Guest post by David Middleton
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently released an outline of his plan to achieve “North American energy independence” by 2020. While the white paper (1) is short on specific details, it does contain quite a few good ideas and some supporting documentation. For anyone interested in a business plan approach to energy policy, it’s well worth reading. Rather than focus on the details of the plan, I thought it would be an interesting exercise to see if “North American energy independence by 2020” was even technically possible. If it’s not technically possible, then it’s not really relevant whether or not it would be economically advisable or politically achievable. Since North America already pretty well has the capacity to be energy independent in terms of coal, natural gas, uranium and electricity generation, I’m only going to look at oil and natural gas liquids.
So, without any further prologue, I’m going to jump right into some numbers.
Can we “get there from here”?
According to the American Petroleum Institute (2) the current estimate of undiscovered technically recoverable Federal resources (UTRR-Fed) of crude oil currently stands at 116.3 billion barrels.
The UTRR-Fed are concentrated in areas close to existing exploration and exploitation infrastructure. The Gulf of Mexico, Alaska and the Lower 48 States comprise 88% of the UTRR-Fed.
| Region | Offshore/Onshore | Billions of Barrels of Crude Oil | % | Cum. % |
| Gulf of Mexico | Offshore | 44.9 | 39% | 39% |
| Alaska | Offshore | 26.6 | 23% | 61% |
| Alaska | Onshore | 18.8 | 16% | 78% |
| Lower 48 | Onshore | 11.7 | 10% | 88% |
| Pacific | Offshore | 10.5 | 9% | 97% |
| Atlantic | Offshore | 3.8 | 3% | 100% |
| Total | 116.3 | 100% |
There is no reason that these potential resources could not be exploited within the next few decades if the U.S. government adopted regulatory policies geared toward exploitation.
If industry converted the UTRR-Fed into proved developed producing reserves of crude oil over the next 25 years, this is what might happen to U.S. domestic crude oil production:
I think that it is technically possible that US crude oil and natural gas liquid production could reach 14.4 million BOPD by 2028 and peak at 15.7 million BOPD by 2032. If U.S. demand remained in the 18-20 million BOPD range, the United States could come very close to being self-sufficient in crude oil. I also took the liberty of including 73 billion barrels of Green River Oil Shale production from 2022-2100 (more on this later).
Canada expects to double its oil production by 2030 (3). Assuming that Canada’s domestic consumption remains stable and the U.S. remains Canada’s primary export market, Canadian imports could also be expected to double by 2030. While Mexican oil production is currently in decline and Pemex is one of the most poorly managed national oil companies (NOC) in the world, Mexico has huge potential in the area of undiscovered resources (4). Mexico does have the potential to stabilize its current production levels. If Canada doubles its production by 2030 and continues to increase its production through the end of this century and Mexico stabilizes at roughly its current levels, this is what U.S. domestic production plus Canadian and Mexican imports might look like:
Based on these numbers, North American energy independence could be achieved by 2027.
116 billion barrels of ”undiscovered technically recoverable oil” is equal to about 16 years worth of current US consumption. However, past history shows us that gov’t agencies always grossly underestimate what the oil industry will find and produce. Alaska’s North Slope has already produced 16 billion barrels of petroleum liquids. Currently developed areas will ultimately produce a total of about 30 billion barrels. The government’s original forecast for the North Slope’s total production was 10 billion barrels. The current USGS estimate for undiscovered oil in the Bakken play of Montana & North Dakota is 25 times larger than the same agency’s 1995 estimate. In 1987, the MMS undiscovered resource estimate for the Gulf of Mexico was 9 billion barrels. Today it is 45 billion barrels (2).
The MMS increased the estimate of undiscovered oil in the Gulf of Mexico from 9 billion barrels in 1987 to the current 45 billion barrels because we discovered a helluva a lot more than 9 billion barrels in the Gulf over the last 20 years. Almost all of the large US fields discovered since 1988 were discovered in the deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico. In 1988, it was unclear whether or not the deepwater plays would prove to be economic.The largest field in the Gulf of Mexico, Shell’s Mars Field, was discovered in 1989. Prior to this discovery, no one thought that economically viable Miocene-aged or older reservoirs existed in deepwater. Mars has produced 1 billion barrels of oil and 1.25 TCF of natural gas since coming on line in 1996. It is currently producing over 100,000 barrels of oil per day. Dozens of Mars-class fields have been discovered over the last 20 years… Most of those have only barely come on line over the last 5 years.
The most significant play in the Gulf of Mexico, the Lower Tertiary, wasn’t even a figment of anyone’s imagination in 1988. These are massive discoveries – BP’s recently discovered Tiber Field on Keathly Canyon Block 102 is estimated to contain 3-6 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Several recently discovered fields are expected to come on line at more than 100,000 bbl/day. This play is still in its infancy.
Based on the gov’t’s track record, the estimated 116 billion barrels of undiscovered oil under Federal lands is more likely to be 680 billion barrels. That’s close to 100 years worth of current US consumption – And that’s just the undiscovered oil under Federal mineral leases.
When you factor in shale oil (kerogen) plays, the numbers become staggering. The Green River formation oil shale has more than 1 trillion barrels of recoverable oil just in the Piceance Basin of Colorado.
- There are at least 1.8 trillion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil in just the Green River formation (DOE).
- Oil shale deposits like the Green River formation (technically a marl) are currently economic at sustained oil prices of $54/bbl, possibly as low as $35/bbl (DOE).
In my hypothetical production forecast, I projected Green River oil shale production to reach 15 million BOPD by 2096. Am I being overly optimistic in projecting more than 15 million barrels per day (BOPD) of production from oil shales by 2100? Shell estimates that they could be producing 500,000 barrels per day from the Picenance Basin with a very small footprint using an in situ recovery process (5):
Technical Viability and Commercial Readiness (pp 18-24)
Shell has tested its in-situ process at a very small scale on Shell’s private holdings in the Piceance Basin. The energy yield of the extracted liquid and gas is equal to that predicted by the standardized assay test.13 The heating energy required for this process equals about one-sixth the energy value of the extracted product. These tests have indicated that the process may be technically and economically viable.
This approach requires no subsurface mining and thus may be capable of achieving high resource recovery in the deepest and thickest portions of the U.S. oil shale resource. Most important, the Shell in-situ process can be implemented without the massive disturbance to land that would be caused by the only other method capable of high energy/resource recovery—namely, deep surface mining combined with surface retorting. The footprint of this approach is exceptionally small. When applied to the thickest oil shale deposits of the Piceance Basin, drilling in about 150 acres per year could support sustained production of a half-million barrels of oil per day and 500 billion cubic feet per year of natural gas.
[…]
Once oil shale development reaches the production growth stage, how fast and how large the industry grows will depend on the economic competitiveness of shale derived oil with other liquid fuels and on how the issues raised in Chapter Five are ultimately resolved. If long lead-time activities are started in the prior stage, the first follow-on commercial operations could begin production within four years. Counting from the start of the production growth stage and assuming that 200,000 barrels per day of increased production capacity can be added each year, total production would reach 1 million barrels per day in seven years, 2 million barrels per day in 12 years, and 3 million barrels in 17 years.
Assuming a 12-yr lead time to reach the production growth stage, it will take ~30 years to reach 3 million barrels per day. If production continued to grow at a rate of 1 million BOPD every 5 years… Oil shale production from just the Piceance Basin could reach 15 million BOPD by the end of this century.
The hydrocarbon characteristics of the the oil shales of the Green River formation in the Piceance Basin are superior to those of the Athabasca oil sands. The hydrocarbon areal density is about 13 times that of the Athabasca deposits. The Green River hydrocarbons are not technically “oil;” it’s a form of kerogen. But, for or refining purposes, it’s oil. It will be booked as oil, just like the Athabasca tar sand oil is. It’s a high-grade refinery feedstock…
Canada is currently producing ~ 1 million barrels of oil per day from Athabasca oil sand deposits. They expect to increase that to 2 million barrels per day over the next decade. The Green River oil shale deposits in the Piceance basin could easily outperform Athabasca within a decade and with a much smaller environmental footprint.
Athabasca oil sands are currently economically competitive with the OPEC basket. Green River formation oil shales are superior, by a wide margin, to Athabasca oil sands. The Green River oil shales would yield 100,000 bbl of 38° API sweet refinery feed per 160,000 tons of ore & overburden. Athabasca oil sands yield 100,000 bbl of 34° sweet refinery feed per 430,000 tons of ore & overburden. The unconventional oil is actually very light and very sweet; the OPEC Basket is actually heavier (32.7° API).
Athabasca is economically competitive now. Green River could be economically competitive now. The only obstacles to US energy security are environmental terrorists activists and the U.S. government.
“Peak Oil,” if it exists, won’t be reached for hundreds of years if the U.S. government would just get out of the way. About 80% of the most prospective Green River deposits are under Federal leases. The Obama administration effectively blocked exploitation of the Green River oil shale earlier this year.
Does Policy Matter?
Bad policy certainly matters. “One bipartisan policy tradition is to deny Americans the use of our own resources” (6):
The Obama administration’s energy policy has been disastrous as it relates to oil production. While it is true that U.S. domestic oil production has been rising over the last few years, all of the growth has come from onshore plays in Texas and North Dakota:
Some of the Texas (less than 1%) and North Dakota (~11%) production is from Federal leases. I downloaded the onshore Federal lease production data for Texas and North Dakota from Office of Natural Resource Revenue (ONRR) and subtracted the minuscule Federal lease production from the State and private lease production in those two States. I added that to theFederal Gulf of Mexico production (the GOM is the Big Kahuna of Federal lease oil production):
All of the net growth in US domestic oil production since 2009 has come from State and private leases in Texas and North Dakota.
Since President Obama took office, Federal lease oil production in the GOM, TX and ND has declined by 79 million barrels per year; while State and private lease production in TX & ND has grown by 205 million barrels per year. The decline in Gulf of Mexico has occurred during a period of high oil prices and is directly attributable to the unlawful drilling moratorium and “permitorium” imposed in the wake of the Macondo blowout and oil spill. Drilling permits that once took 30 days to be approved now take more than 300 days. Even relatively simple things like the approval of development plan (DOCD) revisions are being drawn out to nearly 300 days. The average delays for independent oil companies are currently 1.4 years on the shelf and almost 2 years in deepwater (7):
Between the “permitorium” and high product prices, many of the best, most capable drilling rigs have been moved overseas. Once we manage to get permits approved, the delays in obtaining a rig can be almost as long as the permit delays were. In this “dynamic regulatory environment,” wells can’t be drilled quickly enough to compensate for decline rates, much less to increase production.
References:
(1) Romney for President, Inc. 2012. “The Romney Plan for a Stronger Middle Class: Energy Independence.”
(2) American Petroleum Institute. 2012. “Energizing America: Facts for Addressing Energy Policy.”
(3) CBC News. 2012. Canadian oil production to double by 2030, industry predicts.
(4) Talwani, Manik. 2011. “Oil and Gas in Mexico: Geology, Production Rates and Reserves.” James Baker III Institute for Public Policy.
(5) Bartis, James T. 2005. “Oil shale development in the United States : prospects and policy issues.” RAND Corporation.
(6) Ford, Harold. 2011. “Washington vs. Energy Security.” The Wall Street Journal.
(7) Quest Offshore. 2o11. “The State of the Offshore U.S. Oil and Gas Industry.”
EIA. US Crude Oil & Petroleum Liquids Consumption
EIA. US Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production
EIA. US Crude Oil and Natural Gas Condensate Production
James F. Evans:
I have read your long post at September 7, 2012 at 12:04 pm and I am at a loss to understand your point.
For sake of argument, let us assume that abiotic oil exists. Indeed, let us assume that all oil is abiotic. If either of those assumptions were true then I fail to see how that would affect the argument and conclusions in the above article in any way. But this thread is a discussion of that article.
So, I would be grateful if you were to explain the relevance of your post.
Richard
richardscourtney,
A reasonable and excellent question. The revelance is to the amount of oil potentially available within the United States and its continental waters, indeed, within the 200 mile exclusive economic zone. as well.
It is true, nobody knows how fast the Earth’s geo-chemical production hydrocarbons proceed.
But, by and large, the “fossil” theory is a much more limited view of the scope of the Earth’s hydrocarbon potential because it is finite by definition (due to the organic detritus being emplaced literally millions of years ago), but more important, limited by the theory’s constrained view of where oil might be located due to it’s specific reliance on organic detritus instead of purely geo-physical processes. Abiotic Oil Theory states that hydrocarbons can be found all the way to the pre-cambrian crystalline bedrock and, indeed, within the bedrock, itself, in fractures and fissures. So, even if there is no substantial ‘ongoing’ formation of hydrocarbons (as stated, nobody knows) the scope of the size of thoses reservoirs are larger than anything proposed by “fossil” theory. Also, the territory is greater because offshore oil reservoirs are potentially much more vast than would be with organic detritus. It seems the estimated oil reserves of the Gulf of Mexico keep rising all the time.
To boil it down:
Supplies of hydrocarbons are much more plentiful according to Abiotic Oil Theory (even without any ongoing formation of hydrocarbons, although there is some evidence, notwithstanding Mr. Middleton’s objection to the Eugene Island oil field in the Gulf of Mexico, of some ongoing formation).
It is my contention and others share it, that the price of hydrocarbons is artifically high because of the concept of “peak” oil. So-called “peak” oil theory is entirely dependent on the “fossil” theory of petroleum formation, that is why you see “peak” oil supporters so vigorously object to Abiotic Oil Theory because it falsifies their whole “peak” oil argument because “peak” oil relies on the limited assumptions of supply dictated by the “fossil” theory.
“Every ten or fifteen years since the late 1800’s, ‘experts’ have predicted that oil reserves would last only ten more years. These experts have predicted nine out of the last zero oil-reserve exhaustions.” — C. Maurice and C. Smithson, Doomsday Mythology: 10,000 Years of Economic Crisis, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, 1984.
This periodic crisis of impending “peak”, which has never come true, even today, has been based on the mistaken belief in the “fossil” theory of petroleum formation.
The quote below is from a papers written by V. I. Sozansky, Dept. Marine Geology, National Academy of Sciences, Ukraine, J. F. Kenney, Gas Resources Corporation, U.S.A., P. M. Chepil, Institute Naukanaftogas, Ukraine.
“The world-wide reserves of oil and gas were analyzed by Lasaga & Holland (1971) from both the perspectives of BOOP and an abiotic origin of petroleum. By their estimates, the maximum quantity of crude oil that could have been produced by all biological matter on Earth could be represented by a thin 2.5mm film uniformly covering the Earth’s surface. Their estimates of the quantity of crude oil that could be produced abiologically could be represented by a thick 10km (!) layer uniformly covering the surface of the Earth. This difference estimates that abiotic petroleum must be at least 8 million times greater than could ever be expected from BOOP. Thus modern petroleum science predicts, even by the early estimates of Lasaga & Holland, that there exist tremendous quantities of petroleum, sufficient for the needs of humanity for thousands of years.”
Even if the above statement is an exaggerated illustration of the difference between the difference in amount of hydrocarbons between the two theories of hydrocarbon formation (and I suspect it is an exaggeration) it gives the reader a rough approximation of the difference.
Some proponents of Abiotic Oil Theory claim that oil geologists working for the oil industry don’t want the idea of abiotic oil to become wide-spread in the general public because it would break the whole idea that oil is a scarce and limited resource and, thus, valuble product, so the oil industry and speculators (who take advantage of cycles of “peak” scaremongering to push up the price beyond what actual supply and demand would dictate in the international market or even the U. S. market) can charge more money.
All these factors are important when discussing the U. S. being ‘independent’.
Also, if petroleum is more common than currently thought world-wide it would take pressure off the markets generally. I want the U. S. to be independent energy-wise, but it may not be necessary to do that if world-wide supplies are abundant. Besides, there have been calls and promises of American energy independence for 40 years (early 1970’s) and it has never happened, so, if it can be done — good — but if it can’t it won’t be the end of the world.
So, the above explanation is why I think the issue of the actual causation of hydrocarbons in the Earth’s crust is relevant to any supply discussion.
I neither agree nor disagree with the various abiotic hypotheses. There simply isn’t any evidence of significant volumes of abiotic oil anywhere on Earth.
Geoscientists disagree about a lot of things. Disagreement is not evidence of significant volumes of abiotic oil.
Firstly, you need to stop lying about what I have posted. I did not refer to Offshore magazine as “pulp fiction.” I referred to it as a “pulp industry journal”…
“Articles in pulp industry journals don’t trump the actual data. None of the ultra-deepwater Lower Tertiary oil wells have bottom hole temperatures anywhere near 400°F.
The ultra-deep shallow water gas prospects being drilled by McMoRan (Davey Jones, etc.) may very well have very high bottom hole temperatures. But these are GAS wells. Not oil wells.”
Offshore magazine is a widely distributed free trade publication (AKA pulp). It’s a very informative magazine, covering most aspects of the industry; but it is not a technical or scientific journal like the AAPG Bulletin, SEG Geophysics or the SPE’s equivalent publication.
Secondly, you need to learn how to read:
“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).”
He’s discussing gas well completions, like McMoRan’s Davy Jones. Gas can survive very high temperatures.
No one is disputing the fact that methane and trace quantities of heavier natural gases. This not evidence of significant volumes of abiotic oil.
If significant volumes of abiotic oil were being formed in the mantle, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and other areas of thin and/or rifted oceanic crust would be rife with oil seeps like the Gulf of Mexico .
The “limiting factor” is the volume of sedimentary rock in the Earth’s crust.
This volume is massively large and we have barely scratched the surface in exploiting it.
We answer it all the time. You either don’t like or don’t understand the answer.
You’re making the assertion sans evidence that the subsalt Brazil and the Lower Tertiary ultra deepwater oil plays are outside the oil window. I’ve refuted that assertion with actual well data from the Gulf of Mexico and at least three publications about actual well data from offshore Brazil.
The reason why the oil window can exist at such depths is the same in both cases: Thick salt layers and deep water.
You asserted that Szatmari predicted the discovery of the subsalt deepwater oil play offshore Brazil based on an abiotic hypothesis.
The drilling results falsified that hypothesis. The oil was easily matched to sedimentary source rocks and well within the oil window.
I didn’t address it because it’s not evidence of significant volumes of abiotic oil.
I didn’t retract anything. I corrected your mischaracterization of my use of the phrase “science fiction.”
There’s nothing a priori about it. The theory was developed through more than 100 years of observation and testing.
There you go again… Mischaracterizing what I posted. I made no appeal to authority. Kenny et al, say they found no evidence of organic sourcing. The. USGS had no difficulty identifying organic sourcing.
Despite the fact that Kenny is an advocate of the abiotic hypothesis and his Dneiper-Donets claims are totally unconfirmed, I said:
According to the USGS, they are. However, let’s just say that it’s a coin toss. The Dnieper-Donnets might be an example of abiotic oil; however the presence of abundant sedimentary source rocks makes it impossible to test this hypothesis. How can it be tested? Drill a well in a fractured igneous rock formation, totally remote from any possible sedimentary organic sourcing… Say, the Siljan Ring.
Ooops… Another abiotic hypothesis falsified…
I haven’t addressed them because they do not constitute evidence of significant volumes of abiotic oil and they are irrelevant to oil & gas exploration.
We’re already drilling as far out to the edge of the EEZ as technology allows us to in areas open to drilling.
Abject nonsense.
Oil is still being formed and migrating from source to reservoir rocks in the Gulf of Mexico. The Pleistocene reservoirs are less than 2.5 million years old and many have only been charged over the last 275,000 years. The reservoirs simply aren’t being charged as quickly as we are producing them.
The proven reserves keep rising because we keep drilling, producing and finding ways to increase recovery factors. In most cases in the Gulf of Mexico, we can only recover 20-40% of the original oil in place (OOIP). The “limiting factor” is not the current oil formation paradigm. The limiting factors regarding drilling are and always will be technology, economics and gov’t.
The explosion of proved reserves in Bakken and Eagle Ford was due to technology. The explosion of proved reserves in the Athabasca oil sands was due to economics. The oil didn’t just suddenly appear. The resource potential had been long recognized. The ability to economically extract them is what changed.
“Proved reserves” is a legally defined phrase. It is the volume of oil proved in a wellbore than can be economically extracted under current economic and technological conditions.
The estimated ultimate recoveries (EUR) of new discoveries and resource potentials are invariably much higher than the initial reserve booking.
This still has nothing to do with abiotic oil. The Gulf of Mexico is a very active and relatively young hydrocarbon system.
The EI 330 myth is the product of scientific and factual ignorance. It is the conflattion of unrelated events. The short term increase in production in the 1990s was combined with geochemical changes and slower than expected decline rates in some reservoirs. The field is still charging from at least two distinct sources, both of which are clearly of organic origin. The migration of hydrocarbons along a fault plane may have even been observed through 4d seismic. None of this had anything to do with the brief increase in production. This was the result of a drilling program. Almost every large field has a similar decline curve, with short term production increases from drilling new wells or sidetracking and recmpleting old wells.
Neither the Peak Oil nor the current paradigm of hydrocarbon formation theories have anything to do with product prices.
Prices are the result of the market’s perception of production (supply) and consumption (demand) relative to the pricing currency. The key supply factor is excess production capacity.
The Gulf of Mexico has accumulated more than 60,000′ of sedimentary column over the last 200 million years. The Cenozoic section, alone, is more than 40,000′ thick in places. The Quaternary can be more than 30,000′ thick in some locations. Most ot the sedimentary column is composed of thick, organic-rich shale.
Red = Sediment thickness ~ 20,000 meters…
Oceanic Sedimentary Isopach Map
Marine black shales, deposited under anoxic conditions are loaded with the stuff that oil is made of…
Total organic carbon (TOC) averaged 10% by weight.
The Cretaceous, in particular, was a hydrocarbon “kitchen.” Marine conditions couldn’t have been more favorable for the deposition of source rocks even if they had been designed for such a purpose…
Cretaceous Proto-Atlantic
The Eocene was also a hydrocarbon kitchen (up to 21% TOC).
There is no shortage of organic matter in the sedimentary basins of the Earth’s crust.
This notion that petroleum geologists are hiding the evidence for your pet theory is both idiotic and delusional. It makes the faked Moon landings and 911 conspiracy theories seem sane in comparison.
My entire post was devoted to the evidence that the US has an effectively unlimited supply of oil.
Those “factors” are no more relevant than faked Moon landing theories are relevant to a discussion of lunar geology.
Did you miss the “Does Policy Make a Difference?” section?
And it’s still no more relevant than faked Moon landing theories are relevant to a discussion of lunar geology.
Mr. Middleton, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Mr. Middleton wrote: “And it’s [Abiotic Oil Theory] still no more relevant than faked Moon landing theories are relevant to a discussion of lunar geology.”
This statement speaks volumes regarding your attitude about Abiotic Oil Theory.
In my opinion you are hostile to Abiotic Oil Theory and apparently, given your responses, hold in contempt the geoscientists who subscribe to Abiotic Oil Theory by claiming there is no evidence to support the existence of substantial volumes of abiotic oil — never mind the facts & evidence these scientists cite in favor of Abiotic Oil Theory.
Apparently, the geoscientists who subscribe to Abiotic Oil Theory are no better than “fake Moon landing” conspiracists in your mind.
Thank you for your time and effort. I appreciate the discussion and gaining an understanding of your perspective on the matter.
James Evans,
I tend to agree that abiotic oil is possible, since hydrocarbons are found throughout the solar system. But to be fair, abiotic oil is not a theory, which would make its existence highly predictable. It is at most a hypothesis.
You have continuously either mischaracterized or lied about what I have posted and then argued against your own fabrications.
My “faked Moon landing comment” was directed at YOUR assertion of some sort of petroleum geology conspiracy to hide the evidence of abiotic oil generation as part of some greater conspiracy to jack up oil prices.
A recap of the actual discussion:
I don’t care one way or the other about the various abiotic hypotheses… They are IRRELEVANT to oil and gas exploration and production. They are no more relevant then the faked Moon landing theories are relevant to a discussion of lunar geology. That doesn’t make the propopnets of those hypotheses into conspiracists; it just makes them irrelevant.
The hypotheses are irrelevant to where oil is found and do not constitute evidence that significant volumes of abiotic oil exist anywhere on Earth, irrespective of the validity of the hypotheses.
Please, Mr. Middleton, other than my unintentional misquote where it should have been, “pulp industry journal,” instead of “pulp fiction, and I apologize for misquote, my characterization of your hostility to Abiotic Oil Theory is easy to see for any fair & objective reader.
I am reporting the work of geoscientists and have provided two abstracts, one extended, and one full peer-reviewed published scientific paper which focussed on the natural analogs of the Fischer-Tropsch process known as the serpentinite mechanism or the serpentinite process (there are many more scientific papers on the same serpentinite mechanism, which I did not present).
I also presented extended quotes from several other papers, but was not able to link those papers.
Mr. Middleton attempted to discredit the Abiotic Oil Theory by making the comment, “Science fiction is not evidence.”
Now, perhaps I misinterpreted who or what the above comment was directed at, but it seemed like Mr. Middleton was attempting to discredit the evidence relied on by geoscientists, who subscribe to Abiotic Oil Theory and, thus, indirectly those geoscientists’ professional integrity. Because, after all, what does it mean when Mr. Middleton writes, “Science fiction is not evidence”?
In response I pointed out I was simply reporting those papers and that in effect Mr. Middleton was attacking the geoscientists and ignoring the facts & evidence those scientists presented:
Evans wrote: “See, Mr. Middleton, I’m not engaging in science fiction, I’m simply pointing out the work of scientists who disagree with you.
So, really, you aren’t saying I’m engaging in science fiction, you are accusing other scientists of engaging in science fiction.”
Mr. Middleton responded: “I’m not accusing anyone of anything.”
Okay, then, Mr. Middleton, what did the statement: “Science fiction is not evidence.” mean?
And, please provide your analysis & interpretation of the Fischer-Tropsch process known as the serpentinite mechanism as it relates to the Abiotic Oil Theory.
Mr. Middleton wrote: “While the exact process [of the diogenesis] is not perfectly understood…”
It must be known, when Mr. Middleton acknowledges so-called “diogenesis” is “not perfectly understood”, he is acknowledging “fossil” theory subscribers don’t even know how so-called “souce” rock is formed and this so-called “source” rock is the very basis of their theory. And on the other hand, Abiotic Oil Theory knows exactly how this so-called “source” rock formed: Heavy hydrocarbons, C215H330, drop out of the petroleum as it moves vertically up through cracks and fissures in the deep crust into sedimentary deposits, and lighter hydrocarbons continue moving up through the stratigraphic column.
So-called “diogenesis”, which as you above admit is “not prefectly understood”, while the Fischer-Tropsch process known as the serpentinite mechanism is well understood and scientifically constrained:
Serpentinite synthesis
A chemical basis for the abiotic petroleum process is the serpentinization of peridotite, beginning with methanogenesis via hydrolysis of olivine into serpentine in the presence of carbon dioxide. Olivine, composed of Forsterite and Fayalite metamorphoses into serpentine, magnetite and silica by the following reactions, with silica from fayalite decomposition (reaction 1a) feeding into the forsterite reaction (1b).
Reaction 1a:
Fayalite + water → Magnetite + aqueous silica + Hydrogen
Reaction 1b:
Forsterite + aqueous silica → Serpentinite
When this reaction occurs in the presence of dissolved carbon dioxide (carbonic acid) at temperatures above 500 °C Reaction 2a takes place.
Reaction 2a:
Olivine + Water + Carbonic acid → Serpentine + Magnetite + Methane
However, reaction 2(b) is just as likely, and supported by the presence of abundant talc-carbonate schists and magnesite stringer veins in many serpentinised peridotites;
Reaction 2b:
Olivine + Water + Carbonic acid → Serpentine + Magnetite + Magnesite + Silica
The upgrading of methane to higher n-alkane hydrocarbons is via dehydrogenation of methane in the presence of catalyst transition metals (e.g. Fe, Ni). This can be termed spinel hydrolysis.
Spinel polymerization mechanism
Magnetite, chromite and ilmenite are Fe-spinel group minerals found in many rocks but rarely as a major component in non-ultramafic rocks. In these rocks, high concentrations of magmatic magnetite, chromite and ilmenite provide a reduced matrix which may allow abiotic cracking of methane to higher hydrocarbons during hydrothermal events.
Chemically reduced rocks are required to drive this reaction and high temperatures are required to allow methane to be polymerized to ethane. Note that reaction 1a, above, also creates magnetite.
Reaction 3:
Methane + Magnetite → Ethane + Hematite
Reaction 3 results in n-alkane hydrocarbons, including linear saturated hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, aromatics, and cyclic compounds.
I asked Mr. Middleton, given the scientific evidence supporting the serpentinite mechanism in the Earth’s crust, what would be the “limiting factor” for the serpentinite mechanism, considering many geologists, who subscribe to “fossil” theory, acknowledge the serpentinite mechanism produces hydrocarbons in the Earth’s crust, but only in limited, non-commerical amounts?
And, instead of providing an answer regarding the Fischer-Tropsch, serpentinite process, Mr. Middleton gave this non-responsive answer:
Mr. Middleton wrote: “The “limiting factor” is the volume of sedimentary rock in the Earth’s crust.”
I take this response to be an argument in defense of the “fossil” theory, instead of addressing the limiting factor of the Fischer-Tropsch process in the Earth’s crust.
Mr. Middleton doubles down on the same failure to answer the question: What is the limiting factor of the serpentinite process in the Earth’s crust:
Evans wrote: “Seeing the Proskurowski, Lilley, Seewald et. al. abstract, there is evidence of abiotic methane through C4 formation, but as I stated, in my first comment, on this post, you, like your fellow oil geologists, never answer, “what is the limiting factor?”
Mr. Middleton responded: “We answer it all the time. You either don’t like or don’t understand the answer.”
False. Twice I’ve asked Mr. Middleton to explain what would be the physical limiting factor to the serpentinite, Fischer-Tropsch Type process with it’s full alkane hydrocarbon spectrum, as described by Peter Szatmari:
Petroleum Formation by Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis in Plate Tectonics, by Peter Szatmari (1989)
Szatmari wrote:
“COMPARISON OF NATURAL AND SYNTHETIC OILS
Several constituents of petroluem indicate that it may have formed by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. Crude oils, like oils produced by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, are mixtures of a very large number of hydrocarbon compounds whose chain length ranges from one (methane) to many carbon atoms. In petroleum, as in the products of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, the number of molecules systematically decreases with increasing number of carbon atoms, reflecting the probabilities of chain growth and chain termination that characterize any polymerization process (Schulz-Flory distribution) (Figure 1). Early studies by Robinson (1963) and Friedel and Sharkey (1963, 1968) indicate that the distribution of normal and isoparaffins in crude oil follows the chain-growth and chain-branching probabilities of the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.”
Szatmari wrote:
“Friedel and Sharkey (1963, 1968) found that the two parameters of the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis — the probability of chain lengthening and that of chain branching — accurately predict the abundance of isomers in Saudi Arabian oil, suggesting that it formed by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and not by thermal breakdown of fossil organic matter.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4653669/Petroleum-Formation-by-FischerTropsch-Synthesis-Peter-Szatmari
And each time Mr. Middleton has failed to provided a responsive answer.
Twice I’ve asked Mr. Middleton to provide an explanation why there are no “bio-markers” in the oil recovered from the crystalline basement (bedrock) in the Dnieper-Donets Basin as described by the scientific paper The Drilling & Development of the Oil & Gas Fields in the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin, V. A. Krayushkin, T. I. Tchebanenko, V. P. Klochko, Ye. S. Dvoryanin, Institute of Geological Sciences, O. Gonchara Street 55-B, 01054 Kiev, Ukraine, J. F. Kenney, Russian Academy of Sciences – Joint Institute of The Physics of the Earth, Moscow, Russia (2001):
Where the Russian scientists found:
“Bacteriological analysis of the oil and the examination for so-called “biological marker” molecules: The oil produced from the reservoirs in the crystalline basement rock of the Dnieper-Donets Basin has been examined particularly closely for the presence of either porphyrin molecules or “biological marker” molecules, the presence of which used to be misconstrued as “evidence” of a supposed biological origin for petroleum. None of the oil contains any such molecules, even at the ppm level.”
Mr. Middleton never did explain why there wasn’t any “bio-markers” in the oil.
Mr. Middleton offers non-responsive answers to these facts & evidence and then attacks either myself, the scientists, or both.
This discussion won’t decide the issue, do your own research (for any readers still following the thread).
Mr. Middleton wrote: “The hypotheses are irrelevant to where oil is found and do not constitute evidence that significant volumes of abiotic oil exist anywhere on Earth, irrespective of the validity of the hypotheses.”
The above statement is nonsense. If Abiotic Oil Theory is a valid hypothesis, which means there is significant volumes of abiotic oil on Earth, then it is relevant to where oil is found and the total amount of petroleum in the Earth’s crust.
You keep restating the hypothesis as if it is evidence of abiotic oil formation. The various hypotheses are fine. It’s the evidence and relevancy that are lacking.
You continue to mischaractetrize what I have posted.
And the only relevancy you can site for your continued restating ot the hypothesis is that you think the oil industry is engaged in some sort of conspiracty theory to hide the evidence of abiotic oil.
Mr. Middleton, thank you for the discussion.