42 comments on A Primer on Reserve Growth - part 2 of 3
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
While I don't hold much stock in the abiotic oil theory, I WAS under the impression that the depths at which the new oil is being pumped into the reservoir was from a location that was outside the 'magic window' where oil can form and not be broken down. Could the magic window be far larger then we believe?
Absent fluids like water or lava, heat diffuses slowly through substances like rock. ISTR speculation that those deposits may not have been at their current depth for very long (in geologic terms). If we had come along in a few million more years there may have only been gas there.
i have heard that speculation also (rapid subsidence) but what do we really know about the fluids produced from this reservoir? there is a fine line between a volitile oil reservoir and a retrograde condensate (gas) reservoir . now i know chevron's scientists know what they are doing but the difference is not always obvious. east anschutz ranch field in se wyoming is a fine example . i dont know if they have ever resolved the issue .
Who knows the reality of the location of the magic window, or if its just a bad hypothesis of the geochemists ? Certainly Jack 2's oil productive zones in the Wilcox and Eugene Island's recharge zone that is thought to be Cretaceous argue that the current hypothesis is incorrect.
The first time I heard the abiotic oil theory was from a petroleum engineer and drilling company owner named Carnes Weaver over 20 years ago in Houston. He was a great old guy, now dead at least 15 years. He presented me the theory not because he believed it, but rather as a thought stimulating exercise. His point, and its definitely a fact, is that oil is where you find it. He thought any place with reservoir rock was potentially productive. His main example was the field in the Panhandle of Texas that produces 25% helium in natural gas. Helium is not reactive with many other chemicals and has a volcanic origin.
So Hothgar, that's a great question, and I don't know if there is an answer to the oil window theory and its place in opposition to Abioticists
Not the threadjack, but that was by far the best Hothgor post I have read yet.