This will make the peak oil loonies crazy

[ilbob]

http://www.isa.org/Content/ContentGroups/News/2009/July40/Hydrocarbons_go_deep.htm

Hydrocarbons go deep
Oil that fuels homes and cars and natural gas may exist even deeper below the Earth’s crust.

For years, scientists debated whether hydrocarbons could exist deeper in the Earth, forming without organic matter. Scientists now found ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can undergo synthesis under the pressure-temperature conditions of the upper mantle—the layer of Earth under the crust and on top of the core.


The Earth’s interior shows hydrocarbons forming in the upper mantle and transported through deep faults to shallower depths in the Earth’s crust.
Methane is the main constituent of natural gas, while ethane is a petrochemical feedstock. These hydrocarbons, and others associated with fuel, are saturated hydrocarbons because they have simple, single bonds “soaked” with hydrogen, said researchers at the Carnegie Institution’s Geophysical Laboratory, with colleagues from Russia and Sweden. Using a diamond anvil cell and a laser heat source, the scientists first subjected methane to pressures exceeding 20 thousand times the atmospheric pressure at sea level and temperatures ranging from 1,300°F to over 2,240°F. These conditions mimic those found 40 to 95 miles deep inside the Earth.

As it turns out, the methane reacted and formed ethane, propane, butane, molecular hydrogen, and graphite. The scientists then subjected ethane to the same conditions, and it produced methane. The transformations suggest heavier hydrocarbons could exist deep down. The reversibility implies the synthesis of saturated hydrocarbons is thermodynamically controlled and does not require organic matter.

The scientists ruled out the possibility that catalysts used as part of the experimental apparatus were at work, but they acknowledge catalysts could be at work in the deep Earth with its mix of compounds.

“We were intrigued by previous experiments and theoretical predictions,” said Carnegie’s Alexander Goncharov a coauthor of a paper on the subject.

“Experiments reported some years ago subjected methane to high pressures and temperatures and found that heavier hydrocarbons formed from methane under very similar pressure and temperature conditions,” Goncharov said. “However, the molecules could not be identified, and a distribution was likely. We overcame this problem with our improved laser-heating technique where we could cook larger volumes more uniformly. And we found that methane can be produced from ethane.”

The hydrocarbon products did not change for many hours, but the tell-tale chemical signatures began to fade after a few days.

Professor Vladimir Kutcherov of the Royal Institute of Technology, Moscow State Academy for Fine Chemical Technology, a co-author of a paper on the subject, put the finding into context.

“The notion that hydrocarbons generated in the mantle migrate into the Earth’s crust and contribute to oil-and-gas reservoirs was promoted in Russia and Ukraine many years ago,” Kutcherov said. “The synthesis and stability of the compounds studied here as well as heavier hydrocarbons over the full range of conditions within the Earth’s mantle now need to be explored. In addition, the extent to which this ‘reduced’ carbon survives migration into the crust needs to be established (e.g., without being oxidized to CO2). These and related questions demonstrate the need for a new experimental and theoretical program to study the fate of carbon in the deep Earth.”

[makattak]

Ahhh... thank you.

That brings a big smile to my face.

Now, not only are the people who say we will run out of oil and drop into the dark ages stupid for not understanding substitution effects from price, we now have evidence that there may be even more oil than we ever thought possible...

Nice to get some good news amongst all the bad.

[zahc]

But if you believe in the CO2  AGW thing, this is a bad thing, because it means it we will be using hydrocarbon fuels for a long time.

A similar thought process says that bacteria-produced biofuels are a Bad Thing(tm) because they can be easily adapted to current infrastructure that runs on fossil fuels. This means that fossil fuels will continue to be used and the biofuels (assuming they reach price parity with fossil fuels) can only be a price cap on fossil fuels which will continue to be used. So although biofuels can be carbon neutral, they are undesireable because it can exist along side fossil fuels which are the Enemy. Mother Gaia is not pleased.

[Sindawe]

To this layman's eyes, the key issue with abiogneic petroleum is just how fast is the stuff generated and seeps into the places we can get to it with reasonable cost?  None of the article I've seen on the topic to date address that point.

[K Frame]

To this layman's eyes, the key issue with abiogneic petroleum is just how fast is the stuff generated and seeps into the places we can get to it with reasonable cost?  None of the article I've seen on the topic to date address that point.

Bingo.

A 5,000 years supply of oil is useless if we don't have the technology to recover it.

[makattak]

Bingo.

A 5,000 years supply of oil is useless if we don't have the technology to recover it.

And, once again, it's a matter of price and reward.

We don't have the technology to recover it because it is not economically feasible. If easily available oil "disappears", then people will invest in the technology to recover it.

John Rockefeller purchased "worthless" oil mixed with sulfur because he was convinced his chemists could find a way to purify it.

He was right and made a killing.

If oil prices become high enough, someone will figure out how to get to the deeper oil as well.

[brimic]

There are entire planets made of methane, why shouldn't the Earth contain an vast quantity of abiotic hydrocarbons?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

There are entire planets made of methane, why shouldn't the Earth contain an vast quantity of abiotic hydrocarbons?

Hydrogen and carbon are some of the most common elements in the universe.  Why would we think they're rare?

[K Frame]

It also took Rockafeller's chemists nearly 12 years and well over $1 million in 1890s dollars to make that possible.

And they had the oil right in front of them.

Yes, we're extending the limits of how deeply we can drill. But the REAL problem becomes just how deeply can we detect viable pockets of petroleum?

Not all problems are easily solvable at a cost that makes their pursuit worthwhile.

[Marnoot]

I don't have anything to cite in front of me, but hasn't there been some evidence of old tapped-out oil wells "refilling?"

[mtnbkr]

Marnoot, I've read the same articles.

Chris

[ilbob]

I don't have anything to cite in front of me, but hasn't there been some evidence of old tapped-out oil wells "refilling?"

It seems to be pretty common. Most "authorities" still believe in the dinosaur theory of oil, so have dismissed it as inconsequential, or oil moving from someplace else through fracture zones and such.

[Balog]

I think the exciting part of this is not "zomg we found moar oilz!" it's the fact that petroleum has an abiotic means of production.

[MechAg94]

It also took Rockafeller's chemists nearly 12 years and well over $1 million in 1890s dollars to make that possible.

And they had the oil right in front of them.

Yes, we're extending the limits of how deeply we can drill. But the REAL problem becomes just how deeply can we detect viable pockets of petroleum?

Not all problems are easily solvable at a cost that makes their pursuit worthwhile.

To me, that doesn't matter so much.  If true, this idea suggests there may always be a steady amount of oil available, but maybe less than we would like.  That tells me the market will take care of it and alternatives will still be developed to cover the difference.  

[K Frame]

I don't have anything to cite in front of me, but hasn't there been some evidence of old tapped-out oil wells "refilling?"

Yes, but from what I've read there's quite a bit of dissention over the process that is actually causing them to refill.

Some believe that it's simply a case of oil transferring from high pressure, low flow areas to the low pressure, high relative flow areas that resulted in the well being drilled there in the first place.

It's like a seep keeping a puddle filled. You can relatively quickly drain the puddle. Once you do the puddle will refill, but it will take awhile.

[RevDisk]

I don't have anything to cite in front of me, but hasn't there been some evidence of old tapped-out oil wells "refilling?"

Yep.  Folks just aren't sure how much it means.  Older 'tapped-out' wells might not have been actually tapped out, just mostly drained and some of the untapped oil seeped into the hole.  Newer tech allows for greater ability to drain an oil well. 

Still, it's nice to have know abiotic production is possible.  I'm somewhat dubeous of the long term viability of biofuels.  If we can continue to increase crop yield and the world population doesn't dramatically increase (relative to crop yield improvements), yes, it's very viable.  If crop yields don't increase fast enough relative to population...  Well.  Food will get a bit more expensive.  Starvation is unlikely (from a strictly supply oriented POV, not including politically caused starvation), but rising food prices cause some interesting unintended conquences.

[stevelyn]

Jerome Corsi made the same convincing arguement about abiotic oil in his book "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth Of Scarcity and Oil Politics".

[mellestad]

I dunno, my thought process is that high oil prices encourage oil alternatives, and the sooner we can get oil alternatives the sooner we, as a nation, can be energy independent.  If we had the capacity to get our national production internally, I might think differently...but everything I have ever seen seems to say that even a best case for full internal production is < 5% of our needs.

Reliance on hostile foreign governments sucks.  I think either algae based bio fuels, or full electric would be best.  Well see if either one ever gets anywhere.

[Perd Hapley]

But the peak oil loonies are already crazy. 

[Nitrogen]

I honestly don't care how it happens, as soon as we can stop depending on the middle east and other despots for energy, the happier I am.  Making the greenies happy is fine with me as long as that goal is accomplished.

[RocketMan]

Making the greenies happy...

Can't be done because most of them are really red.

[MechAg94]

I dunno, my thought process is that high oil prices encourage oil alternatives, and the sooner we can get oil alternatives the sooner we, as a nation, can be energy independent.  If we had the capacity to get our national production internally, I might think differently...but everything I have ever seen seems to say that even a best case for full internal production is < 5% of our needs.

Reliance on hostile foreign governments sucks.  I think either algae based bio fuels, or full electric would be best.  Well see if either one ever gets anywhere.

I find I don't always trust some of those estimates as many of them depend on "oil reserve" estimates that focus on known reserves.  If an area hasn't even been explored fully, the reserves aren't known, such as the East and West coast off shore oil.  I've heard people mention potential natural gas reserves off the East coast, but it has never been fully explored.  Anyway, I think 5% is absurdly low, but the cost of getting to it might be high. 

One other way of looking at it, we are using up all the oil in those 3rd world nations first so we will have plenty to work with later.  :) 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I dunno, my thought process is that high oil prices encourage oil alternatives, and the sooner we can get oil alternatives the sooner we, as a nation, can be energy independent.  If we had the capacity to get our national production internally, I might think differently...but everything I have ever seen seems to say that even a best case for full internal production is < 5% of our needs.

Reliance on hostile foreign governments sucks.  I think either algae based bio fuels, or full electric would be best.  Well see if either one ever gets anywhere.

You might want to check your facts.  The US already supplies about 1/3rd of our own crude oil.  Of our foreign suppliers, the most important are Canada and Mexico, which aren't even a little "hostile" towards us.

Oil discovery is an incredibly expensive proposition.  It's just plain dumb to expend the resources on discovering more oil before you need it.  Exxon Mobile isn't going to spend billions of dollars finding every last drop of oil on the planet today when they already know where to find all of the oil they'll need for the next few decades.  They'll spend money on new discovery only as it becomes necessary.

The practical result is that the known supply of oil is never going to be much bigger than the expected near-term need.  "Peak oil" a crock of excrement, and anyone who tells you that we're about to run out of oil doesn't understand how the oil business works.  There've been stories about how we're going to run out of oil in 10 or 20 years for at least a century, and every one of them are guilty of the same basic misunderstanding.

[freedom lover]

You might want to check your facts.  The US already supplies about 1/3rd of our own crude oil.  Of our foreign suppliers, the most important are Canada and Mexico, which aren't even a little "hostile" towards us.

It was closer to half as of 2008. We produced 8.5 million barrels per day including stuff left over from processing natural gas. We consumed 19.4 million barrels per day of petroleum including that stuff. In 2007 we got 2.4 million barrels per day from Canada. From the 6 minutes of research I did it seems that in 2007 we got the rest peicemiel. The goal should be to get all that we use from our own nation. If the gas wells in western NY and Pennslyvania work out then I would expect to see a lot of natural gas cars on the roads in a decade. If we ever for some reason run out of oil we could always gassify coal and synthesize petroleum from that.

The numbers came from here: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/index.cfm

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Eh.  I got my numbers here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

I'm not interested in picking nits over these sorts of numbers, I just wanted to point out that our existing domestic crude production is way more than 5%.  Our potential for production is even higher than that, but for some reason we're reluctant to drill for our own oil.