No, most of the wells are shallow because that is where the oil is. Please do not be a lying, dishonest sneak. I have never claimed that deep oil wells do not exist. I have simply asked you to validate your claim that oil has been produced from 30,000'. You have still failed to do so. 25,885' is not 30,000. Your first link is as irrelevant as nearly all of your links are. It refers to changes in legislation that would encourage operators to drill to 25,000' and beyond. It does not state that such drilling is commonplace. As for your remarks about Transocean drilling to 35,000' TVD, read my lips - They were not producing oil from that depth. Do you understand. so far we have no oil - that I am aware of - being produced from 30,000' or deeper. I am still waiting for you to provide evidence that this has ever happened. Ever.
I'm still waiting for a link showing fossil depth with TVD past 15,000 feet. But anyway, here are some 3 year old statistics that will show how utterly ignorant you are. For exploration greater than 15,000 ft TVD on the shelf during the period 2003-2005, 115 wellbores (45 in 2003, 41 in 2004, and 29 in 2005) were drilled by 35 operators. Anadarko - 15 wells - average TVD 21,495 feet. Chevron - 13 wells - average TVD 25,965 feet. BP - 10 wells - average TVD 21,831 feet. Kerr-McGee - 9 wells - average TVD 20,592 feet. Again, this is ancient history. We are going much deeper now. http://www.offshore-mag.com/display...loration-and-development-below-15,000-ft-TVD/
I've never met someone so enthusiastic about oil. You must look at people who don't know much about oil and just shit yourself laughing and then joke about their ignorance with all your oil-nut mates. Remember the houston oilers? Now that was a football team.
Expletive raised to the power of desperation. Listen you ****ing idiot. Can you read where it says exploration. Exploration means we are looking for oil or gas. (Get that OR gas, which most certainly can be found at considerable depth, exactly in line with current theories for petroleum formation.) It does not mean they are finding oil. It does not mean they are producing oil. Again, for the fourth ****ing time, wells are typically drilled to a greater depth than the producing horizon(s). Do you actually think 115 wells is a lot of wells? It isn't. The majority of wells continue to be drilled to shallow and medium depths. You continue to fail utterly to provide a single example of oil production below 30,000'. You produce information that is irrelevant to your contention. conducting exploration drilling to 25,000' is not the same as producing oil from 30,000'. What do you find difficult to understand about this? Even if you came up with ten examples where this has occured, I shall respond with 10,000 examples where production is from shallower depths. Way shallower. Way, ****ing way shallower. Now please stop polluting this thread with your unscientific, ignorant nonsense.
"There are two kinds of coaches, those that have been fired, and those that are gonna be fired." Bum Phillips However, at that time, in the late Seventies I was a Cowboys fan, as I lived in Dallas.
It doesn't make economic sense to drill deep looking for natural gas. They are drilling deep looking for oil. The current theory of petroleum formation is the abiotic theory. http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm Every well I showed is an oil producing well. That was 3 years ago. We are drilling more and more every day. Because it's cheaper. I'm not going to link you that until you provide a fossil link. My contention is that no fossil has been found anywhere near that depth. STILL waiting for you to show otherwise. Because it's easier and cheaper.
http://www.oilonline.com/news/features/aog/20061027.Facing_u.22532.asp Read it and weep. P.S. Still waiting for the deepest fossil link.
Just ha d a quick look for you - here's a link to a fossil found in 1967 from a borehole 2.5 miles deep http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1969.tb00122.x obviously as this discovery was made some time ago - and as its a vertebrate - there will be other invertebrate fossils from significantly greater depths
Our friend Ice Age does not find such matters "obvious". Rocks made of metamorphed crinoid shells, microscopic unicell inclusions, etc, do not count as "fossils", either. Think "Great Flood w/ Rainbow" for your geology.
Measured depth is not TVD. So the deepest fossil ever discovered is 2.5 miles deep, yet ExxonMobil is drilling for oil 7 miles deep. Why would ExxonMobil drill down 7 miles if oil comes from fossils that are only 2.5 miles deep? And why would Transocean spend $750 million on rigs that can drill 40,000 feet deep? Why not just spend a few cents on a toothpick and poke into marine sediments?
Look you idiot, the only reason why we are drilling very deep for oil is, because we have to. Nobody wants to drill 40K feet if you can find it much closer to the surface. Of course if oil was abiotic, we would get the old field replenished, but that is not happening. So the point is, that all this "we are drilling deep" is just an argument AGAINST your stupid abiotic dream and an evidence FOR peak oil. Was I clear enough???
Very scientific. We have to because that's where it is. Close to the mantle where it is formed. Exactly. It is happening. You're just ignorant of the geological facts. See here: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645 http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm http://www.geotimes.org/june03/NN_gulf.html Global oil production is currently 86.9 mbpd, the highest in world history. Something tells me clarity has never been your strong point.
I spoke with Chris at Anadarko yesterday. He personally confirmed to me that they produced oil from the Grand Cayman well at 32,440 feet TVD. Read it and weep.
So does this abiotic oil conjecture apply to all oil or just some? - for example what about oil shales that never quite made it to becoming full blown crude (I forget why - i think it was either infufficient burial time or inadequate capping rock) - like the kimmeridge clay shales that are exposed at some places on the south coast of Britain - they are packed with fossils and clearly of a biotic origin.
If a cow farts methane does that mean that methane only comes from cows and there is no methane on Saturn VI (Titan)? Is water biogenic because it can be found in living organisms?
True scientists have more questions than they do answers and I count myself among them. The Fossil Fuel Cult even says diamonds are biogenic: http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/d...ch_calgary/abstracts/extended/mello/mello.htm Let's be real scientific and just say the whole universe is biogenic LOL.
Indeed they do - I'm just trying to understand a little more about aboitic oil, from an advocate like yourself I'm a biologist but do have a smattering of undergrad level geology in my education so i should be able to follow it just about. It seems to me that while there are indeed organic molecules forming in the crust through abiotic processes, these seem to be restricted to methane, and in relatively small amounts - I am suspicious that certain individuals have taken this and then jumped to conclusions that the data doesn't really support for political reasons rather than any good scientific reasons - after all predictions made by biotic oil formation have served petrochemical geologists pretty well so far in finding oil. I have an open mind though - convince me.
http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/ You can read the links under Introduction To The Science Of Abiotic Petroleum Origin and the technical papers below it.
Is that your site? I've spotted one mistake already - the "some oil is older than life itself link" It describes the pre-cambrian source rock as part of the Riphean sequence - they were laid down between 1.6 bya and 800 mya - well after life first appeared.
