The intersections of faults hold significance in the abiogenic theory of petroleum origin as they are considered pathways for hydrocarbons to migrate from deep sources within the Earth's mantle to the crust where they can accumulate and form reserves. According to the abiogenic theory, which posits that petroleum and natural gas deposits are formed inorganically from deep within the Earth, these deep-seated hydrocarbons are believed to migrate upwards. Faults, being fractures or zones of破碎 in the Earth's crust, provide conduits for this migration. The theory suggests that these hydrocarbons can form commercial accumulations under certain conditions of organic-inorganic interactions.
However, it's important to note that the abiogenic theory remains a subject of debate within the scientific community. The majority view supports the biogenic theory, which states that petroleum is formed from the remains of ancient organisms. There is skepticism about the abiogenic theory due to a lack of direct evidence for the migration of hydrocarbons from the mantle to the crust through deep faults, as mentioned in sources like the article from science.feedback.org.
In summary, while the abiogenic theory suggests that fault intersections could play a role in the migration of deep-seated hydrocarbons, this theory is not widely accepted, and the significance of fault intersections in petroleum formation is more commonly associated with the biogenic theory and the movement of hydrocarbons from source rocks to reservoirs.
What are some arguments for and against abiogenic petroleum production?
Why are diamondoids in natural hydrocarbons evidence against abiogenic sources?
How is the distribution of metals in crude oils used to argue for an abiogenic origin?
What is the primary difference between biogenic and abiogenic theories of petroleum origin?