[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GHung', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')his is a topic we have pounded for a long time, I am saddened that the general media still thinks it is a viable topic of conversation.

[ROCKMAN]

Eugene Island 330 Field was studied and explained by real scientists (geologists and engineers) long ago. The increased production was due to the shallower reservoirs being recharged by oil leaking up fault planes from slightly deeper reservoirs. Complex explanations but the short answer: as shallow reservoirs decreased in pressure it caused a flow potential was created due to higher pressures in deeper reservoirs.

Very complex situation way beyond bumper sticker mentalities. Here's enough data to dull any mind here: http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/easr ... 0paper.pdf

BTW the Rockman was part of the team that worked on EI 330 in the mid 70's. No well drilled every came in it was projected to. But every well was a keeper.

[Subjectivist]

Actually I saw an interview with this petroleum geologist and it got me wondering again so I did a news search. $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')rofessor V.A. Krayushkin, head of the Department of Petroleum Exploration in the Institute of Geological Sciences of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in Kiev.

[dissident]

Stalin era Soviet science was the next best thing to voodoo. Consider the theories of Lysenko. Real science was suppressed in favour of such rubbish. Abiotic oil is straight from the same steaming pile of Stalinist BS.

What is more interesting is the quite real abiotic production of CH4. I wonder how much of the clathrates and cryosphere seabed CH4 really due to biotic processes and how much is abiotic. The Yamal peninsula and its exploding permafrost appears to the due to CH4 seeping from much deeper in the crust and not just the usual organic carbon reservoir in the permafrost. If these explosions were related to organic CH4, then they would be happening in Canada and elsewhere. Permafrost melt is not exclusive to the Yamal peninsula. Organic CH4 formation and storage in the Yamal peninsula does not show any outlier behaviour as well.

[ROCKMAN]

d - "The Yamal peninsula and its exploding permafrost appears to the due to CH4 seeping from much deeper in the crust and not just the usual organic carbon reservoir in the permafrost." Why do you think the permafrost methane could not have migrated from organic sources many thousands of feet below the permafrost? Such deep organic sources have been documented all around the world. Perhaps I'm reading you wrong but you seem to believe that permafrost methane deposits can only come from in situ organic sources. That's not true. Any shallow methane deposit could come very deep organic sources. I've produces NG from reservoirs at less then 2,000' that clearly migrated up a major fault from a source rock more then 20,000' down.

[diemos]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dissident', 'S')talin era Soviet science was the next best thing to voodoo. Consider the theories of Lysenko. Real science was suppressed in favour of such rubbish.

[dissident]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'd') - "The Yamal peninsula and its exploding permafrost appears to the due to CH4 seeping from much deeper in the crust and not just the usual organic carbon reservoir in the permafrost." Why do you think the permafrost methane could not have migrated from organic sources many thousands of feet below the permafrost? Such deep organic sources have been documented all around the world. Perhaps I'm reading you wrong but you seem to believe that permafrost methane deposits can only come from in situ organic sources. That's not true. Any shallow methane deposit could come very deep organic sources. I've produces NG from reservoirs at less then 2,000' that clearly migrated up a major fault from a source rock more then 20,000' down.

[MD]

it's one of the most interesting ff discussions. Not relevant to circumstance, but interesting. I am very much in the middle in my opinions, but who cares?

[ROCKMAN]

d - " ...how much of the CH4 reservoir accessible to drilling is due to biotic processes (ancient swamp carbon burial like coal) and how much is due to abiotic process from ongoing rock chemistry. I see no clarity on this anywhere." And I doubt you ever will. The two camps are so opposed to each other's position there is no middle ground.

And to respond to MD's question of who cares: the Rockman doesn't give a f*ck one way or the other. LOL. That's why I've claimed to believe all oil/NG has an abiotic origin: it doesn't matter so why care? Oil/NG is only produced from commercial reservoirs where oil/NG is FOUND. Over the last 5 decades the industry has developed excellent exploration technology needed to FIND such accumulations. Yes: the success rate is much higher today then when the big conventional fields were discovered. No: there WAS NEVER any "low hanging fruit". That phrase is used by folks who never worked in the industry. Yes: decades ago there was huge "fruit" to be harvested compared to today. But IT WAS NOT low hanging. The Rockman is redeveloping a field today that was discovered in 1946. In a trend at a depth of only 5,000'. And this trend, which almost no one here has ever heard of, has produced 4.5 BILLION BBLS OF OIL. And there were individual fields that produced as much oil as being found today in some of the Deep Water GOM. And the success rate in the 40's/50's was much lower then they are having in the DW GOM. And that old trend is still being drilled today. But instead of finding fields containing hundreds of millions of bbls the new discoveries are finding 5 to 10 million bbls of oil. And not many of them.

And the history of oil development of this trend wasn't dependent upon the oil being biotic or abiotic: it depended only on finding those oil accumulations. The geologists that found the fields didn't give a f*ck where the oil was created...only where it migrated to and was trapped.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat's why I've claimed to believe all oil/NG has an abiotic origin: it doesn't matter so why care? Oil/NG is only produced from commercial reservoirs where oil/NG is FOUND.

[ROCKMAN]

True Doc. But how many basins do you know of that haven't been drilled and samples tested for oil generation? Modeling was critical decades ago. Not so much today. And the conversation dealt with current exploration efforts.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')rue Doc. But how many basins do you know of that haven't been drilled and samples tested for oil generation? Modeling was critical decades ago. Not so much today. And the conversation dealt with current exploration efforts.

[peakoilwhen]

all this economic waffle is uninteresting. What is interesting is the geology of ethane. Today methane is accepted by everyone in science to be produced abiogenically in the interior of worlds. When they saw everyone else, petrologists dutifully followed suit and accepted methane was produced abiogenically. The pressure in the mantle is enough to press hydrogen atoms onto the carbon atom.

But that leads to an interesting question, at what point in the HC chain list do fossil fuel believers think that abiogenic processes fail? Rockdoc has a minor heart attack everytime he is forced to use his only argument against abiogenic petroleum : the mantle is too hot so petroleum will break down into natural gas. Break down to what... 100% pure methane? Or is ethane and propane abiogenic too? And if propane, perhaps a tiny bit of butane and pentane get thru too?
What are the hydrocarbon seas on Titan made of? 100% methane? Or is there some ethane there as well?
All in all its a slippery slope, or a pandora's box for fossil fuel believers. Once they open the lid on abiogenic hydrocarbon, there's no going back, and the lid is already open because methane has been ousted as abiogenic. Ethane is next in line.

[diemos]

Total crap.

There are situations where hydrocarbons can be formed abiogenically but they still require an energy source and feedstock to do it. Earth's interior is not one of those situations.

All of these fuels where formed by photosynthesis and then cooked into their current form by being buried in the earth.

It's not a pandora's box because we understand that different things happen in different situations. That there's an ocean of methane on Titan is interesting but not relevant to the processes that are going on in the earth's interior.

[peakoilwhen]

is it possible for this forum to degenerate further? How retarded do you have to be to not know methane is abundant in the solar system, yet think you can write flippantly on a subject you've never red a single word on? This is one of the criteria for standards for being a retard on this forum.

1.Write with total authority and confidence on a subject you've not red a single word about

Meanwhile, for anyone who can read :
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... e-science/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon)

>That there's an ocean of methane on Titan is interesting but not relevant to the processes that are going on in the earth's interior.
Why? cos you say so? You've been to both these places and scientifically studied their origin processes for 20 years each? No you haven't, instead you're a inept religious fool suffering from a god delusion.
The possibility that methane is produced on both these world via the same processes is wide open to being true, and is seriously considered by conservatives.

[diemos]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peakoilwhen', '
')The possibility that methane is produced on both these world via the same processes is wide open to being true, and is seriously considered by conservatives.

[peakoilwhen]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou reveal yourself. Liberals believe all sorts of stupid things. Conservatives believe all sorts of stupid things. When it comes to the nature and operation of the physical world the only people I pay attention to are scientists.

[diemos]

I wish you knew how dumb you read.

All scientists want their ideas to match the physical world. They only vary in how much evidence they require before old theories are abandoned in favor of new ones. Sometimes that requires the old generation to die off but not always.

The production of abiogenic hydrocarbons is understood. It is not happening on earth at any rate that will make any difference for our current civilization.

[peakoilwhen]

>They only vary in how much evidence they require...
You've rephrased what I've just told you and then told it back to me. I guess that's as close as you'll come to admitting you were wrong with your political interpretation of the my use of 'conservative'.

>The production of abiogenic hydrocarbons is understood.
I guess that's as close as you'll come to acknowledging the peer reviewed papers on laboratory creation of abiogenic petroleum.

>It is not happening on earth at any rate that will make any difference for our current civilization.
I guess that's your way of saying 'Abiogenic hydrocarbon may be being created in the mantle '
But have you spent the last 20 years sat in the mantle carefully monitoring mantle petroleum creation rates? How about uploading a few videos of your home and transport systems that shuttle you to all 100s of your monitoring stations down in the mantle?
Wake up to reality, you are in no position to make such broad conclusions.

[diemos]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peakoilwhen', '
')But have you spent the last 20 years sat in the mantle carefully monitoring mantle petroleum creation rates?