reply to post by boncho
Currently, Industrial use of energy is around $14/million BTU's. 50 years ago an oil well made $2800 of that $14 (In today's money), now they
are making $70.
I am going to need some clarification on this before I comment on it, as the numbers do not appear to add up. $14 per million BTU sounds low, but I am
not going to dispute that until I have time to run some calcs. Where, however, are you getting the $2800 and $70 figures? At first glance, it appears
you are saying that oil wells made 200 times the price of the energy they produced and now make only five times? How could any producer of a product
make many times the price of their product?
The EROEI calculation makes little sense as well. Where are these figures coming from, and why would anyone presume to think that energy calculations
take priority in business to financial calculations? The use of stranded natural gas in Canada, which costs effectively zero since it would be so
expensive to sell off, may affect this EROEI thing, but it is a sound business decision.
But really, even if the profit margins are dropping tremendously, which I find hard to believe since profits
are so high, that could be due to
a myriad of possibilities other than peak oil. My belief in abiotic oil is based on scientific evidence instead:
Biomass consists primarily of hydrocarbons, yes. But biomass has not the high concentration of hydrogen or carbon that crude oil has. Flora biomass,
which must certainly accompany any significant amount of fauna biomass, itself would contain a large percentage of chlorine (from chloroplasts)...
which does not appear in crude oil. If it did, we would not have to make as much plastic, as chlorine is an excellent terminator in the hydrocarbon
chains that make up many plastics. Fauna biomass would also contain significant amounts of iron (from hemoglobin) and sodium (a primary electrolyte in
the life processes). Neither is found in significant quantities in crude oil globally.
Instead, we find large amounts of sulphur... a chemical that is admittedly present but relatively rare in biomass.
Oil burns in the air because the energies of formation of water and carbon dioxide (the two oxidized forms that result from combustion of hydrocarbons
in oxygen) are lower than the energy of formation of the hydrocarbon chains. But within the earth's crust, there is precious little oxygen,
especially in free diatomic form, to combine with the carbon and hydrogen. In the absence of oxygen, the lowest energy of formation would be methane,
ethane, butane, propane, pentane, hexane, and so on... natural gas and oil.
Abiotic oil also explains why oil deposits are found far deeper than other signs of biomass. it explains why some abandoned wells have replenished
themselves after sitting idle for a few years. it explains why crude oil makeup (as in the ratio of carbon to hydrogen) differs so widely across the
globe, while the relative chemical makeup of lifeforms remains relatively consistent. It explains all these chemical makeup inconsistencies with the
biotic oil theory, and it explains why, despite decades of warning about peak oil, we are still driving around the country in gasoline-powered
vehicles with no shortages of fuel.
The biotic oil theory, aka "dinosaur squeezin's", has been around pretty much since it was discovered... but that means little. Scientists once
believed T-Rex stood upright and ambled along clumsily all alone. Today, that model has been replaced by a T-Rex that had a bird-like horizontal
stance, ran at high speeds, and hunted in family groups. So given the knowledge gained in the last few decades in the related archaeological field,
along with the evidence presented above, is it so difficult to at least seriously investigate the idea that oil is continually produced by chemical
reactions within the crust, using reagents found in the crust, perpetuated by conditions that are known to exist in the crust?
Not for me... EROEI's and profit margins notwithstanding.