So now oil's not a fossil fuel?

Why aren't major news companies pouncing on this story? How come your links are conservative fringe groups? Your theory about abiogenesis of petroleum is total bunk. Here's a legitimate source: http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf

However, at the time that the abiogenic theory was at its peak from the 1950s to the 1980s, it was not possible to assess the relative merits of these two theories objectively on the basis of the then existing scientific data and this only became possible with the development of much more sophisticated techniques for the analysis of the organic constituents in petroleum such as GC/MS in the 1980s. As a result, a much more detailed understanding of the pathways of organic constituents from source rocks to petroleum was established which offered convincing evidence to support the biogenic theory. By contrast, the abiogenic theory made no real attempt to explain the formation of the very complex mixture of organic compounds which make up oil.

A major claim of the Russian-Ukrainian theory of abiogenic hydrocarbon formation is that it had major successes in the discovery of oil and gas deposits in crystalline basement rocks. However, it now appears that the great oil fields of the Volga-Urals region, the northern Urals and western Siberia were discovered not as a result of application of this theory as its proponents claim but by the use of conventional exploration methods which gave “the final word to the borehole”. Furthermore, recent studies of the petroleum resources of the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the Ukraine by the U.S. Geological Survey have been interpreted entirely within the framework of conventional petroleum geology with no mention made of an abiogenic source of hydrocarbons. These failures of the Russian-Ukrainian theory in areas where it has claimed its greatest successes essentially bring its role as a viable theory on which to base exploration programmes for commercial hydrocarbon deposits to an end. As a matter of fact, this theory is now largely forgotten even in the Former Soviet Union and virtually unknown in the west.

The deep gas theory of Thomas Gold is based on the assumption that deep faults play the dominant role in the continuous migration of methane and other gases to
the Earth's surface and that this methane is then converted into oil and gas in the upper layers of the Earth’s crust. However, this reaction is not thermodynamically favourable under these conditions and can not be facilitated by the presence of bacteria. In addition, deep drilling of the Siljan Ring did not offer any convincing evidence for a dominant mantle source for hydrocarbon formation there. This theory is therefore invalid.

(emphasis mine) Please try to find unbiased sources. At least avoid sources with explicit political goals.

While oil is composed of hydrocarbons, not all hydrocarbons are oil.

We know that hydrocarbons can be produced abiotically. That has never been in doubt. Some telescopes have seen recorded methane absorption lines in gasses in outer space. When NASA landed on Saturn's moon, Titan, there were liquid lakes and rivers of methane. But methane is the simplest hydrocarbon there is; CH₄. On earth methane is a gas.

It is not a significant part of the oil from our oil wells, however. The average composition of crude oil is as follows:

Alkanes 30%
Naphthalenes 49%
Aromatics 15%
Asphalts 6%

The alkanes are chain hydrocarbons and within crude oil we have chains of 5 carbon atoms (pentanes) to chains of 16 carbon atoms (hexadecanes). Those are quite a bit longer than methane (a one carbon hydrocarbon). Indeed, the Science article you linked to shows abiotic pathways only for 1 to 4 carbon hydrocarbons. I know of no abiotic pathway that makes 16 carbon hydrocarbons like hexadecane.

The naphthalenes are derivatives of naphthalene:

It is a ring structure. I know of no abiotic pathway that makes ringed structures like naphthalenes.

The Aromatics are simpler ringed compounds like benzene. I would not be surprised if there were abiotic pathways that could produce some of them. I seem to recall benzene being present in interstellar gas as well (but I could be wrong about that).

The Asphalts are more complicated, often branched hydrocarbons. I know of no abiotic pathway of producing them.

So for the most part there is no known abiotic pathways to make as complicated hydrocarbons as is found in crude oil. But BIOTIC pathways using enzymes from living organisms can make complicated hydrocarbons even more complicated than these.

Furthermore, porphyrins:

like these are found in crude oil. These are ONLY produced biotically. In fact all of the compounds found in crude oil can be produced by different algae.

Furthermore, the abiotic theory of oil production has the problem that geologically oil is not found where one might expect it (geothermal vents etc). Petroleum geologists look for sedimentary formations in which one would expect a lot of organic material to have accumulated and decomposed into oil. That has been by far the most successful strategy in finding the stuff.

Thus, the evidence strongly supports biotic oil production over abiotic production.

Cheers,

DB

===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France

"A New Theory Is Needed

There are detractors for both the biotic oil theory and the fossil theory, and both make valid arguments. It is most likely that oil is produced by both mechanisms and also possibly as a waste product of deep living bacteria. However, no one theory can account for all the phenomena associated with oil finds. There are deposits of oil that seem to support both the abiotic oil and the fossil oil theories."

I'm just going to agree with this and leave it go, there is evidence for both sides and as of right now not enough science to support one side or another. If anyone else wishes to pick up the sword and carry on, best of luck to ya
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Put your best foot forward, just watch what you step in..."