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 » 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

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby Yoshua » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 12:28:50

The economy dominates and forces the oil producers to pump more. If high oil prices wont do the trick, then low oil prices will. No matter if that causes reservoir damage and destroys future production, the only thing that matters is now and what the economy demands. The economy is the freaking terminator.
Yoshua
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 05:45:42

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 12:30:52

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,


No he did not. this is what he said:
During the drilling with a water based drilling fluid, good measurements were obtained of hydrogen, helium, methane, and the other hydrocarbon gases up to pentane.

Up to pentane does not mean it contained pentane it means it contained C1 - C4. Again he shows no chemical analysis. Also any "oil" recovered happened after they started to use diesel additives ...essentially an oil based mud system. That is why the Castano paper points out the results are difficult to analyse. I've been involved in many wells drilled with oil based fluids...in not one did we trust any of the shows or returns while drilling. Indeed the information was not complete until a full blown DST was run for a long enough period to remove all drilling fluid invasion.
And in any event I showed you two publications that indicated there was nothing but methane and small amounts of CPG and not only that they made up a mere 2%....that is methane not oil.

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?


First of all you do not understand enough about what the term hydrocarbon means and what the term oil means. You continually confuse oil with gas, the two are not the same. It is well established that methane is generated in the mantle. We see it in volcanic outflows and in geysers that have a connection to the upper mantle. What we don’t see is oil. You are arguing for abiotic oil and then saying that finding methane and a miniscule amount of CPG proves the theory and it does not in the least. I am astounded that you want to continue to demonstrate a level of thickness that is to my mind unsurpassed by anything I’ve seen on this site for the past decade

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


Its dry gas i.e. methane you dolt. All they did not do was to complete a full isotopic analysis of the methane gas to see what the delta C13 was which would help to define its source. They didn’t bother for two reasons…it was all essentially methane and there wasn’t a lot of it and there was ample source for it all around the crater. Once again there was no oil…why is that so hard to understand?

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


There is no place in that large amount of verbage that has any chemical analysis of gases recovered from boreholes at Siljin crater…none. It’s a bunch of theory, some of which is nearly childlike in it’s understandings of whole earth geophysics and geology. Gold should have stuck to his area of expertise.

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


Again you are applying magical thinking. When a liquid is cracked to gas at extremely high temperatures the molecular structure of the hydrocarbon chains is completely destroyed it becomes nearly pure methane and does not behave like a retrograde condensate which can drop liquid out from the gaseous state as pressure drops (noting that condensates still maintain a significant proportion of C5 and higher). This does not happen to hydrocarbons that have been exposed to extreme heating where all of the complex chains have been broken and all that is left is methane and small amounts of butane and propane. A simple phase diagram explains why that cannot form a liquid again, it remains in the gaseous state and you cannot somehow find all the material around to magically form complex long hydrocarbon chains and somehow combine it with the methane even if the enormous energy required to drive an exothermic chemical reaction backwards was somewhere available. If this were possible we would never see gas reservoirs, they would have all converted to oil.

I suggest you please just stop. Your first task should be to learn some basic petroleum geology which also requires some understanding of organic chemistry and thermodynamics. You are not bringing anything here that either is possibly correct or makes you somehow look intelligent. On the contrary you come across as a complete moron searching for conspiracy theories (oh the thousands of scientists working in the area of petroleum over the past 5 decades have all got it wrong and with my boxtop physics understanding I can see that) which is likely why Airlinepilot asked if you are a truther.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5771
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 13:29:39

you know me Rock, I'm not disregarding the various points you've made, but to me, this is a pivotal and surprising point coming from you :
RockDoc wrote: It is well established that methane is generated in the mantle. We see it in volcanic outflows and in geysers that have a connection to the upper mantle.


!!
A high priest of the biotic oil theory plainly and explicitly admits methane is produced in the mantle.
I didn't see that coming.

Perhaps now all we need is the condition to strip off 2 hydrogen atoms, and let the carbons bond. This is the reaction that you are hyping up to be impossible. However, whatever is producing the methane in the mantle could well be producing larger hydrocarbons without the intermediate step of methane. That might cheer you up since I sense you are going to insist methane can't be converted into longer carbon chains.
Now might be a good time to explain conventional theory on how kerogen, a carbon based substance which is deficient in hydrogen, gets hydrated into oil.
peakoilwhen
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 14:06:25

A high priest of the biotic oil theory plainly and explicitly admits methane is produced in the mantle.
I didn't see that coming.


what part of

I suggest you please just stop. Your first task should be to learn some basic petroleum geology which also requires some understanding of organic chemistry and thermodynamics.


and

On the contrary you come across as a complete moron searching for conspiracy theories (oh the thousands of scientists working in the area of petroleum over the past 5 decades have all got it wrong and with my boxtop physics understanding I can see that) which is likely why Airlinepilot asked if you are a truther.


did you not understand?

I'm done. :x
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5771
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 14:29:35

tita wrote: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.


Absolutely correct. The first transition to more complexity hit in 1901, and during the next 5 or 6 cycles of more complex development it hasn't let up. The good news being, no one has ever yet quantified the number of remaining cycles, so we might still be good for at least the next 6 or 8 as we create peak demand, which will hopefully limit the number of those we need to actually deploy.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3989
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 14:39:50

peakoilwhen wrote:truther wrt what? Don't go off topic, we have enough on the table to discuss


Indeed. Starting with the obvious, that regardless of how much a certain type of cooling magma looks like oil, it most certainly is not.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3989
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 14:46:42

Yoshua wrote:The economy dominates and forces the oil producers to pump more.


Really? I would love to know how the economy can force more gas out of the ground when my oil wells have casing pressures at 0 psi. Can you perhaps explain how the economy can reinvigorate the in-situ differential pressure to help me make more oil, because myself, and perhaps tens of thousands of others who have fought to manage the physics of pressure depletion for decades now would love to know.

Yoshua wrote: If high oil prices wont do the trick, then low oil prices will. No matter if that causes reservoir damage and destroys future production, the only thing that matters is now and what the economy demands. The economy is the freaking terminator.


The economy is the economy. Arnold was the Terminator. While you are quite a bit dramatic with your descriptions, perhaps reducing the basics to a simple graph and how these relationships work would be better?

Image
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3989
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 14:54:45

peakoilwhen wrote:!!
A high priest of the biotic oil theory plainly and explicitly admits methane is produced in the mantle.
I didn't see that coming.


You are amazed by basic and well known facts of physics and geology? Why would you not see methane coming? You have been talking about oil, and the physical processes available in the geologic world do not make oil from methane, but rather the other way around.

peakoilwhen wrote:Perhaps now all we need is the condition to strip off 2 hydrogen atoms, and let the carbons bond.


Perhaps because the reaction takes the place in the other direction is why you are confused?

peakoilwhen wrote:This is the reaction that you are hyping up to be impossible. However, whatever is producing the methane in the mantle could well be producing larger hydrocarbons without the intermediate step of methane. That might cheer you up since I sense you are going to insist methane can't be converted into longer carbon chains.


of course methane can be converted into longer hydrocarbon chains. Shell does it in a refinery, and sells the results on the store shelves at Walmart. Please demonstrate that the reaction generated artificially in a refinery can be duplicated naturally.

peakoilwhen wrote:Now might be a good time to explain conventional theory on how kerogen, a carbon based substance which is deficient in hydrogen, gets hydrated into oil.


Why? Do you not know how to use google? Or is it confusing to you that said oil, under the conditions contained in the pressure and temperature contained within the mantle, becomes methane? We dare you, go get some oil, and subject it to some decent temperatures such as that magma is exposed to for a nice century or five, and then stand back and be amazed that you don't have any more oil.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3989
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 15:21:03

rockdoc123 wrote:
A high priest of the biotic oil theory plainly and explicitly admits methane is produced in the mantle.
I didn't see that coming.


what part of

I suggest you please just stop. Your first task should be to learn some basic petroleum geology which also requires some understanding of organic chemistry and thermodynamics.


and

On the contrary you come across as a complete moron searching for conspiracy theories (oh the thousands of scientists working in the area of petroleum over the past 5 decades have all got it wrong and with my boxtop physics understanding I can see that) which is likely why Airlinepilot asked if you are a truther.


did you not understand?

I'm done. :x


What do you want from me rock? To respond in kind to your insult? I'm not frustrated enough to do that yet.
I'll tell you this though, I've just linked this thread to my fb group, so they could watch us 2 debate. You are the final boss of PO.com. Instead of a interesting exchange, they've just seen me reduce you to insults and an appeal to consensus. I've never seen u do that b4. For them you will just appear to be another clueless layman. So they won't realise this as the special victory it is.

If we leave it here, my group has learnt how to defeat you in just 2 words.

Kerogen hydration.
peakoilwhen
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby Synapsid » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 16:12:10

peakoilwhen,

"Lava is burnt crude oil mixed with rock, it is rich in carbon."

Evidence?
Synapsid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 16:20:28

If we leave it here, my group has learnt how to defeat you in just 2 words.


look f%^$nuts.....kerogen does not exist anywhere except in sedimentary rock. Kerogen is completely converted to hydrocarbons at specific temperature/time relationship which means below a certain depth in the sedimentary pile all of the existing kerogen has been converted. There is no kerogen deep in the crust and certainly not in the mantle. And there are many places in the world where kerogen has not been converted simply because it hasn't been exposed to enough heat and temperature.

as to whatever message board you subscribe to if they believe you actually know anything then I'm afraid it must indeed be a board comprised of blithering idiots or drooling lunatics.

honestly can you please just shut the f$%$ up and go away? It is clear you don't want to learn the science necessary to understand any of this so please don't waste our time any longer. I'm sure your board will enjoy your inane banter, in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. :roll:

and I suspect copying posts from this board and posting on another board is in someway in contravention of the COC.
Perhaps a moderator can get rid of you and do us all a favor.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5771
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby Cog » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 16:26:07

If abiotic theory had any validity, there should be oil wells all over Hawaii and Japan.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9967
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 21:50:18

look f%^$nuts.....kerogen does not exist anywhere except in sedimentary rock. Kerogen is completely converted to hydrocarbons at specific temperature/time relationship which means below a certain depth in the sedimentary pile all of the existing kerogen has been converted. There is no kerogen deep in the crust and certainly not in the mantle. And there are many places in the world where kerogen has not been converted simply because it hasn't been exposed to enough heat and temperature.


If you say so.
I'm interested in the bit where kerogen goes from a hydrogen carbon ratio of roughly 1:1 to 3:1 or higher.

Are you ok with free hydrogen gas in the mantle? That's what was found in the kola superdeep borehole.

honestly can you please just shut the f$%$ up and go away? It is clear you don't want to learn the science necessary to understand any of this so please don't waste our time any longer. I'm sure your board will enjoy your inane banter, in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. :roll:



Since you seem in need of some mud wrestling I'll play a bit. I'm human too, and I crack sometimes, but not yet, I'm only writing this to give u some relief : but, for sure, the words have been in my head, I just choose not to write them.
---
Why should my perspective annoy you? If I'm making a fool of myself you should be laughing all the way. That was RGR's attitude with peakers. I've accepted your points on Tibers, I understood your lateral shift of oil from sediment rock to basement rock, I even backed down some wrt Thomas Gold's experiment. Seems like I was getting schooled. But now with mantle methane and hydration of kerogen you can't handle the banter? I've seen you argue with retards for a decade on this forum and until now you have maintained disposition.
wrt the land of the blind comment : that's richly hypocritic coming from one whose led the gullible for 12 years with a myth - PO. Since your failed prediction for PO has been and gone, whats your next move there? Joining the 'any day now' brigade?

...and I suspect copying posts from this board and posting on another board is in someway in contravention of the COC.
Perhaps a moderator can get rid of you and do us all a favor.


You're losing your grip. I doubt there's anything against copy pasting stuff from this forum, and anyway, I've copied nothing. I've just linked. You must be pretty desperate to be reaching for help from the mods with a trumped up charge like that.

You are smart enough to know that if the deep Earth can make methane, then it should be able to make ethane, if ethane, then propane and so on. It makes oil out of hydrogen deficient kerogen. The mantle has plenty of carbon and hydrogen and is an anoxic high pressure chemical reactor. The burden of proof is therefore on rockdoc to show what limits this hydrocarbon production process to only methane, but also contradictingly how it makes long chains from kerogen.

Your reaction to this : Well, I expected to get schooled, just like every other time between you an me, and every other time between you and 12 years of laymen on this site.
But today, it didn't happen. Instead you flipped. So I'm claiming checkmate.

You're right, I'm not a chemist or a geologist. But somehow I've defeated you in your area of expertise. Physics is the king of science, and physicists overrule geologists and chemists, we can root out the weaknesses in theory. You made it easier by getting angrier as I got nearer the truth. Like a game of hotter colder.
You are good, but you are mortal, and all mortals one day meet their match, at the hands of another mortal. Deal with it.

So I think I'm justified in having a figurative victory parade. Only I found your weakness. You were a tough nut to crack, but after a 12 year reign, the king is dead, long live the new king - me.
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, 22:16:59

Synapsid wrote:peakoilwhen,

"Lava is burnt crude oil mixed with rock, it is rich in carbon."

Evidence?


I passed it right under your nose, but you missed it. You have to be more alert. It was that photo of dried lava that looked like heavy oil. Rock can't look like that unless it has a high carbon content or is composed of some unusual mineral.

Science works better by looking for refuting evidence. I haven't found any yet to refute the claim ' lava is a mix of burnt oil and rock ' but if I find any I'll post it here. I hope others will do the same. Until then, my hypothesis is valid.
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, 22:37:27

and I suspect copying posts from this board and posting on another board is in someway in contravention of the COC.
Perhaps a moderator can get rid of you and do us all a favor.


btw, I'm not scared of being banned from here. I only come here for your criticism of my ideas, but if my questions are too difficult for you then I'll move to another forum where the geo-chemists are more expert. I've reduced you to another toothless layman, who can only hurl abuse and cry when his faith is questioned.
peakoilwhen
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 18 Feb 2017, 00:14:36

Cog - "...there should be oil wells all over...Japan." Actually they do have produce oil in Japan. Not significant but there are oil accumulations there. So back to the same f*cking question that so far everyone ignores. LOL. In the case of Japan is that oil abiotic or biotic? Now the even a more important question: does it matter? That oil was found (offshore) because that was where rocks were located that could trap and produce oil. In theory 100 BILLION BBLS OF ABIOTIC OIL couicouild have been created in the region of the Hawaiian islands. But without rocks that would have provided reservoirs and seals to catch that migrating oil. And itwould have leaked into the ocean and have deteriorated over time...as has the vast majority of oil (abiotic or biotic) that has ever been generated.

So again: all that abiotic oil that might have been created: where is it that we haven't already found and produced it as well as where we are currently developing it. In essence this debate continues to have trouble finding the forest because the f*cking trees keep getting in the way.LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10782
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 18 Feb 2017, 00:40:49

I passed it right under your nose, but you missed it. You have to be more alert. It was that photo of dried lava that looked like heavy oil. Rock can't look like that unless it has a high carbon content or is composed of some unusual mineral.


Will you please stop putting out complete stupidity on this thread and then feeling great about yourself? Basalt flows (which was the picture you showed) very common on Hawaii in their fresh state where they are black, are black because they contain manganese and pyroxene not because they have any organics which they do not. The exact same type of basalt flow is evident in the the Snake River plains at surface with the exception that they are weathered brownish red due to the high percentage of iron. And similar basalt flows on mars would be black after hundreds of millions of years because....wait for it....there is no oxygen and hence no oxidation of iron. Amazing that someone who is a self proclaimed physicist wouldn't understand that isn't it.

Science works better by looking for refuting evidence.


science works best when you are actually discussing the subject with someone who has any education whatsoever in science. Your BS background in physics is apparent to pretty much everyone here....you can't carry on a logical argument at all because you have no understanding what is being said, as I said twice above it is like explaining the workings of a chainsaw to a chimpanzee.

You have been told continuously why this cannot work but you keep coming up with ridiculous statements and then saying "oh I won". The only thing you won here I'm afraid is the biggest idiot award on PO board since I started more than a decade ago. The harsh reality is you have not hidden from anyone here the likely fact you are a young individual with possibly a high school education who suddenly has fancied himself an intellect. You should be embarassed rather than pounding your chest.

And the reason I have not been patient with you as I have been in the past is because you are without a doubt the thickest individual who has ever posted here and you are not in the least bit interested in learning.

as others have said (as well as I have said) if abiotic oil was worth contemplating we would have found oil in the millions of wells that have been drilled into basement that are not in contact with source rocks, oil would be everywhere, there would be no dry gas because apparently it would have all "condensed" in some magical manner to oil, Ontario and Quebec would be the big oil provinces in Canada given they are all crystalline shield, every single mining core drilled into shield areas around the world would have been saturated with oil and we would not need to be drilling large horizontal wells and fracking shales at huge expense to recover the vestiges of what hydrocarbons are remaining.

Use your frigging mind, what little there seems to be of it. If you want to take this all as a "win" well great. Whatever it takea to make you go away.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5771
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby sparky » Sat 18 Feb 2017, 00:57:22

.
The element Carbon is quite rare in the crust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance ... th's_crust

it stand alongside Fluorine and Manganese and well under phosphorus
the ripple are linked to having being a viscous liquid , the color is linked to an unsaturated form of Iron oxidation ,
it's brown if there is an abundance of oxygen , black if it's partially oxidized and give our blood his rich red color

I could conceive some Abiotic generation but the quantities are arguable
while the Biotic theory has no problem with the mechanism or the quantities
just hang around a swamp and listed to the mosquitoes , the frogs and the methane bubbles bursting
as for the seashore of northern Queensland , they display, like many others , a stupendous amount of muck
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 peakoilwhen » Sat 18 Feb 2017, 01:36:59

rockdoc123 wrote:Basalt flows (which was the picture you showed) very common on Hawaii in their fresh state where they are black, are black because they contain manganese and pyroxene not because they have any organics which they do not. The exact same type of basalt flow is evident in the the Snake River plains at surface with the exception that they are weathered brownish red due to the high percentage of iron. And similar basalt flows on mars would be black after hundreds of millions of years because....wait for it....there is no oxygen and hence no oxidation of iron.


ah, so you can still weave a bit of rational discussion in amongst your insults and tantrums. Even if I have to throw u a softball to bait u out of your hole. But will you ever be strong enough to take me on my key point : hydration of kerogen and the limiting chemistry that excludes creation of hydrocarbons higher than methane in the mantle?
No. Because you aren't arguing against me, your arguing against the truth. And nothing is more threatening or annoying than the truth to a religious zealot.

Whatever it takea to make you go away.

You want to be left alone with pstarr and Lore, because you find it easy to beat them. Christ stop picking on defenceless kids and take on someone of your own caliber, like me. Man or mouse?
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 2 guests