Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it.
From: tadchem (tadchemNOSPAM_at_comcast.net)
Date: 02/17/05
- Next message: Mike: "Re: Mass/enertia in weightlessness - cars in space!"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Pat Fallon: "Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it."
- Next in thread: tadchem: "Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:09:06 -0500
"Pat Fallon" <pfallon@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:pR2dnTqiCfA3QInfUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> don't know about "abandoned wells',
Wells are 'abandoned' when the cost of producing the well exceed the profit
to be made from producing the well. This economic equation is tied to the
price of crude oil, and therefore to geopolitics.
> but there are certainly examples of
> exisiting wells, thought to be nearing exhaustion, seemingly
"recharging"...
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf124/sf124p10.htm :
> Eugene Island is a submerged mountain in the Gulf of Mexico about 80 miles
> off the Louisiana coast. The landscape of Eugene Island is riven with deep
> fissures and faults from which spew spontaneous belches of gas and oil. Up
> on the surface, a platform designated Eugene Island 330 began producing
> about 15,000 barrels of oil per day in the early 1970s. By 1989, the flow
> had dwindled to 4,000 barrels per day. Then, suddenly, production zoomed
to
> 13,000 barrels. In addition, estimated reserves rocketed from 60 to 400
> million barrels. Even more anomalous is the discovery that the geological
> age of today's oil is quite different from that recovered 10 years ago.
> What's going on under the Gulf of Mexico?
>
> It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the oil reservoir at Eugene
> Island is rapidly refilling itself from "some continuous source miles
below
> the earth's surface." In support of this surmise, analysis of seismic
> records revealed a deep fault which "was gushing oil like a garden hose."
It is not difficult to avoid that conclusion. It *is* intellectually
dishonest to argue that 'since we don't know where the petroleum is coming
from, there must therefore be "some continuous source miles below the
earth's surface." ' As I point out in another post, there are many known
instances in which there are several petroleum-bearing formations stacked
vertically in the same location. Often these formations are separated by
impermeable caprocks, which are typically the result of metamorphic
processes applied to soft sedimentary rocks.
As one possible mechanism for an erratic production history in a given well,
once the upper formation has been produced, the lower formation may be
easily reached by further drilling. Another possibility could be that the
relaxation of the rock of the upper formation (resulting from depletion of
the petroleum pressure) may lead to fracturing of the *intervening* caprock
formation. relasing the petroleum from the lower formation into the upper
formation.
Do you know the drilling history or downhole geology of Eugene Island 330?
I will be willing to wager that hints to the production curve may be found
there.
There is no need to postulate "some continuous source miles below the
earth's surface" for which there is no other evidence.
> "The Middle East has more than doubled its reserves in the past 20 years,
> despite half a century of intense exploitation and relatively few new
> discoveries. It would take a pretty big pile of dead dinosaurs and
> prehistoric plants to account for the estimated 660 billion barrels of oil
> in the region, notes Norman Hyne, a professor at the University of Tulsa
in
> Oklahoma. "Off-the-wall theories often turn out to be right," he says."
>
> (Cooper, Christopher; "It's No Crude Joke: This Oil Field Grows Even as
It's
> Tapped," Wall Street Journal, April 16, 1999. Cr. C. Casale.)
Norman J. Hyne, Ph.D., is a Certified Petroleum Geologist. If Hyne said "it
would take a pretty big pile of dead dinosaurs and prehistoric plants" to
produce petroleum, he was speaking in the common vernacular to make some
point to a lay audience. I have seen many true experts chew their own toes
in front of the press and on camera, saying things they know are not
correct, but understanding that their audience would never understand the
precise truth, which would only confuse them.
The proportion of animals involved in fossil petroleum is insignificant.
Petroleum-bearing strata are almost invariably sedimentary rock, or
metamorphosed from sedimentary rock, and are almost notoriously devoid of
macrofossils. The original sediments are consistent with having been
deposited in water - either lacustrine or marine - and having carried a
heavy burden of organic detritus. They are quite similar to the sediments
deposited off the Atlantic coast of southern North America (by coastal
rivers) which have recently been found to bear almost incredible amounts of
methane hydrates.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
- Next message: Mike: "Re: Mass/enertia in weightlessness - cars in space!"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Pat Fallon: "Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it."
- Next in thread: tadchem: "Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|