http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7qx1FGRt54
Posted on 09/11/2009 11:46:37 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
Researchers at KTH have been able to prove that the fossils of animals and plants are not necessary to generate raw oil and natural gas. This result is extremely radical as it means that it will be much easier to find these energy sources and that they may be located all over the world.
“With the help of our research we even know where oil could be found in Sweden!” says Vladimir Kutcherov, Professor at the KTH Department of Energy Technology in Stockholm.
Together with two research colleagues, Professor Kutcherov has simulated the process of pressure and heat that occurs naturally in the inner strata of the earth’s crust. This process generates hydrocarbons, the primary elements of oil and natural gas.
According to Vladimir Kutcherov, these results are a clear indication that oil supplies are not drying up, which has long been feared by researchers and experts in the field.
Van Jones is not amused. ;o)
ROFLMAO!
does not matter...our messiah and the fakirs in charge in the Senate and the House wants us to be a 3rd world kingdom of poor serfs, beholding to the rulers for everything....and using donkeys and goats to pull our little carts to market to sell our baubles.
This debate has been going on for a while. I’m no expert, so my opinion is not worth much but here it is anyway. Evidence that I have read seems to suggest that oil really is actually produced by the planet. I think Thomas Gold was the guy that first wrote about this.
As someone who has spent his whole career looking for the stuff, I wish it were that easy.
No, they want US pulling our carts to market, with the donkeys and goats roaming free.
Supporting evidence for this is when a company drains an old field and comes back 10 or 20 years later to suck up any residue, they sometimes find that oil has seeped up into the empty spaces, filling up the previously-empty reservior with oil that is geologically younger than the previously-extracted oil. This is counter intuitive, since oil at a lower level should actually be OLDER than the oil on top of it. Wierd.
I don't profess to know anything about it except what I have just explained, and several old oil men have laughed loudly when I mentioned the theory to them. Still, it would be cool.
the democRATS’ Cap and Trade scheme is not based oil supply but on consumption. We could have oil coming out of our Barackholes and they would still want cap and trade.
Nice! Thanks
Any idea how much total Oil we have taken out of the ground these past decades?
It has to be an incredible amount. I’m unsure if all the dead material that created oil in theory is enough to cover what we have taken out of the ground. -shrug-
One thing I could never understand is how sulfur gets in the oil.
Sulfur is a volcanic product, from deep in the earth, and no organism decaying yields enough sulfur to produce all the sulfurous oil out there.
Also, aren’t there reports of fields that had been pumped dry, but years later were replenishing themselves with oil?
Peak lack of oil!
“As someone who has spent his whole career looking for the stuff, I wish it were that easy.”
So have these researchers found any of the stuff in Sweden, yet?
(To back up their claims)
I had someone ask me today why they were going to regulate toilet water volume and lightbulb usage, but not something else (don’t remember what) -
and it IS, indeed, all about the elitists controlling our consumption.
It’s all about controlling our consumption and our standard of living based on that consumption.
Sulfur kills plants,
so why is there so much sulfur in coal,
which is supposedly compressed plant matter.
Yes. I understand that in some cases it is just that technology has allowed us to get at previously capped oil, in some cases the high price of oil has made it economically feasible to go after the oil that was otherwise to expensive to extract, and yet in other cases there is just plain more oil there.
>>This is counter intuitive, since oil at a lower level should actually be OLDER than the oil on top of it. Wierd.<<
Unless the new stuff is seeping up from underneath.
But at this point, and to us lay people it is just, as you said, weird.
Exactly.
Also, oil fields are always located in porous rock (from what I read), allowing seepage up from below (since oil is lighter). Has any oil ever been discovered isolated in solid, non-porous rock?
The idea that the massive amounts of oil already extracted and that remain in the earth are all simply dead dinosaurs and pre-historic plants is laughable.
—there are no doubt many details of which we are unaware, of processes below about 25000 feet in the crust of the earth-—
Sulfur comes from evaporites deposited in and around the reservoir. The most common is anhydrite, which is CaSO4. Salt, also known as halite (NaCl) is another. They were deposited in hypersaline waters, such as the Dead Sea of today. Yes, there have been fields that have “burped” up some more oil but it probably leaking up the faults that are the trap for the field. Once the pressure is drawn down from production, you can get mini-earthquakes as the faults compensate for the pressure differential.
I can’t say that I know for sure, but generally speaking, due to the cost of exploration, you want to search in the highest probability areas.
Very little unless it is fractured. Mostly in the Texas Panhandle and Australia but they have conventional reservoirs overlying the tombstone.
Oil is not usually found below 10,000’ except in “cool” basins, such as the Gulf of Mexico. At higher temperatures, the Earth acts like a refinery and cooks the oil into more volatile members, like methane, butane, etc... Very little natural gas has been found below 20,000’ (except in these “cool” basins) because the overburden of the Earth crushed the porosity so that there is no place for the gas to reside.
What about the recent discovery of oil off Florida by BP? Here is the article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1210691/BP-strikes-giant-oil-Gulf-Mexico.html
According to the article, they must have drilled 30,000feet through the crust to get to it. If it is from plants and animals, how did it get that far under the crust, expecially if it is so light to begin with?
--my point was that we really have little detail knowledge of events and processes that deep except that they occur in high temperature, high pressure environments-
Even from what was known to be there before we would never have needed any sand monkey juice, ever!
Excuse my French, but the things who flew down the Towers were from right there , you know.
Speaking of that why don't we just bill them and have them build'um right back up?
Also, if the data is correct, those deep wells tend to fill back up quicker.
Post 12~14 = dead on , - not enough dinos (that wrong idea dates back to a lone Russian scholar in 1757), and sulfur?, oh, yeah, a one two punch there.
So many just accept stupid ideas and don't stop and think for themselves using basic facts.
I’ve had an idea that many concentrated surface ore bodies came from the cores of crashed asteriods. May be totally off-whack here though.
Just try, I dare you?
Now there's a good reason for a space program, n'est pas?
I mean who cares about the moon(unless there oil up there under all that cheese)?
—FYI, you might take a Geology 101 course or get a basic geology textbook and read up on ore deposition-—
Assume sediments form on a seabed at the rate of .01 inches per year. After 1 billion years, you will have total accumulation of 10 million inches which equals 158 miles!
“I work in oil and gas. There is a theory called The Abiotic Theory that says oil is not created from fossils and dinosaurs and stuff, but rather earth processes.
Supporting evidence for this is when a company drains an old field and comes back 10 or 20 years later to suck up any residue, they sometimes find that oil has seeped up into the empty spaces, filling up the previously-empty reservior with oil that is geologically younger than the previously-extracted oil. This is counter intuitive, since oil at a lower level should actually be OLDER than the oil on top of it. Wierd.”
Oil/gas can migrate within/along reservoir layers, from high pressure, to low pressure areas.
Primary recovery doesn’t “drain” a reservoir. It takes perhaps 5 - 15%.
Water, natural gas, air injection, (secondary recovery) augments this process by increasing pressure, and fluid movement/migration.
Seconday recovery may yield total production of up to 50% of the original oil in place.
Tertiary recovery might get another 15%, leaving 35% that is never recovered.
* disclosure - my knowledge is from technology 35 years ago. I worked in secondary recovery and reservoir engineering, with post grad. level engineers and geologists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
...very likly not abiogenic, as far as I've been informed, but "different" oil than was originally produced at that well.
His book, The Deep, Hot Biospshere, I think it was, makes fascinating reading.
You can’t be serious. How do you know it was sedimentary rock they drilled through?
I think the same calculation was done for the moon dust for the Apollo program. The feet of the LEM were designed to hold the craft up in feet of dust, like snowshoes. When they landed the dust was only about .25 inches thick. Did anyone go back through the calculations to readjust the age of the Moon?
LOL. Sand, salt and carbonates. For starters, the name of the formation "Lower Tertiary" should give a hint. Secondly, if you read my profile, you will see my family used to live in an out of the way part of South Louisiana. Guess what's big business it that part of the country?
There are several ways, including:
Where was “Lower Tertiary” mentioned in either article? Are you a peak oil theory advocate? I think the abiotic theory of oil is very interesting, especially since new deposits continue to be found at very great depths. If you look on the map, the deposit appears to be nearer to the Yucatan Peninsula than Florida.
No need to find any, just exterminate the environmentalists and use the hundreds of years of known oil in California!
That all may be well known (not to me), but it was not clear from the article what type of material was encountered. I am sure with a little “digging” we can find out from the crew who drilled it what they went through. Unless they do not want competitors to know what is involved?
How many pounds mass of animal and plant matter is required to make a lb of oil? And how did it get so deep? I have seen the theories about plate tectonics being the cause of organic matter being drawn into the depths, but does it really compute?
The Gulf is just one big hole filled in with sediment. The rock they are producing from (the Lower Tertiary)outcrops in Texas and is productive there as well. The crust is still several miles below. Basins can be very deep. Some, including the Gulf and Anadarko, can be over 50,000’ deep to basement.
Good question, but I don't know the answer. Maybe a petrophysicist will know, but I suspect the answer depends on the type of source material, pressures, depths, etc.
And how did it get so deep?
Primarily plate tectonics. The crust is moving all the time, even today. Mountains are forming, mountains are eroding, and plates are sliding over one another (resulting in volcanic activity). A plate is forced up (to form mountains) and the opposing plate is driven deep into the crust.
I have seen the theories about plate tectonics being the cause of organic matter being drawn into the depths, but does it really compute?
Yes, it does compute. There is often fossil evidence retrieved in core samples. For example, you might find brachiopod shells at a depth of 12,000 ft. These are fossilized remains of shellfish formerly on the sea floor.
bmflr
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.