| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sea Squid" |
| Date: |
16 Feb 2005 12:35:15 AM |
| Object: |
Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it. |
I am in doubt of Peak Oil concept. I listened to some interviews on the
globalpublicmedia.com
and found that those people all spread all sorts of unsolicited evidences
and claims, for example
using water in human body as an awkward analogy to the oil & gas, converting
to localized
communities, immobilized cities when there is no oil, alternative energy
source like solar & wind
won't save the earth etc. These claims erodes the credibility of the peak
oil advocalists.
I am suspicious these to be a propaganda compaign by the oil & gas industry
in order to justify
their price manipulation in the international crude oil market and to pop up
the gas prices.
.
|
|
| User: "Pat Fallon" |
|
| Title: Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it. |
16 Feb 2005 11:06:52 AM |
|
|
"Sea Squid" <Sea.Squid@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4212e867@news.starhub.net.sg...
I am in doubt of Peak Oil concept. I listened to some interviews on the
globalpublicmedia.com
and found that those people all spread all sorts of unsolicited evidences
and claims, for example
using water in human body as an awkward analogy to the oil & gas,
converting
to localized
communities, immobilized cities when there is no oil, alternative energy
source like solar & wind
won't save the earth etc. These claims erodes the credibility of the peak
oil advocalists.
I am suspicious these to be a propaganda compaign by the oil & gas
industry
in order to justify
their price manipulation in the international crude oil market and to pop
up
the gas prices.
It appears that, unbeknownst to Westerners, there have actually been, for
quite some time now, two competing theories concerning the origins of
petroleum.
One theory claims that oil is an organic 'fossil fuel' deposited in finite
quantities near the planet's surface.
The other theory claims that oil is continuously generated by natural
processes in the Earth's magma.
One theory is backed by a massive body of research representing fifty years
of intense scientific inquiry. The other theory is an unproven relic of the
eighteenth century. One theory anticipates deep oil reserves, refillable oil
fields, migratory oil systems, deep sources of generation, and the
spontaneous venting of gas and oil. The other theory has a difficult time
explaining any such documented phenomena.
In September, the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences published an interesting study by a distinguished group of
academics (as opposed to the oil industry spokesmen that the Peakers
routinely cite): "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."
(http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0405930101v1?view=abstract)
Physics Web picked up the story as well: "Scientists in the US have
witnessed the production of methane under the conditions that exist in the
Earth's upper mantle for the first time. The experiments demonstrate that
hydrocarbons could be formed inside the Earth via simple inorganic
reactions -- and not just from the decomposition of living organisms as
conventionally assumed -- and might therefore be more plentiful than
previously thought."
(http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/9/9/1)
For more good info with links to other papers of interest on the subject of
"Peak Oil" and the debate over whether oil is a fossil fuel see:
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr71.html
IMHO, "Peak Oil" is bogus. Oil is NOT a fossil fuel!
Pat Fallon
pfallon@ptd.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sea Squid" |
|
| Title: Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it. |
16 Feb 2005 07:47:32 PM |
|
|
Okie, there are usually many ways to do something, but not the ONLY method.
The article from PNAS.org may not be economical since heating and
pressurizing
all use energy and they can't come from nowhere.
In September, the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences published an interesting study by a distinguished group of
academics (as opposed to the oil industry spokesmen that the Peakers
routinely cite): "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."
(http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0405930101v1?view=abstract)
Physics Web picked up the story as well: "Scientists in the US have
witnessed the production of methane under the conditions that exist in the
Earth's upper mantle for the first time. The experiments demonstrate that
hydrocarbons could be formed inside the Earth via simple inorganic
reactions -- and not just from the decomposition of living organisms as
conventionally assumed -- and might therefore be more plentiful than
previously thought."
(http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/9/9/1)
For more good info with links to other papers of interest on the subject
of
"Peak Oil" and the debate over whether oil is a fossil fuel see:
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr71.html
IMHO, "Peak Oil" is bogus. Oil is NOT a fossil fuel!
Pat Fallon
pfallon@ptd.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gordon" |
|
| Title: Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it. |
17 Feb 2005 06:00:35 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:06:52 -0500, "Pat Fallon"
<pfallon@ptd.net> wrote:
"Sea Squid" <Sea.Squid@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4212e867@news.starhub.net.sg...
I am in doubt of Peak Oil concept. I listened to some interviews on the
globalpublicmedia.com
and found that those people all spread all sorts of unsolicited evidences
and claims, for example
using water in human body as an awkward analogy to the oil & gas,
converting
to localized
communities, immobilized cities when there is no oil, alternative energy
source like solar & wind
won't save the earth etc. These claims erodes the credibility of the peak
oil advocalists.
I am suspicious these to be a propaganda compaign by the oil & gas
industry
in order to justify
their price manipulation in the international crude oil market and to pop
up
the gas prices.
It appears that, unbeknownst to Westerners, there have actually been, for
quite some time now, two competing theories concerning the origins of
petroleum.
One theory claims that oil is an organic 'fossil fuel' deposited in finite
quantities near the planet's surface.
The other theory claims that oil is continuously generated by natural
processes in the Earth's magma.
One theory is backed by a massive body of research representing fifty years
of intense scientific inquiry. The other theory is an unproven relic of the
eighteenth century. One theory anticipates deep oil reserves, refillable oil
fields, migratory oil systems, deep sources of generation, and the
spontaneous venting of gas and oil. The other theory has a difficult time
explaining any such documented phenomena.
In September, the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences published an interesting study by a distinguished group of
academics (as opposed to the oil industry spokesmen that the Peakers
routinely cite): "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."
(http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0405930101v1?view=abstract)
Physics Web picked up the story as well: "Scientists in the US have
witnessed the production of methane under the conditions that exist in the
Earth's upper mantle for the first time. The experiments demonstrate that
hydrocarbons could be formed inside the Earth via simple inorganic
reactions -- and not just from the decomposition of living organisms as
conventionally assumed -- and might therefore be more plentiful than
previously thought."
(http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/9/9/1)
For more good info with links to other papers of interest on the subject of
"Peak Oil" and the debate over whether oil is a fossil fuel see:
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr71.html
IMHO, "Peak Oil" is bogus. Oil is NOT a fossil fuel!
Pat Fallon
pfallon@ptd.net
Has anything been published, explaining the apparent abundance of
methane on Titan? The Huygens probe seemed to confirm that Titan
was inundated with methane in a liquid form. Of course the low
temperatures and high atmospheric pressure are congruent with
liquid methane, but where did it come from? If Methane is
produced only by organic processes, there must have been, or
maybe still is abundant life on Titan. Or, is there another
answer?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it. |
16 Feb 2005 01:27:35 PM |
|
|
Pat Fallon wrote:
<snip>
IMHO, "Peak Oil" is bogus. Oil is NOT a fossil fuel!
Methane almost never is found in isolation in subterranean gas fields.
It occurs with other gases including helium, neon, nitrogen, carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide, ethane, ethene, propane, propene, and various
butanes and higher hydrocarbons.
A benchtop demonstration that "Methane was formed from FeO,
CaCO3-calcite, and water at pressures between 5 and 11 GPa and
temperatures ranging from 500=B0C to 1,500=B0C" should not be understood
to imply that naturally occurring methane *is* produced that way.
Glass can be made from sand with thermonuclear detonations, too.
A few years ago the late Prof. Tommy Gold (Cornell) and the Swedish
State Power Board ran a test well into the Siljan Ring to tap the
"primordial gas" he expected to find there. The site is an ancient
meteoric impact crater which has been sealed for over 370 MYa:
http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/images/siljan.htm
Tommy Gold was disappointed.
Naturally occurring petroleum also includes trace heterocyclic
compounds and polycyclic aromatic structures (such as pyridine and
indole) that could not be synthesized from "FeO, CaCO3-calcite, and
water" because this recipe lacks the necessary reduced nitrogen.
And then there's that helium and free nitrogen problem...
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it. |
17 Feb 2005 11:45:01 AM |
|
|
The peak is a peak in oil production. eg there maybe lots of oil but we
can't get at it economically. One day the thought of burning it will seem as
crazy as burning money.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clouseau2" |
|
| Title: Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it. |
18 Feb 2005 04:17:08 PM |
|
|
CWatters wrote:
The peak is a peak in oil production. eg there maybe lots of oil but
we
can't get at it economically. One day the thought of burning it will
seem as
crazy as burning money.
With the way things are going with debt of all kinds in the USA, it may
NOT be crazy to burn money in the future. Government printing presses
need to keep printing Billions to keep up with President Bush's "small
government" spending proposals/paybacks to campaign contributors, and
expensive invasions to stop imminent threats to the USA, err, rid
dangerous countries of WMDs, err I mean bring freedom and liberty to
the Middle East!
The whole abiotic oil theory is clearly tinfoil hat territory. What it
requires us to believe is that oil is literally blasting up through the
earth, and there is a massive conspiracy between governments (many of
which are enemies of each other) and oil companies to purposely not tap
this resource to keep the price of oil high, carefully orchestrating
"fake peaks" in oil production like USA 1970, North Sea 1999, all
around the world, in order to ... not make lots of money? As for
America, much of its current position of power can be attributed to the
fact that, for decades, America was the swing supplier of oil to the
world. The thought that we would voluntarily not drill for oil and
instead import 60% of our oil needs, greatly weakening our security and
economic health, is totally ludicrious.
Oil geologies are different all over the world, I'm sure there are lots
of instances of oil seeping up, seeping left and right, who knows. At
the end of the day, the only thing that matters is how much we pump up,
and if that will meet demand. And as more and more regions peak in
their production, and at the same time previously light users of oil
(China, India, etc.) become giant consumers, that becomes more and more
difficult to achieve.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Fallon" |
|
| Title: Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it. |
18 Feb 2005 10:14:11 PM |
|
|
The whole abiotic oil theory is clearly tinfoil hat territory.
What it requires us to believe is that oil is literally blasting up
through the earth, and there is a massive conspiracy between governments
(many of
which are enemies of each other) and oil companies to purposely not tap
this resource to keep the price of oil high...
From James Bernstein's "Oil Giants Taking Heat," Newsday, March 31, 2004:
The Consumer Federation of America said in a recent report that in the past
15 years, more than 70 refineries in the United States were closed.
Additionally, its report said, the nation's storage facilities were reduced
by nearly 15 percent. Mark Cooper, the organization's research director,
said an updated report is expected soon.
"The problem is not crude oil," Cooper said. "It's inadequate refinery
capacity and inadequate stockpiles, all of which are the result of decisions
made by the oil companies to tighten the market."
[more:
http://www.nynewsday.com/business/local/newyork/ny-bzoil313730511mar31,0,4111615.story]
and this commentary from http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr59.html:
On June 21, the Los Angeles Times ran a story that the ever-growing 'Peak
Oil' crowd seems to have missed. The article concerned the Shell oil
refinery in Bakersfield, California that is scheduled to be shut down on
October 1 -- despite the fact that the state of California (and the nation
as a whole) is already woefully lacking in refinery capacity.
Now why do you suppose that Shell would want to close a perfectly good oil
refinery? It can't be because there is no market for the goods produced
there, since that obviously isn't the case. And it isn't due to a lack of
raw materials, since the refinery sits, as the Times noted, atop "prolific
oil fields." The Scotsman recently explained just how prolific those fields
are:
The best estimates in 1942 indicated that the Kern River field in California
had just 54 million barrels of remaining oil. By 1986, the field had
produced 736 million barrels, and estimates put the remaining reserves at
970 million barrels. (http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=578462004)
Of course, just because there is a strong demand for a product, and a ready
source of raw materials with which to produce that product, does not mean
that any corporate entity is obligated to bring that product to market. In
the corporate world, the only thing that ever matters is the "bottom line,"
because corporations exist for one purpose only: to generate profits. So the
only question, I suppose, that really matters, is: can the refining of
gasoline and diesel fuel at this particular facility generate profits for
the corporation?
One would naturally assume, given Shell's decision to close the refinery,
that the answer to that question is "no." But that would be an entirely
wrong assumption, since the truth is, as L.A. Times reporters discovered
when they got their hands on internal company documents, that the refinery
is wildly profitable. How wildly profitable? The Bakersfield plant's "profit
of $11 million in May [2004] was 57 times what the company projected and
more than double what it made in all of 2003." (Elizabeth Douglas "Shell to
Cut Summer Output at Bakersfield Refinery, Papers Say," Los Angeles Times,
June 21, 2004)
Go ahead and read that again: "more than double what it made in all of
2003." In a single month! And 2003 wasn't exactly what you would call a slow
year at the Bakersfield refinery. According to Shell documents obtained by
the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, "Bakersfield's refining
margin at $23.01 per barrel, or about 55 cents profit per gallon, topped all
of Shell's refineries in the nation."
(http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=114-04062004)
Let's pause briefly here to review the situation, shall we? There is a
product (gasoline) that is in great demand, and that will always be in great
demand, since the product has what economists like to call an "inelastic"
demand curve; for many months now, that product has been selling for
record-breaking prices, especially in the state of California, and there is
no indication that that situation will change anytime soon; there are
abundant local resources with which to produce that coveted product; and,
finally, there is a ridiculously profitable facility that is ideally located
to manufacture and market that product.
Given that situation, what response would we normally expect from that
facility's parent corporation? Sit back and let the good times roll? Attempt
to increase production at the facility and rake in even greater profits?
Sell the facility and make a windfall profit? Or, tossing logic and
rationality to the wind, shut the facility down and walk away?
That last one, of course, is what Shell has chosen to do. And this story,
believe it or not, gets even better:
The internal documents obtained by the Times, including a refinery output
forecast, indicate that Bakersfield will soon be producing far less than its
capacity. After relatively high output rates in May and early June, Shell
plans to cut crude oil processing about 6% in July and another 6% in August,
according to the forecast. Those two months are when California's fuel
demand reaches annual peak levels.
Aamir Farid, the general manager of the Bakersfield refinery, was asked the
reason for the plan to reduce output at the time of peak demand. Farid
claimed that he was not aware of any such plan, but he added that if there
was such a plan, "there is a good reason for it." However, he also added
that, "off the top of my head, I don't know what that good reason is."
And why would he? Certainly the manager of the refinery can't be expected to
know why his facility is planning to dramatically reduce output, can he? The
best explanation that Farid could come up with was to speculate that there
"could be maintenance planned or projections for a shortfall of crude."
Neither of those scenarios are very plausible, however.
Bakersfield, whose suburbs include Oildale and Oil Junction, won't likely be
facing a shortfall of crude anytime soon. And as for the notion of planned
maintenance, I doubt that anyone actually believes that Shell plans to
perform two months worth of maintenance work on a facility that will be
permanently shuttered just one month after that work is completed.
To be fair, I suppose it could be the case that Shell, being the benevolent
giant that it is, wants to get the place in tip-top shape for the new
owners -- except that there are no new owners, primarily because "Shell
didn't search out potential buyers for the refinery once it decided to
shutter it." Indeed, Shell actively avoided finding a buyer for the plant
(which became a fully-owned Shell asset just three short years ago), since
any new owner would probably object to the bulldozers and wrecking balls
that Shell plans to bring in just as soon as the refinery's doors have
closed. ("FTCR uncovered a timetable showing decommissioning and demolition
are set to begin immediately after the refinery's shut down date."
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=114-04062004)
Can any of you 'Peak Oil' boosters out there think of any legitimate reason
why a purely profit-driven corporation would acquire an outrageously
profitable asset and then proceed to deliberately destroy that asset? ...
because I have to tell you, I have been struggling to come up with an
explanation on my own and the only one that I've got so far is that the
corporation might be involved in some kind of conspiracy to manufacture an
artificial shortage of a crucial commodity. I know that 'Peak Oil' theory
holds that we don't need the refinery capacity because, you know, we're
running out of oil and all, but that doesn't explain why a tremendously
profitable refinery isn't being kept in operation at least until all the
local wells have run dry, does it?
Shell will, by the way, continue to operate its Martinez, California
refinery -- for now at least. The Martinez facility is also wildly
profitable, showing a "net profit of $34 million in May." That tidy profit
was, as it turns out, "just shy of Shell's profit expectations at Martinez
for all of 2004." Strangely enough, the Martinez facility, like the one in
Bakersfield, "cut crude processing in July, by nearly 10%, a reduction
attributed to planned heavy maintenance."
It's always a good idea, I suppose, to schedule heavy maintenance work
during times of peak energy demand. That's the kind of intelligent business
decision we would expect from a corporate giant with decades of experience
in the energy business.
On July 8, the LA Times, armed with yet more internal company documents and
an unnamed company whistleblower, revisited the story of the Bakersfield
refinery. As of July 1, it was discovered, Shell had "reduced crude oil
processing at the refinery to levels 19% below capacity" -- more than triple
the unexplained reduction that had been planned for the facility.
(Elizabeth Douglas "FTC Probing Shell's Plan to Shut Refinery," Los Angeles
Times, July 8, 2004)
According to both company documents and the unnamed employee, "there were no
problems with the plant's equipment," and no other explanation was offered
for the radical reduction in processing -- undoubtedly because there is no
legitimate reason for the decreased output. So obvious is the company's
intent to artificially tighten gasoline and diesel supplies that the FTC was
obliged, for the sake of appearances, to step in and pretend to launch an
investigation. Shell's response to the investigation has been to delay the
closing of the refinery for a few months while it goes through the motions
of pretending to find a buyer.
In completely unrelated news, a July 31 LA Times report announced that
"profit at ChevronTexaco Corp. more than doubled during the second quarter
.... echo[ing] the strong quarterly results reported by other major U.S. oil
refiners this week." ChevronTexaco's profit jumped from $1.6 billion to $4.1
billion. Not too shabby. Three days later, the Times reported that Unocal's
earnings for that same quarter had nearly doubled, from $177 million to $341
million.
(Debora Vrana "Chevron Profit Soars," Los Angeles Times, July 31, 2004, and
Julie Tamaki "Unocal's Earnings Nearly Double," Los Angeles Times, August 3,
2004)
Nobody should conclude from any of this, of course, that inflated fuel
prices are attributable to rampant greed and the quest for obscene profits.
No, clearly rising fuel prices are a sign of 'Peak Oil.' Just ask Mike
Ruppert and Mark Robinowitz. Or better yet, bypass the flunkies and go
directly to the scriptwriters at Halliburton and the Club of Rome.
[end quote]
Pat Fallon
pfallon@ptd.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it. |
19 Feb 2005 07:46:11 AM |
|
|
"Pat Fallon" <pfallon@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:zCudnZ4aK_uLIIvfUSdV9g@ptd.net...
<snip repost>
From James Bernstein's "Oil Giants Taking Heat," Newsday, March 31, 2004:
The Consumer Federation of America said in a recent report that in the
past
15 years, more than 70 refineries in the United States were closed.
Additionally, its report said, the nation's storage facilities were
reduced
by nearly 15 percent. Mark Cooper, the organization's research director,
said an updated report is expected soon.
"The problem is not crude oil," Cooper said. "It's inadequate refinery
capacity and inadequate stockpiles, all of which are the result of
decisions
made by the oil companies to tighten the market."
[more:
http://www.nynewsday.com/business/local/newyork/ny-bzoil313730511mar31,0,4111615.story]
Illogical! The implication is that "inadequate refinery capacity and
inadequate stockpiles" lead to further reductions in refinery capacity and
stockpiles.
Follow the money! The domestic refineries and stockpiles are being reduced
because they are not economically competitive with foreign refineries and
stockpiles. There are many reasons for this, including differential labor
costs, governmental subsidies by foreign governments, and oil field
production decisions aimed at maximizing short-term profits over long-term
benefits.
On the down side, domestic oil is taking a big hit from this, but on the up
side, foreign oil is overproducing their resources - they are pumping their
field (primary production) at a rate that insures they will NOT get as much
oil out as possible, and secondary and tertiary production techniques are
expensive.
This 'strategy' of greed by foreign producers keeps the prices artificially
reduced *AND* simultaneously depletes their resources more rapidly than
ours. When their primary production peters out and the prices go up like a
rocket, the US will still have its own untapped reserves.
Now why do you suppose that Shell would want to close a perfectly good oil
refinery? It can't be because there is no market for the goods produced
there, since that obviously isn't the case. And it isn't due to a lack of
raw materials, since the refinery sits, as the Times noted, atop "prolific
oil fields."
Simple. It would cost Shell more to run the refinery than they could earn
from it. Of course, environmental regulations could also be a factor. If
the refinery has been in place for a while it may have some contamination
issues that California Environmental Law (the most draconic in the world)
would require them to deal with before they could resume processing, and by
simply shutting down, they could defer addressing those issues until
technology develops an affordable means of dealing with them.
Other industries (e.g. aircraft painting) have been driven completely out of
California by the requirements of their environmental law.
One would naturally assume, given Shell's decision to close the refinery,
that the answer to that question is "no." But that would be an entirely
wrong assumption, since the truth is, as L.A. Times reporters discovered
when they got their hands on internal company documents, that the refinery
is wildly profitable. How wildly profitable? The Bakersfield plant's
"profit
of $11 million in May [2004] was 57 times what the company projected and
more than double what it made in all of 2003."
Laws change from one year to the next, so what is profitable in 2004 may
become a millstone in 2005. Only fools and first year engineering students
believe extrapolations. I don't think you are a first year engineering
student.
--
Fallon, you bore me.
You sound like you are on a bandwagon to pitch an already discredited idea
(primordial methane) and you are only too willing to flaunt your ignorance
of petroleum reservoir engineering, macroeconomics, geopolitics, and
geochemistry.
*plonk*
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it. |
19 Feb 2005 07:06:15 AM |
|
|
In article <lfydnRaHOeBu34rfRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
"tadchem" <tadchemNOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote:
"Pat Fallon" <pfallon@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:zCudnZ4aK_uLIIvfUSdV9g@ptd.net...
<snip repost>
From James Bernstein's "Oil Giants Taking Heat," Newsday, March 31,
2004:
The Consumer Federation of America said in a recent report that in the
past
15 years, more than 70 refineries in the United States were closed.
Additionally, its report said, the nation's storage facilities were
reduced
by nearly 15 percent. Mark Cooper, the organization's research director,
said an updated report is expected soon.
"The problem is not crude oil," Cooper said. "It's inadequate refinery
capacity and inadequate stockpiles, all of which are the result of
decisions
made by the oil companies to tighten the market."
[more:
http://www.nynewsday.com/business/local/newyork/ny-bzoil313730511mar31,0,4
111615.story]
Illogical! The implication is that "inadequate refinery capacity and
inadequate stockpiles" lead to further reductions in refinery capacity and
stockpiles.
You need to learn a little bit more about how production and business
works if you think it's illogical.
Follow the money! The domestic refineries and stockpiles are being
reduced
because they are not economically competitive with foreign refineries and
stockpiles. There are many reasons for this, including differential labor
costs, governmental subsidies by foreign governments, and oil field
production decisions aimed at maximizing short-term profits over long-term
benefits.
And you're forgetting the most important one in this biz. The
anti-production types are suing anybody who tried to increase
capacity to the point that all monies allotted for the project
gets spent on suits and not the blue collar workers.
These idiots use the courts to wage economic war
to put all business out of business. Or haven't you noticed?
The goal is to replace capitalism with socialism. Since
this is impossible without politicians getting involved, the
result will be Communism.
<snip>
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it. |
02 Mar 2005 02:33:07 PM |
|
|
In article <zCudnZ4aK_uLIIvfUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
"Pat Fallon" <pfallon@ptd.net> wrote:
[snip]
Nobody should conclude from any of this, of course, that inflated fuel
prices are attributable to rampant greed and the quest for obscene profits.
No, clearly rising fuel prices are a sign of 'Peak Oil.' Just ask Mike
Ruppert and Mark Robinowitz. Or better yet, bypass the flunkies and go
directly to the scriptwriters at Halliburton and the Club of Rome.
[end quote]
Pat Fallon
***{While the notion of "peak oil" is a crock, it doesn't follow that
the price rises are due to a conspiracy by "big oil." The real
explanation is simply that the purchasing power of the dollar has been
plummeting. For example, in Oct. 2000 you could buy a Euro with 82 US
cents, whereas today you would have to pay about $1.32. That is an
increase of about 61%, and it means the price of oil would have to rise
by an equal amount to keep pace. In fact, however, crude oil in Oct.
2000 was about $35, and today it is about $50, which is an increase of
about 43%. In short, the dollar prices for oil received by OPEC and by
foreign suppliers such as Royal Dutch Shell are lower today than they
were in Oct. 2000, when measured in the currencies in which those
entities books are kept.
Americans don't like the increase in the dollar price, of course,
despite the increasing prices foreign currencies, because they don't own
foreign currencies (unless they are named Gates of Buffet). Instead,
higher dollar prices for oil mean they have less left over to spend
elsewhere, and so they *****. They should, however, focus their outrage
on the appropriate target--to wit: on the U.S. policies that have caused
the dollar to sink. The reality is that as long as the yahoos in D.C.
spend more than they take in in taxes, they will have to borrow--issue
government bonds--to obtain additional funds. And as long as they deluge
the bond market with government bonds, there will be a tendency for
interest rates to rise. (Interest rates rise as bond prices fall. For
example, if a bond paying $50/year sells for $1000, it pays 5%; but if
it sells for $500, it pays 10%.) And, of course, high interest rates
choke off economic activity, causing incumbents to not be reelected.
Thus deficit spending is always associated with demands by politicians
that the U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve, create "money" out of
thin air to buy the government bonds, to keep the bond prices from
falling and the interest rates from rising. But that leads to a money
supply that rises faster than the production of new goods, and creates a
tendency for prices to rise. But when the prices for goods made in the
U.S. rise, foreign imports become cheaper than U.S. made goods and
services, and flood into the country. That causes an outflow of money
from the U.S. to pay for the surging imports, which causes a rising
trade deficit. Result: foreigners turn around and sell the dollars they
have acquired to buy their domestic currencies, causing the dollar to
fall on foreign exchange markets. Result: the prices of imported goods,
including oil, begin to rise, since the foreign sellers (e.g., OPEC) are
being paid in dollars that buy less than before. Result: U.S. consumers
*****, and, since they are clueless about economics, they spin of all
sorts of wild conspiracy theories, including those that blame "big oil"
for what is happening.
The real cause, the spider sitting in the middle of the big, complex web
of economic relationships, is the power to create money out of thin air,
and the institution which exercises that power: the Federal Reserve. If
the Fed did not exist, politicians would quickly discover that if they
spent more money than they took in in taxes, the bonds they would have
to sell would drive up interest rates, trigger a recession, and get them
tossed out of office. Result: they wouldn't engage in wild deficit
spending. Under the present system, however, the Fed comes into the
market and buys the bonds with money it created out of thin air, thereby
preventing interest rates from rising, and allowing the political game
to go on until much larger and more dangerous side effects (inflation,
outsourcing of jobs, speculative bubbles, chronic unemployment, etc.)
begin to manifest themselves.
Bottom line: stop bitching about "big oil" and focus on the big spider
sitting in the middle of the web: the Federal Reserve. All we need to do
is abandon the regime of unbacked fiat currency by abolishing the Fed
and returning to the gold standard, and all of the problems described
above, and many others, will simply go away.
It ain't gonna happen, of course. In the real world, the party always
goes on until the country has been plundered down to the bare walls, by
politicians passing out unearned benefits to ensure their reelection,
and ends with economic collapse, social disintegration, and
authoritarian dictatorship. Some call it the law of unintended
consequences, but the simple truth is that in the long run people do not
get what they expect, but what they deserve.
--Mitchell Jones}***
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it. |
20 Feb 2005 11:38:47 PM |
|
|
Pat Fallon wrote:
(...) (SNIP - another boring long-winded post)
Well, you've obviously got an agenda too.
Hard to argue with a conspiracy theory. And you're
insulting the many scientists and geologists who
make there living finding and extracting oil.
Even assuming the Earth is some sort of hollow
bon-bon just filled with oil, the exponential growth
rates of the human population cannot continue forever.
If you think there's so much oil out there, start
your own company and go find it. You'll be rich.
Lots of luck to you.
-Eric B
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it. |
21 Feb 2005 07:05:23 AM |
|
|
Pat Fallon wrote:
(snip) (dull, long winded post delete)
Geologists and scientist whom make their living
earning and extracting oil would disagree with your
assesment.
Regarding Kern field - to put things in perspective,
a field with a billion barrels (assuming they can
extract it all) amounts to 50 day supply of oil for the
US alone. Even assuming the Earth is some sort of bon-bon
just filled with oil, the exponential growth of our
economy (and the human population) is not going to
continue forever.
If you think there's so much oil out there start
your own company and go find it. You'll be rich.
Lots of luck to ya.
-Eric B
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clouseau2" |
|
| Title: Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it. |
21 Feb 2005 05:18:18 PM |
|
|
Pat Fallon wrote:
The whole abiotic oil theory is clearly tinfoil hat territory.
What it requires us to believe is that oil is literally blasting up
through the earth, and there is a massive conspiracy between
governments
(many of
which are enemies of each other) and oil companies to purposely not
tap
this resource to keep the price of oil high...
From James Bernstein's "Oil Giants Taking Heat," Newsday, March 31,
2004:
The Consumer Federation of America said in a recent report that in
the past
15 years, more than 70 refineries in the United States were closed.
Additionally, its report said, the nation's storage facilities were
reduced
by nearly 15 percent. Mark Cooper, the organization's research
director,
said an updated report is expected soon.
"The problem is not crude oil," Cooper said. "It's inadequate
refinery
capacity and inadequate stockpiles, all of which are the result of
decisions
made by the oil companies to tighten the market."
[more:
[ snip ]
So, some oil companies are getting greedy and closing oil refineries in
the USA. Note that this has been investigated by California numerous
times and the charges have never stuck. What does that have to do with
oil regions peaking all around the world? Last time I checked, oil was
a global commodity. According to:
http://www.mnforsustain.org/oil_duncan_and_youngquist_encircling_oil.htm
The following countries have peaked:
Mexico 1998
USA 1970
Argentina 2001
Peru 1981
Trinidad 1977
Denmark 2001
Italy 2001
Norway 2001
Romania 1976
UK 2001
FSU 1987 (former Soviet Union)
Iran* 1973
Oman 2002
Qatar* 1973
Syria 1999
Algeria* 1999
Angola 2002
Cameroon 1985
Egypt 1993
Gabon 2000
Libya* 1969
Australia 2002
Brunei 1979
China 2003
India 2003
Indonesia* 2003
Malaysia. 2001
Vietnam 2004
Maybe they should be told about abiotic oil, or perhaps we can convince
them to build some more refineries in the USA so that more oil shows up
in their respective countries for them to pump up.
I don't doubt that the tight supply of gasoline in the US, exarcerbated
by limited refinery capacity, affects world oil prices. But it does
not reduce the desire for other countries to produce oil. In fact, it
should do the exact opposite. If oil is so plentiful, why aren't the
world markets being flooded with it, now that the price is hovering
around $50/barrel?
The big problem is not necessarily oil depletion, we'll still have 1/3
of the oil production we have today in 2040, I'm sure it's possible to
live on that amount of oil. The problems are that 1) the world
population is still increasing 2) the rest of the world, particularly
Asia, is changing from an energy-poor way of life to an energ-intensive
way of life and 3) our capitalistic economies cannot survive without
growth, and economic growth requires more energy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Fallon" |
|
| Title: Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it. |
18 Feb 2005 11:11:23 PM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_003B_01C51617.8C3F8880
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The whole abiotic oil theory is clearly tinfoil hat territory. =20
What it requires us to believe is that oil=20
is literally blasting up through the earth...
oil and gas fields, as well as oil and gas seeps, follow a well defined =
arc that is also, strangely enough, marked by persistent earthquake and =
volcanic activity. Some, not all, abiotic oil advocates theorize that =
earthquakes and volcanic activity are manifestations of the pressures =
created by the buildup of abiotic hydrocarbons generated in, and rising =
from, the earth's mantle. In other words, earthquakes and volcanic =
eruptions are natural relief valves that operate when oil and gas seeps =
alone are not enough to ease the constantly building pressure.
it seems that in addition to the tens of millions of tons of coal that =
are burned off every year in underground coal fires, and the massive =
amounts of oil and gas that seep out every year into the planets land, =
air and water, more than 100 billion cubic meters of natural gas are =
burned off every year. Much of this activity is natural has been =
occurring for hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of years. I just =
find it hard to reconcile that amount of hydrocarbons with the theory =
that postulates that oil, gas and coal are all 'fossil fuels' deposited =
in finite quantities.
the theory of abiogenic petroleum origin states that petroleum is =
produced by non-biological processes deep in the Earth. The constituent =
precursors of petroleum (mainly methane) are commonplace and it is =
possible that appropriate conditions exist for oil to be formed deep =
within the Earth. In the lab, Scientists in the US have witnessed the =
production of methane under the conditions that exist in the Earth's =
upper mantle for the first time. The experiments demonstrate that =
hydrocarbons could be formed inside the Earth via simple inorganic =
reactions -- and not just from the decomposition of living organisms as =
conventionally assumed -- and might therefore be more plentiful than =
previously thought.
in addition, the fossil fuel theory and the abiotic oil theory make =
different predictions.
perhaps the most often repeated prediction of the fossil fuel advocates =
is the exhaustion of the world's oil reserves. As early as 1919 the head =
of the US geological survey forecast that the end would come in nine =
years. Since then things have improved and the latest estimate is 2043.
One prediction of the abiotic theory is that other planets of the Solar =
system or their moons have sizeable deposits of oil or methane.
Pat Fallon
pfallon@ptd.net
------=_NextPart_000_003B_01C51617.8C3F8880
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff background=3D""><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT>
<DIV><BR><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> The whole abiotic oil theory =
is clearly=20
tinfoil hat territory. <BR>> What it requires us to believe is =
that oil=20
<BR>> is literally blasting up through the earth...<BR><BR><BR><FONT=20
face=3D"Comic Sans MS">oil and gas fields, as well as oil and gas seeps, =
follow a=20
well defined arc that is also, strangely enough, marked by persistent =
earthquake=20
and volcanic activity. Some, not all, abiotic oil advocates =
theorize that=20
earthquakes and volcanic activity are manifestations of the pressures =
created by=20
the buildup of abiotic hydrocarbons generated in, and rising from, the =
earth's=20
mantle. In other words, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are natural =
relief=20
valves that operate when oil and gas seeps alone are not enough to ease =
the=20
constantly building pressure.<BR><BR>it seems that in addition to the =
tens of=20
millions of tons of coal that are burned off every year in underground =
coal=20
fires, and the massive amounts of oil and gas that seep out every year =
into the=20
planets land, air and water, more than 100 billion cubic meters of =
natural gas=20
are burned off every year. Much of this activity is natural has been =
occurring=20
for hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of years. I just find it hard =
to=20
reconcile that amount of hydrocarbons with the theory that postulates =
that oil,=20
gas and coal are all 'fossil fuels' deposited in finite =
quantities.<BR><BR>the=20
theory of abiogenic petroleum origin states that petroleum is produced =
by=20
non-biological processes deep in the Earth. The constituent precursors =
of=20
petroleum (mainly methane) are commonplace and it is possible that =
appropriate=20
conditions exist for oil to be formed deep within the =
Earth. <!--StartFragment --><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3> <FONT=20
face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>In the lab, Scientists in the US have =
witnessed the=20
production of methane under the conditions that exist in the Earth's =
upper=20
mantle for the first time. The experiments demonstrate that hydrocarbons =
could=20
be formed inside the Earth via simple inorganic reactions -- and not =
just from=20
the decomposition of living organisms as conventionally assumed -- and =
might=20
therefore be more plentiful than previously =
thought.</FONT></FONT><BR><BR>in=20
addition, the fossil fuel theory and the abiotic oil theory make =
different=20
predictions.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT><!--StartFragment --><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" =
size=3D2>perhaps the=20
most often repeated prediction of the fossil fuel advocates is the=20
exhaustion of the world's oil reserves. As early as 1919 the head of the =
US=20
geological survey forecast that the end would come in nine years. Since =
then=20
things have improved and the latest estimate is=20
2043.</FONT></FONT><FONT><BR><BR><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" =
size=3D2>One=20
prediction of the abiotic theory is that other planets of the Solar =
system or=20
their moons have sizeable deposits of oil or =
methane.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT=20
face=3D"Comic Sans MS"></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS"><FONT =
face=3DArial>Pat=20
Fallon</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS"><FONT =
face=3DArial><A=20
href=3D"mailto:pfallon@ptd.net">pfallon@ptd.net</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></FONT></FONT></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_003B_01C51617.8C3F8880--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clouseau2" |
|
| Title: Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it. |
04 Mar 2005 06:37:11 PM |
|
|
Pat Fallon wrote:
The whole abiotic oil theory is clearly tinfoil hat territory.
What it requires us to believe is that oil
is literally blasting up through the earth...
oil and gas fields, as well as oil and gas seeps, follow a well
defined arc that is also, strangely enough, marked by persistent
earthquake and volcanic activity. Some, not all, abiotic oil advocates
[ abiotic oil nonsense snipped ]
The United States oil production PEAKED in the 1970s. The US is the
most drilled out, surveyed country in the world. If ANY "abiotic" oil
was being produced in significant quantities you better believe it
would be pumped up ASAP. But, instead, we find ourselves producing
less and less oil each and every year. So, thefore either the abiotic
theory is wrong, it doesn't produce oil in significant quantities, or
is too hard to get at. Does it really matter which one of these is the
truth?
perhaps the most often repeated prediction of the fossil fuel
advocates is the exhaustion of the world's oil reserves. As early as
1919 the head of the US geological survey forecast that the end would
come in nine years. Since then things have improved and the latest
estimate is 2043.
I don't think we'll EVER run out of oil, there will always be some to
pump up.
The production of the oil will just hit a peak and decline, that's all,
and that is big trouble for our expanding populations/system of
capitalism that requires endless growth.
In 1919 we hadn't scoured the entire planet for oil sources. In 1919,
there hadn't been a FORTY year period where oil discoveries had been
slowing down.
One prediction of the abiotic theory is that other planets of the
Solar system or their moons have sizeable deposits of oil or methane.
We've got a working fusion reactor that will run for Billions of years
for free already, that produces more energy than all the oil, coal,
natural gas, etc., ever burned/used in just a split second of
operation. So what?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Fallon" |
|
| Title: Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it. |
16 Feb 2005 08:28:29 PM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0063_01C5146E.753801D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Pat Fallon wrote:
<snip>
IMHO, "Peak Oil" is bogus. Oil is NOT a fossil fuel!
"tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil>
A benchtop demonstration that "Methane was formed from FeO,
CaCO3-calcite, and water at pressures between 5 and 11 GPa and
temperatures ranging from 500=B0C to 1,500=B0C" should not be =
understood
to imply that naturally occurring methane *is* produced that way.
Glass can be made from sand with thermonuclear detonations, too.
Valid point.=20
The fact that something can be done in the laboratory does not mean that =
it is happening naturally.=20
But it is evidence that it could be happening at the pressures and =
temperatures found in the mantle.
BTW, have hydrocarbons been produced in the lab simulating the lower =
pressure and temperature fossil fuel formulation scenario?
I ask because, as I understand it, hydrocarbons do not spontaneously =
evolve at these lower pressures and temps...
In August 2002, in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences =
(US)," Dr. Kenney published a paper, which had a partial title of "The =
genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum." Dr. Kenney and =
three Russian coauthors conclude:=20
"The Hydrogen-Carbon system does not spontaneously evolve hydrocarbons =
at pressures less than 30 Kbar, even in the most favorable environment. =
The H-C system evolves hydrocarbons under pressures found in the mantle =
of the Earth and at temperatures consistent with that environment."=20
A few years ago the late Prof. Tommy Gold (Cornell) and the Swedish
State Power Board ran a test well into the Siljan Ring to tap the
"primordial gas" he expected to find there. The site is an ancient
meteoric impact crater which has been sealed for over 370 MYa:
http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/images/siljan.htm
Tommy Gold was disappointed.
But others have had much more luck finding hydrocarbons from "basement =
reservoirs".
[http://www.geoscience.co.uk/geofrc/geobasetop.html]=20
"Hydrocarbon Production From Fractured Basement Reservoirs":
"This compilation presents brief details of the occurrences of =
commercial hydrocarbon reservoirs in fractured basement rocks from =
approximately 30 different countries. By definition, the review =
concentrates only on those reservoirs found in igneous, metamorphic and =
volcanic rocks.
Recent work by Kitchka (1998), supports the theory of an inorganic =
mantle origin of petroleum. His paper introduces the concept that =
petroleum represents a complex derivative of the fluid inclusions =
saturated with hydrocarbons in crustal and mantle minerals. He concludes =
that the multi-stage segregation and migration of deep petroleum are =
realized by fracturing and faulting. He cites a total of 370 oil and gas =
fields with commercial productivity from crystalline basement. Other =
hypotheses by Kropotkin (1986), Krishna (1988), Szatmari (1989), =
Porfir'ev (1974), Hunt (1998), and Gold (1980 & 1985) also consider the =
abiogenic/ mineral origin of petroleum."=20
Naturally occurring petroleum also includes trace heterocyclic
compounds and polycyclic aromatic structures (such as pyridine and
indole) that could not be synthesized from "FeO, CaCO3-calcite, and
water" because this recipe lacks the necessary reduced nitrogen.
I'll have to get up to speed on this point.
I know that Gold thinks that the biological origin of some sets of =
molecules (hopane, pristine,phytane, steranes and certain porphyrins) =
found in all commercial oil are not of the biological origin of the oils =
themselves, but by a contamination with microbial (bacteria) materials.
And as i understand it, some petroleum from deeper levels lack almost =
completely the biological evidence. =20
Oil extracted from varying depths from the same oil field have the same =
chemistry - oil chemistry does not vary as fossils vary with increasing =
depth. The hydrocarbon deposits of a large area often show common =
chemical or isotopic features quite independent of the varied =
composition of the geological ages of the formations in which they are =
found. Crude oil examples anywhere from the Middle East can be =
distinguished from oil in any part of South America or from the oil of =
West Africa.
Also interesting is the fact that oil is found in huge quantities among =
geographic formations where assays of prehistoric life are not =
sufficient to produce the existing reservoirs of oil. Where then did it =
come from?=20
Methane is found in many locations where a biogenic origin is improbable =
or where biological deposits seem inadequate: in great ocean rifts in =
the absence of any substantial sediments; in fissures in igneous and =
metamorphic rocks even at great depth; in active volcanic regions even =
where there is a minimum of sediments, and there are massive amounts of =
methane hydrates (methane-water combinations) in permafrost and ocean =
deposits where it is doubtful that an adequate quantity and distribution =
of biological source material is present.
And at any given time, thousands of coal veins are ablaze around the =
world. In China's northwestern province of Xinjiang alone, there are =
currently about 2,000 underground coal fires burning. Indonesia =
currently hosts as many as 1,000.=20
Some of these fires have been burning for thousands of years; Burning =
Mountain Nature Reserve, for example, in New South Wales, Australia, has =
been aflame for an estimated 5,500 years. Other coal fires are of more =
recent vintage, often started through the actions of the notoriously =
destructive human species. But underground coal fires long predate =
mankind's proclivity for starting them, and many of the fires burning =
today are due to entirely natural causes.
New Scientist noted, in February 2003, that "coal seam fires have =
occurred spontaneously far back into geological history." ("Wild Coal =
Fires are a 'Global Catastrophe'," New Scientist, February 14, 2003) =
Radio Nederland added that "Geological evidence from China suggests that =
underground coal fires have been occurring naturally for at least one =
million years." (Anne Blair Gould "Underground Fires Stoke Global =
Warming," Radio Nederland, March 10, 2003)
It is estimated that in China alone, some 200 million tons of coal go up =
in smoke every year. That's a hell of a lot of coal. More coal than =
China exports, in fact. In other words, the world's leading coal =
exporter loses more coal to underground fires than it produces for =
export.
Coal is a member of the same hydrocarbon family as oil and natural gas, =
and it is, like gas and oil, claimed to be a 'fossil fuel' created in =
finite, non-renewable quantities. And yet this allegedly precious and =
limited resource has been burning off at the rate of millions of tons =
per year, year in and year out, for at least a million years, and =
probably much longer.
This raises, in my mind at least, one very obvious question: how is it =
possible that nature has been taking an extremely heavy toll on the =
globe's 'fossil fuels' for hundreds of thousands of years (at the very =
least), without depleting the reserves that were supposedly created =
long, long ago; and yet man, who has been extracting and burning 'fossil =
fuels' for the mere blink of an eye, geologically speaking, has managed =
to nearly strip the planet clean?
And then there's that helium and free nitrogen problem...
Not sure what you're referring to here. I know that helium is correlated =
with oil fields...Helium is so often present in oil fields that helium =
detectors are used as oil-prospecting tools. Helium is an inert gas =
known to be a fundamental product of the radiological decay or uranium =
and thorium, identified in quantity at great depths below the surface of =
the earth, 200 and more miles below. It is not found in meaningful =
quantities in areas that are not producing methane, oil or natural gas. =
It is not a member of the dozen or so common elements associated with =
life. It is found throughout the solar system as a thoroughly inorganic =
product. I thought the correlation of helium with oil was a problem for =
the fossil fuel theory...
Pat Fallon
pfallon@ptd.net
------=_NextPart_000_0063_01C5146E.753801D0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2180" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>>>Pat Fallon=20
wrote:<BR><BR>>><snip><BR>>> <FONT face=3D"Comic Sans =
MS">IMHO,=20
"Peak Oil" is bogus. Oil is NOT a fossil =
fuel!<BR><BR></FONT>>"tadchem"=20
<</FONT><A href=3D"mailto:thomas.davidson@dla.mil"><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>thomas.davidson@dla.mil</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><BR><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>>A benchtop=20
demonstration that "Methane was formed from FeO,<BR>>CaCO3-calcite, =
and water=20
at pressures between 5 and 11 GPa and<BR>>temperatures ranging from =
500=B0C to=20
1,500=B0C" should not be understood<BR>>to imply that naturally =
occurring=20
methane *is* produced that way.<BR>>Glass can be made from sand with=20
thermonuclear detonations, too.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>Valid point. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>The fact that something can =
be done in=20
the laboratory does not mean </FONT><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" =
size=3D2>that it is=20
happening naturally. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>But it is evidence that it =
could be=20
happening at the pressures and temperatures found in the =
mantle.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>BTW, have hydrocarbons been =
produced in=20
the lab simulating the lower pressure and temperature fossil fuel =
formulation=20
scenario?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>I ask =
because, as I=20
understand it, hydrocarbons do not spontaneously evolve at these =
lower=20
pressures and temps...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DT><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>In August 2002, in the =
"Proceedings of the=20
National Academy of Sciences (US)," Dr. Kenney published a paper, which =
had a=20
partial title of "The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of =
petroleum." Dr.=20
Kenney and three Russian coauthors conclude: </FONT>
<DT><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2></FONT>
<DT><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2></FONT>
<DT><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>"The Hydrogen-Carbon system =
does not=20
spontaneously evolve hydrocarbons at pressures less than 30 Kbar, even =
in the=20
most favorable environment. The H-C system evolves hydrocarbons under =
pressures=20
found in the mantle of the Earth and at temperatures consistent with =
that=20
environment." </FONT></DT></DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR><FONT size=3D2>>A few years ago the late Prof. Tommy =
Gold=20
(Cornell) and the Swedish<BR>>State Power Board ran a test well into =
the=20
Siljan Ring to tap the<BR>>"primordial gas" he expected to find =
there. =20
The site is an ancient<BR>>meteoric impact crater which has been =
sealed for=20
over 370 MYa:<BR>></FONT></FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/images/siljan.htm"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/images/siljan.htm</FONT><=
/A><BR><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>>Tommy Gold was disappointed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>But others have had much more =
luck=20
finding hydrocarbons </FONT><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>from =
"basement=20
reservoirs".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS">[</FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.geoscience.co.uk/geofrc/geobasetop.html"><FONT=20
face=3D"Comic Sans MS"=20
size=3D2>http://www.geoscience.co.uk/geofrc/geobasetop.html</FONT></A><FO=
NT=20
face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>] </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>"<!--StartFragment =
-->Hydrocarbon=20
Production From Fractured Basement Reservoirs":</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><!--StartFragment --><FONT size=3D-1><FONT size=3D3><FONT =
size=3D-1><FONT=20
size=3D3><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>"This compilation =
presents brief=20
details of the occurrences of commercial hydrocarbon reservoirs in =
fractured=20
basement rocks from approximately 30 different countries. By definition, =
the=20
review concentrates only on those reservoirs found in igneous, =
metamorphic and=20
volcanic rocks.</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><!--StartFragment --><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS"><FONT =
size=3D-1><FONT=20
size=3D3><FONT size=3D-1><FONT size=3D-1><FONT size=3D-1><FONT =
size=3D-1><FONT=20
size=3D-1>Recent work by Kitchka (1998), supports the theory of an =
inorganic=20
mantle origin of petroleum. His paper introduces the concept that =
petroleum=20
represents a complex derivative of the fluid inclusions saturated with=20
hydrocarbons in crustal and mantle minerals. He concludes that the =
multi-stage=20
segregation and migration of deep petroleum are realized by fracturing =
and=20
faulting. He cites a total of 370 oil and gas fields with commercial=20
productivity from crystalline basement. Other hypotheses by Kropotkin =
(1986),=20
Krishna (1988), Szatmari (1989), Porfir'ev (1974), Hunt (1998), and Gold =
(1980=20
& 1985) also consider the abiogenic/ mineral origin of=20
petroleum."</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT> </FONT>=
</DIV><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>
<DIV><BR><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>>Naturally occurring petroleum =
also includes=20
trace heterocyclic<BR>>compounds and polycyclic aromatic structures =
(such as=20
pyridine and<BR>>indole) that could not be synthesized from "FeO,=20
CaCO3-calcite, and<BR>>water" because this recipe lacks the necessary =
reduced=20
nitrogen.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>I'll have to get up to speed =
on this=20
point.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><!--StartFragment --><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>I know =
that Gold=20
thinks that the biological origin of some sets of molecules (hopane,=20
pristine,phytane, steranes and certain porphyrins) found in all =
commercial oil=20
are not of the biological origin of the oils themselves, but by a=20
contamination with microbial (bacteria) materials.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>And as i understand =
it, some=20
petroleum from deeper levels lack almost completely the biological=20
evidence. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><!--StartFragment --><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>Oil =
extracted from=20
varying depths from the same oil field have the same chemistry - oil =
chemistry=20
does not vary as fossils vary with increasing depth. The hydrocarbon =
deposits of=20
a large area often show common chemical or isotopic features quite =
independent=20
of the varied composition of the geological ages of the formations in =
which they=20
are found. Crude oil examples anywhere from the Middle East can be =
distinguished=20
from oil in any part of South America or from the oil of West=20
Africa.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>Also =
interesting is the=20
fact that oil is found in huge quantities among geographic formations =
where=20
assays of prehistoric life are not sufficient to produce the existing =
reservoirs=20
of oil. Where then did it come from? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>Methane is found in many =
locations where=20
a biogenic origin is improbable or where biological deposits seem =
inadequate: in=20
great ocean rifts in the absence of any substantial sediments; in =
fissures in=20
igneous and metamorphic rocks even at great depth; in active volcanic =
regions=20
even where there is a minimum of sediments, and there are massive =
amounts of=20
methane hydrates (methane-water combinations) in permafrost and ocean =
deposits=20
where it is doubtful that an adequate quantity and distribution of =
biological=20
source material is present.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS">And at any given time, =
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-STYLE: italic">thousands</SPAN> of coal veins are ablaze =
around the=20
world. In China's northwestern province of Xinjiang alone, there are =
currently=20
about 2,000 underground coal fires burning. Indonesia currently hosts as =
many as=20
1,000. <BR></FONT></DIV></FONT><FONT size=3D2></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS">Some of these fires =
have been=20
burning for thousands of years; Burning Mountain Nature Reserve, for =
example, in=20
New South Wales, Australia, has been aflame for an estimated 5,500 =
years. Other=20
coal fires are of more recent vintage, often started through the actions =
of the=20
notoriously destructive human species. But underground coal fires long =
predate=20
mankind's proclivity for starting them, and many of the fires burning =
today are=20
due to entirely natural causes.<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT size=3D2><FONT=20
face=3D"Comic Sans MS"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-STYLE: italic"></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-STYLE: italic">New Scientist</SPAN> noted, in February =
2003, that=20
"coal seam fires have occurred spontaneously far back into geological =
history."=20
("Wild Coal Fires are a 'Global Catastrophe'," <SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-STYLE: italic">New Scientist</SPAN>, February 14, 2003) =
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-STYLE: italic">Radio Nederland</SPAN> added that =
"Geological=20
evidence from China suggests that underground coal fires have been =
occurring=20
naturally for at least one million years." (Anne Blair Gould =
"Underground Fires=20
Stoke Global Warming," <SPAN style=3D"FONT-STYLE: italic">Radio =
Nederland</SPAN>,=20
March 10, 2003)<BR></DIV></FONT></FONT>
<DIV>
<P><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>It is estimated that in China =
alone, some=20
<SPAN style=3D"FONT-STYLE: italic">200 million tons</SPAN> of coal go up =
in smoke=20
every year. That's a hell of a lot of coal. More coal than China =
exports, in=20
fact. In other words, the world's leading coal exporter loses more coal =
to=20
underground fires than it produces for export.<BR></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>Coal is a member of the same =
hydrocarbon=20
family as oil and natural gas, and it is, like gas and oil, claimed to =
be a=20
'fossil fuel' created in finite, non-renewable quantities. And yet this=20
allegedly precious and limited resource has been burning off at the rate =
of=20
millions of tons per year, year in and year out, for at least a million =
years,=20
and probably much longer.<BR></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>This raises, in my mind at =
least, one very=20
obvious question: how is it possible that nature has been taking an =
extremely=20
heavy toll on the globe's 'fossil fuels' for hundreds of thousands of =
years (at=20
the very least), without depleting the reserves that were supposedly =
created=20
long, long ago; and yet man, who has been extracting and burning 'fossil =
fuels'=20
for the mere blink of an eye, geologically speaking, has managed to =
nearly strip=20
the planet clean?</FONT></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>>And then there's that helium and free nitrogen=20
problem...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>Not sure what you're =
referring to here. I=20
know that helium is correlated with oil fields...Helium is so often =
present in=20
oil fields that helium detectors are used as oil-prospecting tools. =
Helium is an=20
inert gas known to be a fundamental product of the radiological decay or =
uranium=20
and thorium, identified in quantity at great depths below the surface of =
the=20
earth, 200 and more miles below. It is not found in meaningful =
quantities in=20
areas that are not producing methane, oil or natural gas. It is not a =
member of=20
the dozen or so common elements associated with life. It is found =
throughout the=20
solar system as a thoroughly inorganic product. I thought the =
correlation of=20
helium with oil was a problem for the fossil fuel theory...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>Pat Fallon</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"mailto:pfallon@ptd.net">pfallon@ptd.net</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0063_01C5146E.753801D0--
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it. |
17 Feb 2005 09:00:56 AM |
|
|
"Pat Fallon" <pfallon@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:Neecnc0CK6_SnInfUSdV9g@ptd.net...
Valid point.
The fact that something can be done in the laboratory does not mean that
it is happening
naturally.
But it is evidence that it could be happening at the pressures and
temperatures found in the
mantle.
There is more to chemical reactions than just having the right ingrediants,
temperature, and pressure. What *else* is present can be even nore
important to determining the result.
BTW, have hydrocarbons been produced in the lab simulating the lower
pressure and temperature
fossil fuel formulation scenario?
Yes. Zeolites (mineral compounds composed primarily of the oxides of
aluminum and silicon - the two most abundant materials in the earth's crust)
are the basis of *EXTENSIVE* studies in the field of heterogeneous
catalysis.
I ask because, as I understand it, hydrocarbons do not spontaneously
evolve at these lower
pressures and temps...
Moo. Ruminants (cud-chewing grazing animals) are considered to be the
primary source of the methane that gets into the atmosphere. The methane
comes from the cow's rumen, where it is *biogenically* produced at about 1
atm pressure and 37-40° Celsius.
Biogenesis in deep rocks is not to be ruled out entirely as microbes have
recently been found living under as much as a mile of rock:
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/life_discovered_hilo_rock.html
http://exosci.com/news/97.html
In August 2002, in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
(US)," Dr. Kenney
published a paper, which had a partial title of "The genesis of
hydrocarbons and the origin of
petroleum." Dr. Kenney and three Russian coauthors conclude:
"The Hydrogen-Carbon system does not spontaneously evolve hydrocarbons at
pressures less than 30
Kbar, even in the most favorable environment. The H-C system evolves
hydrocarbons under
pressures found in the mantle of the Earth and at temperatures consistent
with that
environment."
A perfectly valid conclusion. Remember, however, that they were looking for
*spontaneous* production of hydrocarbons. Presumably this means
hydrocarbons produced in the *absence* of biogenic hydrocarbon-producing
organisms OR heterogeneous catalysts such as "rock". The dismissal of
catalysis from their studies renders the work irelevant to the real-world
problem of the origin of hydrocarbons in the presence of rock.
But others have had much more luck finding hydrocarbons from "basement
reservoirs".
[http://www.geoscience.co.uk/geofrc/geobasetop.html]
"Hydrocarbon Production From Fractured Basement Reservoirs":
"This compilation presents brief details of the occurrences of commercial
hydrocarbon reservoirs
in fractured basement rocks from approximately 30 different countries. By
definition, the review
concentrates only on those reservoirs found in igneous, metamorphic and
volcanic rocks.
[An interesting distinction, as I have always understood that all volcanic
rocks were by definition igneous.]
Recent work by Kitchka (1998), supports the theory of an inorganic mantle
origin of petroleum.
His paper introduces the concept that petroleum represents a complex
derivative of the fluid
inclusions saturated with hydrocarbons in crustal and mantle minerals. He
concludes that the
multi-stage segregation and migration of deep petroleum are realized by
fracturing and faulting.
He cites a total of 370 oil and gas fields with commercial productivity
from crystalline
basement. Other hypotheses by Kropotkin (1986), Krishna (1988), Szatmari
(1989), Porfir'ev
(1974), Hunt (1998), and Gold (1980 & 1985) also consider the abiogenic/
mineral origin of
petroleum."
I am not here to declare that it is not possible that quantites of petroleum
could have been produced from non-sedimentary rocks.
I *will* take exception to his conclusion that "multi-stage segregation and
migration of deep petroleum are realized by fracturing and faulting." This
totally ignores the thoroughly documented phenomenon of rock permeability.
"Permeability" is a property of rock in which not 100% of the space occupied
by the rock is filled. This is most obvious in sedimentary rock such as
sandstone. The component particles of the rock simply do not fit together
perfectly, leaving microscopic fissures through which fluids can flow. All
sedimentary amd much *igneous* rock shows this phenomenon - as igneous rock
cools it forms crystals which shrink and pull away from each other,
producing microfractures. Interestingly, some metamorphic rocks can *lose*
this property.
Impermeable rocks become "caprocks" when an entire layer of a soft mineral
such as dolomite (hydrous magnesium/calcium carbonate) is compressed to the
point that the microfractures are sealed off, preventing the flow of fluids.
Interestingly this can happen in distinct layers at the same location,
producing a "layer-cake" of gas and/or oil bearing formations. The
hypothesis that petroleum is solely orogenic, requireing high pressures and
temperatures, fails entirely to account for the existence of petroleum
sandwiched between impermeable layers of caprock.
I know that Gold thinks that the biological origin of some sets of
molecules (hopane,
pristine,phytane, steranes and certain porphyrins) found in all commercial
oil are not of the
biological origin of the oils themselves, but by a contamination with
microbial (bacteria)
materials.
Orogenic versus biogenic petroleum can be fingerprinted by the
presence/absence of enantiomers - non-superimposable mirror-images of
molecules. Like a right hand versus a left hand, some objects are
geometrically distinct from their mirror images. This applies to molecules
as well. Molecules produced by inanimate (i.e. orogenic) processes
And as i understand it, some petroleum from deeper levels lack almost
completely the biological
evidence.
Oil extracted from varying depths from the same oil field have the same
chemistry - oil chemistry does not vary as fossils vary with increasing
depth. The hydrocarbon deposits of a large area often show common chemical
or isotopic features quite independent of the varied composition of the
geological ages of the formations in which they are found. Crude oil
examples anywhere from the Middle East can be distinguished from oil in any
part of South America or from the oil of West Africa.
Also interesting is the fact that oil is found in huge quantities among
geographic formations where assays of prehistoric life are not sufficient to
produce the existing reservoirs of oil. Where then did it come from?
Methane is found in many locations where a biogenic origin is improbable or
where biological deposits seem inadequate: in great ocean rifts in the
absence of any substantial sediments; in fissures in igneous and metamorphic
rocks even at great depth; in active volcanic regions even where there is a
minimum of sediments, and there are massive amounts of methane hydrates
(methane-water combinations) in permafrost and ocean deposits where it is
doubtful that an adequate quantity and distribution of biological source
material is present.
And at any given time, thousands of coal veins are ablaze around the world.
In China's northwestern province of Xinjiang alone, there are currently
about 2,000 underground coal fires burning. Indonesia currently hosts as
many as 1,000.
Some of these fires have been burning for thousands of years; Burning
Mountain Nature Reserve, for example, in New South Wales, Australia, has
been aflame for an estimated 5,500 years. Other coal fires are of more
recent vintage, often started through the actions of the notoriously
destructive human species. But underground coal fires long predate mankind's
proclivity for starting them, and many of the fires burning today are due to
entirely natural causes.
New Scientist noted, in February 2003, that "coal seam fires have occurred
spontaneously far back into geological history." ("Wild Coal Fires are a
'Global Catastrophe'," New Scientist, February 14, 2003) Radio Nederland
added that "Geological evidence from China suggests that underground coal
fires have been occurring naturally for at least one million years." (Anne
Blair Gould "Underground Fires Stoke Global Warming," Radio Nederland, March
10, 2003)
It is estimated that in China alone, some 200 million tons of coal go up in
smoke every year. That's a hell of a lot of coal. More coal than China
exports, in fact. In other words, the world's leading coal exporter loses
more coal to underground fires than it produces for export.
Coal is a member of the same hydrocarbon family as oil and natural gas, and
it is, like gas and oil, claimed to be a 'fossil fuel' created in finite,
non-renewable quantities. And yet this allegedly precious and limited
resource has been burning off at the rate of millions of tons per year, year
in and year out, for at least a million years, and probably much longer.
This raises, in my mind at least, one very obvious question: how is it
possible that nature has been taking an extremely heavy toll on the globe's
'fossil fuels' for hundreds of thousands of years (at the very least),
without depleting the reserves that were supposedly created long, long ago;
and yet man, who has been extracting and burning 'fossil fuels' for the mere
blink of an eye, geologically speaking, has managed to nearly strip the
planet clean?
And then there's that helium and free nitrogen problem...
Not sure what you're referring to here. I know that helium is correlated
with oil fields...Helium is so often present in oil fields that helium
detectors are used as oil-prospecting tools. Helium is an inert gas known to
be a fundamental product of the radiological decay or uranium and thorium,
identified in quantity at great depths below the surface of the earth, 200
and more miles below. It is not found in meaningful quantities in areas that
are not producing methane, oil or natural gas. It is not a member of the
dozen or so common elements associated with life. It is found throughout the
solar system as a thoroughly inorganic product. I thought the correlation of
helium with oil was a problem for the fossil fuel theory...
Pat Fallon
pfallon@ptd.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it. |
17 Feb 2005 09:40:21 AM |
|
|
As I understand this argument, oil is purportedly produced naturally
somewhere under surface of the Earth. I would assume that there would then
be no use in doing C-14 analysis, since the source of the carbon would no
longer contain significant traces of atmospherically-produced carbon. I
would also assume then that arguments relating to how much oxygen has been
liberated by plant matter would be moot, since this oil is *in excess* of
the matching amount of plant matter (which is now on/near the surface of
the Earth).
Isn't the real problem that it has taken so many million years, by whatever
source, to produce this oil? I notice that there are no abandoned wells
that have filled back up.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it. |
17 Feb 2005 04:35:38 PM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:kV2Rd.69866$Yu.23704@fed1read01...
As I understand this argument, oil is purportedly produced naturally
somewhere under surface of the Earth. I would assume that there would
then
be no use in doing C-14 analysis, since the source of the carbon would no
longer contain significant traces of atmospherically-produced carbon.
True. C-14 analysis would be futile as essentiall all is gone in the first
100,000 years of interment. However, in one paper
http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/depth.html
Prof. Gold (one of the proponents of the inorganic origins of methane) notes
in the caption for figure 2 that "The carbon [C-13/C-12] isotope ratio as a
function of depth from the surface is shown for many different locations and
in a variety of containment rocks. The ratio follows a similar pattern
indicating that a fractionation process is occurring and that this process
is most effective at the shallowest lev | | | | | | |
