based fossilization.

Irrelevant.

>Other mineral wealth like gold, silver and copper form in very different locations, usually along fault lines with a lot of historical metamorphic activity, and not in ancient sedimentary basins like the fossil fuels.

This doesn't prove anything. Why should you expect gold and silver to form in the same locations as hydrocarbons?

>>7910676
>>You have opinions about where oil comes from, but this is news to you?
>So you don't know of any such processes. Got it.
I described it: apply heat and pressure. As time passes, more fats and other organic materials will convert to water and hydrocarbons. That's the whole fucking process.

>Oil will not spontaneously form without high pressure no matter how long you wait.
Okay, now you're just showing off your ignorance of how chemistry works.

A chemical mixture will only sit unchanged indefinitely if it's in an equilibrium state, where breaking and reforming bonds results in the same distribution of end products. Materials produced by life are normally far from equilibrium states, which is why they continue to decompose chemically even when the decay microbes are done.

When a longish carbon chain breaks off of a fatty acid and grabs a hydrogen, that's a hydrocarbon molecule and oil is forming. That's all it takes. That kind of reaction will proceed at room temperature, though slowly. Add heat, it will happen faster.

>>7910676
>Irrelevant
Not really, like the other person posted you can actually follow the entire process to the end product we set on fire, you see it everywhere and at all stages. The hurdle is conceptualizing geological time.

>Why should you expect gold and silver to form in the same locations as hydrocarbons?
You don't, that's the point. From this it helps deduce the process for each mineral and thus exploit that to get rich, which many have done. Basically, money talks, the world is a business Mr Beale.

>>7910726
>Materials produced by life are normally far from equilibrium states, which is why they continue to decompose chemically even when the decay microbes are done.
>When a longish carbon chain breaks off of a fatty acid and grabs a hydrogen, that's a hydrocarbon molecule and oil is forming. That's all it takes. That kind of reaction will proceed at room temperature, though slowly. Add heat, it will happen faster.

False. Long chain hydrocarbons (petroleum) are thermodynamically unstable until we get into pressures in the ranges of 10s of kbars.

>>7910762

Being successful at predicting where petroleum will occur and being good at explaining how petroleum is actually formed are two separate things. Just because a theory can predict where petroleum will occur doesn't mean it has anything valid to say about the origins of that petroleum.

>>7910773
>>quoted material
>False. Statement that doesn't contradict any of the quoted material.