Oil Reserves in the U.S. Upped

Dinosaurs were very oily. No what he meant was that its from the 'age' of the dinosaurs, i.e. oil wasnt supposed to be made from them.

Love.gif


Oh, and exactly what has changed from those times? Come on, tell us.
Dinosaurs were very oily
How many millions of barrels can Dino's make? LMAO.

And perhaps you should read his post again.:)
 
Dude again, ligthen up! You don't do anything in this thread but repeat 77 new discoveries like a fucking MAGIC number! Of course that number itself is irrelevant, without the sum of recoverable amount.

Yes, I do, but you have a disturbing quality of ignore all other information that I forward, and seem to fail to do any research of information that doesn't agree with your preconceived conclusions.

The purpose of my posts is most of the time education, at least in this thread. If you don't feel like answering the trivia, don't do it.

P.S.: Talking about intelligent when denying a FACT,.. :)

If you check my Bio, that is my mission to educate the liberal mass.

So now I will provide some more information from a respected name on the subject, a man who has changed from Peak Oil to the A-Biotic theroy:

Have you ever heard of F William Engdahl:


Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer

The good news is that panic scenarios about the world running out of oil anytime soon are wrong. The bad news is that the price of oil is going to continue to rise. Peak Oil is not our problem. Politics is. Big Oil wants to sustain high oil prices. Dick Cheney and friends are all too willing to assist.

Peak Oil advocates, led by former BP geologist Colin Campbell, and Texas banker Matt Simmons, argued that the world faced a new crisis, an end to cheap oil, or Absolute Peak Oil, perhaps by 2012, perhaps by 2007. Oil was supposedly on its last drops. They pointed to our soaring gasoline and oil prices, to the declines in output of North Sea and Alaska and other fields as proof they were right.

A Banker and a Oilman? smells good already doesn't it?

Intellectual fossils?

The Peak Oil school rests its theory on conventional Western geology textbooks, most by American or British geologists, which claim oil is a ‘fossil fuel,’ a biological residue or detritus of either fossilized dinosaur remains or perhaps algae, hence a product in finite supply. Biological origin is central to Peak Oil theory, used to explain why oil is only found in certain parts of the world where it was geologically trapped millions of years ago. That would mean that, say, dead dinosaur remains became compressed and over tens of millions of years fossilized and trapped in underground reservoirs perhaps 4-6,000 feet below the surface of the earth. In rare cases, so goes the theory, huge amounts of biological matter should have been trapped in rock formations in the shallower ocean offshore as in the Gulf of Mexico or North Sea or Gulf of Guinea. Geology should be only about figuring out where these pockets in the layers of the earth , called reservoirs, lie within certain sedimentary basins.

Necessity: the mother of invention

In the 1950’s the Soviet Union faced ‘Iron Curtain’ isolation from the West. The Cold War was in high gear. Russia had little oil to fuel its economy. Finding sufficient oil indigenously was a national security priority of the highest order.

Scientists at the Institute of the Physics of the Earth of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Geological Sciences of the Ukraine Academy of Sciences began a fundamental inquiry in the late 1940’s: where does oil come from?

In 1956, Prof. Vladimir Porfir’yev announced their conclusions: ‘Crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths.’ The Soviet geologists had turned Western orthodox geology on its head. They called their theory of oil origin the ‘a-biotic’ theory—non-biological—to distinguish from the Western biological theory of origins.

Defying conventional geology

That radically different Russian and Ukrainian scientific approach to the discovery of oil allowed the USSR to develop huge gas and oil discoveries in regions previously judged unsuitable, according to Western geological exploration theories, for presence of oil. The new petroleum theory was used in the early 1990’s, well after the dissolution of the USSR, to drill for oil and gas in a region believed for more than forty-five years, to be geologically barren—the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the region between Russia and Ukraine.


Following their a-biotic or non-fossil theory of the deep origins of petroleum, the Russian and Ukrainian petroleum geophysicists and chemists began with a detailed analysis of the tectonic history and geological structure of the crystalline basement of the Dnieper-Donets Basin. After a tectonic and deep structural analysis of the area, they made geophysical and geochemical investigations.


Slowly it began to dawn on some strategists in and around the Pentagon well after the 2003 Iraq war, that the Russian geophysicists might be on to something of profound strategic importance.


If Russia had the scientific know-how and Western geology not, Russia possessed a strategic trump card of staggering geopolitical import

A total of sixty one wells were drilled, of which thirty seven were commercially productive, an extremely impressive exploration success rate of almost sixty percent. The size of the field discovered compared with the North Slope of Alaska. By contrast, US wildcat drilling was considered successful with a ten percent success rate. Nine of ten wells are typically “dry holes.”


The Peak King

Peak Oil theory is based on a 1956 paper done by the late Marion King Hubbert, a Texas geologist working for Shell Oil. He argued that oil wells produced in a bell curve manner, and once their “peak” was hit, inevitable decline followed. He predicted the United States oil production would peak in 1970. A modest man, he named the production curve he invented, Hubbert’s Curve, and the peak as Hubbert’s Peak. When US oil output began to decline in around 1970 Hubbert gained a certain fame.

The only problem was, it peaked not because of resource depletion in the US fields. It “peaked” because Shell, Mobil, Texaco and the other partners of Saudi Aramco were flooding the US market with dirt cheap Middle East imports, tariff free, at prices so low California and many Texas domestic producers could not compete and were forced to shut their wells in.


Vietnam success

While the American oil multinationals were busy controlling the easily accessible large fields of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and other areas of cheap, abundant oil during the 1960’s, the Russians were busy testing their alternative theory. They began drilling in a supposedly barren region of Siberia. There they developed eleven major oil fields and one Giant field based on their deep ‘a-biotic’ geological estimates. They drilled into crystalline basement rock and hit black gold of a scale comparable to the Alaska North Slope.

They then went to Vietnam in the 1980s and offered to finance drilling costs to show their new geological theory worked. The Russian company Petrosov drilled in Vietnam’s White Tiger oilfield offshore into basalt rock some 17,000 feet down and extracted 6,000 barrels a day of oil to feed the energy-starved Vietnam economy. In the USSR, a-biotic-trained Russian geologists perfected their knowledge and the USSR emerged as the world’s largest oil producer by the mid-1980’s. Few in the West understood why, or bothered to ask.

Western geologists do not bother to offer hard scientific proof of fossil origins. They merely assert as a holy truth. The Russians have produced volumes of scientific papers, most in Russian. The dominant Western journals have no interest in publishing such a revolutionary view. Careers, entire academic professions are at stake after all.

Closing the door

The 2003 arrest of Russian Mikhail Khodorkovsky, of Yukos Oil, took place just before he could sell a dominant stake in Yukos to ExxonMobil after a private meeting with Dick Cheney. Had Exxon got the stake they would have control of the world’s largest resource of geologists and engineers trained in the a-biotic techniques of deep drilling.

Since 2003 Russian scientific sharing of their knowledge has markedly lessened. Offers in the early 1990’s to share their knowledge with US and other oil geophysicists were met with cold rejection according to American geophysicists involved.

According to Kenney the Russian geophysicists used the theories of the brilliant German scientist Alfred Wegener fully 30 years before the Western geologists “discovered” Wegener in the 1960’s. In 1915 Wegener published the seminal text, The Origin of Continents and Oceans, which suggested an original unified landmass or “pangaea” more than 200 million years ago which separated into present Continents by what he called Continental Drift.

Up to the 1960’s supposed US scientists such as Dr Frank Press, White House science advisor referred to Wegener as “lunatic.” Geologists at the end of the 1960’s were forced to eat their words as Wegener offered the only interpretation that allowed them to discover the vast oil resources of the North Sea. Perhaps in some decades Western geologists will rethink their mythology of fossil origins and realize what the Russians have known since the 1950’s. In the meantime Moscow holds a massive energy trump card.
 
Dinosaurs probably smelled like cows, but since i dont know and was not there then i guess you will have to take my word for it.

Based on natural physical laws etc.

I am not disagreeing with you but what natural laws tell you how oil is formed?
 
They are called fossil fuels because they were formed a long long time ago. And I repeat, only a fucking imbecile thinks oil is made from dinosours.

Love.gif

As taught in the west today and repeated add-nausium in this thread by people like you:

Today 08:57 AM
Destroyer They are called fossil fuels because they were formed a long long time ago. And I repeat, only a fucking imbecile thinks oil is made from dinosours.

I have a dictonary to:

fos·sil Audio Help /ˈfɒsəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fos-uhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. any remains, impression, or trace of a living thing of a former geologic age, as a skeleton, footprint, etc.

fossil fuel
–noun Energy. any combustible organic material, as oil, coal, or natural gas, derived from the remains of former life.

Intellectual fossils?

The Peak Oil school rests its theory on conventional Western geology textbooks, most by American or British geologists, which claim oil is a ‘fossil fuel,’ a biological residue or detritus of either fossilized dinosaur remains or perhaps algae, hence a product in finite supply. Biological origin is central to Peak Oil theory, used to explain why oil is only found in certain parts of the world where it was geologically trapped millions of years ago. That would mean that, say, dead dinosaur remains became compressed and over tens of millions of years fossilized and trapped in underground reservoirs perhaps 4-6,000 feet below the surface of the earth. In rare cases, so goes the theory, huge amounts of biological matter should have been trapped in rock formations in the shallower ocean offshore as in the Gulf of Mexico or North Sea or Gulf of Guinea. Geology should be only about figuring out where these pockets in the layers of the earth , called reservoirs, lie within certain sedimentary basins.
 
wikipedia - English:
According to the biogenic theory, petroleum is formed from the preserved remains of prehistoric zooplankton and algae which have settled to the sea (or lake) bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions. Over geological time, this organic matter, mixed with mud, is buried under heavy layers of sediment. The resulting high levels of heat and pressure cause the organic matter to chemically change during diagenesis, first into a waxy material known as kerogen which is found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in a process known as catagenesis.

Even at that, there wasn't enough bio mass to account for all the oil that has been discovered.
:bugeye: Sure there is;
The total fossil fuel used in the year 1997 is the result of 422 years of all plant matter that grew on the entire surface and in all the oceans of the ancient earth.

Wikipedia - English, Search for Fossil fuel and look under Origin.

We have used fossil fuel for what? 60+ years for oil and 100 for coal?
And the dinosaurs have excisted for 160 000 000 years and the algae for way more (didn´t find a number, help!) so I think it´s were possible theory. But of course all the plants and animals didn´t turn to oil :cool:


They are called fossil fuels because they were formed a long long time ago. And I repeat, only a fucking imbecile thinks oil is made from dinosaurs.

Fossil Fuel:
fuel, such as coal or oil, formed from the decayed remains of prehistoric animals and plants

hm... Well you were right that it was formed a very long time ago compared to our lifetime. But is it really certain that dinosaurs(read:very big animals) didn´t "contribute" to the amount of oil in the world? I think they did as we can find dinosaurs deep within the earth, the question is: Is it enough pressure for it to turn into oil?:confused:
 
Last edited:
I mentioned this earlier, personally I don't care what the hypothesis about the origins of oil is as long as the experience and practical usage show that is is not replenishing in a short period of time. Let's say it does replenish in 200 years. We will be out of oil way earlier, so that repoduction time is way too slow for us... Now about your quotes:

"The only problem was, it peaked not because of resource depletion in the US fields."

This is simply a lie or not knowing what he is talking about. Every US oilfield peaked sooner or later due to depletion. End of story. But here is a very easy prove for Peak oil:

1. The oil fields in Oil City peaked.
2. The oil fields in Venango county peaked.
3. The oil fields in Western Pennsylvania peaked.
4. The oil fields in all Pennsylvania peaked.
5. The oil fields in the Eastern US peaked.
6. The oil fields in the continental US peaked.
7. The oil fields in the Americas are peaking.

8. The oil fields in the whole world will peak.

See? As I increased the geographical area from the point where the whole oil industry started, it didn't matter how big the area got, eventually the fields in it all peaked.
Currently we are at #7 and #8 is pretty close if not here already.

We can increase the area of discoveries only up to the point when we COVERED the whole Earth. And since history and experience show that EVERY field has peaked sooner or later, it is a simple logical conclusion that the earth as a whole is going to peak.

Again, we can debate the TIME when it will happen but not the FACT itself...
 
Another misstatement:

"The Peak Oil school rests its theory on conventional Western geology textbooks, "

I already showed earlier that the fact of peak oil has been acknowledged by:

- OPEC
- CEOs of oilcompanies
- US government (DoD)
- US president himself

Some of these entities had the interest to lie about it for business reasons in the past, but as the evidence is easier to see and harder to deny, there is no point in lying about it..End of story...

P.S.: Argue with your president not with me, Mr. Republican... :)
 
Being somewhat skeptical I dont accept anything at face value.

That being said, how do you, Syzygy, account for all the development going on in the world? Massive development all over the world that relies on and will continue to rely on oil. If you say 'everyone' agrees on this peak oil then why would there be this new development with such dire predictions that you claim eeeevvvveryone knows about?
 
how do you, Syzygy, account for all the development going on in the world? Massive development all over the world that relies on and will continue to rely on oil.

If you mean development in Dubai, because they have a shitload of money, so they are building skyscrapers, like crazy. (actually economies tend to do that in the time of their economic peak). If you mean development in China and India, it is because they reached that phase in their societies, transfering from a 3rd world country to a modern country. And this transfer didn't start yesterday, it started a decade or more ago.

Let's not forget that oil was dirt cheap 3-4 years ago when under $30 a barrel. Also those entities I listed earlier didn't acknowledge peak oil back 5 years ago, it wasn't in their best interest.

What had any responsible government done, if the oilcompanies told them, sorry minister, but we are running out opf oil in 2-3 decades? Obviously they would/should start to look for alternative energy sources. But 5 years ago when oil was cheap and plenty, it was a political suicede on the politican's part and economic suicede on the oilproducer's part.

What has changed? Peak oil has happened. And as predicted, price moved with it. When you have a resource that is very much needed and also limited, price can only go in one direction.

So some people still lying about it or selfdelusional, but facts are stubborn things. And development won't stop by itself,by the will of the people,( of course every Chinese want to own a car, every Indian wants aircondition, )
but it will stop buy economical necessity...(when they simply can't afford the transformation)

what the hell makes you think 'THEY' are telling 'YOU' the truth?

Because I knew the truth without them telling me. Because the blamegame has started (Who is to blame for high gasprices?). because now it makes sense for them to come clean...

It made sense for them to lie earlier, now it is in their best interest to level with the public.
 
Last edited:
If you mean development in Dubai, because they have a shitload of money, so they are building skyscrapers, like crazy. (actually economies tend to do that in the time of their economic peak). If you mean development in China and India, it is because they reached that phase in their societies, transfering from a 3rd world country to a modern country.

Exactly. For me i would have been impressed if they did explore ealternative energies but all they are doing is relying on past blueprints. Absolutely no ingenuity to speak of.

Let's not forget that oil was dirt cheap 3-4 years ago when under $30 a barrel. Also those entities I listed earlier didn't acknowledge peak oil back 5 years ago, it wasn't in their best interest.

So they just discovered this problem five years ago? c'mon. It just does not make sense.

What had any responsible government done, if the oilcompanies told them, sorry minister, but we are running out opf oil in 2-3 decades? Obviously they would/should start to look for alternative energy sources. But 5 years ago when oil was cheap and plenty, it was a political suicede on the politican's part and economic suicede on the oilproducer's part.

But they are still building. If those in power knew for sure that "we are running out opf oil in 2-3 decades'" things would be much, much different. After all we all live on the same planet.
 
So they just discovered this problem five years ago? c'mon. It just does not make sense.

Sure it does, it is called economic incentive. It doesn't matter if you knew about peak oil in 1998 when a barrel of oil was $12 (look it up). It is so cheap that you can easily efford to buy a giant SUV with 10 miles a gallon. Economically you are not forced to switch to alternative energy, because it costs way more, specially a decade ago.

A person can do personal changes rather quickly. But societies need way more time. You can sell your SUV and buy a small Japanese car in a week. For a whole country to change it might need a decade. Now let's say you are a politican who is aware of peak oil back in 1998. Who is going to listen to you, when you are advocating curbing your consumption and switching to a more expensive lifestyle that might pay off in the long run?? (Not to mention if you are in the pocket of big oil, you never gonna say such a thing...)

Of course nobody, the time wasn't ripe. At $125 a barrel, people start to listen...
 
Here is an important issue, what most PO denier don't like to discuss:

Energy return on investment (EROI or EROEI) is simply the energy that one obtains from an activity compared to the energy it took to generate that energy. The procedures are generally straightforward, although rather too dependent upon assumptions made as to the boundaries, and when the numerator and denominator are derived in the same units, as they should, it does not matter if the units are barrels (of oil) per barrel, Kcals per Kcal or MJoules per Mjoule as the results are in a unitless ratio. The running average EROI for the finding and production of US domestic oil has dropped from greater than 100 kilojoule returned per kilojoule invested in the 1930s to about thirty to one in the 1970s to between 11 and 18 to one today. This is a consequence of the decreasing energy returns as oil reservoirs are increasingly depleted and as there are increases in the energy costs as exploration and development are shifted increasingly deeper and offshore. Even that ratio reflects mostly pumping out oil fields that are half a century or more old since we are finding few significant new fields. (In other words we can say that new oil is becoming increasingly more costly, in terms of dollars and energy, to find and extract).

While we do not know whether that extrapolation is accurate, essentially all EROI studies of our principal fossil fuels do indicate that their EROI is declining over time, and that EROI declines especially rapidly with increased exploitation (e.g. drilling) rates. This decline appears to be reflected in economic results. In November of 2004 The New York Times reported that for the previous three years oil exploration companies worldwide had spent more money in exploration than they had recovered in the dollar value of reserves found. Thus even though the EROI of global oil and gas is still about 20:1 as of 2007, this ratio is for all exploration and production activities. It is possible that the energy break even point has been approached or even reached for finding new oil. Whether we have reached this point or not the concept of EROI declining toward 1:1 makes irrelevant the reports of several oil analysts who believe that we may have substantially more oil left in the world, because it does not make sense to extract oil, at least for a fuel, when it requires more energy for the extraction than is found in the oil extracted.
 
Here is an important issue, what most PO denier don't like to discuss:

Energy return on investment (EROI or EROEI) is simply the energy that one obtains from an activity compared to the energy it took to generate that energy. The procedures are generally straightforward, although rather too dependent upon assumptions made as to the boundaries, and when the numerator and denominator are derived in the same units, as they should, it does not matter if the units are barrels (of oil) per barrel, Kcals per Kcal or MJoules per Mjoule as the results are in a unitless ratio. The running average EROI for the finding and production of US domestic oil has dropped from greater than 100 kilojoule returned per kilojoule invested in the 1930s to about thirty to one in the 1970s to between 11 and 18 to one today. This is a consequence of the decreasing energy returns as oil reservoirs are increasingly depleted and as there are increases in the energy costs as exploration and development are shifted increasingly deeper and offshore. Even that ratio reflects mostly pumping out oil fields that are half a century or more old since we are finding few significant new fields. (In other words we can say that new oil is becoming increasingly more costly, in terms of dollars and energy, to find and extract).

While we do not know whether that extrapolation is accurate, essentially all EROI studies of our principal fossil fuels do indicate that their EROI is declining over time, and that EROI declines especially rapidly with increased exploitation (e.g. drilling) rates. This decline appears to be reflected in economic results. In November of 2004 The New York Times reported that for the previous three years oil exploration companies worldwide had spent more money in exploration than they had recovered in the dollar value of reserves found. Thus even though the EROI of global oil and gas is still about 20:1 as of 2007, this ratio is for all exploration and production activities. It is possible that the energy break even point has been approached or even reached for finding new oil. Whether we have reached this point or not the concept of EROI declining toward 1:1 makes irrelevant the reports of several oil analysts who believe that we may have substantially more oil left in the world, because it does not make sense to extract oil, at least for a fuel, when it requires more energy for the extraction than is found in the oil extracted.


Yes look it up;

EROEI
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Interested in contributing to Wikipedia? •Jump to: navigation, search
Energy Portal
In physics, energy economics and ecological energetics, EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested), ERoEI, EROI (Energy Return On Investment) or less frequently, eMergy, is the ratio of the amount of usable energy acquired from a particular energy resource to the amount of energy expended to obtain that energy resource. When the EROEI of a resource is equal to or lower than 1, that energy source becomes an "energy sink", and can no longer be used as a primary source of energy.


Non-manmade energy inputs
The natural or original sources of energy are not usually included in the calculation of energy invested, only the human-applied sources. For example in the case of biofuels the solar insolation driving photosynthesis is not included, and the energy used in the stellar synthesis of fissile elements is not included for nuclear fission. The energy returned includes any usable energy and not wasted heat for example.
 
Correct, you take the energy in the fuel recovered minus the energy you used to extract and refine it, and you get the result. In the case of fossil fuel sources like shale, the result is ever diminishing, because it takes more energy to extract and in the end, it contains less energy due to it's inherent quality.

Here's a nice summary of future trends from the Colbert Report and one of my favorite authors on the subject:
http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=167418
 
I think the U.S. should drill into some of these oil fields.

BUT, I think it's more important the U.S. does more research into nuclear fusion power. IMO, it's the only limitless energy source that will meet humanities needs into the far future; here and in space.
 
OK, so EROI with both shale and tar sand is really low. We don't really know how much it is, but the energy investment is huge. So let's say it is 2 to 1. What does that mean in practical terms?

Let's say there are 10 billion barrels recoverable in place. After doing a simple math it means that only 6.6 billion barrels will be recovered, because we wasted 3.3 billions just to get the stuff out.

When a new field is discovered they go always for the easily reachable stuff, thus the EROI is pretty decent. But as the field ages, they might have to drill deeper or inject water, thus more energy is needed to get the same amount out.

And this is where we are currently. All the easily accessable fields have been discovered and being mined currently. Almost all new discoveries are either 2-3 miles underwater or in the form of sand and shale.Or they are in god's forsaken land where transportation is a problem. So when BR quotes numbers we have to take these in account...
 
Back
Top