July 21, 2008 at 20:16Oil reserves are self-healing
Abandoned wells were again producing oil. It is found in the thickness of granites and the atmosphere of Jupiter. The most paradoxical mineral, the black blood of modern civilization.
One of the first wells of the Tersko-Sunzhensky district issued a stunning fountain in 1895, which could only be cured after three years. And after a few years it dried up and in this well and in the neighboring ones, it was necessary to switch to a pumping method of production. Already by the forties of the 20th century, the wells were heavily flooded, and many were even mothballed. However, after the war, almost all of them again began to produce almost anhydrous oil. The story repeated half a century later. By the nineties, the wells were almost never used due to heavy flooding, but after the Chechen wars the debits again increased significantly, and many small wells even began to pump oil to the surface ...
According to geologists, the Romashinskoye field could produce about seven hundred million tons of oil, but today more than three billion tons have already been produced and no end is expected.
The White Tiger field in Vietnam takes oil from the thickness of the fundamental rocks, where there should be no oil.
The classical biogenic theory of the origin of oil cannot explain these facts and the like. Recall that it was proposed by Lomonosov. According to her, oil was formed from the remains of dead organisms and vegetation that once covered the planet. Powerful layers of remains over millions of years have produced millions of tons of oil.
However, there is another, abiogenic or mineral theory, which we hardly hear about. Its founder is Mendeleev. Proponents of this theory consider oil a product of chemical reactions that occur at great depths and are not associated with organic remains. And the speed of these processes is hundreds or even decades.
The answer to the question “Who is right?” Is far from theoretical.
If supporters of biogenic theory are right, then the oil on Earth will be exhausted sooner or later. An increase in production is possible only with the constant exploration of new deposits. So, we are waiting for a constant rise in oil prices and in the not so distant future (and some scientists say that over the next 40-50 years) a serious technological crisis. Consequently, mankind must make efforts to transfer energy to a new track, to search for raw materials for the chemical industry, to transfer vehicles to new fuels.
If the latter are right, then the oil on the planet is constantly being formed, and it will not work out. Then we should expect a certain stabilization of the level of oil production and the equalization of distortions in oil-oriented economies. In this case, mankind must solve the issues of rational use of available oil, its competent extraction, creation of conditions for its renewal.
And I want, of course, to imagine a society in which our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will live, as stable and developing, and not as a society of growing economic collapse ...
And although there are many facts confirming both theories, modern science has not yet made a final decision.
The first theory is confirmed by the entire development of petroleum geology in the modern world. The largest deposits are explored and used on huge massifs of sedimentary rocks, which in ancient times were the seabed or covered with powerful forests. Experiments set back in the 19th century showed that the effects of temperature and pressure on organic substances lead to the formation of substances similar in composition to oil. I must say that back in the eighteenth century, scientists considered organic substances to be fundamentally different from inorganic ones and even suggested that oil could occur in a way that they could not be associated with organic.
Since the thirties of the XIX century, chemists are no longer so categorical and confirm the possibility of creating substances that make up oil, based on simple compounds. In addition, oil deposits were discovered directly in the earth's crust under sedimentary strata, where organic residues could not get in principle. Such, for example, is the White Tiger field in Vietnam. It has already produced more oil than expected and the debit has not yet declined.
Throughout the 20th century, scientists developed and tested both hypotheses. But it is strange that in the public consciousness it was biogenic, which predicts oil an imminent end.
Why did we forget about mineral theory? And is she true?
Since science has not yet made a final decision, it is too early to talk about the unambiguous victory of one of the hypotheses. It is possible that both are right. It is possible that both are wrong, but there is also a third. Or the fourth, which can describe all the observed facts and predict new ones. Time will tell.
But the massive silence of the mineral theory is alarming. First of all, oil producers are interested in this, both private owners and corporations, as well as states with an economy oriented to oil production. The hypothesis of the imminent completion of oil reserves on the planet gives them the opportunity to constantly raise raw material prices. Classical theory enables specialists who support it to retain their conservative ideas, their positions, their posts in institutes. In recent years, those with access to oil have been the informal government of the world. They keep their finger on the pulse of the economy of all mankind and just do not intend to give up their positions. An interesting commentary on this question by Doctor of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences Vadim Skaryatin “As for the scientific community, then for many years he really preferred not to talk about mineral theory, but the reason is different: people sought to preserve conservative ideas, and with them their posts, posts in institutes. Collusion of oil companies? This could be in America at the very beginning of oil production. ”
In fact, we see that this scenario is now being worked out.
Head of the Department of Geology, Russian State University of Oil and Gas I.M. Gubkina V.P. Gavrilov declares: “If we build our approach to field development on new principles, coordinate the production rate with the rate of hydrocarbon input from the generation centers in these areas, the wells will operate for hundreds of years.” But perhaps it will only be in conditions when oil producers cease to dictate their conditions and the direct linking of the economy to oil production will lose its sharpness. But this is too optimistic, the reality is more than cruel: for reserves to be renewed, civilization must abandon modern production technologies, it will be necessary to establish special production schedules, giving the fields time to recover. Is it possible? Today is unlikely. After all, a real alternative to oil does not yet exist.
DI Mendeleev once declared that burning oil is the same as burning a stove with bank notes. If he lived today, he would consider us crazy, but perhaps our children will surpass us. God forbid that the grandchildren cope ...
Links for those who are interested: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ...
written for magov.net
One of the first wells of the Tersko-Sunzhensky district issued a stunning fountain in 1895, which could only be cured after three years. And after a few years it dried up and in this well and in the neighboring ones, it was necessary to switch to a pumping method of production. Already by the forties of the 20th century, the wells were heavily flooded, and many were even mothballed. However, after the war, almost all of them again began to produce almost anhydrous oil. The story repeated half a century later. By the nineties, the wells were almost never used due to heavy flooding, but after the Chechen wars the debits again increased significantly, and many small wells even began to pump oil to the surface ...
According to geologists, the Romashinskoye field could produce about seven hundred million tons of oil, but today more than three billion tons have already been produced and no end is expected.
The White Tiger field in Vietnam takes oil from the thickness of the fundamental rocks, where there should be no oil.
The classical biogenic theory of the origin of oil cannot explain these facts and the like. Recall that it was proposed by Lomonosov. According to her, oil was formed from the remains of dead organisms and vegetation that once covered the planet. Powerful layers of remains over millions of years have produced millions of tons of oil.
However, there is another, abiogenic or mineral theory, which we hardly hear about. Its founder is Mendeleev. Proponents of this theory consider oil a product of chemical reactions that occur at great depths and are not associated with organic remains. And the speed of these processes is hundreds or even decades.
The answer to the question “Who is right?” Is far from theoretical.
If supporters of biogenic theory are right, then the oil on Earth will be exhausted sooner or later. An increase in production is possible only with the constant exploration of new deposits. So, we are waiting for a constant rise in oil prices and in the not so distant future (and some scientists say that over the next 40-50 years) a serious technological crisis. Consequently, mankind must make efforts to transfer energy to a new track, to search for raw materials for the chemical industry, to transfer vehicles to new fuels.
If the latter are right, then the oil on the planet is constantly being formed, and it will not work out. Then we should expect a certain stabilization of the level of oil production and the equalization of distortions in oil-oriented economies. In this case, mankind must solve the issues of rational use of available oil, its competent extraction, creation of conditions for its renewal.
And I want, of course, to imagine a society in which our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will live, as stable and developing, and not as a society of growing economic collapse ...
And although there are many facts confirming both theories, modern science has not yet made a final decision.
The first theory is confirmed by the entire development of petroleum geology in the modern world. The largest deposits are explored and used on huge massifs of sedimentary rocks, which in ancient times were the seabed or covered with powerful forests. Experiments set back in the 19th century showed that the effects of temperature and pressure on organic substances lead to the formation of substances similar in composition to oil. I must say that back in the eighteenth century, scientists considered organic substances to be fundamentally different from inorganic ones and even suggested that oil could occur in a way that they could not be associated with organic.
Since the thirties of the XIX century, chemists are no longer so categorical and confirm the possibility of creating substances that make up oil, based on simple compounds. In addition, oil deposits were discovered directly in the earth's crust under sedimentary strata, where organic residues could not get in principle. Such, for example, is the White Tiger field in Vietnam. It has already produced more oil than expected and the debit has not yet declined.
Throughout the 20th century, scientists developed and tested both hypotheses. But it is strange that in the public consciousness it was biogenic, which predicts oil an imminent end.
Why did we forget about mineral theory? And is she true?
Since science has not yet made a final decision, it is too early to talk about the unambiguous victory of one of the hypotheses. It is possible that both are right. It is possible that both are wrong, but there is also a third. Or the fourth, which can describe all the observed facts and predict new ones. Time will tell.
But the massive silence of the mineral theory is alarming. First of all, oil producers are interested in this, both private owners and corporations, as well as states with an economy oriented to oil production. The hypothesis of the imminent completion of oil reserves on the planet gives them the opportunity to constantly raise raw material prices. Classical theory enables specialists who support it to retain their conservative ideas, their positions, their posts in institutes. In recent years, those with access to oil have been the informal government of the world. They keep their finger on the pulse of the economy of all mankind and just do not intend to give up their positions. An interesting commentary on this question by Doctor of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences Vadim Skaryatin “As for the scientific community, then for many years he really preferred not to talk about mineral theory, but the reason is different: people sought to preserve conservative ideas, and with them their posts, posts in institutes. Collusion of oil companies? This could be in America at the very beginning of oil production. ”
In fact, we see that this scenario is now being worked out.
Head of the Department of Geology, Russian State University of Oil and Gas I.M. Gubkina V.P. Gavrilov declares: “If we build our approach to field development on new principles, coordinate the production rate with the rate of hydrocarbon input from the generation centers in these areas, the wells will operate for hundreds of years.” But perhaps it will only be in conditions when oil producers cease to dictate their conditions and the direct linking of the economy to oil production will lose its sharpness. But this is too optimistic, the reality is more than cruel: for reserves to be renewed, civilization must abandon modern production technologies, it will be necessary to establish special production schedules, giving the fields time to recover. Is it possible? Today is unlikely. After all, a real alternative to oil does not yet exist.
DI Mendeleev once declared that burning oil is the same as burning a stove with bank notes. If he lived today, he would consider us crazy, but perhaps our children will surpass us. God forbid that the grandchildren cope ...
Links for those who are interested: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ...
written for magov.net