A Peak Oiler and an Abiotic Oil Aficionado Walked into a Bar on the Gulf of Mexico…

Guest “Deepwater trip to Mars” by David Middleton

A Peak Oiler would look at this pie chart and declare that 93% of the oil and gas under the US Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico has already been produced and that the Gulf will be produced out in about 5 years. An Abiotic Oil Aficionado would be even wronger…

Figure 1. 2018 end of year Gulf of Mexico cumulative production and remaining proved reserves. BOEM 2020-028, page 1

A Peak Oiler would declare that the following two graphs must be fake; while an Abiotic Aficionado would declare that they prove something even more ridiculous.

Figure 2. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore (Central & Eastern) Crude Oil Estimated Production from Reserves (Million Barrels). EIA.
Figure 3. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore (Central & Eastern) Crude Oil Estimated Production from Reserves (Million Barrels) EIA.

This will really torque off the Peak Oilers (and totally mislead the Abiotic Oil Aficionados):

Figure 4 Figure 3 divided by Figure 2.

How can production from reserves and reserves both continue to rise? Let’s take a trip to Mars!

There’s an old saying in the oil industry, “big fields get bigger.”

Gulf of Mexico: Where Big Fields Are Getting Bigger

January 2018 Barry Friedman, Explorer Correspondent

“When you combine the U.S. and Mexico, onshore and offshore, the Gulf of Mexico basin is one of the world’s most prolific hydrocarbon super basins. Over 250 billion barrels of oil equivalent have been discovered to date, and almost 20 percent (currently 18 percent) of U.S. oil production comes from the Gulf of Mexico.

That’s Cindy Yeilding, Senior Vice President, BP America, speaking about the petroleum power and potential of the Gulf as a preview to her upcoming presentation at the AAPG Global Super Basins Leadership Conference in Houston, which will include discussion of the region’s production history and the geologic trends, innovation, and, yes – even failures associated with the region.

The realm of the Gulf of Mexico is not just important to the United States.

“We will also highlight the Gulf of Mexico … and the promise it holds for Mexico,” she said.

Life from the ‘Dead Sea’

Industry has been exploring offshore possibilities in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico since the 1930s, when the first wells were drilled in a few feet of water. It was an exciting time, especially in the late ‘40s.

[…]

“Exploration in the deepwater U.S. GoM,” Yeilding said, “dates back to the late 1970s,” and like any exploration program, there have been failures, but also perseverance and tenacity.

And a watershed moment.

Yeilding pointed to Shell and BP’s discovery of Mars in 1989, a project about 130 miles southeast of New Orleans. Initial cost of the development was pegged at about a billion dollars.

It’s been a good investment.

[…]

AAPG Explorer

Mars/Ursa field, officially designated as MC 807 is located in the Mississippi Canyon area. It is currently the largest field in the Gulf of Mexico.

Figure 5. Shell Oil’s Deepwater Mission to Mars

The Mars mini-basin is nearly surrounded by salt massifs. It’s basically a canyon system that filled with massive turbidite sandstone sequences. It is so large that the seismic amplitude anomalies look like regional reflection events. Mars was discovered in 1989 and first put on production in 1993. Tyler Priest’s Shell Oil’s Deepwater Mission to Mars provides a fascinating timeline of the discovery and development of Mars/Ursa.

When the field first went on production, the proved oil reserves were 161 million barrels. As of year-end 2018, the field had produced 1.427 billion barrels of crude oil, with 315 million barrels of remaining proved reserves.

Figure 6. Reserve History for Fields Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf. BOEM

How did Shell manage to increase the original 161 million barrels of proved reserves to 1.742 billion barrels?

Reserves appreciation (reserves growth) is the amount of resources in known accumulations that is expected to augment proved reserves as a consequence of the extension of known pools or fields, discovery of new pools within existing fields, or the application of improved extraction techniques. Prediction of reserves appreciation is generally based on statistical analysis of historical field data. For the 2016 Assessment, reserves appreciation is only applied to the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region.

BOEM 2017-085, page 5

6.2.1 Reserves Appreciation
Estimates of the quantity of proved oil and gas reserves in a field typically increase as the field is developed and produced. This is known as reserves appreciation or reserves growth and was first reported by Arrington (1960). Root and Attanasi (1993) estimated that the growth of known fields from 1978 to 1990 in the United States accounted for 90 percent of the annual additions to domestic reserves. BOEM data for GOM OCS fields reveal that, since 1981, increases in proved reserves through appreciation have greatly exceeded new field discoveries and comprise approximately two-thirds of the total increase. Characteristically, the relative magnitude of this growth is proportionally larger in the years immediately following field discovery.

BOEM 2017-085, page 47

Proved reserves generally grow over time because they start out as a small percentage of the resource.

Figure 7. Reserve classification framework. BOEM 2020-028

When you start out with a very big resource, it’s not unusual for the proved reserves to get bigger for quite a long time. While Mars/Ursa is an exceptional oil field and not typical of the overall Gulf of Mexico, the GOM super basin continues to get bigger.

Over the decades, advances in seismic imaging, drilling and production technology, enabled us to identify and drill hydrocarbon accumulations previously missed and drill in deeper and deeper water. As we gained better understanding of the geology, we found pay in Miocene and Lower Tertiary (Paleogene) reservoirs that we didn’t expect to be present in the deepwater. We also found larger fields that produced at much higher rates in deeper waters.

Figure 8. Gulf of Mexico oil production by water depth range (1947-2020). Data from BOEM via Lexco OWL.
Figure 9. Gulf of Mexico average well production rate by water depth range (1947-2020). Data from BOEM via Lexco OWL

How long can Gulf of Mexico oil production continue to grow? Based on projects currently under development, production could peak in the early 2030’s, or a lot sooner if the Democrats had one more Senate seat.

Figure 10. A Biden ban on “new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters” would cut GOM oil production in half by 2028 and by nearly 80% by 2040. (NOIA)

It all depends on how much more oil we discover. In their 2017 resource assessment, BOEM estimated that the cumulative production had been 18.5 billion barrels with 64.4 billion barrels remaining in proved reserves, contingent resources, future reserves appreciation and undiscovered technically recoverable resources.

Figure 11. BOEM 2017-085

Only time, technology, the price of oil and politics will determine how much of the undiscovered technically recoverable resources become economically recoverable resources and eventually proved reserves. The vast majority of the UTRR are in the Central Gulf of Mexico, deepwater, Upper Miocene to Lower Tertiary… But we don’t know what we don’t know… And won’t know it until we clearly see it in the rearview mirror.

Figure 12. BOEM 2017-085

However, past history shows us that government agencies almost always grossly underestimate what the oil industry will find and produce. Alaska’s North Slope has already produced over 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 48 billion barrels, 3 billion more than it was in 2012.

The MMS (Now BOEM/BSEE) increased the estimate of undiscovered oil in the Gulf of Mexico from 9 billion barrels in 1987 to the current 48 billion barrels because we discovered a helluva a lot more than 9 billion barrels in the Gulf over the last 30 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, few people thought that economically viable Miocene-aged or older reservoirs existed in deepwater. Dozens of not-quite-Mars-class fields have been discovered over the past 20 years… Most of those have only barely come on line over the last 10-15 years.

The most significant recent 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 Tiber Field on Keathly Canyon Block 102 is estimated to contain 3-6 billion barrels of recoverable oil. This play is still in its infancy.

Based on the government’s track record, the estimated 91 billion barrels of undiscovered oil under Federal offshore waters is more likely to be 600 billion barrels. That’s more than 100 years worth of current US consumption – And that’s just the undiscovered oil under Federal offshore waters.

However, we will at some point have produced half of the oil we will ever recover and Gulf of Mexico production will peak and begin its slow decline and no one will notice.

Just for Peak Oilers and Abiotic Oil Aficionados

Peak Oil, Abiotic Oil & EROEI: Real(ish) Things That Don’t Matter, Part One: Peak Oil

Abiotic Oil: Real(ish)Things That Don’t Matter, Part Deux

References

[BOEM] Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2017: 2016a National Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. OCS Report BOEM 2017-085.

[BOEM] Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2020: Estimated Oil and Gas Reserves Gulf of Mexico OCS Region December 31, 2018, US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. OCS Report BOEM 2020-028.

4.9 21 votes
Article Rating
143 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Case
August 12, 2021 10:15 am

“If the Democrats had one more seat in the Senate…”

Well, they knew how to get the current administration installed, so it won’t be too difficult to work the same “magic” in the 2022 mid term “elections”.

As the saying goes, “Practice makes perfect”

niceguy
Reply to  Steve Case
August 12, 2021 1:03 pm

The Green Infrastructure Huge New Deal got a huge Republican support so…

Tom Abbott
Reply to  niceguy
August 13, 2021 4:33 am

I think only five of the 19 Republicans who voted in favor of the Democrats taking over the United States, are up for re-election in 2020. That’s too bad. I was hoping Republican voters could oust all 19 of them at one time. We’ll oust all of them eventually. We don’t want fools like this governing us.

John Garrett
Reply to  Steve Case
August 12, 2021 1:43 pm

I like my holdings of LUKoil, Gazprom, Tatneft and Petrobras (all of which I’ve owned for nearly 20 years). Generally speaking, my tax basis in each is so low that it’s unlikely I’ll ever sell them.

Things in the U.S. have gotten so bad that there are times I start to wonder if there’s less risk of expropriation (or its cousin, “constructive expropriation”) in Russia and Brazil than there is in the U.S.

Who ever would have thunk it?

Last edited 1 month ago by John Garrett
Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Garrett
August 13, 2021 4:45 am

Yes, Joe Biden is in a hurry to destroy the American Dream.

I think it’s time to consider impeaching Biden and Harris for derelection of their duties. It will be mostly talk until January of 2023, but then, when the Republicans take back the House, the impeachments will be on.

Look at the disaster Biden is turning Afghanistan into. No telling how many deaths Biden has on his hands.

Biden threw South Vietnam to the wolves in 1975, and he was put in charge in Iraq after the war, where he presided over the rise of the Islamic Terror Army, and then sat there and watched them rampage across the Middle East k!lling and displacing millions (many to Europe), and now he is in charge of Afghanistan and promptly turns that into a debacle.

As Obama and Biden’s former Defense Secretary Gates said of Joe Biden: “He has been wrong on every foreign policy position for the last 40 years.

Afghanistan illustrates this perfectly.

Biden is a total incompetent, and his incompetence over the years has cost many their lives and freedom. with more to come in Afghanistan.

And it didn’t have to happen. The U.S. could have kept a sufficient presence to maintain order, with little cost to the U.S. The U.S. has not lost an American troop in Afghanistan in 18 months.

U.S. troops have been in Europe and Japan and South Korea for decades and that’s because it is in the U.S. interest to do so. It was also in the U.S. interest to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a terroist haven again.

But Biden is not about helping the U.S. interests. Everything he does harms the United States. He is a total disaster. Him, and the whole radical Democrat Party. They are trying to take over this nation by hook or crook. It’s up to us to stop them from doing so.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
IAMPCBOB
Reply to  Steve Case
August 12, 2021 2:13 pm

They have been ‘practicing’ for a good many years, now. It’s just that they’ve finally figured out to make it work. When Congress gets finished, elections will never be the same.

Steve Case
Reply to  IAMPCBOB
August 12, 2021 3:23 pm

Bingo!

michael hart
Reply to  Steve Case
August 12, 2021 8:57 pm

And also:
“Figure 10. A Biden ban on “new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters” would cut GOM oil production in half by 2028 and by nearly 80% by 2040. (NOIA)”

For a highly profitable industry which is continuously accused of buying-off politicians, they do seem to be making a poor job of it. I find it difficult to believe that they can’t find any Democrat Senators and Congressman who need to be bought a few lunches.

But then, the industry does seem to be so stingy that they rely on many unpaid internet bloggers to try and put their PR case for them.

Tom Halla
August 12, 2021 10:16 am

My understanding is that “proved reserves” has regulatory and tax accounting implications, and for those reasons, is almost always at the low end of what is expected to be in the ground.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  David Middleton
August 12, 2021 12:42 pm

Does anyone ever go back to wells that were capped off many decades ago, to see how fast they might be refilling?

Willem69
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 13, 2021 5:41 am

Hi nicholas,

As david say below oil could be recharging from source but more importantly a well gasses or waters out because both water and gas are less viscous (flow easier) than oil. Production causes a pressure sink in the reservoir which tends to draw gas down and water up into the well, it’s called ‘coning’ or ‘cusping’ and leads to the well being shut in because of to much gas or water and not enough oil being produced. If one closes the well eventually the fluid interfaces re-stabilize and you can put the well back on production. I have seen this done in practice but it can take a long time for things to stabilize. Furthermore, once gas and water have broken through the water and gas saturation in the near well area has changed (permanently at least in human time scales ) so water and gas can flow back into the well easier then before.

it is generally not allowed (by regulators) to keep a well closed ‘for decades’ while it could still potentially flow/leak. So a well is abandoned, meaning filled with cement, and cannot be re-opened.

having said all that, re-opening old wells can be highly rewarding for awhile but the timeframe is a couple of years, not decades.

best,
willem

bigoilbob
August 12, 2021 10:17 am

Yet another CONUS oil pimping article from you with no mention of the inconvenient $ trading behind it. Or, for that matter, of the non-economics overall. Remind me of how profitable your current/past employer was last 1/4, with a realized oil price of over $64? “Inclusive of hedges”, or not…

Folks, search for the Minnie Pearl joke from the Grand Ol’ Opry about the framer who spent $1/melon to grow them and get them to market, but sold them for $0.90/melon. To modernize the punch line, he extended his borrowing base, and added another bank to it, to buy a bigger truck…

DonM
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 12, 2021 10:41 am

When a framer gets outside his area of expertise or knowledge and tries to grow/sell produce, it is reasonable that he would make mistakes. The framer should stick to building houses.

You should stick to your area of expertise/knowledge as well. Let us know the best ways to stay on unemployment for the longest period of time … how to qualify for permanent disability … maybe write a book.

bigoilbob
Reply to  DonM
August 12, 2021 10:46 am

You should stick to your area of expertise/knowledge as well.”

Uh, ok. Pullin’ slips over the Sooner Trend at 14 – under age. 2 degrees in petroleum engineering, with work experience in many US basins, and even more overseas, onshore and off, safe and conflict zones, all of my adult life.

Zat qualify?

Scissor
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 12, 2021 1:08 pm

Obviously not.

John Endicott
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 13, 2021 3:55 am

Nice fantasy resume there bigoldboob.

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 12, 2021 10:46 am

It really is fascinating how BugOilBoob actually believes he’s so much smarter then the men and women who are actually doing the work.
It’s almost as if he’s being paid to beclown himself.

bigoilbob
Reply to  MarkW
August 12, 2021 10:52 am

It really is fascinating how BugOilBoob actually believes he’s so much smarter then the men and women who are actually doing the work.”

Who is “doing the work”? Mr. M seems to be “working” entirely at poring over alt.news sites to find grievances to whine about, and downloading future CONUS oilfield volume projections (as opposed to profitability) to keep up his spirits and help the time pass.

FYI, after almost 50 years “doing the work” I believe that I get to comment on it.

Doonman
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 12, 2021 11:11 am

So for 50 years, you polluted the earth with the results of your work?

No wonder you need another 50 years of penance. I don’t know how you live with yourself.

DonM
Reply to  Doonman
August 12, 2021 12:08 pm

doughnuts and disability

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 12, 2021 12:44 pm

I don’t know Bob…something about your whole story/schtick does not seem to add up.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 12, 2021 1:42 pm

I don’t know Bob…something about your whole story/schtick does not seem to add up.”

Predictably vague, save for the “I don’t know Bob”. Pray elucidate. That means, please don’t diss my oiliness unless you can pin down anything I’ve said that is not perfectly true.

paul courtney
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 12, 2021 3:11 pm

Mr. bob: So your mother named you “bigoilbob”? Or are you asking for a second thing you’ve said that is not perfectly true?
P.S.: I don’t care if you or any commenter uses a pseudonym, but you set the “perfect truth” standard.
P.S.S.: I also am quite unimpressed with your CV. You clearly think fracking oil is a financial disaster for oil producers who throw money away by paying Middleton and others to extract oil. Somehow Middleton is wrong to take their money. Yet this sector of US economy made money and rattled the system that made Iran and Venezuela wealthy and troublesome. You are blind to this. You seem to have persuaded nobody at this site, have you tried that Russell guy named VVatts?

bigoilbob
Reply to  paul courtney
August 12, 2021 4:51 pm

You clearly think fracking oil is a financial disaster for oil producers who throw money away..”

Yes, as the shale company business parameters show. It was not sustainable 5 years ago, and between frac hits, competitive drainage, and the end of low service rates, will not be for at least another decade. AGAIN, download a historic market cap app for the big players and show me who is not going DOWN.

“…for oil producers who throw money away by paying Middleton and others to extract oil”.

Mr. M does not work for a company that fracture stimulates. And as an exploration geologist/geophysicist, he is kept away from the nuts and bolts of his operation – if he’s even still employed. FYI, I have no doubt that he can do the job he is/was paid for doing, and therefore earns(ed) that pay. Oil biz was “Bery, bery, gud tu mi” for decades and I am keeping that money too.

“Yet this sector of US economy made money and rattled the system that made Iran and Venezuela wealthy and troublesome”

If you’re referring to modern fracture stim technology, it was indeed disruptive. The producers worked out the commerciality of it for years, and what with record hydrocarbon prices, low service rates, and Ben Dover regulators, they brought in beaucoup reserves. Those days are over for at least a decade. See above for why.

paul courtney
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 13, 2021 3:45 am

Mr. bob: Thanks for the textbook demonstration of “blind to it.”

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 13, 2021 5:18 am

I cannot pin down a single thing you have said that IS undoubtedly true.

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 12, 2021 1:27 pm

When you defy reality, don’t expect many people to be impressed with your claims of expertise.

Companies are making billions, yet you keep claiming that they are actually losing money. Only you are smart enough to figure this out.

bigoilbob
Reply to  MarkW
August 12, 2021 1:39 pm

“Companies are making billions, yet you keep claiming that they are actually losing money. Only you are smart enough to figure this out.”

To put this kindly – er – not based in fact. Yes, many are now temporarily cash flowing, since the oil price is not at bottom, and they are in Harvest Mode. I.e. deplete what you have. CAPEX is WAY down, both in the shale and offshore domains. Note that almost every brag article on given E&P’s focusses on dividends, buy backs. Not sustainable growth. In fact, it’s easy to find historic market cap for specific companies. I even posted one recently. Please show me which E&P’s have kept there’s up for the past 6-7 years. I’ll start. Pioneer. For every one you find that did, I can find 5 that didn’t. Bring it on?

Mr. M’s present (or former) employer is a poster child for this. Carried with hedge funds that have pulled out. Projects with uniformly low quality, for several different reasons. Inscrutable hedging that allowed them to lose $ at oil prices over $64. Low insider ownership. At least they aren’t divvying out with dividends or buybacks – because they can’t.

AGAIN, CONUS hydrocarbon production WILL resurge later. They just can’t compete on the world stage for at least another decade…

Last edited 1 month ago by bigoilbob
Gary Pearse
Reply to  MarkW
August 12, 2021 3:55 pm

Check out how much Exxon-Mobile pays in wages, salaries and taxes to probe whether they are solvent or not.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Gary Pearse
August 12, 2021 4:55 pm

Who is Exxon “Mobile”? If you mean Exxon “Mobil”, they have a market cap over $100B less than that of only a few years ago.

https://companiesmarketcap.com/exxon-mobil/marketcap/

LdB
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 13, 2021 8:41 am

Quick race and invest all your money in renewable energy stocks … what could possibly go wrong.

Scissor
Reply to  MarkW
August 12, 2021 1:11 pm

I got my hands dirty with product from Mars and I’m quite satisfied with the improved quality of life it brought for both Shell, its employees, shareholders, and, most importantly, consumers.

John Tillman
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 12, 2021 11:25 am

The downturn has affected energy companies differently. CVX, COP, RDS and BP have profits for the trailing 12 months. XOM and PSX, not so much. But fossil fuel prices are headed up.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
Dr Gary M Vasey
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 12, 2021 11:45 am

Its people like you who have us in the mess. They think they know everything and deserve being listened to. Well, as a PhD Geologist let me tell you you ooze stupidity with every syllable. Now, shut up and go back to listening to the Crap News Network where stupidity is celebrated as a virtue.

Mark D
Reply to  Dr Gary M Vasey
August 13, 2021 1:20 pm

Thank you Dr. Vasey for writing the following!

“The very term ‘climate change denier’ makes me want to giggle like a schoolboy who just heard someone make a rude noise. After all, if you actually believe that the Earth’s climate is static, ignore 4.5 billion years of geological record that shows otherwise, and truly believe a few ppm of plant food is responsible, then surely – it is you that denies climate change?”

Ron Long
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 12, 2021 12:25 pm

When you read a good article and then notice that the stars are less than 5, you know griff or bigoilbob has checked 1 star. Get a life.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  bigoilbob
August 12, 2021 2:16 pm

WOW! I came here expecting to read a good joke, and all I got was a crap shoot between the ‘experts’in the ‘oil field’.

August 12, 2021 10:17 am

No matter what your school of thought the raw materials behind oil are carbon and hydrogen.

The two most likely terrestrial sources being CO2 and H2O, unless oil was formed pre photosynthesis.

If oil was created after photosynthesis the only question is how this Oxygen was removed. Was it reduced by iron or did living organisms remove the oxygen. If it was living organisms how did they transport the oxygen away? What was it bound to such that it did not re-oxidize the hydrogen and carbon?

Reply to  John Tillman
August 12, 2021 6:32 pm

Yes, that is one possibility. That living organisms are trapped and die in oxygen poor environments, preserving their hydrocarbons.

It does not however rule out for example production of carbohydrates via subduction of carbon rich rocks such as limestone. Also produced from fossilized remains of living creatures.

In both cases fossil fuel, using different energy sources to reduce the oxygen.

Nature isn’t stuck with either/or. It there are two ways to solve a problem nature will follow both.

John Tillman
Reply to  Ferdberple
August 13, 2021 5:31 pm

I can’t rule out the hypothesis of abiotic crude and gas production on Earth. It’s just that there is no evidence for it.

John Tillman
Reply to  Ferdberple
August 13, 2021 6:01 pm

Crude oil is a complex, variable mix of long chain hydrocarbons with sulfur, nitrogen and other elements. But consider just a single component compound, asphaltene. Please show the abiotic chemistry which produces this formula: C6H5CH3, just one of many configurations of one component of crude. Plus other components containing chains with carbon atoms in double and even triple digit digits.

Thanks!

John Garrett
August 12, 2021 10:27 am

Prices make resources.

Bananabender56
August 12, 2021 11:05 am

In mining a reserve is an ore body that can be economically extracted, which is a moving target to some extent.

RickWill
Reply to  Bananabender56
August 12, 2021 7:01 pm

Ore, by definition, is economic-

a metal-bearing mineral or rock, or a native metal, that can be mined at a profit.

Prices often turn ore into dirt or rock.

LdB
Reply to  RickWill
August 13, 2021 8:42 am

And vice versa.

H. D. Hoese
August 12, 2021 11:17 am

Important quote—– From Clark, R. H. and J. T. Rouse. 1971. A closed system for generation and entrapment of hydrocarbons in Cenozoic deltas, Louisiana. Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. 55(8):1170-1178 .

As the result of collection of ‘…organic and inorganic debris…’ stated crudely but accurately “In terms of geologic pollution the Mississippi River was, and is, North America’s largest sewer system. It collects and dumps waste into the Gulf cesspool, where oil and gas forming processes start immediately.”   There is a lot of more of that cesspool at greater depths.

n.n
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
August 12, 2021 11:32 am

That “cesspool” is a nutritional smorgasbord for some lower forms of life and form the foundation of a food pyramid enjoyed by higher forms of lifes and people (i kid). And, of course, the greening effect of organic fertilizer. Win, win, win, lose for feathers and breathers (in context).

sturmudgeon
Reply to  n.n
August 12, 2021 3:07 pm

Based on what people have allowed/caused to put humankind in its current mess… I do not think that you should have added the (I kid).

Reply to  H. D. Hoese
August 12, 2021 11:38 am

The Mississippi River drainage system is relatively new.

Prior to the uplift that helped form the Mississippi River basin, that area was a large estuary or shallow water sea for many millions of years.

Usually a part of the the oil deposits is a caprock under which the oil collects. Salt beds are often that caprock.

Moving water and recent organic debris are not good for forming salt beds or caprock.

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  ATheoK
August 12, 2021 2:42 pm

Speaking of caprock
“Salt dome diapers” (for incontinent salt domes?) Just got that from a friend that was in a pretty simplistic paper on a not too bad “environmental overview” of the Gulf of Mexico(parenthesis by friend). Cold seeps no doubt. Replace now a less nasty common phrase, with wouldn’t know diaper from diapir. Not their worse mistake starting with (altered)”….development associated with intense oil and gas activities, including spills.“ They did mention the seeps, but didn’t know about platforms as a refuge from all that nasty “dead zone” water despite knowing about sandy shoals above the mud.  Authors not from Gulf of Mexico, one shows Austin as an older address. Probably not much GOM experience, decent references although some important ones missing like how productive that muddy habitat is.

August 12, 2021 11:27 am

One shouldn’t forget that massive underground salt deposits continue well up into America’s heartlands.

August 12, 2021 11:32 am

more hillbilly common sense = since hydrocarbons are known to exist several places in our own solar system, it is OBVIOUS that oil is abiotic…..unless some here can prove there were dinosaurs on several moons of other planets?

Reply to  David Middleton
August 12, 2021 11:39 am

care to discuss the truth i posted? or is a juvenile utube link all you offer?

Reply to  David Middleton
August 12, 2021 12:01 pm

ty for being civil, to me it is on topic when talking about the total reserves of oil BECAUSE oil is being made in the earth 24/7, so it becomes a question of how much milk reserve do we have(cows produce milk all the time so a “reserve” really means nothing)……so for oil how much of it there today is irrelevant to how long oil will be around when it is being made constantly…..

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bill Taylor
August 12, 2021 7:56 pm

Why is there no name associated with the article you linked to? Was no one willing to take responsibility for it?

Ruleo
Reply to  David Middleton
August 13, 2021 2:41 pm

You honestly believe man set foot on the moon. And you shouldn’t. van Allen and all that.

Yet here we are…

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ruleo
August 14, 2021 3:26 pm

One crackpot made the mistake of saying that to an aging astronaut who still had the ‘right stuff.’

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Middleton
August 14, 2021 3:38 pm

Thanks for the background, David. That was ‘before my time.’ 🙂

I’ve seen “Sky Dragons” mentioned but didn’t appreciate the reference.

LdB
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 13, 2021 8:45 am

No-one would take responsibility for that travesty 🙂

John Tillman
Reply to  Bill Taylor
August 13, 2021 5:34 pm

Again, no actual evidence. Your faith in a fairy tale is touching, but science requires facts. The hypothesis that Earth’s oil is abiotic has exactly zero supporting evidence.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Bill Taylor
August 12, 2021 12:30 pm

how much milk reserve do we have(cows produce milk all the time so a “reserve” really means nothing)

Well, that’s not entirely true. There’s the question of BULLS. I understand that in this ‘brave new world’ we’re told that “gender” is a choice and completely social … that SEX doesn’t exist, but without a bull there are no milk reserves.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
August 12, 2021 12:38 pm

great point, ty…….also no bulls = NO BS!

MarkW
Reply to  Bill Taylor
August 12, 2021 1:37 pm

There is no oil coming from deep inside the earth. There is no way for methane to get that deep. The heat would have destroyed it, had it somehow managed.

John Hultquist
Reply to  David Middleton
August 12, 2021 6:31 pm

David,
Have a look at this:
Dinosaur Town With Volcano, Granger, Washington (roadsideamerica.com)

Such drives the NW geologists to drink.

John Tillman
Reply to  Bill Taylor
August 12, 2021 11:53 am

Complex chemical composition of crude:

https://vula.uct.ac.za/access/content/group/9eafe770-4c41-4742-a414-0df36366abe6/Chem%20Ind%20Resource%20Pack/html/learner-sheets/P/LS_P1.pdf

All hydrocarbons aren’t created in the same way. Petroleum is a far cry from CH4.

John Tillman
Reply to  Bill Taylor
August 12, 2021 12:59 pm

Your link contains no evidence for abiotic oil. Which isn’t surprising, as there isn’t any.

MarkW
Reply to  John Tillman
August 12, 2021 1:39 pm

Anyone who believes that methane existing on other planets proves that oil is created abiotically, has no use for something as trivial as data or proof.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bill Taylor
August 12, 2021 8:01 pm

Another article that no one was willing to sign off on!

John Endicott
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 13, 2021 4:04 am

And yet those articles are from such credible websites. or is that credulous websites? I always get those two confused 😉

LdB
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 13, 2021 8:47 am

And is listed under “conspiracy” 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  Bill Taylor
August 12, 2021 1:36 pm

What you posted is no truth.

John Tillman
Reply to  Bill Taylor
August 12, 2021 11:46 am

Big difference between methane and ethane on Titan and coal and oil on Earth. Most methane on our planet is also biotic. Peat and coal are obviously of biological origin. So is at least the vast majority of oil, which is why geologists know where to look for it. While abiotic formation is theoretically possible, no convincing evidence of it has yet been found. Deep, hot oil owes to microbes in the crust, rather than in ancient oceans, as is the case with most crude deposits.

Reply to  John Tillman
August 12, 2021 11:51 am

ty for the civil response, there is also a huge difference between coal and oil…..coal clearly did come from fossils laid out in seams that are very similar at similar depths around the globe, oil is at all depths all around the globe……

John Tillman
Reply to  Bill Taylor
August 12, 2021 11:56 am

Not a huge difference. Much the same process, but more of it and often different feed stock, ie swamp vegetation vs. marine microbes. The chemical signatures of crude show it to be biotic, as does where it’s found.

MarkW
Reply to  Bill Taylor
August 12, 2021 1:41 pm

Coal was created after the evolution of woody plants and before the evolution of various molds that could break it down. Oil has been produced both before and after that time.

John Tillman
Reply to  MarkW
August 12, 2021 2:03 pm

The older coal is, the higher its heat content.

Soft brown coal (lignite, about 60 million years old) is scarcely better than peat. Bituminous and sub bituminous coal are over 100 million years old. Hard black coal (anthracite) dates from the time you describe, ie the Carboniferous Period, more than 300 Ma. It has almost twice the BTUs per pound of lignite.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Tillman
August 12, 2021 5:20 pm

That could have come directly from my grade 7 science text book. Now there’s nostalgia for ya … staring at lumps of anthracite and dreaming of Emilou’s developing chest … ‘hard as anthracite’.

“Mr. Forbes … whack … eyes front!”

John Tillman
Reply to  Rory Forbes
August 13, 2021 5:35 pm

You’re welcome for the nostalgic trip down memory lane. Or is it mammary?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Tillman
August 13, 2021 5:41 pm

At nearly 80 … mostly the former 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  Bill Taylor
August 12, 2021 1:34 pm

The methane that exists on the surface of the various moons and planets, exists on the surface.
The idea that there are vast pockets of methane deep within the earth is utter nonsense. Back when the earth was molten, light weight molecules and atoms floated to the surface. When the surface solidified, they stayed on the surface.

The methane in the atmosphere was destroyed when oxygen became a major portion of the atmosphere. This would have happened on the other planets had those planets developed photosynthesizing plant life.

BTW A therefor B may impress you, but most hillybillies would laugh at your simplistic thinking.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
John Tillman
Reply to  MarkW
August 12, 2021 1:56 pm

Clouds of PAHs drift in space, but they too wouldn’t at pressure and heat of deep crust and mantle.

Reply to  MarkW
August 12, 2021 2:30 pm

i have had enough mocking for today, you are dismissed from any rational discussion among sane adults…..the POINT i made remains intact, hydrocarbon are COMMON in our own solar system which IS proof it doesn’t require oxygen breathing life forms to form hydrocarbons……..everything needed to make oil exists with or without animal/plant life……oil wells thought to be dry only a few decades ago are refilling all around the globe and indeed oil has been found very deep in many locations…..note i have made no personal comment about you or your intelligence.

Last edited 1 month ago by Bill Taylor
Reply to  Bill Taylor
August 12, 2021 2:53 pm

Geologists have been debating for several years whether some of these hydrocarbons (hydrocarbons) could have been formed deeper in the Earth’s interior without organic material. Now, for the first time, scientists have found that ethane and heavy hydrocarbons can indeed be synthesized under the pressure and temperature conditions in the Earth’s upper mantle – the layer of Earth beneath the crust and at the top of the Earth’s core. It is possible that these inorganic, subsurface sources of formation also supply mineable petroleum reserves at much higher levels via deep fractures.

The experiments were conducted by researchers at the Carnegie Institution’s Geophysical Laboratory and colleagues in Sweden and Russia and published in the journal Nature Geoscience (online edition). Methane (CH4) is the main component of natural gas, ethane (C2H6) is a feedstock in the petrochemical industry.

Using a high-pressure cell made of diamond (Diamond Anvill Cell) and a laser as a heat source, the researchers were able to expose a small amount of methane to a 20,000-fold increase in pressure and temperatures between 700 and 1230 degrees Celsius compared to the atmosphere at sea level. This roughly corresponds to conditions 65 to 150 kilometers below the Earth’s surface.

In the process, the methane reacted and became ethane, propane, butane, molecular hydrogen and graphite. Conversely, ethane reacted chemically to form methane under the same conditions. These chemical reactions suggest that heavy hydrocarbons may exist at these depths of the Earth. The reversibility of the chemical reactions shows that the synthesis of hydrocarbons is thermodynamically determined, that is, by pressure and temperature, and does not require organic material.

Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

German source

Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 12, 2021 3:13 pm

TY for posting that, i have to admit i read that a while back but did not link to it…….it is science FACT that oil can form without lifeforms involved and that is my POINT here, that oil forms on this earth with or without humans……

Reply to  Bill Taylor
August 12, 2021 3:59 pm

And life to find it’s way into coal and oil is more than enough in the depth:
Life in Deep Earth Totals 15 to 23 Billion Tonnes of Carbon—Hundreds of Times More than Humans
Deep Carbon Observatory collaborators, exploring the ‘Galapagos of the deep,’ add to what’s known, unknown, and unknowable about Earth’s most pristine ecosystemBacteria, archaea, and other microbes—some of them zombies—exist even in deepest known subsurface, and they’re weirder than their surface counterparts~70% of Earth’s bacteria and archaea live undergroundEarth’s deep life suggests microbes might inhabit the subsurface of other planets.

World’s Oldest Groundwater Supports Life Through Water-Rock Chemistry
The Kidd Creek Mine, located in Ontario in Canada, is a copper, silver, and zinc mine reaching three kilometers deep, and miners are still digging. This rich vein of metals formed about 2.7 billion years ago along the ocean floor, through extensive hydrothermal vent activity. Tectonic forces tipped the floor vertically, but otherwise the site has remained fairly stable, neither roasted by volcanic activity, nor further deformed. This stability, combined with unprecedented access provided by mining tunnels, make Kidd Creek Mine the ideal place to study groundwaters within a network of fractures that have been isolated from the surface for millions or even billions of years.

Strange life forms found deep in a mine point to vast ‘underground Galapagos’
In the eye-opening report, a team led by Cara Magnabosco, a geobiologist at the Swiss technical university ETH Zurich, estimated that some 5 x 10^29 cells live in the deep Earth: that’s five-hundred-thousand-trillion-trillion cells. Collectively, they weigh 300 times as much as all living people combined. The team describes this hidden ecosystem as an “underground Galapagos.”
The denizens of the deep are an exotic bunch even beyond their appetite for solid rock. One species, the microbe Geogemma barossii, can live at temperatures of 250 degrees Fahrenheit — well above the boiling point of water and close to the theoretical limit at which vital organic molecules start to disintegrate.
Separate studies of material drilled near the Mariana Trench in the Pacific Ocean hint that some organisms could be living six miles below the seafloor, limited only by the heat at such tremendous depths. Laboratory experiments show that some microbes can tolerate pressures 20,000 times higher than the air pressure at sea level, meaning that there are almost certainly more extreme ecosystems out there than the one in the Kidd Mine.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 13, 2021 5:24 am

That is thought-provoking.

Did the organisms develop down deep, or did they move there from a more benign environment on the surface?

LdB
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 13, 2021 9:00 am

Not really strange when you consider the theory that life on earth may have started around deep sea underwater vents (black smokers). The earth had to cool for normal life to start and compare that to something like Pyrolobus fumarii which holds the upper limit for life at 113 °C.

John Endicott
Reply to  Bill Taylor
August 13, 2021 4:07 am

my POINT here, that oil forms on this earth with or without humans”

Er, well yes. No one has claimed “humans form oil”. So if that’s you point, well done for making a point no one was contending.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 12, 2021 8:16 pm

What is claimed is that temperature and pressure can convert a simple CH4 molecule into slightly larger molecule hydrocarbons. However, one of the characteristics of crude oil is that it consists of much larger chain molecules that actually have to be ‘cracked’ to make usable products.

One has to be careful about assuming that just because hydrocarbons are found to great depth that they are necessarily abiotic. Subducting plates carry organic material to great depths.

Reply to  Bill Taylor
August 12, 2021 3:08 pm

We present in situ observations of hydrocarbon formation via carbonate reduction at upper mantle pressures and temperatures. Methane was formed from FeO, CaCO3-calcite, and water at pressures between 5 and 11 GPa and temperatures ranging from 500°C to 1,500°C. The results are shown to be consistent with multiphase thermodynamic calculations based on the statistical mechanics of soft particle mixtures. The study demonstrates the existence of abiogenic pathways for the formation of hydrocarbons in the Earth’s interior and suggests that the hydrocarbon budget of the bulk Earth may be larger than conventionally assumed.

Generation of methane in the Earth’s mantle: In situ high pressure–temperature measurements of carbonate reduction

Reply to  Bill Taylor
August 12, 2021 3:11 pm

Under high pressures of several giga-pascals using hydrothermal diamond anvil cell, methane generated directly from CaCO3 reduction in gold-lined chamber is in situ measured by Raman spectroscopy at the temperature of 550 °C. The reducing agents include FeO, SiO and natural fayalite (Fe2SiO4), and the resource of hydrogen are water and natural serpentine (Mg3Si2O5(OH)4). The study demonstrates the existence of abiogenic formation of methane under high pressures in the Earth’s interior and that the application of high pressure to catalyze multicomponent reactions is a very promising method.

Methane formation from CaCO3 reduction catalyzed by high pressure

MarkW
Reply to  Bill Taylor
August 12, 2021 7:24 pm

A grand total of nobody ever claimed that only animals and plants could create hydro-carbons. If that’s the best you can do for evidence, then don’t be surprised when you are mocked.

I notice you completely ignored my comments about the impossibility of getting atmospheric methane deep into the crust.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bill Taylor
August 12, 2021 8:09 pm

… oil wells thought to be dry only a few decades ago are refilling all around the globe …

Do you have a reputable citation (that someone was actually willing to put their name on) that supports the implication that the recharge rate is greater than what would be expected from migration of oil from the source horizons to the traps?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 13, 2021 5:32 am

“from migration of oil from the source horizons to the traps?”

“source horizon”: I hadn’t thought about it that way before. I will from now on. I’m going to be a geologist yet! 🙂

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Middleton
August 13, 2021 3:58 pm

When I saw the “source horizon” statement, I didn’t connect that with abiotic oil, rather it gave me a picture that if oil is pumped from a certain area, that other oil, that is surrounding that area, will/could drain into the emptying area. I was just trying to visualize, in my mind, the underground dynamics of a pumping oil well.

Vuk
August 12, 2021 11:42 am

On British TV it was mentioned that the USA is buying Venezuelan oil from Russians. Anyone knows if this odd state of affairs is true?

Richard Page
Reply to  Vuk
August 12, 2021 12:14 pm

USA is importing oil from Russia. Venezuela is exporting oil through Russia – apologies, my mistake; Russia is accepting oil from Venezuela as payment on earlier loans (heh heh). The idea of Venezuelan oil going directly to the USA is unlikely due to the punitive sanctions on the Maduro regime and those doing business with them, but the connection is there so unlikely but not impossible. On the other hand, the Russians might get a real kick out of thumbing their nose at the Americans by circumventing the sanctions in this way, so who knows?

Reply to  Richard Page
August 12, 2021 1:51 pm

Oil in Venezuela is mostly heavy stuff….but large deposits….China will probably find a way to get it…..must go thru Panama Canal though.

Richard Page
Reply to  Anti-griff
August 12, 2021 4:13 pm

China’s getting a lot of oil from Iran and Russia so unlikely that they’d need to look further afield – especially given the sanction hoops they’d have to jump through with Maduro in charge. Plus, despite what the Venezuelan officials are saying, they’re simply not going to be able to pump enough oil to bail out their economy anytime soon – for the second or third time in just a few years they’ve knocked 6 zero’s off their devalued currency to try to make it useable. They’re producing just enough to keep Russia on side but none to spare; given the self inflicted problems and the US sanctions this state of affairs isn’t likely to change much if at all.

n.n
August 12, 2021 11:49 am

A hydrogen and carbon, sitting in a well, b-o-n-d-i-n-g.

Craig
August 12, 2021 12:44 pm

We’ve reshot seismic across many old fields where the new reserves discovered as a result more than paid for the seismic – to say nothing for the original intent of the survey to better understand the remaining known reserves in place.

Editor
August 12, 2021 2:31 pm

David, I’m not seeing most of the figures. I’ve tried two browsers. The only one I see is Figure 5.

John Garrett
Reply to  Andy May
August 12, 2021 2:58 pm

They’re all visible in my Mozilla Firefox as of 21:57 UTC

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Garrett
August 12, 2021 8:22 pm

Similarly, Firefox seems to be handling them well on my system.

sturmudgeon
August 12, 2021 3:27 pm

From a simple guy of 86, who left ‘formal’ ed during the tenth grade, I would like to sincerely ‘THANK’ WUWT and its contributors and commentors, for advancing my “larnin” over the years. Likely, I will be long ‘gone’ when the Oregon protocols of not requiring or grading Mathematics and English for those now in their public schools becomes the norm throughout the land. I absolutely “relish” this Site. Thanks.

Mark D
Reply to  sturmudgeon
August 13, 2021 1:07 pm

I’m not quite two decades younger but I learn as much more here than I did in 4 hated yrs of H.S. Bored to tears I repeatedly advanced by the skin of my teeth probably because teachers had enough of my disruptive questions. I imagine a lot of readers here can relate.I wish I had this challenge available in the 60’s. Getting my Amateur Radio Operators License my sophomore year is all that saved me.

Bruce Cobb
August 12, 2021 3:32 pm

A Peak Oiler and an Abiotic Oil Aficionado Walked into a Bar on the Gulf of Mexico.
The Peak Oiler says “Is this supposed to be some sort of joke”?
And the Abiotic Oiler says “Yes; Around here, the jokes make themselves”.

DonM
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 12, 2021 6:03 pm

The Peaker says “this Bar is gonna be gettn smaller … it aint gonna ever be bigger than it is now … the sand under our feet is is disappearing as we speak. We need to get off this Bar now and swim the channel back to shore”.

The Abiotic guy says “It’s O.K.. The ocean churns and churns and churns and makes more and more sand, so there will always be sand under our feet.”

The Peaker tries to swim to shore and drowns (he is a fat chump who eats too many doughnuts and can’t swim very well). The storm tide goes out and fills in the channel, so the Abiotic guy can walk back to shore; stepping over the half buried Peaker he says, “see there, I was right all along Bob… you dumb chump.”

Clyde Spencer
August 12, 2021 8:25 pm

There is one poster who is conspicuous by his absence!

Hey, Ingraham! This is your cue to be able to post on-topic. Are you going to take advantage of it?

Clyde Spencer
August 12, 2021 9:33 pm

A timely response. However, not very informative.

MAL
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 12, 2021 11:57 pm

You are dense as the rocks some of the drillers have to go through to find oil. To bad your thoughts are a dry hole.

James F. Evans
August 12, 2021 11:50 pm

Well, I can see I’m late to the party.

Just yesterday Oil Price com had an article on a potential drill in the Gulf of Mexico 35,000 feet below the mud line (sea floor).

Mr. Middleton mentions that for many years it was thought there wouldn’t be recoverable oil in the deep water of the Gulf. Partly, that was thought because it contradicted tenants of ancient algae hypothesis.

Technology for finding & recovering deep water oil has progressed spectacularly. I congratulate the engineers, geologists, and scientists who brought that about.

Mr. Middleton and others are Uniformatarians. Today, no where in the world are there deep troughs or basins filled with dead algae many, many feet deep, hundreds, perhaps thousands of feet deep, who knows what it would take to produce the huge amounts of oil recovered and yet to be recovered (lets say the Gulf of Mexico), the world over.

What is consistent is that there almost always more oil, sometimes much more oil recovered than first predicted. Mr. Middleton shows the reader such is the case.

One has to consider the possibility that one reason they almost always underestimate the amount of oil is the singular hypothesis most petro-geologists work by, oil is ancient algae. (It needs to be stated there is a small number of geologists in the industry who do subscribe to abiotic oil theory.)

Is there unlimited oil? Of course not, fields are drilled, produced and peter out.

But there is more oil world-wide than ever predicted by reliance on algae.

But to emphasize Mr. Middleton’s point: almost invariably more oil is found than expected.

Now, I understand for economic reasons, predictions of recoverable oil are cautious.

But one has to ask, is there a point reached when the amount of oil recovered becomes too much to be explained by dead algae?

When you think about it, the dead algae hypothesis is the emperor with no clothes.

It’s looks silly & ridiculous, but no one in the group-think dare says a word, lest they get thrown out of the club.

griff
August 13, 2021 1:05 am

I don’t know why we have all these ‘peak oil’ articles lately, unless its a distraction from the obvious climate impacts/damage from heatwaves and floods, but oil use worldwide will certainly drop by 2030… the EV momentum is unstoppable, especially in Europe where the manufacturers have bought 100% into no new ICE by 2030.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
August 13, 2021 2:06 am

Well you could ask Mark Ingraham. Oil use will not drop by 2030 – USA and other politically woke countries may stop producing but the demand is still consistent and other countries uncontaminated by your insanity will just increase production. As is starting to happen now. The EV momentum is faltering, as usual, and can only be increased by banning competitors – hardly ‘momentum’ when you have to artificially create a market from virtually nothing. As to climate change impacts – they are just localised weather event’s everywhere outside your bubble of insanity. Wake up and smell the bloody coffee, you’ve been sleepwalking for too long.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Page
John Endicott
Reply to  Richard Page
August 13, 2021 4:13 am

Indeed any “momentum” that requires restraining and the outright banning of the competition is artificial, not to mention the subsidies to support EV manufacturing and sales. Lets see how “unstoppable” the momentum is when your strip away the mandates, subsidies, and regulatory restraints.

In other words, in a fair competition between ICE and EV, ICE will win hands down. We’ve already saw that happen roughly a century ago when ICE stomped all over EVs in the early days of the automobile. And all the reasons people preferred ICE to EVs back then (range, price, “refill” time, etc) still apply today.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Endicott
2hotel9
Reply to  griff
August 13, 2021 3:55 am

Aw, poor little griffie doesn’t have a lie on tap for all those facts, how cute.

John Endicott
Reply to  griff
August 13, 2021 4:20 am

griff: “I don’t know”

You could have stopped your post right there. As truer words were never spoken. you don’t know. and you never do.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 13, 2021 7:27 am

I see that griff is still holding the position that a press release about possible future actions from a few automakers means that all automakers have already done these things.

There have been obvious impacts from weather systems, the problem for you griff is that all of these weather systems have happened before, dozens to hundreds of times, often in the exact same spot.

BTW, I love the way griff considers government mandates to be unstoppable consumer movement.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
LdB
Reply to  MarkW
August 13, 2021 9:16 am

Add to that Australia like many countries has given up car manufacturing and will simply import what cars we want from whatever sources are available. There are only limited number of EU cars here now and if it dropped to zero I am not sure anyone but die hard EU car fans would care.

LdB
Reply to  griff
August 13, 2021 9:13 am

Three quarters of the world doesn’t care what Europe does and trade very little with it.
Here is you list of large trade partners who who might actually care
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_European_Union

To most countries what the EU does is about as interesting as watching ants mate.

Last edited 1 month ago by LdB
2hotel9
August 13, 2021 3:57 am

Keep telling yourself lies, everyone will keep laughing at you.

2hotel9
Reply to  2hotel9
August 14, 2021 3:14 am

Just keep the comedy coming, no one cares about your feelings.

2hotel9
August 13, 2021 4:02 am

Basically energy production is harmed by government and academia, both of which are populated by college educated morons who are too stupid to pour piss out of a bucket. With Faux Joe Xiden and the Greentard Party screwing the human race at every opportunity it is time to strip them of all access modern energy sources, no electricity, no gasoline, no diesel, no running water or foods they don’t grow themselves. THAT is what they are doing ti us, time to attack them.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  2hotel9
August 13, 2021 5:51 am

“out of a bucket”

With the instructions written on the bottom of the bucket.

We are not living in an Idocracy, we are living in a Demonocracy. They are stupid and malicious.

2hotel9
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 13, 2021 6:41 am

“stupid and malicious” about says it all.

roaddog
August 13, 2021 5:49 am

Peak Oil aficionados are reminiscent of the people who, long ago, wanted to close the patent office because everything that would ever be invented, had been invented.

%d bloggers like this: