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 onlooker » Sat 18 Feb 2017, 20:05:06

So then what good would it do if the abiotic theory was proven correct, if it does produce economically viable oil?
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10958
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Sat 18 Feb 2017, 20:15:40

none. but you've made a mistake in your rational, can you spot it?
peakoilwhen
permanently banned
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 08:53:15

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 18 Feb 2017, 21:07:52

They have no shame, biotic theory has no test, and cannot be falsified according to them. That this renders it an unscientific theory doesn't matter, for believers of a religion, it MUST be true.


You are a frigging idiot. The test that proves biotic theory has been around for a very long time and is used daily in labs around the world. It is called pyrolysis by which source rock is converted to oil and gas through heating. In the late 19th century there was an entire industry that produced mineral oil by pyrolysis of rock rich in organic matter at high temperatures. And American geologists McCoy and Trager in 1919 conducted experiments heating sedimentary rocks which generated oil and gas. The famous geologist Wallace Pratt in 1943 concluded from similar experiments that varying chemistry in oils directly correlated with geologic age and that this was a result of “progressive cracking in natures laboratory”. So that proof has been well known for many decades.

And as I pointed out twice now a clear proof is in shale production where there is no way that oil and gas could have migrated into all of the pore space throughout a basinwide shale given the nano darcy permeability. That shale source rock generates hydrocarbon which remains in the pore space until such time as it has pressure built up the point that natural fractures can occur and migration happens or someone drills a well into it and fracks it. Once again you are speaking as if you know something about a subject you are completely ignorant of. Who exactly do you think you are fooling here?

Abiotic theory predates biotic theory, the latter was coined in the late 19th century by rockefeller as a way to make oil seem inherently scare and pushed on the geology community


That is ridiculous. The thoughts of organic origin for oils have been around a lot longer than Rockefeller and were driven by scientists, not businessmen. In a memorandum presented in 1770 in France to the Royal Academy of Sciences M. Fougerous de Bondaroy proposed a plant origin for oil. French geologist M. Lesquereux wrote a letter to a colleague in 1865 explaining his view that oil originated from marine plants. In 1863 T.S. Hunt, a Canadian geologist proposed that petroleum was formed from plant and animal debris, particularly microscopic marine forms which are present in sedimentary rocks and proposed the mechanism for oil generation was similar to coalification This all at a time before Standard Oil was formed.

For those interested David Middleton who is a geologist with over thirty years of experience in the GOM wrote a very nice summary of why the premise of abiotic oil is ridiculous. He breaks his summary down to the classic arguments made by the people who over the years have argued for abiotic oil and points out why each and every one is wrong based on a collection of arguments made over the past number of decades by various scientists. None of this is new, I've pointed out all of the same things on the abiotic oil thread here....David just does an excellent job of putting it all in one place. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/18/oil-where-did-it-come-from/
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Sat 18 Feb 2017, 21:41:17

The test that proves biotic theory has been around for a very long time and is used daily in labs around the world. It is called pyrolysis by which source rock is converted to oil and gas through heating.


You make this easy for me rd123. That's such a dumb test, and typical of your sort. If I open the fridge and take out my socks, does that act alone tell you where the socks came from? No. If there was some fungus growing on the socks then biotic geologists would conclude the socks came from the fungus. Cos that's what you do with the oil you find it rocks.

pyrolysis just means 'create by heat \ fire' it isn't a test for biotic oil.

Ok, I accept what you say about biotic hypothesis predating Rockefeller. Its still a shit hypothesis though. ^^
I will check out what this twit Daivd has to say ( Maybe its you rocky & you are refering to yourself in 3rd person), and point out where he screws up.
Last edited by peakoilwhen on Sat 18 Feb 2017, 21:48:23, edited 1 time in total.
peakoilwhen
permanently banned
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 08:53:15

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Sat 18 Feb 2017, 21:47:04

David Middleton wrote: The Saturnian moon, Titan, has seas of liquid methane and there is evidence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Titan’s atmosphere. "


I thought u said that was BS rocky? I love how we live in a universe where methane can be regularly produced on a planetary scale abiotically, but anyone who suggests ethane can be produced likewise in an abiotic idiot.
Last edited by peakoilwhen on Sat 18 Feb 2017, 21:59:02, edited 1 time in total.
peakoilwhen
permanently banned
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 08:53:15

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Sat 18 Feb 2017, 21:56:35

David wrote:Firstly, there is nothing unusual about EI 330’s production curve
Image


He's right, there's nothing unusual, because as usual it breaks Hubbert's curve, which is based on a finite resource model, and instead tends towards a constant non zero output.

wtf?

How can a well have a constant output indefinately? Because its slowly being renewed by upwelling mantle oil.

David is being disingenuous, because he's implicitly suggesting that ' nothing unusual ' means its behaving the way biotic oil theory would suggest. It ain't, its going the way all fields go, towards a low constant output, which refutes biotic theory, and evidences abiotic theory.

biotic theory debunked yet again.

next.
peakoilwhen
permanently banned
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 08:53:15

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 18 Feb 2017, 22:00:45

You make this easy for me rd123. That's such a dumb test, and typical of your sort. If I open the fridge and take out my socks, does that act alone tell you where the socks came from? No. If there was some fungus growing on the socks then biotic geologists would conclude the socks came from the fungus. Cos that's what you do with the oil you find it rocks.

pyrolysis just means 'create by heat \ fire' it isn't a test for biotic oil.


once again dips$#t, for the forth time here I think ....we can take a source rock and create oil that has a specific carbon signature, we can take an oil and look at the carbon signature. The two match. What we know is the source rock can create oil, we also know the source rock creates identical oil. That is a test, certainly in any part of science I taught at univesity...but then again you wouldn't know anything about that. Do you not actually see how thick you are here...the same concept is explained to you time and time again.

But from the abiotic side there has never been oil created in the laboratory. Methane and very minor LPG have been created at extreme temperatures but no long chain hydrocarbons have ever been created. Not only that but without the help of magical thinking it is impossible to condense long chain hydrocarbons from methane. And the notion that somehow methane from the mantle reacts with kerogen to create oil if you suggest it occurs in the mantle it is equally beyond stupid given the fact kerogen's have all been converted to hydrocarbon at relatively shallow depths in the upper crust...there are none around. If you argue that the gas comes up and mixes with kerogens to somehow create hydrocarbons, ignoring the special pleading part of that argument and even imaging it is possible you are now talking about a biotic origin for oil. The kerogen is the source and it is what controls the amount of oil not gas from some deep source. Once again go and learn some science and then come back here.

As to you referring to someone else as a twit. What is your background? You have obviously lied about having a physics background as much of what you didn't get here was grounded in that and there is nowhere in the world you can get a physics degree without a few courses in chemistry including organic chemistry. I've been forthcoming over the years as being someone with a PhD in geology with backgrounds (publications) in rock mechanics, geochemistry, and stratigraphy, taught at university to geologists and engineers and worked in the oil industry for over 30 years as a scientist and as a senior executive. David claims he has been a working geologist for 30 years specializing in the GOM. What have you done?
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Sat 18 Feb 2017, 22:15:44

u mad bro?
U know I don't care about your dumb 'matching' oil signatures biomarker test. I know and accept it links the oil to 2 different rock types, and will logically suggest the upper bedrock sourced its oil from the lower sediment rock. But it doesn't tell you where the lower sediment rock got the oil from or indeed if the sediment rock was deposited with oil.
You are stuck on this, and need to move on.

ahaahaha, I told you you would bang on about methane being extremely hard to convert into long c chains, and try and dismiss abiotic oil from that. Since I'm not a chemist, I accepted what you said the 1st time. But I also predicted you'd remain dead silent on carbon solids being hydrated directly into longer carbon chains, without methane as an intermediate step.
I was right on both counts. I know u better than u know yourself, you telegraph the weaknesses in your beloved biotic theory to me, which I used to work out the correct abiotic theory.

Nvm the fact that longer carbon chains have been produced from methane in the lab.
Here, have another look at what you find so abhorrent :

Alexander F. Goncharov wrote: We show that when methane is exposed to pressures higher than 2 GPa, and to temperatures in the range of 1,000–1,500 K, it partially reacts to form saturated hydrocarbons containing 2–4 carbons (ethane, propane and butane) and molecular hydrogen and graphite. Conversely, exposure of ethane to similar conditions results in the production of methane, suggesting that the synthesis of saturated hydrocarbons is reversible. Our results support the suggestion that hydrocarbons heavier than methane can be produced by abiogenic processes in the upper mantle.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n ... eo591.html


hmm i notice that WUWT article is recent. I will read it more and get myself involved in the comments section.
peakoilwhen
permanently banned
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 08:53:15

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 18 Feb 2017, 22:22:57

We show that when methane is exposed to pressures higher than 2 GPa, and to temperatures in the range of 1,000–1,500 K, it partially reacts to form saturated hydrocarbons containing 2–4 carbons (ethane, propane and butane) and


You are just showing more of your ignorance here. Those are LPG (as I said before) not long chain hydrocarbons that relate to oil. How many times do you have to be told the difference between oil and gas? Apparently at least 5 times.

U know I don't care about your dumb 'matching' oil signatures biomarker test. I know and accept it links the oil to 2 different rock types, and will logically suggest the upper bedrock sourced its oil from the lower sediment rock. But it doesn't tell you where the lower sediment rock got the oil from or indeed if the sediment rock was deposited with oil.
You are stuck on this, and need to move on.


your statement here just shows what a complete moron you are. The source rock does not have oil in it until is matures. It has extremely low permeability (nano darcies) so it is impossible for oil to have somehow come in there. Your talk about the lower sediment rock etc just demonstrates you haven't a frigging clue about anything that has been discussed here. But that doesn't stop you from blathering on as if you do. It links the oil to a source rock which is a shale with kerogen in it and a reservoir rock which is a rock with pore space filled with oil and permeability that allows the oil to get in there.

Jesus wept. What a complete moron. :x
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Sat 18 Feb 2017, 22:25:10

Hang on, this is little bit of a coincidence...
- i get u enraged about abiotic oil
- i point out thomas gold's work
- u try to undermine him with 'his own drilling fluid is all he found' excuse
- u mention bach ho field to me
- after years of nothing about abiotic oil, WUWT does an article on abiotic oil
- it talks about thomas gold's work being wrong because 'his own drilling fluid is all he found'
- it uses bach ho in vietnam as an e.g.

It is u David. have u tipped off anthony to be ready and waiting with the ban hammer if I show up? Or maybe you are a mod if u can write up stuff there.
peakoilwhen
permanently banned
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 08:53:15

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Sat 18 Feb 2017, 22:50:50

rockdoc123 wrote:
We show that when methane is exposed to pressures higher than 2 GPa, and to temperatures in the range of 1,000–1,500 K, it partially reacts to form saturated hydrocarbons containing 2–4 carbons (ethane, propane and butane) and


You are just showing more of your ignorance here. Those are LPG (as I said before) not long chain hydrocarbons that relate to oil. How many times do you have to be told the difference between oil and gas? Apparently at least 5 times.


PROGRESS!
So now LPGs can be made in the mantle huh? If the high priest of biotic oil David Middleton admits that, it must be true. We are more than half of the way to abiotic oil. You say its extremely hard to reverse the process of cracking between LPGs and methane. And I believe you. Tell us, compared to c1 to c2-5, is it harder or easier, or about the same to convert LPGs to slightly longer carbons chain rings and trees? hehehe!






your statement here just shows what a complete moron you are. The source rock does not have oil in it until is matures. It has extremely low permeability (nano darcies) so it is impossible for oil to have somehow come in there. Your talk about the lower sediment rock etc just demonstrates you haven't a frigging clue about anything that has been discussed here. But that doesn't stop you from blathering on as if you do. It links the oil to a source rock which is a shale with kerogen in it and a reservoir rock which is a rock with pore space filled with oil and permeability that allows the oil to get in there.


Interesting. I didn't know that. I will have to think about it before I reply. But don't get your hopes up. I'm more dedicated to the abiotic theory than you ever have been to your biotic theory! :p

Jesus wept. What a complete moron. :x

Let the rage flow thru u! You wrote a good article on WUWT, and I'm glad I can motivate u to good things.
:p :twisted: :mrgreen: :P :-D :o
peakoilwhen
permanently banned
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 08:53:15

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 18 Feb 2017, 23:11:00

PROGRESS!
So now LPGs can be made in the mantle huh? If the high priest of biotic oil David Middleton admits that, it must be true. We are more than half of the way to abiotic oil. You say its extremely hard to reverse the process of cracking between LPGs and methane. And I believe you. Tell us, compared to c1 to c2-5, is it harder or easier, or about the same to convert LPGs to slightly longer carbons chain rings and trees? hehehe!


listen you frigging moron.....nothing in the lab has been created other than methane and very miniscule amounts of ethane and a very tiny trace of propane. This is not oil you dolt. The energy and heat to do just that is beyond ridiculous and there is no way to get beyond it to the higher ends....hasn't been done even theoretically (see the work done by the USGS). Not only that if by some magic you created it...it is immediately dissaccotiated due to the high heat and cannot be put back together. You have been told this numerous times. How frigging slow are you?
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby AdamB » Sat 18 Feb 2017, 23:28:13

peakoilwhen wrote:with the entire western funding for oil drilling being scarce, you've just stated why no one will drill in Hawaii.


Physics didn't teach you anything about reality then? They've been drilling in Hawaii, as far back as 1961. I've talked to at least one company man who did some of it. Cool drilling stories. They found plenty ofsteam. No oil. Funny thing that...well...for someone who thinks they ought to have found oil in something approaching igneous rock being made there right in front of everyone's eyes. Like, apparently...<snicker snicker>...physics folks.

peakoilwhen wrote: Its doubtful there is economic oil there, the sort that blasts itself 50ft and 5b/sec into the sky.
But for a demo of abiotic oil, its good though.


So far, no sign of oil at all, economic or otherwise. In part because...as has been pointed out to you...<snicker snicker>...at those temperatures oil gets turned into thermogenic gas...for starters. You know...just like it does everywhere else in the world.....duh.
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020

Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6448
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby AdamB » Sat 18 Feb 2017, 23:33:20

peakoilwhen wrote:
David wrote:Firstly, there is nothing unusual about EI 330’s production curve
Image


He's right, there's nothing unusual, because as usual it breaks Hubbert's curve, which is based on a finite resource model, and instead tends towards a constant non zero output.

wtf?

How can a well have a constant output indefinately? Because its slowly being renewed by upwelling mantle oil.


Eugene Island isn't upwelling mantle oil. And apparently you missed the class in how the GOM just happens to be one of those currently active kitchens, still just sittin around...turning dead organic matter into oil, oil doing what it does, oozing all around.

More geology! Events charts! Timing, trap and charge discussions!!

It would appear to me that if this quality of bad thinking is what is generated from a physics classroom at the high school or college level in this country, we need to outsource all physics teaching from now on.
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020

Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6448
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Sat 18 Feb 2017, 23:41:38

AdamB wrote:So far, no sign of oil at all, economic or otherwise. In part because...as has been pointed out to you...<snicker snicker>...at those temperatures oil gets turned into thermogenic gas...for starters. You know...just like it does everywhere else in the world.....duh.


Well did your oil friend find any gas in the holes he drilled?
peakoilwhen
permanently banned
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 08:53:15

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby Synapsid » Sun 19 Feb 2017, 02:38:18

peakoilwhen,

Basalts are very fine-grained rocks and that's what you see in the photo--the rock. You can't see the minerals without a lens or microscope.

Hornblende is not characteristic of basalts anyway.
Synapsid
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 21:21:50

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby Yoshua » Sun 19 Feb 2017, 03:55:49

We are experiencing peak oil dynamics today.

Conventional oil peaked in 2005 and reached a plateau. The financial crisis of 2008. The euro crisis of 2011. The extreme credit/debt expansion in China. The central banks QE programs. Trillions of dollars and euros have been printed by central banks. Asset bubbles have been created. The oil industries move into production of unconventional oil. Falling net energy and the collapse of the oil price in 2014. The peak in all liquids in 2015 which now also is on a plateau. The implosion of weaker economies around the world. The collapse of currencies against the petrodollar.

We are living peak oil dynamics today.
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 06:45:42

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 19 Feb 2017, 05:08:24

Yes and I would add :
We're in stagflation now. And have been for over 2 years.
And without the debt exponentially rising we would have seen hyperinflation a long time ago.

Everything is hidden behind smokescreens and curtains these days. Everything is manipulated. It's hard to tell where we stand at any given time, but it's quite easy to see the overall trendline.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10958
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby Yoshua » Sun 19 Feb 2017, 06:03:22

It is almost strange that we still discuss when peak oil comes since we are living peak oil.

I just wonder if we will be able to create a financial system and an economy that can survive a contracting economy ? We would still produce a lot of oil even if production falls to 70 mbpd. And even if the net energy would fall to 25% the economy would still receive net energy from oil.

I still wonder if it would be possible to land the economy gently without causing a total collapse. The problem would just be that 7.4 billion would not survive this contraction. And the oil production and the net energy would continue to fall until they reach zero at some point.
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 06:45:42

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sun 19 Feb 2017, 06:58:27

Y - "...since we are living peak oil." Exactly: dealing every day with the Peal Oil Dynamic...the POD.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

PreviousNext

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests