IEA: Natural Gas Can Supply World For 250 Years
Supplies of natural gas could last more than 250 years if Asian and European economies follow the U.S. unconventional reserves, the IEA said.
The abundance of shale gas and other forms of so-called unconventional gas discovered in the United States prompted a global rush to explore for the new resource.
The International Energy Agency said Australia is taking the lead in the push toward unconventional gas, though China, India and Indonesia are close behind. European companies are taking preliminary steps to unlock unconventional gas as are other regions.
“Production of ‘unconventional’ gas in the U.S. has rocketed in the past few years, going beyond even the most optimistic forecasts,” said Anne-Sophie Corbeau, a gas analyst at the IEA. “It is no wonder that its success has sparked such international interest.”
Shale gas production in the United States is booming and the IEA estimates that unconventional gas makes up around 12 percent of the global supply.
Global supplies of natural gas could last for another 130 years at current consumption rates. That time frame could double with unconventional gas, the IEA said.
“Despite the many uncertainties associated with production, countries are still prepared to take risks and invest time and money in exploration and production, because of the potential long-term benefits,” Corbeau said.
from the GWPF
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What about chemo-synthesizing archaea? They live in such extreme environments we can’t even observe them. Living deep inside ocean vents at extraordinary temperatures, they are methanogenic. I’ve seen extrapolations that they are the most numerous life-form on earth (I didn’t do the math myself, and the extrapolators didn’t show their work). Could they be the source of all this really deep gas and oil? I’ve heard that oil and gas have distinctly organic “fingerprints.” All these molecules are organic, aren’t they? Abotic oil has to be essentially a whole new branch of chemistry – Inorganic Organic chemistry?
Doug: “Fine. Except “the Russian Scientistists” [sic] are very, very, wrong.”
Fine! Except the Russian scientists are supported by the geological evidence, proof of principle in the laboratory, and compliance with thermodynamic constraints. Their theory accounts not only for the extraordinary abundance of hydrocarbons here, but on Titan:
Earth is also a planet-sized hydrocarbon factory, producing underground oceans of the stuff, seemingly inexhaustible oil wells in Saudi Arabia, hydrocarbon rain under the Gulf of Mexico, ocean floors littered with vast tracts of methane hydrates, vast oil-shale deposits, oils sands, tar sands, coal seams, oil wells that spontaneously refill after being squeezed “dry,” and natural gas that “percolates up” from below the dune regions surrounding the Caspian:
Abiotic theory is fitting, predictive, universal, parsimonious, requires no special pleadings, and is more than likely correct.
_ _ _ _ _ _
W Abbott: What about chemo-synthesizing archaea? … Could they be the source of all this really deep gas and oil?
The deepest known life consumes methane, it does not produce it:
_ _ _ _ _
James F. Evans – good stuff! Thanks for the links.
Good for you James, go make a million or 20. Good luck.
I am happy doing what I do with what I know, as are my clients, and it seems Doug is as well.
You are parroting other people’s ideas, I can see by your sentences and the words you use that you don’t really know what you are talking about. Plate tectonic theory easily explains how reservoir rocks occur and oil is found in subsalt formations off the continental margin of Brazil or in the Gulf of Mexico.
Maybe it’s impolite to say that, but innocent people reading these comments need to be reminded that the ideas you are promoting are not generally accepted in the oil industry. Possibly in 20 years, but there is a lot of momentum for you to overcome.
That is a similar problem to the one that anyone who is skeptical of mainstream climate science faces, but I think that future developments will tend to debunk both CAGW and abiotic oil.
RockyRoad;
About those windmills: I perdiks a booming scrap recycling industry. Lotsa good Rare Earth Elements in them thar ‘mills!
Regarding Flask’s statement: “You are parroting other people’s ideas, I can see by your sentences and the words you use that you don’t really know what you are talking about.”
Of course, I’m reporting other people’s ideas. We all stand on the shoulders of others ideas, including Doug and Flask, I might add. And I have studied Abiotic Oil Theory and understand those ideas, as well as the ideas behind “fossil” theory. What’s important is that Abiotic Oil Theory fits the geological facts & evidence better than the so-called “fossil” theory. It’s too bad that Doug and Flask aren’t more open-minded about those ideas.
It needs to be noted that neither Doug nor Flask responded to the facts & evidence that contradicts the so-called “oil window”, which is the foundation of the “fossil” theory.
Flask stated: “Plate tectonic theory easily explains how reservoir rocks occur and oil is found in subsalt formations off the continental margin of Brazil or in the Gulf of Mexico.”
No it doesn’t and here’s why: I take it that by implication Flask is suggesting that organic detritus rich crust, one tectonic plate, has “subducted” or has dived under other crust, an ajoining tectonic plate, thus, taking this supposed organic detritus rich crust to ultra-deep levels in the stratographic column, and, thus, explaining the ultra-deep oil found off the coast of Brazil and the Gulf of Mexico.
The problem with this explaination is that mainstream geologists generally agree no “subduction” has occured in either of these locations, rather, it’s called a transform boundary, where no “subduction” is alleged to occur.
And, not even the geologists who are involved with finding the Brazilian off-shore oil are alleging that it’s the result of “subduction”. Rather, these geologists claim that a series of pre-historic lakes existed millions of years ago:
“According to Guilherme Estrella [a geologist], Petrobras E&P director, the lake that formed during the beginning of the separation of the continents some 120 million years ago allowed the deposition of source rocks (Lagoa Feia formation) that originated the reserves now starting to be produced in the southern Atlantic Ocean.”
http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/348706/articles/offshore/volume-68/issue-12/top-five-projects/jubarte-field-opens-petrobrasrsquo-pre-salt-production.html
So, perhaps, it is Flask who doesn’t “really know what you are talking about”.
Guilherme Estrella’s claim is silly when one considers that some of the Brazilian oil is located over 200 miles off-shore and much of it is located over 150 miles off-shore and much of it is over 15,000 feet below the seafloor and in water over 7,000 feet deep.
What is true is that in the areas where the oil is found there are a system of faults, rifts, and parallel lineaments just as Stanley B. Keith and his associates have suggested. The oil, or perhaps more specifically hydrocarbon rich ‘brine’, emanates from those faults, rifts, and parallel lineaments and rises up into the trapping geologic structures above them.
Doug disparaged Keith’s ideas as coming from “some mining geologist trying to get funding from mainstream oil companies”, but it would seem the petroleum industry is not disparaging his ideas, on the contary, it is following those ideas.
So, again, let’s see what the petroleum industry is saying about these faults, rifts, and cracks:
First, here is Keith’s Cracks of the World: Global Strike-Slip Fault Systems and Giant Resource Accumulations:
“Evidence is mounting that the Earth is encircled by subtle necklaces of interconnecting, generally latitude-parallel faults. Many major mineral and energy resource accumulations are located within or near the deeply penetrating fractures of these “cracks of the world.” Future exploration for large petroleum occurrences should emphasize the definition, regional distribution, and specific characteristics of the global crack system. Specific drill targets can be predicted by understanding the local structural setting and fluid flow pathways in lateral, as well as vertical conduits, detectable through patterns in the local geochemistry and geophysics.”
http://www.hgs.org/en/art/34/
And then compare & contrast the Keith’s paper with an article from Offshore magazine, Imaging challenges in deepwater US/Mexico border zone:
“[Petroleum geologists want] a better understanding of the tectonic framework of the basement.”
“Mapping the structure of the rifted basement, its impact on sedimentation, the distribution of autochthonous salt, and the location of the continental-oceanic boundary (COB) all were crucial within the workflow…”
“The work confirmed that basement structure is dominated by NW-SE and NE-SW trending lineaments/faults.”
http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/0314992580/articles/offshore/volume-70/issue-1/geology-__geophysics/imaging-challenges.html
What are “trending lineaments”?
Could they be Keith’s “interconnecting, generally latitude-parallel faults”?
Could these “trending lineaments” be larger patterns of faulting “blocks” and grabens where the oil emanates from by way of vertical conduits, which is then trapped in covering geologic structures?
Here is a caption from the Offshore article below an image of a fault pattern: “Example of new basement geometry and structure in portion of Keathley Canyon. This shows a NE-SW trending horst and graben geometry.”
I’ll grant you that nowhere in the article does it claim or suggest that oil is abiotic or that the oil emanates from the faults and lineaments that are mapped.
But it does demonstrate that the petroleum industry knows the importance of mapping these faults, lineaments, and “rifted basement”, just as Keith suggests.
Here is a PDF version of Keith’s Houston Geological Society paper upon which his presentation was based, which has illustrations of the Strike-Slip Fault Systems discussed in the paper to give the reader a better idea of what Keith is talking about:
http://www.janrasmussen.com/pdfs/Cracks_World.pdf
I have little faith in the abiotic oil theory, but don’t reject it out of hand. When a geologist claims that Ghawar is hydrothermal dolomite he loses credibility in my eyes. However that is not the issue. The issue is “stocks and flows”. even if you find another Ghawar more than 1 mile below sea surface and 3 miles into the crust, it will never flow at anything like the rate of Ghawar. It might slow production decline sometime in the future, but it will not prevent production decline. Then there is also the issue of Kiethly Canyon, which was claimed to be a “huge” (whatever that means) find a couple of years ago, and then was described as a wide extent of small pockets of oil. Huge it may be, but again flows will be severely limited.
PS – I guess I was wrong about giant finds since 2003. Evidently there were 2 in 2009. However both were more than 1 mile below sea surface and 3 miles into the crust, so the same flow problem.
Mr. Evans, I have another question for you. To the best of my knowledge, all known petroleum deposits are in sedimentary rock. It could be possible that the organisms found in oil were in the rock and diffused into the oil after the abiotic penetration, I guess. But – how did the sedimentary rock get there?
James F. Evans says:
“Flask stated: “Plate tectonic theory easily explains how reservoir rocks occur and oil is found in subsalt formations off the continental margin of Brazil or in the Gulf of Mexico.”
No it doesn’t and here’s why: I take it that by implication Flask is suggesting that organic detritus rich crust, one tectonic plate, has “subducted” or has dived under other crust, an ajoining tectonic plate, thus, taking this supposed organic detritus rich crust to ultra-deep levels in the stratographic column, and, thus, explaining the ultra-deep oil found off the coast of Brazil and the Gulf of Mexico.
The problem with this explaination is that mainstream geologists generally agree no “subduction” has occured in either of these locations, rather, it’s called a transform boundary, where no “subduction” is alleged to occur.”
Mr Evans,
This proves that you really don’t know much about plate tectonics, I did not say there was subduction off the coast of Brazil, possibly you assumed this because of Keith’s mention of subduction as the source of the lighter elements that he suggests is the source of his oil “dived under other crust, an ajoining (sic) tectonic plate, thus, taking this supposed organic detritus rich crust to ultra-deep levels in the stratographic (sic) column”. I should have taken Doug’s point about not getting into another abiotic oil argument more seriously. However…
All I can say is that Brazil’s Atlantic margin is a divergent plate boundary, there are transform plate margins in the Atlantic Basin, and some of the oil pools may be associated with these, but they are secondary compared with the process of plate divergence, which explains how the lake deposits described by Estrella and salt accumulations came to be where they are. Consider the Rift Valley of East Africa, where briny lakes are common, where are deposited thick accumulations of organic rich, fine-grained sediments and salt deposits that are similar to sedimentary rocks forming source rocks, reservoir rocks and traps found in the passive or divergent margins on the continental slopes around the world. The Rift Valley is a model for the early phase of the separation of continents.
Funny that you also quote Estrella who says the lacustrine deposits are the source of the oil.
Our little exchange illustrates something I meant to say in my first post on this topic; that curious people from well-meaning supporters to cranks and trolls can waste time of everyone in any discussion. This topic was about the success of shale gas production and it’s implications, which can really only be a good thing for the USA and the world’s economy. The WUWT blog site is concerned mostly with the question of climate but deals with other science topics, and the association of fossil fuels (yes, definitely fossil) with climate change is the point of the whole CAGW movement.
I can see how climate scientists might get frustrated with some of the discussion, and I think skeptical questions have to be backed with serious science by knowledgeable people. I try to restrict my comments to things I know something about, which is mostly geology and general knowledge, plus a bit of what I hope is common sense.
You are welcome to believe whatever you believe, but finding large amounts of abiotic oil is very unlikely, and I would not invest in it nor recommend investing in any abiotic oil scheme to any of my clients, nor anyone who reads this comment, including you.
Flask
I want to thank everyone for “wasting their time on this thread.” Abiotic rants and raves, plays for love or money, etc. We drill deep and we find more. But it more complicated than that and everybody’s insights are really helpful. I think all of us left standing agree: we aren’t running out of gas or oil. We’ll just keep scratching away at the mystery of where it all came from, or comes from. You know you’re making progress when the list of what you don’t know is getting longer. Thanks again.
Murray Duffin says:
“Mr. Evans, I have another question for you. To the best of my knowledge, all known petr:oleum deposits are in sedimentary rock. ”
Murray, there are many many fields reservoired in something other than sedimentary rock: Bach Ho in Viet Nam is one of the most famous.
They are all easy to tie back to a biotic source. I the case of Bach Ho, I have a very nice Russian seismic line showing the fracturedgranitic reservoir to be surrounded by thermally mature tertiary laccustrian organic shales. (or perhaps for this crowd, organic rich shales, shales with a TOC of 3-7 %)
Interesting article from the American Thinker about ethanol.
And re: abiotic fossil fuels, there’s this. Not many dinosaur fossils there.
Here’s Prof Freeman Dyson’s take:
Just sayin’…
Thanks, W Abbott, of course many views of the situation will find more solutions. The USA is the most intensely explored country because of it’s capitalist foundation, where anyone can form an oil company, and wildcat wells have been drilled by people driven by dreams, dowsing and doodlebugging. Other countries are less well explored, but they are still finding oil and lots of gas in the good old USA.
Smokey, no dispute that methane and longer chain hydrocarbons exist in other parts of the solar system, they no doubt existed on Earth as well, before free oxygen was put into our atmosphere by biological activity. Now, probably most terrestrial methane has been recycled a few times at least, and is the byproduct of organic activity, even any methane that might be formed in the mantle by the process Gold described would be sourced from organic rich sediments.
Dyson’s comment that we do not know how much of this methane makes it’s way to form part of the shallow gas pools is correct – we do not know. I can tell you this, however, that the volatiles formed in the subduction zones do come up again forming volcanoes. Volcanoes exhale large quantities of CO2 and H2O, most of their explosive power comes from the expansion of these superheated gases as pressure is relieved as they approach the surface. CO2 and H2O are the products of the oxidation of CH4, methane. If methane is formed in the mantle, most of it will go directly to the volcanic vents which produce CO2 and water, not so much methane. Drilling near dormant or extinct volcanoes for geothermal power encounters hot water and superheated water and steam, but I haven’t heard reports of any big gas finds comparable to the amounts found in gas shales. Methane contained in shale and conventional gas reservoirs in more stable areas away from volcanic belts can be attributed to biogenic sources (gas shales are at once the source and the reservoir) because methane is a ubiquitous product of metabolism, from bacteria to cows, and the further you get from the subduction zone, the less likely it is to be the source of the methane. Occam’s razor tells us to consider the most likely explanation first.
As Dyson says, heretics are necessary for the advance of science, and we have a rich history of famous heretics. Some are famous for being right, some for being wrong.
Plate tectonics theory, where Wegener proposed the concept of continental drift, but was derided for it, was finally accepted in the sixties, though Meyerhoff was a die-hard opponent. Gold and Keith are still out in the wilderness, because most oil and gas deposits can be more easily attributed to organic sources than abiotic or mantle sources, and, as I mentioned above, the earth’s original endowment of methane and other hydrocarbons has been oxidized and recycled by biological activity.
Scientific debate is necessary so that all conceivable aspects of a problem are considered. The strident calls of “the science is settled” by the CAGW proponents gets my blood boiling. Some day, I hope James Hansen is remembered as one of those who was spectacularly wrong.
@Murray Sandland Duffin, January 21, 2011 at 1:24 pm
There is no scientific evidence that shows the drilling is causing the methane in the drinking water,
Statement of Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation Refuting Reports of Contamination of Carter Road Water by Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid (Cabot Oil and Gas)
Report of Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation’s Utilization of Effective Techniques for Protecting Fresh Water Zones/Horizons During Natural (PDF) (Robert W. Watson, Ph.D., Associate Professor Emeritus of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering and Environmental Systems Engineering, Department of Energy and Mineral Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, Chairman of the Technical Advisory Board, Oil and Gas Management, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection)
“A study was conducted of several natural gas wells in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania that were installed and operated by Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (Cabot). The investigation included a comprehensive analysis of the structural and mechanical integrity of the natural gas wells with a focus on whether appropriate techniques were utilized to protect fresh water zones. The study concludes that Cabot used and is using procedures for drilling, casing and cementing wells that (i) meet or exceed the requirements of the Pennsylvania Oil & Gas Act, (ii) are adequate to protect Pennsylvania’s drinking water, (iii) are not causing or allowing methane migration into Pennsylvania’s drinking water.”
Cabot and Clean Water in Dimock, PA (Video)
Methane is very common in wells in PA,
Methane Gas and Its Removal from Wells in Pennsylvania (PDF) (School of Forest Resources, College of Agricultural Sciences, Pennsylvania State University)
Mooloo says:
January 21, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Mooloo, you are correct for the most part. However, OPEC has not shown a lot of business sense (with the exception of SA – but that was more political than business) in the past. Indeed, OPEC now controls only about 40% of the oil, so theoretically, they should not be able to control prices. Yet the non-members (like Russia) are more than willing to go along as it usually means fatter profits for all.
Still, if they cannot, or if they are not willing to – control the price of oil to keep competitors out, then they will suffer the same fate as all buggy whip makers in the past. Relliance on past successes to drive future business decisions usually results in companies (in this case countries) losing the market to innovators.
It should be noted that even after repeatedly providing facts & evidence contradicting the so-called “oil window” theory which is the foundation for the whole “fossil” theory ediface, neither Doug or Flask has responded. That should tell readers something when proponents won’t respond to facts & evidence that falsifies their hypothesis. We see that all the time with the warmists.
Of course, these geologists also can’t tell you an experiment that could falsify the “fossil” theory. Neither do geologists understand specifically how oil would be formed by “fossil” theory, all they have is vague generalities. No physically constrained formation process has been demonstrated in a laboratory — it’s all assumptions.
“I have gone to the best geologists and the best petroleum researchers, and I can give you the authoritative answer: No one knows.” Edward Teller on how living matter is converted into petroleum (Teller,1979)
That statement is still true today.
For Doug or Flask, or any body else: What experiment could falsify the “fossil” theory? Remember, for a theory to be scientifically valid there must be an experiment or observation that could potentionally falsify the theory.
That’s why AGW isn’t a scientific theory (can’t be falsified) and nether can the “fossil” theory — both are in the same boat (that’s why geologists are so defensive about it).
Murray Duffin wrote: “I have little faith in the abiotic oil theory, but don’t reject it out of hand. When a geologist claims that Ghawar is hydrothermal dolomite he loses credibility in my eyes.”
First, it needs to be pointed out the Murry Duffin is an advocate for so-called “peak” oil, so, of course, his mind-set is to object to anything that contradicts “peak” oil — Abiotic Oil Theory most definitely contradicts “peak” oil.
Duffin: “When a geologist claims that Ghawar is hydrothermal dolomite he loses credibility in my eyes.”
Why?
I reviewed the PDF you provided on Ghawar and it’s entirely consistent with a hydrothermal dolomite abiotic theory. In fact, Keith cites a paper on the dolomite structure of Ghawar, in his “Cracks of the World” paper, which is almost identical with (with most of the same scientists) the PDF paper on Ghawar you linked.
Murray Duffin, it doesn’t help your case when you cite papers, claiming one thing, which upon close inspection, it turns out, the paper doesn’t stand for the proposition claimed.
But Murray Duffin’s issue is “stocks and flows”.
Well, the best analogy to world oil production & consumption is that there are many different straws in a drink. It is the multiplicity of “straws” or supply chains that help ensure enough oil is available for world consumption. And as my original comment on this thread pointed out, the oil & gas industry is running into hydrocarbons, oil & gas, all the time (in fact, shale natural gas is an example of “running” into a huge new supply of energy — and that happens with petroleum, too: Today’s proven reserves of oil are at the highest levels (record levels) they have EVER been at.
So-called “peak” oil? Not going to happen any time soon — as I type at my keyboard, OPEC has roughly 6 million barrels ( if not several million more) spare capacity that they are holding off the world market.
That’s why Abiotic Oil Theory is important: If true, then there is not going to be a world-wide energy shortage (anytime soon)…unless it is induced by artificial means (read, man-made created shortage).
Flask originally wrote: “Plate tectonic theory easily explains how reservoir rocks occur and oil is found in subsalt formations off the continental margin of Brazil or in the Gulf of Mexico.”
I misunderstood Flask’s statement because it was vague and the meaning was not clear. On the other hand, that does not mean I don’t understand transform boundaries.
After all, I was the first, in this thread, to correctly identify that both off the Brazil coast and Gulf of Mexico were transform boundaries.
Evans, January 23, 2011 at 8:41 am, wrote: “The problem with this explaination is that mainstream geologists generally agree no ‘subduction’ has occured in either of these locations, rather, it’s called a transform boundary, where no ‘subduction’ is alleged to occur.
Now, Flask, I understand you subscribe to the “ancient lake” hypothesis, cited by Guilherme Estrella. And as I pointed out in my prior comment, this “ancient lake” hypothesis is silly — it doesn’t hold up to the most casual scrutiny.
According to Estrella, these “ancient lakes” were supposedly in existence about 120 million years ago. But at that time sea-levels were much higher than they are today. So, there was no physical opportunity for “ancient lakes” to form at thousands of feet below today’s present sea-level, as the “ancient lake” theory would require.
How does Science know this?
“The Western Interior Seaway, also called the Cretaceous Seaway, the Niobraran Sea, and the North American Inland Sea, was a huge inland sea that split the continent of North America into two halves, Laramidia and Appalachia, during most of the mid- and late-Cretaceous Period.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway
Cretaceous period was from approximately 65 million years ago to 145 million years ago.
The earliest phase of the Seaway began in the mid-Cretaceous (right at the time, 120 million years ago, Estrella claimed for the existence of these supposed ancient lakes).
Now, this North American Interior Seaway was approximately 800 to 900 meters deep, at it’s largest extent. That means sea-levels world-wide, at the time, in the mid-Cretaceous, were at least 2000 feet higher than today!
So, the idea that ancient lake beds were in existence several miles deeper than the present ocean levels (when all the evidence points to much higher sea-levels) is quite ridiculous.
Flask wrote: “Funny that you also quote Estrella who says the lacustrine deposits are the source of the oil.”
Not at all, since that’s the claim of some in the oil industry, as ludicrous as that claim is when one closely examines the facts & evidence about the geo-physical conditions existent at that time.
Like I stated early on in this topic thread, the facts & evidence for Abiotic Oil Theory is overwhelming. It’s clear Doug and Flask have a stake in the “fossil” theory, they seem impervious to facts & evidence which contradict their beliefs. It’s not hard to pick up on their mind-set, after reading a few of their comments. No surprise.
There is little or no interest in examining evidence, rather, it’s a “move along, nothing to see, here” dismissive attitude.
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” — Arthur Schopenhauer
So, for those with an open-mind and curiousity, so as to be interested in investigating the facts & evidence in support of Abiotic Oil Theory, here is a link to a full discussion with links to scientific reports and news articles:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2150
As we’ve seen with the AGW debate, there are some people who just aren’t interested in facts & evidence, particularly, if those same facts & evidence contradict their closely held beliefs or agendas.
James F Evans says:
“Now, Flask, I understand you subscribe to the “ancient lake” hypothesis, cited by Guilherme Estrella. And as I pointed out in my prior comment, this “ancient lake” hypothesis is silly — it doesn’t hold up to the most casual scrutiny.
According to Estrella, these “ancient lakes” were supposedly in existence about 120 million years ago. But at that time sea-levels were much higher than they are today. So, there was no physical opportunity for “ancient lakes” to form at thousands of feet below today’s present sea-level, as the “ancient lake” theory would require.
How does Science know this?
“The Western Interior Seaway, also called the Cretaceous Seaway, the Niobraran Sea, and the North American Inland Sea, was a huge inland sea that split the continent of North America into two halves, Laramidia and Appalachia, during most of the mid- and late-Cretaceous Period.”… … Now, this North American Interior Seaway was approximately 800 to 900 meters deep, at it’s largest extent. That means sea-levels world-wide, at the time, in the mid-Cretaceous, were at least 2000 feet higher than today!”
I have to hand it to you, Mr Evans, your casual scrutiny and logic take the day… I see I can’t argue with you, I’ve had enough.
Flask, it’s not about argument. It’s about facts & evidence, physical observations & measurement, which contradict the orgainic detritus “fossil” theory and support the Abiotic Oil Theory.
Such as those facts & evidence which contradict the so-called “oil window” corollary to the “fossil” theory.
And, the failure of the proponents of “fossil” theory to be able to explain all the facts & evidence, physical observations & measurements, which do contradict “fossil” theory, and on the other hand, support Abiotic Oil Theory.
That’s where the ‘rubber meets the road’ in scientific discouse.
“It should be noted that even after repeatedly providing facts & evidence contradicting the so-called “oil window” theory which is the foundation for the whole “fossil” theory ediface, neither Doug or Flask has responded”
It should be note that we went through this once before, and our results were about as effective as talking to a wall. When I mentioned a vitrinite reflectance of R0> 0.7, a very basic term in petroleum geochemistry, the poster had no idea what we were talking about. I recommended some basic textbooks in geochemistry and gave up. Heck, there is not even an “oil widow theory”, it is a descriptive term of time and temperature conditions.
I haven’t redone our discussion because it was so unproductive, and you do not possess the basic skills to have a better one.
Flame on, but that is the case.
Doug wrote: “When I mentioned a vitrinite reflectance of R0> 0.7, a very basic term in petroleum geochemistry, the poster had no idea what we were talking about.”
Interesting, claim a question has been asked before, in some long ago discussion thread. I doubt that question was asked before, I’ll go ahead and answer it, now:
Vitrinite reflectance is a measure of thermal exposure of hydrocarbons. In the oil business it can be an indication of “maturity”. A vitrinite reflectance of R0> 0.7 suggests, according to petroleum geologists, that breakdown of heavy hydrocarbons H330C215 into lighter hydrocarons has commenced. The breakdown of heavy hydrocarbons, sometimes called ‘kerogens’, into lighter hydrocarbons (oil & gas) correlates with a reflectance of 0.5-0.6% and the termination of oil generation with reflectance of 0.85-1.1%.
Nice try, attempting to get folks to “move along, nothing to see here.”
Don’t consider evidence which supports the occurence of natural chemical reactions happening among common minerals within the Earth’s crust. Molecular combinations between various minerals is well known, as are chemical reactions between minerals in high temperature & pressure conditions within the Earth’s crust.
Doug wrote: “Heck, there is not even an ‘oil widow theory’, it is a descriptive term of time and temperature conditions.”
The ‘oil window’ is descriptive of the timing and temperature conditions, suppossedly existing within a “window” of depth and temperature, roughly between 7,500 feet and 15,000 feet, and no higher than 275 degrees Fahrenheit, according to geologists, under which oil is thought to form from organic detritus.
Hmmm, sure sounds like a hypothesis or “theory” to me.
Time and temperature conditions which geologists hypothesize are required for organic detritus to turn into oil. Of course, nobody has ever observed this process actually happen, it’s purely a theoretical assumption. And now numerous deposits of oil have been found in physical conditions way outside the “window’s” supposedly required conditions.
That’s called a failed hypothesis.
Funny that Doug denied it’s a hypothesis — I guess he knows it’s been falsified.
Good, you are learning. Now go do a book report on “Gas Window”, and “thermal destruction of hydrocarbons” You can leave out Mt Everest analogies.
Then reread your post and look at your bait and switch.
————– “The CTI is capable of testing full-size prototypes of the next generation of completion and production equipment in a test environment with gas pressure up to 40,000 psi and temperature up to 700° F (371° C),” says Rustom Mody, Baker Hughes vice president of Technology.”
———Research & development for oil deposits as high in temperature as 700 degrees Fahrenheit, and twice the pressures currently encountered, it strongly suggests the oil majors think there is oil much deeper than is even presently being located at, likely deeper than 30,000 feet below the bottom of the seabed (Mount Everest is 29,000 ft above sea level).————————
Then find me a major oil company who will buy your 700 degree F drilling proposal. Tell them it is in hydrothermal dolomites, just like the Jurassic Arab-D zone of Ghawar.
Doug, the discussion has focussed on ultra-deep oil deposits, how the depth and temperature (often over 20,000 feet and over 400 degrees Fahrenheit) contradicts the so-called “oil window” corollary to the “fossil” theory. Apparently, you now admit it’s a theory of how petroleum is formed, but still you have no meaningful response.
Doug wants to discuss a supposed “Gas Window”, and “thermal destruction of hydrocarbons”. Interesting, since it is the finding of oil in conditions where “thermal destruction of hydrocarbons” should happen, according to geologists who subscribe to the organic detritus hypothesis, but where oil has been repeatedly found in such stratigraphic environments (ultra-deep and hot).
Getting back to ultra-deep oil, another piece of evidence of its inorganic origin, a process of natural chemical reactions, independent of any organic detritus. Petroleum has trace rare Earth minerals that are scarce in surface sedimentary rock formations, but these chemical elements are known to be present in the deep crust and mantle:
“New data have been obtained from 59 rare, rare-earth and other elements in crude oil from the West Siberian and the giant Romashkino deposit of the Tatarstan Republic. ICP-MS analyses made with high resolution mass-spectrometer ELEMENT 2. The principle geochemical anomalies in these samples include limitedly low content of most elements, except for the elements V, Ni, Cr, Ca, Sr, Na, Rb, Cs. For the West-Siberian oils marked a PGE (platinoid) presence in substantial quantities, especially of palladium… The elemental distribution in the crude oil from all studied deposits does not match such of any known crustal rock. The experimental data presented should be taken into consideration during origin of oils is being discussed.”
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/abstracts/html/2007/athens_conf/abstracts/ivanov.htm
Indeed, those claiming oil is derived from surface organic detritus depositions have to explain how a whole series of chemical elements are present in oil, which are consistent with deep crust and mantel origin.
Doug wrote: “Tell them it is in hydrothermal dolomites, just like the Jurassic Arab-D zone of Ghawar.”
Yes, Ghawar is consistent with an inorganic source of petroleum.
As described formally, Ghawar is situated over an active fault system (see link below quote):
“Ghawar is a large north-trending anticlinal structure, some 250 kilometers long and 30 kilometers wide. It is a drape fold over a basement horst, which grew initially during the Carboniferous Hercynian deformation and was reactivated episodically, particularly during the Late Cretaceous. In detail, the deep structure consists of several en echelon horst blocks that probably formed in response to right-lateral transpression. The bounding faults have throws exceeding 3000 feet at the Silurian level but terminate within the Triassic section.”
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2004/afifi01/index.htm
What is interesting about the above passage is that Ghawar is described as “over a basement horst…and was reactivated episodically…[and] the deep structure consists of several en echelon horst blocks…”
Echoes of Keith’s “Cracks of the World” paper and presentation to the Houston Geological Society.
By the way, Doug, are you in agreement with Flask, who calls for imposition of carbon taxes?
Flask, January 22, 2011 at 8:11 am, wrote: “possibly including semi-voluntary reduction in use through carbon taxes…”
So, apparently Flask is a carbon tax flunky (a good little oil company boy), is that where you stand, too, Doug?
Anyway, for those with an open-mind and curiousity, so as to be interested in investigating the facts & evidence in support of Abiotic Oil Theory, here is a link to a full discussion with links to scientific reports and news articles:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2150
People can make up their own minds.
Flask
“Methane contained in shale and conventional gas reservoirs in more stable areas away from volcanic belts can be attributed to biogenic sources (gas shales are at once the source and the reservoir) because methane is a ubiquitous product of metabolism, from bacteria to cows…”
=======
Aerobic metabolism of carbohydrates by prokaryotes and eukaryotes typically produces only carbon dioxide and water, while chemosynthetic autotrophic bacteria and archaea consume methane and other hydrocarbons to make carbohydrates.
Consider the deepest lake in the Rift Valley of East Africa:
“Methane is oxidized in lakes by a group of bacteria that convert methane and oxygen to cellular material and carbon dioxide”
Methane oxidation in Lake Tanganyika
Methane and other hydrocarbons are also consumed in the oceans and the mantle by similar microbes. You can see several chemosynthetic ecosystems flourishing on mineral petroleum in this clip from NOAA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsjgzJZXs_s
Consumption of C1-C6 hydrocarbons is almost ubiquitous near hydrothermal vents, cold seeps, and at the deepest layers of the Earth’s crust.
Chemosynthesis was ubiquitous to autotrophs for around a billion years before photosynthesis liberated any oxygen.
Methane is not a ubiquitous product of metabolism.
Tar pits are not the ubiquitous product of the fossils they preserve.
Cows do not produce methane. I do not produce methane. Termites do not produce methane. But the bacteria, protozoa, microbes, archaea, whatever I’m supposed to call them, (the single-celled organisms that live in our “guts”) do produce methane; “ubiquitous” is not a bad word to describe their presence in the biosphere. You’re spinning the observation of the comparatively rare methane consuming organisms into the norm. But its not. Truth be told my wife thinks its pretty scary when I eat beans. The volume of gas “recovered” makes you believe anything might be possible.
W Abbot – “You’re spinning the observation of the comparatively rare methane consuming organisms into the norm.”
You’re beating up a strawman. I merely pointed to places where we know methanotrophs are abundant, where they monopolize primary production in an ecosystem, or where they are found to be almost ubiquitous. Some of those places are often cited as examples of where petroleum should be forming from fossils, and yet we see, when we look, life forming from petroleum instead.
We also see, when we look, fossils preserved in oil shale, not converted to petrol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OilShaleFossilsEstonia.jpg
====
re: Flask’s claim that abiotic hydrocarbons are abundant on Titan today because there is no oxygen–not true:
http://www.space.com/8859-saturn-moon-blows-oxygen.html
“re: Flask’s claim that abiotic hydrocarbons are abundant on Titan today because there is no oxygen–not true:”
Where are you coming from, Khwarizmi?
L. O. L.
That is an interesting report, it says that the nearby moon Enceladus is the source of the oxygen that reaches Titan (the oxygen is protected from combining chemically with hydrocarbons present on Titan because they attach to naturally occurring fullerines). It seems that neither you nor James F. Evans reads very well, or if you read correctly, you have no compunction about distorting what others have written.
This is what I wrote:
“methane and longer chain hydrocarbons exist in other parts of the solar system, they no doubt existed on Earth as well, before free oxygen was put into our atmosphere by biological activity.”
I was talking about Earth, not Titan, but the presence of free oxygen on Titan is obviously quite an amazing special case.
So anyway, getting back to conventional oil exploration, one of the prerequisites of finding oil is identifying a source rock that has been buried deeply enough that the temperature and pressure regime is high enough that oil will be produced. If oil has been found at higher temperatures than what was hitherto been considered the “oil window”, that’s a bonus in my opinion, not a refutation of the concept. Geochemists can correlate oil with the remnant hydrocarbons in a source rock.
Gas and oil are lighter than water so they tend to move upwards buoyantly through porous formations until they reach a trap (there are many types of trap, in this case, imagine an overlying impermeable rock that has been folded in 2 directions to make a dome), then they accumulate there. Sometimes, oil and gas have been found in a structure in a thick sedimentary basin where good traps occur in deeper, older strata that would contain oil or gas, except there is no migration pathway for hydrocarbons to get to them from the source rock (it is too far above and there are impermeable layers between the deeper reservoir rock and the source rock). Using the abiotic theory, where gas and oil are derived from much deeper, the deepest traps should all have hydrocarbons, less so the ones above.