Saudi Production Profile
Guest post by David Archibald
World conventional oil production peaked in 2005 and has been on a plateau at about that level ever since. This graph suggests that the market changed from inherent over-supply to inherent tightness in June 2004:
Figure 1: World Oil Production and Oil Price 1994 – 2011
World conventional oil production will at some stage tip over into decline. That may be this year or it may be as late as 2015. The decline in US production began over four decades ago in 1970, as predicted by King Hubbert in 1956.
The next big one to tip over into decline will be Saudi Arabia. In determining what that will look like and its consequences, the first thing to do is a logistic decline plot of Saudi production history. Figure 2 shows the result:
Figure 2: Saudi Arabia Logistic Decline Plot
Figure 2 shows that the Saudis have produced about half of their ultimate recoverable reserves. When half of a nation’s oil has been depleted, production rate decline is inexorable. From this plot, total ultimate recoverable reserves for Saudi Arabia are estimated to be 275 billion barrels. From this plot, Saudi Arabia is on the cusp of decline. So what will that decline look like?
Figure 3: Saudi Arabia Conceptual Crude, Condensate and Natural Gas Liquids Forecast
This figure was produced by Euan Mearns in 2008. The red volume on the bottom right is the Ghawar Field and the green is the rest of the heritage super giants. The steep fall in projected Ghawar production from about 2012 would be due to an expectation that the field is watering out on its crest as shown in this figure:
Figure 4: Two cross sections of a reservoir simulation of the northern part of the ‘Ain Dar region of the Ghawar Field
Figure 4 shows the progressive displacement of oil by water over the sixty years from 1940 to 2004. SW is water saturation. The reds are high oil saturation and the green shows where oil saturation is now down to about 50%. To recover further oil from the green areas requires enhanced oil recovery (EOR) tehniques such as carbon dioxide injection.
Figure 5: Regional cross section through the Ghawar Field
This figure is from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. The Ghawar Field is developed from a north-south trending horst block. It is 174 miles long by 16 miles wide. The producing horizon is the Arab D reservoir at about 7,000 feet.
Figure 6: Saudi Arabia Production Profile 1938 – 2040
From the foregoing, Figure 6 shows the production profile generated for Saudi Arabia. The production decline is 3% per annum which amounts to about 300,000 bopd per annum from the current level. The world can cope with that, but will the Saudis?
Figure 7: Saudi Arabia Population 1960 – 2040
Back in 1960, there were only about 4 million Saudis, now there are 27 million with population growth at 2.4% per annum compound. So, if the current trend continues, there will be 50 million of them by 2040. With population rising at 2.4% per annum and production falling at 3% per annum, we are starting with a net 5.4% per annum contraction in per capital oil production. The effect of that is captured by Figure 8 following.
Figure 8: Saudi Arabia cash available per capita
The forecast in Figure 8 is based on the oil price running up to $200 per barrel by 2018 and then plateauing at that level. The Saudi Govt increased social welfare payments in response to the Arab Spring. As a consequence, their budget is just about break even at the current oil price. If social outlays aren’t increased further, they pontentially have a lot of cash to play with for the next eight years or so, though they are also propping up Yemen with whom they share a land border. The crunch point is reached about 2026 when income falls below constant per capita outlays. As a society and as individuals, Saudis will then find their standard of living falling by 7% per annum compound. None shall weep for them.
LazyTeenager says:
May 31, 2012 at 4:52 am
“I bet the Romans figured those pesky barbarians could not possibly affect Rome. But they did. The biggest enemy is complacency.”
My pet theory is that Christianity killed the Roman Empire. You cannot run an Empire like that, based on slavery, without being totally gruesome. Noone will slave for you, if you don’t beat them, kill them, cruzify them.
So when Christianity took over as a state religion, The Roman Empire was doomed.
They could’nt both be nice and kind, and run slaves at the same time.
Just as well, don’t you think?
Tom says on May 31, 2012 at 3:52 am
“Figure 4 shows the progressive displacement of oil by water over the sixty years from 1940 to 2004. SW is water saturation”
Does this imply that the “deserts will bloom” … water may be more valuable than oil in the Middle East… there has been talk of wars for water
FYI: In Saudi Arabia, salt water is used water flooding, not fresh water. Fresh water is used when there is no salt water available.
theBuckWheat says on May 31, 2012 at 6:35 am :
We do not burn crude oil in our cars and airplanes, we burn fuel that is made by breaking down a feedstock of hydrocarbons into its constituent atoms and then reassembling them into the desired product.
This is incorrect. This not done. Good light sweet crude will yield ca 40% straight-run gasoline on fractional distillation. Gasoline is the first fraction from distillation of crude oil and has a boiling range of 4-202 deg C. Go to Wikipedia and check out the fractional distillation of crude and bubble cap fractional distillation column
Catalytic crackers.are used to break down heavy oils into mixtures of light hydrocarbons for manufacture of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.
I am a chemical engineer, wirh experience in the oil industry although it’s not my specialty. FWIW, I am agnostic as far as the abiotic oil theory is concerned; however, let me point out that Freeman Dyson, who is often cited as a renowned CAGW skeptic, is a supporter of the abiotic oil. He wrote the foreword to Thomas Gold’s “The Deep Hot Biosphere”, where the theoretical background and empirical evidence for the abiotic oil theory is outlined in detail. Dyson states very clearly that he agrees with it. The late Thomas Gold was a maverick but he was also the one who correctly identified the nature of pulsars. I am not fully convinced but I recommend his book highly.
Yep. And it all takes energy – energy to drill for the crude, energy to pump the crude out of the ground, energy to transport the crude, energy to process the crude into fuels like gasoline, energy to get the processed fuels into our car tanks, our fuel oil furnaces and so on.
Once the energy derived from a barrel of crude is no longer greater than the energy required to extract and process it, then you are done. Crude isn’t like gold or silver, It is energy for energy. You can’t simply raise the price. The limiting price is the energy cost, not the monetary cost. The monetary cost can, and will, go up and up and up, but once the energy cost equals the energy created, you might as well sell the energy you already have. We are already at peak.
You want to create more efficient means of extracting crude? Wonderful. Do it. These things can, and will extend the peak of the curve for a short time, but not forever. You are still going to be limited, ultimately, by energy in – energy out.
Philip Bradley says:
May 31, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Oil and gas companies are interested in keeping prices as high as possible; they are not eager, therefore, to publish accurate information about available reserves.
If companies don’t publish best effort estimates, its highly likely they will find themselves in court and going to jail….
____________________________________
Which is a darn good reason to nay say the abiotic oil theory and keep looking in the “wrong place” Russia has no reason to and has had a lot of luck in finding oil due to a switch in theories.
Mike W says:
May 31, 2012 at 7:38 pm
The abiotic oil believers should know that they harm this site’s scientific credibility when they push their wacko theory. All of the geologists and petroleum engineers must be in on this abiotic stuff or they are just the dumbest people in the world…..
__________________________________________
No you are dealing with entrenched believe among other things. ~ “Science advances one funeral at a time” ~ or as Max Planck actually said
Plate tectonics was a new very controversial theory until the 1960s when I was in high school. The abiotic oil theory is derived from the relatively new idea of plate tectonics ‘Crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths Since Russia of the 1950’s and 1960’s had little oil it was a highest order national security priority. Essentially they were desperate and had nothing to lose by drilling according to the new theory. They hit the jackpot.
“Peak Oil” is very convenient for oil companies who want to keep prices high. It is also very convenient for greens and the United Nations who want to advance their agenda. Oil companies are nicely intertwined with CAGW because they helped fund CRU Shell Oil for example had an executive called Ged Davis in the IPCC. Davis is mentioned in one of the Climategate e-mails in connection with UN scenario. My original link was ClimateGate e-mail 0889554019.txt Here is a second link (I am not happy with the source)
If you follow the Ged Davis trail…
So WHAT is GEA
And you want me to BELIEVE what the Oil Companies are saying about “Peak Oil” after reading THAT?
You might also want to read Science in the 21st Century: Knowledge Monopolies and Research Cartels By HENRY H. BAUER, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies
I may not know the science but I can follow the Money/Power grab trail.
jbird:
Your post at June 1, 2012 at 7:23 am is plain wrong.
Firstly, it displays ignorance of the difference between reserves and resources. Reserves are the amount of a mineral (in this case, crude oil) which can be obtained at economic return using existing technology. At present it would not be economic to expend more energy to obtain crude than is obtained from refined crude. Existing reserves are ~40 years of supply and will be ~40 years supply throughout this century (see my post at May 31, 2012 at 2:33 pm).
Secondly, it is not certainly true that crude would be worthless if it contained less energy than required to obtain it. In some circumstances the convenience of crude may make it economic to use more energy (from e.g. coal) to obtain crude than is in the crude.
Richard
Regarding abiotic oil / abiotic natural gas, it would be curious indeed if Earth really has had little to no hydrocarbons ever formed abiotically when even extraterrestrial comets have:
“massive quantities of hydrocarbons, similar to oil shale. The masses of either water or hydrocarbons are measured in units of cubic kilometers.”
“Satellite fly-by through the tail of Comet Halley during 1986 showed that comets consist of massive amounts of an organic material almost identical to high grade oil shale (kerogen). (Huebner 1990).”
http://www.neofuel.com/zuppero-1995-water-ice-nearly-everywhere-114647.pdf
But, aside from the validity or not of abiotic oil, supposing for the sake of argument that abiotic oil theory is not valid:
The near-term picture of liquid fuel supply is that of continuing sustained production plus some growth over coming decades (not necessarily fast growth but in absolute mbd terms not vastly different than much of the past couple decades) with the help of unconventional oil, NGLs, etc. shown in the International Energy Agency estimate:
http://www.crudeoilpeak.com/wp-content/gallery/iea_weo_2010/iea_weo_2010_crude_oil_plateau.jpg
Beyond the near-term, for later this century, if more conventional alternatives ever sustain continuously a bit more of a price rise, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis of liquid fuels becomes increasingly competitive and has practically more or less unlimited eventual scalability. Most fundamentally, you need a carbon source, a hydrogen source, and an energy source.
Upon reduced wartime access to conventional petroleum, the Nazis produced much of their gasoline supply in the latter part of WWII from Fischer-Tropsch synthesis from coal (weakened by repeated Allied bombing raids of course yet functioning), but coal is not the only carbon source usable. Sasol in South Africa currently produces synthetic petroleum including most of the country’s diesel fuel using Fischer-Tropsch synthesis from natural gas as well as coal. The enormous supplies of natural gas we are getting into recently may last the U.S. and the world for centuries to come depending on assumptions, a long time in any case.
Beyond that, the U.S. Navy has studied production of synthetic hydrocarbon fuels like jet fuel, getting the hydrogen and carbon from seawater available in practically infinite amounts (the carbon from dissolved CO2 in the oceans), the energy from nuclear power. Other investigations (one of the national laboratories IIRC) for civilian commercial production have concluded costs would be only several dollars per gallon of fuel synthesized.
As for the very long-term future like centuries from now? Particularly in such a timeframes, there is no rule of physics limiting human energy production to its current 2 terawatts average electrical and few terawatts non-electrical, not when Earth intersects 200000 terawatts of sunlight and the sun outputs 400,000,000,000,000 terawatts. Sure, at present rates of advancement we are eons upon eons away from being able to build a Dyson Swarm to do much about the latter, but we are also eons upon eons away from needing to do so. And, aside from that, as Dr. Cohen discusses on uranium extraction from seawater for nuclear power:
“We thus conclude that all the world’s energy requirements for the remaining 5×10^9 yr of existence of life on Earth could be provided by breeder reactors without the cost of electricity rising by as much as 1% due to fuel costs. This is consistent with the definition of a “renewable” energy source in the sense in which that term is generally used.”
http://sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad11983cohen.pdf
As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium notes slightly before the end, with references:
“The preceding reserve figures refer to the amount of thorium in high-concentration deposits inventoried so far and estimated to be extractable at current market prices; there is millions of times more total in Earth’s 3 * 10^19 ton crust, around 120 trillion tons of thorium, and lesser but vast quantities of thorium exist at intermediate concentrations.[74][75][76] Proved reserves are “a poor indicator of the total future supply of a mineral resource.[76]”
“In event of a thorium fuel cycle, Conway granite with 56 (±6) parts per million thorium could provide a major low-grade resource; a 307 sq mile (795 sq km) “main mass” in New Hampshire is estimated to contain over three million metric tons per 100 feet (30 m) of depth (i.e. 1 kg thorium in eight cubic metres of rock), of which two-thirds is “readily leachable”.[78] Even common granite rock with 13 PPM thorium concentration (just twice the crustal average, along with 4 ppm uranium) contains potential nuclear energy equivalent to 50 times the entire rock’s mass in coal,[79] although there is no incentive to resort to such very low-grade deposits as long as much higher-grade deposits remain available and cheaper to extract.[80]”
Those trillions of tons of thorium are the energy equivalent of millions of trillions of tons of fossil fuels, millions of times more than all the fossil fuels we have ever used; of course we are not going to dig up and process more than a relatively tiny fraction of the total crust anytime soon, but we don’t need to do so to have abundant energy.
Mankind can be rationed and forced to run low on energy, stagnate, and decline if the likes of the CAGW movement gain power, but that would be from twisted dishonest ideology and politics, not physics.
David Archibald,
Did you read Richard Courtney’s response? Everything you have written could equally have been written in the past with regards to some earlier resource.
For example, here is a talk given by a well known “Flint Worrier” in the later paleolithic. He is addressing the clan, who inhabit the Cheddar Gorge region of Southern England, because the supply of flint isn’t keeping up with demand. This is what he says:
“The mature FLINT fields are said to be declining at 5% per annum. As you see from the cave painting yonder, replacing the Cheddar Gorge decline will need a host of smaller fields to be developed. In developing that graph, Fred Flintstone seems to have taken the view that the Cheddar wells will water out in the next few years. I could have put in a creaming curve but that may have been a difficult concept for people. Cheddar Gorge geology looks very simple with big, gentle anticlines – so the big fields were easy to find back in the Early Paleolithic. The logistic decline plot is supposed to capture the effect of future discovery anyway. One reason for the post was to counter the Fred Flintstone idiocy of a call for a promise of 2 bearskins/basket of FLINT. ”
History never repeats, but it sure rythmes.
Just an update on a couple of my comments from yesterday. The price of crude oil denominated in ounces of gold declined to .050 oz/bbl today from .055 oz/bbl yesterday versus the 40 year+ avg. of .073 oz/bbl. EIA released its Mar’12 number for U. S. Total Gasoline Retail Sales by Refiners which stayed at about the 30 million gals/mon level for the sixth straight month after averaging over 40 mil gals/mon for the first 9 months of 2011 before a nearly 25% drop in Oct. Just a decade ago the numbers were 60-65+ mil gals/ mon.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=a103600001&f=m
The EIA link I posted above reverted to its baseline view. To see the graph I intended to link you need to go to the box marked Chart Tools and select 10 Year Seasonal Analysis
BTW, if you are interested in how much confidence should be placed in projections about our energy future this document from EIA may be worth spending some time with.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/retrospective/
AEO Retrospective Review: Evaluation of 2011 and Prior Reference Case Projections
It’s a fairly thorough review of how the projections published in their Annual Energy Outlooks have done versus actual numbers since 1994. It shows a pretty poor record of performance with errors, especially beyond a decade out, which are mostly, if not always, in the direction one might expect.
The Saudis never drilled out all their space. They had a whale, and then sat on it. They will not follow the classical pattern as there are plenty of areas “nearby” to drill. Don’t even get me started about Petrobras and the massive offshore finds near Brazil.
In the mean time, oil drops into the $8x per bbl range… (somewhere around $86 but I wasn’t watching closely).
There’s somewhere over 1 Trillion bbl of oil just in the USA. We have declining production due to government regulations and lowering prices, not lack of resource.
Blackflag: “I guess the latter group needs to explain the methane lakes on Titan and the Gas Planetary Giants within the scope of their theory “.
Easy, methane is one carbon and four hydrogen, the simplest form these elements can combine in. There is a lot of those particular elements out there. Now, the question you must ask yourself is: Given al this carbon & hydrogen, and its propensity to form itself into methane out there in lifeless space, why isn’t there also heaps of butane, and octane, and all the other really useful things we find in petroleum deposits on earth? Where are all the hexane lakes on Titan? What is the missing factor here?
Peter B.
“let me point out that Freeman Dyson, who is often cited as a renowned CAGW skeptic, is a supporter of the abiotic oil”.
I did not know that, and if it is true (and I am not saying you are wrong, but a reference would be appreciated), then that is most disheartening, given his stature in physics, and his sensible views on CAGW. I am a CAGW sceptic, but having abiotic oilers on my side is about as welcome as having “Skydragons” on my side. I’d prefer them on the other side, where I’d hand them the microphone, sit back, and let them discredit the alarmists by association.
Jimbo,
Re: butane et al on Titan
Sir, you are mistaken – there is butane and all those other things there too.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16833455
Earth does not have hexane lakes either – so what ever your argument that Titan lacks them, well, guess what, so does the Earth.
Further, there ARE missing factors and huge differences – but that is not germane to the hypothesis – the current belief is that on Earth, dead dinosaurs/plants made all of this stuff – yet, everywhere else in the Solar System, something else did.
A simple skeptical review would suggest that something that is everywhere probably derives from the same processes – and not the case that in one particular place the process is utterly different.
Blackflag,
Even your cited source says the hydrocarbons above methane in molecular weight are in minor amounts (I would have thought trace would be more appropriate, but maybe not). I most certainly was not wrong, you’ll note I said “heaps of butane, and octane….” i.e. a large amount comparable to the ratios of long chain alkanes to methane we find on earth. But we don’t find anything even broadly comparable, do we?
I won’t say anything aout your “dinosaurs” source of petroleum, except that the only people who think dinosaurs contributed in any significant way to our petroleum reserves certainly don’t have any geological qualifications. Nice strawman.
Anyway, the real question is, where are all the large concentrations big hydrocarbon molecules (i.e. OIL) in the lifeless parts of the solar system? No , scrap that, where is even one large concentration of large hydrocarbon molecules in the solar system? If you can’t come up with one, why not? (And please, no hand waving “oh, conditions are different….you can’t prove..you don’t know…. etc. Just tell me why we have lots, and other places have methane with only traces of, say, C6Hx and above).
Another nice bit of evidence for your side would be a reference for an economically viable oil deposit (not shows of methane) which was found by someone using the abiogenic model. Of course, you will not find one, not because of some conspiracy (as if someone wouldn’t break ranks and go make themselves a few hundred billion dollars), but because the abiotic oil theory is so utterly wrong.
Jim,
Your adjective – “heaps” – is irrelevant. Concentrations of one particular suite of molecules or another on a planetary body vary greatly.
The point is: complex hydrocarbons exist “everywhere” in the solar system – contrary to your claim of “biological” creation.
This means that your biological origins are incomplete as they do not account for the extraterrestrial existence – hence, equally your claim against abiotic creation here on earth is equally incomplete.
Further, since we have not “searched” for such “OIL” deposits on extraterrestrial planets does not mean “they do not exist”. You would be hard pressed to find such complex hydrocarbons on earth by merely “observing it”, since we have to generally drill or mine it from beneath the surfaces.
It is not a strawman – it is you who is claiming biological origins – the rhetoric on what particular biology is irrelevant. And, you STILL have not explained how such biological origins apply to extraterrestrial sources. You argue two different processes, each exclusive of one another. But that is bizarre! To say that on earth, biological creation “is the only way” when evidence has proven throughout the entire rest of the solar system that there is “other ways”.
I am sure David Archibald is well intentioned, but my findings wrt this topic vary immensely. First, global regular conventional crude did indeed peak @ur momisugly 69-Mbd in 2005, it will continue to be a major component of All liquids production. Projections by the PS-2500 oil depletion model infer light sweet crude is on a 62-Mbd plateau which will be ongoing ’til 2023. Shortly thereafter, crude prices will surpass a definitive oil-cost/GDP ratio (marked by $197/barrel) which will induce PEAK DEMAND @ur momisugly the then present flow rate of 98-Mbd (2025).
The model calculates Saudi Arabia URR/EUR to be 281-Gb with a 2.8% UDRO (underlying decline rate observed). The Kingdom’s 12.5-Mbd MSC (max sustainable capacity) passed by unceremoniously in 2009. Its flow rate in 2040 will be 6.8-Mbd plus 2-Mbd of NGL.
My current charts on KSA & monthly peak oil updates are available at the Trendlines Research website: http://trendlines.ca/free/peakoil
Black Flag,
I do not argue that creation of large hydrocarbon molecules by abiotic means doesn’t take place at all, quite the opposite, thus the traces of it found elsewhere in the solar system. I’m sure that large hydrocarbon molecules do get synthesized, in economically utterly insignificant quantities, by abiotic means here on earth as well. The point is that there is zero reason to believe that it has ever contributed to making significant concentrations (i.e. enough to be anywhere near a viable economic deposit), on earth, or anywhere else, for that matter. There is a mountain of evidence for biological origins.
I concede that this absence of evidence does not absolutely exclude the possibility that abiotic oil is a significant component of those reserves we are exploiting, any more than it disproves the hypothesis that it is oil produced by trillions of tiny nanobots, placed here eons ago by the dreaded Zooglons of planet K, which is responsible for most of our oil. It is an absurd notion, but there is no fundamental reason why this hypothesis should not complement the biogenic model.
Jimbo,
It merely your opinion and you have no fact or methodology to determine if the quantities of complex hydrocarbons on earth are NOT a result of abiotic sources. You attempted to dispute the existence of complex hydrocarbons throughout the Solar System as “proof” that the existence of them on Earth could only be biological.
The fact that such complex molecules exist throughout the Solar System demonstrates irrefutably that such molecules are created abiotically.
Thus your inference in your first post – that they are only terrestrial is factually wrong.
Your further contention that such abiotic hydrocarbons are not terrestrial cannot be supported by the evidence you presented, since EVERY WHERE ELSE IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM, that is the only means of their existence.
The question is not -yet- regarding concentrations or lack of …. the postulate you and others have made that -on Earth, unlike everywhere else in the Solar System, – it is ONLY biological and there is NO abiotic deposits.
Our dialogue, however, has shown a specific series of points.
1) Abiotic hydrocarbons, including complex hydrocarbons, exist in quantities throughout the entire Solar System. For a fact, none of these are biological
2) Earth is a member of this Solar System.
3) Earth has hydrocarbons.
4) The claim that the hydrocarbons on Earth are only biological and not abiotic cannot be supported by the observations of all other planetary bodies in our solar system.
The claim that the hydrocarbons on Earth are the only place – and were only created by – biological process is not reasonable.
Jimbo,
Therefore, the claims and posts by others who ridicule and insult those that suggest that there may be abiotic oil resource on Earth are, in fact, the ones who should be ridiculed. It is absolutely clear that the abiotic theorist are right.
It is not clear in what quantities, however, given the vast quantities throughout the Solar System – it equally reasonable that such vast quantities should exist on Earth. But this is an hypothesis about such quantities and not yet a proven fact.
However, what this means is -instead of ridicule and insult and ignore the proponents of abiotic resources and ignore the vast evidence of the Solar system, the community should actually study and investigate it rigorously.
However, -like AGW hoax- I believe too many ego’s are on the line … perhaps next generation better science will come to bear when this generation finally fades away.
Black Flag,
Gosh, you’re right. I don’t know how I could ever have been so misguided.
There is just one final point I would like you to clarify for my, using your marvelous powers of logic. Why has nobody, anywhere, ever, has made a fortune by staking out and producing oil from the vast abiotic oilfields which must exist, untapped, in areas far removed from those where there are identifiable, biolgically rich sedimentary source rocks?
Jimbo,
A couple of points:
..vast “abiotic” fields… as already pointed out, ask the Russians – but you ignore them, because, heck “they are Russians” and are a bunch of idiots….right?
Additionally, you have surrendered. You cannot dismiss abiotic origins of hydrocarbon due to fact they exist. Yet, you still do dismiss them, because the muddle up your pet theory. So you sit back in ridicule – and no science – thinking that will somehow “prove wrong” what you know by fact already exists. Bizarre.
To you, somehow, the Earth is “different”. It is the center of the Universe.
What strikes me of this topic is we’ve heard it before.
Jimbo and others takes a observational coincidence and leap right to scientific conclusion with nary a scientific proof to justify it.
Sound familiar?
“We find biological organisms in oil, therefore this biology must create oil”
“We find global warming coincidences with the increase in human industrialization, therefore humans cause global warming”
Coincidence or cause? Who cares!?
“We find large animals in oil, too, but it is impossible for them to have made the oil, therefore we will ignore the obvious – that oil traps biological organisms and that these organisms may have nothing to do with the creation of the oil – we will merely cherry pick our observations, discard the ones that do not fit our orthodoxy.”
“Global cooling has struck the earth while human industrialization continues to expand and increase. No matter, in this case, it must be the natural ebb and flow, and when that returns to some ‘norm’ humans will be once again the cause of climate change”
Cherry pick!? Nah….
“Those that suggest abiotic existence must be censored. Any discussion is derided and ridiculed – even mentioning such risks “damaging credibility of this blog” – and bizarre unsupported statements such as “..the very idea of abiotic oil is so far flung and completely without either experimental, empirical or theoretical sense that to even spout such nonsense on what is supposed to be a science blog is contemptible. I speak from knowledge, I have an organic geochemistry background and have worked in the oil industry for some 30+ years.” – fallacious as the day is long, but few challenge this dogmatic declaration.
“…dealing with how best to do away with the evil of scepticism and get the human race to focus all its efforts on saving the planet.”
We are open minded, as long as you agree with us!
“Abiotic oil exists in abundance to magnitude of magnitudes in quantities everywhere in the Solar system – except on earth where none of it exists – Earth is ‘special’ – what happens here does not happen anywhere else, and what happens “out there” does not happen here”
“The planets are warming up, due to the Sun – but nope, not the Earth. Earth is different, and here on Earth it must be man doing the warming. What happens to the rest of the Solar System does not happen on Earth – Earth is ‘special’ – with its own laws of nature”
Sound familiar?
The point:
Science – all science – is in a heap of trouble.
The causes: government-supported science.
Politics and adherence to dogma is replacing the scientific method – and though Climatology is the most glowing example, this disease is everywhere.
…and no less present in the people on this blog – though aware of it when it is on their darling side-topic, they are as much stuck in it elsewhere and blind to it.
As a side note, some of the energy touts have been reporting that the Saudi formations actually extend across the Red Sea and into East Africa, where massive new plays are being explored.
Black Flag,
You are exactly the sort of relativist that gives the AGW faithful something to point at and say “see, those sceptics are actually just anti-science”. Just out of curiosity, where do you stand onn the Skydragons?
I agree that pure argument from authority is lazy, and fallacious. However, there really are are areas in which people do know a great deal, and their opponents are basically ignorant and/ or acting in bad faith. Just because argument from authority can, and has often has been used to stifle debate, doesn’t mean that everyone’s argument is worth the same. Entitled to your own opinion but not own facts and all that.
I won’t bother corresponding further with you, life is too short. However. I’d still like an answer to the simple question I posed about where the vast abiotic fields are. “The Russians” is a (rather large) group of people, not an oil field. An actual producing field name and location, is what I was after.
Oh, and where did you get the quote “Abiotic oil exists in abundance to magnitude of magnitudes in quantities everywhere in the Solar system – except on earth where none of it exists – Earth is ‘special’ – what happens here does not happen anywhere else, and what happens “out there” does not happen here”. Looks like something more from your fevered imagination, but I’m happy to be corrected.
Jimbo
No, Jimbo – you are the example of doing exactly what you complain – you cannot explain a fact – abiotic existence of complex hydrocarbons throughout out the Solar System, but by mere assumption claim it cannot exist on Earth
That is so puerile, Jim
It is a FACT that abiotic hydrocarbons exist. But to you, it must be a fantasy.
Sorry Jim, my question was simple and straightforward.
The Solar system is awash with hydrocarbons – including complex ones.
You state – without reservation – that the abiotic nature of the Solar System – does not exist on Earth.
You give no reason for such a situation.
Don’t be obtuse – it makes you appear childish.
So now you are DENYING abiotic hydrocarbons throughout the Solar System????
I know you deny them on Earth – but you offer no reason for this.
Doug
Some comets contain “massive amounts of an organic material almost identical to high grade oil shale (kerogen),” the equivalent of cubic kilometers of such mixed with other material; for instance, corresponding hydrocarbons were detected during a probe fly-by through the tail of Comet Halley in 1986.
^ Dr. A. Zuppero, U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Discovery Of Water Ice Nearly Everywhere In The Solar System
^ Huebner, Walter F.(Ed) (1990). Physics and Chemistry of Comets. Springer-Verlag.
I don’t dismiss the Russians at all. Every international conference I attend, I go to their presentations, and they look for biotic, organic rich source rocks, just like the rest of us do. All of their oil can be tied back to organic source rocks.
The current production boom from shales is the final death of the abiotic theory. We can produce directly from the source rocks by drilling horizontally and fracking the heck out of it. We produce oil with complex hydrocarbon chains, such as C30 steranes from these shales, hydrocarbons which match the algal component of the shale. It is very difficult to go from some frozen ball of methane to complex waxes, and then somehow get those long chain hydrocarbons into rocks which are impermiable and must be fracked to get the oil out. The oil is organic, deposited with the shale, end of story.
The fact that we can now produce from those rich shales, pushes peak oil way into the future. The energy required to produce oil from those shales was until recently too high; now it is definitely feasible, and getting cheaper and more efficient every day.
Thanks to Rockdoc for bringing some facts to this regular WUWT trainwreck in my absence.
Doug – All of their oil can be tied back to organic source rocks.
============
Nonsense. Biological petroleum violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Here is the link again – in case you missed it the first time:
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full
The petroleum industry doesn’t care about thermodynamic laws, since the perception of scarcity is more profitable than reality. (Google: oil company memos + refinery)
But you should care, and anyone interested in reality and science should care about the 2nd thermodynamic law. Just pretending that petroleum is magically upgraded biological debris while repeating claims that there is an abundance of evidence, without actually furnishing any, isn’t helpful. You seem be promoting faith in fossil fuels, not evidence-based reasoning.
Richard Dawkins taught me to ask of any explanation: Where Is the Evidence For That? (Google: Dawkins, Dear Juliet). There is an abundance of evidence proving that life comes from petroleum, not vice-versa. Here is what a fraction of that evidence looks like:
http://living-petrol.blogspot.com/
Fossil fuel is an anti-scientific gravy train, not a description of reality.
Ken Hall says that there is strong evidence of oil being produced at depths far below what is reachable with current drilling technology, and that some fields are refilling from below. I don’t know that this is not true, but I’m wondering what the evidence is? I have only read about one oil field where significant refilling with oil from below has occurred and that is the Eugene Island field in the Gulf of Mexico, just off the coast of Louisiana. This was a medium sized field that did refill with oil, apparently due to a fault-created opening at the bottom of the main oil-containing rock formation, into a lower level oil reservoir that had never been produced. But this is the only such field I have ever heard about. It is actually not that unusual to have multiple “stacked” reservoirs in a given oil producing area, with the lower formations holding crude oil that contains biological markers from earlier geological periods (typically from past periods of extreme global warming when oil is thought to have been formed). However, once you go deeper than about 15,000 feet nearly all of the oil will have been “cooked” into the form of natural gas by the elevated temperatures and pressures as you go deeper. In fact, oil geologists call the range from 5,000 to 15,000 feet, the “oil window” because this is nearly always where the mostly liquid (and not gas) hydrocarbons are found. Then there is another big limitation at around 50,000 feet (as I recall) as the temperature reaches the point where steel (and therefore the drill itself) starts to melt!