I unsubscribed to the list last week while I was at a conference in Florence
so I hadn't seen Walter's post about oil. In addition ot David's excellent
critique, there are other problems. First, there is only one oil field in
the Gulf of Mexico which seems to be getting more oil from below. THat is
Eugene Island 330 field which has produced more oil than can physically be
held in the rock pores. All other fields show no sign of this type of
activity. So, they have taken 1 wierd field and made it the standard.
Secondly, this guy doesn't know history. In the early 1970s until the early
1980s, the price of oil went from 2.35 a barrel to $40 a barrel. The number
of drill rigs in the US sky-rocketed to 4500. In spite of all that effort,
the oil production in the lower 48 continued to decline. Higher prices
didn't result in more production. Why? The US was physically running out of
oil.
Third, there is a physical limit to how much oil can be removed from a
reservoir. It is called the immovable portion. The capillary pressures in
the pore spaces are so high that it is energetically impossible to remove
that oil. It won't budge. So when they tell you that 60% of an oil field's
oil is left in the ground, most of it is the immobile kind. It is like
trying to squeeze all the waer out of a sponge or out of a wet shirt. You
simply can't do it.
Fourthly, in the Gulf of Mexico, there are in the neighborhood of 50,000
feet of sediment. And in some areas of the Gulf there are 75,000 feet of
sedimentary rock--that is what the gravitational field is telling us. So oil
coming from 'deeper' doesn't prove Gold's inorganic origin of oil theory.
The deepest well in the Gulf is around 30,000 feet.
The reason oil prices have been stable at around $15 per barrel on inflation
adjusted prices is that we have been in the period of rising supplies world
wide. If that changes, then all bets are off. And that is the issue.
Bartlett thinks technology will save us or Thomas Gold will save us. While
I believe Gold is correct when it comes to the outgassing of methane from
the earth's interior, he is wrong when it comes to oil. Oil does not come
from the earth's interior.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of bivalve
>Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 12:08 PM
>To: asa
>Subject: Re: Oil and gas everywere
>
>
>This article relies on two doubtful assumptions. First, it assumes
>that technological innovation will continue to make more oil
>accessible, and that increases in demand will make presently
>uneconomical deposits appealing. Technological innovation and
>increasing demand will make more oil deposits accessible, but they
>will also increase the price. At some point, the cost of extracting
>the remaining oil will exceed the benefit. For example, if it takes
>more energy to extract and transport the oil than we can get by
>burning it, then extracting this oil as fuel becomes a net loss. By
>ignoring such upper limits, this extrapolation becomes irresponsible.
>
>A second assumption is that two reports of reservoirs refilling from
>deeper sources proves that petroleum is predominantly produced
>inorganically deep in the earth and that this in turn implies vast
>reservoirs deep in the earth. Most petroleum has chemical traces of
>organic origin. Perhaps some is produced inorganically, but there
>are also multiple sedimentary layers that can serve as deeper sources
>for refilling.
>
> Dr. David Campbell
> Old Seashells
> University of Alabama
> Biodiversity & Systematics
> Dept. Biological Sciences
> Box 870345
> Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
> bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
>
>That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
>Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
>Droitgate Spa
>
>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>From: Walter Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 11:02:16 -0400
>
>>" Of all the things we have to worry about in this day and age, running
>>out of oil should not be one of them."
>>
>>
>>So says an article on national review online.
>>
>>http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett052902.asp
>>
>>
>>hmmm
>>
>>Glenn?
>>
>>
>>--
>>===================================
>>Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>>
>>In any consistent theory, there must
>>exist true but not provable statements.
>>(Godel's Theorem)
>>
>>You can only find the truth with logic
>>If you have already found the truth
>>without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
>>===================================
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 04 2002 - 01:03:44 EDT