you have provided no evidence to support your claims. no offence but i'll take scientist's research over your obfuscating Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find What would happen if it were proven that "fossil fuels" weren't the result of decaying plant and animal matter, were actually created within the Earth due to simple chemistry and you could not be scared into believing that we were "running out" of oil and natural gas? Estimates of how much crude oil we have extracted from the planet vary wildly. As late as May of 2009 a report published in the International Journal of Oil, Gas and Coal Technology suggested that we may have used more than we think. The idea that we are running out of oil is not a new one. Scientists have told us that oil is a limited resource which was formed millions of years ago by the decaying vegetation and biomass of extinct species of plants and animals. With an estimated 1- trillion barrels of oil already extracted from deep wells since commercial drilling began around 1870, many predict that we are nearing the mid-point of remaining oil on the planet. But there have always been those who claim that oil is a natural substance that forms automatically in the Earth's mantle. They say that it is virtually everywhere, if you can drill deep enough to tap it. Proponents of so-called "abiotic oil" claim that the proof is found in the fact that many capped wells, which were formerly dry of oil, are found to be plentiful again after many years, They claim that the replenished oil is manufactured by natural forces in the Earth's mantle. Critics of the abiotic theory disagree. They claim that capped wells may appear to refill after a few years, but they are not regenerating. It is simply an effect of oil slowly migrating through pore spaces from areas of high pressure to the low-pressure area of the drill hole. If this oil is drawn out, it will take even longer for the hole to refill again. They hold that oil is a non-renewable resource generated and deposited under special biological and geological conditions. Until now these believers in "abiotic oil" have been dismissed as professing "bad science" but -- alas -- a new study has proven them correct! Reported in ScienceDaily, researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have managed to prove that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated. The findings are revolutionary since this means, on the one hand, that it will be much easier to find these sources of energy and, on the other hand, that they can be found all over the globe. "Using our research we can even say where oil could be found in Sweden," says Vladimir Kutcherov, a professor at the Division of Energy Technology at KTH. Together with two research colleagues, Vladimir Kutcherov has simulated the process involving pressure and heat that occurs naturally in the inner layers of the earth, the process that generates hydrocarbon, the primary component in oil and natural gas. According to Vladimir Kutcherov, the findings are a clear indication that the oil supply is not about to end, which researchers and experts in the field have long feared. Abiotic Oil The abiotic oil formation theory suggests that crude oil is the result of naturally occurring and possibly ongoing geological processes. This theory was developed in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, as the Union needed to be self sufficient in terms of producing its own energy. The science behind the theory is sound and is based on experimental evidence in both the laboratory and in the field. This theory has helped to identify and therefore develop large numbers of gas and oil deposits. Examples of such fields are the South Khylchuyu field and the controversial Sakhalin II field. In its simplest form, the theory is that carbon present in the magma beneath the crust reacts with hydrogen to form methane as well as a raft of other mainly alkane hydrocarbons. The reactions are more complicated than this, with several intermediate stages. Particular mineral rocks such as granite and other silicon based rocks act as catalysts, which speed up the reaction without actually becoming involved or consumed in the process. Experiments have shown that under extreme conditions of heat and pressure it is possible to convert iron oxide, calcium carbonate and water into methane, with hydrocarbons containing up to 10 carbon atoms being produced by Russian scientists last century and confirmed in recent US experiments. The absence of large quantities of free gaseous oxygen in the magma prevents the hydrocarbons from burning and therefore forming the lower energy state molecule carbon dioxide. The conditions present in the Earth's mantle would easily be sufficient for these small hydrocarbon chains to polymerise into the longer chain molecules found in crude oil. Vladimir Kutcherov adds that there is no way that fossil oil, with the help of gravity or other forces, could have seeped down to a depth of 10.5 kilometers in the state of Texas, for example, which is rich in oil deposits. As Vladimir Kutcherov sees it, this is further proof, alongside his own research findings, of the genesis of these energy sources -- that they can be created in other ways than via fossils. This has long been a matter of lively discussion among scientists. "There is no doubt that our research proves that crude oil and natural gas are generated without the involvement of fossils. All types of bedrock can serve as reservoirs of oil," says Vladimir Kutcherov, who adds that this is true of land areas that have not yet been prospected for these energy sources. But the discovery has more benefits. The degree of accuracy in finding oil is enhanced dramatically -- from 20 to 70 percent. Since drilling for oil and natural gas is a very expensive process, the cost picture will be radically altered for petroleum companies, and in the end probably for consumers as well. "The savings will be in the many billions," says Vladimir Kutcherov. To identify where it is worthwhile to drill for natural gas and oil, Vladimir Kutcherov has used his research to arrive at a new method. It involves dividing the globe into a finely meshed grid. The grid corresponds to fissures, so-called 'migration channels,' through underlying layers under the surface of the earth. Wherever these fissures meet, it is suitable to drill. According to Vladimir Kutcherov, these research findings are extremely important, not least as 61 percent of the world's energy consumption derives from crude oil and natural gas. The next step in this research work will involve more experiments, but above all refining the method will make it easier to find places where it is suitable to drill for oil and natural gas. Vladimir Kutcherov, Anton Kolesnikov, and Alexander Goncharov's research work was recently published in the scientific journal Nature Geoscience. Methane-derived hydrocarbons produced under upper-mantle conditions Anton Kolesnikov1,2, Vladimir G. Kutcherov2,3 & Alexander F. Goncharov1 Abstract There is widespread evidence that petroleum originates from biological processes1, 2, 3. Whether hydrocarbons can also be produced from abiogenic precursor molecules under the high-pressure, high-temperature conditions characteristic of the upper mantle remains an open question. It has been proposed that hydrocarbons generated in the upper mantle could be transported through deep faults to shallower regions in the Earth's crust, and contribute to petroleum reserves4, 5. Here we use in situ Raman spectroscopy in laser-heated diamond anvil cells to monitor the chemical reactivity of methane and ethane under upper-mantle conditions. We show that when methane is exposed to pressures higher than 2 GPa, and to temperatures in the range of 1,000-1,500 K, it partially reacts to form saturated hydrocarbons containing 2-4 carbons (ethane, propane and butane) and molecular hydrogen and graphite. Conversely, exposure of ethane to similar conditions results in the production of methane, suggesting that the synthesis of saturated hydrocarbons is reversible. Our results support the suggestion that hydrocarbons heavier than methane can be produced by abiogenic processes in the upper mantle. 1. Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, District of Columbia 20015, USA 2. Lomonosov Moscow State Academy of Fine Chemical Technology, 117571 Moscow, Russia 3. Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
Though it's been in production for nearly 25 years, a huge natural gas field in Texas is now drawing the attention of major energy companies â but only after independent operations proved its worth. Fort Worth, Texas, is built on top the Barnett Shale natural gas field, a field so vast that the U.S. Geological Service estimates it contains some 26 trillion cubic feet of yet-to-be-discovered natural gas. Estimates are that as much as 160 billion cubic feet of natural gas are in place per square mile in the Barnett Shale formation. The Barnett Shale field is the largest gas-producing field in Texas, covering some 15 counties in the northern part of the state. The core area comprises about 120,000 net acres that stretch north from Fort Worth to the western outskirts of Denton. The field was undiscovered until 1981 when independent Mitchell Energy drilled the first well. The largest operator in the Barnett Shale field is Devon Energy Corporation, one of America's largest and most successful independent oil and natural gas companies, headquartered in Oklahoma City. In January 2002, Devon completed the acquisition of the field's pioneer, Mitchell Energy. Today, Devon operates more than 1,700 wells into the Barnett Shale core area, wells that today produce more than 550 million cubic feet of natural gas per day. According to Brian Engel, manager of public affairs for Devon, the company's success in large part derives from developing a light sand, water fracturing technology that permits efficient natural gas exploration from the field. "The Barnett Shale formation," says Mr. Engel, "has rightfully emerged as the largest natural gas field in Texas and one of the most important natural gas fields in the nation." Now that the independents have proven Barnett Shale to be hugely productive, major companies including ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, BP and Shell have moved in to buy up production rights. "It makes sense," explained Tom Biracree, senior financial editor with John S. Herold Inc., an energy research and investment valuation firm based in Norwalk, Conn. "The industry is seeing a decided trend moving toward the development of on-shore natural gas resources in the continental U.S." Why? "It's an economic market play," explained Biracree. "With the price of natural gas at $10 per thousand cubic feet, not $2, it becomes very attractive for the major industry players to focus more attention on exploring for natural gas right here at home." Biracree continued, "Developing natural gas resources in the continental U.S. also permits the major companies to avoid the political risk of working overseas. The rules of the game don't change here like they can when you're dealing with a foreign government." Biracree noted that the industry is learning today how to explore deeper and extract more natural gas profitably from what, in years past, were considered riskier enterprises. "We have growing expertise in the technologies which make extraction of natural gas from shale profitable," said Biracree. "Besides, today the demand for natural gas is growing in the United States and the market has established very attractive prices. It's the same principle why Wal-Mart trucks in snow shovels in a snow storm." In other words, opportunities like Barnett Shale are market-driven. Technically, the U.S. Geological Survey describes the Barnet Shale formation as the "Greater Newark East Frac-Barrier Continuous Barnett Shale Gas Assessment Unit." The rock is identified as a Mississippian formation, dating back some 330 million years. Geologists describe the formation as "source rock" or "reservoir rock," assuming that the organic material in the metamorphic shale has morphed into the "kerogen" traditionally assumed as needed to produce natural gas. Barnett Shale is deeply fractured, with fissures that tended to be sealed by calcium carbonate. The field went undiscovered until Mitchell Energy experimented with employing large gel fracture methods to open the wells to natural gas. The full potential of the field waited for the light sand, water fracture technology developed by Devon Energy Corporation, a technology that fractures the shale so the natural gas can be extracted. The Barnett Shale formation lies at a depth of between 1 to 2 miles below the surface, with the shale running some 400 to 500 feet thick. Commented Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., co-author of "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil": "With the field only discovered in 1981, the Barnett Shale natural gas resources were not known when Shell Oil geologist M. King Hubbert started worrying about 'peak production.' With natural gas resources this abundant, we can be reasonably assured there remains a large quantity of natural gas to be extracted at home, right on the continental U.S. That abundance should be apparent even to those who want to maintain the doctrinaire position that the Barnett Shale natural gas is organic in nature."
Petroleum under pressure Sep 14, 2004 Scientists in the US have witnessed the production of methane under the conditions that exist in the Earth's upper mantle for the first time. The experiments demonstrate that hydrocarbons could be formed inside the Earth via simple inorganic reactions -- and not just from the decomposition of living organisms as conventionally assumed -- and might therefore be more plentiful than previously thought. Methane is the most abundant hydrocarbon found in the Earth's crust and is also the main component of natural gas. Reserves of natural gas are often accompanied by petrol, usually only a few kilometres below the Earth's surface. The possibility that hydrocarbons might exist deeper in the Earth's mantle, or could be formed from non-biological matter, has been the subject of debate among geologists in recent years. To explore these questions further Henry Scott of Indiana University in South Bend and colleagues at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, Harvard University and the Lawrence Livermore National Lab subjected materials commonly found in the Earth's crust to temperatures of up to 1500°C and pressures as high as 11 gigapascals (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. to be published). These conditions are similar to those found in the Earth's upper mantle. The set-up Scott and co-workers squeezed together iron oxide, calcium carbonate and water between two diamonds with flattened tips while heating up the device. The advantage of the "diamond anvil cell" technique is that the sample can be analysed in situ -- through the diamonds -- using a variety of spectroscopic techniques. The US scientists found that methane was most readily produced at relatively low temperatures of 500°C and pressures of 7 gigapascals or below. The sample In 2002 J F Kenney of Gas Resources Corporation in Texas and co-workers in Moscow found methane and other hydrocarbons in similar experiments. However, their apparatus did not allow them to follow the formation process in situ (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99 10976). Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton believes the results are important because they could help answer the question of whether natural gas and petroleum could be created inorganically. "If the answer turns out to be inorganic, this has huge implications for the ecology and economy of our planet," says Dyson. However, Scott is more cautious about his team's results. "Although I believe the Earth's mantle could contain a significant quantity of even heavier hydrocarbons, I cannot constrain how much of this reaches the Earth's surface, or the extent to which it may augment resources that we exploit commercially," he told PhysicsWeb. "I do not want to suggest in any way that these hydrocarbons are likely to represent an untapped energy reserve." About the author Belle Dumé is Science Writer at PhysicsW
Has NASA struck oil on Titan? 09 July 2005 Magazine issue 2507. Subscribe and save FIRST they said there were seas of liquid hydrocarbons. Then they said there were none. Now, maybe there's a lake full of the gooey gunk. A company prospecting for oil? No, just NASA dithering over whether liquid hydrocarbons exist on the surface of Saturn's largest moon, Titan. Until recently, many scientists expected the methane in Titan's atmosphere to come from seas, or even an ocean, of liquid hydrocarbons on the moon. And when NASA's Cassini spacecraft arrived at Titan earlier this year and released the Huygens probe, many were hoping for a splashdown. Instead, Huygens landed on solid ground, and Cassini failed to spot the kind of reflections expected of a liquid surface as it flew by the moon. Then Cassini spotted what NASA scientists believe is a giant methane-spewing volcano on Titan. Finally, there was an explanation for where the atmospheric methane came from. But hang on: Cassini's infrared cameras have now peered through the dense clouds surrounding Titan's south pole and found a kidney-shaped blob that looks like a lake. Its perimeter resembles the shorelines of lakes on Earth, smoothed by water erosion and deposition. The Cassini team said last week that this is the strongest candidate yet for a source of liquid hydrocarbon on Titan. This is the strongest candidate yet for a source of liquid hydrocarbon on Titan Cassini has 39 more fly-bys planned for Titan, so expect more twists in this
New study appears to support theory of abiotic oil You may have heard of abiotic oil, the notion that oil is not the result of ancient biomass --hence the term fossil fuels -- but rather from compressed methane seeping up from the Earth's mantle. Most petroleum engineers spurn abiotic oil as a crackpot idea, but the notion has percolated along and been popularized by books such as Thomas Gold's Deep Hot Biosphere. Not from dead dinos? Setting aside the climate issue of burning petroleum, the idea of naturally replenished oil supplies is alluring considering oil is by far the most portable, energy dense fuel around. With this in mind, a new paper (see .pdf) published in Energy & Fuels, a peer-reviewed publication, supports the theory of abiotic oil. For their study geochemists at the Carnegie Institution of Washington combined the key ingredients for the abiotic synthesis of methane in a device and then simulated the high pressures and temperatures near the interface between the Earth's crust and mantle. They found it highly plausible that methane could form from chemical reaction in this environment, writing that their experiment "strongly suggests that it is likely that, in deep earth geologic systems, some methane generation is inevitable." The theory of abiotic oil holds that rapidly rising streams of compressed methane gas reach the crust from the mantle, and when they strike pockets of high temperature they condense into heavier hydrocarbons like crude oil. The new findings are interesting. What their impact on the community of petroleum engineers will be I cannot say. Posted by Eric Berger at November 4, 2009 04:14 PM
Man, he is such an eagerbeaver, his attempt at trying to prove a fantasy is really admirable. Unfortunatelly too long, didn't read... Which one? The "every limited resource eventually runs out if we keep using it" one? There is no need to prove it, it is obviously self-evident. I am sorry that you never studied American history (it is kind of interesting) thus you never heard of the story of the American Buffalo. Here, I will make it simple for you: When FR (fuck rate) <<< HR (hunting rate) Then animal goes extinct. Same logic applies to oil, coal,uranium,etc. Pretty simple really.... Now instead of unreadable novels, why don't you post the list of American refilling oilfields?
<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='360' height='353'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'<a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent-future'>An Energy-Independent Future<a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:312470' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com'>Political Humor</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/Tea+Party'>Tea Party</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
Thats because there's just no room left for growth with the integrateds. They are generally pretty fairly priced. The money that yall are looking for is going to be focused on the upstream, not the downstream that integrateds like XOM are very focused on. E&P's and services are going to reflect changes in the price of oil better. Compared to the price of oil, think of services as like the 10 day MA, E&Ps the 30 day MA, and integrateds like the 200 day MA. This actually makes a lot of sense when you look at the process that oil goes through. Refineries are probably the least sensitive to swings in prices, while services are the most sensitive.
Conclusion Other questionable fields could be surveyed here, but for considerations of length. Suffice it to say that a sound argument for organic origin can be built for all other examples. The fields surveyed here constitute the core examples repeatedly adduced by abiotic adherents. And we have found ample evidence that none of these plays are of abiotic origin. As for volcanic outgassing, that too is explained by organic chemistry in conjunction with plate tectonics. The abiotic hypothesis remains just that, an hypothesis which has failed in prediction and so cannot be elevated to a theory. It is completely ignored by the oil industry worldwide, and even within Russia. And that is the final testament to its failure. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011205_no_free_pt2.shtml