Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE International Energy Agency (IEA) Thread pt 4

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.
Post a reply

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Postby AdamB » Tue 14 Feb 2017, 22:00:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zarquon', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Synapsid', 'p')eakoilwhen,

What is the evidence for asphalt or other hydrocarbons in the images of the Martian surface?


As has been pointed out, the pictures and YouTube videos prove it.


I am laughing my head off right now. Goodness gracious, this is as good as it gets. Pictures and youtube videos...yes!!! Proof!
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 11018
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26
Top

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Postby rockdoc123 » Tue 14 Feb 2017, 22:16:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 's')o the igneous rocks started low, came up, got biomass on them, got covered in sediment, then went back down.
Like a whale coming up for air then diving again. 
Nice story, but I don't believe it. The basement rock stayed underground


hmmm, so you are clearly someone without a high school education then. I think they still teach something about tectonics in grade school but perhaps it wasn’t part of your home schooling in the Ozarks? If you don’t understand such a basic level of geology how can you hope to comment on anything vaguely related? Do you think the igneous and metamorphic rocks that form the peaks in Yosemite, the Bugaboos or the Sinai were not thrust from depth and then emerged due to erosion and isostatic uplift? In Egypt the basement that produces at Zeit Bay is exposed in outcrop where it has been uplifted as a consequence of rifting and it has Cretaceous age sediments including the source rock in unconformable relationship on its flanks. I know, I’ve walked on the rocks. We also have fairly high resolution seismic data over everyone of the fields producing from igneous basement, the geologic history is pretty easy to sort out. Bach Ho field in Vietnam is classic example where igneous basement has been thrust up (you can see the faults on seismic) and then had Tertiary sediments deposited on top of it to a thickness where oil was generated. The sands within the Eocene and Oligocene contain the same oil as the Bach Ho field and that oil has been typed to the source rock which contains the E/O sands

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ccording to biotic theory, oil can get anywhere, therefore biotic theory is not falsifiable by location of oil, therefore its not scientific wrt to location tests


And once again you show your lack of a basic education. As I pointed out the oil’s which have been produced from basement all contain organic biomarkers and carbon fingerprinting is identical to the source rocks they have been typed to. This in itself disqualifies a deep mantle origin. Also I would point out that oil cannot exist in disequilibrium for anything more than a very short while. It is impossible for it to first have originated at a depth where P/T relationships require that it revert to a gaseous state and even worse be expected to travel vertically scores of kilometres while remaining in a state of disequilibrium.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')gt; Biomarkers

Bacteria live in mineral oil. Finding human biomarkers in snow ( footprints, snowballs , snowmen ) does not mean humans made the snow.


Jesus wept. Do you actually understand what an organic biomarker in oil is? It doesn’t get there from floating over young bacteria, it is part of the original kerogen that has undergone thermogenesism. This would include Oleananes, Tetracyclic diterpanes, Steranes/Hopane ratios of various amounts, and propylcholestanes. Carbon fingerprinting is done either by chromatography or mass spectrometry over the entire spectrum of C2 through C45. Oils derived from source rocks have similarities such as identical ratios of isoprenoids to n-paraffin, Pristane/Phytane ratios etc. This is basic oil geochemistry and has been part of the main stream science since the fifties.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')iotic theorists dismissed it as an merely unusual \ anecdotal, due to some odd circumstance of geologic acrobatics


Hardly. What was claimed is the oily sludge he apparently recovered was a product of the lost drilling fluid which was documented while drilling and/or contamination from surface materials used as lost circulation material. Gold never did provide samples of the “oil” he recovered so that geochemists could evaluate it. His “claim” is nothing more than that and once again requires that one throw out any understanding of oil and gas equilibrium behavior. If his "claim" had any veracity why has no one ever used it as an exploration model around the world. I was doing global exploration for a long time, I worked on Russian projects, I knew petroleum scientists from several institutes...nobody was using this as a working theory.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')lso, Hydrocarbons exist on other worlds in the solar system.


And the proof for that would be what? Did you receive some samples during one of your alien abductions? Perhaps you have a reference we could all read from the Jupiter Oil and Gas Journal that shows the geochemstry of such oil? :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Postby ROCKMAN » Tue 14 Feb 2017, 23:35:17

And thanks to everyone for proving my point: we waste so much less time just accepting that all oil is abiotic. Then we can just focus on what's really important: where do we find the remains commercial oil reserves. IOW it don't matter if I shoot a hundred million bbls of oil out my ass every day: that don't mean sh*t (pun intended) if you can find where they puddle up. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS
Top

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Postby rockdoc123 » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 01:06:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd thanks to everyone for proving my point: we waste so much less time just accepting that all oil is abiotic. Then we can just focus on what's really important: where do we find the remains commercial oil reserves. IOW it don't matter if I shoot a hundred million bbls of oil out my ass every day: that don't mean sh*t (pun intended) if you can find where they puddle up. LOL.


I understand this from your perspective which is mature US basin based, but for many companies who search around the world for new hydrocarbon accumulations one of the tools that is used extensively has been Basinmod or Temispack both of which or maturation and migration modeling programs that allow you to input geologic history in a basin and then predict migration from source rock, timing of said migration and where potential traps might be. Over the years I noted this to be extremely successful in Africa, Middle East and SE Asia. It helped identify areas of accumulation that had previously been bypassed in many areas. More importantly it often helped avoid drilling dry holes in migration shadows or under mature basins. The entire Ghadames basin trend in South Central Algeria was discovered and developed based on maturation migration studies that demonstrated where the gas would be and where the oil would be, resulting in several billions of barrels oil equivalent being discovered. I guaranty if I thought for one minute abiotic oil made any sense when someone wasn't high on peyote I would certainly have come up with a program to predict its occurrence. Better yet my all those famous geochemists such as the Teichmuellers, Bernard Tissot, Doug Welte, Doug Waples, etc. would have made some important switches in what they did their very lucrative research on.

Accepting scientific misunderstanding because it doesn't matter to the immediate conclusion is not a good way to proceed to my mind.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Postby ROCKMAN » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 01:31:01

Doc - "...and then predict migration from source rock, timing of said migration and where potential traps might be.". Yes but that's not what we're discussing: it's how that oil was created and not if/how it got from Point A to Point B. Again all very logical and true words your. But totally wasted on folks here who argue for abiotic oil.

So again to hopefully stop wasting space here: the Rockman has no doubt the models you point out do an excellent job of characterizing the migration and accumulation of abiotic oil. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS
Top

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Postby peakoilwhen » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 02:18:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rockdoc', 'D')o you think the igneous and metamorphic rocks that form the peaks in Yosemite, the Bugaboos or the Sinai were not thrust from depth and then emerged due to erosion and isostatic uplift?


Sure formations can go up and down. But geologists use 'up and down' far too liberally in their explanations, to cover dynamics they don't fully understand. I doubt that the base rock went up and down, it might have, but whether it did or not doesn't matter, it isn't part of the reason it acquired oil.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s I pointed out the oil’s which have been produced from basement all contain organic biomarkers and carbon fingerprinting is identical to the source rocks they have been typed to.


So biomarkers and CFing can link oil from basement igneous rocks and higher sediment rocks. So what? It doesn't show one is the origin and the other the recipient. Just that the 2 have the same source. I'd say the source is the deep Earth.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')It is impossible for <oil> to first have originated at a depth where P/T relationships require that it revert to a gaseous state and even worse be expected to travel vertically scores of kilometres while remaining in a state of disequilibrium.


In simpler words , the mantle is too hot for oil. How does oil cope down there? It has to be in a different form, perhaps in components, and only condenses to oil as it permeates into the crust.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')gt; Biomarkers

Bacteria live in mineral oil. Finding human biomarkers in snow ( footprints, snowballs , snowmen ) does not mean humans made the snow.
Jesus wept. Do you actually understand what an organic biomarker in oil is? It doesn’t get there from floating over young bacteria, it is part of the original kerogen that has undergone thermogenesism. This would include Oleananes, Tetracyclic diterpanes, Steranes/Hopane ratios of various amounts, and propylcholestanes. Carbon fingerprinting is done either by chromatography or mass spectrometry over the entire spectrum of C2 through C45. Oils derived from source rocks have similarities such as identical ratios of isoprenoids to n-paraffin, Pristane/Phytane ratios etc. This is basic oil geochemistry and has been part of the main stream science since the fifties.

Looks like I hit a nerve there. Triggered you into building a wall of jargon. The details you mention are not important. So what if you use spectrometry to ID 'biomarkers'? Sure it works, but it won't tell you which is the source and which is the recipient of the oil.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat was claimed is the oily sludge <Gold> apparently recovered was a product of the lost drilling fluid which was documented while drilling and/or contamination from surface materials used as lost circulation material.

He states they used water drilling fluid in anticipation of conventional geologists worldwide dismissing his work for any and every tiniest of reasons, like you do. The 'drilling fluid was all he found' was just one of the crap reasons to dismiss his work without looking at it. According to him oil was found in modest quantities, but far from economic. But the experiment was never about finding economic oil, just to find it in the most unlikely place according to biotic theory.
http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volum ... uated.html

>...nobody was using this as a working theory.

Because they are all trained, paid and equipped to think oil is biotic in origin. You only want to work with other likeminded geologists, you wouldn't want me on your prospecting and extraction team would you?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ') Also, Hydrocarbons exist on other worlds in the solar system.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')And the proof for that would be what? Did you receive some samples during one of your alien abductions? Perhaps you have a reference we could all read from the Jupiter Oil and Gas Journal that shows the geochemstry of such oil? :roll:

Its a fun part of internet discussions when clear evidence from our best instruments suggest an inconvenient truth. Suddenly, absolutely no evidence is submittable, except an in person experiment attended by all involved and including 1000 of the worlds top scientists, recorded and on every media then repeated dozens of times etc...
'Proof' doesn't exist. Only evidence. 'proof' is a just a bulshite word rolled out in desperation when you want to discredit something, or dismiss the evidence under your nose. In this case the pics from the Mars satellite which shows what is best identified as an oil bearing formation.

Here, have another look at what you find so abhorrent.
Image

You could help me out : provide some surface oil seep photos from your 50 years experience from the middle east desert take from an aircraft, for good comparison. I can only google for oil seep pics.
Image
peakoilwhen
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 08:53:15
Top

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Postby peakoilwhen » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 02:38:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rockdoc', ' ')I <guarantee> if I thought for one minute abiotic oil made any sense when someone wasn't high on peyote I would certainly have come up with a program to predict its occurrence.


...and its a valid guarantee. Your program predicts oil down to 9km. That's below any sedimentary rock, and its hard to believe biotic oil would migrate down 4km below the depth of the oceanic abyssal floor. Hence you believe in abiotic oil theory but you won't admit it! :p
peakoilwhen
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 08:53:15
Top

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Postby Yoshua » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 11:07:46

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... cash-again

Even Russian "abiotic" oil seems to have a problem with depletion.
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 06:45:42
Top

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Postby peakoilwhen » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 11:29:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Rockdoc', ' ')I guarantee if I thought for one minute abiotic oil made any sense when someone wasn't high on peyote I would certainly have come up with a program to predict its occurrence.


Also keep in mind you are after the oil traps, reserves that have been building to vast sizes and pressures for 10s of thousands of years, not slow upwelling untrapped low pressure oil commonly found.
peakoilwhen
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 08:53:15
Top

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Postby peakoilwhen » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 11:32:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Yoshua', 'h')ttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-15/siberian-oil-giant-that-bankrolled-soviets-may-gush-cash-again

Even Russian "abiotic" oil seems to have a problem with depletion.


Correct. But nothing special. Abiotic oil theory suggests slow deep Earth generation. Therefore its easy to drain a reserve.
You might as well post saying ' Even Russian "abiotic" oil seems to be dark in colour "
peakoilwhen
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 08:53:15
Top

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Postby rockdoc123 » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 13:31:00

RM said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')oc - "...and then predict migration from source rock, timing of said migration and where potential traps might be.". Yes but that's not what we're discussing: it's how that oil was created and not if/how it got from Point A to Point B. Again all very logical and true words your. But totally wasted on folks here who argue for abiotic oil.



Well your missing the point as well, possibly because you have not dealt with this area of basin analysis given your predilection to chase fields in very mature areas. The migration is a product of generation from the source kitchen. The inputs are kerogen type, sometimes details with regards to activation energy of a particular source rock (if it has been measured previously) and the equations which govern maturation and expulsion (created as a consequence of laboratory testing). The timing of explusion and the products of expulsion are all a consequence of source type. Using my example from the Ghadames it is the maturation modeling portion that determines what is being generated at what time and that is born out in what was discovered. The migration portion is certainly part of the modeling process using Temispack but when using BasinMod 2D most basin modelers are only concerned with the maturation part of the equation and then use back stripping in 3D to come up with migration pathways the two being separate concerns. Abiotic oil would not generate from the source kitchen, hence the migration pathways would be completely different.

IF abiotic oil is the case then why has there been no discoveries in many offshore young Tertiary deltas? Apparently the source rock doesn't need to be buried deeply according to you so every offshore delta should have oil should it not? Why did the foredelta and requisite debris flows related to offshore discoveries in East Africa all produce gas? The mature modelling of the underlying Jurassic source rock predicted it would be gas but if it is a abiotic source shouldn't it have been oil? Why have there been literally hundreds of wells that penetrated crystalline basin that never found any hint of hydrocarbon? Why has there never been oil reported in the millions of cores taken by mining companies drilling in cratonic areas around the world? If oil is abiotic then the source has a ubiquitous distribution so it should be everywhere shouldn't it?
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Postby AirlinePilot » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 13:38:37

Just read through this whole thread. Rockman has a point albeit a little tongue in cheek methinks. The basic premise of Abiotic oil is hogwash. Rock...saying all oil is abiotic has obviously swayed our local photoshop guru ;) Reminds me of a Truther or two I once knew :o

I think on a larger scale most of us who have been around the block can agree one a few things:

-Macro Economics and a global recession partly caused by high oil prices reduced global consumption solving some of the
oil price issues for the near term since the mid to late 2000's.

-The largest debt bubble in the history of the planet along with generally HIGHER average oil prices over the last
decade have allowed oil otherwise thought to be unrecoverable from a cost standpoint to flow.

-Technology has released just a bit more than the above factors....I.E Fracking and tertiary recovery.

-These factors have combined to mask, delay, and otherwise soften any Peak considerations a lot of us shared 5-7 or
even 10 years ago.

These factors have taken the original Doomers idea about PO off the table. Im kind of happy about all of it ATM. Im enjoying being in a better place my last few years of my working life due to it!! But...I do not disregard that Fracking will not last forever. As Short has pointed out so well, the time is coming when the industry will have to face the music. Newer technologically benefited oil production will endure a double whammy of Old field depletion, and the ever mounting costs associated with exploiting these resources from both a monetary AND energy cost standpoint.

I think of the ideas that have come from some of us over the years in these discussions the POD and the Shortonoil's ideas are key areas to focus on if you want to know what the future holds. They may not be 100% correct, but intuitively they are in the right ballpark IMHO.

We bought some time. The POD is just that...DYNAMIC. Change will come..how much and how fast we start off the peak in the future is what we should all be thinking about instead of preaching some stupid idea that oil is brewing underground at rates which surpass our abilities to extract it.
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta
Top

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Postby AirlinePilot » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 13:41:03

rockdoc.......

Love reading your posts...but what I think you are missing in what RM is saying is simply none of it matters when you are dealing with folks who think they can deduce what is lying on another planet or moons surface by the color of something they, or someone else, photo shopped ;)

Get it yet???? :-D
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta
Top

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Postby rockdoc123 » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 13:41:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Sure formations can go up and down. But geologists use 'up and down' far too liberally in their explanations, to cover dynamics they don't fully understand. I doubt that the base rock went up and down, it might have, but whether it did or not doesn't matter, it isn't part of the reason it acquired o


Don’t fully understand? Exactly who is it that understands tectonics if not geologists? Were Tuzo Wilson, Kevin Burke, John Dewey, Allan Cox not geoscientists? You absolutely have no clue how oil migration or accumulation works. As I stated there is literally millions of miles of high resolution seismic that has been acquired over basement highs. Using combinations of age dating, vitrinite reflectance and sequence stratigraphy it is very easy to determine the history of a given “high”. They have been uplifted, each and every one of them and most of them including Bach Ho, Suban, Zeit Bay to name a few have been aerially exposed at one time simply because the granite/granidiorites have been weathered which cannot happen in the subsurface. We understand the tectonic and burial history very well.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o biomarkers and CFing can link oil from basement igneous rocks and higher sediment rocks. So what? It doesn't show one is the origin and the other the recipient. Just that the 2 have the same source. I'd say the source is the deep Earth.


Listen again, obviously you are one of the slow ones in the class. The biomarker match and fingerprint match is between the source rock (in the case of Bach HO it is marly shales of Eocene and Oligocene age) and the intercalated sands in the E/O as well as with the oil in the basement. Hence the oil in the basement had to have been derived from the adjacent source rock. Can’t really make it any simplier. First year undergrads get this without fail.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n simpler words , the mantle is too hot for oil. How does oil cope down there? It has to be in a different form, perhaps in components, and only condenses to oil as it permeates into the crust.


Oh so now we are invoking magic are we? Have you ever written an equation dealing with organic chemistry? Please show us how this all works keeping in mind that you must honour the Laws of Thermodynamics and also somehow end up incorporating kerogens so that magically this mantle derived mass of molecules exactly resembles an oil I can create from source rocks in a laboratory using pyrolysis. Special pleading without critical thinking I'm afraid.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ooks like I hit a nerve there. Triggered you into building a wall of jargon. The details you mention are not important. So what if you use spectrometry to ID 'biomarkers'? Sure it works, but it won't tell you which is the source and which is the recipient of the oil.


Generally when you are ignorant on a subject it is best to just shut up…you however, seem intent on demonstrating how brilliantly ignorant you are. We run full organic fingerprinting on source rocks and then we run it on the oil and compare. And we know that those source rocks can generate oil because we have done so using samples in a laboratory under pyrolysis. When there is a match between source rock and oil based on organic fingerprinting, when the source rock shows the conditions indicating it has expelled hydrocarbons and where there is a clear porous pathway between the source and the reservoir it is pretty clear where the oil came from. To argue somehow oil came up from the mantle and magically made itself look exactly like the source rock nearby to the reservoir is ridiculous, you might as well argue that unicorns and fairies constructed it in their magical kingdoms and transported it to the reservoir while we were all sleeping.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')e states they used water drilling fluid in anticipation of conventional geologists worldwide dismissing his work for any and every tiniest of reasons, like you do. The 'drilling fluid was all he found' was just one of the crap reasons to dismiss his work without looking at it. 

Again you might want to listen to people who know something about this. Firstly there is no way that this well was drilled to the depth described with water only, he would have had to use mud additives and many such additives contain traces of oil. Also this well lost circulation several times and had stuck pipe issues. Unless Gold was on the well 24/7 and actually understood anything about drilling operations (which he did not, it had nothing to do with his field of research whatsoever) he would have no idea what was sent down the hole as lost circulation material. Typically drillers throw down what they have on hand and in a cheap operation such as Gold undertook you can bet it included materials at surface. If Gold was confident why did he not supply samples or at least the geochemistry of the discovered oil to interested geochemists? Why did he not run geochemistry on the drilling fluids and lost circulation materials? This is standard procedure in oil and gas exploration, it is the only way you can tell if oil shows you encounter haven’t been from contamination.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')ts a fun part of internet discussions when clear evidence from our best instruments suggest an inconvenient truth. Suddenly, absolutely no evidence is submittable, except an in person experiment attended by all involved and including 1000 of the worlds top scientists, recorded and on every media then repeated dozens of times etc...
'Proof' doesn't exist. Only evidence. 'proof' is a just a bulshite word rolled out in desperation when you want to discredit something, or dismiss the evidence under your nose. In this case the pics from the Mars satellite which shows what is best identified as an oil bearing formation.


I’m sure that someone could sell you a bridge in New York as well or a myriad of other conspiracy theories. Good God man all you have is a couple of satellite photos that show dark material on the surface of Mars. That's it. There isn’t even a false color remote sensing analysis of what the spectrum might be representing. Indeed there is a published paper by several scientists from the Earth and Space Sciences at U of Washington that states this has nothing whatsoever to do with oil.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Dark fluid flows also occur on the sides of Hebes Mensa, the base of the chasma walls adjacent to the pits and troughs, and along fissures on the chasma floor. The conspicuous braided flow from the northeast alcove of Hebes Mensa, here dubbed the “Oil Spill” (Fig. 4C), was interpreted by Ori et al. (2005) as a low-viscosity lava f ow; however, a Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Context Camera image shows that the braided channels are smooth ridges and that the terminal deposit has a feather edge that grades into the surrounding, paler surface. We interpret the Oil Spill as particulates (basaltic tephra?) derived from LHF and entrained in aqueous springs along fracture zones. Dark material may have accumulated in the Oil Spill channels as water evaporated. Similarly, dark flows from myriad fractures left particulate deposits on the north and west sides of Hebes Mensa, many of which blend with paler materials at the bases of the slopes. Other faults and fractures produced dark talus fans on the south wall of Hebes Mensa that are consistent with aqueous spring deposits, but their abundance and small size are inconsistent with magmatic vents.

Adams, J.B. et al, 2015. Salt tectonics and collapse of Hebes Chasma, Valles Marineris, Mars. Geology, V37, pp 691-694. doi: 10.1130/G30024A

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.')..and its a valid guarantee. Your program predicts oil down to 9km. That's below any sedimentary rock, and its hard to believe biotic oil would migrate down 4km below the depth of the oceanic abyssal floor. Hence you believe in abiotic oil theory but you won't admit it!


You do not know what you are talking about at all. The maturation programs used are based on time temperature burial models. At a particular history of exposure to temperature oil ceases to generate from source rocks and gas is generated instead as well any existing oil is cracked and converted to gas. The deepest oil production known is at about 6000 m in the Ventura basin. This makes perfect sense given laboratory analysis indicates at temperatures of 160C oil will crack to natural gas (and that would assume instantaneous burial so in fact the depth would be lower in general). There is no program around that would predict oil at 9000 m below mudline/surface.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Postby AdamB » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 15:52:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '
') These factors have taken the original Doomers idea about PO off the table. Im kind of happy about all of it ATM. Im enjoying being in a better place my last few years of my working life due to it!!


Isn't that the truth. In the time people worried themselves into a fit over peak oil, regular folks could have collected a college degree, gotten a job, invested in the market and made some nice returns, bought a house, established a career doing something anti-peak oil like...marketing? Advertising? No need for window box tomatoes there!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '
') But...I do not disregard that Fracking will not last forever.


True. But hydraulic fracturing has been going on for 60+ years, it seems to have some substantial legs, and hasn't even finished up here in the US yet, let alone expanded to the next 400+ billion barrels of oil available elsewhere.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '
')As Short has pointed out so well, the time is coming when the industry will have to face the music.


As rockman has pointed out, enjoying the benefits of what happened during the last peak oil of a decade ago was some pretty nice music. And included extra cash, cold brews, wine and champagne for some. Sounds like they faced music similar to what you say has occurred in your life, otherwise known as improvements and YEE HAW!!! lets do some more of THIS!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '
') Newer technologically benefited oil production will endure a double whammy of Old field depletion, and the ever mounting costs associated with exploiting these resources from both a monetary AND energy cost standpoint.


EIA has a study out showing dropping overall costs since about 2013 or so, and then they really dropped as prices did back in 2015 or so. Nowadays the Permian is growing oil production at $50/bbl or so, so no end in sight yet for one of the best basins on the planet.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '
') We bought some time. The POD is just that...DYNAMIC. Change will come..how much and how fast we start off the peak in the future is what we should all be thinking about instead of preaching some stupid idea that oil is brewing underground at rates which surpass our abilities to extract it.

Based on how well Rockman claims to have done, sounds like more dynamic is a good thing for industry.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 11018
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26
Top

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Postby peakoilwhen » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 15:59:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rockdoc123', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Sure formations can go up and down. But geologists use 'up and down' far too liberally in their explanations, to cover dynamics they don't fully understand. I doubt that the base rock went up and down, it might have, but whether it did or not doesn't matter, it isn't part of the reason it acquired o


Don’t fully understand? Exactly who is it that understands tectonics if not geologists?


People like me, of course. Trained in physics. Geologists only do geology because physics is too hard for them. Geologists interpretations are less restrained by the harsh realities of sci-experiments because its harder to get the deep Earth into a lab. So their ideas can be dafter without reprimand by science. Add the fact you've got the oil cartel brainwashing geology students, and the result is geologists with flawed understanding of geology.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')size=85]You absolutely have no clue how oil migration or accumulation works. As I stated there is literally millions of miles of high resolution seismic that has been acquired over basement highs. Using combinations of age dating, vitrinite reflectance and sequence stratigraphy it is very easy to determine the history of a given “high”. They have been uplifted, each and every one of them and most of them including Bach Ho, Suban, Zeit Bay to name a few have been aerially exposed at one time simply because the granite/granidiorites have been weathered which cannot happen in the subsurface. We understand the tectonic and burial history very well.[/size]


Stratigraphy is a mess. Geologists don't understand it. age dating, I assume you mean radio half life dating, is often unreliable due to influx of new material into the rock via what you might call 'chemical weathering'. Vitrinite reflectance : not much use in ageing things. .


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o biomarkers and CFing can link oil from basement igneous rocks and higher sediment rocks. So what? It doesn't show one is the origin and the other the recipient. Just that the 2 have the same source. I'd say the source is the deep Earth.


Listen again, obviously you are one of the slow ones in the class. The biomarker match and fingerprint match is between the source rock (in the case of Bach HO it is marly shales of Eocene and Oligocene age) and the intercalated sands in the E/O as well as with the oil in the basement. Hence the oil in the basement had to have been derived from the adjacent source rock. Can’t really make it any simplier. First year undergrads get this without fail.

listened again, and I'm telling you again. Biomarkers and 'fingerprints' can link 2 formations as having the same oil source, but it can't tell you which one is the oil source.

You're preaching it to me because you know its a weak assertion to say biomarkers show one to be source and the other the recipient, so you don't want to go into the details. If anything the details should show the basement rock is closer to the source than the sediment rock.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n simpler words , the mantle is too hot for oil. How does oil cope down there? It has to be in a different form, perhaps in components, and only condenses to oil as it permeates into the crust.

Oh so now we are invoking magic are we? Have you ever written an equation dealing with organic chemistry? Please show us how this all works keeping in mind that you must honour the Laws of Thermodynamics and also somehow end up incorporating kerogens so that magically this mantle derived mass of molecules exactly resembles an oil I can create from source rocks in a laboratory using pyrolysis. Special pleading without critical thinking I'm afraid.

Again you are resorting to requiring that I produce a Harvard level PHD thesis just to state the bleedin' obvious.
Don't need the maths and chemistry to say stuff condenseness. If oil can be cracked by increased temperature, it can be put back together by pressure and lowering of temperature. There's no law saying carbon can't bind with carbon.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')We run full organic fingerprinting on source rocks and then we run it on the oil and compare. And we know that those source rocks can generate oil because we have done so using samples in a laboratory under pyrolysis.

Just showing that heating kerogen can make a bit of oil isn't surprising or significant to abiotic oil theory. Kerogen and oil have the same origin and are similar in elements.
But biotic theory has difficulty explaining why geologic processes remove hydrogen from the assumed biomass but leaves behind the carbon to make kerogen, to then later restores the hydrogen to make oil. Always seemed a dumb theory to me.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')When there is a match between source rock and oil based on organic fingerprinting, when the source rock shows the conditions indicating it has expelled hydrocarbons and where there is a clear porous pathway between the source and the reservoir it is pretty clear where the oil came from.

Show me a data on a downwards explusion of oil from a sediment rock. It would be a thorn in my theory.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')o argue somehow oil came up from the mantle and magically made itself look exactly like the source rock nearby to the reservoir is ridiculous

Good job I'm not doing that then. If you've misunderstood what I'm saying, you can't criticise what I'm saying.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')e states they used water drilling fluid in anticipation of conventional geologists worldwide dismissing his work for any and every tiniest of reasons, like you do. The 'drilling fluid was all he found' was just one of the crap reasons to dismiss his work without looking at it. 

Again you might want to listen to people who know something about this. Firstly there is no way that this well was drilled to the depth described with water only,

Because that would damage the drill? because its known to impede drilling performance? Because the drill bit would get stuck, the pipes would get stuck?
Strange, he stated he would use water lubricant, and his drills suffered just those symptoms of water lubrication. Now you saying he can't have used a water lubricant, because its bad drilling practice.
He'd think you were taking the piss.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')ypically drillers throw down what they have on hand
and in a cheap operation such as Gold undertook you can bet it included materials at surface.
Yeah it was just a slapdash slapstick farce. The drilling fluid used for the experiment was a cocktail of any liquid lying around. The last thing they'd find or be able to buy is water lube, that stuff is more expensive that platinum, and rarer than francium.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')If Gold was confident why did he not supply samples or at least the geochemistry of the discovered oil to interested geochemists? Why did he not run geochemistry on the drilling fluids and lost circulation materials? This is standard procedure in oil and gas exploration, it is the only way you can tell if oil shows you encounter haven’t been from contamination.

He did. I've linked to info on this already, but you won't click the links because you are scared of what you might find.
http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volum ... uated.html


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Good God man all you have is a couple of satellite photos that show dark material on the surface of Mars. That's it.
Actually I've got 2 things, the the google Mars imagery, and the fact that seeing it give you convulsions. I'd say the latter evidence is the stronger. But wrt to the imagary : its more than just dark material and you know it, which is why you dismiss it rather than analysis it
- it looks like a fluid
- its forming channels
- its coming out of the side of a hill, and pooling at the lowest height.
- its staining the nearby ground

According to UofW, they say it looks like a dark fluid. Of course, they want to keep their jobs and further their careers so they say its dirty water, even that is wild and dangerous, because surface water isn't supposed to be on Mars. But its a safer bet than saying its oil, which would serve them and the UoW a chastizing from the biotic oil gang and their oil industry bosses. Nice that its termed ' the oil spill '. So you go with the UoW and admit there appears to be a dark fluid on Mars?

They invoke 'magmatic vents' but that's daft, however the poor kids at UoW had to find some cover, any cover to save their careers from attacks from the oil industry, so I sympathise that 'magmatic vents' was a poor but necessary refuge.



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou do not know what you are talking about at all. The maturation programs used are based on time temperature burial models. At a particular history of exposure to temperature oil ceases to generate from source rocks and gas is generated instead as well any existing oil is cracked and converted to gas. The deepest oil production known is at about 6000 m in the Ventura basin. This makes perfect sense given laboratory analysis indicates at temperatures of 160C oil will crack to natural gas (and that would assume instantaneous burial so in fact the depth would be lower in general). There is no program around that would predict oil at 9000 m below mudline/surface.

go on then. Lets have your deepwater horizon conspiracy " how and why the oil companies faked a giant oil spill emanating from 10,000m offshore deep oil, and destruction of state of the art deepwater drill rig and death of 11 crew - by RockDoc "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon
peakoilwhen
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 08:53:15
Top

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Postby rockdoc123 » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 16:07:52

what is important to consider is if you believe in Peak Oil then you cannot rationally also believe in abiotic source for oil. Assuming there is an abiotic source means there will be oil found all over the world in places we have already ruled out for good reason. The calculation of Peak Oil is based on reasonable assumptions of how much oil is left to be found as well as the timing of discovery and when that might be brought on. If there was a limitless supply then the only concern would be economics which it is not.

Note that there are many sedimentary basins in the world that have no hydrocarbons. Either they did not have organic rich source rocks deposited in them or they were not not subjected to deep enough burial for a long enough period. This speaks to why there should be long term concern over oil/gas as our sole supply of energy.

An interesting aside is the latest boom in the continental US essentially proves the theory of an organic origin for oil (not that it needed any further proof). Hydrocarbons that are released from shales during fracking are formed in situ, they have not migrated there, this is a well established fact and makes perfect sense given we are talking about ubiquitous presence of oil in pore space over the entire basin but in rocks with permeabilities measured in nano darcies meaning there is no way that oil could have migrated into them from elsewhere. The source, reservoir and top seal are the exact same unit in the case of most of the shales.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Postby rockdoc123 » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 17:23:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')eople like me, of course. Trained in physics. 


Yeah right. What box top university was that? Your lack of understanding of the basics here tells me you either never set foot in a physics class or slept through the whole thing

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')tratigraphy is a mess. Geologists don't understand it. age dating, I assume you mean radio half life dating, is often unreliable due to influx of new material into the rock via what you might call 'chemical weathering'. Vitrinite reflectance : not much use in ageing things. .


Jesus wept. Stratigraphy has been a well understood science since the nineteenth century, it has continually evolved in details as we acquired more and more seismic and well information but saying we don’t understand it is ridiculous. The science of geochronology is also well established and the errors surrounding all age dating including Rb/Sr, Ar/Ar, K/Ar, C14 or zircon fission tracks has not changed appreciably in the past 40 years. When we are talking in millions of years (which we always are in terms of deposition, uplift, maturation and migration) all of these methods are quite accurate and especially so when they are integrated with seismic and sequence stratigraphic interpretations.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')iomarkers and 'fingerprints' can link 2 formations as having the same oil source, but it can't tell you which one is the oil source.


It's like trying to explain the workings of a chain saw to a chimpanzee, not much point in doing it as the chimp doesn't have a clue what your talking about. In any event I will try again, when I sample the source rock it has no free oil in it and if it does it is extracted and does not become part of the test, I am running gas chromatography on the actual source rock material and that is compared against the oil from the reservoir. When they match that means that oil was almost certainly generated by that source rock or its identical cousin. If you do not know the difference between source rock and reservoir rock, then you have no business pontificating here. Note that most source rocks have permeabilities in the nano darcy range as compared to even the worst reservoir rocks which would have permeabilities in the milli darcy range. What that means is oil cannot migrate into the source rock from outside unless it is along fractures in which case it would not be present in the matrix which is what is tested.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')on't need the maths and chemistry to say stuff condenseness. If oil can be cracked by increased temperature, it can be put back together by pressure and lowering of temperature. There's no law saying carbon can't bind with carbon.


Yeah I guess that physics education you say you have was really worth it, apparently at your box top university math and chemistry weren't required to obtain a degree in science. In any event you didn’t learn anything about Gibbs Free Energy or entropy. The equation that describes gas devolving from oil as it is cracked releases energy, to make that equation go backwards it requires an enormous amount of input energy. It has never been accomplished in a laboratory under closed conditions so I’m afraid it is a fantasy to imagine it happening in the crust. If your theory was correct we would never see relatively shallow reservoirs completely filled with dry gas as according to you that dry gas could somehow condense to become oil.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')how me a data on a downwards explusion of oil from a sediment rock. It would be a thorn in my theory

There is not a single reservoir in the world where that is required. Every basement reservoir I have ever seen (a lot of them and in at least 5 continents) has been juxtaposed to source rock in the perfect position for lateral migration. That being said theoretically oil could migrate downwards given it will move from an area of higher pressure to an area of lower pressure...underpressured reservoirs are quite common. But it isn't necessary given what I said previously.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')eah it was just a slapdash slapstick farce. The drilling fluid used for the experiment was a cocktail of any liquid lying around. The last thing they'd find or be able to buy is water lube, that stuff is more expensive that platinum, and rarer than francium. 

Again why are you arguing about something you don’t actually understand anything about? I refered to lost circulation material. If circulation was lost in order to regain it requires that materials that will block off the zone where drilling fluid is being lost to are circulated down the hole. I’ve been on a number of rigs where walnut shells, burlap from sacks, ground up limestone and yes graphite were circulated downhole to plug off the problem. You would not be able to stop lost circulation or unstick drill pipe or deal with formation flow without adding something to the drilling fluid.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')e did. I've linked to info on this already, but you won't click the links because you are scared of what you might find.

OK lets put this Gold nonsense to sleep once and for good.

http://parwestlandexploration.com/docs/siljan.pdf

This is an independent report conduct after Gold had drilled his well and the comment in the report regarding source rock is:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ource Rock
Unmistakable evidence found by geochemical analysis of oils, oil-stained rocks, and organic rocks points to the Ordovician bituminous Tretaspis Shale as the source for the oil found in the Siljan crater. Professor Gold’s contention that the oil is abiogenic is without merit.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'g')o on then. Lets have your deepwater horizon conspiracy " how and why the oil companies faked a giant oil spill emanating from 10,000m offshore deep oil, and destruction of state of the art deepwater drill rig and death of 11 crew - by RockDoc 

Once again showing your lack of knowledge on anything whatsoever to do with oil and gas. Macondo was drilled in 5000 feet of water to the reservoir at 18,000 feet below sea level. That means the oil at Macondo was at a depth below mudline of 13,000 feet or around 4000 m. The depth of water does not come into play in oil and gas generation given it does not add additional burial heat to the sediment pile, it is the depth from seafloor to source that matters, in this case well below the depths I mentioned from Ventura county.

Finished making a complete fool of yourself yet? :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: IEA : 2016 new annual oil supply record

Postby ROCKMAN » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 18:05:36

Doc - I'm getting old a memories keep slipping away: what did we once say about folks who argue with a fool? LOL.

Again, we could have saved a sh*t load of space here if we had all just agreed that abiotic oil existed. Whether it does or not isn't critial since the only oil that is important is that which we find and produce.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron