Friday, May 30, 2008

The "Oil Window"



According to biogenic fossil fuel theory, oil can only be found in sedimentary rock and not below the mythological 15,000 foot "Oil Window." See so-called "Dr." Kenneth Deffeyes's Hubbert's Peak.

The next chapter of this book explains that there is an "oil window" that depends on subsurface temperatures. The rule of thumb says that temperatures 7,500 feet down are hot enough to "crack" organic-rich sediments into oil molecules. However, beyond 15,000 feet the rocks are so hot that the oil molecules are further cracked into natural gas. The range from 7,000 to 15,000 feet is called the "oil window." If you drill deeper than 15,000 feet, you can find natural gas but little oil.
Richard Heinberg's The Abiotic Oil "Controversy"

the temperatures at depths below about 15,000 feet are high enough (above 275 degrees F) to break hydrocarbon bonds. What remains after these molecular bonds are severed is methane, whose molecule contains only a single carbon atom. For petroleum geologists this is not just a matter of theory, but of repeated and sometimes costly experience: they speak of an oil “window” that exists from roughly 7,500 feet to 15,000 feet, within which temperatures are appropriate for oil formation; look far outside the window, and you will most likely come up with a dry hole or, at best, natural gas only.
here

Oil starts out as organic material, any kind of organic material, from algae to dead fish to organic material found in fish fecal pellets. This material must sink to an oxygen-free bottom where the absence of oxygen allows it to decay. Then it must be covered with other sediment and pushed into the "oil window" which starts at a depth of 7,500 feet deep and ends at 15,000 feet in depth. Above 7,500 feet, the temperature is not hot enough to "crack" the organic material into oil molecules and below 15,000 feet, everything is cracked all the way into natural gas. Inside that window, the temperature is at "coffee pot" levels and after a few million years, the organic material is cracked into oil.
here

Much of the book explains how heat "cracks" the complicated organic residues of dead plants to create oil. In general, the material must have, at some point, been trapped between 7,000 and 15,000 feet below the earth's surface. This is called the "oil window." Closer to the surface, temperatures are too low to make oil; deeper down, it is so hot that the material gets turned into natural gas.
The Oil Window.

The oil window refers to the depth at which the process of turning kerogen into oil can occur – from 6,000-7,000 ft. to 13,000-15,000 ft. At this point our "source rock" (the original rock) will be "cracked" into oil. ("Cracking," apparently, is the term of choice used by petroleum geologists.) At greater depths you would not get oil from the cracking, but gas.
And the Wikipedia entry for Petroleum

Geologists often refer to an "oil window"
They all say "geologists" plural but so far Deffeyes is the only so-called "geologist" I've found who has made such a claim (in other words the whole world is learning from this moron).

The reality is that oil rigs have been drilling below 15,000 feet true vertical depth looking for oil since 1938. And guess what else? They've found it!!!

InfoGulf.Com via Offshore Mag: Exploration and Development Below 15,000 feet TVD.

For exploration greater than 15,000 ft TVD on the shelf during the period 2003-2005, 115 wellbores (45 in 2003, 41 in 2004, and 29 in 2005) were drilled by 35 operators.

Those wells were drilled at least 3 years ago. We are finding oil much deeper now. According to Chris at Anadarko, the Grand Cayman well was drilled to 32,440 feet TVD. According to Guy at Transocean they've gone down to 35,000 feet TVD. And Transocean is building ships that will drill to 40,000 feet TVD.

Furthermore, 275 degree heat is no problem for oil: Brazil Oil Trapped by 500-Degree Heat

For more of Mr. Deffeyes's pseudoscience see here: The Many Wrong Predictions Of Ken Deffeyes.

9 comments:

Anaconda said...

KEEPING THE CRAZY UNCLES LOCKED IN THE CLOSET

These "crazy uncles" sound pretty stupid, don't they? But what's worse, they're just repeating what somebody else wrote in a dusty old textbook. "Fossil" theory has ossified into a brittle dogma to be repeated, without critical thinking based on observation.

Critical thinking is dangerous to "fossil" theory because it threatens to shatter the whole farce.

Ideas based on observation -- the heart and soul of vibrant science -- has died.

It's sad that a once proud tradition of scientific inquiry has been reduced to having "crazy uncles" repeat formula that has been proven false so many times over, that not only do the "crazy uncles" sound stupid, but the whole community of geologists do, too.

Except those geologists willing to use their critical faculty and break loose from the dogma: Escape the cult.

And there are geologists sick and tired of repeating the same old bunk.

Brittle old bones. Yes, that's "fossil" theory alright.

What these statements are about is distraction, because the truth is, nobody knows how "kerogen" becomes crude oil.

But they can't say that, so they came up with this mumbo jumbo that has a good ring to it.

And they wanted to sound authoritive, so they cooked up this "oil window" to sound like they knew what they are talking about.

Sounds good, doesn't it -- until it's been proven false a hundred times over -- then it sounds really stupid, pathetic actually.

Working geologists out on the rigs know it's bunk -- but they keep their heads down and their mouths shut and go about their business.

It has turned into a cult as OilIsMastery has put it; for they no longer question or think for themselves.

Sad.

Anaconda said...

I have gone to the best geologists and the best petroleum researchers, and I can give you the authoritative answer: No one knows. Edward Teller on how living matter is turned into petroleum (Teller 1979).

-- Edward Teller is known as "The father of the hydrogen bomb."

Anaconda said...

GEOLOGISTS DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT

"...[Petroleum] derivation from enzymatic ally-created lipids with subsequent structural rearrangement during the process of source rock maturation..."

Translation: We don't know how it happens -- it just does.

"Diagenesis" is the word geologists use to describe the first step of this supposed two step process, where organic detritus turns, by way of low crustal heat and pressure, into "kerogen," a waxy substance, then with further heat and pressure, it cracks, a process known as "catagenesis," into petroleum.

But there are no mathematical models, constrained by chemical and physical laws.

There are no experiments -- just heating bitumen, a kind of coal, or oil shale, what geologists call "kerogen" and having petroleum drip out of it.

And declare: "This proves petroleum is organic detritus."

Kind of like heating a candle and seeing wax melt off it, and saying, "see, this proves wax is organic detritus."

In reality it proves nothing, other than petroleum is bound up in the substance and heating liberates it.

This is so unremarkable, it's a wonder geologists, ever claimed it means anything at all -- but when you got nothing of substance -- you grasp at any straws you can, no matter how thin.

Such is the "science" of "fossil" theory.

Anaconda said...

HOW DID OIL GEOLOGISTS COME UP WITH THE "OIL WINDOW" THEORY?

Geologists will tell you the "oil window" theory was based on physical observations, relying on solid scientific principles.

But this writer suggests the real reason was the predilection to make the facts fit the theory, as opposed to changing (or even discarding) the theory fit the facts.

By the time the "oil window" was developed, "fossil" theory was the accepted and dominate theory in the petroleum industry for crude oil's origin.

The last thing people want to do is admit they were wrong, so physical observations tend to be made to fit the established belief, in this case "fossil" theory, and a lot of ego and pride was already invested.

Very early on, in the oil industry, geologists weren't especially liked or trusted by oil companies. The last thing oil geolgists wanted to do was admit what they were telling the oil companies about the origin of oil had been wrong.

But they had a problem, if "kerogen" turns directly into crude oil -- how did natural gas develop?

There had to be an explanation. Early in the petroleum industry's history, deeper drilling did have a tendency to discover natural gas.

Natural gas was not the target, though, oil was the target. There were situations where to hit natural gas was practically the same as a "dry hole." Even today, in Saudia Arabia, it's common to see natural gas "flared off," as a by-product. This was also common years ago, here in America.

Also, while there has been instances of deep drilling going on for a long time, it's expensive now, and it was even more expensive, back then.

So, to kill two birds with one stone: Explain the presence of natural gas, with its tendency to be associated with deeper wells, and justify not drilling the more expensive deep wells because all you would get is gas. (Early on, in the oil industry, there was plenty of oil to be found at shallower depths, wells averaged less than 8,000 feet.)

Also, geologists had to explain oil shale which didn't have evident "source rocks" in many places, and is less valuble than sweet light crude. Simple, oil shale was an example of "kerogen," an "immature" state that never got buried "deep" enough to mature into oil.

In reality, geologists got it ass-backwards: Oil shale is petroleum that rose into geologic strata that did not maintain reservoir pressure, to contain it's volatiles (or it rose in the form of heavier oil to begin with), these evaporated away leaving the waxy, heavier elements of petroleum. This residue got labeled "kerogen". And when you heat oil shale, or "kerogen" as the geologists call it, the heavier, waxy elements get cracked into shorter hydrocarbon chains consistent with petroleum.

This is an interesting aspect of petroleum: Leave it in an unpressuried environment and it's volatiles will evaporate leaving the heavier parts of the petroleum, but if you heat it, these heavy, waxy elements breakdown, recreating the volatiles, if you will, that had previously evaporated off.

This gave the geologists the mistaken impression that oil shale, or bitumen, or "kerogen" is a precursor to petroleum. But it's not, it's simply due to the processes of how oil breaks down.

This allowed their pedilections to conform the facts to fit "fossil" theory.

Human error is nothing to be ashamed of -- refusing to admit it, after the error has been pointed out, is shameful.

Anaconda said...

WHAT IS "KEROGEN"?

Frankly, it's hard to get an answer beyond qualitative descriptions, like "kerogen" is a waxy, paraffin, tar like substance.

Or "kerogen" is an oil shale, or a type of bitumen (which is a solid petroleum).

Geologists seem to have a floating definition of "kerogen."

In other words, "kerogen" is an adaptable word that can be made to fit just about whatever substance oil geologists want it to.

But, here, is the first atomic weight molecular description this writer has come across: C215H330. Supplied by Louis Hissink, a Australian geologist, who supports abiotic oil theory.

C215H330 -- that is an extremely high molecular atomic weight.

Now, this writer knows why oil geologists never describe "kerogen" in terms of atomic weight. To do so, would reveal just how much folly is behind the "oil window" and the rest of the "fossil" theory mumbo jumbo.

Picture how a low atomic weight, organic detritus lipid (in comparison with "kerogen") transforms into the super-heavy weight "kerogen."

That would be astounding.

And, no doubt, why oil geologists have never been able to create "kerogen" in the laboratory.

But this writer can give a hint how it could be done: Subject carbon and hydrogen and suitable catalysts to ultra-high heat and pressure consistent with conditions in the mantel for an extended period of time and 'bingo' a hydrocarbon, with super-heavy atomic weight would result.

But we will never see that laboratory experiment done by oil geologists.

Why?

Because that experiment would help prove abiotic oil theory.

Now, do you know why "fossil" theorists will never do the experiment?

Anaconda said...

A NEW EXCUSE FOR THE FAILURE OF THE "OIL WINDOW"

This post documents how many times oil has been discovered deeper than the oil window.

Oil geologists know the "oil window" doesn't hold water -- that puts them in a tight spot -- what to do?

Come up with an "out" that excuses all the oil located deeper than the "oil window."

Not that this line of reasoning is even mentioned in any textbook or document outlining the "oil window" corollary to fossil theory.

But that little oversight won't stop desperate men.

Because this writer has read an oil geologist indicate "burial age and maturation" as a reason why oil is discovered deeper than the "oil window."

As in: The oil hasn't been "there" long enough to turn into natural gas.

Think about that for a bit...24 million years (that would be the youngest, most is much 'older'), isn't enough time for oil to breakdown into natural gas, if it's deeper than the "oil window and too hot???"

You have to be an arrogant jackass to try and sell that lame piece of crap.

No, the simple truth is that oil geologists got caught with their pants down.

Anaconda said...

KEROGEN GETS DEFINED ABIOTICALLY

Several of the previous comments focus on "kerogen" and the issues surrounding its origin.

Here is an abstract that updates and defines kerogen abiotically:

Peridotites, Serpentinization, and Hydrocarbons

Stanley B. Keith and Monte M. Swan
MagmaChem, L.L.C, Sonoita, AZ

Kerogen: "Type I kerogen in black shale vents from Mg peridotite-sourced brines whereas Type II kerogen in black shale vents from quartz alkalic peridotite-sourced brines."

And the abstract goes on to indicate this basic division in hydrocarbon chemistry leads to the two broad catagories of oil: Sweet low sulfur content and 'sour' high sulfur content oil.

The abstract states: "Correspondingly hydrocarbon chemistry divides oil and gas into 2 major types: 1) magnesian sweet, low-sulfur paraffinic-naphtheric, 2) quartz alkalic sour, high-sulfur aromatic asphaltic. Geochemical markers that tie oil and gas to specific peridotite hydrothermal sources include nano-particle native metals and diamonds, and V-Ni porphyrins."

Abiotic oil is basic chemistry.

Ridhi Web Expert said...

my gn250 has wierd thing in the oil window. i had it serviced recently and they changed the oil which now look
Thank-you
Silver MLM

Anton de Stoc said...

Just because rocks are currently at a given depths doesnt mean they were always there.