Chevron Finds Big Oil Field

by **Dreams End** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:11 pm

Somehow, Nostradamus...aka Hubbert....was able to see in the future and account for undiscovered oil and new technology and still see a Peak. But new discoveries come as do new technologies....but read this article and someone who knows oil please explain how oil of biotic origin is under 7000 feet of water and 20,000 feet of bedrock. What is the conventional explanation of how that much biological material gets that far down? Surely it's not that there's 20,000 feet of sediment... It's kind of a side issue, but I really am curious. Why are Peakers so convinced there won't be more such discoveries? I'm not sure I'm real happy about digging that far under the sea with all the potential environmental disasters, but from a pure engineering standpoint, it is amazing...and probably not taken into account by past attempts to gauge world oil supplies. The other thing I don't like is how the article says "Hey, look what these high oil prices made possible!" Anyway, what do you think? <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Major U.S. oil source is tapped Successful test by Chevron partners in deep Gulf waters could rival Alaska in potential supply; U.S. reserves may swell 50 percent. By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer September 5 2006: 1:31 PM EDT NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Chevron and its partners have successfully extracted oil from a test well in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, an achievement that could be the biggest breakthrough in domestic oil supplies since the opening of the Alaskan pipeline. The news sent oil prices lower, with U.S. light crude for October delivery sinking 69 cents to $68.50 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. In Focus: Energy Bailing on Big Oil Oil stocks just won't quit, but with crude prices slowing along with the economy, is now the time to sell? (more) An All-American oil stock As the supply of oil looks increasingly uncertain, Anadarko is buying up safe North American oil and gas reserves. (more) Betting billions on liquefied natural gas Slacking crude reserves and rising demand are driving what some are calling one of the biggest investment trends in the world. (more) The announcement helped dampen fears that oil supplies would be swamped by growing global demand, a concern that helped lift oil to record highs this summer, unadjusted for inflation. But experts cautioned that relief at the pump from the breakthrough is many years away. "It sounds terrific, but this means nothing for the near-term period," said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst for the Oil Price Information Service, which surveys gasoline prices daily for AAA. "But it should remind everyone that before they buy into the reckoning of $100 a barrel oil that all those estimates don't take into account tremendous amount of money can be spent on exploration when prices are at these levels." Shares of the three partners in the test well known as "Jack 2" rose sharply in trading Tuesday. Chevron (up $2.10 to $66.93, Charts), which owns a 50 percent stake, jumped 3 percent, while Devon Energy (up $8.21 to $72.36, Charts) soared nearly 12 percent, and Norwegian oil company Statoil (up $0.57 to $28.08, Charts)'s U.S. shares added about 2 percent. Devon and Statoil each own 25 percent stakes. Shares of other major oil companies with rights to this area of the Gulf, including Exxon Mobil (Charts), BP (Charts) and Royal Dutch Shell (Charts), rose modestly on the news. Neither Chevron nor Devon would say how long it would take for oil from the well to reach market. Experts say it will take billions of dollars to build the deepwater oil platforms and pipelines needed to extract the oil and get it into world markets. "At best we're not going to see a drop of oil for five years, maybe seven years," said Fadel Gheit, oil analyst for Oppenheimer. "It's great news for Chevron and even more so for Devon. But you can't hold your breath waiting for it." A boon for the United States Almost all the oil platforms in the Gulf are relatively close to the shore, on a shelf that puts them in less than 1,700 feet of water. In recent years, oil has been found in the deeper waters of the Gulf known as the "lower tertiary" area, where the water is between 5,000 to 10,000 feet deep, but it had yet to be proved that oil could be extracted in enough volume to make such finds practical. The Jack 2 well, which is 175 miles offshore, is in more than 7,000 feet of water and then drilled through more than 20,000 feet of rock below the sea floor, or about five miles below the surface of the Gulf. Chevron said the test had a flow rate of more than 6,000 barrels of crude oil a day. Chevron would not estimate how much its reserves would be increased as a result of the test, nor would Devon. But Chevron said that it now believes the lower tertiary region of the Gulf could hold reserves of 3 billion to 15 billion barrels of oil. Total established U.S. reserves are estimated at less than 30 billion barrels. "Until now no one was sure if the oil in this play would flow," said Zoe Sutherland, North American oil exploration analyst for Wood Mackenzie, a global oil research and consulting firm. "It doesn't matter how many large discoveries you have if you can't produce it. This is very exciting news." Sutherland said it is fair to compare the breakthrough with the opening up of the North Slope of Alaska in terms of U.S. supply. Ohio Northern University Professor A. F. Alhajji said the implications of this successful test could also help to open greater offshore supplies at other fields around the globe. He said that could mean even greater addition to worldwide reserves than those that now seem to be within reach in the Gulf. "Whatever technology they used, I can tell you companies are scrambling right now to try to use it," said Alhajji. Gheit said that it is only with oil at its current historically high prices that exploration at these depths really became economically practical. "This is the silver lining of higher oil prices," he said. "If we didn't have higher oil prices, they wouldn't have dared to risk this much capital here." <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/05/news/companies/chevron_gulf/index.htm?cnn=yes">link</a><hr></blockquote>

by **5E6A** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:37 pm

...could hold reserves of 3 billion to 15 billion barrels of oil. The world currently swallows 30 billion barrels of oil annually. When geologists guesstimate a find, they assign a confidence rating to their findings. Usually, a 5% finding and 95% finding are calculated. Peer review journals usually only concern themselves with the 95% findings, meaning they publish results which have a 95% statistical probability of reflecting reality. Although it is not explicitly stated, we can probably assume that the 95% finding is 3 billion barrels and the 5% finding is 15 billion barrels. That means that the oil discovered has a 95% chance of satisfying global demand for 36 days. Or it might, 5% chance, supply world demand for 6 months. This assumes static rates of growth, not a realistic aspect of consumerism, and that the field would be sole supplier of world oil. Still, its ability to prolong the party is minimal considering its stature with respect to annual consumption. These are not large discoveries with respect to global demand as required by the support of modern lifestyles. Again, for perspective, the US consumes 25% of all oil produced each day, yet represents less than 5% of the global population. How long do you think this find would stretch if all of the 6+ billion on the planet consumed like the average American? Finally, there is a reason behind touting these finds at great depth. They are the last uncharted frontier of oil exploration. Despite massive investment and technological improvements in the ability of oil geologists to earmark potential finds, the rate of discovery has declined every single year since the early 1960's. At present rates, if one is to believe what is corroborated between private and public data sources, we now consume over 6 barrels of oil from previous finds for every single barrel discovered new in one year. Deep water is the last place on earth that has yet to be subjected to the rigorous exploration that has occurred on land. Yes, water does indeed cover a majority of the earth. However the sobering fact is that just fifty years ago, a find of 5-15 billion barrels was considered paltry and may have received a designation of less than desirable for exploitation. A 5 to 15 barrel deposit was not a big news item for the industry mid 20th century. Why is it such a cause for celebration now? Because the threshold has changed. Like it or not, the agendists miscalculated on the nature of finite resources that allowed their hegemonic advances of the 20th century. They are now caught between a rock and a hard place. Nothing will be easy in adjusting to less supply. Least of all for those who have always been at the short end of the stick to the agendists. PO is not a ruse. It has caught the hegemony with their pants down. It also provides an excellent source of leverage for the bulk of humanity to subvert the dominant paradigm. All that is required is that the nay-sayers relax their dogma and look to the bright side of what should be power to the people...

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:53 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It's kind of a side issue, but I really am curious. <hr></blockquote> Maybe the Alvarez Impact has something to do with it? That was a fairly sensational collision. [No idea myself, just a random thought] ____________________ Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.

by **chiggerbit** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:53 pm

I read somewhere once that, I think it might have been the Russians, believed that there was oil under the big meteor impact sites.

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:07 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I read somewhere once that, I think it might have been the Russians, believed that there was oil under the big meteor impact sites.<hr></blockquote> Interesting. I read a book once on the diamond insudtry's race to synthesize diamonds and was intrigued by the pyhical effects of compression and time. The trails and errors of these geophysicists were no less fascinating, and I'm sure along the way many things were learned peripherally that were not included in the book I read, naturally. But just a Gedanken for kicks, among friends: Say Asteroid/Comet/Metoerite impacts are a factor in oil field's creations, and the actual impact itself provides the pressure to liguify a certain substrate, etc into oil itself. Until we were able to synthesize the effects of that kind of pressure vs very brief timeframes we wouldn't be able to test a hypothesis like that, correct? The way Diamonds are created is through incredible pressures over a period of time, and they learned to synthesize them using greater pressures(I believe; it's been 10 years since I read the book) to overcome the natural time requirements, but not as I recall, instantaneously, like an impact. Feedback? ____________________ Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.

by **Bismillah** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:14 pm

Less than two turns of the galaxy ago, what is now North-West England was part of what is now Norway. Hard to believe, but true. Shit happens, especially when it has plenty of time at its disposal. As for the theory that oil has an abiotic origin, I don't find it prima facie implausible. In fact, I remember a very interesting classroom discussion in my last year at primary school, when a very clever kid said, "Miss, how can that many dinosaurs have died and turned into oil?" She pointed out that it wan't just dinosaurs, but mainly algae and micro-organisms and primitive plants, over the course of gazillions of years. Nonetheless, Joe F.'s doubts were certainly not stupid in and of themselves. Sadly, the issue seems to be of only marginal relevance to the plain fact that, over the last 150 years, humanity has swallowed up gigantic qualities of something irreplaceable (or - at the very least - not easily or quickly replaceable). Whether oil is made of compressed dead algae or produced spontaneously in the lower layers of the earth's crust is a side issue, when the most pressing problems are a) that it is very clearly running short; b) that demand is simultaneously rising very rapidly worldwide, and c) that the exploitation of oil has allowed the human population to multiply SEVENFOLD since it was first extracted industrially in the 1850s.

by **chiggerbit** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:29 pm

Say Asteroid/Comet/Metoerite impacts are a factor in oil field's creations, and the actual impact itself provides the pressure to liguify a certain substrate Or an alternative possibility could be that there is something in the meteorites...

by **DireStrike** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:34 pm

We can manufacture diamonds now. <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2005-10-06-man-made-diamonds_x.htm">www.usatoday.com/tech/new...onds_x.htm</a> Even if we could manufacture oil, it certainly would take more energy in than it would put out. If oil is produced abiotically that would be pretty cool, but the definition of a renewable resource includes a time period. Fields are not filling back up - except for that one, which is almost certainly a weird case. We're still using oil faster than we can get it out of the earth. There are plenty of ways to bury biological sediment under that much or more rock. Hell, there's a plate boundary practically right on top of it. Finally, anything that comes out of a source as crappy as CNN money is suspect. Not the facts, for the most part, but the opinions of the experts they quote.

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:45 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>We can manufacture diamonds now. <hr></blockquote> They were able to when the book I read was published as well, albiet very small ones only of use in laboratory enviornments. The point is, and I agree that today it would suggest that more energy would be required than the results produced, but if something like impacts were a source of at least *some* oil fields, what is impossible today, might sometime else be reasonable. Like making diamonds. [I try to stay positive about what appears to be a Horror-Universe that my child must endure] ____________________ Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.

by **chiggerbit** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:51 pm

I don't think this is the specific article, but it'll do just as well: <a href="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/asteroid_oil_991213.html">www.space.com/scienceastr...91213.html</a> And here's a couple more that are interesting: <a href="http://www.mosnews.com/feature/2006/08/08/oiltheory.shtml">www.mosnews.com/feature/2...eory.shtml</a> <a href="http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex63496.htm">www.gasandoil.com/goc/fea...x63496.htm</a>

by **chiggerbit** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:02 pm

Here you go. Happy prospecting: <a href="http://geology.com/meteor-impact-craters.shtml">geology.com/meteor-impact-craters.shtml</a>

by JD » Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:03 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>someone who knows oil please explain how oil of biotic origin is under 7000 feet of water and 20,000 feet of bedrock. What is the conventional explanation of how that much biological material gets that far down? Surely it's not that there's 20,000 feet of sediment... It's kind of a side issue, but I really am curious.<hr></blockquote> The Gulf of Mexico sediments are from the muddy Mississippi. It is puking out an enormous amount of sediment, much of it organic. The material stacks up and pushes its way down. For the depth of deposition the Gulf of Mexico sediments are shockingly recent. BTW I'm an agnostic wrt biotic or abiotic which is unusual for a petroleum professional. Some interesting work has come out recently that seems to be bridging the extremes; ie it is suggesting that the biosphere extends to great depths below ground and that deep earth biotics explains some hydrocarbon generation. My reasoning for being agnostic is that to a large extent it doesn't matter. The petroleum needs a place to accumulate. This is called a reservoir. So whether oil is bubbling up from deep abiotoic mechanisms, or has leaked in laterally from a biotic source, it still needs a reservoir to accumulate in and to trap it. The reservoir is what petroleum professionals look for, the reservoir is the prize. You simply won't find rocks that can offer adequate storage outside of sedimentary rocks, with the rare exception of some basaltic facies. There will not be commercial quantities of oil in non-sedimentary rocks. Personal experience in this matter. I remember walking in an old underground gold adit (horizontal shaft); dug in the '30's. Really long; about a mile or so and well under a big mountain as you worked along it. Hard rock all the way; can't remember exactly what but some kinda gneiss I think. I'll never forget that way into the shaft I'd see occasional flecks of very heavy oil that was oozing out of cracks. Not even enough oil flowed to run down the rock face after sixty years of exposure and probably a thousand psi differential pressure, simply enough to bulge out a bit. So yeah, I'll vouch for abiotic oil existing, but not in commercial quantities. And as per abiotic oil filling reservoirs; again this may be possible. However, the kinetics absolutely have to be very very slow. Reservoir engineers track fluid withdrawls, additions, and pressures. If there was a signficiant influx of oil from outside the reservoir it would be recognized in the material balance for the reservoir. I've look at a thousand or more reservoirs, and never seen anything that looked like it was recharging. There was some poop going around about a reservoir called Eugene Island which was claimed to be recharging. At best this is a near unique circumstance if correct, but more probably is just a bad reservoir description in that there was probably more oil in place than originally assumed.

by **chiggerbit** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:09 pm

Another impact map: <a href="http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/planets/impact4.htm">www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/planets/impact4.htm</a>

by **slimmouse** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:18 pm

If you take the blood of someone, and give them time to replace it, then replace it they will. If not they die. Not without a fight however - a fight in which any sentient being would attempt to rid herself of those parasites that are bleeding her to death. It really is that simple in my honest opinion. Didnt Einstein once say that only two things are infinite - The stupidity of mankind and the universe, and that he wasn't sure about the universe ?

by **darkbeforedawn** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:39 pm

5e6a I really like you perspective!!YES!!!! Because they have "their pants down" they are behaving very badly and giving the whole game away. People can see them clearly in their wild greedy grabbing at everything and their clear debasement of human beings who do not have a key to their club. It is OUR time and that is why they are so frantic.

Chevron Finds Big Oil Field

Chevron Finds Big Oil Field

Re: perspective

Re: Chevron Finds Big Oil Field

Re: perspective

Re: perspective

Maybe biotic, but certainly not infinite.

Re: Maybe biotic, but certainly not infinite.

Speaking of diamonds

Re: Speaking of diamonds

Re: Speaking of diamonds

Re: Speaking of diamonds

Re: Maybe biotic, but certainly not infinite

Re: Maybe biotic, but certainly not infinite

Blood Transfusion.

Re: perspective

Who is online