Oil Crisis

[Billy T]

... We don't know{how long US oil will last} So-called "environ"mentalists (emphasis on mental) won't let people drill in ANWR, offshore California, offshore Florida, etc.

Not well known, especially by people with your POV, is that Hubberd, inventor of the "peak oil" concept,* did his analysis many years ago (40 or 50?) long before there was an enviromental movement. His study was of the big Texas oil field (for get the name just now) AND HE ACCURATELY PREDICTED WHEN THAT PEAK WOULD OCCUR.

I.e. you are posting nonsense in ignorance of the history and orgins of the peak oil concept. - It has nothing to do with the "environmentalists" who did not even exist when peak oil concept was invented.

... Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and carbon is the fourth most common element in the universe. It's absolutely absurd to think ... that hydrogen and carbon atoms on the Earth only bonded at two brief periods in the Earth's history. That's just nonsense. Hydrocarbons are being formed all the time. ...

No that is also nonsense. The mass of the Earth, located this distance from the sun (sets temperature) is not sufficient to hold hydrogen - it all escaped into space as the Earth condensed into a planet. I forget the average residence time of a hydrogen molecule now released at the surface of the Earth but it is less than a year. Why there is essentially none in the atrmosphere, despite being as you say by far the dominate element in the universe (>98% I think from memory)

Please do give us some more of your amusing opinions.

Perhaps you could continue by telling us that Jupitor is full of oil as that mass at that distance from the sun can hold the 98% of the primordal hydrogen - you do think oil forms from it until the supply of carbon is exhaused do you not?

PS I am not trying to making you look like a fool - you need no help with that.

---------------
*I heard him speak about 35 years ago at one of the APL/JHU colloquiums when working there. He was quite an old man then, must surely be dead now.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Not well known, especially by people with your POV, is that Hubberd, inventor of the "peak oil" concept,* did his analysis many years ago (40 or 50?) long before there was an enviromental movement. His study was of the big Texas oil field (for get the name just now) AND HE ACCURATELY PREDICTED WHEN THAT PEAK WOULD OCCUR.

I.e. you are posting nonsense in ignorance of the history and orgins of the peak oil concept. - It has nothing to do with the "environmentalists" who did not even exist when peak oil concept was invented.

First of all it's Hubbert not Hubberd. Second, you're right he did his analysis over 50 years ago and he was wrong. Third, no offshore oil wells were even drilled until after World War II. He did his analysis before offshore drilling companies started to drill 15,000 feet below the mudline.

Take Brazil for example. In 1980 Brazil was producing 180,000 barrels per day. The biogenic cult said they peaked. Then Brazil started to drill deeper according to modern Russian-Ukrainian petroleum origin thoery. Today Brazil is producing over 2 million barrels per day.

No that is also nonsense. The mass of the Earth, located this distance from the sun (sets temperature) is not sufficient to hold hydrogen - it all escaped into space as the Earth condensed into a planet. I forget the average residence time of a hydrogen molecule now released at the surface of the Earth but it is less than a year. Why there is essentially none in the atrmosphere, despite being as you say by far the dominate element in the universe (>98% I think from memory)

Please do give us some more of your amusing opinions.

Perhaps you could continue by telling us that Jupitor is full of oil as that mass at that distance from the sun can hold the 98% of the primordal hydrogen - you do think oil forms from it until the supply of carbon is exhaused do you not?

PS I am not trying to making you look like a fool - you need no help with that.

---------------
*I heard him speak about 35 years ago at one of the APL/JHU colloquiums when working there. He was quite an old man then, must surely be dead now.

The Earth is 70% covered in water. Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen.

There are lakes of liquid methane on Saturn VI known as Titan. The last time I checked there are no fossils on Titan.

 

[Billy T]

First of all it's Hubbert not Hubberd. ... He did his analysis before offshore drilling companies started to drill 15,000 feet below the mudline.

if oil comes from deep in the earth as you claim (from primordal hydrogen, which is not there by all planatry theories of Earth's formation), what the Hell difference would it make if the near surface layer you drill thru its dirt, water or green cheeze? Are you saying that Hubbert was correct about fossil oil but not about "deep oil" (stuff made for hydrogen that does not exist deep in the Earth)? There is some helium deep in the Earth, but it comes from radioactive decay (alpha particles). (Earth's mass and distance from sun prevent it from holding either the primordial hydrogen or helium.)

Sorry about the "d" instead of "t" in his name. I work from memory, am some what dislexic (I often mix "b" & "p" also.) and a poor typer (with letters omitted, added, doubled or order permuted or borrowed from the start of the next word), but I can thnk logically outrside the box.

... In 1980 Brazil was producing 180,000 barrels per day[/url]. The biogenic cult said they peaked. Then Brazil started to drill deeper according to modern Russian-Ukrainian petroleum origin thoery. ...Today Brazil is producing over 2 million barrels per day

First and last sentence probably correct, middle two are false. Petrobras, Brazil's oil company definitely does not follow the a-biotic oil nonsense. I own ADR shares of them so let me quote form thier recent newsletter to share holders (cleverly called "Sharing in Petrobras") No22 dated March 2007 (I get it late as it first goes to my US broker and then back to me in Brazil but at least it is the English edition, not the portuguese one I read much sooner.)
Speaking of their activities in the Gulf of Mexico: "Comapny is operating in four different regions in the gulf sedimentary basin .. the cottonwood project ... is lifting production from a Miocene age reservior ... out put is 20,000 b/d for two wells... In ultra deep water.. four discovery wells in sub-Tertiary reservoirs ...proven prductivity ... long duration test....part of the Jack field project...etc on and on with geological /biologic terms I am not very much up on.

The reason why they tapped the shallow oil first is the same as why Brazil has only explored the first 100 meters of 1/3 of it area (the easily accessible part) for uranium deposits (and found quite a lot - already a net exporter Canada processes it into yellow cake.) is simble and obvious - nothing to do with waht you call the "biologic cult" and every thing to do with the reality of "peak oil" - namely just like the old Texas fields they production is starting to drop off from them but they still have years to go (unlike Texas) as big producers.

The Earth is 70% covered in water. Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. There are lakes of liquid methane on Saturn VI known as Titan. The last time I checked there are no fossils on Titan.

Well AT LEAST YOU GOT SOME THINGS CORRECT, but I do not see what that has to do with the subject being discussed. Unlike Earth Titan's combination of distance from the sun and mass can retain the primordial hydrogen (quite cold there as methane is a liquid, etc) You semm to some how think that this suports the formation of oil deep in the Earth where ther never was an primordial hydrogen. Earth's mass can not retain Hydrogen even to day when it is much, much cooler (not moltent as it was when first forming compact mass) -

How can you be so insane as to suggest Earth was stuffed with hydrogen deep inside when Earth formed? What has entriely different Titan got to do with hypotnese that oil formed form this non-existent hydrogen deep inside the Earth? You are making no sense at all. I think I am clearly exposing that, even though in your case there is too little you are saying to justify my coorection of my typos and dislexic effects.

 

[iceaura]

We don't know{how long US oil will last} So-called "environ"mentalists (emphasis on mental) won't let people drill in ANWR, offshore California, offshore Florida, etc.

But the US does allow drilling in various nature preserves and so forth on the continent - such as in Pennsylvania, where there is a little boom in what used to be protected national forest land.

And they are hitting the little pockets they expected. Seems funny they would go to all that work and not drill to the huge abiogenic fields that underlie the whole continent. Maybe they don't like to make too much money.

 

[Billy T]

...Seems funny they would go to all that work and not drill to the huge abiogenic fields that underlie the whole continent. ....

Yes - well put. Exactly my point when I asked "what the hell difference would it make if they drilled thru surface layers of dirt, water or green cheeze. (if oil comes from deep in the earth, from all of the earth, all over the earth.) True reason why oil companies are now turning to deep oceans is two fold:
(1) the cheaper to drill land areas do not hold much more with a few exceptions, mainly in the mid East -I.e. their "peak oil" has already passed.
(2) the greatest collection of biologic sediments, well separated from oxidation, are the ocean floors. (Shit and dying creatures were falling there before there were land animals and getting buried by mud flows, volcanic shifts, ocean currents, earthquake "tidal" waves, etc.)

None of the companies doing this believe in the a-biotic oil nonsense.

 

[OilIsMastery]

if oil comes from deep in the earth as you claim (from primordal hydrogen, which is not there by all planatry theories of Earth's formation), what the Hell difference would it make if the near surface layer you drill thru its dirt, water or green cheeze? Are you saying that Hubbert was correct about fossil oil but not about "deep oil" (stuff made for hydrogen that does not exist deep in the Earth)? There is some helium deep in the Earth, but it comes from radioactive decay (alpha particles). (Earth's mass and distance from sun prevent it from holding either the primordial hydrogen or helium.)

Sorry about the "d" instead of "t" in his name. I work from memory, am some what dislexic (I often mix "b" & "p" also.) and a poor typer (with letters omitted, added, doubled or order permuted or borrowed from the start of the next word), but I can thnk logically outrside the box.

The fact is according to "fossil" fuel theory there is an oil window with a limit of 15,000 feet. Empirical evidence tells us that is false. The fact that Helium is associated with petroleum should prove to you once and for all that petroleum has no biogenic origin. Helium has no place in a biological organism.

Petrobras, Brazil's oil company definitely does not follow the a-biotic oil nonsense.

The Petrobras wells below 15,000 feet prove that biogenic petroleum origin is ridiculous.

How can you be so insane as to suggest Earth was stuffed with hydrogen deep inside when Earth formed?

It's a fact. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. The Earth covered in water which is made up of, you guessed it, hydrogen.

 

[OilIsMastery]

But the US does allow drilling in various nature preserves and so forth on the continent - such as in Pennsylvania, where there is a little boom in what used to be protected national forest land.

And they are hitting the little pockets they expected. Seems funny they would go to all that work and not drill to the huge abiogenic fields that underlie the whole continent. Maybe they don't like to make too much money.

It's expensive to drill deep. Shock and awe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2hbtm4-rpU

 

[OilIsMastery]

oxidation, are the ocean floors. (Shit and dying creatures were falling there before there were land animals and getting buried by mud flows, volcanic shifts, ocean currents, earthquake "tidal" waves, etc.)

Less than 1% of ocean sediments end up as biological detritus. The notion that they create the mythical substance keorogen (which has no chemical formula) is absurd.

None of the companies doing this believe in the a-biotic oil nonsense.

Transocean, Schlumberger, Chevron, Petrobras, all below the biogenic oil window limit of 15,000 feet. The deepest fossil ever discovered was 7,382 feeet below the sea floor.

 

[spidergoat]

Less than 1% of ocean sediments end up as biological detritus. The notion that they create the mythical substance keorogen (which has no chemical formula) is absurd.


Transocean, Schlumberger, Chevron, Petrobras, all below the biogenic oil window limit of 15,000 feet. The deepest fossil ever discovered was 7,382 feeet below the sea floor.

There used to be alot more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and plants were prolific. At the time of a geographic upheaval that broke Pangea up into the continents, much of this material got buried. It's not that different from how coal formed.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Pangaea and continental drift were discovered by Alfred Wegener, yet another abiogenic petroleum theorist.

 

[Billy T]

I said all the oil companies dispute the a-biotic oil theory and you replied:

...Transocean, Schlumberger, Chevron, Petrobras, all below the biogenic oil window limit of 15,000 feet. The deepest fossil ever discovered was 7,382 feeet below the sea floor.

More ignorant nonsense. I even quoted to you in post 243 from Petrobras' newsletter of 22March* which is sent to share holders where thay name the biological eras foprm which they are extracting oil in the deepest waters of Gulf of Mexico.

You seem to be simultaneously arguing that the deep pressure and heat can break the strong H-O bond in water yet is not capable of destroying fossils - Get real or at least stop posting stupid, self-contradictory, claims.
--------------------
*Here is that quote again:
" ... Petrobras, Brazil's oil company definitely does not follow the a-biotic oil nonsense. I own ADR shares of them so let me quote form thier recent newsletter to share holders (cleverly called "Sharing in Petrobras") No22 dated March 2007 (I get it late as it first goes to my US broker and then back to me in Brazil but at least it is the English edition, not the portuguese one I read much sooner.)
Speaking of their activities in the Gulf of Mexico: "Comapny is operating in four different regions in the gulf sedimentary basin .. the cottonwood project ... is lifting production from a Miocene age reservior ... out put is 20,000 b/d for two wells... In ultra deep water.. four discovery wells in sub-Tertiary reservoirs ...proven prductivity ... long duration test....part of the Jack field project...etc on and on with geological /biologic terms I am not very much up on.
..."

 

[iceaura]

It's expensive to drill deep. Shock and awe.

But it pays off big - if there's lots of of oil found. These guys don't like money?

Less than 1% of ocean sediments end up as biological detritus.

So how much is that, over (say) a few hundred million years?

I asked you above whether you thought there was more limestone rock around than oil, by volume. What do you think?

A secondary question would be whether you thought there was any limestone below, say, 10,000 feet. Whaddya think?

 

[Billy T]

The fact is according to "fossil" fuel theory there is an oil window with a limit of 15,000 feet....

I do not accept that as "fact" - at least until someone explains why biotic orgin oil can not seep down lower, especilly if deeper earth quakes occur and/or if their are porious rocks for it to "wick thru." After all gravity is still pulling it down at 15,000 feet insides the porious rock, which is holding most of the pressure forces. For simple analogy of this gravity effect, put water in a sponge and compress it. - Which way does the water go? why if gravity pulled it down at 1000 feet, inside the porious rocks does it not continue to do so at 15,000 feet inside the porious rocks?

Perhaps yo will argue that there are no "porious rocks" below 15000 feet - but then when you turn around and tell me that the oil taken from deeper depth proves the a-biotic orign of that deep oil. You are again contradicting your self. I.e. if no porious rocks down there, how does the a-biotic oil get to the drill pipe? Is a-biotic oils me strang super fluid that flows thru inpervious rocks?

You seem incapble of clear thought or logic and never provide journal references - only your nonsensical, often self-contradictory, claims. Do you not get tired of appearing so foolish?

 

[OilIsMastery]

I do not accept that as "fact"

Good. You shouldn't. It's a lie.

at least until someone explains why biotic orgin oil can not seep down lower, especilly if deeper earth quakes occur and/or if their are porious rocks for it to "wick thru." After all gravity is still pulling it down at 15,000 feet insides the porious rock, which is holding most of the pressure forces. For simple analogy of this gravity effect, put water in a sponge and compress it. - Which way does the water go? why if gravity pulled it down at 1000 feet, inside the porious rocks does it not continue to do so at 15,000 feet inside the porious rocks?

Water is heavier than oil. Oil seeps up not down.

 

[guthrie]

The industry, the national oil companies, and the exporters, have a vested interest in a high commodity price. This has always been the case.

Of course, so they let the price get very low for years at a time.

We don't know. So-called "environ"mentalists (emphasis on mental) won't let people drill in ANWR, offshore California, offshore Florida, etc.

rubbish. Oil companies have a good idea what extractable reserves are offshore- thats why they would quite like to drill. The fact that the ANWR would provide about 5% of the USA's oil for 12 to 32 years suggests that it isn't really that big a place. You could save that much with some simple efficiency measures such as not buying stupidly huge cars and installing decent public transport.
Figures from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy

Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and carbon is the fourth most common element in the universe. It's absolutely absurd to think, as Colin Campbell of British Petroleum does, that hydrogen and carbon atoms on the Earth only bonded at two brief periods in the Earth's history. That's just nonsense. Hydrocarbons are being formed all the time. http://www.geotimes.org/june03/NN_gulf.html

No, it's absurd that you have no knowledge of thermodynamics and chemistry. Can you tell me under what conditions H2 and C join together to form hydrocarbons?

 

[OilIsMastery]

you have no knowledge of thermodynamics and chemistry. Can you tell me under what conditions H2 and C join together to form hydrocarbons?

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/ful...1085470440708_510&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0

The spontaneous genesis of hydrocarbons that comprise natural petroleum have been analyzed by chemical thermodynamic-stability theory. The constraints imposed on chemical evolution by the second law of thermodynamics are briefly reviewed, and the effective prohibition of transformation, in the regime of temperatures and pressures characteristic of the near-surface crust of the Earth, of biological molecules into hydrocarbon molecules heavier than methane is recognized.

http://www.gasresources.net/Introduction.htm

With the nascent development of chemistry during the nineteenth century, and following particularly the enunciation of the second law of thermodynamics by Clausius in 1850, Lomonosov’s biological hypothesis came inevitably under attack.

The great French chemist Marcellin Berthelot particularly scorned the hypothesis of a biological origin for petroleum.

http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm

From this modest, and somewhat arcane, similarity of odd-to-even abundances, assertions have been made that hydrocarbons evolve from biological matter. Of course, the second law of thermodynamics prohibits such, which fact should obviate any such assertion.

 

[guthrie]

The PNAS paper is actually quite sensible sounding, and requires further reading. However it ignores several facts- for starters, geologists are predicting the location of oil based upon it being of biological origin. Secondly, they find chemical signatures that match its biological origins, therefore it couldn't just have been cooked out of rock. Thirdly, at my workplace, we carbonise rayon and phenol-formaldehyde resins every day, and form a variety of long chain hydrocarbons, tars, soot and carbon fibre. We also have a low pressure (around 1 mbar) CVD process where by methane is cracked up into benzene and other molecules at 1000C to form a carbon layer.

There are several things about the PNAS paper which do not on the face of it make sense.

But I would be interested if you can actually argue the point yourself in yoru own words. I expect not. At least you have stopped harping on about high oil prices being in certian peoples interest and drilling in the ANWR.

 

[Billy T]

...Water is heavier than oil. Oil seeps up not down.

Where there is liquid water that is true*. Where there is no liquid water, that is false.*

SUMMARY: Oil moves in all directions, up, down and side ways, depending upon the local conditions*. Your POV is too simple (minded).
--------------------
*Also very important factor in the "local conditions" is the permability of the rocks and whether or not they are homogeneous or with directionally structed characterist, such as layers, which of course may be far from horizontal. I am building a house (by myself) on steep hill side, over looking a large lake. One patr of the now level lot is about 25 feet below the original surface. When I dug the foundation trenches, I was surprise to see many almost vertical layers of red and white "clay/rocks" in the part of the lot most below the original surface. Eons ago, that hill must have been a mountain. The red is a clay that can deform but the white is a weak rock that crumbles instead of deform and as a more complex micro structure (tiny crystals, flakes etc.) - I do not know what it is, or why the red/white bands are only typically a few inches thick, but they are firm (good support) and drain water down thru the white bands well. On my lot, both oil and water woulod go down.
Any geologist reading who knows what the "white bands" may be - please tell.

 

[OilIsMastery]

for starters, geologists are predicting the location of oil based upon it being of biological origin.

They absolutely are not. According to biologic origin oil cannot be found below 15,000 feet depth. Yet oil companies are drilling twice that deep looking for oil.

Secondly, they find chemical signatures that match its biological origins, therefore it couldn't just have been cooked out of rock.

Biomarkers are a contaminant. In the Deep Hot Biosphere Thomas Gold explains how biological organisms live off of hydrocarbons at great depths within the Earth.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47509

Thirdly, at my workplace, we carbonise rayon and phenol-formaldehyde resins every day, and form a variety of long chain hydrocarbons, tars, soot and carbon fibre. We also have a low pressure (around 1 mbar) CVD process where by methane is cracked up into benzene and other molecules at 1000C to form a carbon layer.

Let me guess: you use fossils to synthesize the hydrocarbons...pfff.

There are several things about the PNAS paper which do not on the face of it make sense.

Such as?

 

[Ophiolite]

They absolutely are not. According to biologic origin oil cannot be found below 15,000 feet depth. Yet oil companies are drilling twice that deep looking for oil.

So please provide half a dozen examples of where they have discovered oil at twice this depth.