Crude Oil as a Sustainable Resource?

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by skewbe

Imagine that, an article from WND isn't worth defending

It's just putting full faith in Russian claims There is no source of data available - other than what the Russians are claiming It could very well be complete BS - because the burden of proof goes to the country that doesn't want to share their information. There is, in fact, nothing to defend other than speculation and unverified reporting

[2000mc]

what proof is there that biogenic is correct? abiogenic seems more plausible with fewer special circumstances having to be present.

[Mayhim]

As I recall, the article began with , "About 80 miles off of the coast of Louisiana..." There are Russians in the woodpile, but they are only part of it. If you guys want to pooh-pooh everything that runs counter to your version of how the world works, that's up to you.

I was only pointing out an interesting article, was NOT acting like it was true by default, and thought it would be a good read of something not of the normal "we humans are ruining everything by being alive and the best thing we could do for Mother Earth is to all commit mass suicide" venue.

Gotta love those thumbs down. They add so much that can't be inferred by intelligent readers.

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by Mr Incredible

As I recall, the article began with , "About 80 miles off of the coast of Louisiana..." There are Russians in the woodpile, but they are only part of it.

They've invested the most - AND have stated they've had the most results based on finding oil from the theory. We have experience with oil popping up out of what we thought was depleted stores. Predicting where you can drill and find oil and oil resurfacing in a depleted well are two very different things (the latter being luck and the former apparently taking the results of significant research).

If you guys want to pooh-pooh everything that runs counter to your version of how the world works, that's up to you.

It's not that it's poo - it's that there isn't any decent data available... Not to mention that the people that have the data have said they wont share. It's kinda like you coming here asking for how to get better FE - and me saying I know, but I won't share

Believe me, I'd like to know what they found... I personally don't support/accept either theory - but it's clear our consumption is not sustainable. I also accept there's no evidence of the mechanism that is gravity - theres theories, but each one is just as acceptable as others given the math tools we have today...

I was only pointing out an interesting article, was NOT acting like it was true by default,

It is an interesting read - misleading in the title, but interesting. You were not acting like it was true by default - but you've also been incredibly defensive of the article itself (which is typical of almost any OP when someone has a less than supportive opinion)

[cfg83]

Hello -

From my POV, even if the Abiogenic theory were proven to be true, the risk of the Global Warming theory not being true is too dangerous to ignore.

With that said, I got the following links from this Google text :

russian oil formation theory

Abiogenic petroleum origin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin


Russia is far from oil's peak - Sep 27, 2007
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/II27Ag01.html

...
Defying conventional geology
The radically different Russian and Ukrainian scientific approach to the discovery of oil allowed the USSR to develop huge gas and oil discoveries in regions previously judged unsuitable, according to Western geological exploration theories, for the presence of oil. The new petroleum theory was used in the early 1990s, well after the dissolution of the USSR, to drill for oil and gas in a region believed for more than 45 years to be geologically barren - the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the region between Russia and Ukraine.

Following their abiotic or non-fossil theory of the deep origins of petroleum, the Russian and Ukrainian petroleum geophysicists and chemists began with a detailed analysis of the tectonic history and geological structure of the crystalline basement of the Dnieper-Donets Basin. After a tectonic and deep structural analysis of the area, they made geophysical and geochemical investigations.

A total of 61 wells were drilled, of which 37 were commercially productive, an extremely impressive exploration success rate of almost 60%. The size of the field discovered compared to the North Slope of Alaska. By contrast, US wildcat drilling was considered to have a 10% success rate. Nine of 10 wells are typically "dry holes".
...
Dr J F Kenney is one of the only Western geophysicists who has taught and worked in Russia, studying under Vladilen Krayushkin, who developed the huge Dnieper-Donets Basin. Kenney told me in a recent interview that "alone to have produced the amount of oil to date that [Saudi Arabia's] Ghawar field has produced would have required a cube of fossilized dinosaur detritus, assuming 100% conversion efficiency, measuring 19 miles [30.5 kilometers] deep, wide and high." In short, an absurdity.
...

The Drilling & Development of the Oil & Gas Fields in the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin
http://gasresources.net/DDBflds2.htm

The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is by no means simply an academic proposition. After its first enunciation by N. A. Kudryavtsev in 1951, the modern theory was extensively debated and exhaustively tested. Significantly, the modern theory not only withstood all tests put to it, but also it settled many previously unresolved problems in petroleum science, such as that of the intrinsic component of optical activity observed in natural petroleum, and also it has demonstrated new patterns in petroleum, previously unrecognized, such as the paleonological and trace-element characteristics of reservoirs at different depths. Most importantly, the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins has played a central role in the transformation of Russia (then the U.S.S.R.) from being a ?petroleum poor? entity in 1951 to the largest petroleum producing and exporting nation on Earth.
...

Abiotic Theory
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html

...
The abyssal, abiotic theory of oil formation continues to receive attention due to the work of retired Cornell astronomy professor Thomas Gold, known for several theories that were initially dismissed but eventually proven true, including the existence of neutron stars. He has also been wrong, however; he was a proponent of the "steady state" theory of the universe, which has since been discarded for the "Big Bang" theory. Gold's theory of oil formation, which he expounded in a book entitled The Deep Hot Biosphere, is that hydrogen and carbon, under high temperatures and pressures found in the mantle during the formation of the Earth, form hydrocarbon molecules which have gradually leaked up to the surface through cracks in rocks.
...
The abiogenic origin theory of oil formation is rejected by most geologists, who argue that the composition of hydrocarbons found in commercial oil fields have a low content of 13C isotopes, similar to that found in marine and terrestrial plants; whereas hydrocarbons from abiotic origins such as methane have a higher content of 13C isotopes.
...

CarloSW2

[Mayhim]

Trebuchet, I meant nothing personally. I believe you to be a gentleman and a scholar. If the hair on the back of my neck was getting up, it's only at the closed mindedness of certain individuals. I'm not saying anything is fact, nor alluding to the certainty of the article I sponsored. But I have to roll my eyes at all those that believe their position is the final word on the subject.

I personally have no idea which, if any, side is correct. Nor does anyone else. Most of the arguing is just a bunch of political preening and new age poppycock, I believe...nothing I feel like fighting over.

Live frugally and most of the problems of the world (real and perceived) would go away.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by Biffmeistro

To be scientifically proven merely means that no evidence has been found YET that contradicts a theory.

There isn't a such thing as scientifically proven AFAIK. Mathematically proven otoh, sure... Theories in science becomes laws after there's been mountains of evidence that they are consistent and nothing stating they aren't. Theories are just that. Theories. They'll have some supporting evidence, and sufficient evidence to show that they aren't the case hasn't been found.

[GasSavers_SD26]

Originally Posted by cfg83

Hello -

From my POV, even if the Abiogenic theory were proven to be true, the risk of the Global Warming theory not being true is too dangerous to ignore.

Global warming is all interesting as long as it wasn't occurring on other planets in our solar system that don't have gases from humans burning hydrocarbons.

Additionally, what should the Earth's temperature actually be?

Yes, I'll agree with Mr Incredible that living frugally would help a lot of stuff.

Beyond the science of this, the economics are very interesting as some in control of petroleum are, can, or may be in better control of the idea that crude will "run out" at some point, and that allows them to control the price. OPEC can control the price strictly by increasing or decreasing production regardless of the actual availability of crude that hasn't been moved to useful locations.

Of course, if you knew how to produce the oil in this manner, or one could license the opportunity to develop it this way, it would change the face of the petroleum market.

[bowtieguy]

GW is indeed THE interesting topic. recently heard on the radio yet another scientific study disproving it. both sides claim irrefutable evidence instead of focusing on pollution, the REAL issue.

[GasSavers_Erik]

Everyone agrees that the earth is warming, the debate is a discussion of how much of the warming we (humans) are responsible for.

Its going to be hard for either side to "prove" that humans are responsible for x% of the warming we are observing and that the other x% is part of a natural cycle.

There is always a lot of confusion about the whole hypothesis, theory, law issue in science.

A hypothesis is a testable statement.

A theory is a hypothesis that has been experimentally tested over and over and passed- it also explains the "why" behind a phenomenon. Ex. Gravitational theory explains why things "fall" toward things with more mass

A law is an occurrence that has been observed over and over again. It simply explains how something behaves (ex. Boyle's Law in chemistry) but offers no explanation as to why Another example is the law of gravity- which just states that things "fall" toward other things with more mass.

Just because something is a "theory" doesn't mean its in serious doubt or hasn't yet graduated up to becoming a law. Chemistry teachers still teach about protons, electrons and neutrons even though this is just "atomic theory". Personally, I like learning theories better than laws because you learn the "why" and the logic behind the phenomenon.

As has been said on this thread- everyone should agree that burning less fuel is a good thing (cheaper on the pocketbook and it emits less pollution).