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.

Comments

[leduck]

Mr. Learsy,

points:

is it possible the Peak oil camp is wrong about the timing of Peak Oil? YES
that's why there are many different predictions ranging from 2005 to 2035
or more U.G.S. says around 2035 (but the higher probability is sooner rather then later)

Is is possible PeakOil is wrong? NO
all nonrenweable resources follow a bell curve (except natural gas)
when we're in terminal decline you'll realize how wrong you were
Peak Oil will occure (most experts on agree on that), they just argue about timing

should abiotic theory be taken seriously? NO
First, the U.S. is the most heavily explored country in the world, it's swiss cheese and we have many dry holes from decades ago b4 the biologic theory of oil was properly understood. you want to drill more dry holes to satisify you curiosity? who's going to pay for these new dry holes? second, russia doesn't follow the abiotic theory. They ignore their crazy "scientists" who developed it. third, american companies would never waste a penny following it. fourth, lets assume this rediculous theory were actually correct, if we pump oil out of the ground faster then it seeps to the surface, then in the long run, you still have a problem.

[RememberTheAlamo]

Hi Leduck,

Oil and gas are found in 44 of the states (and likely will be found in two of the other six) . . . It is all over the US. As to the source of oil . . . most of that is left to universities to sort out . . . quite likely there are multiple sources. As to drilling dry holes . . . for the most part, if you put a hole into a basin you will hit something hydrocarbon . . . the question always is "commercial?". Commercial hinges upon price, distance, pressure, quality and markets . . . higher prices make fields long thought to be valueless quite productible.

Good plays are all over the place . . . getting permission to drill? . . . entirely different story.

Peak Oil is a nice oil industry marketing idea . . . whether true or not . . . we need to reduce the debate and correspondingly increase the focus on conservation, alternatives and energy continuity.

Do pick a favorite and encourage it . . . but continued debate over theories generates little.

[tc399]

Oil and gas are found in 44 of the states (and likely will be found in two of the other six)
-RememberThe Alamo

Oh yes, we have plenty of oil in Hawaii. But we call it lava.

[POLINUT]

There's a far more obvious explanation. I wish someone with the time would bother to look into all of the following because it can be proven.

Millions of years ago, life was everywhere and denser in some areas than others. At several times over the millenniums, impacts and eruptions tossed huge amounts of debris (dirt, if you will) into the atmosphere which settled and 'crushed' this life. Where and how much debris settled most was relative to where the impacts or eruptions occurred. Anyway, as this debris stacked, it compressed the remains of the bio-matter and eventually, just as you can see happen with composting, the remains transformed to a dense liquid which we call oil.

[holyhandgrenaid]

Oil only comes from phytoplankton deposited in an anoxic marine environment (decomposition is to great in oxidizing environments). The example you seem to suggest is that large biomass areas (such as coral reefs, swamps, and marshes) are oil sources. This is not true. A geologically preserved marsh or swamp may become a coal deposit is sufficiently carbon rich, and a coral reef, if preserved, can become a reservoir rock (not where oil is formed, but where it is found). Furthermore there is no correlation with meteor impacts and oil/coal deposits, in fact most mass extinctions (there have been 5, maybe 6 if you count the ongoing Pleistocen­e-Holocene extinction, which is debateable) have nothing to do with impacts (only the Cretaceous, the smallest of these extinctions is definitely the result of an impact)

Nice try though, and conceptually in the ballpark, for what its worth

[RoloTomassi]

I found this interesting:

http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm

[DeWayne]

One problem with this thesis, dust settling on vegetation over eon's, or single land masses sinking and trapping vegetation, crushing it into eventual oil-deposits. The fact is these oil deposits are not long strings, as example in Iraq and Middle East where it is found in vast reservior's, some deposits found today within the rock mantle of earth.

These reservior's hold such vast quantities, the organics needed would be astronomical to have produced the oil-reservoir found. Then there is the fact that oil (is not organic), but a chemical material compound. Look into the composition of oil, our Petro-Dollar is closer to organic than is oil..

[holyhandgrenaid]

While there is some weight to the abiotic gas argument (experimental geologists have synthesized small amounts large molecule hydrocarbons in high pressure-high heat labs), the idea of abiotic petroleum is not widely accepted in the geological academic community (notice: academic, untainted by oil company interests) This is due to a variety of chemical reasons that dispute a non biological source for oil, such as sulphur and carbon isotopes that are firmly tied to biological processes and origins. Furthermore, the argument about enormous deposits where there was no potential? Not so solid, as the factors that control where oil reserves occur (source rock, reservoir rock, traprock, and transportation pathways) are complex, and further research and exploration, as well as imporved geophysical and drilling techniques change the industry constantly (such as the very deep water resources off Brazil, which until fairly recently, were not able to be exploited, and thus were not explored for)

I am a geologist, I am a graduate student, but i will admit I am not a petroleum geologist, so my argument is far from perfect, but it is knowledgeable

[yappnmutt]

the abiotic argument is compelling but whether it is true or not does not matter. the fact is the peak oil argument largely depends upon a static technology environment. necessity is the mother of invention. there are 2 trillion barrels in canada and 1 trillion barrels in venezuela of hard oil(like asphalt) called bitumen. the current technology to extract the oil is an expensive, dirty process(sagd) but even that is changing. one example of new technology to clean up and cheapen the process is ivanhoe energy which has a process that self fuels(using the byproduct coke) negating the need for natural gas and produces a flowable(p­ipelinable­)result that can be easily refined. there are several other promising processes that achieve the same result. the point is oil is here to stay. it may not be as cheap but it will not cost 200 dollars/barrel in today's dollar.

[HansB]

If this theory is true, the bad news is that we probably won't stop burning oil until it's too late to save the climate. But the good news is that it would definitively banish coal-to-fuel conversion to the rubbish heap of history, and maybe permit the total phasing-out of coal (and of tar sands). So we'd win a little time, with no guarantee that we'd use it wisely.

[UnbiasView]

"we probably won't stop burning oil until it's too late to save the climate"

Yeah . . . . link that if we stopped burning any oil today that temps would change to a certain level?

[Paul]

You don't even have to roll out odd-ball theories to show that we have plenty of petroleum.

According to geologists, twice as much oil exists in tar sands as all the rest of the world's known reserves combined. No one disputes this. That's right, 66% of the oil on the planet exists in Canada and Venezuela.

Extraction technology is messy and not yet perfected, but so was oil well drilling in 1870.

You want an "Energy Manhattan Project" for the 21st century. There it is.

[23000Days]

.....and to h3ll with climate change!!

[Evelyn]

Sure, right. And if you continually throw garbage out your window, there's no way that could cause you any harm, right? To hell with it! Who cares! It costs too damn much to stop throwing garbage out the window. So what if it creates problems for all your neighbors and you as well. It's your damn window and your damn alley, so carry on.

[Paul]

I'm OK with nuclear power instead of fossil fuels.

Just a matter of having the political will to deal rationally with the waste issue.

No greenhouse gases and concentrated waste. Bring it on.

I doubt wind power and other such schemes will deliver enough energy to run an economy like ours. But we don't have to be stuck with fossil fuels.

Still less, imported fossil fuels.

[jubal8]

As painful as this process is, for the average consumer if not the rapaciously profiteering oiligopolists, it may be just the thing earthlings need to wean ourselves from this foul diarrhetic glop. As long as they keep waving their slimy teat in our face, and there's not a more attractive or sweeter-tasting option, you can bet your ecosystem that we'll keep sucking on it.

[SD61]

Excellent article. I'm betting the abiotic theory has considerable validity.

But why should Americans worry, Mr. Learsy? Haven't you seen all the Exxon and GM TV commercials during the Olympics? These are GREEN, CLEAN companies, who are only interested in our well being!

The TV announcer's disembodied voice assures us of these things, while we watch beautiful pictures of flowers and ocean waves cross our huge, HD-enabled flat screens. I'm absolutely certain whoever Exxon or GM puts on the TV screen is familiar with Nikolai Alexandrovich Kurdryavtsev's theories.

[Herrington]

A little Seattle based company called Promtheus has a machine that converts low grade natural gas and methane into high energy LPG suitable for powering vehicles. Why is that interesting?

It is interesting because methane is itself a greenhouse gas and is abundant, leaching out of coal beds, landfills, and just plain dirt. In fact it is probably central the Abiotic theory of crude oil creation because it appears to be just about everywhere.

Back to Promethues. If you burn a green house gas and produce yet another less effective green house gas, CO2, then isn't that a net gain for the environment when you consider that the leaching methane would be in the atmosphere anyway?

Several California State agencies had purchased these machines and are using the LPG product to power agency vehicles.

[SCG2]

You might enjoy this article that was first published in "The Mother Earth News" magazine
Issue 10, July 1971

"The Marvelous Chicken-Powered Car" by Barry Grindrod

" Who needs a tiger in their tank? Harold Bate, chicken farmer and inventor from Devonshire, England says that you can power your motor vehicles with droppings from chickens, pigs or any other animal of your choice... even with your own waste! To prove his statement is no idle boast, Harold has been operating a 1953 Hillman and a five-ton truck on methane gas generated by decomposing pig and chicken manure for years. He claims that the equivalent of a gallon of high-test gasoline costs him only about 3d and that the low-cost methane makes his vehicles run faster, cleaner and better than they operate on "store bought" fuel."

Continues: http://www.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/batesmethane.htm

[yappnmutt]

i can't source it but i once saw a picture of a pig pen with a plastic tube buried in a pig pen leading to a house. i believe it was in asia somewhere. the caption read that it was a common practice used as a way to provide fuel for lights in the house. on a grand scale there is an fpl plant in pompano beach florida that uses methane derived from a nearby garbage dump to power a plant.

[SCG2]

Agreed, whatever is behind our current circumstances, lets not be beholden to the oil industry, the wars, environment and the economic damage, all call for action.

Remember the refinery shortage?

"Bush pushes oil drilling, but more fuel exported" - By Tom Doggett(Re­uters)Jul3­0,2008

"WASHINGTON - The White House on Wednesday made a new push for expanded offshore drilling to help lower fuel prices, days after new government data showed American petroleum product exports hit record levels.

Flanked in the White House Rose Garden by his cabinet after meeting to discuss energy issues, President George W. Bush called on Congress to pass legislation before its month-long August recess to allow more offshore drilling.

"To reduce pressure on prices, we need to increase the supply of oil, especially here at home," Bush told reporters.

Bush this month lifted an executive order that had banned drilling in most U.S. waters and wants Congress to end its own drilling ban before lawmakers leave town in August.

"The sooner Congress lifts the ban, the sooner we can get this oil from the ocean floor to your gas tank," Bush said.

Critics of the offshore drilling plan noted that the Energy Department released data this week showing that U.S. exports of finished petroleum products, including gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel, soared to 1.592 million barrels per day in May.

The exports set a record for the month and were up 31 percent from a year ago......."

Continues:http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN3046385720080730