mwah!
Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")
- Thread starter Bernie_Gunther
- Start date
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I'm still not getting your drift there.Raisin D'etre said:
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
This is very good and I've been looking for something like it for a while. Thanks.zceb90 said:
What I think it's particularly strong on are the likely transition scenarios and the constraints affecting them. He's also very good at explaining the basic problem.
and
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
You left a bit of that out bigfish.bigfish said:
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Damn. You're too clever for me bigfishbigfish said:
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Given that the lead time for mitigation and/or adaptation is quite long in many important cases, e.g. building all the expensive infrastructure required to make enough liquid fuels for transportation to carry on as normal, then the rate of decline becomes a serious matter of concern.zceb90 said:
If it's a matter of falling off a steep cliff within a decade or so, which is what the current demand trends and production figures (reliably known out to say 2010 or so) all seem to be indicating, then it's very likely that we're talking somewhat catastrophic adaptations rather than reasonably sane mitigations.
It's all very well economists claiming that price trends will fix it all. Markets can have an impact up to a point I think, but they would need to be mandating the necessary mitigations more or less right now to be of much use and they have not done so as far as I am aware.
In any case, as that Hirsh paper explains rather clearly, actual data on IOR/EOR and stuff like that, indicates that it is still bounded by geological limits, although it can get production 10-20% closer to those limits if the price of oil will sustain all the fancy technology you have to use to get at that 10-20%.
Abiotic oil, as anything more than a lab curiosity, seems to me a bit of a fairy story for people who don't want to take the issue seriously and deal with it.
Shales, heavy oils and tar sands, like nuclear energy are incredibly expensive in terms of energy and other inputs (*lots* of water use) and pretty disgusting in terms of their environmental impact, especially if you take a realistic view about how many accidents occur per plant and scale it way up to represent greatly increased use of these generally very dirty technologies.
As for conservation, market signals do have some impact. If people can't afford to buy petrol for their cars in the west they can't drive them, but they'll get very upset if you put them in that position. While they're upset about petrol, many won't be able to afford food in the third world (oil price generally affects food price, especially to the extent that people are dependent on industrial agriculture and hence on the price of chemical feedstocks and fuels)
Clearly though, demand for fuel and still more so the demand for food, is relatively inelastic and failing to satisfy it politically explosive.
bigfish said:
According to recent analysis by Chris Skrebowski and others the world is currently loosing 1.14m bopd pa of conventional oil to depletion i.e. ongoing decline in producer nations in 'type 3 depletion' (the kind where the whole nation is in decline). This number looks very realistic given that UK (228k bopd) and US (160k bopd) alone accounted for 388k of that decline between 2003 and 2004 and at least 18 major oil producers are reported as being in decline. The overall decline by such nations looks certain to rise to at least 1.4m bopd pa from 2006 as China and Mexico pass their 'tipping points'.
If we assume for a moment that Yergin's forecasts of increased production are indeed correct (to me a big assumption) let's take a look at what the current rate of exponential growth (3% pa) actually means. Current demand is approx. 85m bopd (or 31.02 Gbbls pa); daily demand would reach 98.5m bopd by 2010 which leaves just 2.5m bopd to compensate for declines in mature oil provinces....which in 1st para above will be at least 6.74m bopd by 2010. Thus a supply 'gap' of 4.24m bopd opens up, a trend which is pretty well in line with Chris Skrebowski's mega projects review.
I'm also struggling to see how the statement that 'some of this extra production will come from Russia' stands up. Already we've seen output growth in Russia stall these past few months and the possibility that their secondary peak has already been achieved is being widely discussed (main Russian peak was in 1987). Further research is available in the Communication presented by Ray Leonard entitled 'the Reality of Russia' at ASPO 2005 workshop. Ray's report can be downloaded from the workshop site and I'm repeating link I posted in my 1st post for convenience: ASPO 2005 Workshop Communications . The message in Ray's report is clear - without a complete change in tax and investment climate in Russia sufficient foreign investment to develop new prospects will not be forthcoming. Russian output will fall by 2010 at the same time as their internal consumption is growing hence volume available for export will decline faster than actual reservoir output declines. One should also not loose sight of the remote locations and transport difficulties for future prospects in Russia which mean 'the dye is pretty well cast to 2010' as lead times are longer than the time we have left until then.
With regard to SA, unless / until we see real field by field data I can see no reason not to exercise caution. Personally I don't care whether Matt Simmons is a necon or not; neither am I concerned about the (staunch Republican) politics of Congressman Roscoe Bartlett. The point here is that Matt was one of the very few who predicted an early peak for NS back in the mid 1990's in his presentations in both Aberdeen and Stavanger - within 4 years UK sector had peaked and he was vindicated. Now when such varying political views as Simmons and Bartlett agree with likes of Jim Kunstler and George Monbiot (which they sure do re PO) I for one am going to listen. Matt is warning that, based on the SPE papers he has reveiwed, and with 90% of SA production coming from 6 giant fields which are on average around 5 decades old depletion is about to become a serious issue, even in SA (which has long been considered by many as virtually immune to depletion). On this basis I'm just not confident that we really will see the increases the likes of Yergin talks about (and any increases we do see will very likely be heavy, sour crude). Also how can such optimists justify their position given that no numbers have been made public for almost 30 years?
We can engage in endless debate on what we think will happen to supply v demand over the next few years but without data transparency from key producers such as the Gulf States and Russia it's really guesswork. What's not in doubt, however, is that at some point the largest oilfields on the planet will experience serious output declines just as N Sea and Prudhoe Bay, for example, already have. Given the age of the key fields (and nearly all super giant fields in the world are over 4 decades old due to declining discovery trend since 1964) and the fact that vertical wells in Ghawar's sweet spots are obsolete we should prepare for world output declines sooner rather than later. Furthermore the fact that MRC wells are being extensively used in some older giant oilfields mean that future production collapses cannot be ruled out given that water encroachment tends to reach horizontal wells 'all at once'. It's better to start steps to mitigate PO early than end up being too late.
Above is pretty well in line with the price for 2005 that Michael Lynch predicted last year....and we're around double that right now. The age old issue is again putting in an appearance - 'economists are always a whole lot better at finding oil than geologists'. So much so, in fact, that geologists sometime express the view that they wish the economists would send them the UTM coordinates of the 'prospects' they have identified....would save a bunch of seismic interpretation. Colin Campbell explained a historic example to us at the Depletion-Scotland (Edinburgh) workshop in April'05 - back in 1960 he was prospecting for oil in the interior of Columbia but the financial officers in the company insisted they prospect on the coast instead where infrastructure was in place and transportation costs were much lower. Colin tried to explain that 'there was geologically very unlikely to be any oil there' but the 'bean counters' carried the day and it was to be 25 years before someone had the courage to fund exploration in the interior and thus make a discovery. LOL.bigfish said:
Robert L Hirsch
I attended one of his talks recently and had an opportunity for a chat with him; a lot of quality research went into his presentation and it was extremely well received.
Dr Hirsch is an ex VP of ARCO, here is outline CV I've tracked down for him: Dr Robert L Hirsch .bigfish said:
I attended one of his talks recently and had an opportunity for a chat with him; a lot of quality research went into his presentation and it was extremely well received.
Bernie Gunther said:
Your dismissive comment on abiotic oil reminds me of something Bill Bryson wrote in his book "A brief history of almost everything".
On the history of tectonic plates chapter 12 The Earth Moves: Bryson first notes that just before his death in 1955, Albert Einstein wrote the foreword to a book by Charles Hapgood dismissing the tectonic hypothesis, called "Earth's Shifting Crust: A Key to some Basic Problems of Earth Science". In the book, Hapgood informs that a few gullible souls had noticed "an apparent correspondence in shape between certain continents". Noting that a couple of geologists (K E Caster and J C Mendes) had done extensive fieldwork on both sides of the Atlantic and had established beyond question that no such similarities existed, Bryson declares "Goodness knows what outcrops Messrs Caster and Mendes had looked at, because in fact many of the rock formations on both sides of the Atlantic ARE the same - not just very similar but the same."
The idea of continental drift was first proposed by an amateur geologist, Frank Bursley Taylor in 1908, and although his view didn't go far in the US it was taken up in Germany by a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who studied plant and fossil anomalies - "Animal fossils repeatedly turned up on opposite sides of the ocean. He also noticed the same for coal seams. He therefore invented the idea of a single land-mass, Pangaea. His ideas were unacceptable, however, to the geology profession, especially as he wasn't even a geologist, and these people invented "land bridges". Notes Bryson, "None of this ... was supported by so much as a grain of evidence ... yet it was geological orthodoxy for the next half century.... As late as 1964, when the Encyclopaedia Britannica discussed the rival theories it was Wegener's that was held to be full of numerous grave theoretical difficulties."
In 1944, an English geologist, Arthur Holmes, published his "Principles of Physical Geology", laying out today's basic theory of continental drift. It was still radical and was heavily criticized in the United States... "where resistance to drift lasted longer than anywhere else." However, Reginald Daly of Harvard supported Holmes view. "Oil company geologists had known for years that if you wanted to find oil you had to allow for precisely the sort of surface movements that were implied by plate tectonics."
There were various problems with the continental drift theory, but these were resoved one by one over the years. One of these was that the ocean floors had been assumed to be static (hence "continental" drift). Others showed that the ocean floors were also in motion. A Canadian geologist came to this conclusion, but his paper was rejected by the editor of the Journal of Geophysical Research who told him: "Such speculations make interesting talk at cocktail parties, but it is not the same sort of thing that ought to be published under serious scientific aegis." But a symposium held by the Royal Society in London in 1964 agreed that the Earth was made up of a mosaic of interconnected segments. Nonetheless, the opposition persisted. By 1980 it was estimated that one American geologist in eight still didn't believe in plate tectonics.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
With the exception of a few economists who place their faith in markets to make new fields appear as if by magic, most qualified opinion puts world conventional oil peak somewhere between in the next couple of years and say 2025 or so.
If abiotic oil is to prevent the occurrence of that peak, it would need to be making a difference by now. It isn't.
It is making no evident difference to production. It is making no impact anywhere but in a few curious lab results (... and apparently also as a matter of faith in what seems to be some sort of ongoing shit-fight between two rival factions of online 911 conspiracy theorists. Which is getting tiresome whenever those standards of evidence and debate spill onto this thread.)
The US lower 48 is in a fairly advanced stage of depletion already and the North Sea is not far behind. If this deus ex-machina was going to make any difference, I think that we'd have noticed by now.
Unless of course *they* are keeping all that secret oil to themselves ....
If abiotic oil is to prevent the occurrence of that peak, it would need to be making a difference by now. It isn't.
It is making no evident difference to production. It is making no impact anywhere but in a few curious lab results (... and apparently also as a matter of faith in what seems to be some sort of ongoing shit-fight between two rival factions of online 911 conspiracy theorists. Which is getting tiresome whenever those standards of evidence and debate spill onto this thread.)
The US lower 48 is in a fairly advanced stage of depletion already and the North Sea is not far behind. If this deus ex-machina was going to make any difference, I think that we'd have noticed by now.
Unless of course *they* are keeping all that secret oil to themselves ....
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
So, let me be quite clear about this. You cleverly laid a trap, by leaving out the one paragraph of the article that contradicted what you were trying to claim.bigfish said:
The confirmation of your fiendishly clever theory here being, that someone quotes the bit that you left out ...
Yes right. That's extremely ... er ... cunning of you.
Hirsch Report on PO Mitigation
If I recall correctly Hirsch's report deals primarily with options for mitigation of the worst impacts of PO rather than dwell over much on the date of the peak itself (which, as we've said, depends on many variables including much 'suspect' data on reserves). To this end I and many others feel that Hirsch and his team have done a good job. Very few experts still believe in 'no peak' and once we have accepted that peaking is inevitable and given the lead time of 2 decades + for major infrastructure changes that the declines are likely to require it would seem most prudent to start planning for such changes now rather than wait for the declines to hit. On this basis I'm confident that Hirsch has produced a valuable report.
Let's not loose sight of where Dr Hirsch used to work as VP i.e. Arco. On February 10, 1999 Arco chairman, Mike R. Bowlin, addressed an industry meeting with the words 'the world is entering "the last days of the Age of Oil," and the energy industry must respond wisely or face the consequences' Arco CEO Speech, Feb 10, 1999 . As for Arco's actions, within a year they had 'merged' with (sold out to?) BP (then BP-Amoco). On this basis even if one is uncomfortable with the background of a few individuals once multi-billion dollar corps. with access to some of the best oilfield experts start to 'vote with their feet' I for one try to take notice.bigfish said:
If I recall correctly Hirsch's report deals primarily with options for mitigation of the worst impacts of PO rather than dwell over much on the date of the peak itself (which, as we've said, depends on many variables including much 'suspect' data on reserves). To this end I and many others feel that Hirsch and his team have done a good job. Very few experts still believe in 'no peak' and once we have accepted that peaking is inevitable and given the lead time of 2 decades + for major infrastructure changes that the declines are likely to require it would seem most prudent to start planning for such changes now rather than wait for the declines to hit. On this basis I'm confident that Hirsch has produced a valuable report.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I thought the report was very useful. I don't agree with his priorities in mitigation, because he's coming from a mainstream US point of view, but he's thought clearly and intelligently about that mitigation, about what is feasible and what isn't, which is in itself valuable.zceb90 said:
North Sea Divestments
It didn't look like BP with all their expertise believed that Abiotic oil or any other form of revival would arrest the long term trend in Forties hence their decision to pass the 'end game' on to a lesser player. Trying to extract the last bbls from mature oilfields followed by offshore platform abandonments ties up a disproportionate amount of engineering and management time per bbl hence divestment decisions. I know Amoco were similarly trying to divest NW Hutton in the late 90's prior to the BP merger but neither they nor BP managed to attract a buyer hence BP are now having to go through the expensive and time consuming abandonment process.
The Forties disposal is far from unique - BP similarly disposed of 14 NS gas fields in 2003 plus pipelines and its interest in the Bacton gas terminal to Perenco. Again this disposal included a couple of former 'elephants' i.e. Indefatigable and East Leman. The press notice stated that the 14 gas fields combined were producing 150 mmcfd; that's quite a contrast from the late 60's when some 450 mmcfd was being produced from just a single Leman platform.
If we now add the latest news that Kerr McGee is pulling out of the N Sea as part of their policy of withdrawing from areas 'in decline' we start to build up a clear picture as to what 'big oil' thinks of the prospects of a production revival in the area. I'm sorry but for those still in denial depletion is all too real - already it is happening in at least 18 major oil producer nations and in due course declines will inevitably set in elsewhere. The oil consuming world remains totally unprepared for the consequences.
Again I'm guided by the actions of the oil companies themselves. One of the UK N Sea 'elephants', Forties, virtually made BP in the N Sea and yet they sold it to Apache about 3 years ago. At that time Forties had produced some 2.5 Gbbls but output, which peaked in 1978 at 500k bopd, was already down to 45k bopd i.e. a decline of some 91% in just 24 years. BP also disposed of the nearby Montrose and Arbroath fields acquired in 1999 via the Amoco 'mega-merger'.Bernie Gunther said:
It didn't look like BP with all their expertise believed that Abiotic oil or any other form of revival would arrest the long term trend in Forties hence their decision to pass the 'end game' on to a lesser player. Trying to extract the last bbls from mature oilfields followed by offshore platform abandonments ties up a disproportionate amount of engineering and management time per bbl hence divestment decisions. I know Amoco were similarly trying to divest NW Hutton in the late 90's prior to the BP merger but neither they nor BP managed to attract a buyer hence BP are now having to go through the expensive and time consuming abandonment process.
The Forties disposal is far from unique - BP similarly disposed of 14 NS gas fields in 2003 plus pipelines and its interest in the Bacton gas terminal to Perenco. Again this disposal included a couple of former 'elephants' i.e. Indefatigable and East Leman. The press notice stated that the 14 gas fields combined were producing 150 mmcfd; that's quite a contrast from the late 60's when some 450 mmcfd was being produced from just a single Leman platform.
If we now add the latest news that Kerr McGee is pulling out of the N Sea as part of their policy of withdrawing from areas 'in decline' we start to build up a clear picture as to what 'big oil' thinks of the prospects of a production revival in the area. I'm sorry but for those still in denial depletion is all too real - already it is happening in at least 18 major oil producer nations and in due course declines will inevitably set in elsewhere. The oil consuming world remains totally unprepared for the consequences.
Roscoe Bartlett's Addresses to US Congress
I referred briefly to Roscoe Bartlett in an earlier post; despite his staunch Republican background he's been telling US Congress an awful lot about PO recently (and has been using highly detailed research which looks pretty much spot on to me). His 4 x 1hr long presentations can be found here: Roscoe Bartlett's Presentations to Congress re PO .
The way I see things is that, given that the vast majority are still unaware of (or in denial of) what looks like becoming one of the defining issues of our time, I'm more than happy to see awareness being raised from whatever the source. This is one issue which imo should rise above political affiliations.
Thanks for the comment; I'll admit that I'm not new to this subject even though I'm new to the board!Bernie Gunther said:Quite so. Unfortunately a system has evolved hellbent on maximising that rate of exploitation (and consequently decline) whatever the human cost.
Wicked first post by the way
I referred briefly to Roscoe Bartlett in an earlier post; despite his staunch Republican background he's been telling US Congress an awful lot about PO recently (and has been using highly detailed research which looks pretty much spot on to me). His 4 x 1hr long presentations can be found here: Roscoe Bartlett's Presentations to Congress re PO .
The way I see things is that, given that the vast majority are still unaware of (or in denial of) what looks like becoming one of the defining issues of our time, I'm more than happy to see awareness being raised from whatever the source. This is one issue which imo should rise above political affiliations.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Article on strikes in Ecuador leading to oil prices going up, again. Apparently Hugo Chavez has agreed to give Ecuador some oil free of charge.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4172038.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4172038.stm
Resource Conflicts
In his latest chronicle the columnist James Kunstler points to a clear link between the overwhelming dependence on the car culture in US and current military deployment. The most relevant sentences are quoted below, for full article refer link at bottom of this post.
"Because if anyone asked me to define what the war is about -- and people have asked -- I would say the war is a desperate attempt by the US to stabilize the region of the world where two-thirds of the remaining global oil supply exists in order for Americans like Harry Shearer to continue enjoying a lifestyle of extreme car dependency.
<snip>
Harry Shearer with his attitude of moral superiority reminds me of my neighbor here in Saratoga Springs, the lady with the "War Is NOT the Answer" bumper sticker on her Ford Expedition. For people who want to keep on enjoying an easy motoring utopia, war is the answer."
Full article (refer to section dated August 15, 2005): James Kunstler Chronicles
In his latest chronicle the columnist James Kunstler points to a clear link between the overwhelming dependence on the car culture in US and current military deployment. The most relevant sentences are quoted below, for full article refer link at bottom of this post.
"Because if anyone asked me to define what the war is about -- and people have asked -- I would say the war is a desperate attempt by the US to stabilize the region of the world where two-thirds of the remaining global oil supply exists in order for Americans like Harry Shearer to continue enjoying a lifestyle of extreme car dependency.
<snip>
Harry Shearer with his attitude of moral superiority reminds me of my neighbor here in Saratoga Springs, the lady with the "War Is NOT the Answer" bumper sticker on her Ford Expedition. For people who want to keep on enjoying an easy motoring utopia, war is the answer."
Full article (refer to section dated August 15, 2005): James Kunstler Chronicles
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Some interesting stuff from zceb90, there. Thanks.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4182878.stm
-
I went along to a 'peak oil' talk last night in my local town (Penzance).
I was pleasantly surprised that it was so well attended (~40 people) having seemingly only been advertised word of mouth.
The speaker made an interesting and succinct comment regarding China that bears repeating (in light of the BBC comment above). He pointed out that China's demand for energy and resources is fuelled to a great extent by the displacement of manufacturing and industrial production from the US and Europe - basically, China needs the resources to make crap to sell back to us so that we can throw it away.
He also made a comment regarding proponents of 'abiotic' theory - he called them 'loonies'.
I pointed out that there is no need to resort to such name calling (no matter how accurate it might be). All one need do is ask the 'abiotic' theorists to point out some evidence that their theory (if true) is replenishing any well anywhere at a rate which might be anything but utterly negligible in it's effect regarding delaying depletion/peak.
We agreed that when they turn round and try to explain the complete absence of any such evidence by suggesting that the whole oil industries 'misconception' regarding the nature of oil formation has lead them to be looking in the wrong places, it's ok to call them whatever you like.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4182878.stm
-
I went along to a 'peak oil' talk last night in my local town (Penzance).
I was pleasantly surprised that it was so well attended (~40 people) having seemingly only been advertised word of mouth.
The speaker made an interesting and succinct comment regarding China that bears repeating (in light of the BBC comment above). He pointed out that China's demand for energy and resources is fuelled to a great extent by the displacement of manufacturing and industrial production from the US and Europe - basically, China needs the resources to make crap to sell back to us so that we can throw it away.
He also made a comment regarding proponents of 'abiotic' theory - he called them 'loonies'.
I pointed out that there is no need to resort to such name calling (no matter how accurate it might be). All one need do is ask the 'abiotic' theorists to point out some evidence that their theory (if true) is replenishing any well anywhere at a rate which might be anything but utterly negligible in it's effect regarding delaying depletion/peak.
We agreed that when they turn round and try to explain the complete absence of any such evidence by suggesting that the whole oil industries 'misconception' regarding the nature of oil formation has lead them to be looking in the wrong places, it's ok to call them whatever you like.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Forgot where I read it, but saw some figures the other day that used some OPEC data to show that light sweet crude might have peaked already.
If that were so does it tie into the stuff we hear this year about refinery capacity being near limit? I mean obviously increased overall demand has pushed refining capacity to near limit, but if they also have to deal with more heavy sour stuff then that requires even more refining?
And from that, if they dont bother to build much more refining capacity, is this an admission that the establishment also believes in imminent peak oil? Could that be a reliable marker of opinion? eg if there is a lack of refining capacity, why wouldnt they invest in more unless they fear a lack of future supply of oil to be refined?
Then again I havent actually checked to see if there is much refinery capacity increase planned across the world - any ideas?
If that were so does it tie into the stuff we hear this year about refinery capacity being near limit? I mean obviously increased overall demand has pushed refining capacity to near limit, but if they also have to deal with more heavy sour stuff then that requires even more refining?
And from that, if they dont bother to build much more refining capacity, is this an admission that the establishment also believes in imminent peak oil? Could that be a reliable marker of opinion? eg if there is a lack of refining capacity, why wouldnt they invest in more unless they fear a lack of future supply of oil to be refined?
Then again I havent actually checked to see if there is much refinery capacity increase planned across the world - any ideas?
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
The OPEC data I think you've seen is on page 4 of the August 2005 OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report. (pdf!)
-
You raise a good point there, elbows. I've never quite understood exactly how running up against refining capacity limits is supposed to contribute to a price rise in unrefined oil - surely if there is more crude oil on the market than refing capacity to deal with it, the price would drop.
Any economists care to fill me in on that one, as I must have been asleep for that bit.
(Sums done for us here).
-
You raise a good point there, elbows. I've never quite understood exactly how running up against refining capacity limits is supposed to contribute to a price rise in unrefined oil - surely if there is more crude oil on the market than refing capacity to deal with it, the price would drop.
Any economists care to fill me in on that one, as I must have been asleep for that bit.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
BBC reporting > $70 bl crude prices occurring due to hurricane (and apparently the important facilities in the gulf of Mexico being in danger)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4193946.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4193946.stm
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
A brief history of organic geochemistry
Sometime around 1830 an english geologist named Hutton was examining coal under the microscope and found organic structures, spores, plant cells and so on. Subsequent work by Stach, Fayol, Seyler and Stopes confirmed this and was able to come up with a classification scheme and correlated the different stages of composition with depth. In D.W. van Krevelen "Coal, Typology, Physics, Chemistry", Constitution (1961, reprinted in 1981) these findings and the parallel findings in the chemistry of coal are summarised and analysed.
Teichmüller, M. (1958) "Métamorphisme du charbon et prospection du pétrole." showed that there is a predictable relationship between coal formation and petroleum deposit formation.
The first person to hypothesise an organic origin for oil was probably Pasteur, but the recent orgins of the hypothesis lie with the Canadian geologists Hunt and White around the turn of the century.
By 1912 Engler had shown experimentally that substances similar to petroleum could be produced by pyrolyzing a variety of animal substances in the laboratory (fish, molluscs, whale oil). His method required higher temperatures than seemed plausible however. (I don't know whether he "squashed" the fish first but this seems quite possible ... if it's important.)
A key breakthrough occurred when Treibs, A. (1934) published "Chlorophyll und Häminderivate in bituminösen Gesteinen, Erdölen, Erdwachsen und Asphalten. " Ann. Chem. 510, 42-62 in which he demonstrated that porphyrins, organic compounds found in oil formations, have a very strong resemblance to chlorophyll, being derived by chopping off the phytl side-chain and retaining the tetrapyrolic molecule. This work has been extended today into a fairly sophisticated understanding of organic biomarkers in oil deposits.
The crucial work demonstrating a strong predictable relationship between time and temperature of the deposit, the relationship with depth/pressure, and the resulting mix of hydrocarbons produced (in effect showing that Engler was basically on the right track, but that the complexities of the geology and of processes occurring over geological time were at issue) was peformed by:
Philippi, G.T. (1965) "On the Depth, Time and Mechanism of Petroleum Generation". Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 29, 1021-1049.
Louis, M. and Tissot, B. (1967) "Influence de la température et de la pression sur la formation des hydrocarbures dans les argiles à kérogène." 7th World Petr. Cong. Proc., 2, 47-60. and
Albrecht, P. and Ourisson, G. (1971) "Biogenic substances in sediments and fossils." Angew. Chem., Internat. Ed., 10, 209- 286.
Tissot then showed just how these observations could be accounted for using standard chemical kinetics. See e.g. Tissot, B. and Welte, D.H. (1978, 2nd edition 1984) "Petroleum Formation and Occurrence", Springer Verlag. This meant that reactions over thousands of years could now be usefully modelled based on experiemental and theoretical work to refine those models.
A classic paper of Tissot available online which discusses this stuff is here
Durand, B., (et al) (1980) "Kerogen, Insoluble Organic Matter from Sedimentary Rocks", Éditions Technip, Paris. Mapped out the process of thermal cracking of kerogens against the experimental data from actual deposits and showed that it led to formation of oil, ashphalts, bitumens etc.
Since then, significant work has occurred, but in response to some requests specifically for peer reviewed paper on experimental (and I would argue that the mathematical models are equally important here as explained above) kerogen cracking and other relevant processes, here is a list of references:
Behar, F., Vandenbroucke, M., Tang, Y., Marquis, F.and Espitalié, J. (1997) Thermal Cracking of Kerogen in Open and Closed Systems: Determination of Kinetic Parameters and Stoichiometric Coefficients for Oil and Gas Generation. Org. Geochem., 26, 5/6, 321-339.
Braun, R.L. and Burnham, A.K. (1990) Mathematical Model of Oil Generation, Degradation, and Expulsion. Energy and Fuels, 4, 132-146.
Espitale, J., Ungerer, P., Irwin, H. and Marquis, F. (1988) Primary Cracking of Kerogens. Experimenting and Modelling C1, C2-C5, C6-C14 and C14+ Classes of Hydrocarbons Formed. Org. Geochem., 13, 893-899.
Lewan, M.D. (1997) Experiments on the Role of Water in Petroleum Formation. Geochimica and Cosmochimica Acta, 61, 3691-3723.
McNeil, R.I. and BeMent, W.O. (1996) Thermal Stability of Hydrocarbons: Laboratory Criteria and Field Examples. Energy and Fuels, 10, 60-67.
Pepper, A.S. and Corvit, P.J. (1995) Simple Kinetic Models of Petroleum Formation. Part I: Oil and Gas Generation from Kerogen. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 12, 3, 291-319.
Pepper, A.S. and Dodd, T.A. (1995) Simple Kinetic Models of Petroleum Formation. Part I: Oil and Gas Cracking. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 12, 3, 321-340.
Sweeney, J.J., Burnham, A.K. and Braun, R.L. (1987) A Model of Hydrocarbon Generation from Type I Kerogen: Application to Uinta Basin, Utah. AAPG Bull., 71, 8, 967-985.
Tissot, B.P. and Espitalié, J. (1975) L’évolution de la matière organique des sédiments : application d’une simulation mathématique. Revue de l’Institut français dupPétrole, 30, 743-777.
Ungerer, P. and Pelet, R. (1987) Extrapolation of Kinetics of Oil and Gas Formation from Laboratory Experiments to Sedimentary Basins. Nature, 327, 52-54. (some of this work, including several discussions of laboratory kerogen cracking, is online here)
source of references
I do hope this is helpful
Sometime around 1830 an english geologist named Hutton was examining coal under the microscope and found organic structures, spores, plant cells and so on. Subsequent work by Stach, Fayol, Seyler and Stopes confirmed this and was able to come up with a classification scheme and correlated the different stages of composition with depth. In D.W. van Krevelen "Coal, Typology, Physics, Chemistry", Constitution (1961, reprinted in 1981) these findings and the parallel findings in the chemistry of coal are summarised and analysed.
Teichmüller, M. (1958) "Métamorphisme du charbon et prospection du pétrole." showed that there is a predictable relationship between coal formation and petroleum deposit formation.
The first person to hypothesise an organic origin for oil was probably Pasteur, but the recent orgins of the hypothesis lie with the Canadian geologists Hunt and White around the turn of the century.
source (I'd recommend this source for further information on organic geochemistry, I used it extensively here)
By 1912 Engler had shown experimentally that substances similar to petroleum could be produced by pyrolyzing a variety of animal substances in the laboratory (fish, molluscs, whale oil). His method required higher temperatures than seemed plausible however. (I don't know whether he "squashed" the fish first but this seems quite possible ... if it's important.)
A key breakthrough occurred when Treibs, A. (1934) published "Chlorophyll und Häminderivate in bituminösen Gesteinen, Erdölen, Erdwachsen und Asphalten. " Ann. Chem. 510, 42-62 in which he demonstrated that porphyrins, organic compounds found in oil formations, have a very strong resemblance to chlorophyll, being derived by chopping off the phytl side-chain and retaining the tetrapyrolic molecule. This work has been extended today into a fairly sophisticated understanding of organic biomarkers in oil deposits.
The crucial work demonstrating a strong predictable relationship between time and temperature of the deposit, the relationship with depth/pressure, and the resulting mix of hydrocarbons produced (in effect showing that Engler was basically on the right track, but that the complexities of the geology and of processes occurring over geological time were at issue) was peformed by:
Philippi, G.T. (1965) "On the Depth, Time and Mechanism of Petroleum Generation". Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 29, 1021-1049.
Louis, M. and Tissot, B. (1967) "Influence de la température et de la pression sur la formation des hydrocarbures dans les argiles à kérogène." 7th World Petr. Cong. Proc., 2, 47-60. and
Albrecht, P. and Ourisson, G. (1971) "Biogenic substances in sediments and fossils." Angew. Chem., Internat. Ed., 10, 209- 286.
Tissot then showed just how these observations could be accounted for using standard chemical kinetics. See e.g. Tissot, B. and Welte, D.H. (1978, 2nd edition 1984) "Petroleum Formation and Occurrence", Springer Verlag. This meant that reactions over thousands of years could now be usefully modelled based on experiemental and theoretical work to refine those models.
A classic paper of Tissot available online which discusses this stuff is here
Durand, B., (et al) (1980) "Kerogen, Insoluble Organic Matter from Sedimentary Rocks", Éditions Technip, Paris. Mapped out the process of thermal cracking of kerogens against the experimental data from actual deposits and showed that it led to formation of oil, ashphalts, bitumens etc.
Since then, significant work has occurred, but in response to some requests specifically for peer reviewed paper on experimental (and I would argue that the mathematical models are equally important here as explained above) kerogen cracking and other relevant processes, here is a list of references:
Behar, F., Vandenbroucke, M., Tang, Y., Marquis, F.and Espitalié, J. (1997) Thermal Cracking of Kerogen in Open and Closed Systems: Determination of Kinetic Parameters and Stoichiometric Coefficients for Oil and Gas Generation. Org. Geochem., 26, 5/6, 321-339.
Braun, R.L. and Burnham, A.K. (1990) Mathematical Model of Oil Generation, Degradation, and Expulsion. Energy and Fuels, 4, 132-146.
Espitale, J., Ungerer, P., Irwin, H. and Marquis, F. (1988) Primary Cracking of Kerogens. Experimenting and Modelling C1, C2-C5, C6-C14 and C14+ Classes of Hydrocarbons Formed. Org. Geochem., 13, 893-899.
Lewan, M.D. (1997) Experiments on the Role of Water in Petroleum Formation. Geochimica and Cosmochimica Acta, 61, 3691-3723.
McNeil, R.I. and BeMent, W.O. (1996) Thermal Stability of Hydrocarbons: Laboratory Criteria and Field Examples. Energy and Fuels, 10, 60-67.
Pepper, A.S. and Corvit, P.J. (1995) Simple Kinetic Models of Petroleum Formation. Part I: Oil and Gas Generation from Kerogen. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 12, 3, 291-319.
Pepper, A.S. and Dodd, T.A. (1995) Simple Kinetic Models of Petroleum Formation. Part I: Oil and Gas Cracking. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 12, 3, 321-340.
Sweeney, J.J., Burnham, A.K. and Braun, R.L. (1987) A Model of Hydrocarbon Generation from Type I Kerogen: Application to Uinta Basin, Utah. AAPG Bull., 71, 8, 967-985.
Tissot, B.P. and Espitalié, J. (1975) L’évolution de la matière organique des sédiments : application d’une simulation mathématique. Revue de l’Institut français dupPétrole, 30, 743-777.
Ungerer, P. and Pelet, R. (1987) Extrapolation of Kinetics of Oil and Gas Formation from Laboratory Experiments to Sedimentary Basins. Nature, 327, 52-54. (some of this work, including several discussions of laboratory kerogen cracking, is online here)
source of references
I do hope this is helpful
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Nah. I still reckon it's made by Pixies. 
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Seems like oil prices are going to keep going up and up after reading this. As it points out, Hurricane season isnt over yet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4199584.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4199584.stm
Bernie Gunther said:
Round and round in circles we go.
As a matter of fact, BG, I dealt with these porphyrin and chlorophyll claims back in March in post 728 on this very thread, in a response to Crispy citing the dreaded Richard Heinberg. I'm surprised that such a punctilious professional as you managed to miss it. Heinberg's splutterings appear to be little more than a recapitulation of the 1934 offering of Treibs that you are presenting now.
Richard Heinberg: 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.
See: Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum.
Similar threads
- Poll
