Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Improving Peak Oil Credibility

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Mon 05 Mar 2018, 19:17:46

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. :twisted:
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8927
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Tue 06 Mar 2018, 02:04:37

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
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Tue 06 Mar 2018, 02:59:54

>' 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.
peakoilwhen
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 06 Mar 2018, 10:55:56

peakoilwhen wrote:>' 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.

peakoilwhen wrote: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.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 06 Mar 2018, 11:14:50

Yoshua wrote: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?
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 06 Mar 2018, 11:16:56

peakoilwhen wrote:>Improving Peak Oil Credibility

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


Peak oilers would prefer not to be the butt of resource economic jokes for the next century. Like you are for abiotic oil right about now.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 06 Mar 2018, 11:22:25

peakoilwhen wrote:you two should present your theory of how space monkeys got all that fossil hydrocarbon over to Titan from Earth,


Hydrocarbons on Titan weren't generated from organic matter in an anoxic environment any more than the atmosphere of Jupiter.

Some light reading on oil and gas generation from geoscientists so you don't look as dumb as usual?
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 06 Mar 2018, 11:25:27

peakoilwhen wrote:We are now 15 years into this internet age of exploring oil theory.


So your point is that stupid people now are able to find herd thinkers of their own ilk to run with? The oil and gas business has been running along without need from the geologically challenged brigades across 3 centuries now.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 06 Mar 2018, 11:31:49

onlooker wrote: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.


You manage to pick terrible, or uneducated sources at every turn, don't you onlooker? Richard knows no more about oil or the business that generates it then peakoilwhen does about geochemistry. Richard happened to be casting about one afternoon for a mechanism to scare people into following his powerdown dream, and found it in an industry he has no experience or training in, but decided he would become an expert in, after dropping out of college because of a fondness for weed and his knock on career of rock band member didn't go as well as he'd hoped.

We don't know peakoilwhen's history, but it can hardly be worse than Richard's qualifications on this topic.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby asg70 » Tue 06 Mar 2018, 11:43:51

What I find interesting about Onlooker's cherry-pick is he starts out with a jab against 911 troothers. Since Onlooker is a troother, that's an odd choice for a prophet.
[space to store bad short-term prediction currently vacant]
asg70
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1869
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Cog » Tue 06 Mar 2018, 12:10:21

asg70 wrote:What I find interesting about Onlooker's cherry-pick is he starts out with a jab against 911 troothers. Since Onlooker is a troother, that's an odd choice for a prophet.


Indeed it is. But conspiracies are attractive to people who think they can regain control over their life, by having secret knowledge that only youtube can expose.
User avatar
Cog
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10742
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Tue 06 Mar 2018, 18:27:31

i get the impression that neither cog or asg70 are supports of abiogenic coal theory. What was it that made u think coal was biogenic?
peakoilwhen
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby onlooker » Tue 06 Mar 2018, 18:35:29

You manage to pick terrible, or uneducated sources at every turn, don't you onlooker? Richard knows no more about oil or the business that generates it then peakoilwhen does about geochemistry.

Heinberg is an Academician and scholar who is referring to established consensus views from EXPERTS. You are not seriously trying to imply, he holds this view by himself are you?
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9545
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 06 Mar 2018, 23:56:45

onlooker wrote:
You manage to pick terrible, or uneducated sources at every turn, don't you onlooker? Richard knows no more about oil or the business that generates it then peakoilwhen does about geochemistry.

Heinberg is an Academician and scholar who is referring to established consensus views from EXPERTS. You are not seriously trying to imply, he holds this view by himself are you?


Heinberg, by his own admission dropped out of school (where he really liked playing a musical instrument) because he enjoyed being a pothead even more. So where does his academic background come into play, exactly? I'll give you he might know alot about being a stoner, but beyond that...you figure lack of experience in the sciences is an advantage in some weird way? Makes him scholarly...because he is a amateur violinist...and those folks must be really...scholarly...?

And his "experts" are NEVER people who oppose his advocacy in the first place...you might not have noticed, but Richard participates wholeheartedly in specifically going after the organizations that didn't buy into his claptrap on peak oil more than a decade ago now...you know..the folks who ARE academically qualified, certified scholarly, and even have experience within the business in question? And, as it turns out, were far more accurate than he has ever been after making one of his predictions, using his experience perhaps during a marathon violin playing session while stoned?
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby asg70 » Wed 07 Mar 2018, 11:58:48

Heinberg is a bright guy but the worst thing he did was light the match on the "peak oil caused the credit crisis" meme in 2008. That spurious talking-point has done more harm to peak oil credibility than anything he did to build it up in the first place.

Also, his Blackout book already feels anachronistic in fearmongering about coal supply when soon after it was published, electricity generation started shifting over to fracked gas.
[space to store bad short-term prediction currently vacant]
asg70
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1869
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 07 Mar 2018, 14:24:19

asg70 wrote:Heinberg is a bright guy but the worst thing he did was light the match on the "peak oil caused the credit crisis" meme in 2008. That spurious talking-point has done more harm to peak oil credibility than anything he did to build it up in the first place.


I sort of liked his left wing Pol-Pot fascism angle myself. The government must force everyone to the farms to be Amish, because OH NOES!!!! WEEZ ALL GONNA DIE!!!!

Sort of like Harold Camping, except from a amateur violin playing stoner angle.


asg70 wrote:Also, his Blackout book already feels anachronistic in fearmongering about coal supply when soon after it was published, electricity generation started shifting over to fracked gas.


I haven't been through that one. Does he know any more about coal geology and resources than he does oil and natural gas?
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Wed 07 Mar 2018, 20:41:56

peakoilwhen wrote:i get the impression that neither cog or asg70 are supports of abiogenic coal theory. What was it that made u think coal was biogenic?
You might try something like this. You can read can't you?
https://www.thoughtco.com/all-about-coal-1440944
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8927
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 07 Mar 2018, 21:36:50

vtsnowedin wrote:
peakoilwhen wrote:i get the impression that neither cog or asg70 are supports of abiogenic coal theory. What was it that made u think coal was biogenic?
You might try something like this. You can read can't you?
https://www.thoughtco.com/all-about-coal-1440944


Gee...coal is made of organic matter. Who would have thunk it! 5 minutes of reading and even the geologically ignorant can like...LEARN STUFF!!! Try it peakoilwhen, you might like it!

Image
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Yoshua » Tue 13 Mar 2018, 11:46:05

Peak and plateau conventional oil.

Image
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 05:45:42

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Tue 13 Mar 2018, 17:18:11

something that I find questionable about this graph is the ordinate plots crude and condensate.
I'd like to know how that is being derived from the EIA database versus the unconventional production given much of the condensate reported by EIA actually comes from unconventional fields. The EIA separate estimate of production from unconventional actually includes all of the condensate.
There is room for confusion here if the source isn't understood correctly.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6112
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests