Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Abiotic Oil Thread pt 3

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

Re: THE Abiotic Oil Thread pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 09 Jan 2018, 15:56:47

GHung wrote:
Tanada wrote:This is a topic we have pounded for a long time, I am saddened that the general media still thinks it is a viable topic of conversation.


Uh,,, the media from Sept. 14, 2011 ?

Another oldie from Sub's Wayback Machine. Not sure why.


While that article is indeed older I did a quick google news search and there have been a least a half dozen mentions of abiotic oil in the last 12 months. I didn't quote or link any of them because they are all basically the same, either abiotic oil is the real source of all petroleum theories, or abiotic oil is refilling the reservoirs and that is why Saudi Arabia will never run out of oil to sell us or a couple actually saying the 'unproved theory' of abiotic oil which can still leave people with the impression it is like Global Warming and only science deniers don't believe in it.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15446
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Abiotic Oil Thread pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 10 Jan 2018, 17:23:56

Eugene Island 330 Field was studied and explained by real scientists (geologists and engineers) long ago. The increased production was due to the shallower reservoirs being recharged by oil leaking up fault planes from slightly deeper reservoirs. Complex explanations but the short answer: as shallow reservoirs decreased in pressure it caused a flow potential was created due to higher pressures in deeper reservoirs.

Very complex situation way beyond bumper sticker mentalities. Here's enough data to dull any mind here: http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/easr ... 0paper.pdf

BTW the Rockman was part of the team that worked on EI 330 in the mid 70's. No well drilled every came in it was projected to. But every well was a keeper.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Abiotic Oil Thread pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sat 13 Jan 2018, 17:45:00

Actually I saw an interview with this petroleum geologist and it got me wondering again so I did a news search.
Professor V.A. Krayushkin, head of the Department of Petroleum Exploration in the Institute of Geological Sciences of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in Kiev.


However when I did the news search the first thing that came up was the article I posted above. I misread the date and thought it said 2017 not 2011.

This article is from 2016 so clearly the theory is still currently discussed in some quarters of the world.

Since about the 1880’s, Western geologists have promoted the unproven idea that oil and gas–hydrocarbons–are scarce on this planet. That idea of scarcity of new finds, combined with the idea of depletion of old fields, appears to make empirical sense amid reports of old oil fields going dry. After all, Western geologists argue, oil is a fossil fuel, derived from organic material–dead dinosaur detritus, tree leaves, algae. And the volume of that biological detritus from some two hundred thirty million years ago is clearly finite. The only problem is that reality has now been proved to be quite the opposite of petroleum scarcity. That’s very good news, or should be, because it means that the cause for more than a century of wars, fight for scarce oil, is unnecessary.

An elite, cross-disciplinary team of Russian and Ukrainian scientists (in those days it was one Soviet Union) were given the mandate by Stalin in the early 1950’s to make the USSR during the Cold War totally independent of Western oil imports for her economy. What the brilliant Russians scientists discovered was that oil, far from being biological in genesis, was abiotic. Moreover, they posited, and later proved that it was being continuously newly generated deep in the Earth’s mantle and pushed to the surface or as close to it as the subsurface geology allowed. The Earth’s dynamic core was one huge radioactive oven that constantly created new hydrocarbons–oil, gas, coal, even diamonds, another rare hydrocarbon.


https://journal-neo.org/2016/03/05/need ... -over-oil/
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4395
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Abiotic Oil Thread pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Sun 14 Jan 2018, 16:25:16

Stalin era Soviet science was the next best thing to voodoo. Consider the theories of Lysenko. Real science was suppressed in favour of such rubbish. Abiotic oil is straight from the same steaming pile of Stalinist BS.

What is more interesting is the quite real abiotic production of CH4. I wonder how much of the clathrates and cryosphere seabed CH4 really due to biotic processes and how much is abiotic. The Yamal peninsula and its exploding permafrost appears to the due to CH4 seeping from much deeper in the crust and not just the usual organic carbon reservoir in the permafrost. If these explosions were related to organic CH4, then they would be happening in Canada and elsewhere. Permafrost melt is not exclusive to the Yamal peninsula. Organic CH4 formation and storage in the Yamal peninsula does not show any outlier behaviour as well.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5545
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Abiotic Oil Thread pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sun 14 Jan 2018, 16:58:19

d - "The Yamal peninsula and its exploding permafrost appears to the due to CH4 seeping from much deeper in the crust and not just the usual organic carbon reservoir in the permafrost." Why do you think the permafrost methane could not have migrated from organic sources many thousands of feet below the permafrost? Such deep organic sources have been documented all around the world. Perhaps I'm reading you wrong but you seem to believe that permafrost methane deposits can only come from in situ organic sources. That's not true. Any shallow methane deposit could come very deep organic sources. I've produces NG from reservoirs at less then 2,000' that clearly migrated up a major fault from a source rock more then 20,000' down.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Abiotic Oil Thread pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby diemos » Mon 15 Jan 2018, 16:05:23

dissident wrote:Stalin era Soviet science was the next best thing to voodoo. Consider the theories of Lysenko. Real science was suppressed in favour of such rubbish.


People who gain political power and can dictate the structure of society often fall into the trap of thinking that they can dictate what reality is just as easily.

All sorts of madness lie down that road.
User avatar
diemos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Abiotic Oil Thread pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Mon 15 Jan 2018, 19:39:35

ROCKMAN wrote:d - "The Yamal peninsula and its exploding permafrost appears to the due to CH4 seeping from much deeper in the crust and not just the usual organic carbon reservoir in the permafrost." Why do you think the permafrost methane could not have migrated from organic sources many thousands of feet below the permafrost? Such deep organic sources have been documented all around the world. Perhaps I'm reading you wrong but you seem to believe that permafrost methane deposits can only come from in situ organic sources. That's not true. Any shallow methane deposit could come very deep organic sources. I've produces NG from reservoirs at less then 2,000' that clearly migrated up a major fault from a source rock more then 20,000' down.


Your reply answers my part of my question. It is common to view CH4 emissions from permafrost as being due to decomposition of organic carbon and not from melting clathrates with an abiotic origin or conventional gas reservoir leaks. My basic question remains: how much of the CH4 reservoir accessible to drilling is due to biotic processes (ancient swamp carbon burial like coal) and how much is due to abiotic process from ongoing rock chemistry. I see no clarity on this anywhere.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5545
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Abiotic Oil Thread pt 3

Unread postby MD » Tue 16 Jan 2018, 03:15:10

it's one of the most interesting ff discussions. Not relevant to circumstance, but interesting. I am very much in the middle in my opinions, but who cares?
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4951
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 02:00:00
Location: On the ball

Re: THE Abiotic Oil Thread pt 3

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 16 Jan 2018, 13:32:05

d - " ...how much of the CH4 reservoir accessible to drilling is due to biotic processes (ancient swamp carbon burial like coal) and how much is due to abiotic process from ongoing rock chemistry. I see no clarity on this anywhere." And I doubt you ever will. The two camps are so opposed to each other's position there is no middle ground.

And to respond to MD's question of who cares: the Rockman doesn't give a f*ck one way or the other. LOL. That's why I've claimed to believe all oil/NG has an abiotic origin: it doesn't matter so why care? Oil/NG is only produced from commercial reservoirs where oil/NG is FOUND. Over the last 5 decades the industry has developed excellent exploration technology needed to FIND such accumulations. Yes: the success rate is much higher today then when the big conventional fields were discovered. No: there WAS NEVER any "low hanging fruit". That phrase is used by folks who never worked in the industry. Yes: decades ago there was huge "fruit" to be harvested compared to today. But IT WAS NOT low hanging. The Rockman is redeveloping a field today that was discovered in 1946. In a trend at a depth of only 5,000'. And this trend, which almost no one here has ever heard of, has produced 4.5 BILLION BBLS OF OIL. And there were individual fields that produced as much oil as being found today in some of the Deep Water GOM. And the success rate in the 40's/50's was much lower then they are having in the DW GOM. And that old trend is still being drilled today. But instead of finding fields containing hundreds of millions of bbls the new discoveries are finding 5 to 10 million bbls of oil. And not many of them.

And the history of oil development of this trend wasn't dependent upon the oil being biotic or abiotic: it depended only on finding those oil accumulations. The geologists that found the fields didn't give a f*ck where the oil was created...only where it migrated to and was trapped.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Abiotic Oil Thread pt 3

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Tue 16 Jan 2018, 14:04:49

That's why I've claimed to believe all oil/NG has an abiotic origin: it doesn't matter so why care? Oil/NG is only produced from commercial reservoirs where oil/NG is FOUND.


and one of those technologies is basin modeling which is still used extensively in the International arena. Over the years I'd used Basinmod and Temispak to model maturation and migration in places like Algeria, Sudan, Indonesia, Colombia, Russia etc. This is where it does actually matter that oil is organic in origin...the models work. And without an organic origin there would be no shale production of oil and gas in the US (in-situ maturation with no migration). Certainly in basins where the maturation and migration of hydrocarbons has been proven and is pretty well understood it no longer matters, all you need is a trapping configuration with good seal. But that doesn't negate it's importance elsewhere.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6879
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Abiotic Oil Thread pt 3

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 16 Jan 2018, 15:00:58

True Doc. But how many basins do you know of that haven't been drilled and samples tested for oil generation? Modeling was critical decades ago. Not so much today. And the conversation dealt with current exploration efforts.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Abiotic Oil Thread pt 3

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Tue 16 Jan 2018, 16:29:33

True Doc. But how many basins do you know of that haven't been drilled and samples tested for oil generation? Modeling was critical decades ago. Not so much today. And the conversation dealt with current exploration efforts.


I will have to check and see what Doug Waples has been doing these past few years consulting. He seems to stay pretty busy and he is the guy after all who pretty much brought basin modeling to the mainstream oil and gas business in the early eighties.
Do know that overseas it is still used to predict maturation of shale basins to rank them for potential shale gas/liquids maturation. The USGS a couple of years ago used their own 4D basin modeling program to understand the importance of the Tumey shale to petroleum generation in the San Joquin basin. ENI also did some 3D basin modeling in the Pearl River Mouth Basin and presented that work a couple of years ago (it is a complex area and there has been some arguments as to where there is still prospectivity).
The technique is being used extensively now to test other theories regarding diagenesis, fault timing, migrating timing etc.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6879
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: The Ethane Thread

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Sat 23 Mar 2019, 08:39:37

all this economic waffle is uninteresting. What is interesting is the geology of ethane. Today methane is accepted by everyone in science to be produced abiogenically in the interior of worlds. When they saw everyone else, petrologists dutifully followed suit and accepted methane was produced abiogenically. The pressure in the mantle is enough to press hydrogen atoms onto the carbon atom.

But that leads to an interesting question, at what point in the HC chain list do fossil fuel believers think that abiogenic processes fail? Rockdoc has a minor heart attack everytime he is forced to use his only argument against abiogenic petroleum : the mantle is too hot so petroleum will break down into natural gas. Break down to what... 100% pure methane? Or is ethane and propane abiogenic too? And if propane, perhaps a tiny bit of butane and pentane get thru too?
What are the hydrocarbon seas on Titan made of? 100% methane? Or is there some ethane there as well?
All in all its a slippery slope, or a pandora's box for fossil fuel believers. Once they open the lid on abiogenic hydrocarbon, there's no going back, and the lid is already open because methane has been ousted as abiogenic. Ethane is next in line.
peakoilwhen
permanently banned
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: The Ethane Thread

Unread postby diemos » Sat 23 Mar 2019, 10:23:21

Total crap.

There are situations where hydrocarbons can be formed abiogenically but they still require an energy source and feedstock to do it. Earth's interior is not one of those situations.

All of these fuels where formed by photosynthesis and then cooked into their current form by being buried in the earth.

It's not a pandora's box because we understand that different things happen in different situations. That there's an ocean of methane on Titan is interesting but not relevant to the processes that are going on in the earth's interior.
User avatar
diemos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 02:00:00

Re: The Ethane Thread

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Sat 23 Mar 2019, 10:56:35

is it possible for this forum to degenerate further? How retarded do you have to be to not know methane is abundant in the solar system, yet think you can write flippantly on a subject you've never red a single word on? This is one of the criteria for standards for being a retard on this forum.

1.Write with total authority and confidence on a subject you've not red a single word about

Meanwhile, for anyone who can read :
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... e-science/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon)

>That there's an ocean of methane on Titan is interesting but not relevant to the processes that are going on in the earth's interior.
Why? cos you say so? You've been to both these places and scientifically studied their origin processes for 20 years each? No you haven't, instead you're a inept religious fool suffering from a god delusion.
The possibility that methane is produced on both these world via the same processes is wide open to being true, and is seriously considered by conservatives.
peakoilwhen
permanently banned
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: The Ethane Thread

Unread postby diemos » Sat 23 Mar 2019, 12:38:33

peakoilwhen wrote:The possibility that methane is produced on both these world via the same processes is wide open to being true, and is seriously considered by conservatives.


You reveal yourself.

Liberals believe all sorts of stupid things.

Conservatives believe all sorts of stupid things.

When it comes to the nature and operation of the physical world the only people I pay attention to are scientists. There are no scientists who believe that there is any noticeable rate of production of abiogenic hydrocarbons on earth.

But please let us know:
Why hydrocarbons aren't found in exploitable quantities everywhere? Why only in specific geological formations that were laid down millions of years ago.
Why aren't those formations refilling at any noticeable rate?
The necessary concentrations of reactants and heat to drive those reactions are known. What is the mechanism that is going to create those conditions on earth?
What is the mechanism that's going to pull the carbon dioxide out of the air and put it back in the ground to make more hydrocarbons? Why has that mechanism not had any noticeable impact on our journey from 280 to 410 ppm?
What's the energy source that's going to drive this highly endothermic reaction?

We await your scientific acumen.

and a shout out to all the petroleum engineers on the board. Thank you for making my comfortable energy intensive lifestyle possible. Try to keep the balls in the air for another 10 to 20 years.
User avatar
diemos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 02:00:00

Re: The Ethane Thread

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Sat 23 Mar 2019, 12:47:58

You reveal yourself. Liberals believe all sorts of stupid things. Conservatives believe all sorts of stupid things. When it comes to the nature and operation of the physical world the only people I pay attention to are scientists.


...without the slightest inkling of how dumb you read. I wonder if your braincell can understand that the concept of conservatives vs progressives extends beyond the single subject of politics, which is the only one you've been told to understand by your handlers. It can be applied to other subjects too, sport, commerce, family... and science. There are tory scientists who wish to preserve old theory, and progressive ones who are more ready to discard old theory when faced with disruptive new evidence. If you ever understand this paragraph, then go back and re-read my last post, and this time you might understand some of it.
peakoilwhen
permanently banned
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: The Ethane Thread

Unread postby diemos » Sat 23 Mar 2019, 12:58:33

I wish you knew how dumb you read.

All scientists want their ideas to match the physical world. They only vary in how much evidence they require before old theories are abandoned in favor of new ones. Sometimes that requires the old generation to die off but not always.

The production of abiogenic hydrocarbons is understood. It is not happening on earth at any rate that will make any difference for our current civilization.
User avatar
diemos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 02:00:00

Re: The Ethane Thread

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Sat 23 Mar 2019, 13:53:16

>They only vary in how much evidence they require...
You've rephrased what I've just told you and then told it back to me. I guess that's as close as you'll come to admitting you were wrong with your political interpretation of the my use of 'conservative'.

>The production of abiogenic hydrocarbons is understood.
I guess that's as close as you'll come to acknowledging the peer reviewed papers on laboratory creation of abiogenic petroleum.

>It is not happening on earth at any rate that will make any difference for our current civilization.
I guess that's your way of saying 'Abiogenic hydrocarbon may be being created in the mantle '
But have you spent the last 20 years sat in the mantle carefully monitoring mantle petroleum creation rates? How about uploading a few videos of your home and transport systems that shuttle you to all 100s of your monitoring stations down in the mantle?
Wake up to reality, you are in no position to make such broad conclusions.
peakoilwhen
permanently banned
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: The Ethane Thread

Unread postby diemos » Sat 23 Mar 2019, 14:04:18

peakoilwhen wrote:But have you spent the last 20 years sat in the mantle carefully monitoring mantle petroleum creation rates?


Have you?

In any event, please continue to cling to your fantasy that an endless cornucopia of hydrocarbons will flow up from the mantle to keep our civilization going indefinitely.
User avatar
diemos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests