I'm sure that a jungle planet would probably have more fossil fuels than Earth, as there'd be a lot more organic carbon, which would get buried underground and converted into fossil fuels. We'd probably also need to have factors like tectonic drift, high precipitation, tightly-packed, nonporous soil, etc. in order to bury that organic carbon, and a good amount of heat and pressure. So, the bigger, the better, as larger planets have a greater heat of formation, and more gravity, so there'd be more heat and pressure to turn organic carbon into fossil fuels. What I request for is a formula that predicts how much untapped fossil fuels an planet would have based on factors like:

  • Size
  • Age
  • Core temperature
  • Biomass

And there is a Goldilocks zone, as if the planet's interior has too much heat and pressure, we will get diamonds, and diamonds are not fossil fuels. I hope that that formula can be used to find out how much energy a given planet can store away.

  • $\begingroup$ Pretty much any solid, earth-like or rocky planet (for gravity) covered in a few moles of moles and left alone for a few million years. Ta-da, 1000-km oceans of oil! $\endgroup$ – Punintended Dec 3 '20 at 22:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Actually, a jungle doesn't have more carbon to make petroleum, but rapidly cycles the carbon unless decay can be prevented. You need trees falling and not rotting, which can probably eventually make coal (this happened in the carboniferous period) or organics being deposited into anoxic seas (as is believed to have happened in the Tethys sea where Saudi Arabia sits today). Actually, diamonds ARE fossil fuels, but no one burns diamonds for heat (but they could like coal, if there were enough of them). $\endgroup$ – DWKraus Dec 3 '20 at 22:21
  • $\begingroup$ During the Carboniferous period Earth was a jungle planet by any reasonable definition... lots of forest, high temperatures, lower sea levels, etc. Coal forming was facilitated by trees that had a lot of lignin which things had yet to evolve to consume effectively, enabling greater rates of fossilisation than are possible in the modern day. I fear fossil fuel creation is much too complex for anyone to give you a nice straightfoward answer. $\endgroup$ – Starfish Prime Feb 6 at 15:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.