While this isn’t directly up Una Persson’s alley, it’s in the neighborhood, so she might know something about it.
I don’t claim to be any expert on oil. I believe Ringo has the best knowledge to offer on oil matters on this Board.
This thread has meandered a bit, as variations of the “when will the oil run out?” threads do, but I’ll try to address the OP’s questions:
Simply put, yes, the processes that created the oil (and natural gas) that we have been producing and consuming are active today, and new reserves are being created.
This is a bit more of a complex question. First, all presently known reserves will likely only be a small part of what is consumed in the next 50 years, as we continue to explore and discover new reserves. Recent estimates are that we’ve consumed, in the century and a half since the oil business really got rolling, about half of what’s in place already. Don’t think of a steady continuum as you contemplate this, though, as consumption and discovery have continually dodged the pundits’ predictions. And natural gas has become a much more significant part of the picture. Hubbert’s Peak is an oft-cited hypothesis that predicts that, once production has peaked, we’re going to be in decline, never to peak again.
It sounds good, but, we’ve already peaked twice. In my experience I’m seeing that we are now recovering reserves whose exploitation was unthinkable just 20 years ago, thanks to much improved methods of exploration, drilling and development. And I think we’ll see even more improved efficiencies in years to come.
But what that all mostly addresses is the static model of petroleum reserves. What the OP asks, partly, is about the replacement rate, or the dynamic model.
Frankly, I’m still learning about that, as are we all. One good avenue to pursue would be establishing what the youngest commercial production is. I do recall some Pleistocene production, but what we work with commonly is much older.
My own estimation is that there are many reserves yet to be discovered, but the rate of BTU addition will eventually slow for hydrocarbons (natural gas will climb for a little while) as we eventually become more conservative about our use of oil. But oil will be in use for centuries to come.
My understanding is that there a various gene research labs around the world which are investigating “tweaking” certain bacteria to potentially produce hydrocarbons. An interesting field, to be sure.
Anyone heard anthing more on this? Synthetic hydrocarbons strike me as being a very viable alternative - insofar as to this day they remain king as the most efficient “high energy yet safe” delivery medium. Believe me, when it comes to hydrogen powered cars, just 3 simple words are enough to give you cold feet…
(1) Hindenburg.
(2) Hindenburg.
(3) Hindenburg.
Compared to hydrogen, gasoline is an incredibly safe fuel medium.
If I didnt know you better I would thing you were trying to get a raise.
As has been discussed here many times before, hydrogen is rather safe compared to petrol (gasolene). Also the Hindenburg burnt because of the metalic paint/resin dopant on its surface, not the hydrogen.
Well, I was kinda joking about the hydrogen, granted, but I was serious about the genetic engineering aspect. I’d love to hear from someone more knowledgeable about that one. 
It’s not really necessary to get into the genetic engineering aspects of it. Anaerobic bacteria of the Clostridium genus already generate methane from cellulose. They’re the things that enable the generation of electricity from landfills, like this one at Lucas Heights in Sydney. They’re also probably the things responsible for the natural gas, oil and coal that we use, too.
Cite? :dubious:
And I don’t mean quoting yourself in a thread either–outside source, please.
Aren’t most large oil deposits associated with mass extinction events? We’ll never use up all the deposits available as some are just not worth tapping economically. It would cost more to extract it than the value of the reservoir.
Regardless of how oil deposits are formed, the bottom line is we are using it up faster than it’s being naturally replaced. We have found some large deposits that are too “weak” to be tapped. There’s a lot of it there, but not of the quality we can use efficiently. How long it will take for these deposits to “mature,” if they do anything of the kind, I have no idea.
Hopefully, by the time we get close to using up the world’s oil reserves, we will have found cheaper, more efficient means of power generation that are not dependent on limited, non-renewable resources.
Not saying anything on one side or the other, but cites are readily available: Hydrogen Didn’t Cause Hindenburg Fire, UCLA Engineer, Former NASA Researcher Find
Not as far as I know.
The problem with oil and gas is that it’s difficult to date the stuff, or even prove its origin. So much so that people like Thomas Gold posit formation mechanisms that don’t involve dead plants or animals at all.
But in the case of coal, it’s quite easy to show that it’s made (mostly) of plants. The stuff is full of fossil plant impressions. And the available evidence suggests that the thick coal measures are associated with long, uninterupted periods of plant growth. That is, the exact opposite of extinction events.
Sorry, I’ve just realised that there’s another possible interpretation of this statement that renders it true.
The best oil and gas deposits are generally found trapped beneath impervious rock layers, such as volcanic basalt. The activity that created the conditions to trap the oil and gas could well be associated with mass extinction events.
On the Hindenburg
On hydrogen safety
Although hydrogen has wider explosive limits, it dissipates quickly rather unlike petrol which pools. Hydrogen also has a much lower calorific value (energy per mole) than petrol. You can check the conversiions - 22L of gas = 1 mole, density of petrol = 0.7 g/ml, mm of petrol ~ 108.
I’m convinced.
This paragraph from the link convinced me.
:eek:
Um, sorry that’s complete rubbish. As I’m sure Ringo or Una Persson would agree. BTW all three of us are industry professionals. Oil and gas are found in porous rocks below an impermeable barrier. In almost 100% of cases this is a sedimentary rock - either limestone or shale. Extictions or basalts are completely irrelevant.
Anyway, back to the OP.
It is certianly being created today - most obviously in large river deltas such as the Congo, Amazon or the Mississippi. Rates of cretion are difficult to measure, but they are at a low ebb right now. If sea level gets back its normal level (maybe 150 feet above where it is now) the rate might speed up.
Good for you.
You must have missed the bits where I said “not as far as I know”, and “another possible interpretation”. :rolleyes:
This seems self-contradictory. “…we are using it up faster than it’s naturally replaced.” and “…how long it will take for these deposits to ‘mature’…I have no idea.” You either know the rate of replacement or you don’t. That seems to be the question. Ringo - the apparent substitute for The Master in things petrological - indicates that there’s reason to believe the subtraction is considerably greater than the addition. I believe that was an underlying question of the OP. I’ll accept that for the moment. thanks xo C.
On another reading, I guess Ringo is saying that we don’t know the difference in the rates of production and use of petroleum. This still helps put the “we’re running out of oil” statement in a larger perspective that is useful to me. xo C.
I’d also like some explanation and backup for these statements. Is there some reason why you consider the word “impermeable” not to be a synonym for “impervious”? Do you have anything to back up your assertion that the impermeable barrier is sedimentary, like limestone, and not, say marble? Do you see the distinction?
Impermeable is the correct technical term. It’s the antonym of permeable. It’s the term that everyone in the industry uses.
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.
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. Unless, of course, all of the current theories that oil companies are completely wrong.
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.