$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')our saying : if something cannot be created at a certain PT, then it can't exist at that certain PT.
Are you sure? I don't agree. You want me to give a counter example to your assertion or can you think of one yourself?
The paper describes how they made petroleum at 50kbar. Its very well wriiten. I've been reading it.
PeakOil is You
Delay of Peak Oil?
Re: Delay of Peak Oil?
by rockdoc123 » Wed 07 Mar 2018, 11:08:25
read the frigging paper you idiot. They could only create a small amount of longer chain hydrocarbons in a closed experiment at high pressure high temperature, at high temperature low pressure all that forms is methane. This is simple to anyone who understands the process of chemical bond dissociation. So even if a liquid hydrocarbon formed (which it wouldn't) as it rose up through the mantle and lower crust, temperature is still far above the stability range for liquid but pressure has dropped well below the point at which the paper indicates they could only create methane. I am getting very tired of explaining a very, very simple chemical phase relationship that you should have learned in high school.
Also it needs to be pointed out that the experiment uses a lump of limestone and heats it up under very high pressure. First of all there is no limestone existing in the mantle where these pressure occur, it was long melted and completely dissociated during the subduction phase. The experiment is at best ludicrous.
-
rockdoc123 - Expert
- Posts: 7685
- Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Delay of Peak Oil?
by onlooker » Wed 07 Mar 2018, 11:16:44
Great summary of the situation as it has unfolded and exists currently for the US Oil Industry and the world. We have NO plan B. And have no time to make a wholesale transition to anything. Essentially, we have bought a little time with non conventional Oil. This is what we do as modern societies, we kick the can to extend our modern industrial civilization. Well, we have run out of extenders. Unconventional oil and gas which is difficult to access and energentically and monetarily expensive energy sources were never going to be the answer. Foolish is puttng it mildly.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
-
onlooker - Fission
- Posts: 10957
- Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
- Location: NY, USA
Re: Delay of Peak Oil?
by rockdoc123 » Wed 07 Mar 2018, 11:54:55
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')nconventional oil and gas which is difficult to access and energentically and monetarily expensive energy sources were never going to be the answer.
I would argue that shale gas/oil is much easier to access than conventional offshore hydrocarbons or for that matter hydrocarbons in certain jurisdictions with above ground access issues (example: Libya). The only issue is obtaining lease rights through a royalty agreement that are pretty much standard rates across the various states nowadays. Also the breakeven cost for shales is much lower than that for conventional offshore oil and gas ($30 - $40/bbl versus $60 and higher).
Companies are pursuing the shale plays because they make the most economic/risk sense currently. As an example I can drill a horizontal several stage fracked well into one of the unconventional reservoirs with a greater than 90% chance of success and at D&C costs that are averaging in the $7 MM range. An offshore well can cost anywhere from $20 - $100 MM depending on water depth and location and the exploration chance of success is never greater than 50% due to the fact you are generally counting on seismic AVO (amplitude versus offset) as your risk limiter (which is hardly fail-proof). Of course if successful the offshore results in greater overall reserves but development costs are also steep.
The reason EV's haven't taken over or nuclear/wind/hydro energy haven't completely supplanted hydrocarbons is that there is still an economic advantage to hydrocarbons and there are still problems with a guarantee of supply in the case of other sources. That balance will change but to my mind, timing is very unpredictable.
-
rockdoc123 - Expert
- Posts: 7685
- Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Delay of Peak Oil?
by Revi » Wed 07 Mar 2018, 12:16:52
Good! I hope peak oil is delayed a while. Since I've lived on this death row for 20 years now, I am fine with delaying the execution. I really don't see how it's possible to extend it much more, but if I can get to retirement without the major repercussions hitting it would be nice. I intend to retire in 2 years and 4 months, but I think there will be a big depression by then, so what difference will it make if we hit peak oil?
Deep in the mud and slime of things, even there, something sings.
-
Revi - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 7417
- Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Maine
Re: Delay of Peak Oil?
by asg70 » Wed 07 Mar 2018, 12:37:14
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', '
')We have NO plan B. And have no time to make a wholesale transition to anything.
')We have NO plan B. And have no time to make a wholesale transition to anything.
That's where we differ. Shale has bought us time and while the whole world won't transition to EVs, we're on the cusp and that will, if nothing else, blunt any sort of supply shortfall that starts to creep up on us even just a few years from now.
Only a shark-fin like crash in oil supply would create the sort of TEOTWAWKI condition that the peak oil crowd has been praying for all this time.
BOLD PREDICTIONS
-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)
HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
- asg70
- Permanently Banned
- Posts: 4289
- Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 14:17:28
Re: Delay of Peak Oil?
by onlooker » Wed 07 Mar 2018, 13:00:56
First off, I appreciate the toning down of the rhetoric. So, in the spirit of civil discourse, I would ask you Rockdoc the following questions:
First do you think a subsantial amount of sweet spots for Shale/Fracking still exist so that these productive wells/plays can continue lasting several years more?
Second, can the consumer economy handle the price range needed to exploit these Shale plays? And will the investment funds continue to be available to fund this endeavor?
Finally, is this economic reasoning going to allow for a viable transition to EV vehicles in mass once it is economically advantageous? These are all questions I ask in good faith, as you do have the expertise to answer Rockdoc.
First do you think a subsantial amount of sweet spots for Shale/Fracking still exist so that these productive wells/plays can continue lasting several years more?
Second, can the consumer economy handle the price range needed to exploit these Shale plays? And will the investment funds continue to be available to fund this endeavor?
Finally, is this economic reasoning going to allow for a viable transition to EV vehicles in mass once it is economically advantageous? These are all questions I ask in good faith, as you do have the expertise to answer Rockdoc.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
-
onlooker - Fission
- Posts: 10957
- Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
- Location: NY, USA
Re: Delay of Peak Oil?
by peakoilwhen » Wed 07 Mar 2018, 14:50:31
>They could only create a small amount of longer chain hydrocarbons in a closed experiment at high pressure high temperature
Of course What were you expecting? A gigaton of oil from 0.6cm^3 of ingredients? The experiment was not to try mass production of petroluem, but merely to demonstrate it was chemically possible at mantle conditions.
> at high temperature low pressure all that forms is methane
Fine by me. Abiotic oil doesn't require petroleum generation at low pressure. Your biogenic oil theory does though.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')So even if a liquid hydrocarbon formed ... as it rose up through the mantle and lower crust, temperature is still far above the stability range for liquid but pressure has dropped well below the point at which the paper indicates they could only create methane.
Of course What were you expecting? A gigaton of oil from 0.6cm^3 of ingredients? The experiment was not to try mass production of petroluem, but merely to demonstrate it was chemically possible at mantle conditions.
> at high temperature low pressure all that forms is methane
Fine by me. Abiotic oil doesn't require petroleum generation at low pressure. Your biogenic oil theory does though.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')So even if a liquid hydrocarbon formed ... as it rose up through the mantle and lower crust, temperature is still far above the stability range for liquid but pressure has dropped well below the point at which the paper indicates they could only create methane.
Yes I gathered this is centrepiece in your objection to abiotic theory, the one you hang your hat on. And I think you are right - suddenly depressurized hot oil will decompose. Like a deep ocean fish shot with a 100 yard cannon into the vacuum of space, the shock of depressurization would crack it.
I expect this is what quite a few natural gas reserves are, abioitic petroleum that has depressized too quickly. So you win there, well done.
But, you are your own worst enemy. You totally telegraph your own worst fears. I learn from you about what's going in the Earth by discerning from your excited words what you are guarding against. And so this fixation you have for sudden depressurization tells me what is actually happening.
The 100 yard cannon is a poor analogy for how some mantle fluids upwell. Deep rocks are tight. Upwelling migration is slow. Under an upper crust oil bearing formation, thousands if not millions of small trickles of abiotic oil filter thru fractures in deep layer rocks over a wide area. This wide area and slow speed allow cooling by conduction to keep pace with pressure drop, enough that a significant amount of petroleum doesn't crack. Hence a nice pool of abiotic petroleum collects in the upper crust, or even makes it to the surface.
This is simple and intuitive behaviour such that abiotic theorists haven't felt the need to concentrate on it much. I guess if more biotic rockdocs cry about it, then someone will do experiments to demo it.
This paper outlines upper crust petroleum field creation in chapter 3.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 00270/full
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')here is no limestone existing in the mantle where these pressure occur, it was long melted and completely dissociated during the subduction phase.
You've no idea how tied up in geology myths you are. Your interpretation of geology is grounded in the idea that atomic elements and basic chemicals are created by biology, and then find their way slowly into the earth.
The reality is its the other way round. Limestone is a product of the mantle, just like petroleum. It's creation has absolutely nothing to do with biology. You have drawn wrong conclusions from minerals with animals and animal remains in them. Just as with footprints on the moon, the signature of biology in minerals doesn't mean it was made by biology. Its a dumb mistake to make, but i forgive u.
Subduction is bulshit too.
- peakoilwhen
- Permanently Banned
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 08:53:15
The fact that you are reveling in your own stupidity is alarming and tragic at the same time.
