Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")

LOL!

variable
adjective: not consistent or having a fixed pattern; liable to change

star
noun: a fixed luminous point in the night sky that is a large, remote incandescent body like the sun.

The Inconstant Sun
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/17jan_solcon.htm?list890521
When I was 12 I literally had a better grasp of astrophysics than you do now. You do not even realise that "variable star" has a very specific meaning that is very commonly used in astrophysics to describes stars who undergo significant variations in luminosity, far more significant than the sun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_star

A variable star is a star that undergoes significant variation in its luminosity (otherwise known as a star that is subjected to pulsations). In contrast, most stars have little variation in luminosity, such as the Sun, which undergoes relatively little variation in brightness (usually about 0.1% over an 11 year solar cycle).
You are improperly using the term. Being so imprescise in your language only detracts further from your credibility.
 
When we talk about reserves, we are talking about oil in the ground. The concepts about reserves are metaphysical concepts.
Nope they are economic and engineering concepts that are increadibly important in assesing the potential exploitability of an oil field. The rest of the article is equaly inaccarate and often seemingly deliberately so.
 
Oh no it can't. CO2 only takes a certain amount of energy from one secondary source (Earth's surface is not a primary source of energy) and carries that load of absorbed energy to another system. CO2 molecules reach a higher temperature from the absorption of photons (absoptivity) which are released immediately (emissivity), so CO2 does NOT "trap" or generate heat. If we increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, without changing the load of heat transferred from the surface to the air, we will have a higher number of available microstates to where energy will be dispersed. In which case, the amount of energy absorbed by each molecule will not increase, but will decrease because the energy will be diffused or transferred among a greater number of microstates. The emitted photons are not more energetic than the absorbed photons. They are less energetic because their wavelengths are longer than the wavelengths of the absorbed photons. The longer the wavelength, the less energetic the photon.

I don't understand how thermodynamics works - but neither do you. So I'll stick to simple queries.

How come the CO2 greenhouse effect works in the lab? Why is it warmer on the Earth than on the Moon? Should these objections to CO2's role in the greenhouse effect be extended to water vapour? If so, why is it warmer at nighttime in humid conditions than in dry conditions? Or if not, why not?

The emitted photons are not more energetic than the absorbed photons.

Has anyone claimed otherwise?

E2A: Here's another link replicating that basic CO2 experiment. How do you explain the results given what you've written above?

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
 
Big Fish - you missed a bit in your cut and paste:

Robert Mabro is widely regarded as one of the world's foremost experts on oil and gas. He is the founder and current honorary president of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies and emeritus fellow of St. Antony's College at Oxford University, England. Born and educated as an engineer in Alexandria, Egypt, he has received awards from leaders around the world, including a C6E from the Queen of England, others from the presidents of Venezuela and Mexico and, last November, the Distinction Prize from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia for his lifelong contribution to energy research

In this wide-ranging interview with The Middle East, Mabro explains why he feels it is the banks and hedge funds, rather than Opec, that are driving the oil price to record highs, and why he believes, sooner or later, it will come down.

Hmm. Saudi oil boffin thinks hedge funds to blame, not Saudis lying about their reserves, shocker. :hmm:
 
Big Fish - you missed a bit in your cut and paste:

Robert Mabro is widely regarded as one of the world's foremost experts on oil and gas. He is the founder and current honorary president of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies and emeritus fellow of St. Antony's College at Oxford University, England. Born and educated as an engineer in Alexandria, Egypt, he has received awards from leaders around the world, including a C6E from the Queen of England, others from the presidents of Venezuela and Mexico and, last November, the Distinction Prize from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia for his lifelong contribution to energy research

In this wide-ranging interview with The Middle East, Mabro explains why he feels it is the banks and hedge funds, rather than Opec, that are driving the oil price to record highs, and why he believes, sooner or later, it will come down.

Hmm. Saudi oil boffin thinks hedge funds to blame, not Saudis lying about their reserves, shocker. :hmm:

Actually, Mabro is Egyptian, but don't let that stop you from playing the "he's an "evil" Saudi boffin" race card.
 
Oh no it can't. CO2 only takes a certain amount of energy from one secondary source (Earth's surface is not a primary source of energy) and carries that load of absorbed energy to another system. CO2 molecules reach a higher temperature from the absorption of photons (absoptivity) which are released immediately (emissivity), so CO2 does NOT "trap" or generate heat. If we increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, without changing the load of heat transferred from the surface to the air, we will have a higher number of available microstates to where energy will be dispersed. In which case, the amount of energy absorbed by each molecule will not increase, but will decrease because the energy will be diffused or transferred among a greater number of microstates. The emitted photons are not more energetic than the absorbed photons. They are less energetic because their wavelengths are longer than the wavelengths of the absorbed photons. The longer the wavelength, the less energetic the photon.

<end of derail>
Pseudo science babble at it's best ladies and gents.
 
Bob the lost:

The sentence about CO2 not 'trapping' or generating heat is fair enough, from what I know. CO2 molecules in the atmosphere absorb IR photons emitted by the Earth's surface, reach something called a 'finite temperature' (don't ask me how to define that) and then emit IR photons themselves. The last three sentences I don't doubt either, but am not aware of anyone ever having claimed otherwise, so they just come across as redundant.

It's this bit that I'm curious about:

Wherever Bigfish got it from said:
If we increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, without changing the load of heat transferred from the surface to the air, we will have a higher number of available microstates to where energy will be dispersed. In which case, the amount of energy absorbed by each molecule will not increase, but will decrease because the energy will be diffused or transferred among a greater number of microstates.

Does this make sense and are the correct conclusions being drawn from it? And, if the implicit claim is that increasing the concentration of CO2 can have no effect on temperature, then it would appear to be falsified by the simple experiments linked to above. To reject those experiments would require a further explanation: of why CO2 should have no effect in the atmosphere whilst having an effect in a glass tank.
 
... Does this make sense and are the correct conclusions being drawn from it? And, if the implicit claim is that increasing the concentration of CO2 can have no effect on temperature, then it would appear to be falsified by the simple experiments linked to above. To reject those experiments would require a further explanation: of why CO2 should have no effect in the atmosphere whilst having an effect in a glass tank.

Because the glass tank experiment you rely on does not adequately represent our dynamic atmosphere, which is an open system that transfers heat through conduction, convection and radiation. If we increase the concentration of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere without increasing the load of energy from the surface, then we will have a greater number of available microstates to where the energy load will be dispersed. So if the same load of energy is dispersed among a greater number of CO2 molecules, then the amount of energy absorbed by each molecule will decrease. The only way Earth's atmosphere can become even warmer is by increasing the energy load from the primary heat source - the variable Sun.

I strongly recommend you read the following paper which attempts to explain how solar variability drives climate change:

Which Came First? The Chicken or the Egg?
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf
 
If we increase the concentration of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere without increasing the load of energy from the surface, then we will have a greater number of available microstates to where the energy load will be dispersed. So if the same load of energy is dispersed among a greater number of CO2 molecules, then the amount of energy absorbed by each molecule will decrease. The only way Earth's atmosphere can become even warmer is by increasing the energy load from the primary heat source - the variable Sun.

This is completely wrong because it ignores the rate at which energy is lost to the surroundings (space), which is the key factor. (Also see graph on other thread.)
 
More deep oil found of the coast of Brazil

By Joao Lima

Aug. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Galp Energia SGPS SA, Portugal's biggest oil company, rose in Lisbon trading after finding light crude oil in a deepwater well in Brazil's Santos Basin, the location of the biggest discovery in the Americas since 1976.

The Iara well discovery is in the same block as the Tupi find, estimated to contain as many as 8 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
.....
Tupi is the largest oil discovery in the Americas since Mexico's Cantarell field was found in 1976, and compares with the 12 billion barrels held at Kazakhstan's Kashagan field, the largest oil find in the last three decades.
....

Estimated Reserves

"Given the discovery, recoverable reserves on block BM-S- 11 could increase to 10 billion barrels from currently 5 billion to 8 billion barrels,'' Kapadia said.

Iara is in Brazil's "pre-salt'' offshore region, a new oil province that may contain about 50 billion barrels of oil according to Peter Wells, a director at U.K. research company Neftex Petroleum Consultants Ltd. The Iara well, which has yet to be declared commercially viable, is still being drilled in the hope of finding more oil at greater depths.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=apF4vLM1ZVqg&refer=latin_america
 
Because the glass tank experiment you rely on does not adequately represent our dynamic atmosphere, which is an open system that transfers heat through conduction, convection and radiation.

But the glass tank experiment doesn't set out to model the Earth's atmosphere. What it does is demonstrate certain heat-absorbing and radiating properties of CO2 molecules. By extension, it would also do the same for other greenhouse gases, such as water vapour and methane.

Why shouldn't these properties be scaleable? It is parsimonious to assume they are.

bigfish said:
If we increase the concentration of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere without increasing the load of energy from the surface, then we will have a greater number of available microstates to where the energy load will be dispersed. So if the same load of energy is dispersed among a greater number of CO2 molecules, then the amount of energy absorbed by each molecule will decrease.

A repetition is not an explanation - you already wrote words to the same effect in your post-before-last. Google shows that the term 'microstates' is part and parcel of statistical mechanics. This is quite beyond my knowledge and understanding, and yours too, I suspect.

How then are we to make sense of this, if at all? The statement appears to imply some state of equilibrium, like that maintained by the governor on a steam engine. So, if adding more greenhouse gases produces no overall effect, then subtracting them should have no effect either.

A single ton of greenhouse gases dispersed throughout the whole atmosphere would thus have the same effect as however many gigatonnes are actually present. This seems counterintuitive, to say the least.

Or does it imply that there is no greenhouse effect at all? We are back to the glass tank again, to the difference between the temperatures found on the Earth and the Moon, to everyday observations of the nighttime temperatures when there is a cloudless versus a cloudy sky, and the fact that virtually no-one who has made serious study of how our climate works claims there is no greenhouse effect - not even staunch AGW skeptics like Richard Lindzen.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080812/us_nm/usa_oil_demand_dc_2

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. oil demand during the first half of 2008 fell by an average 800,000 barrels per day (bpd) compared with the same period a year ago, the biggest volume decline in 26 years, the Energy Information Administration said on Tuesday.

In its latest monthly energy forecast, the EIA said the huge drop in demand was due to slower U.S. economic growth and the impact of high petroleum prices.

The drop in U.S. oil demand helped offset a 1.3-million bpd increase in petroleum consumption in nonindustrial countries during the first half of the year.

As a result, preliminary data shows that global oil consumption rose by 500,000 bpd in the six-month period, the EIA said.
 
A repetition is not an explanation - you already wrote words to the same effect in your post-before-last. Google shows that the term 'microstates' is part and parcel of statistical mechanics. This is quite beyond my knowledge and understanding, and yours too, I suspect.

Knowing some statistical mechanics, there's no need to talk about microstates. You could just say "there is more CO2 to absorb the heat". To be a pedant, increasing the concentration of CO2 isn't the issue, it's increasing the amount. And anyway the bigfish paragraph you quoted misses the point completely. A higher [CO2] increases the greenhouse effect.
 
So in other words, misunderstood and needlessly technical terms were being deployed in an attempt to appear clever and on top of the game.
 
Oil's Big Dirty Secret as Producers Rake in Hundreds of Billions

Every day we are being fed the unceasing lesson from the same hymnal, that oil is running out "tomorrow," come and get it while you still can, not unlike 1855 when Samuel Kier's Rock Oil patent medicine made from Pennsylvania crude oil touted to cure everything from diarrhea, rheumatism, ringworm to deafness, solemnly cautioning buyers, "Hurry Before This Wonderful Product is Depleted from Nature's Laboratory." This while The Peak Oil Pranksters are ever ready to carry the message for the oil patch both here and everywhere working near overtime to heighten our anxieties about oil supply, programming us to pay ever more to the oil barons and sheiks.

But wait, suppose, just suppose they are wrong and willfully misleading us. That oil's origins are not, to repeat, not biological, according to the gospel we have been taught to believe. That in effect oil originates from deep carbon deposits dating to the very beginnings of the Earth's formation in quantities vastly greater than commonly thought. The very presence of methane in the solar system is cited as one of the key underpinnings of this theory's seriousness. Then by seepage through the earth's mantle, Abiotic oil becomes in essence a renewing resource migrating toward the Earth's crust until it escapes to the surface (i.e. Canada's tar sands as theorized by some) or trapped by impermeable strata forming petroleum reservoirs.

Much research has been done on Abiotic Theory by a bevy of Russian and Ukranian geologists starting during the Soviet era, most especially by Nikolai Alexandrovich Kurdryavtsev who proposed the modern Abiotic Theory of Petroleum in 1951.

Among Kurdryavtsev's colleagues was Professor V.A. Krayushkin, chair of the Dept. of Petroleum Exploration at the Ukranian Academy of Sciences and leader of the DneiperDonets Basin Exploration project in the Ukraine, an area that has yielded eleven giant oil fields holding at least 65 billion barrels of oil and some 100 billion cubic meters of recoverable gas, comparable to the North Slope of Alaska . The area had previously been designated as having no potential for petroleum production whatsoever. Exploration, according to a paper by Richard Heinberg, was conducted entirely according to the "perspective of the modern Russian Ukranian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins".

Question, how often have you heard of M. King Hubbert and his peak oil theories dating to 1949 and how often have you heard of Kurdryavtsev or Krayushkin? Certainly, for those having some interest in Peak Oil jargon, Hubbert's name comes up endlessly, while Kurdryavtsev and Krayushkin probably never, or rarely if at all. But then again Hubbert was Chief Consultant for Shell Oil's Production Research Division and his theories served their Marketing Department well. His predictions first made in 1949 that the fossil fuel era would be of very short duration made him, with help of the fine hand of oil industry flacks, probably the best known geophysicist of his time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/oils-dirty-big-secret-as_b_118380.html
 
That's odd, the USGS seems to think the basin in question has lots of sedimentary layers, including marine and alluvial layers (where you'd expect biomass to be deposited) and has discovered reserves of a mere 1.6 billion barrels of oil. It's a rift basin, somewhere you'd commonly expect to find oil.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/2201/E/

There's a PDF report with far more detail than this post requires. I'm scanning it now, and there don't seem to be many gaping holes into which an abiotic theory needs to be inserted. In fact, it contains a very detailed history of the geology of the area, consistent with the boigenic theory of oil production.
 
The thing is, even if oil is abiotic, that

a. doesn't alter the fact that burning it in the quantities we are is fucking up the environment

b. no one knows what the replacement rate for abiotic oil is - fat lot of good if it's 1 barrel per century!

c. as a species we should be moving away from generating methods that are merely ultra-sophisticated variants on getting some wood and flint and starting a fire - it might have loads of engineering around it, but we basically power ourselves the same way our pre-historic ancestors did, by burning stuff from the ground. If we want to think of ourselves as moving on, surely the way we generate our energy, the foundation of our civilisation, should move on too? Or at least find cleaner and more sustainable ways of burning stuff (which I acknowledge is what fusion amounts to as well)
 
That's odd, the USGS seems to think the basin in question has lots of sedimentary layers, including marine and alluvial layers (where you'd expect biomass to be deposited) and has discovered reserves of a mere 1.6 billion barrels of oil. It's a rift basin, somewhere you'd commonly expect to find oil.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/2201/E/

There's a PDF report with far more detail than this post requires. I'm scanning it now, and there don't seem to be many gaping holes into which an abiotic theory needs to be inserted. In fact, it contains a very detailed history of the geology of the area, consistent with the boigenic theory of oil production.

The thing is, some of the oil and gas extracted from the Dnieper-Donetsk comes directly from the Precambrian (pre-life!) crystalline basement. So the first thing you need to do is come up with a rational explanation of how this so called "fossil fuel", originating on the Earth's surface, managed to find its way all the way down to the Precambrian crystalline basement. The second thing you need to do is come up with an explanation of how decaying biological matter of low energy potential originating on the surface is transformed somehow into H-C molecules of high energy potential found in the Precambrian crystalline basement, without violating the laws of thermodynamics.

The Drilling & Development of the Oil & Gas Fields in the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin

These results, taken either individually or together, confirm the scientific conclusions that the oil and natural gas found both in the Precambrian crystalline basement and the sedimentary cover of the Northern Monoclinal Flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin are of deep, and abiotic, origin.

The exploration drilling is still in progress and continues to yield success. As of this date (September 2001), there are more than 50 commercial commercially oil and gas fields in the 100km×600km strip of the northern flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin. One field produces gas from Jurassic age sandstones; thirty-two produce oil or gas from middle-lower Carboniferous age sandstones; fifteen produce from both Carboniferous age sandstones and lower crystalline basement rocks (amphibolites, crystalline schists, granites, gneisses, granodiorites); two fields produce oil and gas solely from the crystalline basement.

http://www.gasresources.net/DDBflds2.htm
 
Part the first:

1. This is a basin structure, ie. a dip in the basement. Therefore, the basement is higher at the edges than it is in the center.
2. There are many faults in the basin, which expose the sides of basement layers directly to the adjacent sedimentary rock
3. Therefore, it is possible for oil to migrate from adjacent, deeper sedimentary formation, to higher yet older basement rocks via faultlines.
4. The basement-lodged oil is found at the boundaries of the basin.

Given that the vast majority of the oil in the basin comes from rocks of Cambrian and younger rocks, and not from the Pre-Cambrian rocks, this interpretation of the facts seems reasonable to me. If they dig a well in the center of the basin, all the way to the basement and find oil there, then I will be surprised and also much more friendly to the abiogenic hypothesis.

Part the second:

Given your position on the thermodynamics of the sun and the atmosphere, I don't think arguing this point with you is of any value whatsoever.
 
Of course, as before, the choice of the biogenic or abiogenic hypothesis has little effect on Peak Oil, because it's production rates that matter. If the earth doesn't produce oil faster than we use it, then it will run out.
 
The thing is, even if oil is abiotic, that ...

b. no one knows what the replacement rate for abiotic oil is - fat lot of good if it's 1 barrel per century!

But we can set an upper bound on the replacement rate, starting from the observation that we're not knee-deep in oil and the supposition that there is no way that production of abiotic oil could be triggered by the invention of the internal combustion engine.

We did the sums, years ago, on these very boards, and the maximum rate is not large.

Hint:

Oil Age =~ 100 years.

Earth Age =~ 4,500,000,000 years
 
Good old OPEC.
How much longer can it prop up the rest of the world? (which has been in decline since 2005)
And how soon before another OPEC member becomes a net importer? (Like Indonesia just did)
 
Back
Top Bottom