[peakoilwhen]

>Improving Peak Oil Credibility

What for? It's a myth based on wrong geology theory. we should be reducing its credibility, not improving it.

[vtsnowedin]

>Improving Peak Oil Credibility

What for? It's a myth based on wrong geology theory. we should be reducing its credibility, not improving it.

You will have to show us where the theory is wrong in the geology? Except for timing and under estimating our ability to improve recovery rates the foundation still holds. There was only so much oil and gas in the ground when we humans came on the scene and learned how to extract and use them. We have burned up somewhere near half of what is recoverable using current methods. We do not know what methods it will take to recover the bulk of the second half. Fracking is just a method to improve the recovery rate of the original oil in place. At the rate we are producing oil we will pump dry most of the largest oil fields within a few years and there is no guarantee that there are sufficient shale beds to frack to make up that decline or a technology yet uninvented to extract it from old depleted fields.

[peakoilwhen]

hi vtsnowedin
the concept of fossil fuel is wrong.
abiotic oil theory is the correct theory. the mantle produces oil + hydrocarbon far faster than we can consume it. Notice that methane is common in the worlds of the solar system, even david middleton accepts that most methane is abiotic. Yet to get from methane to ethane and propane is no harder than going from carbon and hydrogen to methane. Hence we have Titan, a world with seas of LPGs. Earth is not a special exception, it follows the rule all worlds do, abiotic hydrocarbon.

[ROCKMAN]

vt - Sorry buddy but you're making yourself look foolish arguing against abiotic oil. What next: are you pick you going to pick a fight with the FES?

FES: Flat Earth Society

[vtsnowedin]

vt - Sorry buddy but you're making yourself look foolish arguing against abiotic oil. What next: are you pick you going to pick a fight with the FES?

FES: Flat Earth Society

Well I certainly won't waste much time with Mr. abiotic oil but you do have to tell them they are nuts once in a while so they don't think everybody agrees with them.

[peakoilwhen]

you two should present your theory of how space monkeys got all that fossil hydrocarbon over to Titan from Earth, then left no trace of themselves or their spacecraft. That's how dumb your fossil fuel theory is when faced with the reality of extra terrestrial hydrocarbon.


rockdoc, rockman vts : yeah maybe if we ignore AN ENTIRE WORLD, it'll go away

state of the art method used by our POforum experts when faced with evidence

“The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time.”

— Sir Fred Hoyle, 1982

[asg70]

It's kind of sad that the site has detriorated to the point where the middle has hollowed out and you have perma-doomers on one end and abiotic oil cornies on the other.

[peakoilwhen]

We are now 15 years into this internet age of exploring oil theory. That's much more than plenty of time to figure out what the reality is. Most people have figured it out 10 years ago and moved on.
pick a side. there's nothing in the middle except a fence, and its the saddest position of all - the " i'm too scared to form an opinion in case someone laughs at me, even though im anonymous " position. pathetic, you haven't made a single step from your 1st day here. At least the fossil fuel idiots have the balls to throw themselves down their hole of wrong theory.

[ROCKMAN]

And some insight into Sir Fred Hoyle's view of his role in science in his own words: "I don't care what they think" about his theories and "...it is better to be interesting and wrong than boring and right".

IOW being interesting is a good to garner publicity even if one is wrong. Which actually seems to be a common drive mechanism of more the one person on this web site. LOL.

[peakoilwhen]

and who is the interesting and wrong one here? 10s of Thousands have come to these screeching hysteria fossil oil sites over the last 15 years, many doom books sold, careers made simply off the irresistible appeal of promise of imminent doom. LATOC, dieoff.org , the oil drum, this place, Olduvai gorge, ,peakoilbarrel.com, powerswitchuk & several others, all had a thriving community at some point.
Now show me the interesting sites bringing in thousands of punters at the abiotic sites. Even at the high point u could count the number of visitors on your fingers. Now they average about 1 visitor a day, and it might just be the admin.
Its certainly been true for peakoil sites, interesting and wrong is better than boring and correct.

If u want to debate abiotic oil, I've set up my evidence, experiments and links on the other threads. I hope you've got more in your arsenal than just quips at dead men.

[onlooker]

The trouble with the theory? So far, abiotic oil has not been proven to exist on Earth in any economic quantities. Oil exploration geologists have also not been able to make any discoveries using abiotic theories, and many abiotic claims have been debunked as pseudoscience.

http://www.mining.com/web/how-oil-is-formed/

[peakoilwhen]

>proven
noting is proven outside of mathematics. In the realm of physical reality, we use evidence, which either falsifies a theory (strong) or verifies it (weak). Whoever wrote that article is a numbskull and he invalidates his argument when he uses the word 'proven'. A lot of shills and numbskulls use that word, unwittingly revealing they don't have science training.

However, if u want to fight his corner you can replace the term 'proven', with 'conclusive evidence'.
>abiotic oil has not had conclusive evidence to show existence on Earth in any economic quantities.
no surprise there. U can't dig a hole into the mantle, go down it and sit for a thousand year at 50Kbar and 1500C and watch a vast amount of petroleum form and rise into the crust. But likewise you can't do it either with biotic oil ( 10Kbar and 400C, millions of years ).
But unlike biotic mineral oil, u can do abiotic oil in the lab, from iron ore, marble and water. Experimental evidence is good.

Kenney et al. (2002) analyzed theoretically, via thermodynamic computations, the possibilities for hydrocarbon generation at high pressures and temperatures and showed that it is possible. They went on and performed successful experiments, using a specially built high pressure apparatus (Nikolaev and Shalimov, 1999) at pressures of 50 kbar, temperatures to 1500 °C . Using only as reagents solid iron oxide and 99.9% pure marble, wet with triple distilled water, they were able to generate methane. They reported that at pressures lower than 10 kbar only methane was formed while at pressures greater than 30 kbar a multi-component hydrocarbon mixture was formed including methane, ethane, propane, n-alkanes as well as alkenes, in distributions characteristic of natural petroleum.

http://origeminorganicadopetroleo.blogspot.co.uk/

[onlooker]

If you want to talk about conclusive findings which stand up to the reality of repeated observation then
http://richardheinberg.com/richard-hein ... biotic-oil

Meanwhile, however, the oil companies have used the biotic theory as the practical basis for their successful exploration efforts over the past few decades. If there are in fact vast untapped deep pools of hydrocarbons refilling the reservoirs that oil producers drill into, it appears to make little difference to actual production, as tens of thousands of oil and gas fields around the world are observed to deplete, and refilling (which is indeed very rarely observed) is not occurring at a commercially significant scale or rate except in one minor and controversial instance discussed below.

[peakoilwhen]

> starts another strawman after his last one collapsed

before we start the usual antics of the last 15 years on this site of thrashing around grabbing at one straw man after another in a frantic effort to avoid the truth, 1st acknowledge the argument you've just abandoned, otherwise we'll get nowhere.

write this
I, onlooker, acknowledge that petroleum has been experimentally created abiotically in the laboratory with scientist's sincere attempts to recreate mantle conditions. I acknowledge that this verifies and bolsters the abiotic origin theory of mineral oil.

then we can move onto your ' but most wells don't refill at economic rates!' strawman.

[onlooker]

Okay, I acknowledge it!
Interested to hear your reply to the next "strawman"

[vtsnowedin]

I suppose if I was bored enough I could get into the EROEI of a lab experiment that cooked some marble and water together at high enough temperatures to cook off some methane but really I have to prioritize my time to something more useful like trimming my toe nails.

[peakoilwhen]

Thats the same strawman rockdoc makes
>" I've posted 1000s of times telling and retelling ignorant global warming doomers that tiny changes in tiny components of atmospheric composition won't cause climaggedon, but actually I have no time to retell anything, I've got more important things to do. In fact i don't even have time to link to the posts I purport I made that totally refute what you say. Here I go to my really important work ( goes back to telling the global warming doomers they are wrong ) "

I think you know how dumb and that looks to a person with braincells. You are only fooling yourself.
Anyway, if you stop playing the smuggie for a second, you might spot a slight flaw in your reasoning

>EROEI
The mantle does not care about EROEI. It has for our purpose practically infinite energy. The experiment was not to test the human EROEI of reproducing mantle conditions. It was to see if petroleum could form at mantle conditions.

[peakoilwhen]

>' but most wells don't refill at economic rates!'

Yep. That's for 2 reasons
1. The current average depth of US wells is well above the depth where oil forms.
The upwell paths from the mantle to the upper crust are not certain to be continuous. Often they will have been cut off from the mantle, so that reserves become without a decent intake from the mantle.

2. Humans can typically drain any one upper-crust well faster than the mantle can restore it. But taking the full surface area of the Earth, the mantle far out produces what humans can consume.

So with (1), abiotic theory dictates that improved refill rates can be gained by simply drilling wells closer to mantle depth.
Also, if we are asserting that the mantle out-produces what humans can consume, then there should be a correspondence between depth and consumption rate. The more oil we need, the deeper we need to go.
This is what we find. Peakers like rockdoc don't care to mention that the great increase in US oil production over the last 70 years has come from drilling just an average of 1300ft deeper today than we did in 1949. ( 3700 ft -> 5000 ft )
If we need further increase the the US oil production by another 1949 to 2018 amount, just drop the wells another 1300 ft. Compare this with the record depth, which as far as I know is 35,050ft by deepwater horizon ( rockdoc and rockman have the actual record, but they are coy about revealing it, rd is too busy with telling the climate doomers they are wrong another 1000 times )

But the main point you need to understand is that most oil created in the mantle is destroyed in the mantle and lower crust. Its up to 1500C down there. If the oil gets near oxygen at lower pressures but high temperatures it will decompose. As rd will be glad to explain, oil is unstable in the lower crust, it needs to be lucky to stay in anoxic environments and also stay away from high temperature , low pressure environments, else it may decompose back to water, CO2 or methane ( needs catalysts , temperature and pressure won't do it alone ).
Only a small fraction of oil created in the Earth makes it to the upper crust. Most of Earth's petroleum stays in the mantle and lower crust and is short lived on the geologic scale, but on the human scale its stable.
Dig deeper and we'll tap into these mantle oil supplies that dwarf the relic reserves and tenuous refill rates we find in the upper crust.
Hence when BP tried tapping lower crust oil in 2010, the tremendous pressure and quantity of it was beyound anything that biotic oil believers imagined or had asked for in the design of the state of the art deepwater horizon rig, which was destroyed by the oil.

But like I say, average oil wells won't get anywhere near the lower crust in our lifetimes. They won't need to. Just dropping the average depth another 1300ft greatly increases the production rates sufficient for another 70 years.

[AdamB]

>' but most wells don't refill at economic rates!'

Yep. That's for 2 reasons
1. The current average depth of US wells is well above the depth where oil forms.

Oil formation isn't about depth, it is about temperature and the presence of organic matter which forms the basis for the needed carbon and hydrogen molecules. Pick up a book and LEARN something about geochemistry already.

2. Humans can typically drain any one upper-crust well faster than the mantle can restore it. But taking the full surface area of the Earth, the mantle far out produces what humans can consume.

Humans aren't draining crust...they are draining accumulations of hydrocarbons which in many cases are operating under basic principles of buoyancy and capillary pressure from the source rock. And obviously, nowadays, we are producing quite a bit of long chain hydrocarbons from the source rock itself. Pick up a book and LEARN something about geochemistry already.

Everything else you wrote was a load of crap...proving that you haven't once picked up a book and learned something about geochemistry.

[AdamB]

Something has happened to the WTI price. Inventories has fallen, but the WTI hasn't risen to previous levels. Peak oil will take place if the oil prices stay below the cost of production.

Every day, somewhere in America and probably other countries as well, the revenue generated by a well is less than its OpX, and the well is plugged. The point at which the well is plugged is different, based on the volume it produces, the cost of that volume, and the revenue generated from it.

This has been going on since before you were born.

So..which well might you be referring to today that meets this criteria?