Oil's Big Dirty Secret as Producers Rake in Hundreds of Billions
According to news reports yesterday, members of OPEC alone glommed in $645 Billion (Euro 430 Billion) for the first six months of this year. Not only have oil consumers been gorged to the hilt, we have been reduced to being supplicants of the oil producers. Every day we are being fed the unceasing lesson from the same hymnal, that oil is running out "tomorrow," come and get it while you still can, not unlike 1855 when Samuel Kier's Rock Oil patent medicine made from Pennsylvania crude oil touted to cure everything from diarrhea, rheumatism, ringworm to deafness, solemnly cautioning buyers, "Hurry Before This Wonderful Product is Depleted from Nature's Laboratory." This while The Peak Oil Pranksters are ever ready to carry the message for the oil patch both here and everywhere working near overtime to heighten our anxieties about oil supply, programming us to pay ever more to the oil barons and sheiks.
But wait, suppose, just suppose they are wrong and willfully misleading us. That oil's origins are not, to repeat, not biological, according to the gospel we have been taught to believe. That in effect oil originates from deep carbon deposits dating to the very beginnings of the Earth's formation in quantities vastly greater than commonly thought. The very presence of methane in the solar system is cited as one of the key underpinnings of this theory's seriousness. Then by seepage through the earth's mantle, Abiotic oil becomes in essence a renewing resource migrating toward the Earth's crust until it escapes to the surface (i.e. Canada's tar sands as theorized by some) or trapped by impermeable strata forming petroleum reservoirs.
Much research has been done on Abiotic Theory by a bevy of Russian and Ukranian geologists starting during the Soviet era, most especially by Nikolai Alexandrovich Kurdryavtsev who proposed the modern Abiotic Theory of Petroleum in 1951.
Among Kurdryavtsev's colleagues was Professor V.A. Krayushkin, chair of the Dept. of Petroleum Exploration at the Ukranian Academy of Sciences and leader of the DneiperDonets Basin Exploration project in the Ukraine, an area that has yielded eleven giant oil fields holding at least 65 billion barrels of oil and some 100 billion cubic meters of recoverable gas, comparable to the North Slope of Alaska . The area had previously been designated as having no potential for petroleum production whatsoever. Exploration, according to a paper by Richard Heinberg, was conducted entirely according to the "perspective of the modern Russian Ukranian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins".
Question, how often have you heard of M. King Hubbert and his peak oil theories dating to 1949 and how often have you heard of Kurdryavtsev or Krayushkin? Certainly, for those having some interest in Peak Oil jargon, Hubbert's name comes up endlessly, while Kurdryavtsev and Krayushkin probably never, or rarely if at all. But then again Hubbert was Chief Consultant for Shell Oil's Production Research Division and his theories served their Marketing Department well. His predictions first made in 1949 that the fossil fuel era would be of very short duration made him, with help of the fine hand of oil industry flacks, probably the best known geophysicist of his time.
Is the theory of abiotic oil viable? I am not a geologist so I cannot begin to answer authoritatively. It is certainly worth exploring with far greater seriousness than has been the case to date. But I have come to learn the oil industry and its minions. One can rest assured that if abiotic oil is a true challenge to current theory and most especially in the dimension it is purported to be, the oil patch will do all in its power to divert our attention elsewhere. Were we to learn that the supply of oil is limitless, the emperor's clothes would evaporate and the price of oil would collapse.
These comments are not in any way meant to encourage the increased and continued use of oil and carbon-based energy. Issues of greenhouse warming and climate change are far too primordial for us in any way not to continue down the path of a fossil/carbon-free society. But that will take time and in the meanwhile we must wrest back our economic bearings from the rapaciousness of the oil producers and one way to begin doing that is to dismantle the received shibboleths being used to hold us in their grasp. It is time to begin dealing with them as consumers free to make our choices just as we would with any other product or supplier. If we don't like attitudes or pricing policies or loyalty, as in customer relations we should once again be able to turn to another provider of comparable goods and we, as the buying public, or for that matter the nation in its own strategic interests, take our trade elsewhere. Seems far-fetched today? Just wait.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Oil companies have long associated oil with dinosaurs, as in "fossil" fuel. It's cute and even children learn that oil is finite -- nobody makes dinosaurs anymore.
But the real association of oil, which has the power of imagination and the benefit of being true, is that of oil and volcanoes.
Abiotic oil is a product of volcanic activity, whether on the flanks of a volcano, or on the active faults around the world. 65% of large and giant oil fields are in regions with active tectonic plate activity.
Yes, that's right oil is found in association with volcanic activity all around the world. Just two examples, there are many others: Indonesia is one of the most active volcanic regions in the world and has numerous oil & gas wells, along with areas that have never been developed, but are promising for oil.
New Zealand has several oil fields that are adjacent to a volcano connected by active tectonic faults.
Ever wonder why the Middle East has so much oil? Simple, a very active tectonic fault runs underneath the oil fields. Faults and fissures are how oil travels to the near surface from the mantle.
"Want 'power' in your tank? Get Volcano gas -- an eruption of power, everytime you hit the gas."
Dead dinosaurs? No way. The 'primordial' power of volcanoes -- that's the real association of oil, and it's one heck of a sales pitch to boot!
Are you seriously proposing that Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas are volcanic?
As a side note, while biogenic oil theory has long been associated with dinosaurs in the public imagination, it was actually the vast fern forests of the Mesozoic that formed the oil deposits. Vascular plants had developed cellulose for the first time, which allowed them to grow tall enough to become forests; bacteria had not yet evolved to eat cellulose, though, so when the plants died they rotted very slowly, even without being buried in anaerobic conditions.
To Chronos:
One problem with your theory: Oil has been found that is much older than you are taking about.
The title of the scientific paper: Archean oil; evidence for extensive hydrocarbon generation and migration 2.5-3.5 Ga . That's 2.5-3.5 billion years ago.
http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/1/50
And the paper's author Roger Buick states: "It’s at least plausible that the 3.2 billion year old oil we found did in fact have an abiotic origin." -- Roger Buick, 2008
Chroonos you don't have your facts down.
A quote from the abstract of the paper:
"Archean sedimentary rocks from the Pilbara Craton, Australia, contain evidence for petroleum generation and migration in the form of bitumen nodules produced by radiogenic immobilization of fluid hydrocarbons around detrital uraninite, thorite, and monazite grains. The nodules are preserved in sandstones at several stratigraphic levels in the Fortescue Group ( approximately 2.75 Ga) and Lalla Rookh Formation ( approximately 3.0 Ga), both nonmarine successions, and in deltaic sediments of the Mosquito Creek Formation ( approximately 3.25 Ga). "
Read the science supporting Abiotic Oil and you wouldn't make that mistake.
Chronos:
Yes, Texas does have volcanic features, one is called the 'Travis volcanic mounds' and oil is found in association with these volcanic features. 38 oil fields are associated with Travis volcanic mounds in central Texas, see here:
http://www.bigoilfields.com/oilvolcanos.html
And while Oklahoma and Kansas don't have volcanic activity per say, there are tectonic fault systmes in both states.
When I hear pronouncements such as oil is limited or made from organic matter, I just remember the famous observation by Lord Kelvin: "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
Much of science is conjectural. And a lot of it is nonsense. But too, what often is treated as nonsense by science, turns out to be true. Indeed, paradigm shifts do happen after the old guard dies off.
The petroleum industry has a huge financial stake is getting us to accept the peak oil theory--although it has never been proven to be true as more oil is being discovered. My view is that the people of the world are being gamed by the energy-industrial complex. And this is the worst form of fascism there is.
OPEC says they have enough crude to supply the world for at least 80 years
http://www.opec.org/library/FAQs/CrudeOil/q3.htm
All the press about oil shortages is hoopla for the "pump and dump" scammers running ICE
https://www.theice.com/homepage.jhtml
OPEC is probably lying. The OPEC estimated reserves took a sudden mysterious jump in the 1980's. doubling and tripling.
The problem with "fossil" theory is that it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Also known as the law of increasing entropy.
Low potential chemical energy molecules (organic detritus) doesn't trun or "cook" into high potential chemical energy molecules (hydrocarbons) in the low pressure and heat environment of the Earth's crust. There simply isn't enough energy to cause this "transformation."
Time does not matter -- there simply is or isn't enough energy to cause the chemical formation of hydrocarbons, and there isn't enough energy to do so.
On the other hand, the Earth's mantle does supply the energy necessary to cause hydrogen and carbon to combine into hydrocarbon, and the mantle supplies the energy by the ultra-high heat and pressure that is present at mantle depths in the Earth's interior.
The science supporting this proposition is substantial -- the Second Law of Thermodynamics has never been found to be violated, that's why it;s called a law of nature..
Oil companies = Liars I don't believe anything they say. Do government and corporations lie? Yes. So when do you believe a liar?
Alternative to heating Oil is Biochar:
http://www.Vaboomer.com
This theory is mostly discussed on the Coast to Coast radio show between calls about alien implants, and government abductions. The Tinfoil hat crowd loves this idea. Yet actual geologist don't.
One doesn't even need to be a geologist to see the ridiculousness of this idea. All you need to do is just think about this for a second. So the theory of abiotic oil want's us to believe that oil and natural gas are produced deep within the earths mantle (it doesn't say how. Made by Pixies? Morlocks maybe?). Then these HIGHLY FLAMMABLE substances are magically transported through thousands of miles of molten hot liquid rock...and they DON'T IGNITE! Leaving aside all the other glaring holes in this idea, that alone should convince any sane person of how ridiculous this theory is.
For the same reason that your car's gas tank poses no real danger to you so it would go for pockets of oil. It takes oxygen to make ignition.
I need to check but I believe their would be enough free oxygen within the mantle to "slowly burn" oil. Even without it thought the temperature, combined with lower densities and pressures (nearer the surface) would breakdown complex hydrocarbons into methane anyway.
Here's a site for those interested in the abiogenic side of the discussion:
http://www.gasresources.net/
Here is another-
http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=331&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
To GetAbike:
You have linked an article by Richard Heinberg
Here is a quote from that article written by Mr. Heinberg:
"What if oil were in fact virtually inexhaustible—would this be good news? Not in my view. It is my opinion that the discovery of oil was the greatest tragedy (in terms of its long-term consequences) in human history."
"...greatest tragedy in human history..."
Can a person who makes the above statement be trusted to objective about a theory that strikes at the very core of his "pet" theory of peak oil?
To RoloTomassi:
Thank you for providing the link to the Gas Resources website. This site is provided by Jack F. Kenney, who is the leading abiotic geologist in the Unted states.
The website has original scientific papers authored by Kenney, including a paper published in The Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences (American) where Kenney in a laboratory experiment combined water, iron, and marble in ultra-high heat and pressure consistent with conditions in the Earth's mantle and the results where a suite of hydrocarbons consistent with natural petroleum.
Kenney also explains in detailed scientific terms why crude oil can't be formed from organic detritus, as well as discussing the "proofs" for fossil theory and why they are invalid.
Also, there is an interesting paper detailing the many times when the scientific community rejected a new theory only later to acknowledge the validity of that theory. Geologists several times have rejected a theory only later to acknowledge its validity. Namely, tectonic plate theory and the formation process of the Channeled Scablands of Washington State.
"Is the theory of abiotic oil viable?"
- Raymond Learsy
No and if you really believe it, please write an essay on the "theory" that the world in flat. That would be more amusing.
I have been a scientist for more than 25 years. Don't always believe what the Russians tell you about their scientific research results.
Peak oil or no, the oil companies are laughing all the way to the bank. Everyone just has to figure out a way to put the pump down. As long as there's demand, they'll control the supply.
kinda like illegal drugs...huh....8)
you don't think we need to start an oil-anon chapter her in the USA...do you???
actually not a bad idea...8)
There are many types of gases within the mantle, some free others not, but oxygen is one of them.
Carbon from biotic sources has a distinct isotope signature. So far, there's no sign that any oil is abiotic and no explanation as to why oil always has an isotope profile consistent with biologic origin, complete with entrained fossils. Even if there were, we've used more than 2/3 of it in 200 years, so it obviously doesn't replenish very fast. and we'd still be stuck with de facto peak oil.
But more to the point, abiotic oil is a foolish fantasy.
But Ray, what is your point? Look at the comments you've engendered with this post. There's an awful lot of folks who are essentially saying, "we're gettin' screwed, gimme my oil at a "fair" price." And you're feeding that. That's why McCain's idiotic drill, baby drill meme is selling ... people think there's lots of cheap oil immediately available, because people like you tell them it's so. It's actually the other way around. Oil companies don't want people to know how little oil there is because if they knew, we'd have the poltical support to get the heck off the stuff.
So here's the deal. Pissed off about oil prices? Then quit using it as fast as possible and use as little as possible in the meantime. That's it. Grovelling, whining, and griping will do aboslutely nothing.
Is it unjust? are we being screwed? Yeah. So stop using it -- abiotic, peak -- whatever. We can't burn the crap anyway or we'll destroy the earth. So what's your point
Bravo! An excellent post. Couldn't have said it any better. Indeed, what is his point?
GREATTTTTTTTTT POSTTTTTTTTTTTTT JBATCH
To jbatch:
Actually, isotopic ratios are not a reliable indicator and this has been demonstrated by scientific experiment. As carbon travels trough terrestrial medium 13C is stripped out from the oil by the reaction with the rock medium.
The carbon nucleus has two stable isotopes, 12C and 13C. The overwhelmingly most abundance stable isotope of carbon is 12C, which possesses six protons and six neutrons; 13C possesses an extra neutron. The validity of such assertions were tested, independently by Colombo, Gazzarini, and Gonfiantini in Italy and by Galimov in Russia.
Both sets of workers established that the carbon isotope ratios cannot be used reliably to determine the origin of the carbon compound tested.
No, it's the exact opposite -- if consumers knew how much oil was really available, consumers would never put up with the high price and oil buyers on the world market would know just how plentiful oil is, and therefore not pay the high price -- most oil averages under $30 a barrel to "lift" from the well head.
Most oil does cost less than $30/bbl to lift from the well head, but the cost of additional oil that is needed to meet ALL OF CURRENT DEMAND justifies a cost more than double that.
The Saudis are not fools: they know what it cost to bring oil shale and tar sands to market, and they know it makes their product that much more valuable.
We're not being Gorged with oil, we're being Gauged by the oil companies, allowed to get away with it, by this corrupt government.
Abiotic Oil is supported by solid scientific evidence. hydrogen and carbon combine in the mantle under ultra-high heat and pressure.
You still have to believe in the Cool Earth theory of formation. Hydrogen and methane were gone under the prevailing theory that the Earth was molten at the beginning. That means the only hydrogen we find is in oil-NG fields since all hydrogen is new hydrogen. Do you believe in the Cool Earth theory?
To ssgman,
At present, there are more and more scientists that do believe in Earth formation that is not molten. The evidence is strong and persuasive that hydrogen and carbon were not "outgassed" at the formation of the Earth.
The Abiotic oil theory has a pretty big flaw in that you have to believe in the "Cool Earth" theory of Earth's development. Basically, that says the Earth didn't start out as a molten blob. That's a pretty big stretch and on par with the "Electric Universe" theory. Personally, I'd rather spend money on fusion research than use tax dollars to drill multi mile oil shafts.
To ssgman,
What scientific evidence do you have that the Earth "start[ed] out as a molten blob." Actually, if you think about it most "material" in space is cold. because space is cold.
The molten blob theory is a pretty big stretch on par to "fossil" theory, where dead plants cook in low heat and pressure. We all know cooking actually breaks down molecules, not biulds them up.
In his book Alcohol can be a Gas David Blume tells how the Model T Ford was a flex fuel car that could run on alcohol or gasoline. Henry Ford prefer alcohol as a fuel but John D Rockefeller didn't so he funded women's temperance movements and lobbied congress to pass Prohibition. Mustn't have the peasnats making their own fuel can we.
I don't believe for a minute that big oil is paying market prices for its crude. First they get much of their crude stocks from their own wells and certainly not payng market prices there.. Secondly the stocks they do buy from suppliers like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela are certainly on long term purchase contracts at probably no more than $35 a barrel. If Exxon were really paying $140/barrel there is no way they could post the record obscene profits they have been reporting. I have yet to hear any commentator or government representative ask one of the chief executives exactly how much they are really paying for crude.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
