Posted on 12/05/2006 1:02:40 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Are hydrocarbons "renewable"- and if so- what does such a conclusion mean for the future of the world's oil and natural gas supplies?
The question is critical due to the enormous amount of coverage the issue of "Peak Oil" is receiving from the mainstream press. If the supply of hydrocarbons is renewable- then the contrary to the conventional wisdom being touted throughout the mainstream press today- the world is NOT running out of oil.
Unbeknownst to Westerners, there have actually been for quite some time now two competing theories concerning the origins of petroleum. One theory claims that oil is an organic 'fossil fuel' deposited in finite quantities near the planet's surface. The other theory claims that oil is continuously generated by natural processes in the Earth's magma.
One of the world's leading advocates for the theory that hydrocarbons are renewable is Dr. Thomas Gold who contends that oil is not a limited resource, and that oil, natural gas and coal, are not so-called “fossil fuels.”
In his book, The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels, he explains that dinosaurs and plants and the fossils from those living beings are not the origin of oil and natural gas, but rather generated from a chemical substance in the crust of the Earth.
Dr. Gold: "Astronomers have been able to find that hydrocarbons, as oil, gas and coal are called, occur on many other planetary bodies. They are a common substance in the universe. You find it in the kind of gas clouds that made systems like our solar system. You find large quantities of hydrocarbons in them.
(Excerpt) Read more at 321energy.com ...
Someone earlier in this thread mentioned rock eating microbes. Is this a fact?
Of course, even if they have an inorganic origin, oil and gas might not be renewable at the rate we are currently using them.
Also, if they were organic, than they ARE renewable, because organic material is growing and dying all the time, it again would simply be a question of how quickly they renew.
It's very interesting.
I for one am interested in someday trying to expose the suppression of new technologies ...... which has been going on for many decades.
But that's more dangerous than coming up against the Clintons, isn't it?
;-)
Glad you enjoyed it. It really ticks me off how these astronomers foist this impact-splash theory on the public as if it was GOD'S WORD. We wouldn't even BE here if a mars had directly impacted the earth even 4.4 billion years ago : NO WATER. And when you ask them : where did the OCEANS come from, they clam up. A comet barrage? If the moon gets 5% of meteoric mass coming in, how come it's dry as a bone? How come venus doesn't have a "comet-ocean"? There are 384,000,000 cubic miles of water in the oceans now(there was more in the past, there's a "leak" mechanism), from 4.4B to 3.9B that's about 2 cubic mile, water-rich comets, for EACH and every YEAR for 500,000,000 years; hitting ONLY the earth, not the moon, not venus, just the earth. Obvious nonsense. Where I-S failed is #1 : statistics : hitting the earth's terminator at a precise point to re-launch the lunar mass beyond the roche lobe. Ask a rocket scientist how delicate a matter it is to get a satellite in orbit; and #2 : geochemistry : no WATER survives on a planet as hot as the sun. They went off the rails with the slow-down mechanism : an incoming planet, space probe, meteorite, whatever; will speed up as it approaches the planet. If it impacts it arrives at the terminal velocity(11 kps for the earth). If it misses it is just a slingshot back into a new solar orbit, probes to the outer planets use jupiter's gravity well to get a free boost on a new trajectory using this technique. Thus for capture to work you have to SLOW DOWN the object enough for it to go into at least a highly elliptical orbit. They chose direct impact and some of the forward momentum went into the lunar mass that flew beyond the Roche Lobe(about 16,000 miles). Nonsense, the incoming Luna(somewhat smaller twin to mars)was tidally shorn into a comma shape inside the Roche Lobe(up to 6 hours passage). The tail was roche-shredded/taffy-pulled into a long stream of lava-blobs(by Kepler's 2nd law) and thrown at high velocity out of the terran gravity well, a cosmic retro-fire if you will. But Luna was spinning prograde rapidly, thus the forward side spun-undercut the tidal bulge(surf's UP)and so as it emerged from the Roche Lobe the 2 parts went their separate ways. Thus the Remnant Core had less mass and greater c.g. to c.g. distance to terra(tidal bulge/rip-off was on the side facing terra)and so it was further rightward deflected from a fast parabolic escape orbit and into a highly elliptical but CAPTURED orbit in the terran gravity well. This then was the slow-down mechanism. Next came the bull elephant in the china shop number, the RC/moon now romped thru the ring system, perturbing most of it to the terran surface, and gaining SAM from it(approx the same masses). It still interacts with it, as ocean tides. Then came the .5B year period described by Gen 2:6 : hydrate molecules cooked out by plate tectonics, making land and sea(solids and liquids). Anyway, that's how the earth-moon system began, the third player, the ring system, is what you walk around on...and drink... Next : a fun idea for the oceans...
Don't bank on it. All the super giant oil fields Ghawar, Cantrell etc were found in the 40's, 50's and 60's. We now produce two barrels of oil for every barrel of new oil discovered. Although the typical western oil field yields more than original estimates, fields in the middle east typically fall short of the estimated reserves.
World oil consumption is now 30 Billion bbls/yr and is projected to grow by 50% by 2025 if present trends continue.
We are not about to run out of oil completely but the peak of production is almost certainly here either now or in the next 4-5 years. Major oil producers and exporters like Indonesia now produce less than they consume and now have to import oil. Aggregate non-OPEC oil production is now in decline.
Modern production techniques have improved the recovery factor from resevoirs but those techniques mean that when resevoirs decline they do so at a faster rate than before secondary and tertiary techniques were employed.
Saudi Arabia which everyone has hoped would fill in the demand gap, has been employing the most sophisticated techniques on its super giant fields for nearly two decades now. It uses enormous quantaties of sea water to inject into it's fields to keep up resevoir pressure. Declines in annual production in Cantrell the super giant Mexican field are now estimated at between 10-14%/anum. Mexico is not replacing its reserves as fast as it is producing. The largest oil field in China, Daquing, is in decline as are the two largest fields in FSU.
The world is not about to run out of oil but the era of cheap oil is over. New discoveries will be more and more difficult to exploit and will require larger and larger pools of capital. The oil industry is displaying all the signs of an industry in decline. Consolidations and mergers are the order of the day ( BP+Amoco+ARCO, EXXON+ Mobil, etc). There will be price fluctuations from temporary oil supply gluts but the long term trend will be rising prices in real terms. Whereas Saudi Arabia had a large margin of unused production capacity in the eighties and nineties they are now maxed out and have been unable to boost production capacity to the levels they were projecting five years ago. Some oil industry analysts project they will not be able to increase their production capacity much beyond 1-2 million bbls/day under the best case scenario.
Production of "non-conventional sources" ( Canadian tar sands etc) of oil require vast amounts of water to produce so exogenous factors may constrain amounts that can be produced.
The problem for us in The US is that our infrastructure is geared toward oil as the primary energy source for transportation. We need to move rapidly to reduce our dependence on oil and replace it, primarily by nuclear and renewables.
Houston we have a problem and it's not going to be cured by wishful thinking.
One would think. But then again, if oil is finite, then perhaps from a strategic point of view, it would be better to use up external sources first and leave the local stuff as a future reserve. That would be a governmental policy of course, and is purely conjecture on my part.
Yes, because the technology to convert coal to gasoline and diesel has been around since the the 1930's. Thus if "peak oil prices" ever become to much the market says that coal converted gasoline will become a competing source thus regular oil produced gas drops in price. It's all a matter of economics. There's enough coal for a thousand years.
Web Archive of Thomas Gold's website (at least that's what the Wiki says).
Do that and I'll be there with a stencil kit and paint 'Short Bus' on the side for ya!
LOL
Merry Christmas
Perhaps the hydrocarbon is limited is the same BS as Diamonds are rare.
However that said, then wells which were pumped dry should not have refilled. Is there any example of a well which was left for dry and is now back in full production?
Strategerist, you have mail, and you are one of the intelligent folks here. That's a good thing.
But, "ROFLMAO" --- rolling on the floor laughing in mayonnaise is not too classy ............... try extra virgin olive oil.
That's awfully big. Are you sure those numbers are correct, because that's bigger than the largest oil field in the world, which is in Saudi?
That is a pretty mercantilist view for the world's premier capitalist country.
We will never "run out" of oil. There are at least 6 trillion barrels on the planet. We have used up about 1 trillion and will use the 2nd trillion in about 30 years.
We will then "run out" of cheap oil. Alternatives will (and already are) going to become economically viable. We will use oil for the things for which it is cheaper which is probably plastics and chap stick. Perhaps also as jet fuel because that is a tough nut to crack.
The real thing for you to worry about is not whether or not we run out of oil, but rather running out of cheap oil.
The incredible economic growth of the past 200 years has been based in large part on increased energy use. Increasing energy use requires investing energy to recover more energy. The remaining energy can be put into growing the economy. Think of it as EROI - energy return on investment.
In 1900 it was about 25 to 1. In 1950 it was about 15 to 1. The Canadian oil sands produce an EROI of about 4 to 1. In other words it is much less productive method of extracting energy to grow our economy with expensive oil.
I happen to believe efficiency and alternatives can vastly improve this ratio. For the economy and prosperity growth it is this ratio that is more important than anything else you can name.
You are correct. It is awfully big.
Go here and check out the info on the Bakken Formation Reserve Estimates.here--,pdf file
While the estimates are "unofficial" until the USGS does their study, I have been working steadily as a geologist on these wells for 6 years now, with time off only for rig moves, running casing, and milling windows for secondary laterals. All the wells I have worked have been producers.
The proponents of this were telling us over a year ago that all the major oil fields on earth had been discovered and that there would be no more big finds. And then three months ago they discovered a huge find nine kilometers deep within the Gulf of Mexico which may turn out to be even bigger than Prudhoe Bay.
Thanks so much for that link!
Go here and check out the info on the Bakken Formation Reserve Estimates.here--,pdf file
I see where the confusion lies. The article you kindly linked is about the Bakken source rock, which might generate volumes on the order of which you stated. But these volumes would be contained within the multiple reservoirs throughout the Williston Basin, none of which would be the size of the Saudi field. You said you were tapping "a reservoir" estimated to contain between 100 and 500 Billion bbl.
"Unbeknownst to Westerners, "
Unless they are FReepers. Been hearing about this for a good while now.
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.