Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE International Energy Agency (IEA) Thread pt 4

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 18:20:57

ROCKMAN wrote:Doc - I'm getting old a memories keep slipping away: what did we once say about folks who argue with a fool? LOL.

Again, we could have saved a sh*t load of space here if we had all just agreed that abiotic oil existed. Whether it does or not isn't critial since the only oil that is important is that which we find and produce.


That is effectively a retraction from your stance ( assuming you ever took it seriously ) that mineral oil is abiogenic. You have betrayed me.
peakoilwhen
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 20:04:52

Then your ideas don't make sense. You've got oil bearing igneous rock beneath sedimentary sources rock, but the oil didn't migrate down. It tends to migrate up. Did the formation do two 180 flips so the igneous rock could be above the sedimentary source rock, to recieve the oil, then flip to get underneath the sedimentary rock again?


I guess they didn’t teach you to read in your boxtop physics university either. What I said was each and every igneous or for that matter crystalline basement rock that has produced oil is juxtaposed (that means beside not beneath) the source rock to which it has been typed. Hence why I said lateral migration. Do a search for Bach Ho and you will find a picture of this relationship?

Well that's your dumbest story yet. You've got nothing substantial against Gold's Siljan, his extraction of mineral oil there was a vindication of abiotic theory and a discredit to biotic oil theor


Well how about the paper presented by J.R. Catano in Stockholm in 1992.

J. R. Castano (1992) Geochemical evaluation of the Gravberg-1 well, Geologiska Föreningen i Stockholm Förhandlingar, 114:1, 156-157

The Gravberg-1 well is situated in the Siljan ring area of central Sweden, which was formed as the result of a meteorite impact about 360 m.y. ago. The objective of the drilling was to explore for abiogenic deep mantle gas in the fractured granite within the crater. The program for geochemical analysis was carried out at thesite and at seven off-sitelaboratories; it was designed to analyze light hydrocarbon and inorganic gases from several different kinds of samples. The changing character of the mud system, varying from fresh water to a bentonite-barite mud at times contaminated with diesel and other additives, and an oil-based mud which was used in Sidetracks 2 and 3, has had a significant impact on data interpretation.


And their analysis, by the way, points out that the so-called oil Gold claimed to have recovered was water mixed with gases comprised 98% of C1 and 2% of C2 and C3. No oil whatsoever.

that paper doesn't actually do any analysis. It just says :

Unmistakable evidence found by geochemical analysis of oils, oil-stained rocks, and organic rocks points to the Ordovician bituminous Tretaspis Shale as the source for the oil found in the Siljan crater.

And thats all!

Unmistakable - use like its a magic word that supposed to defeat un-believers. It doesn't work. They should at least provide the analysis.


Well this is what else that study had to say:

In general, hydrocarbon gas shows in the Siljan crater are minor, except in the Solberga well. As water in the Siljan area normally contains small amounts of hydrocarbon gas of bacteria origin (marsh gas), it is difficult to separate this background gas from observed gas in the boreholes. A number of gas shows are considered to be of bacterial origin. In the Solberga well two basically different hydrocarbon gasses were found: one, a “wet” gas, is clearly related to the oils in the sedimentary rocks, while the other “dry” gas could be originating from a different source. No carbon isotope data were available to indicate the type and origin of this gas. It is purely speculative to assume it is abiogenic. Varying quantities of hydrogen gas were found in the Siljan area. These could have originated from several different sources, such as: oxidation of ferrous oxide, reactions between surface and formation water, solid state reactions in minerals, and association 6 with organic matter and or petroleum. Sufficient evidence is lacking to define the different sources.



And perhaps we should point out that Gold doesn’t provide any analysis either other than his observations. But he did note there was nothing encountered above C4, so sorry no oil.

ts side stepping the issue if you latch on to my minor error there : Macondo the well that destroy DeepHorizons was relatively shallow, but the Tibers old field found by DeepHorizons in 2009 was 10km deep. Thats the key point, you avoided it.
It's proximity to the mantle that heats rocks. Having cold ocean on top making the rock floor cold means a steeper temperature gradient with depth, and at 10.5km beneath sea level and 1.2km of water that makes Tibers over 9km 'below the mudline', and full of oil. You've failed.



Sidestepping the issue? You were adamant that Macondo proved your point. Tiber? OK, well first of all you have a number of problems which I wouldn’t expect you to understand. Firstly the well was drilled to that depth but neither BP or it’s partners have indicated the depths at which DST’s were run nor have they mentioned how much recovered was oil and how much was gas and given they are reporting any estimates in barrels of oil equivalent it means they recovered gas as well as oil. Suggesting they are producing from the bottom of the hole is just wild incorrect speculation, especially given the nature of Tertiary reservoirs in this area (relatively thin stacked sands). As to cold water having anything to do with heatflow from the sediment pile once again you don’t understand how all of this is calculated (i.e from hottom hole temperatures in nearby wells and then modeled upwards knowing what the sediment pile is comprised of. What does affect things is the presence of salt tongues that are linked to deep seated salt in the sedimentary pile. At Tiber that salt tongue which overlays the Tertiary sedimentary pile is particularly thick and deep rooted so it will actually decrease the heat flow in the sedimentary pile below it as it is a very effective heat sink, transmitting the deep seated heat at the root of the salt diaper to the sediments above the salt tongue.
The peak and end of oil generation in the area around Tiber was established in a thesis as being peak oil generation at 10,999 feet and end of oil generation at 27, 473 feet to 30,241feet corresponding to a range in measured borehole temperatures of 104 to 130 C (which is consistent with the cracking temperature of oil in the laboratory). The deep end of oil window is not the start of oil cracking but rather the point at which it ends, all oil having been converted. So two things because of the extremely thick pile of salt diapir tongue above the reservoir at Tiber and it’s cousin Kaskida the sediment pile below it is colder and hence the bottom to the oil window somewhat deeper and secondly we can’t speak to what depth oil is being produced and at what depth it is mainly gas since BP or it’s partners have not released the wells nor the test data.

The thesis referred to is:

Malborough, J.P. 2015. Petroleum Play Study of the Keathley Canyon, Gulf of Mexico. Msc thesis, University of New Orleans. 73 pp.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5679
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 20:23:09

ROCKMAN wrote:Doc - I'm getting old a memories keep slipping away: what did we once say about folks who argue with a fool? LOL.

Again, we could have saved a sh*t load of space here if we had all just agreed that abiotic oil existed. Whether it does or not isn't critial since the only oil that is important is that which we find and produce.

Didn't I say something similar earlier, before rockdoc's intern drove it off the page. I'll repeat for those still standing and taking nutrition:
pstarr wrote:And yet another long dreary post by the rock. This is crazy stuff. Haven't we been down this road a zillion times? Why a serious petroleum geologist would consider this dribble is beyond me? Unless he/she has an agenda to confuse the entire peak oil issue, bore the fence-sitters and perhaps even maintain BAU?

Now I'm talking crazy. As if an habitual oil-industry insider would be compelled keep us shopping? Really. Sorry. Back to the regular-scheduled debate.
/sarc
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26769
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 16 Feb 2017, 00:04:45

pstarr - "...serious..." Really??? You use that word in this thread??? LMFAO!!!
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10732
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby Yoshua » Thu 16 Feb 2017, 01:44:24

All liquids peaked in 2015 and has now reached a plateau. Will the producers be able to maintain production on this plateau or will the production start to decline ? Without production growth the global economy can't grow. Without economic growth the $220T global debt bubble can't be serviced. When the debt bubble starts to deflate the financial institutions turn insolvent. A financial crisis will lead to an economic crisis that will lead to an oil crisis.
Yoshua
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 933
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 05:45:42

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby AirlinePilot » Thu 16 Feb 2017, 08:38:41

peakoilwhen wrote:
ROCKMAN wrote:Doc - I'm getting old a memories keep slipping away: what did we once say about folks who argue with a fool? LOL.

Again, we could have saved a sh*t load of space here if we had all just agreed that abiotic oil existed. Whether it does or not isn't critial since the only oil that is important is that which we find and produce.


That is effectively a retraction from your stance ( assuming you ever took it seriously ) that mineral oil is abiogenic. You have betrayed me.


Priceless! :roll: :roll: :roll:
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4362
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 16 Feb 2017, 11:20:15

Yoshua wrote:All liquids peaked in 2015 and has now reached a plateau.


Again. The same thing was claimed or 2005. And then later 2008. Turns out, plateau didn't last long, it was more like a pause in yet more oil production. Funny thing that one. Maybe more to follow? it has historical precedent now, and the sine wave model of oil production predicts it. The real question is how many MORE times can this profile be achieved.

Yoshua wrote:Will the producers be able to maintain production on this plateau or will the production start to decline ?


Depends on demand. And by extension price. So guess at those first, and then we can answer the supply question.

Yoshua wrote:Without production growth the global economy can't grow.


It did between 1979 and about 1993, when there was zero growth in oil production between those two points. So why do you think it can't happen again? Peak oils have not happened multiple times, so why not GDP growth without increased oil production as well?

Yoshua wrote:Without economic growth the $220T global debt bubble can't be serviced.


Let's hear it for bankruptcy courts then! Yee Haw!

Yoshua wrote:When the debt bubble starts to deflate the financial institutions turn insolvent. A financial crisis will lead to an economic crisis that will lead to an oil crisis.


Yeah, heard that one before as well. Turns out, the last economic crisis led to an oil price crash (much appreciated) and then a resurgence and the tidal wave of US oil production demonstrating why no one needs worry about bell shaped curve profiles anymore.

And those financial institutions? They get to use bankruptcy courts as well, lucky for them!
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby pstarr » Thu 16 Feb 2017, 11:39:40

AdamB wrote:
Yoshua wrote:All liquids peaked in 2015 and has now reached a plateau.


Again. The same thing was claimed or 2005. And then later 2008. Turns out, plateau didn't last long, it was more like a pause in yet more oil production. Funny thing that one. Maybe more to follow? it has historical precedent now, and the sine wave model of oil production predicts it. The real question is how many MORE times can this profile be achieved.
2005 or thereabouts was the peak in conventional oil. It's when GW Bush announced his intent to change the definition of petroleum. It now includes corn ethanol, biodiesel, propane and butane.

AdamB wrote:
Yoshua wrote:Will the producers be able to maintain production on this plateau or will the production start to decline ?


Depends on demand. And by extension price. So guess at those first, and then we can answer the supply question.
but there is a price that destroys economies. We know it. It's around $70/barrel. There is also a price oil companies need to produce new oil. It's $71/barrel

AdamB wrote:
Yoshua wrote:Without production growth the global economy can't grow.


It did between 1979 and about 1993, when there was zero growth in oil production between those two points. So why do you think it can't happen again? Peak oils have not happened multiple times, so why not GDP growth without increased oil production as well?
wrong
AdamB wrote:
Yoshua wrote:Without economic growth the $220T global debt bubble can't be serviced.


Let's hear it for bankruptcy courts then! Yee Haw!
ignorant statement. You display a consistent ignorance of the economic and political world around you. Time to grow up and get a real job. That intern thing is not good for you.

AdamB wrote:
Yoshua wrote:When the debt bubble starts to deflate the financial institutions turn insolvent. A financial crisis will lead to an economic crisis that will lead to an oil crisis.


Yeah, heard that one before as well. Turns out, the last economic crisis led to an oil price crash (much appreciated) and then a resurgence and the tidal wave of US oil production demonstrating why no one needs worry about bell shaped curve profiles anymore.

And those financial institutions? They get to use bankruptcy courts as well, lucky for them!

Economies all over the world were destroyed by the Greatest Recession Ever. It was nice that your mom and dad sheltered you from the truth.
/sarc
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26769
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 16 Feb 2017, 12:12:46

2005 or thereabouts was the peak in conventional oil. It's when GW Bush announced his intent to change the definition of petroleum. It now includes corn ethanol, biodiesel, propane and butane.


As you have been told countless times this is incorrect. The definition that EIA has for crude production does not include corn ethanol, biodiesel and only includes propane and butane if it is part of the production stream prior to being separated at the refinery.

A mixture of hydrocarbons that exists in liquid phase in natural underground reservoirs and remains liquid at atmospheric pressure after passing through surface separating facilities. Depending upon the characteristics of the crude stream, it may also include: 

 Small amounts of hydrocarbons that exist in gaseous phase in natural underground reservoirs but are liquid at atmospheric pressure after being recovered from oil well (casinghead) gas in lease separators and are subsequently commingled with the crude stream without being separately measured. Lease condensate recovered as a liquid from natural gas wells in lease or field separation facilities and later mixed into the crude stream is also included;
 Small amounts of nonhydrocarbons produced with the oil, such as sulfur and various metals;
 Drip gases, and liquid hydrocarbons produced from tar sands, oil sands, gilsonite, and oil shale.

Liquids produced at natural gas processing plants are excluded. Crude oil is refined to produce a wide array of petroleum products, including heating oils; gasoline, diesel and jet fuels; lubricants; asphalt; ethane, propane, and butane; and many other products used for their energy or chemical content.


but there is a price that destroys economies. We know it. It's around $70/barrel. There is also a price oil companies need to produce new oil. It's $71/barrel


Once again complete nonsense and it is something that you have been schooled on countless times. The US and global GDP continued to increase throughout the period from 2011 to 2014 when Brent and WTI hovered around $100/bbl. Petroleum consumption also continued to increase throughout that period indicating that not only is $70/bbl not an impediment but neither is $100/bbl. But I’m sure all you are trying to do is convert this thread into another ridiculous discussion on ETP.

Economies all over the world were destroyed by the Greatest Recession Ever. It was nice that your mom and dad sheltered you from the truth.


There are actually very few economies that have not recovered and in a better place than they previously were. Global GDP decreased only slightly from 2008 through 2009 and then continued to rise beyond that indicating there was not wholesale slaughter due to the recession.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5679
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby pstarr » Thu 16 Feb 2017, 12:50:54

"Liquid fuels: All petroleum including crude oil and products of petroleum refining, natural gas liquids, biofuels, and liquids derived from other hydrocarbon sources (including coal to liquids and gas to liquids). Not included are liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquid hydrogen. See petroleum and other liquids."

Image
What matters is not which strict definition you choose, but rather the definition that encourages your steady income.

(I will comment later on the rest of your post)
/sarc
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26769
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 16 Feb 2017, 13:36:45

What matters is not which strict definition you choose, but rather the definition that encourages your steady income.


Wrong...you said this:
I
t's when GW Bush announced his intent to change the definition of petroleum. It now includes corn ethanol, biodiesel, propane and butane.


you did not reference liquid fuels which is something entirely different and Yoshua and AdamB were not referencing that either. But as usual you like to pull out Red Herrings and then embellish with definitional retreat. :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5679
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 16 Feb 2017, 13:38:46

pstarr wrote:
AdamB wrote:
Yoshua wrote:All liquids peaked in 2015 and has now reached a plateau.


Again. The same thing was claimed or 2005. And then later 2008. Turns out, plateau didn't last long, it was more like a pause in yet more oil production. Funny thing that one. Maybe more to follow? it has historical precedent now, and the sine wave model of oil production predicts it. The real question is how many MORE times can this profile be achieved.
2005 or thereabouts was the peak in conventional oil.


Please provide the chemical composition difference between these mythical oils, the conventional, and those other oils of the same composition that you want to call something else.

pstarr wrote: It's when GW Bush announced his intent to change the definition of petroleum. It now includes corn ethanol, biodiesel, propane and butane.


EIA definition of crude oil and lease condensate does not include those things. And their estimates of crude oil and lease condensate was highest in 2014, perhaps 2015, last I looked.

Feel free to collect your own estimates of only this type of oil, having been highest in 2014 or 2015, and explain why that higher number than 2005 doesn't invalidate your claim of prior peak oils that weren't.

pstarr wrote:
AdamB wrote:Depends on demand. And by extension price. So guess at those first, and then we can answer the supply question.
but there is a price that destroys economies. We know it. It's around $70/barrel. There is also a price oil companies need to produce new oil. It's $71/barrel


Please provide a list of the destroyed economies of the world during the time oil was above $70/bbl. I happened to be alive here in the US when this happened, and the country only experienced a recession based on the housing bust, no destroyed economy to be found. Please feel free to provide a list of others that were destroyed when oil was >$70/bbl.

pstarr wrote:
AdamB wrote:
Yoshua wrote:Without production growth the global economy can't grow.


It did between 1979 and about 1993, when there was zero growth in oil production between those two points. So why do you think it can't happen again? Peak oils have not happened multiple times, so why not GDP growth without increased oil production as well?
wrong


I would provide the chart showing that global oil production decreased after the 1979 peak, and didn't regain that peak until approximately 15 years later. During that time, the world economy grew. Graph provided. So no...not wrong.

Facts are good. I recommend you try some, you might like them.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby pstarr » Thu 16 Feb 2017, 15:07:23

Provide it then. Or go away.
/sarc
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26769
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby sparky » Thu 16 Feb 2017, 15:54:27

.
The best argument against a sizable Abiotic generation of hydrocarbon is the fact
that it is not found in newly solidified Earth crust .

I wouldn't mind , one could speculate on the influence of extremophile organisms occupying the lithosphere
they have been found in quantity down to 4,000m and could be present down to 7.000m

Ultimately , would Abiotic generation , if any , amount to a collectable quantity ?
I doubt it
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 16 Feb 2017, 16:02:55

pstarr wrote:Provide it then. Or go away.


While you implying that you aren't in the least bit familiar with global oil production trends is completely believable, it also demonstrates that you are to ill-informed to even attempt to discuss this topic. And can't use google.

May I recommend some remedial learning, that you might not be at such a disadvantage when putting forth poorly informed conclusions?

http:\oil_facts_for_the_intellectually_stunted.com

And if you let me know the location of the nearest community college, perhaps I could peruse their curriculum and find a course on using internet search engines as well? Always glad to be of help for you Pstarr. :)
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby tita » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 07:55:21

The best answer of this thread.
And now for some hair splitting about. I have an oil field producing 10,000 bopd in Jab 2017. As it depletes production drops to 900 bopd on Jan 2018. Thus the field's PO date is Jan 2017. But during Feb 2018 oil prices crash so by March 2018 I crank my pumps up to 1,100 bopd. That's well above the MER...Maximum Efficient Rate. That's the production rate above which one MIGHT reduce ultimate recovery and perhaps even damage the wells.

But I need the f*cking revenue to pay my bills. So is Jan 2017 the PO date for the field or is it now March 2018. Statistically it's March 2018 but if one takes that info to imply that I will recover more oil from the field you would be wrong. In fact, it might even imply a decrease in ultimate recover. This is a real aspect of current situation and not theoretical: seen it done numerous times in my career.

But the impossible answer is to what degree has happened due to new wells being drilled? IOW how much of the recent oil production increase is from newly discovered reserves and how much from pumping old reserves harder? No way to tell. But the good news: again it still isn't important. Virtually every other factor in the POD has much greater potential impact on our lives then the GPO date. So for Dog's sake stop the f*cking arguments. LOL.


We struggle to keep pumping enough oil to feed the demand. Not that it was easier before, but it was certainly less complex. Technically, geopotically, economically, ecologically. And the complexity is increasing.
User avatar
tita
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 02:00:00

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 09:57:28

rockdoc123 wrote:What I said was each and every igneous or for that matter crystalline basement rock that has produced oil is juxtaposed (that means beside not beneath) the source rock to which it has been typed. Hence why I said lateral migration. Do a search for Bach Ho and you will find a picture of this relationship?


Now that you're feeling a bit more confident you've dropped your wall of jargon defence, and I can make sense of what you say.
Is this the sort of formation you mean?
Image
So the sediment source rock leaks oil into the higher basement rock where it gets trapped. Seems consistent. But I notice the source rock is itself above fracture basement rock, so I think thats where its getting its oil. But your lot wouldn't bother to check if the sediment rock is itself being supplied with oil from lower rocks cos it would discredit your theory.


Well how about the paper presented by J.R. Catano in Stockholm in 1992.

their analysis, by the way, points out that the so-called oil Gold claimed to have recovered was water mixed with gases comprised 98% of C1 and 2% of C2 and C3. No oil whatsoever.


Gold claimed C1 to C5 in 15 tonnes of oil. Even if it was something other than oil, c1 to c5 is good enough for me, and clearly good enough for conventional geologists, including you because it prompted them to asserting that an ancient sediment layer got into the cracks and saturated them with hydrocarbon. Up till then the Siljan crater had been thought to be strictly devoid of hydrocarbon bearing sediment material.
So make up your mind, is there no significant hydrocarbon in the Siljan crater, or do you need your ancient sediment to explain the hydrocarbon there?

In general, hydrocarbon gas shows in the Siljan crater are minor, except in the Solberga well. As water in the Siljan area normally contains small amounts of hydrocarbon gas of bacteria origin (marsh gas), it is difficult to separate this background gas from observed gas in the boreholes. A number of gas shows are considered to be of bacterial origin. In the Solberga well two basically different hydrocarbon gasses were found: one, a “wet” gas, is clearly related to the oils in the sedimentary rocks, while the other “dry” gas could be originating from a different source. No carbon isotope data were available to indicate the type and origin of this gas. It is purely speculative to assume it is abiogenic. Varying quantities of hydrogen gas were found in the Siljan area. These could have originated from several different sources, such as: oxidation of ferrous oxide, reactions between surface and formation water, solid state reactions in minerals, and association 6 with organic matter and or petroleum. Sufficient evidence is lacking to define the different sources.

Not a refutation of abiotic oil theory. It says there's unexplained hydrocarbon in Siljan, but the biotic oil trained geologists don't explore abiotic theory, but dismiss it as speculation. Why? The experiment was to test abiotic theory, yet they don't explore it. Its like dropping a ball to test gravity and saying, "there was an unexplained motion of the ball to the ground, it is purely speculative to assume it was gravity.". It is profoundly unscientific to dismiss theory this way.

Are they running scared of what they might find?


And perhaps we should point out that Gold doesn’t provide any analysis either other than his observations.


His analysis is here :
http://origeminorganicadopetroleo.blogs ... apers.html

Wrt to the Tiber oil field, ok i accept what you say. Actually it doesn't matter to abiotic oil theory if oil is not present below 9000m. As it rises from the upper mantle, it condenses or drops out of solution at some depth, perhaps around 9000m. That's consistent with abiotic theory.

Your take on it was worth reading though, thanks. You are helping me sharpen my understanding of abiotic oil theory.
peakoilwhen
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 10:26:08

sparky wrote:.
The best argument against a sizable Abiotic generation of hydrocarbon is the fact
that it is not found in newly solidified Earth crust .

I wouldn't mind , one could speculate on the influence of extremophile organisms occupying the lithosphere
they have been found in quantity down to 4,000m and could be present down to 7.000m

Ultimately , would Abiotic generation , if any , amount to a collectable quantity ?
I doubt it


Well we assert practically all mineral oil is abiotic, so it created the world's oil reserves, so the answer is yes.

'newly solidified Earth crust'
Image
What does cooled lava look like? Lava is burnt crude oil mixed with rock, it is rich in carbon. ( yes this is a photo of cooled lava, not heavy oil, they look so similar )
peakoilwhen
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby AirlinePilot » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 11:32:37

pow.....are you a Truther? I'm being serious.
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4362
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 11:35:39

truther wrt what? Don't go off topic, we have enough on the table to discuss
peakoilwhen
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

PreviousNext

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests