Energy | November 05, 2009 |
Research Findings Throw Some Doubt Into Theory of Peak Oil
By Nick Chambers In 1877 Russian scientist Dimitri Mendeelev suggested that the large deposits of oil and gas we find under the surface of the Earth could be made without the decay of long-dead organisms in a process called abiotic synthesis of methane. Since then the theory has been relegated to the back shelf due to a lack of evidence and the prevailing conventional wisdom that all deep oil and gas deposits arise from decaying prehistoric animal and plant material.
While it’s no doubt that the decay of dead animals and plants is one pathway to the creation of Earth’s oil and natural gas deposits (potentially the largest), new research done with high-tech equipment simulating the conditions of deep earth suggests that Mendeelev’s theory is correct.
The implications of this discovery are rather profound. Although we don’t know what percentage of fossil fuels are made in an abiotic (without decaying organisms) fashion in the Earth, the researchers’ results clearly indicate that at least some of the oil and gas we mine from the earth is produced constantly without the need for decaying organisms.
Why so profound? Up to this point we’ve been fairly confident that the Earth’s petroleum resources are finite, which has in turn given rise to the idea of Peak Oil and the rush to wean the Earth off of fossil fuels. Certainly it’s too early to say if the abiotic method of oil and gas production even makes a dent in the overall production of buried hydrocarbon deposits, but it gives legitimacy to the question: Are we really about to run out of oil?
In some ways the question is moot. It doesn’t matter if we are about to run out of oil because the burning of it is causing major problems with our environment. We should try to wean ourselves off the stuff as soon as we can regardless of the method of its formation. Results like this only serve to ultimately take away from the urgency of that transition. But science is science, and to be done correctly it has to be blind to the implications of its results. I like to present all the information regardless of its implications—from that perspective it leads to a better understanding of our world.
Plus, it’s more of a question of if demand will outstrip supply, not if the Earth can continue to make buried hydrocarbons regardless of where it comes from.
The findings will be published in the Nov./Dec. issue of ACS’ Energy & Fuels, a bi-monthly publication.
Source: EurekAlert
Reprinted with permission from Gas 2.0
Reddit
Digg
Stumble
ShareThis
Comments By Readers
Peak oil has not ever been about the origin of oil. Peak oil is about rate of flow. Period. Using all known accessible extraction technologies, whether the source is conventional, EOR, pre-salt waaaaay offshore, tar sands, even synthetics, at what point can we no longer grow and maintain peak liquid fuels production.
I know you need a snappy headline Mr. Chambers, but this finding no more casts doubt on peak oil then, say, my discovery that my slurpee was sweetened with corn syrup instead of sugar impacts the rate at which I am draining my cup.
The only way this would have any bearing on the topic of peak oil is if this suddenly meant that there were trillions of barrels of new oil out there available right now for commercial extraction. I am sure Exxon would love to know where.
As it sits, all available data tells us that conventional oil peaked over a year ago, an unconventional sources such as NGLs are not likely to fill the void much longer as the old fields get older, and their depletion rate accelerates.
Manufacturing headlines to the effect that peak oil might not be a very real threat is misleading at best, downright dangerous at worst. The last thing we need is for the general public to be lulled into a false sense of security about this very real imminent economic danger.
Post Your Comment