|
U-Know! Forum » Sustainable Oil? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Ether 104 posts |
Jul 11, 2004, 14:50
|
||
|
This is interesting, it suggests that oil isn't made out of fossil matter, and there's more of it deeper in the earth than we thought : http://www.rense.com/general54/ssust.htm
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Jul 11, 2004, 15:09
|
||
|
This theory is generally associated with Dr. Thomas Gold of Cornell University (he's professor of astronomy, not geology by the way). It's usually known as the "abiotic" or "abiogenic" theory of the origin of crude oil. Sadly, however, in my 6 or 7 years of researching this issue, and discussions with a host of well-regarded geologists; I have yet to find a single person in the field who doesn't consider the theory to be a load of codswallop. Having done no first-hand experimental work, I can only go by what I've been told and have read, but there is a wealth of very hard evidence which seems to confirm the biogenic origin of crude oil (i.e. that it is indeed a fossil fuel). Mainstream petrogeology views Gold's theories in the same way as mainstream physics views cold fusion (i.e. as something beyond even the fringes of the discipline). As Dr. Colin Campbell quite rightly (in my opinion) asks... if Gold's theories were true, then why have we never found one single example of an oil-well that replenishes itself from below? In all the wells we have drilled... not one. Of course, just because something is beyond the fringes now doesn't mean that it won't, one day, become mainstream. But it's hugely improbable. (PS: I really don't want to sound like I'm denouncing every alternative energy source that gets proposed. It's just that I've been seeking them out for a long time now, and have researched all of the ones that I'm aware of. Always looking out for new possibilities though).
|
|||
|
Ether 104 posts |
Jul 11, 2004, 17:47
|
||
Thank you, Grufty. I did read somewhere that there's a lot of untapped oil underneath Greenland, I wonder how true is that?
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Jul 11, 2004, 21:04
|
||
|
There is some confusion on the issue of how much oil might be underneath Greenland. The polar regions are the only unsurveyed areas left. However the sort of geology required to form oil fields is fairly rare, and much of the polar regions (like much of the rest of the planet) is ruled out by hvaing "the wrong rocks". Greenland, though, does appear to be a decent prospect, and the US Geological Survey (USGS) estimates as much as 49 billion barrels could be sitting beneath the Northeast Greenland shelf. However, this would equate to 10 times (!) the quantity found in the mid-Norwegian fields (an area of the same physical size as the Northeast shelf). There appears to be no rationale for this inflated estimate, and certainly the oil companies appear to be having none of it. Phillips Petroleum and Norway's Statoil have both done some exploratory drilling in Western Greenland, and both ceased doing so in 2002 having drilled nothing but dry holes. Greenland has since dropped it's petroproduction tax to 30% (extremely low... most nations set it around 50%) to attract companies into carrying out further exploration. To the best of my knowledge, none have yet done so. Though of course they eventually will - have no doubts about that - but they seem to consider it something of a long shot. Besides which, even assuming the grossly inflated estimate of 49Gb is correct... though certainly large, it's not going to satisfy the global economy for long. The US alone consumed 7.3 billion last year - and it _only_ consumes 25% of the global total. So at present consumption rates, the long-shot that is the 49Gb under Greenland would sate our thirst for a shade over 20 months. And that's not even getting on to the subject of the extreme engineering difficulties (and high energy expenditure) involved in polar drilling. . . . . . The conclusion? Society has to find a way to consume less oil. Not find more.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Jul 11, 2004, 21:36
|
||
|
I've just been refreshing my memory on the details of Gold's theory and stumbled across a news article which reports the fact that Gold died recently. Gold's theories about the abiotic nature of oil were published in his late 70s after a lifetime of remarkable work in astrophysics. He's probably best known as the man NASA called in to advise the Apollo program about the nature of the moon's surface. " I would describe it as... 'powdery' " was his celebrated sound-bite (which tends to crop up as old black-n-white footage on documentaries about the moon landings). He also did a lot of incredible theoretical work in astrophysics and astronomy. I figure one gutterball on a card full of strikes is pretty good playing.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Jul 12, 2004, 09:37
|
||
|
I've just glanced back over what I wrote last night, and noticed this: > > So at present consumption rates, the > long-shot that is the 49Gb (49 billion > barrels of crude oil) under Greenland > would sate our thirst for a shade over > 20 months. > Whilst strictly true, that's actually a little misleading. Greenland's oil would be consumed by the global economy in 20 months, only if that oil were already extracted from the ground and sitting in barrels waiting to be refined. However, because of the rate at which fields produce oil, it would take a good deal longer than 20 *years* to get to the last of those hypothetically extractable 49 billion barrels. It's also important to factor in the approximate mid-point of a field's life: the production peak. Because to a global economy which depends for its survival on constant growth, the point at which progressively less energy is available (as opposed to the historical model of progressively more) is critical. This is what a lot people (often economists, who willfully refuse to understand the geological constraints of oil drilling and assume that reserves are "instantly accessible" to the market) can fail to grasp. When the BP statistical review, or the USGS, or the IEA annouce that our total global reserves at current consumption rates equals another 40-60 years of oil... it's completely meaningless. To use grossly approximated numbers; in our history, we have produced and consumed around 1 trillion barrels of oil. The likes of Campbell and Laherrere and other "peak oil" geologists estimate that there's roughly 1.2 trillion barrels of oil left to be produced (or was a couple of years back). This includes their own estimates of oil yet to be discovered (i.e. whatever might be under Greenland, or in the Arctic Reserves, or wherever). This means, in essence, that we are approaching mid-point... well... any day now. The consequences of our capitalist, globalised economy having to cope with progressively less energy year-on-year can be debated, but I can't see how anyone could deny that the situation is approaching. As Campbell pointed out in his presentation to the House of Commons, even if you were to suddenly discover another 500Gb of oil (50% of all the oil we've used to date!); given our current consumption rate - and given the physical extraction rate; it would only delay peak by about 10 years. (Note: since that presentation, no 500Gb discoveries have been made - in fact everyone's been revising *down* their estimated reserves of late). So, once again... it really is a case of learning to use less. Not discover more.
|
|||
ron 706 posts |
Jul 14, 2004, 00:17
|
||
|
no shortage of self-righteous bullshit... possibilities?
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jul 14, 2004, 10:37
|
||
|
er, I'm not sure I get the meaning of any of this... is the 'self-righteous bullshit' Dr Gold or Grufty Jim? And the single-word question 'possibilities?' is somewhat enigmatic too. Can ya give us a bit more clarity there, ron?
|
|||
cancer boy 977 posts |
Jul 14, 2004, 11:17
|
||
|
Did you see Top Gear the other night? (I don't drive, I just watch Jeremy Clarkson to fill the void in my life left by the end of the last series of Alan Partridge) They were racing cars on methane derived from human and cow poop with a car running on petrol. The result was: 1 - Petrol and not far behind 2 - Human poop 3 - Cow poop Of course you can also extract hydrogen from poop as well (although not very efficiently). Are there any studies out there on whether we're self sufficient in doo-doo?
|
|||
|
ron 706 posts |
Jul 14, 2004, 15:09
|
||
|
oh good heavens no man, ru going daft on us? jus kidding... i thot afterwards that it may have caused some confusion, but no,i did not mean our very dear james... his cloud23 blog is one of the few refuges of clairty and reason on this net thingy-majig... and i love it dearly (hang it there man, ther'es at least one out here that's pulling for ya...) nor did i mean dr. gold for as jim points out he was indeed a brilliant man, but that doesn't mean a momentary lack of reason, should suggest complete dismissal... no sir, i belive i was generalizing about the land of freedom (america in case u forgot) and awl the fucking self-righteous bullshit generated by these politicians and talking heads on the 24 24 hour news/entertainment networks... sigh... if i had sum, nay, just even a small morsel of clarity, my dear friend merrick i would certainly be more than willing share it with you and these lovely folkes...
|
| Pages: 5 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
