Did anybody catch this???
CNBC hosts 'Deep Oil vs. Peak Oil' debate (US this morning 9am EST)
By staffer
In what is sure to be a scintillating segment of television, Craig R. Smith co-author of WND Books' "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil," will go head-to-head with author Matthew R. Simmons in a debate entitled "Deep Oil vs. Peak Oil" on CNBC's "Squawk Box" this morning at 9 a.m. Eastern.
Smith and co-author Jerome Corsi contend in "Black Gold Stranglehold" that oil is not a product of decaying dinosaurs and prehistoric forests, but that oil is constantly being produced by the earth, far below the planet's surface, and that it is brought to attainable depths by the centrifugal forces of the earth's rotation.
Simmons' "Twilight in the Desert" argues that oil is a finite resource and asserts that Saudi Arabia's oil production may have already peaked, leaving the world in a politically and economically unstable situation.
Ultimately, infinite or finite oil reserves have serious economic implications. Smith's "deep oil" argument provides a perspective as to how America's unbalanced pattern of consumption and lack of production puts consumers in a virtual stranglehold by foreign governments, corrupt political leaders, terrorist organizations and oil conglomerates. Likewise, Simmons' "peak oil" claim puts consumers in a critical position if Saudi Arabia, one of the world's low-cost oil producers, experiences diminished reserves forcing the U.S. to buy oil from other countries at higher prices. With high prices at the gas-pump and record-setting heating-fuel costs, Smith and Simmons' debate is likely to highlight the contention that more needs to be done to address refining and exploration problems facing the U.S.
Article found at :
http://www.energybulletin.net/newswire.php?id=10310
Original article :
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47142
Full Version: Peak Oil vs. Deep Oil
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Energy Independence, Environment, Science and Technology > Energy, Environment, Science and Technology Issues Archive
Abiogenic oil theory referred to above doesn't hold much water among geo scientists.
See the couple of bolded paragraphs in the article below:
ABIOGENIC OIL AND THE MYSTERY OF TITAN’S METHANE
As the Huygens probe descended through the smog-like atmosphere of Saturn’s moon Titan, it revealed a strangely earth-like topography of river channels and a frozen sea. It also created a new mystery: what is the origin of the moon’s abundant methane?
The question has only intensified the tone of the debate over the origin of oil and gas here on planet Earth.
Methane -- commonly known as natural gas -- is a simple hydrocarbon made up of one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms: CH4. It generally is assumed to be of biological origin, the result of microbial processes. Methane has also been detected in the thin atmosphere of Mars, suggesting the possibility of life on the Red Planet.
The problem is, given the extremely cold environment on Titan -- not to mention Mars -- there is little likelihood that Titan’s methane is of biological origin.
"This methane cannot be coming from living organisms," asserts Jean-Pierre Lebreton, the mission manager for the Huygens space probe.
Compounding the mystery is the fact that methane is destroyed in the atmosphere by ultraviolet light from the sun, so Titan’s methane should have disappeared eons ago, but some little-understood process continues to replenish it.
One theory is that it is created by the interaction of rock and water deep inside the moon where the temperature could be as high as 750 degrees F (400 C). The process is called serpentinisation and has been experimentally demonstrated in labs here on Earth.
If this is the source of Titan’s and possibly Mars’ methane, it would strengthen the argument being made by proponents of the theory of abiogenic petroleum. Following theories developed by Russian scientists initially, they argue that hydrocarbons are generated deep in the planet’s mantle, and as such, there are vast deposits of oil and gas yet to be discovered miles below the Earth’s crust. They dismiss the idea that oil is a finite resource of biological origin and that given enough time, the world’s oil and gas reservoirs will refill themselves from this limitless source.
Conventional theory as first propounded by -- ironically -- another Russian scientist in the mid-18th century argues that oil and gas are biological in origin, the product of the decomposition of countless tiny organisms over eons of time, not dinosaurs, as is popularly thought. Just as coal beds are the by-product of vegetative deposition and decomposition over millions of years, oil and gas are believed to be the result of the accumulation of tiny marine organisms that died and drifted to the seafloor where they were covered with sediment. This is why most large oil and gas deposits are found in regions that were once at the mouths of ancient rivers and along prehistoric reefs.
Abiogenic advocates argue instead that like magma, crustal methane gradually works its way up towards the surface where it can accumulate under salt domes and other oil and gas trapping formations. And there is evidence that this does happen to some extent. Measurements taken deep in the Kidd Creek Mine in Ontario, Canada have, in fact, shown evidence of abiogenic gas identified by a unique inorganic chemical signature using carbon and hydrogen isotopes.
Barbara Sherwood-Lollar, the director of the Stable Isotope Laboratory at the University of Toronto, and her team have found three different types of isotopic signatures in terrestrial methane. One is clearly inorganic, the second is organic and the third is a hybrid mixture of both. It is believed to be formed when microbes consume the hydrogen found in these Precambian deposits and create their own methane, which co-mingles with the inorganic methane.
So, it would appear that Thomas Gold -- the now deceased astronomer who was the first to popularize the abiogenic theory in the West -- and his successors are certainly on to something. The question is what?
Can the processes on Titan and possibly Mars also be the source of the world’s vast underground reservoirs of oil and gas?
Probably not. The reason has do with those isotropic signatures.
As reported in the current issue of Geotimes, Sherwood-Lollar says, "To date, nobody’s been able to show that same signature in any of the economic deposits. That would argue that any of the economic deposits we’ve found to date are in fact quite consistent with biological origins."
The signature she’s referring to is the inorganic one and the economic deposits are traditional oil reservoirs on which modern society depends. The inorganic signature just doesn’t show up in the Gulf of Mexico fields or the Russian fields or the Middle East fields. Those all appear to be of organic origin.
Chevron petroleum geologist Barry Katz told Geotimes, "Oil is not simple to find and it’s very expensive to produce, and the places that we’re going now are more difficult and more expensive than ever. It is a finite resource, so don’t waste it."
As for inorganic petroleum, " don’t see any evidence for that".
U.S. Geological Survey petroleum geochemist Mike Lewan concludes, "The organic origin of petroleum is a theory based on field observations, laboratory experiments and basin models; it explains currently known economic occurrences of natural gas, crude oil and asphalt. The inorganic origin remains a hypothesis; it has not been proven to be a significant contributor to currently known economic petroleum accumulations".
Even Thomas Gold’s efforts to prove the abiogenic theory by drilling deep into the earth’s crust only produced tiny samples of gas.
So, while there is growing recognition for the phenomenon of abiogenic methane on Earth and beyond, it simply isn’t sufficient to produce oil and gas in economic volumes. Maybe a hundred million years from now, it will have replenished the world’s rapidly depleting oil fields, but not in the foreseeable future.
Originally published: October 28, 2005
See the couple of bolded paragraphs in the article below:
ABIOGENIC OIL AND THE MYSTERY OF TITAN’S METHANE
As the Huygens probe descended through the smog-like atmosphere of Saturn’s moon Titan, it revealed a strangely earth-like topography of river channels and a frozen sea. It also created a new mystery: what is the origin of the moon’s abundant methane?
The question has only intensified the tone of the debate over the origin of oil and gas here on planet Earth.
Methane -- commonly known as natural gas -- is a simple hydrocarbon made up of one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms: CH4. It generally is assumed to be of biological origin, the result of microbial processes. Methane has also been detected in the thin atmosphere of Mars, suggesting the possibility of life on the Red Planet.
The problem is, given the extremely cold environment on Titan -- not to mention Mars -- there is little likelihood that Titan’s methane is of biological origin.
"This methane cannot be coming from living organisms," asserts Jean-Pierre Lebreton, the mission manager for the Huygens space probe.
Compounding the mystery is the fact that methane is destroyed in the atmosphere by ultraviolet light from the sun, so Titan’s methane should have disappeared eons ago, but some little-understood process continues to replenish it.
One theory is that it is created by the interaction of rock and water deep inside the moon where the temperature could be as high as 750 degrees F (400 C). The process is called serpentinisation and has been experimentally demonstrated in labs here on Earth.
If this is the source of Titan’s and possibly Mars’ methane, it would strengthen the argument being made by proponents of the theory of abiogenic petroleum. Following theories developed by Russian scientists initially, they argue that hydrocarbons are generated deep in the planet’s mantle, and as such, there are vast deposits of oil and gas yet to be discovered miles below the Earth’s crust. They dismiss the idea that oil is a finite resource of biological origin and that given enough time, the world’s oil and gas reservoirs will refill themselves from this limitless source.
Conventional theory as first propounded by -- ironically -- another Russian scientist in the mid-18th century argues that oil and gas are biological in origin, the product of the decomposition of countless tiny organisms over eons of time, not dinosaurs, as is popularly thought. Just as coal beds are the by-product of vegetative deposition and decomposition over millions of years, oil and gas are believed to be the result of the accumulation of tiny marine organisms that died and drifted to the seafloor where they were covered with sediment. This is why most large oil and gas deposits are found in regions that were once at the mouths of ancient rivers and along prehistoric reefs.
Abiogenic advocates argue instead that like magma, crustal methane gradually works its way up towards the surface where it can accumulate under salt domes and other oil and gas trapping formations. And there is evidence that this does happen to some extent. Measurements taken deep in the Kidd Creek Mine in Ontario, Canada have, in fact, shown evidence of abiogenic gas identified by a unique inorganic chemical signature using carbon and hydrogen isotopes.
Barbara Sherwood-Lollar, the director of the Stable Isotope Laboratory at the University of Toronto, and her team have found three different types of isotopic signatures in terrestrial methane. One is clearly inorganic, the second is organic and the third is a hybrid mixture of both. It is believed to be formed when microbes consume the hydrogen found in these Precambian deposits and create their own methane, which co-mingles with the inorganic methane.
So, it would appear that Thomas Gold -- the now deceased astronomer who was the first to popularize the abiogenic theory in the West -- and his successors are certainly on to something. The question is what?
Can the processes on Titan and possibly Mars also be the source of the world’s vast underground reservoirs of oil and gas?
Probably not. The reason has do with those isotropic signatures.
As reported in the current issue of Geotimes, Sherwood-Lollar says, "To date, nobody’s been able to show that same signature in any of the economic deposits. That would argue that any of the economic deposits we’ve found to date are in fact quite consistent with biological origins."
The signature she’s referring to is the inorganic one and the economic deposits are traditional oil reservoirs on which modern society depends. The inorganic signature just doesn’t show up in the Gulf of Mexico fields or the Russian fields or the Middle East fields. Those all appear to be of organic origin.
Chevron petroleum geologist Barry Katz told Geotimes, "Oil is not simple to find and it’s very expensive to produce, and the places that we’re going now are more difficult and more expensive than ever. It is a finite resource, so don’t waste it."
As for inorganic petroleum, " don’t see any evidence for that".
U.S. Geological Survey petroleum geochemist Mike Lewan concludes, "The organic origin of petroleum is a theory based on field observations, laboratory experiments and basin models; it explains currently known economic occurrences of natural gas, crude oil and asphalt. The inorganic origin remains a hypothesis; it has not been proven to be a significant contributor to currently known economic petroleum accumulations".
Even Thomas Gold’s efforts to prove the abiogenic theory by drilling deep into the earth’s crust only produced tiny samples of gas.
So, while there is growing recognition for the phenomenon of abiogenic methane on Earth and beyond, it simply isn’t sufficient to produce oil and gas in economic volumes. Maybe a hundred million years from now, it will have replenished the world’s rapidly depleting oil fields, but not in the foreseeable future.
Originally published: October 28, 2005
i bolded the wrong paragraphs. It should have been these:
As for inorganic petroleum, " don’t see any evidence for that".
U.S. Geological Survey petroleum geochemist Mike Lewan concludes, "The organic origin of petroleum is a theory based on field observations, laboratory experiments and basin models; it explains currently known economic occurrences of natural gas, crude oil and asphalt. The inorganic origin remains a hypothesis; it has not been proven to be a significant contributor to currently known economic petroleum accumulations".
As for inorganic petroleum, " don’t see any evidence for that".
U.S. Geological Survey petroleum geochemist Mike Lewan concludes, "The organic origin of petroleum is a theory based on field observations, laboratory experiments and basin models; it explains currently known economic occurrences of natural gas, crude oil and asphalt. The inorganic origin remains a hypothesis; it has not been proven to be a significant contributor to currently known economic petroleum accumulations".
It would be much easier to simply "manufacture" the liquid fuels we required...if we had switched over to nuclear energy, which we presently have 50 years experience with and know how to use.
When we kicj the oilgarchs out of 1600, we can move ahead. If the French can do it, why can't we? Oui?
When we kicj the oilgarchs out of 1600, we can move ahead. If the French can do it, why can't we? Oui?
QUOTE(Eddiejoe @ Nov 1 2005, 08:12 AM)
i bolded the wrong paragraphs. It should have been these:
As for inorganic petroleum, " don’t see any evidence for that".
U.S. Geological Survey petroleum geochemist Mike Lewan concludes, "The organic origin of petroleum is a theory based on field observations, laboratory experiments and basin models; it explains currently known economic occurrences of natural gas, crude oil and asphalt. The inorganic origin remains a hypothesis; it has not been proven to be a significant contributor to currently known economic petroleum accumulations".
As for inorganic petroleum, " don’t see any evidence for that".
U.S. Geological Survey petroleum geochemist Mike Lewan concludes, "The organic origin of petroleum is a theory based on field observations, laboratory experiments and basin models; it explains currently known economic occurrences of natural gas, crude oil and asphalt. The inorganic origin remains a hypothesis; it has not been proven to be a significant contributor to currently known economic petroleum accumulations".
There seems to be more evidence for wishful thinking than inorganic petroleum. :cold:
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.