Is abiotic oil becoming mainstream..

[Questioning_Climate]

EU Referendum has highlighted major concerns regarding the BP leak:

Quote:The Oil Drum is a reputable and well-founded site, and its talking about the collapse of the well in the Gulf of Mexico and the leakage of the entire reserve ... billions of barrels. In other words, it's about to get a whole lot worse.

"The magnitude and impact of this disaster will eclipse anything we have known in our lifetimes if the worst or even near worst happens ... ", it says. And Obama is to address the nation live, tonight. He is as much on the rack as BP – it will be interesting to hear what he says. It had better be the speech of a lifetime.

Oil Drum page is here:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967

[Questioning_Climate]

Here is the beginning of the redistribution game:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsb...-well.html

The rules of the game: USA government essentially sues BP for damages related to the oil spill. Then BP sues partners, contractors, and anyone else that could possibly be involved, most of which will be American multinationals.

While this is happening it is likely that oil and gas prices will see a rise for a variety of reasons ranging from restricted drilling, to more costly safety and environmental regulations, etc. There will also be a negative influence (jitters or worse) on the financial markets as the potential liabilities of these companies becomes evident.

Will BP be financially hurt in the end? No chance! Although it will suffer a temporary blip and a bit of a dent in its reputation.

Who will ultimately be hit in the pocket? A great many shareholders, pension funds, and other investments, and of course consumers (the public in general) right across the world.

Who wins? Three guesses - you won't need that many.

[Richard111]

Fascinating! Meanwhile China has made a statement of intent to reduce carbon emissions while continuing to build a new coal powered generating station every week. Of course their emissions are based on population which is growing faster than the global carbon emissions so they are on a win-win.

To me it looks like the western world is handing over its inheritance to China and India as they cannot compete in the global population race.

This business of the oil is an opportunistic undermining of the western economy under the guise of carbon emissions.

Frankly, we are seeing Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest in operation. Evolution at its finest!

[Questioning_Climate]

Here's a new report on oil spills:
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploa...ills-1.pdf

It talks about Peak Oil too.

[Derek]

http://www.bakersfield.com/news/business...ld-in-Kern
Oxy discovers large oil field in Kern
BY JOHN COX, Californian staff writer
Jul 22 2009.

Old news, maybe, but...
Over at the Jeff Id's Air Vent blog, on this thread, post 24.
Pat Frank commented, September 3, 2010,
" I have relatives near there. Scuttlebutt is that the field is much larger than they’re currently letting on.
Also, that the discovery is at 30,000 feet, in a geological formation previously unassociated with oil.
They expect to pump it out at less than $10 a barrel. "

Intriguingly, Pat continues...
" Oxy apparently developed an in-house geological theory about potential oil reservoirs, did the test, and it paid off big time. "

Hmmmm.....

[Questioning_Climate]

Russians Debunk Peak Oil Theory - as Bogus as Greenhouse Gas Scam by John O'Sullivan

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6261

Quote:Russians prove ‘fossil’ fuel is junk science theory linked to global warming hype. Oil is shown to be mineral in origin-not from fossilized organisms. No more fears over shrinking reserves as experts say petroleum is naturally ‘renewable.’

Yes, you read that right and over 2,000 eastern European peer-reviewed science papers sinisterly ignored by western governments and the mainstream media back up the claims.

Since the mid 20th century scientists have known that the fossil fuel theory is bogus and have compellingly demonstrated that petroleum is derived from highly compressed mineral deposits deep beneath the surface. But the most startling consequence to these findings is that oil is a constant renewable regenerating in nature.

Since the Middle East oil crisis of the 1970’s gasoline suppliers have stoked media fears that our planet’s reserves are fast in decline. The term ‘peak oil’ was coined and we were told ‘fossil fuels’ would have to become increasingly more expensive as our insatiable appetite drank this ‘finite’ liquid energy source dry.

Such propaganda suited the interests of the oil industry and western government who systematically bolstered a weak scientific theory very much mirroring the greenhouse gas theory scam that was the vehicle for taxing emissions of carbon dioxide.

Both stories have been acted out by universal media connivance and scientists and government-funded academia were systematically kept in lockstep for decades with funding strings attached.

Repositioning Theory as Fact

All these years the terms ‘peak oil’ and ‘fossil fuels’ have been synonymous. They imply we are inexorably faced with diminishing natural resources and the days of cheap carbon-based energy are gone. Supplanted in the public consciousness as real we grew to accept the inevitable coming of ever-higher energy prices as a consequence of our consumer lifestyle.

Journalists gleaned their own ‘evidence’ for such an apocalyptic narrative from bleak books such as James Howard Kunstler’s ‘The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century’ and Richard Heinberg’s ‘The Party’s Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies’ among others and the public were sold on the fears.

Constantly fed a diet of this garbage our collective unconsciousness unwittingly allowed the repositioning of Hubbert’s Theory of Peak Oil into fossil fuel fact.

As a consequence, in 2005, Congressional Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett, Republican of Maryland, and Senator Tom Udall, a New Mexico Democrat created the Congressional Peak Oil Caucus and at a stroke turned

Scientists who dissented from the groupspeak were vilified or ignored. In the 1980s distinguished British scientist, Sir Fred Hoyle FRS was one who tried and failed to expose the chicanery of proponents of the fossil fuel theory and diminishing world oil reserves. Hoyle, without the benefit of the worldwide web tried repeatedly to expose this flimflam,

“The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time.”

Along with Hoyle other western scientists refused to toe the politically correct line as evidenced in an increasing number of articles to redress the balance about petroleum economics. While several papers by Professor Michael C. Lynch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also exposed the myth of “oil exhaustion”¬†and demonstrating the high-pressure genesis of petroleum. No media voice for them either.

Russia Becomes World’s Next Energy Superpower

Only in Russia, a nation that has eschewed military supremacy to become a global economic power, did Hoyle’s and Lynch’s words find a welcome community of like-minded scientists. Indeed, outside of the English-speaking world there is no controversy and its common parlance that oil is a mineral, not a biological product and as such our planet has endless untapped reserves.

As a consequence of applying this knowledge Russia has gone from strength to strength astutely capitalising on its ‘liquid gold’ reserves. “I would describe the mindset right now among the Russian political elite as infused with ‘petroconfidence’,” So says Cliff Kupchan of the Eurasia Group, in an interview with the BBC.

Indeed, between 1951-2001, thousands of articles and many books and monographs were published mainly in the mainstream Russian scientific journals proving abiotic petroleum origins - all ignored by western governments and media. For example, leading expert V. A. Krayushkin has alone published more than two hundred fifty articles on modern petroleum geology, and several books.

Russian mineralogists, oil explorers and each successive government since the dark days of the former Soviet Union have been unalterably upbeat that they’ve ousted the ‘peak oil, fossil fuels’ nonsense. And who are we to argue - they’ve got the money in the bank to prove it.

As a result Russia is firmly ensconced as the world’s second-largest oil exporter and is becoming so preeminent in the field of oil and gas exploration and innovation that the nation is set to usurp the U.S. not as a military force, but as the world’s energy superpower for the 21st century

Oil—Our Greatest Natural Renewable Energy Source

Exploiting their cutting-edge technology Russia has successfully discovered numerous petroleum fields, a number of which produce either partly or entirely from a crystalline basement and which appears distinctly self-replenishing. Yes, you read that right—Russia enjoys the best naturally renewable energy source—petroleum! No billions wasted on wind farms, solar or wave white elephants here.

Indeed, to our former soviet cousins, the idea of ‘peak oil’ is laughable because, if they’re calculations are right, oil is the most bountiful, most efficient and cheapest renewable fuel and will last at least for many hundreds of years to come.

Disgruntled that the Russians have been allowed to take such a big lead the brightest and the best in the west are now using the blogosphere in helping to forge resurgence against the fossil fuel, peak oil myth. So says Daniel Yergin, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power” and chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a company that advises governments and industry.

Yergin like others cites the compelling evidence that the MSM won’t show you; these anti-fossil fuel theorists cite alkanes, kerogens and many other petroleum related chemicals that have been found on meteorites—which we know can support no organic life and thus proving the lie of the fossil fuel theory.

Why are We Still Being Lied to?

Indeed, so lame has the fossil fuel theory become that even its most strident supporters are unable to muster the flimsiest of evidence for their position. In “The Abiotic Oil Controversy” key proponent of the abiotic (fossil) origin, Richard Heinberg admits his case is exposed as threadbare lamenting,

“Perhaps one day there will be general agreement that at least some oil is indeed abiotic. Maybe there are indeed deep methane belts twenty miles below the Earth’s surface.”

So scant is the evidence to support Heinberg and other western pro-fossil fuel theorists that in researching his article ‘The Evidence for Limitless Oil and Gas’ (Digital Journal), Bill Jencks reveals,

“I searched the internet including Google Scholar and there seems to be no ‘absolute proof’ or support from direct modern research for the Biogenic Theory of oil and gas formation. This theory—for want of a better word—seems to be greatly ‘assumed’ by geologists throughout geological research.”

Like me, Jencks found a mountain of evidence backing Russian claims. From the Joint Institute of the Physics of the Earth Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow we find incredible sources as revealed by A Dissertation by J.F. Kenney which condemns the outmoded 18th century ”anarchaic hypothesis” that petroleum somehow (miraculously) evolved from biological detritus, and is accordingly limited in abundance.

Instead, the fossil fuels hypothesis has been replaced during the past forty years by the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins which has established that petroleum is a primordial material erupted from great depth. Kenney states,

“Therefore, petroleum abundances are limited by little more than the quantities of its constituents as were incorporated into the Earth at the time of its formation; and its availability depends upon technological development and exploration competence.”

In a straight scientific shootout Peak Oil Theory vs Russian-Ukraine Modern Theory the Russians win hands down. But it remains a peculiar anachronism that there is no body of American or other English language peer review to verify or disprove the Russian science.

But why are we still being lied to? With such unwillingness to correct these intellectual failings it is little wonder that there is growing dissatisfaction among voters and thinkers in English-speaking nations and the EU. Those who study carefully the facts now reasonably conclude that beyond the media hard sell there is no energy crisis; the world has a plentiful supply of cheap renewable petroleum and another enviro-myth needs to be mercilessly culled.

References:
Kudryavtsev N.A., 1959. Geological proof of the deep origin of Petroleum. Trudy Vsesoyuz. Neftyan. Nauch. Issledovatel Geologoraz Vedoch. Inst. No.132, pp. 242-262 (In Russian)

Kudryavtsev N.A., 1951. Against the organic hypothesis of oil origin. Oil Economy Jour. [Neftyanoe khoziaystvo], no. 9. - pp. 17-29 (in Russian)

[Derek]

Wow, just wow, and a great find Questioning_Climate.

It has been a quiet day for me today, I have been pondering a line of thought,
that this piece has crystalised for me - THANK YOU.

"We" have been so very, very nieve about political science, and the politicisation of "scientists".
The politics, and politicisation has been so, so obvious, for so, so long.
Gallileo, Wegener, Krug, Bellamy, Morner, Miskolczi, to name just a few off the top of my head.
(That refused to be poltical, or politicised)
Heck, it even took 80 years for Darwin's theory to be properly considered, and then accepted (mostly...).
Incidentally Darwin had left the "debate" in disgust at the tactics employed in regards to questioning his theory, and
died before knowing his theory was eventually accepted.

Yes, this is going to have to be developed into a bit (gross understatement) of a rant / soap box in another thread by me.
Obviously it has to also include received / taught misconceptions.

Our misconceptions, the politicisation of "sciences" and "scientists", and
the perversion of Popper by so many, and virtually all so called "respected scientists",
that might explain why this forum is so quiet.

It's all reflected / repeated in the "fossil" fuel / peak oil scam,
the IPCC reports, and the Green / AGW agendas.

[Richard111]

Over at the blog GREENIE WATCH

By John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.), writing from Brisbane, Australia.

His personal comments and opinions down the right hand side of the page include this quote:

Quote:The claim that oil is a fossil fuel is another great myth and folly of the age. They are now finding oil at around seven MILES beneath the sea bed -- which is incomparably further down than any known fossil. The abiotic oil theory is not as yet well enough developed to generate useful predictions but that is also true of fossil fuel theory

The new DEEP oil and gas find in the USA is another pillar to support these claims that oil is NOT fossil, it is being produced all the time way deep down in the planet. Until recently we could only access the stuff that had percolated up to the "fossil" level thereby becoming contaminated by the idea it is created by plants and animals.

[Richard111]

E. M. Smith, otherwise known as Chiefio, seems to be commenting on abiotic oil over at WUWT.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/08/i-...ent-478310

Quote:E.M.Smith says:
September 9, 2010 at 4:26 am
Lucy Skywalker says: Thank you everyone here. And PS, a primer on the issues of Peak Oil both for and against, as a post here, to make the basic facts more accessible to flounderers like myself, would be nice.

I cover it to some reasonable degree in the “no shortage” postings. Some expansion in the comments. The “short form” is that most oil fields deplete in a bell curve, so by extension the whole world, if thought of as one ‘field’ ought to do the same.

The “issues” that make this view problematic are pretty straight forward.

1) Saudi is NOT developing at full possible speed, so we don’t know how much they really have. They ‘banked it’ for a long time, and they are the major player.

2) Depth. We’ve recently found oil at ‘impossible depths’. The prior theory said oil could not exist that deep, so folks didn’t drill that deep. Now that we know better, a very large number of places that ‘had no oil’ may in fact have oil, just deeper.

3) Refilling fields. There is a theory, mostly popular with the Russians, that oil is made by carbonate rocks being subducted and heated. Since we can turn carbonates into oil in the lab, this seems pretty well proven as possible. Further, most of the worlds oil fields are found near present or former subduction zones (California, Indonesia, Saudi) or collision zones between ancient plates. In the Gulf of Mexico, there is at least one ‘played out’ well that was found to be refilling from below with oil of a different isotope signature… The fact is, we don’t really know where oil comes from or how much more there is.

4) Technological advance. In the short term of 20 or 30 years, a field is a bell curve depletion. But over 50 to 60 years we develop whole new ways to raise oil. We’ve gone back to ‘empty’ fields and made them produce more. At present, fields that are ‘empty’ have about 1/2 their oil still in them… and technology is still advancing.

5) What is “oil” changes over time. We’re now using ‘tar sands’ that were ‘useless’ 30 years ago. There is more oil in “useless” shale right now than in the rest of the worlds reserves combined.

6) We can make oil. Companies like Rentech and Syntroleum turn trash and plants into oil. How much oil you want? We can get 50 tons / acre of wood, or about 10 x that in algae, and make it into oil.

There are more “issues” but then this would not be a short summary. I’ll just end with noting that the 200 years it took to reach this point implies 200 years before we ‘run out’… Oh, and the whole ‘EROI’ Energy Return On Investment argument is broken. It says you reach a point where it takes more than a bbl of oil to raise a bbl so you stop. The reality is that we will use nuclear electricity to raise the oil as the FORM of energy in oil is more convenient. Oh, and the whole ‘need it for chemicals and plastics’ is broken too. We can make them from trash, trees, anything with carbon in it. Even coal, that was used before we decided oil was handy. BTW, right now we use natural gas for plastics as it’s cheaper and more plentiful…

Hope that helps.

[Richard111]

I've been spammed again!!!

[Richard111]

Seems like I am still spammed so here is the link:

There is no energy shortage

March 20, 2009 by E.M.Smith

Note the date. The stuff of interest for this thread is about half way down the page.

[Derek]

Dear "spammer", I checked the akismet folder and there was your post,
so I've deselected it, and now it's here, post 29 I believe.

BTW - Sunsettommy sent me this link,
http://www.viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html
Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For
Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find

Excerpt,
" researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have managed to prove that
fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated.
The findings are revolutionary since this means, on the one hand, that it will be much easier to find these sources of energy and,
on the other hand, that they can be found all over the globe.

"Using our research we can even say where oil could be found in Sweden," says Vladimir Kutcherov,
a professor at the Division of Energy Technology at KTH.

Together with two research colleagues, Vladimir Kutcherov has simulated the process involving pressure and heat that
occurs naturally in the inner layers of the earth, the process that generates hydrocarbon, the primary component in oil and natural gas.

According to Vladimir Kutcherov, the findings are a clear indication that the oil supply is not about to end,
which researchers and experts in the field have long feared. "

For interested parties / passing guests to this forum.
The above link is an excellant "introduction" to the subject area, well worth spending a couple of minutes reading, I'd suggest.
If you have more time, or your interest is for more on the subject area, may I suggest,
The Oil is Mastery blog.
Helpfully intended hint - the Oil is mastery blog front page is MASSIVE, you have to scroll down a long, long way, and then a bit further, to get to the abiotic oil "section"..
One of my favourite links in that section is this one,
Stalin And Abiotic Oil.

Later "BP" UPDATE..
Over at tAV I have just spotted this post, dated September 9, 2010,
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/09...igs-safer/
which links to this article,
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre67n5...-microbes/
Excerpt,
" The micro-organisms were apparently stimulated by the massive oil spill that began in April, and
they degraded the hydrocarbons so efficiently that the plume is now undetectable,
said Terry Hazen of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

These so-called proteobacteria — Hazen calls them “bugs” — have adapted to the cold deep water
where the big BP plume was observed and are able to biodegrade hydrocarbons much more quickly than expected,
without significantly depleting oxygen as most known oil-depleting bacteria do. "

Jeff Id wrote in the thread at tAV linked to above,
" The biggest oil spill in history, and it’s gone. "

I'll add, perfectly naturally.

[Sunsettommy]

(09-09-2010 05:38 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  I've been spammed again!!!

Akismet likes you.

[strogoff]

Thank you all for the interesting readings.

I guess that, regardless of biotic/abiotic origin of oil, the most difficult argument is that of the ‘EROI’ Energy Return On Investment.

An article about a leaked German military study in SPIEGEL ONLINE has been tweeted all day long:

Military Study Warns of a Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis

Excerpt:

Quote:The scenarios outlined by the Bundeswehr Transformation Center are drastic. Even more explosive politically are recommendations to the government that the energy experts have put forward based on these scenarios. They argue that "states dependent on oil imports" will be forced to "show more pragmatism toward oil-producing states in their foreign policy." Political priorities will have to be somewhat subordinated, they claim, to the overriding concern of securing energy supplies.

For example: Germany would have to be more flexible in relation toward Russia's foreign policy objectives. It would also have to show more restraint in its foreign policy toward Israel, to avoid alienating Arab oil-producing nations. Unconditional support for Israel and its right to exist is currently a cornerstone of German foreign policy.

The economic and political analysis, even though drastic, matches the belief in oil peak, and i don´t think that German military are naive or ignorant. Merkel´s decision to extend life span of nuclear plants a couple of days ago is also thought provoking.

[Richard111]

""They argue that "states dependent on oil imports" will be forced to "show more pragmatism toward oil-producing states in their foreign policy."""

That sums up the policy. Now they must apply science and become oil independant.

[Questioning_Climate]

EM Smith states quite correctly that:

Quote:It is “Producing as much per year as you ever can”. That is, it’s “Peak Production Rate” not quantity.

The oil business is driven by a balance between supply and demand while maximising profit. It plays the markets and adjusts output to meet economic and political goals. It plays/controls the oil markets and adjusts output to meet economic and political goals. Most of the largest oil companies are state owned and others are part of cartels, for example OPEC. Imagine how it might be if the majority of operators were small and private entities.

Before I waffle on further, it is important to realise the difference between reserves and resource. Reserves are the economic and political measure of the quantity available and/or potentially available within the short term. Reserves are NOT the resource. Resource is the amount contained within the earth based upon naive extrapolations using the ‘accepted’ wisdom. An analogy might be Bill Gates finances where he has a certain amount of cash in his wallet (reserves) but has considerably more in his bank account/portfolio (resources). Reserves are but a drop in the ocean of the resource.

There is no lack of oil or gas, just a lack of incentive to extract it. Environmentalism and NIMBY-ism (E&N) prevents, to a great extent, exploration onshore and offshore in much of the western world. Further east, it is more generally accepted that hydrocarbons are a natural mineral resource and in most cases it is perceived to be limitless. E&N are thus favourable to the oil industry because it keeps the price of oil and gas higher than it would otherwise be in richer countries and ‘forces’ the oil companies to operate in regions where production costs are lower due to cheaper labour rates with further savings resulting from less stringent health/safety and environmental legislation. The industry would play differently if there was any perceived lack or possibility of resource limitation.
It would seem a good idea to put a little more perspective on the whole issue of oil (also applies to gas) using an example. Oil is still extracted in the area where the oil industry originated; furthermore it can still be pumped from one of the first wells, although not at an economic rate, by today’s standards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Well_Museum

I have been to the museum and seen it for myself, and signed the visitors’ book, if you care to check.

Conventional reservoirs are volumes of accumulated oil. They are NOT the source of the oil. That is much deeper and may even be quite a long distance away in the lateral sense. Oil from the source rock has to migrate to regions where it is trapped to become a conventional reservoir. This can only be achieved by transport through the rocks when they are permeable or fractured.
The key to the Russian/Ukrainian theory is the deep origin and the need for fractured basement rock to allow hydrocarbons to seep through and up to depths where we can extract it. Recent shifts towards this theory have been taking place within the oil industry and with the advent of accurate directional drilling, and deep drilling capabilities, it has become possible to pin-point and intersect the said fractures. In a sense, this partially or possibly completely circumvents the need for an accumulation/reservoir. It may also allow very rapid rates of recovery over much greater periods of time.

The Gulf of Mexico (GOM) is a great example. Its importance lies in the fact that the area was hit by a huge meteor, millions of years ago, that fractured the rocks to a great depth, several kilometres. There is thus a route for migration of hydrocarbons from the source beneath the basement formations to shallower depths. As such there is a significant continuous seep across the entire GOM area that is completely natural and that can be seen by satellite. Said leak has been happening for very much longer than man has been exploiting hydrocarbons, possibly millions of years. Had the hydrocarbons been of biological origin, they would have been exhausted before man discovered them and probably before man even existed.

If the oil industry was able to, it would be targeting the extremely deep water at the centre of the impact site. It might even be the Holy Grail for the industry. However, at present, that is not technically and/or economically possible.

The GOM is not unique in terms of being highly fractured. Many other regions have deep fracturing and often this is associated with rift valleys or other fault features, for example the North Sea. Here smaller companies are re-exploring the regions the majors decided were uneconomic and re-opening old wells, some of which have apparently gained significant quantities since abandonment.

Effectively, without MSM attention, the oil industry has moved to the Russian/Ukrainian theory. Actually, it might be unfair to the MSM to say that, in as much as the pressure from environmental groups, the continuing cover-ups to support the fossil paradigm (limited resource) and trade secrets within the industry are probably enough to throw the MSM off the scent. Like in all industries, the oil companies are keen to protect any intellectual property that gives them an advantage.

Interestingly, this appears to include some Russians who claim to have moved technology forward in a major step, although there is the possibility/probability that they are using decoy tactics:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/9260
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/9244
http://www.chamco.net/images/alkor/ML%20...Vision.htm
http://www.cisoilgas.com/article/Quick-QampA/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field

The geographical area in the first two links is the East Midlands, UK, which has been an important source of onshore oil in the UK since before WW2. So it is not a new field and reports of seepage are recorded from way back. In fact during WW2 trains laden with oil from this field were hidden in railway tunnels ready to be dumped into the English Channel and set alight if an invasion fleet had approached the shores of England. Hydrocarbons, mostly oil, are still extracted and several new licences have been applied for. I believe at least one well has been drilled recently, within the last few months, despite lobbying against it.

The point here is that the Russians know there is oil and long term seepage in the area and they also know how to extract it. They didn’t need to resort to micro-leptons, if in fact that is a cover. It remains to be seen whether the oil company (not Russian) that has recently tapped the oil has long term success but they were certainly very optimistic and have apparently been recovering significant (economic) quantities. But have they exploited the deep oil that the Russians would have provided the UK with?

To summarise, because of the conventional ‘fossil’ theory the general trend has been to explore for oil in the wrong areas. However, technological developments beyond that of traditional drilling systems were necessary to get to the best geological formations closer to the sources. These developments required the energy and economic structures from conventional wells to power the progress.

So, we come back to the question, is oil abiotic/abiogenic? The answer is yes. Does the oil industry know this? Yes, of course they do but they will not explicitly say so because it is not in their interests and to be honest, there are still an awful lot of people in the oil industry who are not able to grasp/accept the fact a shift in theory has taken place. Their bible has been rewritten but they cannot bring themselves to read it.

[Derek]

In post 34,

(09-09-2010 03:38 PM)strogoff Wrote:  I guess that, regardless of biotic/abiotic origin of oil, the most difficult argument is that of the ‘EROI’ Energy Return On Investment.

Isn't that just another way of saying peak oil fears are true, and unquestionable, so we'll be forced to do so and so...

Which is NOT regardless of so called "peak fossil fuel oil fears", it is accepting them blindly in the first place. It is simply a belief.
Back to considering the very real (read already proven) possibility of the mostly, if not completely, abiotic origins of oil,
I would suggest, is a far more sensible and scientific way forward.
It would certainly be a far less alarmist and reasonable approach.

NB (to all) - Please read Questioning_Climate's post, number 36 above.
I realised a few years ago (care of SST and Q_C ) that if ever there was a vested interest group
it has to be the "group" in denial of the abiotic origins of oil.
Why else would "we" in the UK accept £5 a gallon.
AND, would the oil companies or governments tell us about it.......If ever there was a no-brainer, this HAS to be it.
Of course they wouldn't tell "us".

If you have ANY other explanation, please, please, put it forward.

[Richard111]

""Why else would "we" in the UK accept £5 a gallon.""

I don't accept it! I have no option! This is NOT a free market product. I drive miles on occasion to save 5p a liter. £2.50 on a tank full. Don't have the financial resources to fill up each time, so taking on a half tankfull is probably not saving me anything.

[strogoff]

Q_C, what a speech! Thanks, a lot of new things for me. The microleptons issue quite amused me. Could it be a red herring? Maybe russians are hiding their real tech and use that difficult microleptons to mislead Western countries (LOL when thinking about county council technicians dealing with approval reports or greenies arguments against microleptons).

This reading is very interesting:

Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer (F William Engdahl, 2007)

Quote:The 2003 arrest of Russian Mikhail Khodorkovsky, of Yukos Oil, took place just before he could sell a dominant stake in Yukos to ExxonMobil after a private meeting with Dick Cheney. Had Exxon got the stake they would have control of the world’s largest resource of geologists and engineers trained in the a-biotic techniques of deep drilling.

Since 2003 Russian scientific sharing of their knowledge has markedly lessened. Offers in the early 1990’s to share their knowledge with US and other oil geophysicists were met with cold rejection according to American geophysicists involved.

---

(09-10-2010 01:55 PM)Derek Wrote:  In post 34,

(09-09-2010 03:38 PM)strogoff Wrote:  I guess that, regardless of biotic/abiotic origin of oil, the most difficult argument is that of the ‘EROI’ Energy Return On Investment.

Isn't that just another way of saying peak oil fears are true, and unquestionable, so we'll be forced to do so and so...

Derek, sorry, maybe I´m "lost in translation" and explained myself badly. "Peak oil fears" are true; "peak oil" (maybe) not. The thing is that peak oil fears and biotic theory are encysted in public opinion, German military (unless the leak of the report were a plot or something alike) or, as Q_C tells us, an awful lot of people in the oil industry.

Happens something similar with food production, and the real fear is that the TIMING of technology advancement, mainly hindered by environmentalism and NIMBY-ism, wouln´t catch up with political an economical developments. In these contexts, fear itself must be feared:

[Sunsettommy]

Peak oil fears have been going on since the late 1800's.It is so easy to see that it is baloney.

Here is one link worth reading

THE OIL RESERVE FALLACY

Here is a link to a page with literally hundreds of links that explore the topic of Peak Oil and the side issues that come with it.

Popular Technology