# if we deplete all the oil, when will we be able to drill again? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 21, 2004, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-deplete-all-the-oil-when-will-we-be-able-to-drill-again/260873 "2004-08-21T19:01:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2004, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-deplete-all-the-oil-when-will-we-be-able-to-drill-again/260873/41 "2004-08-23T16:13:04Z")
I don’t know if I’ve posted these links before. I think I have with the first one, but at the time people were more interested in oil konspiracy theories related to Republicans=Satan, so it likely got lost in the noise. However, for those interested in a scientific analysis of oil production peaks by the USGS and EIA, these two links (especially the first one) give a very good pictorial and text description: (Online HTML slideshow - click the right arrow to move forward) [http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil\_gas/petroleum/presentations/2000/long\_term\_supply/sld006.htm](http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/presentations/2000/long_term_supply/sld006.htm) New article referencing the above: [http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil\_gas/petroleum/feature\_articles/2004/worldoilsupply/oilsupply04.html](http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/worldoilsupply/oilsupply04.html) ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2004, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-deplete-all-the-oil-when-will-we-be-able-to-drill-again/260873/42 "2004-08-23T16:43:33Z")
> [@Enola Straight](#): > > Is it at all possible to revive older wells by pumping down water into them? > > The water fills the bottom of the deposit and the oil floats to the top. This is done all the time. It’s known as infection (it can also be done with gas) from [here](http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DOG/helpFaq.htm): > [@](#): > > Since injection operations began in California in the 1940s, more than 70 billion barrels of produced water have been injected into oil and gas zones. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2004, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-deplete-all-the-oil-when-will-we-be-able-to-drill-again/260873/43 "2004-08-23T16:56:54Z")
> [@Una Persson](#): > > However, for those interested in a scientific analysis of oil production peaks by the USGS and EIA, these two links (especially the first one) give a very good pictorial and text description The BBC did a similar (but less thorough) analysis for the whole world [here](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/world_the_world0s_oil/html/2.stm). Note that we still have an estimated 40 year’s worth of known reserves. As technology improves, we get better recovery from what we have already and get better at finding the new stuff (this is what I do). ---
**Author:** ![brane\_damaj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a587f6/32.png) [@brane\_damaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brane_damaj)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2004, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-deplete-all-the-oil-when-will-we-be-able-to-drill-again/260873/44 "2004-08-23T17:33:22Z")
Slight tangent: Given that both coal and oil are derived from dead organisms, how is it that one bunch of dead organisms turn into coal and another bunch of dead oragnisms turn into oil? Is it just the conditions in which thier little corpses decay or what? ---
**Author:** ![alimarx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@alimarx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alimarx)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2004, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-deplete-all-the-oil-when-will-we-be-able-to-drill-again/260873/45 "2004-08-23T19:27:39Z")
> [@Finagle](#): > > Possibly the most fruitful source for drilling for oil in a couple of million years would be our current landfills. All those nice coffee grounds and banana peels that we throw out will probably succumb very nicely to time and pressure. Hmmm… what about cemeteries? ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2004, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-deplete-all-the-oil-when-will-we-be-able-to-drill-again/260873/46 "2004-08-23T19:37:03Z")
> [@alimarx](#): > > Hmmm… what about cemeteries? Not unless you throw the bodies in the landfill. If you dig up a graveyard, all you find is bones. I’m guessing that the conditions you want for oil or coal formation is something like the bottom of a cold lake or seabed where decomposition doesn’t really happen and organic matter can accrete. Landfills pretty much fulfill the “does not decompose” requirement because new material is deposited fast enough to bury old material in an essentially anerobic environment. If I had to guess where the newest oil deposits were being formed, I’d look at the sites of the undersea methane bubbles that they’re always blaming for Bermuda Triangle-like tragedies. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-deplete-all-the-oil-when-will-we-be-able-to-drill-again/260873/47 "2004-08-24T02:28:52Z")
> [@Tapioca Dextrin](#): > > My assertion that the cap rock is always sedimentary is based on my personal experience of drilling through the things for the past sixteen years. I have never heard or read of a cap rock being anything other than sedimentary. > > Marble, BTW is just crystallised limestone - there isn’t a sharp distinction between the two. The fact that you don’t seem to know the difference between sedimentary and metamorphic rocks allows us to discount your “personal experience”, I think. But since you don’t seem to have heard of non-sedimentary cap rock, let’s see if anyone else has. > [@](#): > > [Pacific Gas and Electric](http://www.pge.com/microsite/PGE_dgz/gas/) > > The source rock is the place where, millions of years ago, tiny sea plants and animals—called phytoplankton and zooplankton—lived, died, and were preserved. Source rock contains the source of the hydrocarbon. Shale is a common source rock. > > The reservoir rock is a layer of permeable sedimentary rock, usually sandstone or limestone. The gas migrates into the pores of the reservoir rock. > > The seal is a dome-shaped layer of impermeable rock, **often made of granite** , above the reservoir rock that traps the gas and keeps it from moving upward. The seal is also called a cap rock. > [@](#): > > [howstuffworks: How Oil Drilling Works](http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-drilling1.htm) > > Over the years, the organisms decayed in the sedimentary layers. In these layers, there was little or no oxygen present. So microorganisms broke the remains into carbon-rich compounds that formed organic layers. The organic material mixed with the sediments, forming fine-grained shale, or source rock. As new sedimentary layers were deposited, they exerted intense pressure and heat on the source rock. The heat and pressure distilled the organic material into crude oil and natural gas. The oil flowed from the source rock and accumulated in thicker, more porous limestone or sandstone, called reservoir rock. Movements in the Earth trapped the oil and natural gas in the reservoir rocks between layers of impermeable rock, or cap rock, such as **granite or marble**. Just FYI, granite is not sedimentary. It’s an intrusive igneous rock. Marble isn’t sedimentary, either. It’s metamorphosed limestone. It’s often formed by contact metamorphism, which refers to contact with magma or lava. It shouldn’t be any surprise to find it associated with granite or basalt, because that’s what the magma or lava turn into when they cool. > [@Tapioca Dextrin](#): > > Anyway, even if there is a basalt cap out there your assertion that it is linked to oil and gas production still makes no sense. The oil turns up in the reservior thousands or millions of year later. What assertion? This one? > [@Desmostylus](#): > > The activity that created the conditions to **trap** the oil and gas could well be associated with mass extinction events. Doesn’t seem all that difficult to understand. Igneous rocks, especially extrusive ones like basalt, can be associated with mass extinction events, i.e. volcanic eruptions. ---
**Author:** ![antechinus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/fbc32d/32.png) [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-deplete-all-the-oil-when-will-we-be-able-to-drill-again/260873/48 "2004-08-24T02:40:47Z")
> [@brane damaj](#): > > Slight tangent: > > Given that both coal and oil are derived from dead organisms, how is it that one bunch of dead organisms turn into coal and another bunch of dead oragnisms turn into oil? Is it just the conditions in which thier little corpses decay or what? Oil and gas - over a period of time, algae and mineral sediment fall to the bottom of a body of water - this is when there are warm sunny conditions with high CO2 to promote algae growth. Sediment covers the algae to give the pressure and temperature required to convert the algae into gas and oil. [Here is a good explanation](http://www.wwnorton.com/earth/egeo/animations/ch12.htm) Coal is based on plant material such as trees. ---
**Author:** ![tygerbryght](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a9a28c/32.png) [@tygerbryght](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tygerbryght)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-deplete-all-the-oil-when-will-we-be-able-to-drill-again/260873/49 "2004-08-24T05:55:13Z")
> [@alimarx](#): > > Hmmm… what about cemeteries? Not the ones in the U.S. in the last ~50 years[sup]1[/sup]. Not sure; maybe the practice of using steel, bronze or concrete vaults and bronze caskets (not all caskets are made of bronze, just the “best” ones) is older than I realize. But in order for an embalmed body to decay, it has to be buried in a container that is not impervious to Mother Nature. And can you imagine the fuss people with the mores of the current U.S. culture WRT death at the idea of digging up their - or anyone else’s - “dearly beloved”?? Of course, if we don’t kill ourselves off (whether through war or stupidity), the culture is bound to change. However, IIRC, embalming, as practiced today, was first developed about 150 years ago. In order for the body to be reprocessed by Mother Nature, the corpses hafta a) not be embalmed (The formalin embalming compound kills the bacteria; that’s entire purpose of its use. Of course, some bacteria survive, but they nearly always have some mutations. My friend (I’ve lost track of) Mohammad Sondossi did his Ph.D. proving that formalin induced mutations in common bacteria. If the formalin[sup]2[/sup] didn’t work quite as well, you wouldn’t be able to get in the same room with a body that had been kept at room temperature for several days (which is why both orthodox Jews and Muslims -and some other religions/cultures) practice burial within 24 hours), trust me.) and b) not interred with forty-leven barriers between the dead meat (yes, I’m being ugly, but until people think of it as what it is, rather than recognizing it as a rather useless thing,[sup]3[/sup] there will be no reversion to even the most minimal of ecological practices) and the environment. Finally, the bodies of large animals don’t get turned into oil, or anything else. They are eaten by other animals, or they are broken down by appropriate saprophytes (bacteria and fungi which specialize in proteins and fats), which work on animals the same way that others, plus mushrooms and toadstools, work on decaying cellulose (plants). \I’m experimenting with using a different font for my all-too-numerous looong parenthetical comments. I’d appreciate feedback on whether it makes it easier to read or harder. Otherwise I’ll hafta start footnoting everything. :eek: Y’see, the peripheral stuff just boils up when I try to discuss things. To write intelligibly without parenthetical expressions, I hafta rewrite ninety-leven times, instead of just forty-leven. 🙂 ## Or maybe I could just use color changes (not bright ones)?? \ Footnotes [sup]1[/sup]I’m not entirely sure of dates. I just know that when my mother died (1956), the funeral director showed caskets and a bronze vault to my father and me, and explained about the differences between vaults. I would suspect that vaults were available for the wealthy long before that. If I’m not mistaken, most cemeteries today require some kind of vault. I’m not sure that was true back in the 1950s. [sup]2[/sup]Before formaldehyde was discovered and used for this, there were a variety of different ways that bodies could be preserved - just not as well. The ancient Egyptians used natron to dry out the body, although they had to remove parts that the natron couldn’t reach to desiccate before rot set in (parts which had to be removed were the brain and most of the insides - heart, stomach, intestines, etc.). Not sure of when it was first tried, but there was a Greek(?) general who died a long distance from home. They immersed his body in a large container filled with honey, which kept both bacteria and oxygen away from the body. Of course, the anaerobic (non-users of oxygen) microbes would still be doing their thing, so some decay was inevitable. Some centuries on, immersing a body in wine was also found to be fairly effective. However, it was the (relatively) modern practice of slitting one of the large veins in the neck, and another near one foot, draining out all the blood that could be extracted, and replacing the blood with formaldehyde (or some other sterilizing agent) which enabled the practice of “viewing the deceased.” However, the longer the body waits before treatment means that there is more blood which cannot be extracted - particularly from the hands and feet (and “innards”). This means that some decay will occur in the areas which still have blood in them. [sup]3[/sup]Either you believe in a non-dying part of you, or you don’t. If you don’t, why would you want the dead meat preserved? If you do believe in a resurrection, why do you doubt that the creator can rebuild your body? That seems to be a fairly trivial exercise for an omnipotent being. Think of the believers whose bodies have been destroyed. Do you suppose they will not be resurrected? I can understand people being unable to deal with such ideas when they have just lost someone dear to them. However, I cannot understand why people would not think about these things calmly at some other time, and think them all the way through. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-deplete-all-the-oil-when-will-we-be-able-to-drill-again/260873.md?page=2)