Scientist: "Oil will last for millions of years"

B

bearing

10 kW
Joined
Dec 23, 2008
Messages
640
"-This is not the end. This is not even beginning to end. Maybe this is the end of the beginning of the oil-age, "says Vladimir Kutcherov, professor of geology at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm."

"Most scientists believe that Earth's oil resources have been created by biological materials, residues from plants and animals, through millions of years has been recorded down to sedement in the crust. And they also believe that all the oil that has been created since the birth of the earth will be fired up by our people in the next fifty or sixty years.
"They are absolutely wrong," says Kutcherov. "

Google translation from Swedish to English:
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyhetskanalen.se%2F1.1423503%2F2010%2F01%2F03%2Foljan_kommer_att_racka_i_miljoner_ar&sl=sv&tl=en

"The idea that oil comes from fossils "is a myth. … We need to change this myth," says petroleum engineer Vladimir Kutcherov"
http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/13/abiotic-oil-supply-energenius08-biz-cz_rl_1113abiotic.html

Many Russians and Ukrainians — no slouches in the hard sciences — have
since the 1950s held that oil does not come exclusively, or even partly, from dinosaurs but is
formed below the Earth’s 25-mile deep crust. This theory — first espoused in 1877 by Dmitri
Mendeleev, who also developed the periodic table — was rejected by geologists of the day
because he postulated that the Earth’s crust had deep faults, an idea then considered absurd.
Mendeleev wouldn’t be vindicated by his countrymen until after the Second World War when the
then-Soviet Union, shut out of the Middle East and with scant petroleum reserves of its own,
embarked on a crash program to develop a petroleum industry that would allow it to fend off the
military and economic challenges posed by the West.

Today, Russians laugh at our peak oil theories as they explore, and find, the bounty in the
bowels of the Earth. Russia’s reserves have been climbing steadily — according to BP’s annual
survey, they stood at 45 billion barrels in 2001, 69 billion barrels in 2004, and 80 billion barrels
of late, making Russia an oil superpower that this year produced more oil than Saudi Arabia.
Some oil auditing firms estimate Russia’s reserves at up to 200 billion barrels. Despite Russia’s
success in exploration, most of those in the west who have known about the Russian-Ukrainian
theories have dismissed them as beyond the Pale.
http://www.wearechangemelbourne.org/newsupdates/world-news/527-endless-oil.pdf
 
I have not found any statements about it will last that long with the current consumption, but I believe that is what he is saying. He is saying that oil didn't come from dinosaurs, it is constantly produced below the earth's crust where from carbon and hydrogen exists. Oil then sips closer to the surface where we can reach it.
 
bearing said:
I have not found any statements about it will last that long with the current consumption, but I believe that is what he is saying. He is saying that oil didn't come from dinosaurs, it is constantly produced below the earth's crust where from carbon and hydrogen exists. Oil then sips closer to the surface where we can reach it.
Click to expand...

But the question is, assuming that's the case, what's the rate of supply generation? Generation definitely happens at a given rate, but a million barrels per year isn't going to quench the thirst of a billion-barrel plus world. The relevance of this point is because "Oil will last for millions of years" may suggest to a few that nothing will need to be changed on the implication of a continually existing supply.

As far as in what ways it's generated, whether it's generated in multiple ways or a single way, seems to be a separate issue that society at large doesn't care about, but is an interesting topic.
 
if i understand it correctly opec determines a oil producing country's export limit based on the reserves said country estimates it has.

the conflict of interest this sets up is astounding. country's continually boost their "estimates" to boost their revenue and using those estimated reserves as financial collateral.

i agree with the above posts . i dont really care what makes oil, how fast is it made compared to how fast we are using it is the real question.

if the supply is endless then why do oil wells go dry? and why are large reserves not replenishing themselves ?
 
We are now drilling oil in places were we think many dinosaurs have turned to oil. If we use the new theories we might have a better success on finding new oil spots. I agree the question about supply rate is a key question, and I have not found an answer to it.
 
It's an idea which is not inconsistent with the theory of a "growing earth", which is quite a fringe idea, but does have some valid arguments backing it up.

Do you ever ask yourself why dinosaurs were so big and how difficult it would be for them to survive and be mobile with the present earth's gravity (ie. mass = gravity) ? One only has to observe an elephant lumber about to see, in terms of mobility (some dinosaurs being predators), that dinosaur sizes at present gravitational forces are not practical, whereas they obviously were or would be at a time when earth's gravity was not as great as today. Also, some of the species of flying dinosaurs look nearly as cumbersome as an elephant and, again, extraordinarily large by comparison to today's birds. A smaller mass earth would allow them to fly, whereas earth's mass today, would prevent them, which is why there are no such species in existence today.

The growing earth theory is difficult to prove, despite there being some reasonable indications. It also has the potential to rock science to its crusty, complacent core.

Sorry, I don't mean to change the topic of the thread. It's just that the thread's topic does fit in with the theory mentioned but no-one has been able to explain a plausible theory of how the earth is producing mass at its core. This oil theory suggests something is going on in earth's core we don't understand, and it is producing something, oil in particular in this case, but from what from what unknown process?
 
enoob said:
how fast is it made compared to how fast we are using it is the real question.

if the supply is endless then why do oil wells go dry? and why are large reserves not replenishing themselves ?
Click to expand...

Definitely... the answer is quicker than it is replenished.. either way at current rate of use if we have oil for a million years or so i think we will be waiting sometime for the whole auto industry to embrace this electric car fad ... :: fingers crossed:: give me more V10s and V12 turbo charged monsters and crush anything that doesnt need a gallon of fuel and a snort of NOS to make it to the corner store i say! LONG LIVE The I.C.E!!! :mrgreen:

KiM
 
AussieJester said:
Definitely... the answer is quicker than it is replenished.. either way at current rate of use if we have oil for a million years or so i think we will be waiting sometime for the whole auto industry to embrace this electric car fad ...
Click to expand...

Decreasing supply leads to higher price which leads to increasing relative cost effectiveness/attractiveness of electrics in the general car market and then adoption. What part of this causal chain do you disagree with?
 
So this oil 25 miles deep will be easy to get at? What's diminishing is oil that is easy and cheap to get. As we just saw, $200 a barrel starts to make other altenatives look good.
 
I read of Kutcherov's theory years ago, and wish it was receiving more public discussion. I remember trying to research in the open literature any examples and found that there were three deep drilling experiments in the eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico. There was evidence of the extraction pool of oil being refilled form a deeper pool. That was until the deep drill collapsed the "vent" between pools. I could find no further open evidence of investigation of the theory or further drilling reports in that area or in the west. Seems strange there is not more open discussion considering the huge potential.
 
enoob said:
if the supply is endless then why do oil wells go dry? and why are large reserves not replenishing themselves ?
Click to expand...
I have no idea, but it could be that the channel where the oil sipped through is not there anymore, since the geological layers move.
 
Interesting isn't it?

To prove that abiotic oil is possible, in 2002 Kutcherov superheated calcium carbonate, water and iron in a pressure chamber and then cranked it up to produce 30,000 times atmospheric pressure, simulating the conditions present in the earth's mantle. Sure enough, about 1.5% of the material converted into hydrocarbons, according to results in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Most of it was methane and other gases, but about 10% was heavier oil components.
Click to expand...

There is nothing authoritative about the following quote but it does relate:


I have studied Neal Adams animations, both for Earth and various moons/planets. It does seem a strong case can be made for an expansion phase in planets and moons. No serious case can be made for perpetual growth. Therefore, if there was a nonlinear expansion phase, as continental Earth -> present Earth suggests, I would guess this is due to a phase change inside the Earth releasing - at a guess - hydrogen. And lots of it. This hydrogen could come from neutron decay (if neutrons are in some way stable in an Fe matrix at huge T & P) or from hydrogen dissolved in Fe. There is some strange chemistry with H being absorbed in Fe as Fe (H) x. Such an outgassing may also lend credence to claims of abiotic oil.

Do not lightly discount the EE theory - at least not without checking the geology and mineral deposits of the West Coast of America and the East Coast of Asia/Australasia

Can we be sure what can happen in an Fe core? Huge mag flux, pressure, temp. There is a theory that neutrons capture neutrinos and form proton and electron, If so, perhaps the Fe core acted as some kind of 'neutrino Faraday cage' until it had cooled sufficiently.

Another thing - Earth days used to be shorter. Think of the ice skater spin, as arms are outstretched.

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/64739-another-big-blow-growing-earth-theory.html#post1088439
Click to expand...
__________________
 
AussieJester said:
swbluto said:
What part of this causal chain do you disagree with?
Click to expand...

How is the supply decreasing if we have enough for a million years??

KiM
Click to expand...

Have you seen exponential decay? I'm not saying that this is the supply trend that oil is following, but it is one example where supply decreases but it is always existing. Here's a graph of what it looks like...

http://www.dizziness-and-balance.com/disorders/bilat/images/exponential-decay.gif

Basically, you take something and you cut in half. You take it again and cut it in half. You repeat this over and over and despite a decreasing quantity left over each time, it still exists.

In the case of oil, if the rate of consumption exceeds the rate of supply or generation, in the long run, the existing consumption rate would decrease and would converge to the generation rate. Basically, we're able to produce less and less and, as a result, oil gets more expensive.

Now if you want a more accurate view of how oil is moving, you want to know how the difference between the supply rate and consumption rate is changing. If the consumption rate is growing faster than the supply rate, then it's going to become more expensive. This would hold true even if supply was actually increasing (I.e., consumption is just growing faster).
 
swbluto said:
If the consumption rate is growing faster than the supply rate, then it's going to become more expensive. This would hold true even if supply was actually increasing (I.e., consumption is just growing faster).
Click to expand...

now this is the heart of it. imo .

till recent history north america has been the #1 oil consumer . bout to change as i see it , so its simple supply and demand even if they find a way to help the expanding earth make more oil faster can we keep up to the country's that are just starting their industrial revolutions ? and i could be wrong but aren't polymers, plastics and most things we use other than fuel for our car derived from oil ? who cars about ICE vehicles .

personally im praying some smart Chinese fellow figures out how to save his economy and thereby the planet with green tech.

Till then im with Kim . cant beat em join em, so im gonna get in my v12 jag and go get some milk and a coffee. doing a burn out the whole way and chuck my Styrofoam cup and plastic donught wrapper out the window on the way home.
:mrgreen:
 
Um........the Russians have a history going back a ways of embracing science that really isn't. They did it with agriculture in 1955 and almost starved. This time they may have done it with oil, that surprisingly, they seem to have a lot of by any measuring stick. I would just expect the rich Russians to keep getting richer and the rest of us to pay thru the nose. The folks in the Middle East have done it for 40 years, and it is us on the short end of the money tree now. Science is irrevelant and economics is all! Huh?
otherDoc
 
I found some who saved the articles about the refilling reservoir, it was Eugene Island in the Gulf of Mexico. Source is pretty credible, The Wall Street Journal: http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm even though it is on a non WSJ website. I remember reading the original article from the WSJ.

Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, was supposed to have declined years ago. And for a while, it behaved like any normal field: Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330's output peaked at about 15,000 barrels a day. By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels a day.

Then suddenly -- some say almost inexplicably -- Eugene Island's fortunes reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels a day, and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million. Stranger still, scientists studying the field say the crude coming out of the pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed 10 years ago.

Fill 'er Up

All of which has led some scientists to a radical theory: Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some continuous source miles below the Earth's surface. That, they say, raises the tantalizing possibility that oil may not be the limited resource it is assumed to be.

... snip some stuff about modeling funded by Dept of Energy grant...

What Dr. Anderson noticed as he played his time-lapse model was how much oil PennzEnergy had missed over the years. The remaining crude, surrounded by water and wobbling like giant globs of Jell-O in the computer model, gave PennzEnergy new targets as it reworked Eugene Island.

What captivated scientists, though, was a deep fault in the bottom corner of the computer scan that was gushing oil like a garden hose. "We could see the stream," Dr. Anderson says. "It wasn't even debated that it was happening."

... snip some more...

As prospectors, the scientists were fairly lucky. As researchers they weren't. The first well they drilled hit natural gas, a pocket so pressurized "that it scared us," Dr. Anderson says; that well is still producing. The second stab, however, collapsed the fault. "Some oil flowed. I have 15 gallons of it in my closet," Dr. Anderson says. But it wasn't successful enough to advance Dr. Whelan's theory.

A third well was drilled at a spot on an adjacent lease, where the fault disappeared from seismic view. The researchers missed the stream but hit a fair-size reservoir, one that is still producing.


Pretty interesting stuff, I think. No one doubted the extraction reservoir was being refilled from a lower reservoir/source.
 
An earlier post brushed up against dinosaurs, and what was different. So far, the only major thing I have found is that during the age of the giant dinosaurs, voids in amber show an oxygen level of around 30% (as opposed to ~21% today).

Pteradactyls shouldn't be able to fly. Its been postulated that they crawled up cliffs and jumped off like a hang-glider (perhaps thermalling on rising volcanic hot-air columns). A recent theory states if the atmosphere was twice as thick, it would be twice as dense at sea level...and Pteradactyls could fly from the ground in denser air.

North America was covered by a thick glacier. The question isn't where did the cold came from, but where did the heat come from? The oceans boiled enough to put a LOT of moisture into the atmosphere, which then fell on a very cold NA forming a thick glacier. Every theory involving how hydrocarbons formed involves heat, a LOT of heat...When oil was formed, it was a very strange world...
 
bigmoose said:
... snip some stuff about modeling funded by Dept of Energy grant...

No one doubted the extraction reservoir was being refilled from a lower reservoir/source.
Click to expand...

I dont really doubt it . dont really know squat about it BUT what causes me to pause and raise an eyebrow is the "funded by the dept of energy" .

Lucifer will be skating to work before i believe anything funded by the government thats not also echoed by the "other" side, aka: tree huggers.
 
There is widespread evidence that petroleum originates from biological processes 1, 2, 3. Whether hydrocarbons can also be produced from abiogenic precursor molecules under the high-pressure, high-temperature conditions characteristic of the upper mantle remains an open question. It has been proposed that hydrocarbons generated in the upper mantle could be transported through deep faults to shallower regions in the Earth’s crust, and contribute to petroleum reserves 4, 5. Here we use in situ Raman spectroscopy in laser-heated diamond anvil cells to monitor the chemical reactivity of methane and ethane under upper-mantle conditions. We show that when methane is exposed to pressures higher than 2 GPa, and to temperatures in the range of 1,000-1,500 K, it partially reacts to form saturated hydrocarbons containing 2-4 carbons (ethane, propane and butane) and molecular hydrogen and graphite. Conversely, exposure of ethane to similar conditions results in the production of methane, suggesting that the synthesis of saturated hydrocarbons is reversible. Our results support the suggestion that hydrocarbons heavier than methane can be produced by abiogenic processes in the upper mantle.

1 Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, District of Columbia 20015, USA
2 Lomonosov Moscow State Academy of Fine Chemical Technology, 117571 Moscow, Russia
3 Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden

Correspondence to: Alexander F. Goncharov1 e-mail: goncharov@gl.ciw.edu

FULL PAPER at http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/abs/ngeo591.html

Copyright 2009, Nature Geoscience

- nice theory (otoh the earth is mostly molten ... nice and hot ... radioactice decay ... energy :D ... now that's a fact Jack)
 
spinningmagnets said:
An earlier post brushed up against dinosaurs, and what was different. So far, the only major thing I have found is that during the age of the giant dinosaurs, voids in amber show an oxygen level of around 30% (as opposed to ~21% today).

Pteradactyls shouldn't be able to fly. Its been postulated that they crawled up cliffs and jumped off like a hang-glider (perhaps thermalling on rising volcanic hot-air columns). A recent theory states if the atmosphere was twice as thick, it would be twice as dense at sea level...and Pteradactyls could fly from the ground in denser air.
Click to expand...

Occam's razor suggests an expanding earth, which would bring several fields of science into line with each other, if taken more seriously. Not that I believe it, but I do have an open mind and know enough about the history of science not to automatically accept orthodoxies.
 
spinningmagnets said:
An earlier post brushed up against dinosaurs, and what was different. So far, the only major thing I have found is that during the age of the giant dinosaurs, voids in amber show an oxygen level of around 30% (as opposed to ~21% today).
Click to expand...

Also, I've seen quotes the carbon dioxide level was far higher during the age of dinosaurs so where did all the nitrogen come from? (Or has the atmosphere been "leaking"? Is that what they refer to as the hole in the ozone layer?! :p Just joking.)
 
Well, gases "leak" from all atmospheres, partly simply from particle bombardment from space and solar wind, and probably a number of other causes. There would be a huge torus of gas from each planet in it's approximate orbital path around the sun, but most of it is eventually pushed outward as solar wind particles and light pressure impact it. IIRC, this is actually visible with the right imaging in Jupiter's satellite system, especially around Io, where sulfur compounds are ejected at greater than escape velocity by some of it's volcanos. (there is an interesting idea of The Smoke Ring by Larry Niven that goes to extremes with this idea)

Since hydrogen is lightest, it leaks fastest, which is why only the really big planets have really dense hydrogen content, and planets like ours have higher nitrogen than the others--it's heavier.

CO2 is one of those things that changes over time depending on how much of it's component molecules are bonded to other things, and kept in the crust of the planet as well as dissolved in water, frozen in ice, etc. And of course bonded into life, where that exists.

I'm sure that a part of the change in amount of gases is a thinner atmosphere due to leakage, creating a lower overall atmospheric pressure. Another part is due to chemical bonding of some of the reactive gases, like oxygen, which will bond with almost anything, though not all that strongly, compared with some elements.

I'd venture to guess that the CO2 level is lower now mostly because of bonding, where it is sequestered into solid materials, more than from leakage.

So mostly the nitrogen isn't higher, it's probably more that the other gases are lower in proportion now. That would make the higher pressures of the past make sense, as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top