Does Deep Earth Host Untapped Fuel?

ABCnews.com ^ | January 19, 2006 | Lee Dye

[Strategerist]

On threads like these, people have always been violently allergic to anyone who 'argues from authority'; -- claiming that they themselves are the only ones who "actually have any idea of what they're talking about".

It's been abundantly clear over and over again that the majority of the people arguing for abiogenic oil on these threads don't even understand the rudimentary basics of the theory they're arguing AGAINST, and have no business posting anything at all on the subject.

[Robert A Cook PE]

True, true.

Or, more accurately, possibly true.

And, most accurately, potentially true: over the very, very long run.

But, IF (big, unknown IF!) oil/natural gas ARE being formed continuously, then they form deep at relatively low rates, must rise (slowly) through the overlaying rock to accessible depths, must be trapped and accumulate (slowly) at those accessible depths by only a limited places of suitable layers of rock, then accumulate in enough density to warrant re-drilling and extraction. Think of fat, thick sponge sitting in a small pool of water. Putting a single straw in the middle of the sponge is going to pull the water right around the straw, but takes a while to reload the sponge so a second extraction can be made. (Some oil wells are now (almost) re-profitable by the way, after sitting idle for a few years.) But emptying the bowl of water takes a long, long time.

Oil consumption rates must go down: because burning oil for fuel is a waste of the chemicals available.

...

Once methane sources underground is known, the rest of the chained oil compounds can be (relatively) well accounted for by synthesis of longer chains.

[Strategerist]

If that is the case why do we have oil wells drying up?

As silly as it sounds, some of these folks don't think any oil wells are drying up.

There is a tiny handful of oil wells (one in the Gulf of Mexico in particular) where a well appeared to have been "refilled"...which can be explained by migration of normally formed biogenic oil from another location.

However that was seized upon and exaggerated into "Oil wells all over the world are refilling and nobody knows why!" in support of abiogenic oil theories, and repeated ad nauseam.

Then you'll see experienced oil workers and oil geologists pop in and mention they've seen many, many wells and fields play out and not refill, and they're ignored, of course.

[trashcanbred]

I don't get it... why would people purposely ignore these facts? I mean... we may all want unlimited oil supplies to be true... but to argue for this theory and yet there is no proof of it just seems mad. I am all for exploring the idea but this one small experiment doesn't really seem to say all that much in terms of what Gold said.

[thegreatbeast]

Damn, you're good. I saw & said the same thing myself on first reading. How could it have made it past editing?

[tpaine]

It's been abundantly clear over and over again that the majority of the people arguing for abiogenic oil on these threads don't even understand the rudimentary basics of the theory they're arguing AGAINST, and have no business posting anything at all on the subject.

So FR's self touted 'voice of authority' on biogenic oil decrees.

Sorry fella, - but people can read articles like the one posted, - and books like Golds, -- and make rational comments about the controversy.

We all have 'business' posting on the subject; it's exactly what FR is all about.

[fso301]

If this is the source, why is it that crude oil is almost exclusively found in basins?

[Mike Darancette]

And as for methane, there are huge amounts just lying about on the deep ocean floorin those little ice nodules

Maybe that's where the abiogenic methane goes?

[thegreatbeast]

The United States, where oil production has been declining since the 1970s...
It is more the cost of oil recovery that has decreased US oil production. Like everything else, using American labor became "too costly" and it made more sense to import oil. That happened in the 70s. We didn't exhaust our domestic resources.

[Nova]

"Just ask any paleontologist who works for an oil company"

That's actually where I first heard of this theory, many years ago. I was shocked, at the time, to hear it.

I no longer believe there is any shortage "crisis" in the near future. There's lots of oil, the biggest problems are the politics and mechanics of drilling it, not any shortage of supply.

[jocon307]

"Damn, you're good."

Hey, that is SO NICE to hear! Where are the editors these days, sometimes it's like they don't exist at all.

[Nova]

"we got a whole lot more than the experts think"

I know of respectable (oil company) experts that don't believe there is any shortage of oil resources. It's just not an opinion that the MSM has any interest in.

[SampleMan]

This whole thing is nonsense, because I've been told repeatedly that scientists are always scientific and never get into rice bowls. Yes folks, repeatedly right here on FR.

If there were any truth or possibility to this the scientific community would set aside all personal views and judge it purely by its merits. No, really.

[wildbill]

The theory is that the earth is constantly replenishing the reservoirs through natural processes.

There has been some evidence that oil fields that were thought completely drained thirty or more years ago have had some regeneration and workover projects are underway.

The only problem: no one knows how long it would take for the natural regeneration to occur in enough volume to replenish the old fields.

[festus]

Like Gold, Livermore may have carried it a bit too far when it suggested in a news release that "These reserves could be a virtually inexhaustible source of energy for future generations."

There's a problem here. No one is going to drill a well 100 miles into the Earth. Even five or six miles is a really deep well.

"It's not even foreseeable that we would try to drill down to it," Scott says.

But there is a possibility that some of those methane deposits, if they really do exist deep within the Earth, may find their own way to the surface, following weaknesses in the crust, for example.

Well DUH. Thats the basic idea of how the stuff gets to the surface wells ya big mope.

Um No one ever said, not even Gold, that to get the stuff out you'd have to drill to 100 miles. I read Golds book. His whole point was that the stuff gets produced down there and gets leaked back up to the surface. The author of this media blurb is a loon if he views his above comments as coherent or relevant.

Golds main point was that the reason we always found oil in areas that supported the biological origin theory was that was the only sort of locations we ever looked.

[festus]

Thus the only question remaining is: -- why is that fact ignored when we discuss the formation of hydrocarbons on earth?

Thats easy. To many PhD's dissertations and published research backed up the existing theory to allow it to be questioned even when we later learned about the composition of the gas giants.

Scientists, and scientist groupies, insist this sort of thing never happens. They get really honked off when folks suggest it does.

[festus]

I always thought they came in and out from the south pole. Say maybe that explains the ozone hole ;-)

[festus]

LOL. Your dry sarcastic humor is appreciated.

[JohnBovenmyer]

Tar sands are becoming economical at current oil prices. I'm not sure about the shale oil. It's been talked about for 30+ years, but little seems to have been done with it, which I interpret as it not yet being cost effective. A better current source would be converting coal into more portable liquid or gas derivatives. There is some commercial work on that. Not that the greenies would like that solution; coal produces more CO2 per unit energy. However #18 points out that CO2 could be considered a resource rather than a pollutant. Just collect it and pump it back down the old wells to harvest more oil. Maybe if we pump down enough CO2 the greenies will start to complain we're starving the trees and causing global cooling instead.

[ThePythonicCow]

It has only take me 4 months to drill 2 miles, so...

If my calculations are correct, that's about an inch per minute.

Why so slow - I can dig faster than that - perhaps 3 to 6 inches, with a hand shovel, depending on the soil, in a single minute?

Granted, I slow down quickly, as it gets deeper. The deepest hole I've dug is probably a couple of feet deep. Nothing compared to your couple of miles.

Which is the point behind my sarcasm ... the deeper you go, the harder it gets. Going 100 miles deep is pretty obviously more than 50 times harder than going 2 miles deep.

And one more thing I'll grant .. you were probably speaking a bit tongue in cheek as well. Truthful about how deep you've dug, but tongue in cheek about the implication that this meant we could go 100 miles down anytime soon.