Oil depletion responsible for cooling of earth's core?

[Write4U]

Researchers say Earth's core may be cooling 'more rapidly than expected'
BY MYCHAEL SCHNELL - 01/19/22 04:03 PM EST

In a paper published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, a group of researchers reported that the Earth’s mantle is “much more efficiently cooled, which would ultimately weaken many tectonic activities driven by the mantle convection more rapidly than expected from conventionally believed thermal conduction behavior.”

The researchers noted that the rate at which the Earth has been losing heat “directly links to the fundamental question on how long the Earth will remain dynamically active.”

Earth has been cooling throughout its 4.5 billion year history, according to the researchers, but the rate at which temperatures have been dropping is still being scrutinized, NBC News noted.

The researchers examined bridgmanite, a conductive mineral that can be located between the core and the mantle of Earth, according to NBC News. The team wrote in the paper that the mineral is 1.5 times more conductive than it was thought to be, which suggests the planet may be cooling at a quicker rate than previously believed.

If we use oil in freestanding heaters because oil stays hot for a long time, is it possible that our draining of the earth's oil reserves is contributing to an increased rate of cooling of the earth's core?

• Thermal Convection: Using thermal convection and radiant heating, oil-filled space heaters warm the surrounding ambient air, pulling in cooler air and pushing it out via the oil-filled fins. Thus the heated air rises, pushing cooler air down where it is warmed by the heater.
• Internal Resistor: The resistor inside the oil-filled heater converts the electricity into heat, which heats the oil, also known as diathermic oil, inside the heater fins.
• Diathermic Oil: As the diathermic oil is heated, it evenly fills the outer fins of the radiator. This oil helps retain the heat generated by the resistor even when the heater has switched off. It also has a high heating capacity, so it never burns off or needs refilling.

(https://www.sylvane.com/blog/what-makes-oil-heaters-so-popular/)

Think of the trillions of gallons of oil sucked from the earth in the past 300 years. Is it just possible that this oil was responsible for heat retention throughout the earth's core and mantle?

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...-earths-core-may-be-cooling-more-rapidly-than

Does oil come from the core of the earth?

Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring
Oil may not be formed the way we think it is.

They hold that oil can be derived from hydrocarbons that existed eons ago in massive pools deep within the earth's core. That source of hydrocarbons seeps up through the earth's layers and slowly replenishes oil sources. Sep 14, 2011

The oil industry too has its own distinct labels which include the "Peak Oil" theorists, those who believe the world is fast depleting the finite supply of fossil fuel; and the pragmatists, those who recognize that engineering and technological advances in oil drilling and extraction continuously identify new reserves that make oil plentiful.

And there's a third group you may not know. These people are deeply interested in oil and its origins, but their advocacy of "abiotic theory" has many dismissing them as heretics, frauds, or idealists. They hold that oil can be derived from hydrocarbons that existed eons ago in massive pools deep within the earth's core. That source of hydrocarbons seeps up through the earth's layers and slowly replenishes oil sources. In other words, it turns the fossil-fuel paradigm upside down.

How Much Oil is There?

Perhaps the breakthrough for this theory came when Chris Cooper's story appeared April 16, 1999, in The Wall Street Journal about an oil field called Eugene Island. Here's an excerpt:

Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, was supposed to have declined years ago. And for a while, it behaved like any normal field: Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330's output peaked at about 15,000 barrels a day. By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels a day.

Then suddenly—some say almost inexplicably—Eugene Island's fortunes reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels a day, and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million. Stranger still, scientists studying the field say the crude coming out of the pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed 10 years ago.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/09/14/abiotic-oil-a-theory-worth-exploring[/quote]

 

[billvon]

Researchers say Earth's core may be cooling 'more rapidly than expected'
BY MYCHAEL SCHNELL - 01/19/22 04:03 PM EST


If we use oil in freestanding heaters because oil stays hot for a long time, is it possible that our draining of the earth's oil reserves is contributing to an increased rate of cooling of the earth's core?

• Thermal Convection: Using thermal convection and radiant heating, oil-filled space heaters warm the surrounding ambient air, pulling in cooler air and pushing it out via the oil-filled fins. Thus the heated air rises, pushing cooler air down where it is warmed by the heater.
• Internal Resistor: The resistor inside the oil-filled heater converts the electricity into heat, which heats the oil, also known as diathermic oil, inside the heater fins.
• Diathermic Oil: As the diathermic oil is heated, it evenly fills the outer fins of the radiator. This oil helps retain the heat generated by the resistor even when the heater has switched off. It also has a high heating capacity, so it never burns off or needs refilling.

(https://www.sylvane.com/blog/what-makes-oil-heaters-so-popular/)

Think of the trillions of gallons of oil sucked from the earth in the past 300 years. Is it just possible that this oil was responsible for heat retention throughout the earth's core and mantle?

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...-earths-core-may-be-cooling-more-rapidly-than

Does oil come from the core of the earth?

Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring
Oil may not be formed the way we think it is.
How Much Oil is There?
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/09/14/abiotic-oil-a-theory-worth-exploring

[/QUOTE]

 

[billvon]

Oil depletion responsible for cooling of earth's core

Nope. The Earth is cooling because the heat of its formation is slowly leaking away into space, and there's not enough energy from the remaining internal nuclear reactions to keep the core as warm as it once was. Simple thermodynamics.

And we've used a lot of oil, but the amount is not measurable compared to the mass of the Earth, nor is the change in thermal impedance measurable.

 

[Write4U]

And we've used a lot of oil, but the amount is not measurable compared to the mass of the Earth, nor is the change in thermal impedance measurable.

Thanks for the reply.

I am not convinced that the comparative example holds. A house can have 2 or 3 oil heaters
containing a total of 10 gal oil (?), yet they can keep that entire house heated at a comfortable temperature.

I asked the question based on the data that available (recoverable) oil reserves may run out in some 40+ years, at current consumption which is:

Data from BP Statistical Review, Oil & Gas Journal, World Oil, BP Statistical Review, CEDIGAZ, and Oil & Gas Journal.

1,449,841,867,685 Oil left (barrels)

15,120 Days to the end of oil (~41 years)

Countdown to the end of Oil:

Assumption: If consumed at current rates

https://www.worldometers.info/

How much oil has ever been used?

Looking at the total consumption by decade, consumption has increased from almost 200 billion barrels in the '70s to nearly 350 billion barrels over the last decade. All told, from 1969 to 2018, a fifty-year span, the world has consumed 1.306 trillion barrels of oil. Aug 20, 2019

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that the world consumed 96.92 million barrels per day in 2016, with the top 10 consumers accounting for 60 percent of the total consumption. That’s nearly 100 million barrels per day.

At today’s average oil price of $60 per barrel for Brent crude, that’s $5.8 billion consumed. Every. Day.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/How-Much-Crude-Oil-Has-The-World-Really-Consumed.html

 

[billvon]

I am not convinced that the comparative example holds. A house can have 2 or 3 oil heaters
containing a total of 10 gal oil (?), yet they can keep that entire house heated at a comfortable temperature.

You are seriously trying to make a comparison between the Earth and an oil filled heater. Because they both . . . contain oil?

That's ridiculous even for you.

 

[Write4U]

Because they both . . . contain oil?

Yes.
They both radiate heat. If the principle is the same size should not be an issue, only the ratios.

I will admit that I am not well informed about geological processes, but let me clarify my thought process here.

There is one demonstrable fact that what was once sequestered CO2 (oil) has now raised the global temperature by several degrees and the result are already noticeable in the form of climate and weather change, merely by driving a few cars.

Point being that the ratio of oil extracted from the earth is considerable more than the stable ratio of an oil heater in a house.

 

[exchemist]

Yes.
They both radiate heat. If the principle is the same size should not be an issue, only the ratios.

I will admit that I am not well informed about geological processes, but let me clarify my thought process here.

There is one demonstrable fact that what was once sequestered CO2 (oil) has now raised the global temperature by several degrees and the result are already noticeable in the form of climate and weather change, merely by driving a few cars.

Point being that the ratio of oil extracted from the earth is considerable more than the stable ratio of an oil heater in a house.

First, we don't use oil in heaters because it stays hot for a long time.

The specific heat capacity of oil is ~ 1.67 kJ/Kg-DegC, 40% that of water. So oil is relatively poor as a heat storage medium. What oil-filled radiators do is convert the heat emitted by a high temperature, and thus potentially dangerous, electric element into a larger area of lower temperature, which is much safer for domestic heating.

Second, rock has a specific heat capacity of the order of ~ 2kJ/kg-DegC, higher than oil. So oil stores less heat than rock.

The only difference a liquid such as oil could make to the cooling rate of the earth would be to increase the rate of transmission of heat to the surface, by convection. But the amount of oil in the earth's crust is minuscule compared to the amount of rock. Whether oil is left in situ or extracted makes absolutely no difference to the cooling rate of the earth. A moment's reflection will (or at any rate should) tell you that the convective transmission of heat by oil in the earth's crust will be infinitesimal compared with that provided by the oceans.

The whole idea is silly. But I have no doubt you will respond by posting reams of irrelevant internet links you have looked up and misunderstood.

Let the games begin.

 

[Write4U]

Thank you for the clarification. I have learned something here.

The original idea was loosely based on conservation of energy.
Take the potential energy stored in the interior of the earth and inject it into the atmosphere might result in less heat in the interior and more heat in the exterior. It was a naive idea, but your response was informative and clear.
Thank you.

 

[billvon]

Yes.
They both radiate heat.

So does a burrito. (At least a fresh one.) The more burritos you eat, the faster the Earth will cool!

Well, we've solved this problem. Ban burritos and the Earth will be saved.

 

[Write4U]

So does a burrito. (At least a fresh one.) The more burritos you eat, the faster the Earth will cool!

Well, we've solved this problem. Ban burritos and the Earth will be saved.

That is factually incorrect. Eating burritos increases methane release and aids in global warming.
It's all in the conservation of energy!

 

[Sarkus]

Yes.
They both radiate heat. If the principle is the same size should not be an issue, only the ratios.

I will admit that I am not well informed about geological processes, but let me clarify my thought process here.

There is one demonstrable fact that what was once sequestered CO2 (oil) has now raised the global temperature by several degrees and the result are already noticeable in the form of climate and weather change, merely by driving a few cars.

Point being that the ratio of oil extracted from the earth is considerable more than the stable ratio of an oil heater in a house.

The temperature of the earth's core has nothing to do with oil in the earth's crust. Your analogy would only hold if the earth's core was a big oil burner, rather than driven by / result of the actual mechanisms that keep the core hot (radioactive decay, friction, trapped heat from the formation of the planet, etc).

If you imagine a nuclear reactor, does wiping away any condensation from the outside of the chamber affect the temperature of the reaction within? That's about the scale of the effect, I'd imagine.

 

[Write4U]

The temperature of the earth's core has nothing to do with oil in the earth's crust. Your analogy would only hold if the earth's core was a big oil burner, rather than driven by / result of the actual mechanisms that keep the core hot (radioactive decay, friction, trapped heat from the formation of the planet, etc).

If you imagine a nuclear reactor, does wiping away any condensation from the outside of the chamber affect the temperature of the reaction within? That's about the scale of the effect, I'd imagine.

I was not suggesting that oil was the source of the heat. I cited oil heaters as the model where electrical heat was retained by the oil and radiated over a large area.
Exchemist put this in proper perspective and showed that even if some of it is true, the effects would be negligible as compared to the radiation potential of solid rock.
I can see the logic in that.

 

[billvon]

I cited oil heaters as the model where electrical heat was retained by the oil and radiated over a large area.

Oil is no different than metal, or water, or anything else in that regard. If your heater was solid metal it would work just as well.

 

[exchemist]

Thank you for the clarification. I have learned something here.

The original idea was loosely based on conservation of energy.
Take the potential energy stored in the interior of the earth and inject it into the atmosphere might result in less heat in the interior and more heat in the exterior. It was a naive idea, but your response was informative and clear.
Thank you.

Thank you, thank you, for not supplying more internet links. It is so much better when you don't.

The question of the extent to which the heat within the earth is due to potential energy is quite interesting. Quite a lot of heat comes from radioactive decay, which is from nuclear potential energy (i.e. nuclear binding energy). Another source may be chemical potential energy, I recall reading an article suggesting that, as the interior gradually cools, there is reason to expect phase changes in certain minerals, which will release heat as the chemical bonding reorganises itself, rather in the way that latent heat is released when a substance changes state from liquid to solid - though to a far lesser degree. But a lot of the heat seems to be simply retained from the formation of the Earth. Though that too arose from gravitational potential energy being converted to heat, as the primordial dust cloud collapsed.

So we have three kinds of potential energy involved, one way or another. But the heat itself, once produced, is not a form of potential energy: it is heat.

 

[Write4U]

Oil is no different than metal, or water, or anything else in that regard. If your heater was solid metal it would work just as well.

The original argument was not which is the most effective radiant source, but the removal in large amounts of one source of radiant heat that might contribute to increased heat loss in the mantle.

 

[billvon]

The original argument was not which is the most effective radiant source, but the removal in large amounts of one source of radiant heat that might contribute to increased heat loss in the mantle.

Again, oil has nothing to do with it in either case.

 

[Write4U]

Again, oil has nothing to do with it in either case.

I get it. Thanks

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Assumption: If consumed at current rates

china India & Africa are all increasing their consumption

 

[Write4U]

china India & Africa are all increasing their consumption

Exactly, that is why we have just about 40 years left. Our children will experience an oil free industry. Hopefully we will have sufficient replacement in place. 4 decades is not a long period of time considering the number of the world's energy consuming industries.