Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help



Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Discussions > Off-Topic Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-04-2008, 06:03 PM
Patriotic Scoundrel
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Posts: 1,610
Peak Oilers Lament - or,

all you Dino Juice people are suckas!

Friday, February 01, 2008


Oil Not a Fossil Fuel? [Ken Green]

Although you would not know it from reading articles about energy in the popular press, there are actually two competing theories about the nature of oil and natural gas. The dominant paradigm is that oil and natural gas are biogenic: that is, they are formed from compression of the remains of photosynthetic organism over centuries and millennia. The rival paradigm, which was developed in the 1800s by Russian scientists and popularized in the west by polymath Thomas Gold, is that oil and natural gas are abiogenic: that is, they are formed from non-biological chemical processes that convert carbon from one of the Earth's inner layers (the mantle) into longer carbon-chains as these lighter carbon compounds rise toward the surface of the Earth.

The different implications of the theories are relatively profound. In the biogenic theory, oil can only form in certain places over historical periods, and can only be formed and exist in a certain range of temperatures and pressures called the oil window, which generally corresponds to a layer of the earth from about 4-6 km under the surface, and then rise upward from there. In a biogenic framework, oil and natural gas are temporally finite, that is, they're non-renewable, and they are geographically constrained. That is, the place to look for oil and natural gas is in areas where oil-windows are possible, with geological formations that would retain the hydrocarbons (porous reservoirs and capstones). In the abiogenic theory, by contrast, hydrocarbons form perpetually at greater depths from carbon that was present from Earth's formation, and are then utilized by micro-organisms that convert the short-chain hydrocarbons into longer chains as they move through what Gold called the "deep hot biosphere." Depending on formation rates, the abiogenic theory might allow for self-renewing petroleum reservoirs, all over the globe, taking petroleum out of the category of "fossil fuel."

An article in Science today seems to suggest that the abiotic theory is correct. In a fairly dense article entitled "Abiogenic Hydrocarbon Production at Lost City Hydrothermal Field," researchers Proskurowski et al., find evidence of the abiogenic formation of short-hydrocarbon chains in an area where hydrocarbons would not otherwise be able to form by the biogenic theory. What Proskurowski et al. identified was the formation of carbon chains 1 to 4 carbon atoms in length, with shorter chains forming deeper, and with isotopic signatures ruling out biogenic origins. The conclusion of the article is as follows: "Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water, and moderate amounts of heat."

Even if oil and natural gas are abiogenic, there is no guarantee that the rates of formation are relevant in terms of changing our thinking about whether oil reservoirs are likely to deplete or not: It could still take millenia and huge areas to generate enough petroleum to be meaningful as an energy source. But an abiogenic view of petroleum formation could well change where we look for oil, and where we expect to find it. Conventional wisdom is that there are no more huge undiscovered petroleum reservoirs, but that wisdom has constrained where people look. With recent deep water finds like Chevron's Jack field, and now increased evidence for abiogenic petroleum synthesis, new exploration efforts could well turn the frown of the "peak oil hypothesis" upside down.
---
Anyway, interesting article. Especially since it will infuriate the gloom and doom crowd.

BTW, you have to have a subscription to Science Magazine to read the whole article - I don't...

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-04-2008, 06:23 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 214
http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm

I email the company mentioned in the article and asked about Eugene Island. They replied that they have lots of wells, could you be more specific. I emailed them the article, and they never responded!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-04-2008, 06:34 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,263
If the oil is biogenic, there is a limit. Suppose that there really is limitless oil and gas resources. Would it then be a good thing to burn it all, adding all of that to the outer reaches of the earth, where we try to reside?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-04-2008, 06:34 PM
Patriotic Scoundrel
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Posts: 1,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistel View Post
http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm

I email the company mentioned in the article and asked about Eugene Island. They replied that they have lots of wells, could you be more specific. I emailed them the article, and they never responded!
I don't know anything about the article you've linked to above other than it's about 10 years old.

You can read the Science Magazine article linked in the OP if you subscribe, just follow the link.
__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-04-2008, 06:39 PM
Botnst's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 44,601
Eugene island is here 28 02 53N 91 31 17W. If it looks like it's in the GOM you are in the right spot. The area has been in production a pretty good while and is geologically well known. Google is your friend.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-04-2008, 10:12 PM
Emmerich's Avatar
M-100's in Dallas
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 683
In order to have a hydrocarbon reservoir, you need a source rock (usually shales-marine deposition) and a structural or stratigraphic trap to contain the migrating hydrocarbons. They are biogenic, they have manufactured them in the lab before. All you need is pressure and temperature and let it cook.

Technically oil and gas are renewable, it is going on right now, but the consumption rate is greater than replenishment. We think.
__________________
MB-less
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-04-2008, 10:28 PM
Patriotic Scoundrel
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Posts: 1,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmerich View Post
In order to have a hydrocarbon reservoir, you need a source rock (usually shales-marine deposition) and a structural or stratigraphic trap to contain the migrating hydrocarbons. They are biogenic, they have manufactured them in the lab before. All you need is pressure and temperature and let it cook.

Technically oil and gas are renewable, it is going on right now, but the consumption rate is greater than replenishment. We think.
I was hoping you'd respond.

The article says basically the same thing you just said, but the author also points out that if it's a abiogenic process it might mean that oil is located places we haven't thought to look. Any thoughts on that? If so, where else would you look? What characteristics would be different abiogenic vs. biogenic deposits?
__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-04-2008, 11:46 PM
Emmerich's Avatar
M-100's in Dallas
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 683
From an exploration standpoint, the origin is not a big concern. Thats due to the fact that without the trap you have nothing. Knowing it is good background and may be helpful, but unfortunately it won't tell you where it is now. Reservoirs are found by:

1) Luck. Spindletop was drilled on a hill, someone figured maybe that hill extended underground. They were right.

2) Subsurface geology. Based on existing well data, such as formation tops, you try and extrapolate. The different types of reservoirs need different type of analysis. If you are chasing stream channels you do one thing, reef structures another, stratigraphic traps, another, etc.

3) Seismic. Most recently 3d seismic. This is used to image the sub surface. There is lots going on down there and trying to tie together reservoirs, faults, dipping beds, is VERY complicated and not at all definitive. 3d can be used to locate all sorts of traps and has better resolution than 2d seismic.

Most of the low hanging fruit has been picked, certainly in this country. The big new reservoirs will be deeper and harder to find. And unfortunately, usually in someone elses backyard who may not love the rest of the world all that much.

Right now there is 20TCF of gas sitting on top of Prudhoe Bay. No way to get it down here without a pipeline. A big expensive pipeline. The Alaskan oil pipeline is nearing the end of its life, I imagine corrosion is rampant. You won't see that talked about much in the press. The PR around that thing shutting down would not be good to the price of gasoline, even though the real impact is less. Most oil we use comes from Mexico and Canada.

Not to diverge, but in damn near any issue people argue about, just follow the money. How much of the immigration problem with Mexico is tied to the amount of oil they sell to us? I would guess its more than a trivial part of that pie.
__________________
MB-less
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-04-2008, 11:55 PM
Emmerich's Avatar
M-100's in Dallas
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 683
Oil and gas are ALWAYS found in the same types of basin and rocks, they just don't occur randomly underground. The Permian Basin in West Texas is a big example. Reservoirs are associated with subsurface traps and those traps are caused by certain types of features. Basins, ancient seabeds, meandering streams, marine reefs, etc. In the Gulf, these are very young rocks and the traps are almost always defined by faults. Along the Gulf Coast onshore there are a lot of reservoirs around salt domes, traps are formed by the breaking of the beds when the salt intruded upwards. In the Rockies, you have the Overthrust belt where beds and mountains were pushed up over existing rocks. These are a tiny number of examples.

In recent years, new technology has made unconventional reservoirs economical. Shale gas is big now. Horizontal drilling is great because of the accuracy we have in drilling. Unfortunately a lot of new technology is misused. We are an industry slow to learn from mistakes.

Unfortunately, the drillers and producers usually don't get a big return on their money. They absorb the risk. The oil biz is a lot like real estate, the guys flipping deals and companies are making out like bandits. The guys holding the drill bits don't.
__________________
MB-less
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-04-2008, 11:59 PM
Emmerich's Avatar
M-100's in Dallas
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 683
I work an area of Utah, in the NE corner of the state. Mostly BLM land. If we want to drill, we have to pay for special studies concerning wildlife and birds so we don't disturb a Mexican spotted owl when it tries to take a dump. It can take a year to get drilling permits. We have weather windows we must drill in as well. Anybody that says the Bush administration has favored oil companies is full of ****. When Bush 41 got elected, i was jumping for joy because we had an oilman in the White House. Didn't change SQUAT. Ditto for BUsh 43. Most of the time you are dealing with individual states (even on federal land) so you are at their mercy. Nobody is suggesting environmental issues be ignored, but the regs have become so onerous is amazing anybody want to mess with it at all.
__________________
MB-less
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-05-2008, 12:51 AM
Patriotic Scoundrel
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Posts: 1,610
Thanks for the info. I don't know much about oil exploration and it seems very interesting. I found the article in the OP in passing and it looked interesting. As usual there's much more to things when you drill down into them - sorry, bad pun...

I guess at some point in time the environmental regs were necessary. I see the "environmental" movement today less concerned with the actual environment and science and more concerned with doing away with anything business related or capitalist. A knee jerk response to anything that is for profit with more in common with socialism than science. It's too bad because there is absolutely no reason why business can't thrive while being protective of the environment. Yet, as you point out they are unnecessarily antagonistic. The nuclear power industry comes to mind, but oil has always been consistently hated. As I've said numerous times before, increasing the standard of living does more to increase true environmental concern than anything else. There's no quicker way to do that than competition in the market place.
__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-15-2008, 12:15 AM
Emmerich's Avatar
M-100's in Dallas
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 683
Your first paragraph is spot on. I read about the oil business in the paper and internet, and the ignorance and incompleteness is astounding. This about your line of business (whatever it is). Now think about stories you read about it and how far off they are. The press knows very little about EVERYTHING, they pas sit on and the general masses absorb it like it was gospel. You really do need to drill down to the truth, trouble is people are too lazy.

I remember the line from "Men in Black" where Tommy Lee Jones is telling Will Smith the existence of aliens must be kept a secret. Will says they should tell people, since they are smart. Jones says "a person is smart, PEOPLE are dumb".

Environmental regs are good, nobody suggest they go away. But when you end up cutting off your nose to spite your face it makes little sense. It reminds me of unions. They are willing to strike an auto plant and put it out of business and all the workers lose their jobs, but hey, the union still lives, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peragro View Post
Thanks for the info. I don't know much about oil exploration and it seems very interesting. I found the article in the OP in passing and it looked interesting. As usual there's much more to things when you drill down into them - sorry, bad pun...

I guess at some point in time the environmental regs were necessary. I see the "environmental" movement today less concerned with the actual environment and science and more concerned with doing away with anything business related or capitalist. A knee jerk response to anything that is for profit with more in common with socialism than science. It's too bad because there is absolutely no reason why business can't thrive while being protective of the environment. Yet, as you point out they are unnecessarily antagonistic. The nuclear power industry comes to mind, but oil has always been consistently hated. As I've said numerous times before, increasing the standard of living does more to increase true environmental concern than anything else. There's no quicker way to do that than competition in the market place.

__________________
MB-less
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page