shock was when our research group introduced the concept of Green Petroleum in mid 2000’s. When our books on Green Petroleum (Islam et al., 2010; Islam et al., 2012) were introduced to the general readership, the phrase Green Petroleum was considered to be an oxymoron. The word ‘green’ was reserved for renewable energy sources – something we deemed to be unsustainable (Chhetri and Islam, 2008). Ever since that pioneering work, the world has become more accustomed to the phrase ‘Green Petroleum’ although petroleum engineers remain clueless about how to fight against the ‘carbon is the enemy’ mantra that has swept the entire globe outside of the 3% scientists, who are marginalized as ‘conspiracy theorists’, ‘creationists’, etc. In defence of the 97% alarmists, the 3% never talked about real science, instead resorting to denying climate change altogether (Islam and Khan, 2019). The biggest victim of this saga has been real science and real engineering. Today, when petroleum engineers talk about sustainable development, they mean coupling with biosurfactants, or generating some energy with solar or wind power. They have all but forgotten petroleum itself is 100% natural and that if a paradigm of ‘nature is sustainable’ - a time honoured principle that has millennia of history to back it up, there is nothing more sustainable than petroleum itself.
With that paradigm shift, our research group was able to debunk the following myths, some of which are in the core of every technology of modern era.
Myth 1: Natural resources are limited, human greed is infinity;
Myth 2: There is no universal standard for sustainability, therefore, total sustainability is a myth;
Myth 3: Environmental integrity must come with a cost and compromise with cost effectiveness must be made;
Myth 4: Human intervention is limited to adding artificial or synthetic chemicals;
Myth 5: 3 R’s (Reduce, Recycle, Reuse) is the best we can do;
Myth 6: Energy and mass are separable, meaning mass has no role in energy transfer;
Myth 7: All physical changes are reversible and original state can be restored as long as external features are brought back to the original state;
Myth 8: Carbon, natural water, and natural air are our enemy and sustainability lies within reducing carbon, natural water and natural air, thus purity must be sought in every level;
Myth 9: Synthetic chemicals can be a replacement of natural chemicals as long as the most external features are comparable;
Myth 10: Zero-waste is an absurd concept; and
Myth 11: Economic viability must precede technical feasibility, which itself is preceded by environmental integrity test.
Of course, had we not started with premise different from what all those philosophers and scientists started from, we would end up shifting the number of years on Hubert’s graph (Hubbert, 1956) or adding another coefficient to the curve fitting endeavor to account for another unknown that we have no clue about, meanwhile ignoring the 800 pound gorilla that everyone is afraid to talk about (Islam et al., 2018a). We would also revel about new array of chemicals, which are even more than their predecessors, meanwhile ignoring the toxic shock of the current ‘technological disaster’ (Chhetri and Islam, 2008). This book is not about repeating the same conclusion that has been made for over centuries. This book is not about replacing dogma theories with New Science theories or replacing “original sin” dogma with some utility theory that’s premised on the same theme that humans can’t do better. The conclusion of this book shall not be: the best humanity can do and must try to do is follow the same path that brought us here. If this book proves anything, it is that with paradigm shift, the outlook changes like never before and after that the obsession with status quo is gone for ever. The ‘story’ this book has to offer has not been told before.
The starting point of this book was entirely different from that taken by every book on EOR. This approach made it possible to offer solutions that do not create long-term disasters nor do they cover up long-term liabilities. Then, key questions that have puzzled industry as well as academia are answered without resorting to dogmatic assertions. If the book has to be summarized in one line, it is: It gives a recipe on enhancing oil recovery while restoring environmental integrity and economic appeal. It is not a matter of minimizing waste, or maximizing recovery or even minimizing cost, it is about restoring sustainable techniques that are inherently less expensive and beneficial to the environment.
1.4 Questions Answered in This Book
1.4.1 Where to Look for in the Quest of Sustainable Energy Solutions?
We know that 3 R solutions is nothing more than pathetic effort to cover up toxic shock. In fact, recycling toxic products is more toxic to the environment, less efficient, and more costly than the original form (Chhetri and Islam, 2008; Khan and Islam, 2012). Reusing, on the other hand, increases the extent off contamination (Miralai, 2016; Islam et al., 2010). The question the arises Ask 2 where to look for sustainable solutions. Chapter 2 briefly introduces the current status of the oil and gas sector, then embark on a delinearized history analysis to show how things used to be done in the past and where exactly the bifurcation between natural an artificial started. The chapter makes it clear that the modern era is synonymous with artificial systems, involving both mass and energy. Our previous work already described the recipe for sustainable energy and mass utilization (Islam et al., 2015; Islam et al., 2010). So, the question becomes how we can extract those solutions in the context of EOR. The chapter then revisits historical developments of petroleum production to pinpoint crucial issues that led to global unsustainability.
1.4.2 How Do Energy and Mass Evolve in Sustainable System?
We continue to be told carbon is the enemy, water is the source of contamination and sustainability hinges upon how remotely placed we are from the natural state of all resources (including sunlight and air). Otherwise, alarmists tell us that we are about to embark on an apocalyptical point of no return. Of course, by now we know water is the source of all sustainability (Islam, 2014), carbon is the most important ingredient for sustaining life (water being the source), and sunlight is the primary energy source alteration of which can onset ripples that can turn into a Tsunami (Khan and Islam, 2016; Islam and Khan, 2019).
A paradigm shift really means we cannot rely on any previous theory -at least the ones that started after the natural artificial bifurcation took place. It means; therefore, we cannot rely upon modern theory of light, atomic theory of mass, or the quantum theory of ‘everything’. Fortunately, the background work of deconstruction of current theories as well as reconstruction of dogma-free comprehensive theory of mass and energy was done by Islam (2014) and Khan and Islam (2016). So, we are perfectly capable of answering the question of this subsection. Chapter 3 presents the science behind water-petroleum cycle, oxygen cycle, carbon cycle, and delves into such radical topics, as the scientific difference between lightening (natural electricity) and electricity (AC or DC), chemicals from natural sources (both energy and mass) and artificial sources, etc.
1.4.3 What Real Natural Resource Do We Have?
We have been told by the ‘father of capitalism’ that natural resources are limited, while human needs are infinity, and sustainability and sustainability depends on how fast we can contain population growth. By now we know capitalism is more wrong-headed than dogma; socialism is more hypocritical than trickle down capitalistic economy; and the new progressive agenda is more sinister than socialism
