Oil unlimited?

[Thiebear]

Russia has been drilling the Super deep wells...

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040608-092733-4642r.htm

Predictably, the recent rise in oil prices has the usual doom-and-gloom crowd, which has consistently been wrong for 30 years, saying once again that this proves we are running out of oil and that severe curbs on gasoline consumption must be imposed to preserve what little is left for future generations. They need not worry. There is growing evidence that oil is far more plentiful than we have been led to believe.

The prevailing theory of the origin of oil is the dead dinosaur hypothesis and dates back to the 18th century. Its originator was a Russian scientist named Mikhail Lomonosov, who put it this way in a 1757 paper: "Rock oil (petroleum) originates as tiny bodies of animals buried in the sediments which, under the influence of increased temperature and pressure acting during an unimaginably long period of time, transforms into rock oil."

However, in the 1950s, Russian and Ukrainian scientists developed a new theory about petroleum's origins called the abiotic or abiogenic theory. According to this view, oil is fundamentally inorganic and has no relationship to dead plant or animal life. Rather, oil originates deep in the Earth's crust from inorganic material that is part of the planet's origin.

In the words of geologist Vladimir Porfir'yev, "The overwhelming preponderance of geological evidence compels the conclusion that crude oil and natural gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the Earth. They are primordial materials which have erupted from great depths."

For more than 50 years, Russian and Ukrainian scientists have successfully used the abiotic theory to find oil and natural gas. For example, the Dnieper-Donets Basin has yielded a significant amount of oil and natural gas even though it is an area that conventional biological theories reject as unpromising. A recent technical paper found that the results "confirm the scientific conclusions that the oil and natural gas found in ... the Dnieper-Donets Basin are of deep, and abiotic, origin."

As Russia has opened up since the fall of the Soviet Union and because it has become a large and growing factor in the international oil market, American scientists are becoming increasingly knowledgeable about and interested in the abiotic theory of petroleum. Recently, the National Academy of Sciences published a paper on the topic. The Gas Research Institute has financed exploration based on abiotic theories, with encouraging results. And the American Association of Petroleum Geologists has taken an interest in the subject as well.

The leading supporter of the abiotic theory in the United States is Thomas Gold of Cornell University. His 1999 book, "The Deep Hot Biosphere" (Springer-Verlag) is a thorough discussion of the issues. It is based in part on research financed by the U.S. Geological Survey. Among leading scientists whose work supports the abiotic theory are Jean Whelan of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Mahlon Kennicutt of Texas A&M University and J.F. Kenny of the Gas Resources Corporation.

Interestingly, economic research also implicitly supports abiotic theory. A leading researcher in this regard is Michael C. Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research and formerly chief energy economist for DRI-WEFA.

In a new paper, Mr. Lynch debunks a common theory called the Hubbert Curve, which postulates that the yield of oil fields is inherently limited. The problem, as Mr. Lynch points out, is that actual experience in many instances contradicts the Hubbert theory. Its primary flaw is that it views geology as the sole factor in oil discovery, recovery and depletion. In fact, oil prices, government policy and technology play critical roles. But the evidence he presents of oil fields that yielded far more than the Hubbert Curve predicts is consistent with the abiotic theory, which says that oil fields can be refilled from sources well below those in which production now takes place.

Finally, it is important to remember that improving technology improves the oil situation regardless of the theory of its origins. A study last year by Cambridge Energy Research Associates found that five emerging technologies — remote sensing, visualization, intelligent drilling and completions, automation and data integration — will greatly improve the ability of energy companies to increase their drilling success rate, better manage reserves and operate more efficiently.

William Severns, the study's leader, explained, "With these capabilities, companies may be able to increase the amount of oil and natural gas recovered in a given field by 2 percent to 7 percent, reduce lifting costs by 10 percent to 25 percent, and increase production rates by 2 percent to 4 percent."

Of course, higher prices also make known deposits of oil that were previously too costly to exploit viable economically, as well as reducing demand. Consequently, it is impossible to ever literally run out of oil. The possibility should not be a factor in the energy debate.

Bruce Bartlett is senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis and a nationally syndicated columnist.

[Johnny Punani2]

very interesting article.

Here is a paper from Thomas Gold who is studying the theory on abiotic petroleum...

http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/usgs.html

Here are some more articles on the theory

http://gasresources.net/DDBflds2.htm

http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/gold_pr.html

http://www.csun.edu/%7Evcgeo005/Energy.html

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm

[@DCGoldPants]

even if there is more than we can now access, it doesn't mean we shouldn't be going full speed to a cleaner energy.

The environmental impact is visible around cities. Just look at the air around LA, Denver, etc.

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Bufford

even if there is more than we can now access, it doesn't mean we shouldn't be going full speed to a cleaner energy.

The environmental impact is visible around cities. Just look at the air around LA, Denver, etc.

true, but if it's correct then we have a hydrogen rich fuel for fuel cell cars.

[Riggo-toni]

Originally posted by Bufford

The environmental impact is visible around cities. Just look at the air around LA, Denver, etc.

All of which are made significantly worse by the government imposed addition of Ethanol to gasoline in urban areas. Sceince has shown ethanol actually consumes more energy than it yields, and produces smog far worse than un-oxygenated fuels. But as long as the first presidential caucus is held in Iowa, don't look for the insanity to stop any time soon.

[Beaudry]

Originally posted by Riggo-toni

All of which are made significantly worse by the government imposed addition of Ethanol to gasoline in urban areas. Sceince has shown ethanol actually consumes more energy than it yields, and produces smog far worse than un-oxygenated fuels. But as long as the first presidential caucus is held in Iowa, don't look for the insanity to stop any time soon.

Actually, technology has made it possible to refine ethanol using much less energy. In the earlier stages of development, ethanol did consume more energy than it produced, but that is simply no longer the case.

[Destino]

I read that and thought, there must be another side to that story and of course there is.

http://www.energybulletin.net/2423.html

Long but good read.

Here are some highlights....

More to the point, Gold also claimed the existence of liquid hydrocarbons—oil—at great depths. But there is a problem with this: the temperatures at depths below about 15,000 feet are high enough (above 275 degrees F) to break hydrocarbon bonds. What remains after these molecular bonds are severed is methane, whose molecule contains only a single carbon atom. For petroleum geologists this is not just a matter of theory, but of repeated and sometimes costly experience: they speak of an oil “window” that exists from roughly 7,500 feet to 15,000 feet, within which temperatures are appropriate for oil formation; look far outside the window, and you will most likely come up with a dry hole or, at best, natural gas only. The rare exceptions serve to prove the rule: they are invariably associated with strata that are rapidly (in geological terms) migrating upward or downward. (4)

The claims for the abiotic theory often seem overstated in other ways. J. F. Kenney of Gas Resources Corporations, Houston, Texas, who is one of the very few Western geologists to argue for the abiotic theory, writes, “competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological materials since the last quarter of the 19th century.” (12) Reading this sentence, one might assume that only a few isolated troglodyte pseudoscientists would still be living under the outworn and discredited misconception that oil can be formed from biological materials. However, in fact universities and oil companies are staffed with thousands of “competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics” who not only subscribe to the biogenic theory, but use it every day as the basis for successful oil exploration. And laboratory experiments have shown repeatedly that petroleum is in fact produced from organic matter under the conditions to which it is assumed to have been subjected over geological time. The situation is actually the reverse of the one Kenny implies: most geologists assume that the Russian abiotic oil hypothesis, which dates to the era prior to the advent of modern plate tectonics theory, is an anachronism. Tectonic movements are now known to be able to radically reshuffle rock strata, leaving younger sedimentary oil- or gas-bearing rock beneath basement rock, leading in some cases to the appearance that oil has its source in Precambrian crystalline basement, when this is not actually the case.

If it sounds too good to be true.....

Who knows, scientists can be wrong and maybe abiotic will prove to be true. However, as of right now the reality is that it's a minority theory that is FAR from being proven or accepted by the scientific community. It is a industry friendly (and no doubt funded) theory similar to the "humans can't do lasting harm" garbage used to justify arguments against clean air standards.

[Thiebear]

Originally posted by Destino

I read that and thought, there must be another side to that story and of course there is.

http://www.energybulletin.net/2423.html

Long but good read.

Here are some highlights....

If it sounds too good to be true.....

http://reactor-core.org/peak-oil.html

15k? how bout 40k?

[Destino]

Originally posted by Thiebear

http://reactor-core.org/peak-oil.html

15k? how bout 40k?

From your link.....

"The theory underlying how oil is formed at such enormous depths in the mantle of the earth is not central to this report, because the Russians have already proved its point of origin in absolute drilling terms more than 300 times."

Yes folks the "Russians" have already proven it, so stop asking questions. With fact based claims like that, how can anyone doubt the validity of these great theories. Look at other oil companies and their tiny successes compared to the oil giants of Russia. It's clear that this Russian science is superior!

I smell BS everytime I read a report claiming proof in science but always failing to point out published accepted reports and how they did in peer review and lab testing.

[Dead Money]

I'd like to know how much of the fuel/gasoline we use in the US is actually refined in the US...

It seems to me that there is a trend to purchase refined fuel from other countries, possibly a reason for increasing fuel prices.

I'm all for a cleaner environment, but cutting down on refineries in the US makes us even more dependant on these othe countries, doesn't it?