Is it Peak Oil? Moment of truth is here...

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Wanted to add this

Postby chlamor » Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:39 pm

The theory of abiotic oil in no way refutes peak oil because the concept of peak oil is not based on the origin of oil.

Hubbert's peak is not based on geologic nor economic theory. Hubbert studied production, discovery, and reserve data for various fields and regions and eventually to the data for the entire continental U.S. He was able to fit an empirical curve to these data and use the equation of the curve to predict the peak of U.S. production in 1970.

The decline in the rate of production after about one-half the oil has been produced observed in individual fields, the continental U.S., the North Slope, the North Sea, and elsewhere demonstrates that the rate of replacement is very slow relative to the rate of production. For practical purposes we can regard the total amount of oil to be finite. It makes no difference if the oil were created by biotic or abiotic means. (Conventional oil generation theory recognizes that it takes several million years to create an oil field.)

Peak oil predictions are about a coming decline in the possible rate of production, not about the absolute end of oil. The differences between declining production and the end of oil are subtle, but important and are not widely understood by the general public. The theory of abiotic oil is a convenient place to hang false hopes for those who do not understand the concepts of peak oil and for those who choose not to believe it.
Liberal thy name is hypocrisy. What's new?
chlamor
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby stickdog99 » Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:54 pm

I agree with that. Note that my skepticism is short rather than long term. Unless we reduce consumption, there will come a point soon enough when demand will exceed all possible available production.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6355
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chlamor » Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:14 pm

stickdog99 wrote:I agree with that. Note that my skepticism is short rather than long term. Unless we reduce consumption, there will come a point soon enough when demand will exceed all possible available production.


Saudi production is in fact in steady decline. That's just production.

If we look at new discoveries the picture becomes rather stark with saudi oil and the rest of the world.


Peak Oil is quite real though it's too bad it was given such a facile tag, same is true for Global Warming, as that label tends to obscure the more complicated realities. There is far less oil in the world than we have been led to believe but this still means there is a whole bunch of the stuff. With growing appetites for oil the amount of oil remaining cannot possibly satiate the expanding industrial economies for much longer.
Liberal thy name is hypocrisy. What's new?
chlamor
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Is it Peak Oil? Moment of truth is here...

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Apr 21, 2024 3:01 pm

.
Re-surfacing a 'legacy' OP as it relates to a recent comment made in another thread earlier today

For those interested, the following 2 'newsletters' (in addition to a 3rd newsletter link in the cross-post below) from Dave McGowan, both dated in 2004, may be worthwhile, as they involve online 'debates' with Michael Ruppert on 'Peak Oil'.

https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/newsletter-53/

https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/newsletter-54/


A few other noteworthy data points for consideration on the topic of oil production. Contrary to a Drop/Reduction/Limitation in oil production, there continues to be an UPTICK in production:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detai ... 0in%202019.
MARCH 11, 2024

United States produces more crude oil than any country, ever

Image

The United States produced more crude oil than any nation at any time, according to our International Energy Statistics, for the past six years in a row. Crude oil production in the United States, including condensate, averaged 12.9 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2023, breaking the previous U.S. and global record of 12.3 million b/d, set in 2019. Average monthly U.S. crude oil production established a monthly record high in December 2023 at more than 13.3 million b/d.

The crude oil production record in the United States in 2023 is unlikely to be broken in any other country in the near term because no other country has reached production capacity of 13.0 million b/d. Saudi Arabia’s state-owned Saudi Aramco recently scrapped plans to increase production capacity to 13.0 million b/d by 2027.

Together, the United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia accounted for 40% (32.8 million b/d) of global oil production in 2023. These three countries have produced more oil than any others since 1971 (counting production in the Russian Federation of the Soviet Union prior to 1991), although the top spot has shifted among them over the past five decades. By comparison, the next three largest producing countries—Canada, Iraq, and China—combined produced 13.1 million b/d in 2023, only slightly more than what was produced in the United States alone.

Image


AND:

...
Global crude oil output rebounded by more than 5% in 2022, much above its historical trend.

In 2022, global crude oil production increased by a record 5.4% rate, much above its 2021 growth (+1.6%) and its 2010-2019 average (+1.3%/year), in a context of global economic growth and progressive OPEC+ crude oil production adjustment (+0.4 mb/d each month until phasing out the 5.8 mb/d production adjustment).
Most of the increase in global oil production occurred in the Middle East (+13%), especially in Saudi Arabia (+16%), the United Arab Emirates (+15%), Kuwait (+8.1%) and Iran (+5.9% despite sanctions). It also increased in North America (+6.5% in the US and +2.6% in Canada) and in Latin America (+3.9%, thanks to a 3.9% growth in Brazil, while production remained stable in Mexico). Despite Western sanctions, crude oil production continued to increase by 2.1% in Russia.
....

https://yearbook.enerdata.net/crude-oil ... stics.html

AND:

Image
https://www.statista.com/statistics/265 ... s-per-day/

Cross-post:

Belligerent Savant » Sun Apr 21, 2024 10:42 am wrote:.
As a tangentially related aside to the above (useful) thought exercise:

I no longer use the term 'fossil fuels', or otherwise place them in quotes, because I remain firmly agnostic on the origins of such fuels (leaning towards the premise that 'fossils' are decidedly NOT the primary source of this type of fuel).

This bit below offers a 'neutral'/apolitical summary of it:

Abiotic Oil: Is “Fossil Fuel” a Misnomer?

Posted on July 12, 2013 by Michael Minkoff, Jr. ·

Wikipedia defines “fossil fuels” as “fuels formed by natural processes such as anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms. The age of the organisms and their resulting fossil fuels is typically millions of years, and sometimes exceeds 650 million years.” If this is true, fossil fuels are not being made anymore. This would mean then that oil is a fixed-quantity, non-renewable resource that we are using to depletion. When it’s gone, it’s gone.

But wait. The strangest thing is happening in various oil fields all over the world: they’re filling up again. What? How could that be? Perhaps there is a world of dinosaurs living at the center of the earth and their corpses are floating up through the magma, fossilizing on the way in a dimensionally-compressed time crease and then decomposing into oil. Perhaps Jules Verne was right after all.

Or, perhaps there is another option: abiotic oil production. It could be that oil, coal, and natural gas are incorrectly named “fossil fuels.” There are pockets of people who are beginning to be open to the idea that perhaps oil is not the product of biological decomposition and fossilization over a bajillion years:

In 2008 [Forbes] reported a group of Russian and Ukrainian scientists say that oil and gas don’t come from fossils; they’re synthesized deep within the earth’s mantle by heat, pressure, and other purely chemical means, before gradually rising to the surface. Under the so-called abiotic theory of oil, finding all the energy we need is just a matter of looking beyond the traditional basins where fossils might have accumulated. ((U.S. News & World Report, Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring))
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on- ... -exploring


A little research indicates that more than a few thinkers disagree with the scientific consensus on how oil is formed.
http://www.cfact.org/2012/09/19/is-oil- ... -resource/

Consensus scientists will of course reject these “quacks” as “snake oil salesmen.” (Get it?) It is fallacious to appeal to authority or the majority opinion. It doesn’t matter who says or thinks something. It could be right or it could be wrong. Consensus science automatically jumps down your throat if you question “climate change” or “macro-evolution.” And this is one of the main blind spots of the fossil fuel bandwagoners. All alternative theories to oil formation are rejected by the majority opinion in order to protect some of modern man’s more sacred cows. Not for scientific reasons, of course. But because of ideological prejudices.

The majority opinion on fossil fuels is intimately linked to anthropogenic climate change and macro-evolution:

Environmentalists want to believe in the biogenic production of oil because it gives legitimacy to their apocalyptic urgency. If oils are running out, and we can’t get any more, well, we better start investing in green energy. But if abiotic oil theory is correct, then oil is a renewable resource. Uh oh. That means crazy conservative earth-killers can keep polluting poor Mother Earth indefinitely.

And macro-evolutionists just don’t want to give up on their “millions and millions of years.” Indicating, even with facts or data, that oil or other geological formations can be produced over a relatively short span of time totally contradicts their paradigm and they will decry you until they are blue in the face. Never mind the fact that the linear uniformitarian model for geological development doesn’t fit any of the facts, past or present. They will cling to it by faith in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Truth is truth, and I want to get at it. I’m not saying abiotic oil theory is right. Perhaps the biogenic fuel theory is basically right, but the time frame is way off. It definitely does not take millions of years to fossilize something. It just takes enormous heat and pressure (which the earth’s core has lots of if I remember correctly). I just want the question to be discussed openly. If the “millions of years” fossil fuel theory is correct, just how are these oil fields filling back up? Is really old oil formed tens of millions of years ago seeping up from even deeper in the earth’s core? That doesn’t fit the evidence very well. For one, the new oil, even using their dating methods, is considerably younger. And why is it showing up now? Hasn’t it been around for tens of millions of years? Oh well. Who needs evidence when you’ve got a consensus, right? At least, that’s the song all the geocentrists were singing back in the day while they were dancing around in little epicycles trying to retrofit their failed paradigm to the facts.

Thus, as is often the case, a majority prejudice is parading as proof in order to silence dissent. The “Church” has been condemned by modern “skeptics” ((To my taste, they are not skeptical at all. It amazes me what they’re willing to believe.)) for its superstitious hamstringing of the progress of scientific inquiry. Now those same so-called skeptics resort to the same tactics when they hold the reins of the majority opinion. And the Church is full of hypocrites?

https://michaelminkoff.com/abiotic-oil- ... -misnomer/

And then there is the following 'blast from the past', back when Ruppert and 'Peak Oil' theorizing was all the rage..

This was posted in 2004:
https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/newsletter-52/

An excerpt:

...
First to weigh in was Nature (Tom Clarke “Fossil Fuels Without the Fossils: Petroleum: Animal, Vegetable or Mineral?,” Nature News Service, August 14, 2002).

Petroleum – the archetypal fossil fuel – couldn’t have formed from the remains of dead animals and plants, claim US and Russian researchers. They argue that petroleum originated from minerals at extreme temperatures and pressures.
Other geochemists say that the work resurrects a scientific debate that is almost a fossil itself, and criticize the team’s conclusions.
The team, led by J.F. Kenney of the Gas Resources Corporation in Houston, Texas, mimicked conditions more than 100 kilometres below the earth’s surface by heating marble, iron oxide and water to around 1500° C and 50,000 times atmospheric pressure.
They produced traces of methane, the main constituent of natural gas, and octane, the hydrocarbon molecule that makes petrol. A mathematical model of the process suggests that, apart from methane, none of the ingredients of petroleum could form at depths less than 100 kilometres.


The geochemist community, and the petroleum industry, were both suitably outraged by the publication of the study. The usual parade of experts was trotted out, of course, but a funny thing happened: as much as they obviously wanted to, those experts were unable to deny the validity of the research. So they resorted to a very unusual tactic: they reluctantly acknowledged that oil can indeed be created from minerals, but they insisted that that inconvenient fact really has nothing to do with the oil that we use.

Showing that oil can also form without a biological origin does not disprove [the ‘fossil fuel’] hypothesis. “It doesn’t discredit anything,” said a geochemist who asked not to be named.
… “No one disputes that hydrocarbons can form this way,” says Mark McCaffrey, a geochemist with Oil Tracers LLC, a petroleum-prospecting consultancy in Dallas, Texas. A tiny percentage of natural oil deposits are known to be non-biological, but this doesn’t mean that petrol isn’t a fossil fuel, he says.
“I don’t know anyone in the petroleum community who really takes this prospect seriously,” says Walter Michaelis, a geochemist at the University of Hamburg in Germany.


So I guess the geochemist community is a petulant lot. They did “concede,” however, that oil “that forms inorganically at the high temperatures and massive pressures close to the Earth’s mantle layer could be forced upwards towards the surface by water, which is denser than oil. It can then be trapped by sedimentary rocks that are impermeable to oil.”

What they were acknowledging, lest anyone misunderstand, is that the oil that we pump out of reservoirs near the surface of the earth, and the oil that is spontaneously and continuously generated deep within the earth, could very well be the same oil. But even so, they insist, that is certainly no reason to abandon, or even question, our perfectly ridiculous ‘fossil fuel’ theory.

Coverage by New Scientist of the ‘controversial’ journal publication largely mirrored the coverage by Nature (Jeff Hecht “You Can Squeeze Oil Out of a Stone,” New Scientist, August 17, 2002).
Oil doesn’t come from dead plants and animals, but from plain old rock, a controversial new study claims.
The heat and pressure a hundred kilometres underground produces hydrocarbons from inorganic carbon and water, says J.F. Kenney, who runs the Gas Resources Corporation, an oil exploration firm in Houston. He and three Russian colleagues believe all our oil is made this way, and untapped supplies are there for the taking.
Petroleum geologists already accept that some oil forms like this. “Nobody ever argued that there are no inorganic sources,” says Mike Lewan of the US Geological Survey. But they take strong issue with Kenney’s claim that petroleum can’t form from organic matter in shallow rocks.


Geotimes chimed in as well, quoting Scott Imbus, an organic geochemist for Chevron Texaco Corp., who explained that the Kenney research is “an excellent and rigorous treatment of the theoretical and experimental aspects for abiotic hydrocarbon formation deep in the Earth. Unfortunately, it has little or nothing to do with the origins of commercial fossil fuel deposits.”

What we have here, quite clearly, is a situation wherein the West’s leading geochemists (read: shills for the petroleum industry) cannot impugn the validity of Kenney’s unassailable mathematical model, and so they have, remarkably enough, adopted the unusual strategy of claiming that there is actually more than one way to produce oil. It can be created under extremely high temperatures and pressures, or it can be created under relatively low temperatures and pressures. It can be created organically, or it can be created inorganically. It can be created deep within the Earth, or it can be created near the surface of the Earth. You can make it with some rocks. Or you can make it in a box. You can make it here or there. You can make it anywhere.

While obviously an absurdly desperate attempt to salvage the ‘fossil fuel’ theory, the arguments being offered by the geochemist community actually serve to further undermine the notion that oil is an irreplaceable ‘fossil fuel.’ For if we are now to believe that petroleum can be created under a wide range of conditions (a temperature range, for example, of 75° C to 1500° C), does that not cast serious doubt on the claim that conditions favored the creation of oil just “one time in the earth’s 4.5 billion year history”?

A more accurate review of Kenney’s work appeared in The Economist (“The Argument Needs Oiling,” The Economist, August 15, 2002).

Millions of years ago, tiny animals and plants died. They settled at the bottom of the oceans. Over time, they were crushed beneath layers of sediment that built up above them and eventually turned into rock. The organic matter, now trapped hundreds of metres below the surface, started to change. Under the action of gentle heat and pressure, and in the absence of air, the biological debris turned into oil and gas. Or so the story goes.
In 1951, however, a group of Soviet scientists led by Nikolai Kudryavtsev claimed that this theory of oil production was fiction. They suggested that hydrocarbons, the principal molecular constituents of oil, are generated deep within the earth from inorganic materials. Few people outside Russia listened. But one who did was J. F. Kenney, an American who today works for the Russian Academy of Sciences and is also chief executive of Gas Resources Corporation in Houston, Texas. He says it is nonsense to believe that oil derives from “squashed fish and putrefied cabbages.” This is a brave claim to make when the overwhelming majority of petroleum geologists subscribe to the biological theory of origin. But Dr Kenney has evidence to support his argument.
In this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, he claims to establish that it is energetically impossible for alkanes, one of the main types of hydrocarbon molecule in crude oil, to evolve from biological precursors at the depths where reservoirs have typically been found and plundered. He has developed a mathematical model incorporating quantum mechanics, statistics and thermodynamics which predicts the behaviour of a hydrocarbon system. The complex mixture of straight-chain and branched alkane molecules found in crude oil could, according to his calculations, have come into existence only at extremely high temperatures and pressures—far higher than those found in the earth’s crust, where the orthodox theory claims they are formed.
To back up this idea, he has shown that a cocktail of alkanes (methane, hexane, octane and so on) similar to that in natural oil is produced when a mixture of calcium carbonate, water and iron oxide is heated to 1,500° C and crushed with the weight of 50,000 atmospheres. This experiment reproduces the conditions in the earth’s upper mantle, 100 km below the surface, and so suggests that oil could be produced there from completely inorganic sources.

Kenney’s theories, when discussed at all, are universally described as “new,” “radical,” and “controversial.” In truth, however, Kenney’s ideas are not new, nor original, nor radical. Though no one other than Kenney himself seems to want to talk about it, the arguments that he presented in the PNAS study are really just the tip of a very large iceberg of suppressed scientific research.
...


More at link.

If any 'learnings' are to be had in this current era, particularly since 2020, it's that we should take care to reconsider previously assumed 'truths'. Because it's becoming increasingly apparent their foundations are shaky at best.

But, of course, each of us can only proceed as we deem fit. Some of us prefer not to reconsider currently-held views.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5292
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Wanted to add this

Postby Elihu » Sat Apr 27, 2024 11:01 pm

chlamor » Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:39 pm wrote:The theory of abiotic oil in no way refutes peak oil because the concept of peak oil is not based on the origin of oil.

Hubbert's peak is not based on geologic nor economic theory. Hubbert studied production, discovery, and reserve data for various fields and regions and eventually to the data for the entire continental U.S. He was able to fit an empirical curve to these data and use the equation of the curve to predict the peak of U.S. production in 1970.

The decline in the rate of production after about one-half the oil has been produced observed in individual fields, the continental U.S., the North Slope, the North Sea, and elsewhere demonstrates that the rate of replacement is very slow relative to the rate of production. For practical purposes we can regard the total amount of oil to be finite. It makes no difference if the oil were created by biotic or abiotic means. (Conventional oil generation theory recognizes that it takes several million years to create an oil field.)

Peak oil predictions are about a coming decline in the possible rate of production, not about the absolute end of oil. The differences between declining production and the end of oil are subtle, but important and are not widely understood by the general public. The theory of abiotic oil is a convenient place to hang false hopes for those who do not understand the concepts of peak oil and for those who choose not to believe it.
what if enlightenment had prevailed and slews, and sloughs of laws began to be passed so as to re-shape our world..... how would life be right now sixteen years later? and plenty oil.... and still relatively cheap...
But take heart, because I have overcome the world.” John 16:33
Elihu
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Is it Peak Oil? Moment of truth is here...

Postby Elihu » Sat Apr 27, 2024 11:03 pm

predictions are about a coming decline in the possible rate of production, not about
and should people be held responsible?
But take heart, because I have overcome the world.” John 16:33
Elihu
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests