http://www.rense.com/general78/expeak.htm


The good news is that panic scenarios about the world running out of oil anytime 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. 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 1970's. I was intrigued in 2003 with something called 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 our soaring gasoline and oil prices, to the declines in output of North Sea and 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 1960's was proof. He reportedly managed to convince the International Energy Agency and the Swedish government. That, however, does not prove him correct.

I only quoted the first four paragraphs but it heats up after that.

http://www.rense.com/general78/expeak.htm


The good news is that panic scenarios about the world running out of oil anytime 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. 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 1970's. I was intrigued in 2003 with something called 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 our soaring gasoline and oil prices, to the declines in output of North Sea and 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 1960's was proof. He reportedly managed to convince the International Energy Agency and the Swedish government. That, however, does not prove him correct.

I only quoted the first four paragraphs but it heats up after that.

This is complete nonsense. I've read the whole thing and Engdahl has his head up his ass. Engdahl has become a proponent of abiotic oil. This is so god awful it's hard to know where to begin. And yes Peak Oil is very real as is Global Warming but the problem is far more complex in both cases than any catch phrases can possibly describe. In both cases the use of the terms has served only to cloud the real issues involved.

Yes "the world" isn't going to run out of oil anytime soon but that doesn't say much of anything. The truth is "the world" is never going to run out of oil. The truth is there is still a shitload of oil all over the place and in many different forms. Of course Big Oil wants the profits but that too has nothing to do with the geological fact that the EROEI for oil is declining rapidly and in fact the stated reserves for most of the world's largest oil producing nations is grossly overstated.

The theory of abiotic oil in no way refutes peak oil because the concept of peak oil is not based on the origin of oil.

Hubbert's peak is not based on geologic nor economic theory. Hubbert studied production, discovery, and reserve data for various fields and regions and eventually to the data for the entire continental U.S. He was able to fit an empirical curve to these data and use the equation of the curve to predict the peak of U.S. production in 1970.

The decline in the rate of production after about one-half the oil has been produced observed in individual fields, the continental U.S., the North Slope, the North Sea, and elsewhere demonstrates that the rate of replacement is very slow relative to the rate of production. For practical purposes we can regard the total amount of oil to be finite. It makes no difference if the oil were created by biotic or abiotic means. (Conventional oil generation theory recognizes that it takes several million years to create an oil field.)

Peak oil predictions are about a coming decline in the possible rate of production, not about the absolute end of oil. The differences between declining production and the end of oil are subtle, but important and are not widely understood by the general public. The theory of abiotic oil is a convenient place to hang false hopes for those who do not understand the concepts of peak oil and for those who choose not to believe it.

to hit the internet in a few, uh, hours? LOL.

The notion of abiotic oil is mythic and irrelevant to the reality of our current conditions.

Below, a good rebuttal by Dr. John Clarke:



The fact remains that the abiotic theory of petroleum genesis has zero credibility for economically interesting accumulations. 99.9999% of the world's liquid hydrocarbons are produced by maturation of organic matter derived from organisms. To deny this means you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.

1. The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.

2. The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).

3. The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).

3. The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and depositional environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, those indicating marine conditions only in marine sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only bacterial biomarkers).

4. Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).

5. The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory.

6. The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of biological fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything like the fractionation of light carbon that is seen in petroleum).

7. The location of petroleum reservoirs down the hydraulic gradient from the source rocks in many cases (those which are not are in areas where there is clear evidence of post migration tectonism).

8 ) The almost complete absence of significant petroleum occurrences in igneous and metamorphic rocks (the rare exceptions discussed below).

The evidence usually cited in favour of abiogenic petroleum can all be better explained by the biogenic hypothesis e.g.:

9. Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in igneous rocks (better explained by reaction with organic rich country rocks, with which the pyrobitumens can usually be tied).

10. Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in metamorphic rocks (better explained by metamorphism of residual hydrocarbons in the protolith).

11. The very rare occurrence of small hydrocarbon accumulations in igneous or metamorphic rocks (in every case these are adjacent to organic rich sedimentary rocks to which the hydrocarbons can be tied via biomarkers).

12. The presence of undoubted mantle derived gases (such as He and some CO2) in some natural gas (there is no reason why gas accumulations must be all from one source, given that some petroleum fields are of mixed provenance it is inevitable that some mantle gas contamination of biogenic hydrocarbons will occur under some circumstances).

13. The presence of traces of hydrocarbons in deep wells in crystalline rock (these can be formed by a range of processes, including metamorphic synthesis by the fischer-tropsch reaction, or from residual organic matter as in 10).

14. Traces of hydrocarbon gases in magma volatiles (in most cases magmas ascend through sedimentary succession, any organic matter present will be thermally cracked and some will be incorporated into the volatile phase, some fischer-tropsch synthesis can also occur).

15. Traces of hydrocarbon gases at mid ocean ridges (such traces are not surprising given that the upper mantle has been contaminated with biogenic organic matter through several billion years of subduction, the answer to 14 may be applicable also).

The geological evidence is utterly against the abiogenic postulate.

Here's a bit from Richard Heinberg's piece on abiotic oil:

Biomarkers

The claims for the abiotic theory often seem overstated in other ways. J. F. Kenney of Gas Resources Corporations, Houston, Texas, who is one of the very few Western geologists to argue for the abiotic theory, writes, "competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological materials since the last quarter of the 19th century."(12) Reading this sentence, one might assume that only a few isolated troglodyte pseudoscientists would still be living under the outworn and discredited misconception that oil can be formed from biological materials. However, in fact universities and oil companies are staffed with thousands of "competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men [and women!] knowledgeable of thermodynamics" who not only subscribe to the biogenic theory, but use it every day as the basis for successful oil exploration. And laboratory experiments have shown repeatedly that petroleum is in fact produced from organic matter under the conditions to which it is assumed to have been subjected over geological time. The situation is actually the reverse of the one Kenny implies: most geologists assume that the Russian abiotic oil hypothesis, which dates to the era prior to the advent of modern plate tectonics theory, is an anachronism. Tectonic movements are now known to be able to radically reshuffle rock strata, leaving younger sedimentary oil- or gas-bearing rock beneath basement rock, leading in some cases to the appearance that oil has its source in Precambrian crystalline basement, when this is not actually the case.

Geologists trace the source of the carbon in hydrocarbons through analysis of its isotopic balance. Natural carbon is nearly all isotope 12, with 1.11 percent being isotope 13. Organic material, however, usually contains less C-13, because photosynthesis in plants preferentially selects C-12 over C-13. Oil and natural gas typically show a C-12 to C-13 ratio similar to that of the biological materials from which they are assumed to have originated. The C-12 to C-13 ratio is a generally observed property of petroleum and is predicted by the biotic theory; it is not merely an occasional aberration. (13)

In addition, oil typically contains biomarkers - porphyrins, isoprenoids, pristane, phytane, cholestane, terpines, and clorins - which are related to biochemicals such as chlorophyll and hemoglobin. The chemical fingerprint of oil assumed to have been formed from, for example, algae is different from that of oil formed from plankton. Thus geochemists can (and routinely do) use biomarkers to trace oil samples to specific source rocks.

Abiotic theorists hypothesize that oil picks up its chemical biomarkers through contamination from bacteria living deep in the Earth's crust (Gold's "deep, hot biosphere") or from other buried bio-remnants. However, the observed correspondences between biomarkers and source materials are not haphazard, but instead systematic and predictable on the basis of the biotic theory. For example, biomarkers in source rock can be linked with the depositional environment; that is, source rocks with biomarkers characteristic of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, while petroleum biomarkers associated with marine organisms are found only in marine sediments.

<snip>

http://globalpublicmedia.com/richard_he ... biotic_oil (http://globalpublicmedia.com/richard_heinberg_on_abiotic_oil)

The reason I thought this article was worth reading were twofold:

1. It went into some of the history of the Peak Oil "movement" which it certainly is, independent of how "true" it is

2. Rather than endlessly debate the science, which oddly enough is easy to obscure by couching it in theoretical terms only, it presents world world evidence that potentially contravenes the traditional western understanding of biotic oil.

Maybe these claims are all quackery, I have no real way to say although I wonder if you dispute any of the straight-up facts in the article (since facts can be checked) as opposed to only the theoretic parts. It seems to me that Hubbertists are worse than quacks because they are one-track agenda driven ideologues.

I also don't think that the response to this article (should anyone believe it) should be a sigh of relief or anything like that.

I appreciate the opposition research though :)

The reason I thought this article was worth reading were twofold:

1. It went into some of the history of the Peak Oil "movement" which it certainly is, independent of how "true" it is

2. Rather than endlessly debate the science, which oddly enough is easy to obscure by couching it in theoretical terms only, it presents world world evidence that potentially contravenes the traditional western understanding of biotic oil.

Maybe these claims are all quackery, I have no real way to say although I wonder if you dispute any of the straight-up facts in the article (since facts can be checked) as opposed to only the theoretic parts. It seems to me that Hubbertists are worse than quacks because they are one-track agenda driven ideologues.

I also don't think that the response to this article (should anyone believe it) should be a sigh of relief or anything like that.

I appreciate the opposition research though :)

I really don't know what you are saying.

If you want to highlight a few of "the facts" from the article that seem particularly important I'll shout 'em down.

I read this piece by Engdahl when it first came out and could hardly believe how sloppy it was.

Cantarell, The Third Largest Oil Field in the World Is Dying
Copyright 2004, 2007 G.R. Morton This can be freely distributed so long as no changes are made and no charges are made.


The third largest producing field in the world is the Cantarell complex in Mexico. It lies 85 kim from Ciudad del Carmen. The field was discovered in 1976 and put on production in 1979. This is one of the geologically interesting oil fields because the producing formation was created when the Chicxulub meteor impacted the earth. The upper reservoir is a brecciated dolomite of Uppermost Cretaceous age. The breccia is from a shelf failure (underwater landslide) when the meteor hit. This 950 foot thick rubble became the reservoir for one of the biggest fields in the world. The lowermost part of the field is a Lower Cretaceous dolomitic limestone. The field is made up of a number of sub-fields or fault blocks. It has an overthrusted geological setting. These are Akal, Chac, Kutz and Nohoch. Akal was found first and the original well started producing at the rate of 34,000 barrels per day.

Originally the field had 35 billion barrels of oil in place. Now, in place oil is not reserves. They expect to get around 50% of that oil out of the ground to market. The field reached an early peak in production of 1.1 million barrels per day in April of 1981 from 40 oil wells. By 1994 the production was down to 890,000 barrels of oil per day. At that time, cumulative production was 4.8 billion barrels. In 1995 it was producing 1 million barrels per day and the Mexican government decided to invest in that field to raise the production level. They built 26 new platforms, drilled lots of new wells and built the largest nitrogen extraction facility capable of injecting a billion cubic feet of nitrogen per day to maintain reservoir pressure. Doing this raised the oil production rate in 2001 to 2.2 million barrels per day. Today the field produces 2.1 million barrels.

To put this amount of production into perspectives, the largest field discovered in the US Gulf of Mexico will produce about 250,000 barrels per day. That field has about a billion barrels of reserves. If I were to find a field of that size, the company I worked for would probably make me president. For the world production, Cantarell represents 4 of the largest fields ever found in the US side of the Gulf. In 50 years of exploration in the US side of the Gulf of Mexico, only one one-billion-barrel oil field has been found. Bear this in mind as you read the rest.

A couple of weeks ago I ran into this from the oil industry rags I read. It is a chilling thought since this is the 2nd biggest producer of oil on earth. Ghawar produces 4.5 million bbl/day, Cantarell, 2.2 million bbl/day, Da Qing and Burgun around 1 million per day.

"Supergiant Cantarell continues to be the mainstay of Mexican oil production, with 2.1 MMb/d of output in 2003 up from 1.9 MMb/d in 2002. However, Cantarell is expected to decline rapidly over the next few years, falling as far as 1 MM b/d by 2008. This has given particular urgency to Pemex's efforts to develop other fields and move into deepwater." For now, Pemex's best alternative project is the heavy-oil complex known as Ku-Maloob-Zaap, in Campeche Bay close to Cantarell. Output from this complex was 288,000 b/d in 2003 and is expected to rise to about 800,000 b/d by the end of the decade." David Shields, "Pemex Ready to Drill in Deepwater Perdido Area," Offshore, June 2004, p. 38

Even the largest fields we find offshore in the deepwater today only produce about 250,000 bbl/day. It will take about 4 of them to replace this decline in Cantarell.

And even the heavy oil field they mention won't replace the loss of Cantarell by the end of the decade. And one must remember that all oil fields which are producing today, are in the process of declining.

The implications of this upcoming decline are tremendous to the world. This field produces half of what Ghawar does and it won't be doing that much longer. The effect on the energy supply will be felt and there is no way for that not to happen. On Aug. 3, 2004, the OPEC president stated that OPEC has no more spare capacity. They are pumping all out and can't satisfy the demand for oil. If fields like Cantarell begin declining, the problem of supplying the world with oil will only get worse.

UPDATE

Since I originally wrote this page in 2004, several things have happened. First, Cantarell has actually begun to decline. The most recent Upstream (May 11, 2007) quotes Jesus Reyes Heroles, the Pemex leader as saying that Cantarell would produce only 1.5 million barrels per day in 2007. This is compared with over 2 million in 2004. Secondly, the fall of Cantarell has begun to cause Mexico's overall production to drop. It is off 300,000 barrels per day over the past couple of years. Obviously, Mexico is spending money drilling elsewhere to try to stop the country's fall in oil production. This fall can be seen in the following chart which is up-to-date as of March 2007.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/MexicanProduction.jpg

References.



Alfredo E. Guzman, and Benjamin Marquez-Dominguez, "The Gulf of Mexico Basin South of the Border: The Petroleum Province of the Twenty-First Century," in M. W. Downey , J. C. Threet and W. A. Morgan, editors, (Tulsa: AAPG, 2001).

E. Manceau, et al "Implementing Convection in a Reservoir Simulator: A Key Feature in Adequately Modeling the Exploitation of the Cantarell Complex," SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exibition in Villahermosa, Mexico, Feb. 1-3, re 2000, SPE paper 59044

G. Murillo-Muneton et al, Stratigraphic Architecture and Sedimentology of hte Main Oil-Producing Stratigraphic Interval at the Cantarell Oil Field: the K/T Boundary Sedimentary Succession," SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition in Villahermosa,Feb. 10-12, 2002, SPE paper 74431

A. G. Rojas and A. R. Torres, "Akal Field (Cantarell Complex) Conditions of Exploration, Analysis, and Prediction," SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition in Veracruz, Mexico, Oct. 10-13, 1994. SPE paper 28714

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cantarell.htm

More:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/7/24/124920/925

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=news (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=anv9Ujulc2o0&refer=news)

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/200 ... in_de.html (http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2007/01/cantarell_in_de.html)

http://www.offshore-mag.com/Articles/Ar ... _ID=237137 (http://www.offshore-mag.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Article_ID=237137)

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/ ... co_Oil.php (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/22/business/LA_FIN_Mexico_Oil.php)