To suggest that hydrocarbons have only bonded twice in the history of Earth is absurd. Hydrocarbons are constantly being generated in the Earth's mantle. http://www.geotimes.org/june03/NN_gulf.html
Hope is not reality. The reality is that new discoveries are not light, sweet crude in vast quantities. It's deep, it's of poor quality, it's more expensive to extract and process, in some cases it's unusable due to contamination. New discoveries that are economically viable are not being made at a rate that will forestall peak oil.
Hmmm, June 2003- so where are all the new discoveries from this theory? It has been known for ages that some oil can percolate upwards from deeper reservoirs and refill ones being drained just now. This does not justify any fantasies about oil formation that are being promoted here.
So far we had pick oil in 2005, so until that level of production is surpassed, the fact is unarguable... Theoildrum.com explains everything you ever wanted to know about pick oil, but you were too stupid to research it on your own. Oh yes, gravity is a myth too....
How many barrels per day was that? We currently produce over 85 million barrels per day which is more than in 2005. You really ought to do some research. http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/04/279-many-wrong-predictions-of-ken.html http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/03/264-simmons-predictions-flop.html Theoildrum is laughable. I'm not surprised you think that.
2 mbd more than today, simple as it is. My, my, but I am the idiot to get down to your level... [ You are laughable my friend and too stupid to notice. We gonna say goodbye here, because life is to valuable to waste on you.... Go educate yourself until it is too late...
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Indeed. You have no clue what is going on this universe.
Simple way for you two to make sense- find references for the amount of oil produced per day, then we compare references and see which number is greater. I expect Syzygys to be capable of this, but not oim.
First of all it's peak oil not pick oil. Second, we didn't peak in 2005. According to the EIA world production in 2005 was 84 million barrels per day. Today production is 85 million barrels per day.
No, read it again: 2005- 84.6 million/ day average 2007, six month average- 84.3 million. That seems a pretty big discrepancy from your claims.... Looks like your both wrong.
LOL a 6 month average is not a 12 month average. We are currently producing 85 million barrels per day. Ask anyone.
I have some issues with OilisMastery's approach to the important topic of oil origins and production. Issue 1: In a debate on the science it is not especially helpful to exchange personal remarks. I trust if OiM responds to this post he sticks to obective rather than objectionable observations. Issue 2: OiM states the following This has the appearance of a strawman argument. No petroleum scientist or engineer claims that crude oil comes from fossils. As has been pointed out earlier in the thread fossil fuel is a term that means the reserves (be they gas, oil, tar or coal) are geologically old. IF OiM is aware of this, then he is deliberately trying to confuse the discussion. If he is not aware of it it calls into question his seld declared expertise in this area. Issue 3: OiM states the following This is incorrect and it is another strawman argument. As has been pointed out on another thread the 7,382' appears to relate to the deepest dinosaur fossils ever discovered. Fossils are routinely found at much greater depths. (Personally I have seen them from below 12,000' or 13,000'.) In addition, since the crude oil is not derived from fossils the greatest depth a fossil has been found at is wholly irrelevant. Issue 4: OiM states the following A continuation of the strawman argument. One has to say 'so what?'. In addition, I think this is probably an error of fact. I would not be surprised to learn that one day we prudce oil from such a depth, but I do not believe we are doing so at present. I should be interested to hear from OiM where exactly we are doing this. To save time OiM, please note that I am not interested in being told we are producing oil from a well that was drilled to 30,000'. (Many wells are drilled much deeper than the production zone. ) Nor am I interested in learning that we are producing gas from 30,0000'. Give me a clear example of oil production from this depth. Issue 5: OiM, you have taken the provisional hypothesis of a handful of researchers and accorded it the status of a full blown, thoroughly validated theory. That is not good science.
It is unfortunate that the pseudo-scientific, almost insolent stance adopted by posters such as OilisMastery draw attention away from serious consideration of the hypothesis that oil has an abiogenic origin. Their focus on fatuous, irrelevant and faulty arguments about the depth of oil production, or where fossils are to be found, detracts from proper consideration of some quite interesting observations. For example, in a 2001 paper (Freund,F. et al Organic protomolecule assembly in igneous minerals, PNAS, vol 99 No. 5 , 2001) relate that water and carbon dioxide, dissolved in the matrix of olivine, will dissociate then form C-H entitities. Such segregation appears to occur at, for example, crystal lattice dislocations. Modelling suggests that the segregation of C can lead to Cx chains, x4, with the terminal C atoms anchored to the MgO matrix by bonding to two O. Allowing H2 to react with such Cx chains leads to [O2C(CH2)2CO2] or similar precipitates. It is suggested that such CxOHyOOz entities represent proto molecules from which derive the short-chain carboxylic and dicarboxylic and the medium-chain fatty acids that have been solvent- extracted from crushed MgO and olivine single crystals, respectively. Such results suggest that it is worth considering an abiogenic origin for at least a proportion of sub-surface petroleum.
Of course crude oil dosn't come from fossils. Fossils are hard, dry mineral replacements of the organisms that died and rotted away leaving a mold for the minerals to collect. A fossil is merely a casting. The original organism contained the proto-oils that were cooked under tremendous pressure for millions of years to become what we call crude oil today. Oil has a lesser specific gravity than earth and always percolates up until it comes to an impervious rock layer where it tends to accumulate. These layers may be piercement salt domes or statigraphic traps such as strike/slip or thrust faults. When it pools or is absorbed into sand or sandstone, it can be drilled. Fossils at 7,382 feet below the sea floor? What sea floor? The one three hundred feet deep in the Gulf of Mexico or below the bottom of the Marianas Trench? That kind of generality is careless and deceptive. Deep water drillers would be drilling thirty thousand feet below it for a total of nearly sixty thousand feet below mean sea level. That ain't gonna happen for a while. 30,000 foot wells are very rare even for deep drillers in relatively shallow water. Not too many company geophysicists are willing to sign off on such a venture even when working for deep-pocket oil companies. They have their jobs and reputations on the line for an endeavor that could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. They have to be very sure of a major field to risk it. I read the "oil master's" website. There is, as usual in such places, an eclectic mix of fact and fiction that can fool a layman if he/she doesn't do their homework. I try to keep an open mind, even after forty years of seismic oil and gas exploration, so I try to keep up with Thomas Gold and other contrarians. Some mavericks have actually discovered mistakes in conventional thinking. Many, in fact. But, they were sincere and actually on to something. When things get confusing and new paradigms are coming out, so do the scam artists and crystal gazers. Some are in it for the money. Some for the hell of it. They all learn some of the vernacular so to sound as if they know what they are talking about, but it's pretty easy for someone who does it for a living to spot the inconsistancies. Beware the Generalizations. That's the givaway. T Rasa
I challenge you to name a place where we aren't drilling that deep. I know you're not interested in facts which contradict your religious prejudices and biases. It would require an extra server to list them all but here you go: Tupi. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=44545 7 Miles Deep: http://www.sakhalin1.com/en/news/press/20070423.asp
Note: you seem unable to distinguish between the depths we might drill to and the depths we produce from. Would you like me to explain why these two numbers are typically different? The deepest reservoir in the UK sector of the North Sea is 13,488'. Most reservoirs are less than 10,000'. [Source: United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields, 25 Years Commemorative Volume. ISBN: 0-903317-62-1] In a DOE study on the Persian Gulf, reservoir depths were considered in these categories: low case - 5,000'; medium case - 9,000'; high case - 15,000'. These depths were based upon the reservoir depths in the countries surrounding the Persian Gulf. [Source: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/petroleum/tr0606.pdf] Whichever petroleum basin we might look at would reveal the same pattern. Most reservoirs are at depths of less than 10,000'. A few will be found at depths approaching, and rarely exceeding, 15,000'. Your claims are shown to be wholly incorrect. Please stop promulgating nonsense. Here is another example. I have repeatedly asked you to offer us examples of oil production from 30,000'. [I have acknowledged that, perhaps, one day we may produce some oil from that depth in an exceptional setting. I challenged and debunked your fooolish notion that such production is routine.] You offered these as examples of oil production from 30,000'. From your first link - The "ultra-deep" Tupi field was found under 7,060 feet of water, another 10,000 feet of sand and rocks and a further 6,600 feet of salt I make that 23,660'. Not only are you seemingly ignorant of geology, drilling technology and petroleum exploration, but your arithmetic also appears suspect. By offering your second link you demonstrate that you completely fail to understand how wells are drilled today. The majority of production wells are directional wells. Several wells are drilled, at an angle, from a single location. Consequently the measured depth of the well is much greater than the true vertical depth of the well. This is especially true of extended reach wells, which are horizontal or near horizontal for much of their length. That is the case in your linked example. The TVD (True Vertical Depth) in this instance is around 5,000'. Such a blatant failure to understand the subject area is just making you look foolish.
For someone who claims to work in the industry your ignorance of ultra-deep water drilling is astounding. I just called Transocean. Guy Cantwell said they've drilled to TVD of 35,000 feet. This is from this morning: http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/27/petrobras-energy-brazil-emerge-cx_cg_0527markets07.html
"The companies said an exploration well called Stones #3 had hit reservoirs of natural gas and oil in 7,500 feet of water and at a total depth of 29,400 feet." Still kind of 11 000 feet away from 40K...
Ophiolite: obviously most oil wells are drilled to shallow depth because it's cheaper. http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=27874 Thunder Hawk - TVD = 25,885 feet. http://www.rigzone.com/data/projects/project_detail.asp?project_id=286 Now that I've shown your ignorant claim that ultra-deep oil wells don't exist to be utterly wrong, I challenge you to provide a link showing any fossil has ever been found so deep in the history of the world. So far you have been unable to do so.
