Menu
 News
 Search
 Topics
 Stories Archive
 Submit News
 Discussions
 Code of Conduct
 Forums
 Forum Search
 Last 24 Hours
 PO 24hrs
 Peak Blog
 Ask Jane
 Resources
 About Us
 Downloads
 Web Links
 PeakWiki
 PeakPortal
 Focus Search
 Peak TV
 Peak Oil Boston
 Houston Peak Oil
 Follow on Twitter
 Members
 User Panel
 Members List
 PO Team
 JOIN!
 Private Messages
 
Support PeakOil.com
Visit Our Advertisers
 
Light Sweet Crude Oil
 

Net App Training
Aaron





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 716 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 48  Next

Is Oil Abiotic in origin ?
Poll ended at Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:54 am
Yes 16%  16%  [ 5 ]
No 84%  84%  [ 27 ]
Total votes : 32
Author Message
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 5:46 pm 
Offline
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 125
could sombody tell me the EPR of the oil being aquired from eugen island ??

ruppert said its empty , and this redpill guy hasn't presented current stats..

i'd do it my self but I don't know where you look for current info...its kind of difficult to find out

thanx
peace
Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 8:04 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 1754
Location: Singapore
Abiotic oil again, eh? Sigh. "No Action Talk Only" (NATO).

Pump it and we'll believe it! :lol:

Preferably at least 5-10 mbpd. Better, if some abandoned well in Texas suddenly comes to life again. Best, if due to that, crude prices come down to $15/bbl.

Then we'll all shut up ... and we'll have "world peace". :twisted:

At least, till water, or food, or something else, starts running out ... Aaron/admin, you guys have registered peakwater.com, peakfood.com etc.? :P

_________________
Live quotes - oil/gold/silver


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:13 am 
Offline
Coal
Coal
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 8
"BILL_THA_PHARMACIZT

could sombody tell me the EPR of the oil being aquired from eugen island ??
ruppert said its empty , and this redpill guy hasn't presented current stats.. "


From links provided above :

http://tinyurl.com/2nd2b

According to a 2000 assessment from the Minerals Management Service (MMS), the mean undiscovered, conventionally recoverable resources in the Gulf of Mexico offshore continental shelf are 71 BILLION barrels of oil equivalent.

http://www.geotimes.org/june03/NN_gulf.html

(MMS is a US Goverment Agency) : http://www.mms.gov/

I would suggest researching "Eugene Island 330"

& contacting the US researchers mentioned in the following :

http://tinyurl.com/5y6ez

Red


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 10:05 am 
Offline
800 lb Gorilla
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 6765
Location: Houston
The rest of that quote says:

Quote:
According to a 2000 assessment from the Minerals Management Service (MMS), the mean undiscovered, conventionally recoverable resources in the Gulf of Mexico offshore continental shelf are 71 billion barrels of oil equivalent. But, says Richie Baud of MMS, not all those resources are economically recoverable and they cannot be directly compared to Cathles' numbers, because "our assessment only includes those hydrocarbon resources that are conventionally recoverable whereas their study includes unconventionally recoverable resources." Future MMS assessments, Baud says, may include unconventionally recoverable resources, such as gas hydrates.


Oil equivalent is NOT oil.

The hydrates included in these figures are not even "oil equivalents" It's frozen Methane.

_________________
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:35 pm 
Offline
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude

Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 250
Location: Sydney, Australia
Most of redpill's links are...

Main Entry: pseu·do·sci·ence
Pronunciation: "süd-O-'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
: a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific —pseu·do·sci·en·tif·ic /-"sI-&n-'tif-ik/ adjective

Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

pseudoscience

n : an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Redpill, I would recommend a stiff dose of Carl Sagan. Perhaps...

The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark
by Carl Sagan

Quote:
Amazon.com
Carl Sagan muses on the current state of scientific thought, which offers him marvelous opportunities to entertain us with his own childhood experiences, the newspaper morgues, UFO stories, and the assorted flotsam and jetsam of pseudoscience. Along the way he debunks alien abduction, faith-healing, and channeling; refutes the arguments that science destroys spirituality, and provides a "baloney detection kit" for thinking through political, social, religious, and other issues. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

_________________
Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. - Aldous Huxley

Sydney Peak Oil


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 6:38 pm 
Offline
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 125
so question still remains..

how much oil is there and what is the EPR ?
ignore the "oil equivalent" just for arguments sake.


anyone?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 9:32 pm 
Offline
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude

Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 250
Location: Sydney, Australia
redpill,

most people who have been researching this topic or contributing to peakoil.com are aware of the abiotic theory of oil production. It's trotted out every couple of months by people like you assuming we haven't heard of it.

Please see...

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic14.html

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic118.html

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic1081.html

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic1635.html

Personally I find it the theory quite fascinating. Recent experimental evidence has shown that methane can be produced from marble, iron oxide and intense heat and pressure. Does this solve our energy problems. NO. It is merely a scientific curiosity. The scientists getting most excited by the new data are probably planetary astronomers.

Nothing you have contributed on this subject is new in any shape or form. You are wasting our time.

Nowhere in the geo-times article is the word 'abiotic' in fact if you read it carefully you see this paragraph...

Quote:
Driving the venting process is the replacement of deep, carbonate-sourced Jurassic hydrocarbons by shale-sourced, Eocene hydrocarbons. Determining the ratio between the younger and older hydrocarbons, based on their chemical signatures, is key to understanding the migration paths of the oil and gas and the potential volume waiting to be tapped. "If the Eocene source matures and its chemical signature is going to be seen near the surface, it's got to displace all that earlier generated hydrocarbon — that's the secret of getting a handle on this number," Cathles says.


It reads to me that an older source of hydrocarbons is flooding into a newer one. Interesting stuff but not proof of abiotic oil.

On another note... Joe Viallis is an ex-serviceman living in Australia on a disability pension...I think we can make a wild stab in the dark about the nature of his disability. But seeing as your ability to interpret text is lacking, I'll put it another way, HE'S A WHACK JOB!!!!

Sorry to be so harsh. Stop wasting our time.

If you believe in any of the following you may get something from redpill's links...

Alien Abduction
The Face on Mars
Yowies
Bigfoot
Raelians
The Tooth Fairy

_________________
Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. - Aldous Huxley

Sydney Peak Oil


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: This has long-term, not short-term implications
New postPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:09 am 
Offline
Coal
Coal
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 19
If RedPill is right, Eugene Island and all other oilfields are porus formations sitting atop vents of some kind which will gradually refill them over time (unless the water pumped in by oilmen impedes the flow too much). They are buffers for the oil beneath. But even granting this, it seems likely that most such buffers take much longer to refill than Eugene.

Also: It's really a fairly important matter of fact, whether or not the Soviets did, indeed extract oil from beneath the biotic zone.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Buffer bigger than source?
New postPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:14 am 
Offline
Coal
Coal
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 19
Also: What if most of these "buffers" contain(ed) far more oil than the sources beneath?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: What's abiotic oil?
New postPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 1:38 pm 
Offline
Coal
Coal
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 2
HI,
I've been reading about peak oil and am convinced it is a real problem. However, I just read something about "abiotic oil." The writer claims that oil can be generated from deep within the earth. If I understood correctly, the claim is that old oil fields will just keep on filling up with new oil.
It sounds fishy to me. But how do you respond to this?
Thanks,
Marianne


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Welcome, Marianne - abiotic oil comes up periodically
New postPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 2:19 pm 
Offline
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 230
Location: Sonoma County, Northern California
Since we have new members and visitors joining us constantly, I decided to re-post my response from an earlier thread. I emailed this information to Richard Heinberg, and he said that it is the best short rebuttal to the abiotic oil theory that he's seen anywhere.

Dave van Harn
===========================================

I did some web searching for information on Dr. Gold and the abiotic theory of hydrocarbon creation. I noticed that most of the sites backing the abiotic theory were non-scientific. The best rebuttals to the abiogenic theory that I came up with were from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists at this web site:

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm

and Dr. John Clarke, a geologist and astrobiologist from Australia (his bio is at this link:

http://aca.mq.edu.au/People/jclarke.htm

I e-mailed Dr. Clark and received permission to post a rebuttal he posted in another forum to the theory of abundant abiotic oil:

Quote:
The fact remains that the abiotic theory of petroleum genesis has zero credibility for economically interesting accumulations. 99.9999% of the world's liquid hydrocarbons are produced by maturation of organic matter derived from organisms. To deny this means you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.

1) The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.

2) The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).

3) The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).

3) The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and depositional environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, those indicating marine conditions only in marine sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only bacterial biomarkers).

4) Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).

5) The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory.

6) The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of biological fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything like the fractionation of light carbon that is seen in petroleum).

7) The location of petroleum reservoirs down the hydraulic gradient from the source rocks in many cases (those which are not are in areas where there is clear evidence of post migration tectonism).

8 ) The almost complete absence of significant petroleum occurrences in igneous and metamorphic rocks (the rare exceptions discussed below).

The evidence usually cited in favour of abiogenic petroleum can all be better explained by the biogenic hypothesis e.g.:

9) Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in igneous rocks (better explained by reaction with organic rich country rocks, with which the pyrobitumens can usually be tied).

10) Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in metamorphic rocks (better explained by metamorphism of residual hydrocarbons in the protolith).

11) The very rare occurrence of small hydrocarbon accumulations in igneous or metamorphic rocks (in every case these are adjacent to organic rich sedimentary rocks to which the hydrocarbons can be tied via biomarkers).

12) The presence of undoubted mantle derived gases (such as He and some CO2) in some natural gas (there is no reason why gas accumulations must be all from one source, given that some petroleum fields are of mixed provenance it is inevitable that some mantle gas contamination of biogenic hydrocarbons will occur under some circumstances).

13) The presence of traces of hydrocarbons in deep wells in crystalline rock (these can be formed by a range of processes, including metamorphic synthesis by the fischer-tropsch reaction, or from residual organic matter as in 10).

14) Traces of hydrocarbon gases in magma volatiles (in most cases magmas ascend through sedimentary succession, any organic matter present will be thermally cracked and some will be incorporated into the volatile phase, some fischer-tropsch synthesis can also occur).

15) Traces of hydrocarbon gases at mid ocean ridges (such traces are not surprising given that the upper mantle has been contaminated with biogenic organic matter through several billion years of subduction, the answer to 14 may be applicable also).

The geological evidence is utterly against the abiogenic postulate.

Cheers

Jon Clarke

=====================================


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: thanks for the info
New postPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 2:37 pm 
Offline
Coal
Coal
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 2
Thanks, Dave, for the info!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:58 pm 
Offline
800 lb Gorilla
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 6765
Location: Houston
Thanks Dave...

http://www.peakoil.com/contentid-25.html

_________________
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Dave & Abiotic Oil
New postPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:29 pm 
Offline
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 1887
Location: Richland Center, Wisconsin
Gold Star for this research.

_________________
-----------------------------------------
| Whose reality is this anyway!? |
-----------------------------------------
(---------< Temet Nosce >---------)
__________________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:42 pm 
Offline
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 192
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Abiotic methane is known to exist in vast quanties on other planets in our solar system where there are no biological processes. All credible scientific sources admit that abiotic methane does accumulate on Earth. ( even if just in trace quanties). Dr Gold was at least partially correct in his mantle theory of abiogenic generation of methane.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 716 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 48  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Atom News Feed   Forums RSS Feed