Harness volcano power, energy experts say
Volcanoes and hot springs could supply up to 25 per cent of America's power needs, energy experts have said.If they only knew: US volcano may hold key to UK oil reserves
As fuel prices soar, Alaskan officials announced the exploration of the state's volcanoes, saying they could be exploited to provide energy for thousands of homes.
Companies are being invited to lease the rights to explore geothermal resources beneath Mount Spurr, a snowcapped 11,070-foot volcano that most recently erupted in 1992 showering much of Anchorage with volcanic ash.
The state Division of Oil and Gas hopes the lease sale, due to go ahead in August, will be the first of many. It is also considering allowing exploration of the 4,134-foot Augustine Volcano, 171 miles southwest of Anchorage.
The move echoes a trend underway across much of the US as fuel prices, worries about dependence on foreign oil and climate change trigger a surge in geothermal projects, particularly in the West and along the Gulf Coast.
According to experts, America is only just waking up to the ancient power source lying beneath dozens of states that has the potential to supply as much as 25 percent of the nation's energy needs.
An extinct volcano in the US may hold the key to extending the life of North Sea oilfields and squeezing an extra 17pc of untapped reserves out of them.Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths
Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister, is visiting the site near Jackson City in Mississippi to see how carbon dioxide is extracted deep underground before being piped 60 miles to force out oil from an old field.
With an estimated 25bn barrels of oil equivalent left to exploit in the North Sea, Mr Wicks said it would be increasingly challenging and would need innovative technologies to tap the remaining reserves.
He added: "This project uses pressurised carbon dioxide which could also be captured from industrial plants so it would mean a plus for the environment too."
Denbury Resources, the biggest oil and gas operator in the state, has successfully exploited carbon injection techniques in Mississippi and elsewhere to recover significant quantities of reserves from mature reservoirs, and it believes the technology can be successfully developed in the North Sea.
Buried under thick ice and frigid water, volcanic explosions are shaking the Arctic Ocean floor at depths previously thought impossible, according to a new study.And just as we have suspected all along: volcanoes: the advantages
Using robot-operated submarines, researchers have found deposits of glassy rock—evidence of eruptions—scattered over more than 5 square miles (15 square kilometers) of the seabed.
Explosive volcanic eruptions were not thought to be possible at depths below the critical pressure for steam formation, or 2 miles (3,000 meters). The deposits, however, were found at seafloor depths greater than 2.5 miles (4 kilometers).
"This kind of implosive seismicity is rare anywhere on Earth," said study author Robert Sohn, a geophysicist at the Massachusetts-based Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
The study appears today in the Journal Nature.
New evidence has also emerged that volcanic areas can be prime petroleum sources. Geothermal systems can also serve an important part in petroleum generation, migration, and entrapment. Many oil-bearing seafloor sediments have been found near hydrothermal vents at midocean ridges. Shell Oil Company also found much oil in volcanic regions in Nevada in 1954, leading to the discovery that volcanic ignimbrites are excellent storage spots for oil pools.
"FOSSIL" THEORY ADVOCATES CLAIM OCCAM'S RAZOR AS REASON FOR THEIR BELIEF
ReplyDeleteOccam's Razor is the idea, first postulated by a 14th century monk, that the simplest of competing theories be perferred to the more complex, or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quanities.
"Fossil" theory advocates ("Peak" oil pushers) have used the Occam's Razor maxim to dispute and dismiss Abiotic Theory for a long time. (I have encountered this argument myself.)
Many simply repeat "Occam's Razor" over and over, as if this proves "fossil" theory.
But:
"All the petroleum, natural gas, and bituminous fields or deposits cannot be regarded as anything else but the products of solfotaric volcanic emanations condensed and held in their passage upward in the porous tanks of all ages of the crust of the earth from the Archaean rocks to the Quaternary. Nothing is so simple and therefore nothing so natural as this origin, and we will see that it can be abundantly proven." -- Eugene Coste, 1903
The key phrase of Coste's statement:
"Nothing is so simple and therefore nothing so natural as this origin..."
Coste is right.
To follow Occam's Razor, one must explain the unknown from what is observable and understood.
"Fossil" theory takes unknown and unproved processes from unobserved sources to draw its conclusions -- "made-up words for made-up processes." This is in direct violation of Occam's Razor.
But that hasn't stopped "Peak" pushers from wrongfully appropriating this maxim.
Diagenesis and catagenesis are unknown "processes" that convert so-called kerogen into oil from so-called "source rock" that has never been observed.
"Never been observed! That's false. All fossil theory processes have been observed and scientifically analyzed."
Wrong! No "juvenile" source rock imbedded with organic detritus has ever been observed prior to the so-called "diagenesis" reaction which turns organic detritus into kerogen. The "diagenesis" process has never been observed or scientifically explained (reduced to replicating "diagenesis" in the laboratory and explained by chemical equation constrained by chemical and physical laws).
Kerogen is a "loosely" defined term that covers a multiplicity of physical substances, from solid bitumens and tar sands to oil shale.
Catagenesis is similarly an "unknown" process never observed in the field or replicated in the laboratory.
Sorry, heating bitumen and watching oil drip off of it does not constitute a laboratory experiment or an observation in the field.
So as to the criteria for Occam's Razor, "fossil" theory strikes out big time.
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."
Oil geologists knew they couldn't bullshit a top nuclear physicist like Teller, so they didn't even try.
On the other hand, as Coste points out, everthing about Abiotic Theory has been observed and the processes understood.
Why believe in Abiotic theory:
Occam's Razor: It's the simplest and most natural explanation for oil & gas formation and presence in the crustal environment.
As natural as a volcano.
Or a sulphur vent.
So next time some "fossil" fool says, "fossil theory has to be true," just put up your hand and say "Occam's Razor."
OBJECTIONS TO ABIOTIC OIL:
ReplyDeleteAND ANSWERS TO THOSE OBJECTIONS
Editorial note: These objections were first placed as a comment at the end of the comment section of the post: Russia Is Biggest Oil Producer - IEA, Sunday June 15, 2008, comment 6/23/08.
(Objection)
"So if the oil-from-the-mantle theory and not from-fossils theory is really true, why aren't there more geologists supporting the idea? If this really is true, why aren't the oil companies exploiting this theory? Is Russia a big oil producer because of their history of this mantle theory, or because of an influx of Western expertise and capital following years of decline production?
I understand that some scientific theories took time to be accepted, however there are a lot of people working on this one, along with a lot of money at stake, and a lot of potential experiments that can be done to confirm theory. So I have a hard time understanding why this theory is so discredited? Are you chalking that up to conspiracy?"
RESPONSE TO TUJ:
Why are't more geologists supporting the idea?
Answer: Because "fossil" theory has been uncritically accepted for a long time and to adopt Abiotic Theory puts you, "not only out of the mainstream of geology," but also, makes you a "Revolutionary" in the eyes of the geological community.
In other words, a traitor.
The "science" of geology is unscientific; in that, geologists are not required to have an advanced understanding of chemistry, physics, or mathematics. So most don't, therefore, do not have the scientific confidence to "step out" and be a "long wolf" of dissent in the community.
Oil geologists have tremendous financial incentive to maintain this belief in "fossil" theory. Can you imagine the reaction in the oil industry and the public at large if oil gelogists were to "all of a sudden admit they were wrong all these years?"
Oil companies are exploiting this theory, if not by name, but every time they explore for oil deeper than the 15,000 feet deep "oil window" claimed by geologists.
("Fossil" theory claims there is a 15,000 foot deep "oil window" that limts oil, any deeper and the oil breaks down into natrual gas.)
Oil companies are investing hundreds of billions of Dollars into Ultra-deepwater, deep-drilling exploration & production of oil deposits that "fossil" theory states, "can not exist" because it's "too deep."
Your statement is false. Russia had increased oil production long before any Western "expertise and capital" came into the country.
Russia didn't have a decline of producttion like you state.
Rather, it was the other way around, Western oil companies gained expertise -- not capital -- from Russia. Western oil campanies learned techniques of deep-drilling, which the Russians pioneered and advanced.
Yes, "a lot of money is at stake."
And the "big money" is on exploration techniques that rely on Abiotic Principles: Drilling deeper in fields that have already been developed (ExxonMobil), Ultra-deepwater, deep-drilling (40x$750 million a ship ultra-deep water drill rigs), ultra-deep drilling on land, exploration where "fossil" theory states there will be no oil.
The experiments have been done and have been analyzed, all proving Abiotic oil, but since geologists in general don't have the hard science background and oil geologists in particular are hostile, the geological community is not interested in the results, and in turn back a "branch" of their "school" of thought.
"So I have a hard time understanding why this theory is so discredited?"
First, Abitotic Theory is not "discredited." There are no scientific proofs that discredit Abiotic oil.
You may think that is hard to believe -- but it's true.
True, most geologists don't accept Abiotic Theory, but competent chemists and physicists know petroleum can't be created the way oil geologists say.
Are you chalking that up to conspiracy?"
No. It's more akin to a "group-think" process where the pressure to conform to the beliefs of the group are huge -- including professional ostricism for embracing Abiotic theory.
Yet, for all that, there are geologists who subscribe to Abiotic Theory because of the scientific experiments in the laboratory and field observations of geological formations and associations that confrim Abiotic Oil.
(I hope this exchange or dialogue has beneficial to your understanding, wherever you stand on the theory. The Cardinal Rule of science: Keep an open mind.)
Anaconda - you keep stating that biogenic oil theory states that oil cannot be found below 15,000 feet. This is patently false.
ReplyDeleteAlthough early explorationists thought this may have been the case, they were basing this on what they thought the statndard temperature regimes were.
As you have correctly stated, we often drill deeper than 15K feet, but this is because these are often areas that have a lower geothermal gradient.
You said, "No "juvenile" source rock imbedded with organic detritus has ever been observed prior to the so-called "diagenesis" reaction which turns organic detritus into kerogen."
This is also patently false - you can go out to large marsh flats or any other areas of high biologic productivity, and scoop up a bunch of mud and sift out the organic particles. Trust me, I've done it.
You also state that abiotic oil theory has never been discredited. Has it ever been shown to be correct?
I will grant you that there are certainly carbon and hydrogen in the mantle, but what evidence is there that these combine to form hydrocarbons which are transported to the surface?
If this is the case, why don't we see oil getting erupted to the surface everytime we have a volcanic eruption?
To Dr. Snow:
ReplyDeleteThis is a response to your statements.
Dr. Snow states: "Anaconda - you keep stating that biogenic oil theory states that oil cannot be found below 15,000 feet. This is patently false.
Although early explorationists thought this may have been the case, they were basing this on what they thought the statndard temperature regimes were."
Okay, I take your statement to mean that there is not a hard and fast "breakpoint," but you still believe in the "oil window" concept.
Dr. Snow states: "As you have correctly stated, we often drill deeper than 15K feet, but this is because these are often areas that have a lower geothermal gradient."
Structure of the Earth and the Origin of Magmas, by Tulane University Prof. Stephen A. Nelson.
Pertinent quote as follows:
Temperature varies with depth or pressure in the Earth along the geothermal gradient. The normal geothermal gradient is somewhat higher beneath the oceans than beneath the continents, at least at shallow levels.
Highlight: "The normal geothermal gradient is somewhat higher beneath the oceans than beneath the continents..."
Ultra-deepwater, deep-drilling in the Gulf of Mexico exceeds the "target range" of the "oil window," and you say that is possible because "these are often areas that have a lower geothermal gradient."
But Pro. Nelson says, "The normal geothermal gradient is somewhat higher beneath the oceans than beneath the continents..."
I'm sorry, but the professor completely contradicts your rational for why oil is found beyond 20,000 (let's say) feet deep in the Gulf of Mexico.
Prof. Nelson also contradicts your rational for why oil will be found beyond the "oil window" off the Brazil coast in deep water.
Actually, Prof. Nelson's statement might explain why the oil in Carioca is 500 degrees F.: "The normal geothermal gradient is somewhat higher beneath the oceans than beneath the continents..."
According to your rational oil would more likely to be found deeper on land because the thermal gradient is lower. But right now, that's not where they are finding the "deep" oil -- son.
Dr. Snow you got a big problem.
I think you don't have any clothes on -- you're caught naked.
Dr. Snow states: "You said, "No "juvenile" source rock imbedded with organic detritus has ever been observed prior to the so-called "diagenesis" reaction which turns organic detritus into kerogen.
This is also patently false - you can go out to large marsh flats or any other areas of high biologic productivity, and scoop up a bunch of mud and sift out the organic particles. Trust me, I've done it."
I'm sorry, scouping up some swamp slime in your hand doesn't constitute proof of anything.
You have no way of knowing if that converts into anything beyond "swamp gas."
What I was talking about was material that was buried in the ground, but hadn't been converted yet by so-called "diagenesis."
And there should be some, since you say it takes many years, thousands of years, for the process to be completed to convert kerogen, you know, that heavy hydrocarbon mix of atomic weight C215H330.
Dr. Snow states: "You also state that abiotic oil theory has never been discredited. Has it ever been shown to be correct?"
Jack F. Kenney has proved Abiotic Theory is correct at the Dnieper-Donets oil field he helped develop and subsequently reported on in minute detail.
Do you got any specifics that you disagree with his report?
The link is, here, at the side-bar for Gas Resources under the Introduction To The Science Of Abiotic Petroleum Origin.
Check it out and open your eyes.
Dr. Snow states: "I will grant you that there are certainly carbon and hydrogen in the mantle, but what evidence is there that these combine to form hydrocarbons which are transported to the surface?"
Please see the J.F. Kenney work on the same Gas Resources website for "evidence" and if you want me to work though the evidence, just let me know and I'll be glad to accomodate your request.
Dr. Snow states: "If this is the case, why don't we see oil getting erupted to the surface everytime we have a volcanic eruption?"
The heat of magma combusts hydrocarbons into carbon dioxide, and also different eruptions have different properties and characteristics -- volcanic eruptions are not uniform.
'Solfataric' emamations have different chemical compositions properties depending on the location.