[peakoilwhen]

Rockman does not agree with your position that the rate of oil accumulation is high enough to offset our extraction rates.

In none of the MILLIONS of wells drilled in the last hundred years has a single oil reservoir been shown to have accumulated any more recent then a few million years.

At any one location its easy to extract oil faster than the Earth replenishes it. But for the whole Earth's surface? Not possible. There are not enough people or resources to maintain the number of wells necessary to extract faster than the whole Earth can produce.

[peakoilwhen]

But it doesn't matter if oil (abiotic or biotic) is accumulating quickly or not. As explained above we still have to find it.

You've lived and worked thru a time when oil sells for 1% of its energy value. The extract costs are less than 1% of its energy value. If its unthinkable that oil would still be a worthwhile dig if the costs were $3000 per barrel, its not because it wouldn't be energetically worth while, its because other energy sources are cheap. All energy sources are plentiful, and worthwhile compared to human labour.

Just imagine the extraction machines the industry could have if the budget was x100 what it is today. You could extract oil from under the ocean abyssal floor with a giant submarine \ ocean floor station. Its all energetically viable, just not economic ( and never will be ) because so many competitor energy sources are so cheap, easy and plentiful.

You say yourself, the Russians drill deeply into igneous rock and get the world's greatest oil supply. Deep igneous has been ignored by the west thruout all oil history. Once the shale frack boom is over, you've got the far greater reserve of deep igneous.

The people at the top of the oil cartel don't like to point everyone to these great sources of oil. You are given drills, techniques, budgets and instructions to only extract only from a subset of geologic formations. Hence a stigma sets into the industry that all the places have been explored, and oil will soon run out. Sure, all the places in the narrow range dictated by the oil cartel. It fooled rockdoc. But then they 'discover' oil in a new set of formations, or a new technique, or a new tool, or the available budget jumps up which undermines the stigma of 'oil only found in x formations', but sets a new one, with a slightly greater range.

I think that's why Rockefeller is going after the Russians. They are breaking the rules by drilling deep into igneous formation. That can't be allowed to become a standard, else every country will do the same, become rich in oil, and Rockefeller and pals will lose their grip on the world oil economy.

[ROCKMAN]

"But for the whole Earth's surface?" The vast majority of the "earth's surface" lacks reservoir rocks capable of accumulating and producing oil. Which brings up an interesting point: geologists that work in that area estimate that probably 98%+ of the oil ever generated (regardless of how it was created) has leaked to the surface because it wasn't caught in trapping positions. Heck, search "deep sea oil seeps" and one can see videos oil/NG naturally seeping from the sea floor. In fact the tens of billions of bbls of the Alberta oil sands represent such an onshore seep. Once oil (regardless of how it was created) gets that shallow biological activity degrades it. And thus you can end up with crappy hydrocarbon accumulations.

[peakoilwhen]

"the vast majority of the "earth's surface" lacks reservoir rocks capable of accumulating and producing oil."

that's old school thinking. It went out the window when the Russians got oil out of deep igneous. There is potential for many more and larger trapping formations in deep igneous than sedimentary. Hence Russians having the best wells in the world with their deep igneous.

[AdamB]

Yes, 2005 was peak conventional oil. Without the other junky stuff. You know . . . corn liquor et al (see above)

Please demonstrate the chemical composition difference between a conventional and unconventional 42 degree API light sweet crude, and then we can talk about the difference between oils. Otherwise, according to the organic chemistry classes I took, both are just...oil. Feel free to belabor distinctions without a difference, but as I have demonstrated before, facts matter. Try some, you might like them!

[ROCKMAN]

"Hence Russians having the best wells in the world with their deep igneous." Obviously not true since you don't post the link supporting it. BTW there was a shallow oil field in CA producing from a granite over 40 years ago. Not a new idea at all. And as I said above whether that oil is abiotic or not wasn't important: finding it where it wasn't expected by many was important.

And it was found...almost half a century ago.

[ROCKMAN]

POW - Careful, buddy, you may be on the verge of proving an old adage: Ignorance can be a problem but a little bit of knowledge can be deadly. LOL.

But keep plugging at it. All views are welcome here. Even Adam's.

[AdamB]

>says conventional peak is 2005
>posts graph saying conventional peak is 2011

seems legit reasoning.
You haven't changed pstarr

If it only were last year, we'd still be fubar. There is no replacement for oil. Not electricity, not 4th gen cellulosic or algae ethanol, not hydro, or unobtainium. You want to argue deck chairs on the Titanic? Have at it. I'm here for that also.

We know. But the Titanic didn't take decades to sink. And those low gasoline prices we are enjoying, they indicate that not only is the Titanic not sinking, but we aren't on the Titanic.

[AdamB]

Conventional crude oil peaked in 2005 and has been on a plateau since then plus minus 4 percent.

Please reference Hubbert's work on bell shaped curves representing oil production reaching a peak, and then staying there for a decade or two, within a 4% band. For that matter, do you have any equation of a bell shaped curve that has a plateau at the top, as opposed to a continuously changing curve?

By keeping the production on a plateau for 12 years there is a enormous risk that the production will fall off the cliff and start to collapse. The plateau will not last forever.

Correct. As demonstrated in PStarrs graph, not only was the peak NOT in 2005, it didn't remain a plateau, instead it continued to increase. Surprising to those who were around when peak was being declared by Colin Campbell in 1989, or during the 1990's, or others were declaring it in 2000, 2005, 2006 and 2008, but not surprising to others.

I recommend Spike's video series for those who are unfamiliar with how poorly things have gone for peakers, whether they were claiming it early in the 20th century, or late, or early in the 21st.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMKJDu ... XJowHEAKfw

[AdamB]

Choose a high priest, be it RockDoc or Matt Simmons, or whoever. But don't look at the evidence, because then you'll learn to think for yourself.

No need to do that when evidence abounds. It isn't as though YOU provide any of it, but these kinds of folks do.

http://www.eia.gov/

Or if you can't read or use data, and prefer videos and such.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMKJDu ... XJowHEAKfw

Given that rockdoc hasn't made an appearance on this thread yet, I'd say the 1st indication is he's running scared, but I'll give him more time.

How about you explain the geologic basis to how you beat him, and then we can all be amused when he comes around and pounds you into salt for knowing nothing about geology?

>" Some died suspiciously ". Complete crap. I was in the middle of the debate in 2005 to 2012. No one died suspiciously. So post evidence or it didn't happen.

Obviously you weren't hanging out in the cool parts of the peak oil fear meme.

http://alexanderhiggins.com/did-the-cia ... oil-spill/

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/26903/d ... -this-man/

You obviously weren't around during peak oil hayday if you missed this. Maybe you weren't in the middle of anything?

[shortonoil]

"New annual record supply set : 96.9 Mb/d ave - 2016, previous record 96.6 Mb/d ave 2015
New quarterly record supply set : 97.9 Md/d ave - 2016, previous record 97.4 Mb/d ave 2015"

It a good thing that production has gone up. US refinery yields have gone down 32% since 2005. Now if they can add about another 2mb/d to that record they can make up for what is going up the stack at the refineries. We might see some growth in the economy. They lost 1.2 mb/d from declining yields in 2016.

Yup, no peak around here??

Refinery and Blender Net Input
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_inp ... mbbl_m.htm

Refinery Net Production
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_ref ... mbbl_m.htm

click to enlarge
.

[rockdoc123]

You say yourself, the Russians drill deeply into igneous rock and get the world's greatest oil supply. Deep igneous has been ignored by the west thruout all oil history. Once the shale frack boom is over, you've got the far greater reserve of deep igneous.

The people at the top of the oil cartel don't like to point everyone to these great sources of oil. You are given drills, techniques, budgets and instructions to only extract only from a subset of geologic formations. Hence a stigma sets into the industry that all the places have been explored, and oil will soon run out. Sure, all the places in the narrow range dictated by the oil cartel. It fooled rockdoc. But then they 'discover' oil in a new set of formations, or a new technique, or a new tool, or the available budget jumps up which undermines the stigma of 'oil only found in x formations', but sets a new one, with a slightly greater range.

I think that's why Rockefeller is going after the Russians. They are breaking the rules by drilling deep into igneous formation. That can't be allowed to become a standard, else every country will do the same, become rich in oil, and Rockefeller and pals will lose their grip on the world oil economy.

OH boy, where to start. It would help if you went back and read the Abiotic oil thread where many years ago I pointed out all of the reasoning for abiotic origins begin complete and utter nonsense. The science is well established and has been so since the seventies and eighties where it was debated to a conclusion (and I do know this particular part of the oil game having published a few articles that dealt with organic geochemistry years ago). The suggestion that oil in basement rocks in Russia proves an abiotic origin has been shown years ago to be basically ridiculous. The basement traps are formed by uplift and faulting exposing large areas of igneous and metamorphic rocks subaerially where they were fractured and partially weathered. Those rocks were then submerged and fine organic clastics were deposited over and around them. After millenia of additional deposition and burial the fine organic clastic rocks that surrounded the uplifted basement generated hydrocarbons which migrated into the diagenetically created porosity in basement rocks. Biomarkers in the produced oil have characteristic organic biomarkers and then can be typed via carbon fingerprinting to the surrounding source rock. The same can be said for oil produced from basement rocks in Egypt at Zeit Bay (the surrounding Cretaceous Rudeis source rocks are clearly the source for those oils) and oil/gas produced from the basement in Indonesia where Tertiary sediments surrounding the uplifted basement have been fingerprinted as the source. There is no oil which has been produced from basement that hasn't been typed to a non-basement source. Oil from basement is nothing new, Zeit Bay was producing from layered igneous rocks back in the eighties, there has been production from basement rocks in Indonesia and Viet Nam for decades. Again go read the archived posts in the Abiotic thread the rationale is all laid out.

[Synapsid]

peakoilwhen,

What is the evidence for asphalt or other hydrocarbons in the images of the Martian surface?

[shortonoil]

"What is the evidence for asphalt or other hydrocarbons in the images of the Martian surface?"

Even if it is there it won't do us any good, our trade relations with the Martians ended on a bad note! Viking hit someone's out house. It was occupied at the time. They're not selling us nothing. Period!

[peakoilwhen]

Hi rockdoc. What happened to your 2013-2015 peak prediction? When do you think peak oil is? Where's the new sources of oil in the next 20 years to keep the world oil supply increasing year on year, every year?

"The suggestion that oil in basement rocks in Russia proves an abiotic origin has been shown years ago to be basically ridiculous. The basement traps are formed by uplift and faulting exposing large areas of igneous and metamorphic rocks subaerially where they were fractured and partially weathered. Those rocks were then submerged and fine organic clastics were deposited over and around them. After millenia of additional deposition and burial the fine organic clastic rocks that surrounded the uplifted basement generated hydrocarbons which migrated into the diagenetically created porosity in basement rocks."

so the igneous rocks started low, came up, got biomass on them, got covered in sediment, then went back down.
Like a whale coming up for air then diving again.
Nice story, but I don't believe it. The basement rock stayed underground.

The science is well established and has been so since the seventies and eighties where it was debated to a conclusion

As Prouty said, biotic oil theory it was written into all the student text books by Rockefeller. Of course a generation of brainwashed geologists will have a concensus in favour of their brainwashing. It has no scientific value.
How did they fit Titan's hydrocarbon sea into their biotic oil theory?

> Biomarkers

Bacteria live in mineral oil. Finding human biomarkers in snow ( footprints, snowballs , snowmen ) does not mean humans made the snow.

There is no oil which has been produced from basement that hasn't been typed to a non-basement source.

There's always some excuse. Thomas Gold searched for the most implausible places to find oil according to biotic theory, and found oil there. ( Sweden Lake Siljan experimental drilling ). Biotic theorists dismissed it as an merely unusual \ anecdotal, due to some odd circumstance of geologic acrobatics. According to biotic theory, oil can get anywhere, therefore biotic theory is not falsifiable by location of oil, therefore its not scientific wrt to location tests.

Again go read the archived posts in the Abiotic thread the rationale is all laid out.

i've red 'em. Years ago. I'm not a noob, I started oil study in 2005-6. Back then I had not red enough to argue for or against abiotic oil, so I simply accepted consensus and rational from conventional petrologists. But now I know better. I'm back here to ask you for an update on your thoughts on PO, since 2013-2015 wasn't the peak. I linked to 3 key sources for abiotic oil in my OP. Also, Hydrocarbons exist on other worlds in the solar system. Also, Thomas Gold's work was key to convincing me the reality of abiotic oil.

[peakoilwhen]

peakoilwhen,

What is the evidence for asphalt or other hydrocarbons in the images of the Martian surface?

That image.
If you spend long enough on Google Mars, and compare that feature with Earth Asphalt you will see its the best explanation. As for hydrocarbons : same. Those images are clear cut text book examples of oil seeps and formations, complete with salt. Switch those images to an Earthy look and any oil prospector with formal training would see it as an oil bearing structure. Its only the Martian aspect that triggers a rejection.
Note that rockdoc and rockman daren't mention the images, because their formal training would compel them to agree with me.

[AdamB]

It a good thing that production has gone up.

We know. And people depending on spurious relationships are bummed. Next, when prices go back up as demand/supply comes into equilibrium, we can dispense with other spurious relationships confusing causation and correlation.

[AdamB]

He never drags up Deffeyes.

Deffeyes declared global peak oil on Thanksgiving 2005. You just posted a chart showing that either it happened in 2011, or hasn't happened at all, depending on the chemical difference between two substances both called...wait for it...oil. But sure, we can discuss him as well.

Not only did the brilliant engineer predict the peak of non-conventional oil almost to the day, but he is still alive and ready whip the little interns butt.

Deffeyes wasn't an engineer. Facts matter. Try some, you might like them!

[Zarquon]

peakoilwhen,

What is the evidence for asphalt or other hydrocarbons in the images of the Martian surface?

As has been pointed out, the pictures and YouTube videos prove it. Lots and lots of oil (tar sands, actually). Probably the biggest in-situ mining operation in the solar system.

http://www.planet.geo.fu-berlin.de/eng/ ... Chasma.php

379-260208-2149-6-3d-2-01-HebesChasma.jpg

Also visible in the background: vast amounts of nougat. Yum.