Russia is far from oil's peak

[bemildred]

The good news is that panic scenarios about the world running out of oil any time soon are wrong. The bad news is that the price of oil is going to continue to rise. "Peak Oil" is not our problem. Politics is. Big Oil wants to sustain high oil prices. US Vice President Dick Cheney and friends are all too willing to assist.

On a personal note, I've researched questions of petroleum since the first oil shocks of the 1970s. I was intrigued in 2003 with something called the Peak Oil theory. It seemed to explain the otherwise inexplicable decision by Washington to risk all in a military move on Iraq.

Peak Oil advocates, led by former BP geologist Colin Campbell and Texas banker Matt Simmons, argued that the world faced a new crisis, an end to cheap oil, or Absolute Peak Oil, perhaps by 2012, perhaps by 2007. Oil was supposedly on its last drops. They pointed to soaring gasoline and oil prices and to the declines in output of the North Sea, Alaska and other fields as proof they were right.

According to Campbell, the fact that no new North Sea-size fields had been discovered since the North Sea in the late 1960s was proof. He reportedly managed to convince the International Energy Agency and the Swedish government. That, however, does not prove him correct.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/II27Ag01.html

[neverforget]

1. The guy certainly has no agenda:

"A modest man, he named the production curve he invented Hubbert's Curve, and the peak as Hubbert's Peak. When US oil output began to decline in about 1970, Hubbert gained a certain fame.

The only problem was, it peaked not because of resource depletion in the US fields. It "peaked" because Shell, Mobil, Texaco and the other partners of Saudi Aramco were flooding the US market with dirt-cheap imports from the Middle East, tariff-free, at prices so low California and many Texas domestic producers could not compete and were forced to shut their wells."

Very cute! If there is so much oil in the US, how come the oil companies aren't drilling in the old fields that were supposedly closed because of Middle East oil? Americans want to know because we would love to give the finger to the Saudis........

[rusty quoin]

2. Reminder to self.

Pick up Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine

[Viva_La_Revolution]

3. F. William Engdahl

Engdahl now believes in the Russian hypothesis that oil is not a "fossil fuel" but is produced underground by unknown materials, conditions and forces deeper down in the Earth's core. He calls himself an "ex peak oil believer".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Engdahl

[depakid]

5. "He calls himself an "ex peak oil believer".

I call him clueless.

The next thing you, he'll be reprising Velikovsky.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

20. oh god, I hate Velikovsky

I accidentally got ahold of one of his books when I was about 10. It took years to unlearn that crap.

[hatrack]

19. Oh, great. Abiotic oil. Next up - perpetual motion machines!

Ridiculous.

[bemildred]

4. I will comment:

1.) There are vast quantities of coal in the earth, apparently from biotic sources, so the notion that petroleum has a biotic source too is not ridiculous. So I don't find the "19 cubic miles of dinosaurs is ridiculous" argument given in the OP convincing.

2.) There are vast quantities of hydrocarbons in space, so the notion that oil has abiotic sources is not at all ridiculous either.

3.) Either way, it seems a good bet that the price of oil is going to go up.

4.) It doesn't seem to me that it should be all that difficult to discriminate the two hypotheses experimentally.

5.) I was mainly interested in the strategic implications if the Russian theory is correct.

[JohnyCanuck]

6. Abiotic oil theory does not stand up under investigation according to these scientists

Here are some articles by more "conventional" thinking scientists re. the abiotic oil theory.

Abiotic Oil: Science or Politcs

by Ugo Bardi, Professor of Chemistry, University of Florence.

SNIP

The debate has become highly politicized and has spilled over from geology journals to the mainstream press and to the fora and mailing lists on the internet. The proponents of the abiotic oil theory are often very aggressive in their arguments. Some of them go so far as to accuse those who claim that oil production is going to peak of pursuing a hidden political agenda designed to provide Bush with a convenient excuse for invading Iraq and the whole Middle East.

Normally, the discussion of abiotic oil oscillates between the scientifically arcane and the politically nasty. Even supposing that the political nastiness can be detected and removed, there remains the problem that the average non-specialist in petroleum geology can't hope to wade through the arcane scientific details of the theory (isotopic ratios, biomarkers, sedimentary layers and all that) without getting lost.

Here, I will try to discuss the origin of oil without going into these details. I will do this by taking a more general approach. Supposing that the abiogenic theory is right, then what are the consequences for us and for the whole biosphere? If we find that the consequences do not correspond to what we see, then we can safely drop the abiotic theory without the need of worrying about having to take a course in advanced geology. We may also find that the consequences are so small as to be irrelevant; in this case also we needn't worry about arcane geological details.

In order to discuss this point, the first task is to be clear about what we are discussing. There are, really, two versions of the abiotic oil theory, the "weak" and the "strong":

- The "weak" abiotic oil theory: oil is abiotically formed, but at rates not higher than those that petroleum geologists assume for oil formation according to the conventional theory. (This version has little or no political consequences).

- The "strong" abiotic theory: oil is formed at a speed sufficient to replace the oil reservoirs as we deplete them, that is, at a rate something like 10,000 times faster than known in petroleum geology. (This one has strong political implications).

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100404_abiotic_oil.shtml

No Free Lunch Part1: A Critique of Thomas Gold's Claims for Abiotic Oil

by
Jean Laherrere

edited by
Dale Allen Pfeiffer

SNIP

No scientist has ever argued that simple hydrocarbons such as methane cannot originate inorganically. Methane and carbon dioxide are the major components in the atmosphere of the gas giants of our outer solar system (Saturn, Jupiter, et cetera). And it is believed that the early atmosphere of the Earth consisted mostly of these gases, until they leaked into space. Nor is there much question that simple hydrocarbons could possibly be generated abiotically within the Earth. However, the quantity of methane which might be generated abiotically is likely to be insignificant.

When we move on to more complex hydrocarbons, this becomes another matter. Here we must look at how stable these molecules are at varying combinations of temperature and pressure similar to what is found at depth in the Earth. While some lab experiments have produced somewhat complex hydrocarbons at pressures and temperatures consistent with the upper mantle, they have not explained how these compounds would remain stable as they slowly rose to the crust though zones where pressure was not sufficient to hold them together but where temperatures were still high enough to break them down into methane.

Also, when testing a scientific hypothesis, it is necessary to ascertain whether a phenomenon can be achieved by any mechanism other than that which is central to the hypothesis. If there are other possible mechanisms, then they must be ruled out before any particular test can be claimed to support a certain hypothesis. As Jean Laherrere points out in his critique, Thomas Gold repeatedly failed to take other possibilities into account. This results in sloppy science, and it cannot hold up.


http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102104_no_free_pt1.shtml

No Free Lunch Part 2

by

Dale Allen Pfeiffer

SNIP

Siljan, Sweden

One of the most notable efforts to prove the existence of abiotic hydrocarbons was undertaken by the Swedes at the urging of Thomas Gold. Dr. Gold had pointed to the Siljan meteorite impact crater as the ideal place for discovering hydrocarbon seepage from the mantle. Although Dr. Gold pronounced the effort a success, as Jean Laherrere has pointed out,1 this venture could be used as the definition of a bust.

From 1986 to 1992, two commercial wells were drilled in the Siljan crater, at a reported cost of over $60 million.2 Only 80 barrels of oily sludge were taken from the field. While Dr. Gold claimed this oil to have an abiotic origin, others have pointed out that the early drilling used injected oil as a lubricant, and that this is the likely origin of the oily sludge.3 It has also been mentioned that sedimentary rocks 20 kilometers away could have been the source of hydrocarbon seepage.4 Others have observed that during World War II, the Swedish blasted into the bedrock to produce caverns in order to stockpile petroleum supplies. The Swedes now face environmental problems as these petroleum stockpiles are leaking into the groundwater.5 These stockpiles could well provide the source of the oil produced from the Siljan crater.

Even if we grant that these hydrocarbons are abiogenic (though it is a highly dubious claim), this exploration could only be termed a success in the most attenuated sense of the word. These 80 barrels of oily sludge cost investors three quarters of a million dollars per barrel. And if they had gone to the trouble of extracting the oil from the sludge and refining it, they would have had even less oil, and their expenses would have increased by the cost of extraction and refining.

In 1984, a Swedish state-owned power company had an independent team of geoscientists evaluate the Siljan crater for commercial abiogenic gas production. The research team found only minor hydrocarbon gas shows in the crater. However, they did prove through geochemical analysis of oil, oil-stained rocks and organic rocks, that an Ordovician aged bituminous shale was the source rock for hydrocarbons found in the Siljan crater. They concluded that claims that this oil was abiogenic were without merit. Dr. Donofrio updated these findings in 2003 and stated that nothing has happened since 1984 to change their conclusion. There are no abiogenic hydrocarbons in the Siljan crater, nor are there commercial amounts of hydrocarbons in any form.


http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011205_no_free_pt2.shtml

No Free Lunch Part 3

by

Ugo Bardi & Dale Allen Pfeiffer

The Abiotic Fingerprint

January 28, 2005, PST 0800 (FTW) -- Guess what? The Earth does produce abiotic methane. It can be found in minute quantities along the world's mid-ocean ridges, venting from some volcanoes, and in some mine shafts. The amount of methane generated in these situations is minor, especially when compared to commercial natural gas reserves. As stated in part 2 of this series (and elsewhere), there is more methane produced annually from cow farts than from abiotic sources. No scientist has ever denied the existence of abiotic methane. We have said that there is no evidence that it is produced in useful quantities, and we have stated that abiotic generation of simple hydrocarbons such as methane does not indicate abiotic production of the complex hydrocarbons we refer to as crude oil.

A group of scientists from the University of Toronto has analyzed abiotic methane taken from a mineshaft in the Canadian Shield. The team, led by geologist Barbara Sherwood Lollar, took methane samples from a deep borehole in the Kidd Creek mine, located in Ontario, Canada. The mine extracts lead, silver, zinc and cadmium. The samples were taken from a depth of 6,800 to 6,900 ft. The Kidd Creek gases were a mixture of methane, ethane, H2 and N2, along with minor amounts of helium, propane and butane.1

The samples underwent isotopic analysis, quantifying the isotopes of carbon and hydrogen present in the gas.2 The isotopic ratios of a substance (particularly the ratio of carbon and hydrogen isotopes) provide us with a profile of the substance, a sort of isotopic fingerprint which indicates how the substance was generated. Most naturally occurring carbon is isotope C-12, with a small percentage of C-13 (1.11%) and a trace of radioactive isotope C-14. Organic matter, however, has a lower ratio of C-13 because photosynthesis preferentially concentrates C-12. Hydrocarbon reserves reflect their organic origin in their C-12/C-13 ratio.

Isotopic analysis of the Kidd Creek samples did not match that of organically derived hydrocarbon reserves. The ratio of carbon isotopes instead pointed to an abiotic origin. Studying the isotopic ratio of carbon in these samples-particularly comparing the ratios found in single carbon alkanes3, double carbon, triple carbon and quadruple carbon alkanes-instead suggested an abiotic origin. And when the isotopic ratios of hydrogen were also taken into account, the analysis not only indicated an abiotic origin, it also suggested how the simple hydrocarbons were generated.

Dr. Lollar and her associates found that the "isotopic trends for the series of C1-C4 alkanes indicates that hydrocarbon formation occurred by way of polymerization of methane precursors."4 They theorized an origin in rock-water interactions. The gases were closely linked to saline groundwaters and brines having 10 times the saline content of ocean water.

The carbon and hydrogen isotopic profiles of these samples finally gave us the fingerprint for abiotic hydrocarbons. As Dr. Lollar observed, "The key point is that abiogenic hydrocarbons have been talked about for a long time, but until now we didn't have a very good constraint on what they looked like."5 Now we had the isotopic fingerprint for abiotic hydrocarbons. The next logical step was to compare these isotopic ratios to those of commercial gas reserves.

Dr. Lollar and associates made this comparison in their study. "Based on the isotopic characteristics of abiogenic gases identified in this study, the ubiquitous positive correlation of d13C and d2H values for C1-C4 hydrocarbons in economic reservoirs worldwide is not consistent with any significant contribution from abiogenic gas."6

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012805_no_free_pt3.shtml

[JohnyCanuck]

7. And now for a somewhat less rosy view of the near future (theoildrum.com)

To Grandmother's House We Go: Peak Oil is Here

SNIP

This is a guest post by Glenn Morton, a geophysicist in the oil industry. For Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Corp., Glenn served as Geophysical Mgr Gulf of Mexico, Geophysical Mgr for the North Sea, Dir. of Technology and as Exploration Director of China. Currently he is an independent consulting geophysicist, and you might know him as seismobob.

Yes, folks, peak oil is here, that thing that politicians don't speak of; that event which cornucopians (those who believe that we will not run out of energy) believe is a fraud or misunderstanding is here. The cornucopians believe we are wrong because many have predicted that we would run out of energy before and have been wrong. What they lacked was the 20-20 that hindsight gives one. Today, we can see the peak behind us.

First, how do we recognize when peak oil is about to happen or has happened? The first thing is that it always comes with a gradual decline in production. Steep changes in production curves are due to political or economic decisions. Let's look at Saudi production from 2001 to the present.

SNIP

What we see here is that following the post-911 recession, there is the ramp up of production to supply the increasing demand from China and India. By late 2004, the rate of increase in world crude production (blue curve) slowed, reaching a peak of 74.3 million barrels per day in May 2004, marked by an arrow. The trend from that time has been down, gradually I would admit, but down none the less.

So, why do I call this the peak of world crude production? Isn't it possible that new production will come on line and lift that number above the 74.3 million bbl/day? Possible, barely, probable, no. Why? All the world's biggest fields are in decline, and they produce a large percentage of the world's oil. We saw Saudi Arabia's production, and that represents 10% of world oil. So, we know that 10% of the world's oil in in decline. But the Saudi's are the second largest producer. Russia, the largest producer of oil, is, at best, flat in production now. The U.S. is the third largest producer of oil (something that surprises everyone) and we have been declining in oil production for 30 years. These three countries account for 28% of the world's production, all in decline.

Mexico has the 3rd largest oil field and that one field represents 2/3 of its crude production. It is in decline, plummeting 20% last year. The UK, Norway, Indonesia, Oman and China are all in production declines. The only places on earth that are undergoing significant increases in crude production are Angola, Kazakhstan and Brazil. Kazakhstan will always be limited to the size of the pipeline it has available. Pipelines have fixed capacity.

Given all this, it is hard to see how the future is going to bring forth vast new quantities of daily production.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3014#more

[4dsc]

8. Yes peak is here..

This should get a seperate billing and not buried in this story//

[bemildred]

10. Thanks, that is interesting stuff.

It seems clear its a highly politicized subject. I have no particular expertise, and no interest in pushing abiotic theory. It seems to me that we are going to have much more expensive oil regardless, as there seems little reason to expect "replenishment" at anything like the rate required to keep oil cheap, some of the reasons for that are given in the articles you cite. The three part article cited in your first post seems particularly sensible. It also seems unlikely that we will find enough large new deposits of cheap oil under either hypothesis to satisfy rising demand, so as the fellow points out, the argument is somewhat moot as a solution to peak oil.

And of course none of this does a thing for global warming.

[groovedaddy]

9. Peak or no peak - Global Warming is REAL

and compels us to rely upon other sources for energy besides oil or coal.

[acmavm]

11. I've read for years that under the Siberian permafrost was

more untapped oil than in all the Middle Eastern countries combined. They just needed to know how to get to it.

Unfortunately global warming will be the key.

[bemildred]

12. What is under the permafrost, if I'm not mistaken, is methane.

I'm a lot more worried about it as a greenhouse gas than optimistic about it as an energy source.

They have been speculating about recovery of methane clathrates(sp?) on the seabed for some time now too. The real problem is that all the cheap energy sources are being depleted, and that leaves only the expensive ones.

[phantom power]

13. Do you recall that story from the field researchers...

where they were out on what used to be permafrost, and saw fields of melt-water, "churning with methane bubbles"?

That would be methane, the greenhouse gas 23 times as potent as CO2 for trapping heat.

[bemildred]

16. Yep.

And it oxidizes to CO2 removing oxygen from the atmosphere. If there was enough of it we could all be living with oxygen levels like at high altitude.

[phantom power]

17. GliderGuider did a calculation about that...

and found that oxygen depletion would not exceed 1%, but the resulting CO2 could rise to 1000ppmv. So, the greenhouse effect is the gotcha either way.

Here is GG's post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=113563&mesg_id=113747

[bemildred]

18. That's very interesting, if not comforting.

I suppose the result depends on how much sequestered methane you estimate there is, and how much of that you estimate would be released. I actually think the clathrates are more of a worry in the long run, if the seabed circulation is disturbed, but the permafrost methane is likely to be released sooner because of what is going on in the Arctic. I got the idea from a book named "Gorgon" (here)which speculated that the Permian-Triassic extinction and rise of the dinosaurs was a result of such an event. I think he thought it was caused by a bolide. I don't know what sort of numbers he used, if any. He seemed to think it could have caused a decline from ~32% O2 to 16% O2 - or less - at that time. Of course he was a paleotologist. A Wikipedia discussion of these issues is here, although it does not agree with his thinking in many respects.

Anyway, based on what GG has to say, I'll take that with more of a grain of salt than before.

The greenhouse problem is compounded by the fact that the sun is getting hotter. The relatively stable temperature the planet has maintained over geologic time has been accomplished at least in part by sequestration of greenhouse gases so as to allow better radiation of the increased solar input. There is less atmospheric CO2 than there used to be as time goes on. But we are to the point that there is not much left to be removed, we won't be able to increase radiation much further by that method, or I suppose I should say the planet won't. This will mean that continued increased solar input will heat things up. I have run into this argument in a couple places now. Of course you and I needn't worry about it, we'll be long dead.

But we are not going to settle for that, we are taking direct measures to make the problem worse by dumping lots of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

[cliss]

21. bemildred, you are a very

smart cookie:smoke:

[bemildred]

22. Aw shucks.

So why ain't I rich?
:hi:

[Strelnikov_]

14. Another agenda article confusing EXTRACTION RATE with RESOURCE VOLUME

and conveniently ignoring NET ENERGY.

I have no doubt there are some major fields in the arctic that will be found as we continue cooking off the planet.

That said, considering depletion of existing 'cheap oil' fields, I doubt we will ever produce at a RATE much greater than today, and NET ENERGY per unit produced probably peaked years ago.


Lucky for us our economic system does not depend on growth . . .

[hunter]

15. Nature pays no mind to human debate. Nature does not play poker.

What is, is, what is not, is not.

The neo-con morons who run this nation are poker players. They believe they can bluff. They are idiots. All the cards are visible to all the players. If profit is measured in money then as oil peaks and declines the money will be worth less. If profit is measured in political power, then that too will be worth less.

At best, someone like George W. Bush will end his days confined within a gilded cage, especially as the age of increasing oil production ends.

A true freedom will be the freedom to walk peacefully among your fellow human beings upon any country road or a city street. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and all the other drunken fools who crashed this nation will never enjoy that freedom.