How Much Fossil Fuel is in the Earth?

D-ROD's answer found at the end of the article is the best one directed to the article. It is true that there is an on going manufacturing of hydrocarbons within the earth's crust and related to the mantle. The process is not unlike a cinder block and occurs deep in the crust. I would question the term "fossil fuel" and perhaps refer to abiotic fuels as more correct. To explain or source:

Thomas Gold wrote a book entitled; "The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels" in which he tries to explain the origins of hydrocarbons within the Earth. We do know that the solar system and the Earth were formed about 4.5 billion years ago. The formation was from stellar gasses not unlike the Horses Head Nebula that we are often shown in the media. We do know from our observations of the Horse's Head Nebula that hydrocarbons are abundant within that nebula. If we assume that our solar system has been formed of similar material, then we can assume that the Earth was also formed from many of the heavy metals and hydrocarbons within the Earth forming nebula. Gold has hypothesized that most of the astronomical hydrocarbons were accreted during the earth formation and because of the density, the hydrocarbons would be abundant at about 30 to 300 km deep and lie above the mantle. To prove his theory, Gold explored deep wells drilled in the Soljin region of Sweden. This is an area of primal rock (non sedimentary) where hydrocarbons should not exist. Yet they were found! The Earth locked abiotic source of hydrocarbons will wind its way to the surface following a path of the lighter methane. Methane is in constant upwelling from the Earth's crust.

If we can follow Gold's premise that most of the hydrocarbons including anthracite is abiotic in origin, then we must also conclude the supply of hydrocarbons is much greater than anticipated and not likely to run out of supply soon. If we are talking of true fossil fuels; then, that supply is limited to some methane and brown coals. We could also use peat as a fossil fuel so I will include it. The Russians have long used the premise presented by Gold as the origins of "fossil fuels". In the west we adopted an old 19th century postulation of decomposing and compressed swamps and dinosaurs as the source of "fossil" fuels. Yes that is correct but not the whole picture and not the big picture of hydrocarbon formation. I have mentioned Gold before in CR4 and urge you to read his book.

What is "peak oil" other than a much bandied about term? It may refer to easy access oil but not to the vast amount that can potentially be found in the deep Earth.

Gold said something that provides an answer people like to hear so it is without a doubt correct?

Thank you for the book offer but I already have my fantasy fiction to read - from authors that do not make any claim to the real world but stick with entertaining. I and many others had noticed your previous references to Gold but ignored it.

This is similar to the greens wishful thinking - the belief that anything which supplies the answer desired/required must be true.

If your ideas are entrenched, it is as dangerous as assuming a different idea is the only idea or at least some sort of heresy to the established community of thought. Galileo was so ostracized many years ago because he was bent on changing ideas of astronomy and the Earth's position in that field. Gold's biggest crime is not in presenting the idea of abiotic oil but not acknowledging the Russians had worked on that premise many years before him. It is western science and paleontologists that are least likely to bend. They are the claimants of oil being exclusively "fossil". Gold does present some solid arguments that are hard to ignore. How do you explain the lack of fossils in anthracite or the finding of oil in deep non sedimentary rock in Sweden and Siberia? I do understand some groundwater microbiology and was always of the opinion that microbes reduced organics from a top down flow. I thought methane was exclusively produced by microbes reducing organic carbon. Gold points out a path for methane to be produced (oxidizing) from a bottom up structure. This idea is an antithesis to my schooling and to some literature I studied. I would be wary to dismiss the ideas as fantasy even if it is controversial.

Nothing to do with the concept coming from Russia - they have contributed greatly to science over the years and will do more in the future. To suggest that is an insult to all.

Like I said in another post - out is out - whether the oil came from Martians using the earth as a freeway rest stop on their way to the big dipper or whatever else - the supply seems finite.

Even if the abiotic concept proved to be true it seems to require time - as in millions of years.

It may be finite but the volume can be very large if we subscribe to the Russian-Ukrainian theory of oil. I could not agree with you more about the limits all the same. The deep abiotic source may prove to be as unattainable as getting oil from shallow dry wells. The up welling, if it is fact, may take long periods to allow the shallow wells to recover. The deep abiotic oil is likely very heavy and not easy to move through the limits of deep fractures. Maybe that is a good thing or we would simply find ways to exhaust even that potential source.

We can argue over the genesis of oil but others with a deeper understanding are hot in the debate. Here is a link to vast resources of oil based on the Russian-Ukrainian theory. It is too bad that Gold never acknowledged the Russians but it is still an interesting read.

So many so called experts have given a day for peak oil that has come and gone.

The term should be when we are no longer willing to pay the price for the hard to reach stuff as we have something better or cheaper.

At some point in time, the vast majority of oil that we now consume was to hard to get at or not economically viable. The Alberta tar sands were known about for over 100 years, and was discredited as a viable source, due to lack of demand, the lack of technology required to extract it, not to mention the end unit cost.

It has gone from being a worthless geological curiosity, to a proven reserve.

Abiotic or antibiotic - out is out.

How soon I have no idea.

To say the supply of fossil fuels are finite, may not be a completely true statement. Is it not also true that new deposits of fossil fuels are being created deep underground as we speak? It would seem to me that creation of fossil fuels is a natural ungoing process. If we use more fuel than can be produced by nature, we could run out of fuel eventually. If there were a way to discover how much fuel is being created, we could meter our use of it for a sustainable supply.