Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

peak oil my bottom

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
InTuneToDoom has written two excellent posts which mirror my views -- and that of most scientists.

Although I'm an engineer and not a geologist, I have taken a couple of geology courses recently, and all the information I have seen leads me to believe that oil is the result of fossilized and changed life-forms, probably foraminifera.

OP's original citation of an article by Joe Vialls contains no evidence at all as to the abiotic oil assertion. Instead, Vialls says, with no references whatsoever, that the Russians have drilled these 300 deep wells (which they may or may not have) and that they have a lot of oil (which is undoubtedly true) and that they could become ths single most important oil producer and/or exporter over the next several years (which is quite likely).

However, here is what Vialls has to say about the concept of abiotic oil:

" The theory underlying how oil is formed at such enormous depths in the mantle of the earth is not central to this report, because the Russians have already proved its point of origin in absolute drilling terms more than 300 times."

Whether or not the Russians have "already proved its point of origin" may or may not be true, but that has no bearing whatsoever on how the oil was formed.

"Those interested in the exact process should research the archives, where there are more than two hundred Russian papers on the subject."

Vialls very conveniently fails to point us to these "archives"; and, in any event, I doubt if anyone here can read Russian -- I certainly can't!

"Probably a good place to start would be "The Role of Methane in the Formation of Mineral Fuels", written by by A.D. Bondar in 1967."

Actually, Krayushkin ( www.gasresources.net... ), cites seventeen works, but they're all in Russian. And these include articles by polemicists such as Kudryavstev who weren't even peer-reviewed.

Finally, Bondar seems to be basing his comments on earlier writers like E. B. Chekaliuk and I.I Potapov; neither of these folks wrote peer-reviewed articles.

A lot of the earlier works came out of the Soviet era, in which politics drove the scientific inquiry, giving rise to such horrid 'science" as Lysenko-ism. In the past fifty years, scientists from all over the world have looked at the concept of abiotic oil; while most petroleum geologists admit that small amounts of oil can be formed under certain conditions from methane, everyone except some Russian researchers don't buy into abiotic oil as being anything but a scientific curiosity.

But even more important than the argument over the validity (or even the feasibility) of abiotic oil is summed up brilliantly by my colleague Subz where he says:

"Abiotic theory would be nice but there is no proof that it even exists. I don't know about you but I try and work in the realm of the proven rather on that of the cross my fingers...."

We are running out of oil, regardless of where it comes from. Admittedly, there is more oil underground that has been taken out, but the economics of its extraction and refining are such that it will result in $250/bbl for the equivalent of light sweet crude, or $15/gallon of gasoline.

We need to demolish the hydrocarbon economy now, and replace it with something that we know will fill the bill. Squabbling over the belief in a technological will-'o-the-wisp is betting our civilization's future on something as silly as a perpetual-motion machine.




posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Ya know, if this peak oil thing was really a concern my government would have already declared a war on it. Since all we have is the war on terrorism, poverty and drugs I cannot be too concerned. When there is a war on peak oil you'll get my vote. Otherwise, I'm going to continue to not be a consumer hog as I've done for years. Small cars, infrequent trips, buy less crap, and all that. Even in nuclear winter my lifestyle would change little. But here in lies the problem. If this peak oil is so "sky-is-falling" then it's reaching the wrong crowd. Middle America and their wanton spending habits would be the necessary audience. And if there aren't sound bites on Fox playing for weeks on end, drumming up for the war on peak oil you won't get their attention. For more information on the nature of the peak oil argument currently, please look up the word "moot".

*The choir rescinds the podium back to the preachers*



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Shadow, you are an old cynic; I like your style.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
He re is a great article on Peak Oil. It's kinda nightmare gloom and doom, but a good read anyway. Shadow, your point is sort of addressed: Basically, it is human nature to ignore bad news for as long as possible and maintain the status quo. People won't radically change until they have no choice, and by then it may be too late. Furthermore, any politician who blows the trumpet too loud may summon the ire of the population, and we wouldn't want that. Gotta keep everything low-key.

Oh snap everyone's already read this I guess, my bad.

[edit on 15-4-2005 by zamphir66]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   
In order to understand how oil effect's the economy for future consumption you must look at the past and how we as a nation adapt to commodity evolution.

A good example would be gold. Gold, once the finite backing of our nation's value, is now a commodity for the rich to hedge their billions. The transition from gold to paper was not damning nor difficult nor will be the transition from oil to hydrogen and various synthetic lubricants that will be used in manufacturing plants gloablly such as GM, Ford, etc...

The economists coming from Yale, Princeton, and the doctor's of Harvard; to the think tanks in the White House - evolution will occur in as easy a process as can be manufactured.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
If what you say is true then Harvard, Yale and Princton is hugely over-hyped. You just compared a currency change to a commodity change, very different things for a number of reasons as paper and electronic currency proves that it need not have any value or use. Further gold while finite was not being used in the same way oil is, gold can be bought and sold indefinitly, oil can't. We haven't had such a commodity shift before as we've never reached the point where an essential commodity has reached the point of exhaustion. Most transitions of commodity have been for convenience and made things easier, worldwide scarcity of a commodity is a very new thing to us.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Post repeated below...

[edit on 5/3/2005 by Gools]



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Off_the_street and some of the earlier posts put to rest the abiotic theory fairly succinctly, with the prevailing scientific consensus. Can scientific consensus be wrong? Sure, once in a while, but again, as pointed out even if abiotic theory were true, it would be a slow, geological process -- refilling the reservoirs -- whereas we are depleting them at a breathtaking rate. So the debate is essentially moot.

So let's look at from another perspective. Nation states are rational actors, they act in their own best interest. There are outlier regimes (we could call North Korea a non-rational state actor, because of their cult of personality that distorts reality), but most countries in the world are acting in their own best economic and political self-interest.

If global oil supplies were limited and the leaders of the world knew this, what would be their response?

China for several years has criss-crossed the globe signing up long-term oil contracts with countries like Iran, Sudan, and Venezeula. Why isn't the UN doing anything about Sudan? There is the threat of a Chinese veto, perhaps a pre-condition to Sudanese exploration rights for China.

China is also building a bluewater naval port in southwest Pakistan, near the Iranian border, as close as they can get to the Persian Gulf.

India has belatedly realized their own energy vulnerability and is trying to get a "peace pipeline" built across arch-enemy Pakistan to the Caspian region to get their own access to oil and gas there.

China and Japan are competing for Russian oil pipeline rights, and a lot of the current tension can be attributed to disputed exploration rights in the China Sea.

And the US?


Ya know, if this peak oil thing was really a concern my government would have already declared a war on it...

I think the "War on Tyranny" and building military bases all across Central Asia and the Middle East in order to guarantee access to Caspian and Persian Gulf oil and gas resources is a pretty good start. You didn't expect them to literally call it the War for Oil, did you?

I would suggest that most of the governments of the world are acting rationally, and they are acting in a rational manner suggesting they know Peak Oil is real.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   

BY SUBZ
Abiotic theory would be nice but there is no proof that it even exists. I dont know about you but I try and work in the realm of the proven rather on that of the cross my fingers and pin it to my .



BY GOOLS
In addition to the links provided above here is a three part series debunking the theory of abiotic oil:


Gentlemen, The scientific community begs to differ.....

Here is an excerpt from a thread I posted in last year about abiotic oil.

Dated 2002.
PNAS The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum

Conclusions from the PNAS: The pressure of 30 kbar, at which the theoretical analyses of section 4 predicts that the H?C system must evolve ethane and heavier hydrocarbon compounds, corresponds to a depth of more than 100 km. The results of the theoretical analysis shown in Fig. 2 clearly establish that the evolution of the molecular components of natural petroleum occur at depth at least as great as those of the mantle of the Earth, as shown graphically in Fig. 4, in which are represented the thermal and pressure lapse rates in the depths of the Earth.

Here is the followup testing (Again) Dated 9-2004
Physicsweb - Petroleum under pressure

Scientists in the US have witnessed the production of methane under the conditions that exist in the Earth's upper mantle for the first time. The experiments demonstrate that hydrocarbons could be formed inside the Earth via simple inorganic reactions -- and not just from the decomposition of living organisms as conventionally assumed -- and might therefore be more plentiful than previously thought.

And the PNAS for it:
Generation of methane in the Earth's mantle: In situ high pressure?temperature measurements of carbonate reduction

Conclusions: The study demonstrates the existence of abiogenic pathways for the formation of hydrocarbons in the Earth's interior and suggests that the hydrocarbon budget of the bulk Earth may be larger than conventionally assumed. The wide pressure?temperature?composition stability field of methane documented here has broad implications for the hydrocarbon budget of the planet and indicates that methane may be a more prevalent carbon-bearing phase in the mantle than previously thought, with implications for the deep hot biosphere (25). In particular, isotopic evidence indicating the prevalence of biogenic hydrocarbons pertains to economically exploited hydrocarbon gas reservoirs, largely in sedimentary basins (2); these observations and analyses do not rule out the potential for large abiogenic reservoirs in the mantle. Moreover, the assumption that CO2 is the sole carrier of mantle-derived noble gasses (26, 27) should be reevaluated. Finally, the potential may exist for the high-pressure formation of heavier hydrocarbons by using mantle-generated methane as a precursor.

A document from Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Nagoya University, Japan. Dated 1994.
Mantle hydrocarbons: abiotic or biotic?

It appears that hydrocarbons may survive high pressures and temperatures in the mantle, but they are decomposed into lighter hydrocarbon gases such as CH4 at lower pressures when magmas intrude into the crust; consequently, peridotite cumulates do not contain heavier hydrocarbons but possess hydrocarbon gases up to C4H10.


From the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Dated 1999
Abiogenic methane formation and isotopic fractionation under hydrothermal conditions

These results, combined with the increasing recognition of nickel-iron alloy occurrence in oceanic crusts, suggest that abiogenic methane may be more widespread than previously thought.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   
As a scientific question, it's important. As an economic question, it isn't.

It may make a difference whether oil fields may replenish after 5 million years instead of 50 million years.

As far as us goes---the clear global observed evidence is that production in existing fields is declining consistently and heavily. If this abiotic oil were being produced so rapidly, this wouldn't be happening. But it is.

New discoveries do not come close to matching the old ones. Despite much better technology and geophysical knowledge, the quality and size and number of new discoveries are all far worse than decades ago. Again, an incontrovertible and consistent global fact.

It doesn't take much more knowledge except arithmetic to figure out the consequences.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Makeitso:

From Scott et al. "Finally, the potential may exist for the high-pressure formation of heavier hydrocarbons by using mantle-generated methane as a precursor." Last line of the paper. They showed formation of methane, nothing more. Everything else is speculation. Also, they cite 2 papers that claim significant abiotic hydrocarbons are B.S., one paper in favor of their pet theory (which is a theoretical/experimental paper). Not my field at all, so I can't comment on the validity of their experimental design and interpretation of data. But I can tell from the last line that they are in the speculation realm and not in the data realm.

Kenney et al, from what I can make out of it simply says that hydrocarbons require great pressure to form. Duh. Russians wrote it and it is poorly written. Hard to say what the hell they were getting at.

Physicsweb article say methane can form abiotically. Great. We can start up methanogen reactors and get all the methane we want without deep drilling.

Sugisaki et al. is a ten year old paper. Doesn't look to be published in a major journal. Abstracts says hydrocarbons could be biotic, could be from meteors (which we already know contain small amounts of some hydrocarbons, but not in significant quantities), or from some processes in the deep mantle. Could, maybe, whatever.

Horita paper--methane can maybe be abiotic. Duh. Again. There's methane all over the solar system--like Titan. Not a big surprise some of it might be abiotic in origin. We're not really concerned with methane are we? We already have all the methane and methane hydrates we could want.

So far as I can tell none of those papers has even a mildly compelling argument for the abiotic formation of crude oil--the resource in question. They're still speculating the CH4 can be made abiotically. That is a big step from long chain hydrocarbons.

So no, the scientific community does not beg to differ. A few people in the scientific community think that methane MAY be abiotic in origin.

Look, there are presumably ways to make bigger hydrocarbons through abiotic processes. I'm sure Titan has a nice assortment of fuel sources for us if we could get there and transport it all back. On Earth, however, long chain hydrocarbons do not occur in significant quantities (that is amounts relevant to industrial civilization) via abiotic processes (other than the geological processes responsible for transforming biomass into oil to begin with). So we could drill asteroids or comets or other planets for oil, sure. On Earth we got what we got and it isn't coming back--at least not on a scale that we can count on. If anything is left on the planet 1 billion years from now and can figure out how to get the oil out, I'm sure there will be new deposits. We won't be around then, so its moot.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   
"Fossil fuels" is, from my research pro and con, nothing but unprovable crap science. Even if only 1% of wells found to replenish themselves were true, it obliterates this 19th century theory to pieces.

"Peak Oil" was the cry in the 60's, 70's fake OIL CRISIS, and 80's AND 90's as the "peakers" continually revised their "impeccable truth" data charts!! (THE NUMBERS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES! - they shouted and still shout as they quietly erase previous years' data). The abiotic origins are much more in line with true scientific findings. A highly efficient well shut down in California recently by Shell for bogus reasons, the recent "energy crisis" scam in the same State, and recent announcement of a record number of oil tankers being built tell you more than Mike "de-population time" Ruppert ever will. Recent reports from Saudi Arabia and the untapped Alaska fields are two more nagging little facts which don't sit well with "fossil-heads"!



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium
"Fossil fuels" is, from my research pro and con, nothing but unprovable crap science. Even if only 1% of wells found to replenish themselves were true, it obliterates this 19th century theory to pieces.

"Peak Oil" was the cry in the 60's, 70's fake OIL CRISIS, and 80's AND 90's as the "peakers" continually revised their "impeccable truth" data charts!! (THE NUMBERS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES! - they shouted and still shout as they quietly erase previous years' data). The abiotic origins are much more in line with true scientific findings. A highly efficient well shut down in California recently by Shell for bogus reasons, the recent "energy crisis" scam in the same State, and recent announcement of a record number of oil tankers being built tell you more than Mike "de-population time" Ruppert ever will. Recent reports from Saudi Arabia and the untapped Alaska fields are two more nagging little facts which don't sit well with "fossil-heads"!


Alright, so hook us up with your research. Where are your sources?



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
actually, you make a very good point on the first part. mayhaps before long the earths' surface will start falling in on itself..yah I agree far too much oil's been used-up to identify with old earths violation of a metiorite. But who will fill in the gap relating to where all the oil originated?

Dallas



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas

actually, you make a very good point on the first part. mayhaps before long the earths' surface will start falling in on itself..yah I agree far too much oil's been used-up to identify with old earths violation of a metiorite. But who will fill in the gap relating to where all the oil originated?

Dallas


Huh?

Once again, the Earth's surface cannot fall in on itself. This isn't how geology works.

What does far too much oil to identify with old Earth's violation of a meteorite mean exactly?

If you're getting at that there was not enough biomass among dinosaurs to account for the (max) 2 trillion barrels of total oil there was on the Earth before we started drilling, you are correct. But then again, oil is not really from dinos is it? Basic ecology--most biomass is in primary producers. Therefore, oil primarily derives from microbes (protozoans, photosynthetic bacteria, eukaryotic algae) and plant material. Of which there has been more than enough to account for 2 trillion odd barrels worth of light crude.

[edit on 6-5-2005 by rg73]



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   


Alright, so hook us up with your research. Where are your sources?


Ask and ye shall receive...
Closure of Shell's Bakersfield Refinery
Closure Link Two

From Overseas Shipholding Group Financial Reports... built Record Number of Tankers Built

links for the other items to follow....



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Shell is closing a refinery, not an oil field.

Guess what---major oil companies are NOT making new refineries. There's a reason for that.

Think. Is it because

a. Oil production is going up
b. OIl production is going down

Hint: refineries take oil as an input.

Re tankers: indeed they are building lots of tankers now. I happen to know something as an investor in FRO (frontline) until the volatility got to me.

The reason there is that oil fields are running out even sooner in areas close to consuming nations, i.e. oil in USA, Mexico (feeding USA), and in North Sea (feeding Europe). And China is increasing oil demand, and Chinese domestic production is not large.

Hence moving oil from here to there is important. Also there has been a lack of tanker building for a very long time because of a glut.

And, many tankers are being scrapped, or will have to be scrapped, because they are only single-hulled and soon the regulations will permit only double-hulled.

Finally, tankers do "wear out" and only have a finite commercial lifetime. Given that the value of one or two loads of cargo is as much as a tanker itself (and the supergiants are $100 million!), any operational inefficiency is quite notable and undesirable.

The none of the facts above in any way deny Peak OIl.

The other fact which supports it is that oil majors are decreasing or not increasing exploration, despite continued higher prices. Why? Because they haven't been finding very much new oil and they don't think they will ever find much more cost-effective oil.
I happen to have an in-law who is near the top of B.P. There just hasn't been much discovery for quite a while.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Shell is closing a refinery, not an oil field.


Actually, they are - text is from the link

On June 21, the Los Angeles Times ran a story that the ever-growing 'Peak Oil' crowd seems to have missed. The article concerned the Shell oil refinery in Bakersfield, California that is scheduled to be shut down on October 1 -- despite the fact that the state of California (and the nation as a whole) is already woefully lacking in refinery capacity[Now why do you suppose that Shell would want to close a perfectly good oil refinery? It can't be because there is no market for the goods produced there, since that obviously isn't the case. And it isn't due to a lack of raw materials, since the refinery sits, as the Times noted, atop "prolific oil fields." The Scotsman recently explained just how prolific those fields are:The best estimates in 1942 indicated that the Kern River field in California had just 54 million barrels of remaining oil. By 1986, the field had produced 736 million barrels, and estimates put the remaining reserves at 970 million barrels.
Bakersf ield - Shell Shutdown



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Shell's case is something else entirely. Another company is buying the refinery now. That probably has to do with capital investment, regulation and smog, etc.

US domestic oil productoin has been declining very heavily for 10 years, and peaked in 1971, as Hubbert said it would.

There has been remarkable progress in technology to extract more of the oil in a field than was thought before, recoverable goes up from 30% to 70% now with technology. But you can't recover more than 100%.

global Peak Oil is real. The peak will be slow and broad, but it is real.

what's happening sooner is Peak Sweet Oil. In the oil business "light" is more valuable than "heavy" crude (average molecular) as it produces more valuable products (gasoline and jet fuel instead of asphalt). Similarly 'sweet' low-sulfur crude is better than 'sour' (high-sulfur) crude. The oil refineries have to be changed to refine the sour stuff and it is much harder to make fuels which don't pollute. All the smog regulations (which have worked very well!) demand increasing light-sweet crude feedstock just as that is exactly what is running out the soonest.

The good stuff is really being used up faster. Spreads in price between light-sweet crude and sour crudes are at record highs.

Texas was damn lucky as it produced the best grade of stuff.

I think Peak Sweet Oil is happening today. Peak Oil globally within 3-10 years.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   
By that rationale, then WHO would take over the operations of the refinery if Shell found it not worth maintaining operations? That is not logical to me.

Now, on a point I wanted to expand on earlier regarding oil reserves in Saudi Arabia is this report..

Saudi Oil Is Secure and Plentiful, Say Officials
Tim Kennedy, Arab News
www.arabnews.com...

WASHINGTON, 29 April 2004 — Officials from Saudi Arabia’s oil industry and the international petroleum organizations shocked a gathering of foreign policy experts in Washington yesterday with an announcement that the Kingdom’s previous estimate of 261 billion barrels of recoverable petroleum has now more than tripled, to 1.2 trillion barrels.

Additionally, Saudi Arabia’s key oil and finance ministers assured the audience — which included US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan — that the Kingdom has the capability to quickly double its oil output and sustain such a production surge for as long as 50 years.

[...]

“Saudi Arabia now has 1.2 trillion barrels of estimated reserve. This estimate is very conservative. Our analysis gives us reason to be very optimistic. We are continuing to discover new resources, and we are using new technologies to extract even more oil from existing reserves,” the minister said.

Naimi said Saudi Arabia is committed to sustaining the average price of $25 per barrel set by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. He said prices should never increase to more than $28 or drop under $22.

[...]

“Saudi Arabia’s vast oil reserves are certainly there,” Naimi added. “None of these reserves requires advanced recovery techniques. We have more than sufficient reserves to increase output. If required, we can increase output from 10.5 million barrels a day to 12 - 15 million barrels a day. And we can sustain this increased output for 50 years or more. There will be no shortage of oil for the next 50 years. Perhaps much longer.”


Note that the oil reserves claimed by Saudi Arabia alone (1.2 trillion barrels) exceed what the Peakers claim are the total recoverable oil reserves for the entire planet. Let's pause here for a minute and think about the significance of that: one tiny patch of land, accounting for less than than 1/2 of 1% of the earth's total surface area, potentially contains more oil that the 'Peak' pitchmen claim the entire planet has to offer! Is there not something clearly wrong with this picture?





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join