Oil Fields' Free Refill - More oil than we thought (maybe)

Newsday ^ | April 16, 2002 | Robert Cooke

[visagoth]

DEEP UNDERWATER, and deeper underground, scientists see surprising hints that gas and oil deposits can be replenished, filling up again, sometimes rapidly.

Although it sounds too good to be true, increasing evidence from the Gulf of Mexico suggests that some old oil fields are being refilled by petroleum surging up from deep below, scientists report. That may mean that current estimates of oil and gas abundance are far too low.

[webwide]

Gold's primordial, abiogenic methane theory's just don't cut the ... mustard.

Funny, the Russians have been pumping billions of barrels found using those 'theories'...

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Energy.html

The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins is not controversial nor presently a matter of academic debate. The period of debate about this extensive body of knowledge has been over for approximately two decades (Simakov 1986). The modern theory is presently applied extensively throughout the former U.S.S.R. as the guiding perspective for petroleum exploration and development projects. There are presently more than 80 oil and gas fields in the Caspian district alone which were explored and developed by applying the perspective of the modern theory and which produce from the crystalline basement rock. (Krayushkin, Chebanenko et al. 1994) Similarly, such exploration in the western Siberia cratonic-rift sedimentary basin has developed 90 petroleum fields of which 80 produce either partly or entirely from the crystalline basement. The exploration and discoveries of the 11 major and 1 giant fields on the northern flank of the Dneiper-Donets basin have already been noted. There are presently deep drilling exploration projects under way in Azerbaijan, Tatarstan, and Asian Siberia directed to testing potential oil and gas reservoirs in the crystalline basement.

[Dog Gone]

Basement doesn't necessarily mean basement. In many cases, it's simply Pre-Cambrian rock which has been buckled and overthrust. There are plenty of examples of that, even in the US where we drill through and below basement rocks in the Rocky Mountains to find oil.

I can't speak to this specific Russian geology, because I don't know the stratigraphy of the region. But, the paragraph quoted doesn't prove the theory without the presence of a lot of other facts not quoted.

[capitan_refugio]

There has not been a great deal of credible literature out of the former Soviet Union. I don't have a problem with reservoirs in crystalline rocks. For instance, there are several oil fields in the Los Angeles Basin that produce from weathered, fractured schist "basement." Small amounts of high gravity oil was produced from the Pelona Schist near Placerita, in the Ventura Basin.

The crux of the matter is where the oil and/or gas is coming from. If a hypothetical giant gas field contained 100% methane and had no nearby mature sedimentary source area, you might have a case. However, of the Siberian Fields I have studied (particulary from the AAPG "Treatise on Petroleum Geology" series), it is clear that the have a fair amount of more complex hydrocarbon, such as butane, ethane, etc. This is pretty clear evidence of a thermogenic origin of the natural gas.

There is an old saying, "Oil is first found in the minds of men." And another that states, "You don't find much new oil in old places with old ideas. You either need to look in new places or have new ideas." To that end, I don;t mind the abiogenic gas idea ... I just need some proof.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for sharing this with us.

There are two key points in your excellent reply"

1. We should never be careless about spilling oil or making unnecessary messes in any of the handling of oil form the well to the refinery and to the end user.

2. Oil is not the toxic bad thing that the eniviral Nazis have made it to be. They have done this anti Big Oil thing as per their masters, the Opecker Princes. This anti oil attitude in America keeps us from drilling for new oil. That makes us more dependent on Opec Oil. That means more petro $'s going to the Opecker Princes. Then, they send some of those petro $'s to their terrorists to fund terrorism throughout the Middle East and around the world.

[tpaine]

You are correct concerning previous Thomas Gold threads! There must have been abundant abiogenic methane during the creation of the solar system. But the article deals with petroleum hydrocarbons. The simplest hydrocarbon is methane. Most methane produced today is biogenic methane - the product of organic decay (or digestion - just hang around a cow sometime!!!) I have textbooks on organic chemistry and geochemistry (much of which is waaaaay beyond what I even want to know) which show pretty convincingly the relationship between complex organic hydrocarbons and the rocks from which they were sourced. Gold's primordial, abiogenic methane theory's just don't cut the ... mustard.

--------------------------------------

Isn't it part of Golds theory that abiogenic methane is made into biogenic methane by biological processes deep in the earth? -- I believe his latest book 'The Deep Hot Biosphere' outlined his ideas. --Made sense to me.

[capitan_refugio]

I too, am familiar with his book (but I did not buy it). Here is a clip from a recent review:

"But Gold's most controversial idea, as physicist Freeman Dyson notes in the book's forward, is that of the nonbiological origin of natural gas and oil, which he first proposed more than 20 years ago. These hydrocarbons, Gold postulated, come from deep reservoirs and are composed of the material from which the Earth condensed. The idea that hydrocarbons coalesced from organic material is, he says, quite wrong. The biological molecules found in oil, he avers, show only that the oil is contaminated by microbes, not that it was produced by them.

Some researchers, and in particular petroleum geologists, have taken issue with Gold's proposal. They are likely to be even more put out by his new book, which says that these microbes populate the Earth's interior down to a depth of several miles and that everything we see living on the planet's surface is only a small part of the biosphere. The greater part, and the ancient part, is very deep and very hot."

I don't have problems with Gold's ideas about deep, subterranean bacteria. Nor do I have a problem with the idea that abiogenic (or "abiotic") methane gas is still emanating from the earth's mantle.

The fundamental problem I have with Gold's approach is his "Show me where I'm wrong" approach. Orthodox scientific methodology would require that he first show why the status quo is wrong, and he hasn't done that. If fact, there are lots of gaps and leaps-of-faith in his thinking.

Case in point, and one of the weakest links in his theory: Spectroscopic analysis has shown a strong relationship between the geochemistry of a particular hydrocarbon and the organinc, kerogen-rich source rocks from which they are produced. There are many different types of petroleum substances, with a very wide range of geochemical properties. Gold would have you believe that either (1) different microbes were responsible for the various property differences, or (2) the resultant petroleum is "contaminated." Yet he does not attempt (as far as I know) to explain the source rock relationship. (Keep in mind, that the source rock can sometimes be very distant (in time and space) from the reservoir in which the petroleum is found.)

Gold also has a tendency to mis-represent the results of his Siljan Ring test and the Russian Kula Peninsula ultra deep well. What was found in those wells was meager at best, and not at all exciting to a geologist who needs to make a living by producing commercial amounts of oil and/or gas. If there is a huge reservoir of deep gas, it hasn't been detected by standard geophysical methods.

Call me a skeptic, but Gold needs to put more on the table to gain (or re-gain) credibility outside of his real profession.

[tpaine]

I don't have problems with Gold's ideas about deep, subterranean bacteria. Nor do I have a problem with the idea that abiogenic (or "abiotic") methane gas is still emanating from the earth's mantle.

The fundamental problem I have with Gold's approach is his "Show me where I'm wrong" approach. Orthodox scientific methodology would require that he first show why the status quo is wrong, and he hasn't done that. If fact, there are lots of gaps and leaps-of-faith in his thinking.

-----------------------------------

Gold's presenting a theory, an idea, and having it rejected because he can't 'prove the status quo is wrong', is pretty much like, -- "prove you stopped beating your wife."

It seems that the defenders of othodoxy never learn. - Or, more aptly, -- don't want to learn, because new ideas might upset the 'scarce oil' apple-cart.

[GraniteStateConservative]

You left off that list FReeper idol-to-some Sen. Bob Smith.

[Grampa Dave]

Yeah, wouldn't you like see how many Opecker Petro Blood $'s went to some enviral and then to the so called great conservative, Smith. I hope he loses by a tremendous land slide, and he gets flushed down to where he belongs!

Thanks for bringing this phone up in this thread!

[_Jim]

So are more dinosaurs dying off to replenish the store of "fossil fuel"?

Exhibition of simple thinking ... in a universe absolutely brimming with carbon and hydrogen - in what various forms do you suppose those elements exist?

Neatly packaged bags of charcoal briquettes at the grocery store?

[_Jim]

Nope. It's completely unrefined.

I was under the impression that more and more refined products were being 'tankered' to our shores - it's rather ineffective to tanker a lot of crude THEN refine into components not all of which may be marketable or bring as much as s certain refined product ...

[Dog Gone]

Well, the question is whether the crude is partially refined before being loaded onto a tanker, and I was answering in that context.

We actually have quite a bit of refined product coming into the US. Much of the gasoline on the eastern seaboard was refined in Venezuela, and we get shipments in of other refined products like diesel and kerosene.

But, by far, what we bring in is unrefined crude, which is in its original form, straight from the wellhead.

[rustbucket]

When prices spiked in the late 1970s, a few of these wells were re-entered and re-logged (primarily looking for bypassed, or behind pipe reserves). But lo! and behold!, reservoir pressures were found to be much higher than when shut in, and some almost back to original (estimated) pressures.

Many oil and gas reservoirs are connected to large aquifers -- large accumulations of water in the surrounding porous and permeable rock that may stretch for many miles away from the reservoir. When the oil or gas is produced from the reservoir, the pressure in the reservoir declines. The body of surrounding water then slowly expands and pushes water through the reservoir rock into the field, thereby recharging reservoir pressure over a period of years.

This natural water drive is a more likely explanation for reservoir pressure recovery in shut-in wells than the recharge of oil. A rapid recharge of oil to a reservoir would be an unusual, non-typical case.

[rustbucket]

We don't have oil spills the size of the Exxon Valdez in the Gulf of Mexico.

See the following: Oil Seeps in the Gulf of Mexico.

Natural seeps from one area of the Gulf leak twice as much oil to the water surface annually as the Exxon Valdez spilled. Of course, the Gulf oil is spread out over time and over a large area, where the Exxon Valdez release occurred in just a matter of a day or two.

It is hard for an animal to handle being coated with thick bulk oil. Once that phase of an oil spill is past, there is very little, if any, long lasting damage to the environment from a spill. Oil is a natural product. Bacteria eat it, bigger things eat the bacteria, and so on up the food chain.

[_Jim]

this will be real upsetting to the Opecker Princes,

Just who are these 'Opecker Princes' any way?

I don't think you have the slightest idea who or what makes up OPEC -

- furthermore, I think that you believe it is comprised ENTIRELY of Middle Eastern countries (it's not!) ...

For your homework - impress us all with a little research on just WHO it is that comprises "OPEC" ...

[_Jim]

Then, they send some of those petro $'s to their terrorists to fund terrorism throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Just who is it that Gramps Dave thinks is OPEC anyway?

OPEC consists of eleven oil-producing and exporting countries, from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America.

[Grampa Dave]

Opecker Princes are the worthless Princes from Saudi Arabia and Kuwaiti! Like the POS Opecker Prince who just visited GW! Is that a good enough description, JIM!

Do you work as their shoe shine boy or Pr flack?

[capitan_refugio]

That's is a good observation. In those fields where the reservoir is very porous and permeable, the water drive would act to "push" the petroleum hydrocarbons (which are less dense than the saline reservoir water), like a natural form of a water flood (secondary production method). If you were to conduct a series of production and shut-in tests, you would be able to determine the type of reservoir drive at different points in a field's productive life.

It has been some time since I read that Texas study. My recollection was the reservoir drives was gravity or solution depletion.

[dtel]

Index Bump.
Good stuff here.

[CPT Clay]

bump