AI
| Followers | 216 |
| Posts | 32534 |
| Boards Moderated | 3 |
| Alias Born | 09/10/2000 |
Thursday, February 19, 2009 2:17:30 PM
The abiotic oil debate and "peak oil"
http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html
The following is a collection of excerpts and links concerning a recent and ongoing important debate over the contending theories of oil origins (fossil vs. abiotic) between Mike Ruppert of From the Wilderness and Dave McGowan, as well as related topics pertaining to the scientific foundation of "peak oil" predictions. I do not wish to offer any final judgements, and I'm not qualified to do so, but I do think that McGowan and others have raised a great deal of documentation and argument which deserve close attention. Everything on this page is presented for informational purposes, intended as a review of the debate thus far.
- Brian Salter, questionsquestions.net 25 Mar 04 (updated 16 Apr)
[updates, 16 April: Shell to Demolish Profitable Refinery, McGowan Newsletter #59]
The following excerpt from an article by FTW energy editor Dale Allen Pfeiffer expresses the FTW position on abiotic oil:
A WORD ABOUT ABIOTIC OIL
There is some speculation that oil is abiotic in origin -- generally asserting that oil is formed from magma instead of an organic origin. These ideas are really groundless. All unrefined oil carries microscopic evidence of the organisms from which it was formed. These organisms can be traced through the fossil record to specific time periods when quantities of oil were formed.
Likewise, there are two primal energy forces operating on this planet, and all forms of energy descend from one of these two. The first is the internal form of energy heating the Earth's interior. This primal energy comes from radioactive decay and from the heat energy originally generated during accretion of the planet some 4.6 billion years ago. There are no known mechanisms for transferring this internal energy into any secondary energy source. And the chemistry of magma does not compare to the chemistry of hydrocarbons. Magma is lacking in carbon compounds, and hydrocarbons are lacking in silicates. If hydrocarbons were generated from magma, then you would expect to see some closer kinship in their chemistry.
The second primal energy source is light and heat generated by our sun. It is the sun's energy that powers all energy processes on the Earth's surface, and which provides the very energy for life itself. Photosynthesis is the miraculous process by which the sun's energy is converted into forms available to the life processes of living matter. Following biological, geological and chemical processes, a line can be drawn from photosynthesis to the formation of hydrocarbon deposits. Likewise, both living matter and hydrocarbons are carbon based.
Finally, because oil generation is in part a geological process, it proceeds at an extremely slow rate from our human perspective. Geological processes take place over a different frame of time than human events. It is for this reason that when geologists say that the San Andreas fault is due for a powerful earthquake, they mean any time in the next million years -- probably less. Geological processes move exceedingly slow.
After organic matter has accumulated on the sea floor, it must be buried by the process of deposition. In geological time, in order for this matter to be a likely prospect for hydrocarbon generation, the rate of deposition must be quick. Here is an experiment you can conduct to get an idea how slow the rates of deposition are. Place a small stone on the bottom of a motionless pond. Take another stone of about the same size and place it at the mouth of a small stream, a stream where the current is not so great that it will sweep the stone away. Check both of these stones yearly until they have been buried by deposition. You might see the stone at the mouth of the stream covered over within a few years, but it is unlikely that you will see the stone in the pond buried within your lifetime.
It is a simple geological fact that the oil we are using up at an alarming rate today will not be replaced within our lifetime -- or within many lifetimes. That is why hydrocarbons are called non-renewable resources. Capped wells may appear to refill after a few years, but they are not regenerating. It is simply an effect of oil slowly migrating through pore spaces from areas of high pressure to the low-pressure area of the drill hole. If this oil is drawn out, it will take even longer for the hole to refill again. Oil is a non-renewable resource generated and deposited under special biological and geological conditions.
Mike Ruppert goes into greater detail in the following:
Framing the Debate on Abiotic Oil
http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/FramingTheDebateOnAbioticOilByMikeRuppert.htm
Part of the above article is a response to a challenge issued by Jerry Russell:
Peak Oil"??Ý Don't buy into the hype! (3/12/04)
http://www.911-strike.com/peakoil.htm
Dave McGowan argues for the abiotic theory, which holds that oil is generated by natural processes in the earth's magma, and he also argues pointedly that the "fossil" theory has never been proven. The following is long and detailed, but a must-read:
NEWSLETTER #52
March 13, 2004
Cop v CIA (Center for an Informed America)
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr52.html
excerpt:
The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not controversial nor presently a matter of academic debate. The period of debate about this extensive body of knowledge has been over for approximately two decades (Simakov 1986). The modern theory is presently applied extensively throughout the former U.S.S.R. as the guiding perspective for petroleum exploration and development projects. There are presently more than 80 oil and gas fields in the Caspian district alone which were explored and developed by applying the perspective of the modern theory and which produce from the crystalline basement rock. (Krayushkin, Chebanenko et al. 1994) Similarly, such exploration in the western Siberia cratonic-rift sedimentary basin has developed 90 petroleum fields of which 80 produce either partly or entirely from the crystalline basement. The exploration and discoveries of the 11 major and 1 giant fields on the northern flank of the Dneiper-Donets basin have already been noted. There are presently deep drilling exploration projects under way in Azerbaijan, Tatarstan, and Asian Siberia directed to testing potential oil and gas reservoirs in the crystalline basement. (http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm)
It appears that, unbeknownst to Westerners, there have actually been, for quite some time now, two competing theories concerning the origins of petroleum. One theory claims that oil is an organic 'fossil fuel' deposited in finite quantities near the planet's surface. The other theory claims that oil is continuously generated by natural processes in the Earth's magma. One theory is backed by a massive body of research representing fifty years of intense scientific inquiry. The other theory is an unproven relic of the eighteenth century. One theory anticipates deep oil reserves, refillable oil fields, migratory oil systems, deep sources of generation, and the spontaneous venting of gas and oil. The other theory has a difficult time explaining any such documented phenomena.
So which theory have we in the West, in our infinite wisdom, chosen to embrace? Why, the fundamentally absurd 'Fossil Fuel' theory, of course -- the same theory that the 'Peak Oil' doomsday warnings are based on.
I am sorry to report here, by the way, that in doing my homework, I never did come across any of that "hard science" documenting 'Peak Oil' that Mr. Strahl referred to. All the 'Peak Oil' literature that I found, on Ruppert's site and elsewhere, took for granted that petroleum is a non-renewable 'fossil fuel.' That theory is never questioned, nor is any effort made to validate it. It is simply taken to be an established scientific fact, which it quite obviously is not.
So what do Ruppert and his resident experts have to say about all of this? Dale Allen Pfeiffer, identified as the "FTW Contributing Editor for Energy," has written: "There is some speculation that oil is abiotic in origin -- generally asserting that oil is formed from magma instead of an organic origin. These ideas are really groundless." (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/04_04_02_oil_recession.html)
Here is a question that I have for both Mr. Ruppert and Mr. Pfeiffer: Do you consider it honest, responsible journalism to dismiss a fifty year body of multi-disciplinary scientific research, conducted by hundreds of the world's most gifted scientists, as "some speculation"?
The following is a response by McGowan to a generally hostile email from a Ruppert supporter:
NEWSLETTER #53
March 16, 2004
The 'Peak Oil' Team Sends in a Second Stringer!
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr53.html
McGowan then answered a response from Ruppert, raising a critique of the terms Ruppert had set in an offer for a debate:
NEWSLETTER #54
March 18, 2004
Ruppert Responds!
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr54.html
excerpt:
The biggest problem, and the most telling aspect of the 'offer,' is with the framing of the question. You have chosen (and this isn't the original topic of debate, by the way, but one that you came up with after you read my critique): "Is abiotic petroleum and natural gas readily available and making its way into commercial use in sufficient quantities to establish that there is no imminent energy shortage?î
The interesting thing about that question is that it presupposes that your side of the argument has already been proven, even though we both know that that isn't true. It is interesting to note here that whenever people such as you and Mr. Chin mention abiotic petroleum, you are usually quick to claim that it is a "disputed" theory. However, you never attach such qualifiers to mentions of 'fossil fuels.' Don't you find that odd, considering that it is actually the reverse that is true?
You have admitted that petroleum can be produced abiotically (in your response to my "kindred spirit"). In fact, no one with any credibility can deny that fact. It has been demonstrated in the laboratory and verified with unchallenged mathematical models. It is a fact. The 'fossil fuel' theory, on the other hand, cannot be verified and is disputed by, at the very least, a large community of Soviet and Ukrainian scientists. Since abiotic petroleum is not disputed and is verifiable, the logical presumption, until proven otherwise, is that all the natural gas and petroleum in commercial use, and in the ground, and in storage tanks, and anywhere else, is abiotic oil and gas.
In the following, McGowan re-prints an article by Walt Sheasby investigating the backgrounds of the main "peak oil" proponents. Sheasby's analysis is quite particular and opinionated, but his research is valuable (and I have independently verified all the main points). There are different ways to interpret the connections, but Sheasby does touch on a particularly important issue: it is incorrect to assume a priori that the more alarmist or pessimistic position in this kind of debate is automatically going to represent a more radical or "anti-establishment" position. Many people seem to have trouble recognizing this.
NEWSLETTER #55
March 19, 2004
Who Is Really Behind the 'Peak Oil' Scare?
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr55.html
Note: one important aspect of the current situation which is not mentioned in the Sheasby article is that there are mixed opinions about peak oil coming from IHS Energy, with which Petroconsultants merged several years ago. See the articles by Michael Lynch below. This is something which deserves closer examination.
At the same time, with promotion from someone like Bush energy advisor Matthew Simmons, and with coverage exploding in the mainstream media, the idea of imminent "peak oil" does not exactly qualify as a "renegade" point of view. In light of this, caution and skepticism are due.
NEWSLETTER #56
March 24, 2004
The Debate Continues (by proxy)
www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr56.html
McGowan continues the debate on several points with different correspondents, beginning with a defense of his challenge of Ruppert's radical pro-population reduction stance. The final section in which he points out the conceptual blind spots of those who fail to consider the geopolitics of scarcity-based economics in weighing the arguments, and who have not addressed the fundamental credibility of the raw statistics themselves (relying on unproven premises) is essential reading. This and newsletter #52 contain most of McGowan's most crucial arguments.
NEWSLETTER #59
April 13, 2004
Oil News Briefs
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr59.html
Recent news stories bearing on some of McGowan's points. Especially revealing are reports from industry watchdogs that the consolidation in the oil industry is part of a deliberate effort to artificially raise prices — even before any supposed "peak oil" shortages hit [!]
also related to this, see Shell to Demolish Profitable Refinery
AAPG Hedberg Conference in Vienna
http://www.mail-archive.com/fogri@iagi.or.id/msg00802.html
[....]
The conveners for the conference are Michel T. Halbouty (Michel T. Halbouty Energy Co.), Peter Odell (Erasmus University), Barry Katz (ChevronTexaco) and Ernest A. Mancini (University of Alabama). The purpose of the conference is to bring together exploration and production geoscientists, engineers and researchers from oil companies, mineral exploration companies, research institutes and academia to discuss evidence and data for the organic origin and abiogenic origin of petroleum, and the types of tests that could be designated to determine the mechanism for the formation of petroleum. An understanding of the origin of petroleum is a crucial element in the design of successful hydrocarbon strategies and in oil and gas production. See attached Conference Announcement for further discussion on the history of this topic.
http://www.aapg.org/education/hedberg/vienna/
Origin of Petroleum -- Biogenic and/or Abiogenic and Its Significance in Hydrocarbon Exploration and Productions
Sponsored by American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Program Committee
Michel Halbouty, Michel T. Halbouty Energy Co. Peter Odell, Erasmus University Barry Katz, ChevronTexaco Ernest A. Mancini, University of Alabama. Conference Site and Dates July 11-14, 2004 Vienna, Austria
Conference Goals
Discuss the evidence and data for an organic and abiogenic origin of petroleum; discuss the types of tests that could be designated to determine the mechanism for the formation of petroleum; discuss the similarities and differences in exploration strategies using an organic model compared to an abiogenic model for the origin of petroleum; discuss and debate these exploration strategies; discuss the ramifications of an abiogenic origin of petroleum in estimating basin resources and in determining field reserves; and discuss the significance of an abiogenic origin of petroleum to the future supplies of petroleum.
Discussion
An understanding of the origin of petroleum is a crucial element in the design of successful hydrocarbon strategies and in their production. Such knowledge is also important in estimating sedimentary basin resources, in determining field reserves, and in predicting the future availability of petroleum supplies globally.
Most members of AAPG have been taught and accept that the origin of petroleum is organic. Therefore, exploration strategies are designed using geochemical data from sedimentary petroleum source rocks. Petroleum resources available in a given sedimentary basin are estimated based on the organic and physical characteristics of the source rock and their thermal and chemical alteration histories, similarly field reserves are determined based not only on structural and reservoir parameters but also upon source rock data. This methodology has been used widely by the petroleum industry. What if the source of petroleum is not from sedimentary source rocks, but from an abiogenic source that is not limited by the physical, chemical, and biological constraints that affect the type, quality and volume of petroleum derived from an organic source?
For half a century, scientists from the former Soviet Union (FSU) have recognized that the petroleum produced from fields in the FSU have been generated by abiogenic processes. This is not a new concept, being first reported in 1951. The Russians have used this concept as an exploration strategy and have successfully discovered petroleum fields of which a number of these fields produce either partly and entirely from crystalline basement. Is this exploration strategy limited to the petroleum provinces in Russia or does such a strategy have application to other petroleum provinces like the Gulf of Mexico or the Middle East? Some believe this is a possibility for fields in the Gulf of Mexico, and others argue for application to fields in the Middle East.
[QQ note: the preceding two paragraphs illustrate a problem in many anti-abiotic arguments, in which is issue in contention is limited to the "refilling" of existing fields; this misses the issue of exploration strategy and reserve estimates which have been based on biogenic geological criteria. This document clearly argues that the assumptions made about petroleum origins have a crucial effect on the way reserve statistics are calculated, and in past choices of where to drill.]
Along these lines, this Conference is designed to provide an opportunity to present the hypotheses, evidence and data for an organic origin of petroleum and for an abiogenic origin of petroleum through oral and poster presentations. Day 1 sessions mostly address the abiogenic side, whereas on Day 2, the organic and alternative origins are discussed. Day 3 addresses combination origins, as well as economic significance of the various exploration and production strategies discussed. Ample time is scheduled for discussion and debate of the hypotheses for the origin of petroleum, and the program will conclude in a summary panel discussion at the end of Day 3. The significance of an organic compared to an abiogenic origin of petroleum to the industry will be emphasized and demonstrated through presentations on exploration strategies using both organic models and abiogenic models. Ample time is scheduled to discuss and debate the similarities and differences of these exploration strategies. Also, the ramifications of basin resource estimations and field reserve determinations will be discussed, and the significance of these estimations and determinations in the prediction of the future world's supply and price of petroleum will be debated. Other topics include the differences in modeling approaches of petroleum origin, generation, expulsion and migration under an organic origin compared to an abiogenic origin. Presentations on petroleum migration will address the timing and distance of migration under the scenario of an organic origin and under a scenario of an abiogenic origin. Ample time is scheduled to discuss and debate the significance of migration, the timing of migration, and the migration distance given an organic origin or an abiogenic origin.
For a list of participants in the conference, see posts 236-238 at this page:
http://www.ateism.ru/cgi-bin/atheism/msgbook/tema.pl?t=m764&n=250
both sides of the oil origins argument, with a rather good summary of the abiotic theory & evidence:
Origin of oil by Tom de Booij
http://www.egoproject.nl/Links.html#link9
contrasting viewpoints on oil reserves:
http://www.egoproject.nl/Links.html#link8
The Russians and Ukranians accuse Thomas Gold of plagiarism and misrepresenting their versions of abiotic theory:
http://www.gasresources.net/Plagiarism(Overview).htm
Sometime during the late 1970's, a British-American, one-time astronomer named Thomas Gold discovered the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins.Ý Such was not difficult to do, for there are many thousands of articles, monographs, and books published in the mainstream Russian scientific press on modern Russian petroleum science.Ý Gold reads the Russian language fluently.
ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ In 1979, Gold began publishing the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of petroleum origins, as if such were his own ideas and without giving credit to the Russian (then, Soviet) petroleum scientists from whom he had taken the material.Ý Gold tried to alter the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins with notions of his own in order to conceal its provenance, and gave his 'ideas' the (very misleading) name the 'deep gas theory.'Ý
ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ Worse yet, Gold's alterations of modern Russian petroleum science are utterly wrong. Specifically Gold's claims that there exist large quantities of natural gas (methane) in the Earth at depths of its mantle are completely wrong, - such claims are upside-down and backwards.Ý At the pressures of the mantle, methane is unstable, and the hydrogen-carbon system there evolves the entire suite of heavier hydrocarbons found in natural petroleum, in the Planck-type distribution which characterizes natural petroleum.Ý Methane at pressures of the mantle of the Earth will decompose to evolve octane, diesel oil, heavy lubricating oils, alkylbenzenes, and the compounds found in natural petroleum.Ý [These properties of the hydrogen-carbon system have been described at greater length and rigor in a recent article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.]Ý Regrettably, Gold is as ignorant of thermodynamics as he is of ethics.
[clearly, one must be wary of arguments which set up Gold as a straw-man, whether knowingly or not... in any case, the scientific debate seems to have suffered from a lack of attention on the Russian-Ukranian theories in the english-speaking world.]
Letter from Prof. V. A. Krayushkin to Prof. John Briggs, on Thomas Gold's plagiarism and his failure to credit Russian / Ukranian sources: http://www.gasresources.net/VAKreplytBriggs.htm
During the years 1957-1982, the leader of the Ukrainian scientific school in the field of deep abiotic petroleum origins was Professor V. B. Porfir'yev himself. Professor Porfiryev became the leader of the Soviet school of abiotic petroleum origins after the death of Professor N. A. Kudryavstev in 1972.Ý This school has during the past decade included such scientists as K. A. Anikiev, N. S. Beskrovnyi, Z. A. Buniat-Zade, I. I. Chebanenko, G. N. Dolenko, V. F. Derpgolts, V. I. Filippovskiy, I. Ya. Furman, V. A. Gorin, I. V. Grinberg, A. K. Ivanov, I. Kh. Kaveyev,Ý V. P. Klochko,Ý R. S.Ý Kopystianskiy, V. A. Krayushkin, P. N. Kropotkin, M. N. Kudryavsteva, N. R. Ladyzhenskiy, G. N. Ladyzhenskiy, A. S. Lazarenko, B. Yu. Levin, V. F. Linetskiy, V. A. Lobov, M. M. Luspey, Yu. A. Muraveynik, V. P. Palamar, L. N. Panasenko, M. Ye. Petrikovskaya, G. V. Rudakov, A. F. Shevchenko, O. I. Slenzak, V. B. Sollogub, V. I. Sozanskii, S. I. Subbotin, Je. M. Tabatadze, L. N. Yelanskiy, and V. M. Zavyalov.Ý Included among these scientist are 17 Doctors of Science, 10 Professors, 4 members of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, 3 corresponding members of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and one corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R.
ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ The main biographical facts (the books) and the most important events (the thoughts) from the life of V. B. Porfir'yev and his scientific school for the years between 1957-1982 were reproduced in 22 monographs, 15 symposium books, about 950 articles and in his ideas presented as papers to the three International Geological Congresses, the World Petroleum Congress, three sessions of the Carpathian-Balkan Association of the International Geological Congress, five All-Union and three Republican conferences.Ý Much about these works were published in the article, Krayushkin, V. A., 1989, 'On the way towards a new learning about petroleum', Geol. J., No. 3, p. 130-135Ý (in Russian).
For Thomas Gold's side, these are two of his books:
Power from the Earth: Deep Earth Gas, Energy for the Future (1987)
http://www.sitbot.net/re/DeepAbioticGasGold
The Deep Hot Biosphere (1999)
http://www.sitbot.net/re/DeepAbioticOilGold
Interview with Thomas Gold, 2000:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/gold_pr.html
Here's an endorsement of the Russian abiotic theory from Peter O'Dell, emeritus professor and former director of the center for international energy studies at Erasmus University in Rotterdam.
http://www.kkrva.se/sve/energi/odell.shtml
It must be noted that is not only proponents of abiotic theory who argue that the "peak oil" argument is over-hyped. Michael Lynch has emerged as a frequently-cited contrary voice.
Closed Coffin: Ending the Debate on "The End of Cheap Oil" A commentary
Michael C. Lynch, Chief Energy Economist, DRI-WEFA, Inc.
http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch2.html
The past five years have seen a renewed debate on the issue of oil supply and the possibility of a near-term peak in production and the concomitant adverse economic consequences. A number of articles have stated that discoveries over the past thirty years have been only a fraction of consumption and that according to the Hubbert Curve method, world oil production is close to a peak. What few people realize is that these arguments are based entirely on a very particular technical argument, and recent evidence has highlighted its fallacy.
[...] while we need be concerned about quite a number of issues related to petroleum supply -- depletion, change in reserve growth, concentration of production in politically stable areas -- a possible near-term peak in production (conventional or otherwise) is not one of them. It takes a lot of nails to close a coffin, but the size and quality of these will hopefully ensure that it remains closed.
The New Pessimism about Petroleum Resources: Debunking the Hubbert Model (and Hubbert Modelers)
Michael C. Lynch
http://www.energyseer.com/NewPessimism.pdf
excerpts:
Recently, numerous publications have appeared warning that oil production is near an unavoidable, geologically-determined peak that could have consequences up to and including ìwar, starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiensî (Campbell in Ruppert 2002) The current series of alarmist articles could be said to be merely reincarnations of earlier work which proved fallacious, but the authors insist that they have made significant advances in their analyses, overcoming earlier errors. For a number of reasons, this work has been nearly impenetrable to many observers, which seems to have lent it an added cachet. However, careful examination of the data and methods, as well as extensive perusal of the writings, suggests that the opacity of the work isóat bestóobscuring the inconclusive nature of their research.
Some of the arguments about resource scarcity resemble those made in the 1970s. They have noted that discoveries are low (as did Wilson (1977) and that most estimates of ultimately recoverable resources (URR) are in the range of 2 trillion barrels, approximately twice production to date. But beyond that, Campbell and Laherrere in particular claim that they have developed accurate estimates of URR, and thus, unlike earlier work, theirs is more scientific and reliable. In other words, this time the wolf is really here. But careful examination of their work reveals instead a pattern of errors and mistaken assumptions presented as conclusive research results.
. . . The lack of rigor in many of the Hubbert modelersí arguments makes them hard to refute. The huge amount of writing, along with undocumented quotes and vague remarks, necessitates exhaustive review and response. A later paper will provide more complete coverage of the debate, but the focus here will be on the primary substantive shortcomings.
Perhaps because they are not academics, the primary authors have a tendency to publish results but not research. In fact, by relying heavily on a proprietary database [IHS Energy], Campbell and Laherrere have generated a strong shield against criticism of their work, making it nearly impossible to reproduce or check.4 Similarly, there is little or no research published, merely the assertion that the results are good.
. . . The primary error for Hubbert modelers is the assumption of geology as the sole otivator of discovery, depletion and production. In the work of Campbell, Deffeyes, and Laherrere, they go further, equating causality with correlation. This is one ofmost basic errors in (physical or social) scientific analysis.
. . . The argument that the drop in global discoveries proves scarcity of the resource is the best example of the importance of understanding causality. While it is true that global oil discoveries dropped in the 1970s from the previous rate, this was largely due to drop inexploration in the Middle East. Governments nationalized foreign operations and cut back drilling as demand for their oil fell by half, leaving them with an enormous surplus of unexploited reserves. It is noteworthy that none of those pessimistic about oil resources show discovery over time by region, which would support this.
. . . The many inconsistencies and errors, along with the ignorance of most prior research, indicates that the current school of Hubbert modelers have not discovered new, earth-shaking results but rather joined the large crowd of those who have found that large bodies of data often yield particular shapes, from which they attempt to divine physical laws. The work of the Hubbert modelers has proven to be incorrect in theory, and based heavily on assumptions that the available evidence shows to be wrong. They have repeatedly misinterpreted political and economic effects as reflecting geological constraints, and misunderstood the causality underlying exploration, discovery and production.
The primary flaw in Hubbert-type models is a reliance on URR as a static number rather than a dynamic variable, changing with technology, knowledge, infrastructure and other factors, but primarily growing. Campbell and Laherrere claim to have developed better analytical methods to resolve this problem, but their own estimates have been increasing, and increasingly rapidly.
The result has been exactly as predicted in Lynch (1996) for this method: a series of predictions of near-term peak and decline, which have had to be repeatedly revised upwards and into the future. So much so as to suggest that the authors themselves are providing evidence that oil resources are under no strain, but increasing faster than consumption!
Michael Lynch's analysis of the recent downgrading of reserve estimates by Royal Dutch Shell:
The Shell Reserve Downgrading: Year of the Monkey Business? (January 04)
http://www.energyseer.com/Monkey%20Business.pdf
FTW has emphatically taken the side of Bush energy advisor Matthew Simmons in a debate over Saudi Arabia's oil reserves, held at the elite US think-tank CSIS:
A Tale of Two Planets
A Report on the Conference ìFuture of Global Oil Supply: Saudi Arabia" Held at CSIS, Washington DC, February 24th 2004Ý
by Julian Darley
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/031704_two_planets.html
A few questions: given that Washington is now increasingly filled with war-cries against Saudi Arabia, and it is an open secret that one policy being considered is the destabilization of Saudi Arabia followed by a partition into two states, with the US taking control of the oil-rich eastern section as part of a general regional strategy to control oil, isn't it worth just a little skepticism about what is coming out of an elite think-tank like CSIS (whose roster includes Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski), especially when any discussion of supposed Saudi overestimation of oil reserves has such an obvious political impact?
Background on CSIS: http://www.csis.org/about/index.htm#4
For the sake of argument, the Saudi response: http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=42933
Water, Water Everywhere (but not a drop to drink)
Author: Michael C. Lynch, President, Director Petroleum Services February 27, 2004 - Released: 3/6/2004 http://www.aramcoexpats.com/ArticleDetail.asp?article=701
This week saw a most unusual spectacle, resulting in a spate of news articles that may be difficult for the uninitiated to understand. Matt Simmons, an investment banker based in Houston and a longtime oil and gas price bull, presented an extremely alarmist view of Saudi Arabiaís oil production capacity and was rebutted by two officials from Saudi Aramco, which historically has been extremely reticent to release any details of its operations. The arguments presented are interesting not for their content but for the nature of the debate (reliance on inference instead of analysis) and the provision of data from Saudi Aramco about their operations.
Much of the work done by Matt Simmons in the past few years on global oil and gas has relied heavily on inference, suspicion, and concerns while containing little or no real data. Yet, he claims that his new report is based primarily on readings of nearly 200 technical papers published by Saudi engineers and various publications of the Society of petroleum engineers (SPE). Although there is no reason to doubt this, the nature of the information he has collected must be questioned. A quick perusal of the draft report shows that there are virtually no tables or diagrams relating to Saudi oil fields, and the only hard information consist of scattered numbers, anecdotes and facts. Few if any are presented in any type of context.
...
The production practices that so concerned that Simmons, such as the use of MRC Wells, reflected the behavior of a nonprofit maximizing organization, i.e., a state oil company. The Saudis are attempting to maximize recovery, not value in their fields. They are willing to produce more slowly and with the best possible technology in virtually every instance, even if that means not producing it economically optimal rates. That is to say, the net present value of production in the field is reduced by some other practices, even though the ultimate recovery of physical oil is maximized. The Saudis pointed out that the Yibal field in Oman suffered from the use of the MRC Wells, specifically because the producing company had not done the type of expensive geological modeling which is now common practice in Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps more important, the Saudis refuted several of his interpretations (similar to arguments I have made in the past). The Saudis do not produce many of their fields because they have abundant producing capacity without them for example. Also, Saudi Arabia is not intensively explored and has large areas with petroleum potential that are virtually undrilled. (Matt responded that he was referring to aerial magnetic surveys.) it was also pointed out that Mattís reference to 1975 field reserve estimates were not relevant: the fields he referred to had already produced more than was estimated as proved reserves in the 1970s, reflecting reserve growth from better reservoir modeling, more drilling, and the use of advanced technology. (Indeed, in responding to a remark about the so-called ëspurious reserve additionsí in the 1980s, when many OPEC members raised their reported reserve levels without explanation, they responded that they had gone years without revising them even as their own expectations of recovery increased, and had merely decided the time was right to report them more accurately.)
...
There literally seems to be no evidence that the Saudi oil fields are facing any unusual challenges or that Saudi production will be constrained in the future by anything other than policy. All of the concerns appear to be instances where the most pessimistic interpretation has been chosen, such as fields not operating because of technical difficulties rather than weak demand. The use of vague language (ìtiredî fields, ìchallengesî) rather than specifics about efforts and costs indicate that this is one more instance of Malthusian bias.
misc. data:
THE OIL RESERVE FALLACY: Proven reserves are not a measure of future supply
C. 2003 By Bill Kovarik
http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/
The Middle East does not have two thirds of world oil reserves, as the oil industry claims, but only two thirds of one type of reserve. According to the US Geological Survey, the Middle East has only half to one third of world oil reserves. There is a large supply of oil elsewhere in the world which is available at only slightly higher prices.
The second item on the following page argues that the debate over drilling in Alaska's ANWR is a red herring, and questions whether US domestic oil reserves may be greater than the statistics seem to represent:
http://www.oilandgasreporter.com/stories/090101/cov_opinions.shtml
more arguments against the "fossil fuel" theory:
From The End of Fossil Fuels by Thomas Brown
http://www.borderlands.com/archives/arch/endfos.html
The Fake Oil Crisis of 1973
Some "peak oil" writers have opined that the crisis of 1972-73 was a kind of "rehearsal" for what is supposedly in our very near future. It is startling to consider, in light of this, the evidence that that crisis was likely a completely contrived affair.
In "A Century of War -- Anglo American Oil Politics and the New World Order" (1992), petroleum industry expert and economist F. William Engdahl presents evidence that the 1973 OPEC "oil shock" and the accompanying oil "shortage" were secretly planned by the highest levels of the US and British elites, with Henry Kissinger playing a key role:
http://earth.prohosting.com/~jswift/engdahl.html
A concise summary of the entire book can be found here:
http://how-the-world-really-works.prosperitydoctor.com/a-century-of-war-5.html
Corroboration of Engdahl's account was provided a few years agb by Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, who was Saudi Arabia's OPEC minister at the time:
'I am 100 per cent sure that the Americans were behind the increase in the price of oil. The oil companies were in in real trouble at that time, they had borrowed a lot of money and they needed a high oil price to save them.'
He says he was convinced of this by the attitude of the Shah of Iran, who in one crucial day in 1974 moved from the Saudi view, that a hike would be dangerous to Opec because it would alienate the US, to advocating higher prices.
'King Faisal sent me to the Shah of Iran, who said: "Why are you against the increase in the price of oil? That is what they want? Ask Henry Kissinger - he is the one who wants a higher price".'
Yamani contends that proof of his long-held belief has recently emerged in the minutes of a secret meeting on a Swedish island, where UK and US officials determined to orchestrate a 400 per cent increase in the oil price.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,421888,00.html
addendum:
McGowan NEWSLETTER #57
Has no direct info on oil but concerns McGowan's difficulties with the organizers of the ongoing 9-11 Internation Inquiry.
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr57.html
http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html
The following is a collection of excerpts and links concerning a recent and ongoing important debate over the contending theories of oil origins (fossil vs. abiotic) between Mike Ruppert of From the Wilderness and Dave McGowan, as well as related topics pertaining to the scientific foundation of "peak oil" predictions. I do not wish to offer any final judgements, and I'm not qualified to do so, but I do think that McGowan and others have raised a great deal of documentation and argument which deserve close attention. Everything on this page is presented for informational purposes, intended as a review of the debate thus far.
- Brian Salter, questionsquestions.net 25 Mar 04 (updated 16 Apr)
[updates, 16 April: Shell to Demolish Profitable Refinery, McGowan Newsletter #59]
The following excerpt from an article by FTW energy editor Dale Allen Pfeiffer expresses the FTW position on abiotic oil:
A WORD ABOUT ABIOTIC OIL
There is some speculation that oil is abiotic in origin -- generally asserting that oil is formed from magma instead of an organic origin. These ideas are really groundless. All unrefined oil carries microscopic evidence of the organisms from which it was formed. These organisms can be traced through the fossil record to specific time periods when quantities of oil were formed.
Likewise, there are two primal energy forces operating on this planet, and all forms of energy descend from one of these two. The first is the internal form of energy heating the Earth's interior. This primal energy comes from radioactive decay and from the heat energy originally generated during accretion of the planet some 4.6 billion years ago. There are no known mechanisms for transferring this internal energy into any secondary energy source. And the chemistry of magma does not compare to the chemistry of hydrocarbons. Magma is lacking in carbon compounds, and hydrocarbons are lacking in silicates. If hydrocarbons were generated from magma, then you would expect to see some closer kinship in their chemistry.
The second primal energy source is light and heat generated by our sun. It is the sun's energy that powers all energy processes on the Earth's surface, and which provides the very energy for life itself. Photosynthesis is the miraculous process by which the sun's energy is converted into forms available to the life processes of living matter. Following biological, geological and chemical processes, a line can be drawn from photosynthesis to the formation of hydrocarbon deposits. Likewise, both living matter and hydrocarbons are carbon based.
Finally, because oil generation is in part a geological process, it proceeds at an extremely slow rate from our human perspective. Geological processes take place over a different frame of time than human events. It is for this reason that when geologists say that the San Andreas fault is due for a powerful earthquake, they mean any time in the next million years -- probably less. Geological processes move exceedingly slow.
After organic matter has accumulated on the sea floor, it must be buried by the process of deposition. In geological time, in order for this matter to be a likely prospect for hydrocarbon generation, the rate of deposition must be quick. Here is an experiment you can conduct to get an idea how slow the rates of deposition are. Place a small stone on the bottom of a motionless pond. Take another stone of about the same size and place it at the mouth of a small stream, a stream where the current is not so great that it will sweep the stone away. Check both of these stones yearly until they have been buried by deposition. You might see the stone at the mouth of the stream covered over within a few years, but it is unlikely that you will see the stone in the pond buried within your lifetime.
It is a simple geological fact that the oil we are using up at an alarming rate today will not be replaced within our lifetime -- or within many lifetimes. That is why hydrocarbons are called non-renewable resources. Capped wells may appear to refill after a few years, but they are not regenerating. It is simply an effect of oil slowly migrating through pore spaces from areas of high pressure to the low-pressure area of the drill hole. If this oil is drawn out, it will take even longer for the hole to refill again. Oil is a non-renewable resource generated and deposited under special biological and geological conditions.
Mike Ruppert goes into greater detail in the following:
Framing the Debate on Abiotic Oil
http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/FramingTheDebateOnAbioticOilByMikeRuppert.htm
Part of the above article is a response to a challenge issued by Jerry Russell:
Peak Oil"??Ý Don't buy into the hype! (3/12/04)
http://www.911-strike.com/peakoil.htm
Dave McGowan argues for the abiotic theory, which holds that oil is generated by natural processes in the earth's magma, and he also argues pointedly that the "fossil" theory has never been proven. The following is long and detailed, but a must-read:
NEWSLETTER #52
March 13, 2004
Cop v CIA (Center for an Informed America)
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr52.html
excerpt:
The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not controversial nor presently a matter of academic debate. The period of debate about this extensive body of knowledge has been over for approximately two decades (Simakov 1986). The modern theory is presently applied extensively throughout the former U.S.S.R. as the guiding perspective for petroleum exploration and development projects. There are presently more than 80 oil and gas fields in the Caspian district alone which were explored and developed by applying the perspective of the modern theory and which produce from the crystalline basement rock. (Krayushkin, Chebanenko et al. 1994) Similarly, such exploration in the western Siberia cratonic-rift sedimentary basin has developed 90 petroleum fields of which 80 produce either partly or entirely from the crystalline basement. The exploration and discoveries of the 11 major and 1 giant fields on the northern flank of the Dneiper-Donets basin have already been noted. There are presently deep drilling exploration projects under way in Azerbaijan, Tatarstan, and Asian Siberia directed to testing potential oil and gas reservoirs in the crystalline basement. (http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm)
It appears that, unbeknownst to Westerners, there have actually been, for quite some time now, two competing theories concerning the origins of petroleum. One theory claims that oil is an organic 'fossil fuel' deposited in finite quantities near the planet's surface. The other theory claims that oil is continuously generated by natural processes in the Earth's magma. One theory is backed by a massive body of research representing fifty years of intense scientific inquiry. The other theory is an unproven relic of the eighteenth century. One theory anticipates deep oil reserves, refillable oil fields, migratory oil systems, deep sources of generation, and the spontaneous venting of gas and oil. The other theory has a difficult time explaining any such documented phenomena.
So which theory have we in the West, in our infinite wisdom, chosen to embrace? Why, the fundamentally absurd 'Fossil Fuel' theory, of course -- the same theory that the 'Peak Oil' doomsday warnings are based on.
I am sorry to report here, by the way, that in doing my homework, I never did come across any of that "hard science" documenting 'Peak Oil' that Mr. Strahl referred to. All the 'Peak Oil' literature that I found, on Ruppert's site and elsewhere, took for granted that petroleum is a non-renewable 'fossil fuel.' That theory is never questioned, nor is any effort made to validate it. It is simply taken to be an established scientific fact, which it quite obviously is not.
So what do Ruppert and his resident experts have to say about all of this? Dale Allen Pfeiffer, identified as the "FTW Contributing Editor for Energy," has written: "There is some speculation that oil is abiotic in origin -- generally asserting that oil is formed from magma instead of an organic origin. These ideas are really groundless." (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/04_04_02_oil_recession.html)
Here is a question that I have for both Mr. Ruppert and Mr. Pfeiffer: Do you consider it honest, responsible journalism to dismiss a fifty year body of multi-disciplinary scientific research, conducted by hundreds of the world's most gifted scientists, as "some speculation"?
The following is a response by McGowan to a generally hostile email from a Ruppert supporter:
NEWSLETTER #53
March 16, 2004
The 'Peak Oil' Team Sends in a Second Stringer!
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr53.html
McGowan then answered a response from Ruppert, raising a critique of the terms Ruppert had set in an offer for a debate:
NEWSLETTER #54
March 18, 2004
Ruppert Responds!
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr54.html
excerpt:
The biggest problem, and the most telling aspect of the 'offer,' is with the framing of the question. You have chosen (and this isn't the original topic of debate, by the way, but one that you came up with after you read my critique): "Is abiotic petroleum and natural gas readily available and making its way into commercial use in sufficient quantities to establish that there is no imminent energy shortage?î
The interesting thing about that question is that it presupposes that your side of the argument has already been proven, even though we both know that that isn't true. It is interesting to note here that whenever people such as you and Mr. Chin mention abiotic petroleum, you are usually quick to claim that it is a "disputed" theory. However, you never attach such qualifiers to mentions of 'fossil fuels.' Don't you find that odd, considering that it is actually the reverse that is true?
You have admitted that petroleum can be produced abiotically (in your response to my "kindred spirit"). In fact, no one with any credibility can deny that fact. It has been demonstrated in the laboratory and verified with unchallenged mathematical models. It is a fact. The 'fossil fuel' theory, on the other hand, cannot be verified and is disputed by, at the very least, a large community of Soviet and Ukrainian scientists. Since abiotic petroleum is not disputed and is verifiable, the logical presumption, until proven otherwise, is that all the natural gas and petroleum in commercial use, and in the ground, and in storage tanks, and anywhere else, is abiotic oil and gas.
In the following, McGowan re-prints an article by Walt Sheasby investigating the backgrounds of the main "peak oil" proponents. Sheasby's analysis is quite particular and opinionated, but his research is valuable (and I have independently verified all the main points). There are different ways to interpret the connections, but Sheasby does touch on a particularly important issue: it is incorrect to assume a priori that the more alarmist or pessimistic position in this kind of debate is automatically going to represent a more radical or "anti-establishment" position. Many people seem to have trouble recognizing this.
NEWSLETTER #55
March 19, 2004
Who Is Really Behind the 'Peak Oil' Scare?
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr55.html
Note: one important aspect of the current situation which is not mentioned in the Sheasby article is that there are mixed opinions about peak oil coming from IHS Energy, with which Petroconsultants merged several years ago. See the articles by Michael Lynch below. This is something which deserves closer examination.
At the same time, with promotion from someone like Bush energy advisor Matthew Simmons, and with coverage exploding in the mainstream media, the idea of imminent "peak oil" does not exactly qualify as a "renegade" point of view. In light of this, caution and skepticism are due.
NEWSLETTER #56
March 24, 2004
The Debate Continues (by proxy)
www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr56.html
McGowan continues the debate on several points with different correspondents, beginning with a defense of his challenge of Ruppert's radical pro-population reduction stance. The final section in which he points out the conceptual blind spots of those who fail to consider the geopolitics of scarcity-based economics in weighing the arguments, and who have not addressed the fundamental credibility of the raw statistics themselves (relying on unproven premises) is essential reading. This and newsletter #52 contain most of McGowan's most crucial arguments.
NEWSLETTER #59
April 13, 2004
Oil News Briefs
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr59.html
Recent news stories bearing on some of McGowan's points. Especially revealing are reports from industry watchdogs that the consolidation in the oil industry is part of a deliberate effort to artificially raise prices — even before any supposed "peak oil" shortages hit [!]
also related to this, see Shell to Demolish Profitable Refinery
AAPG Hedberg Conference in Vienna
http://www.mail-archive.com/fogri@iagi.or.id/msg00802.html
[....]
The conveners for the conference are Michel T. Halbouty (Michel T. Halbouty Energy Co.), Peter Odell (Erasmus University), Barry Katz (ChevronTexaco) and Ernest A. Mancini (University of Alabama). The purpose of the conference is to bring together exploration and production geoscientists, engineers and researchers from oil companies, mineral exploration companies, research institutes and academia to discuss evidence and data for the organic origin and abiogenic origin of petroleum, and the types of tests that could be designated to determine the mechanism for the formation of petroleum. An understanding of the origin of petroleum is a crucial element in the design of successful hydrocarbon strategies and in oil and gas production. See attached Conference Announcement for further discussion on the history of this topic.
http://www.aapg.org/education/hedberg/vienna/
Origin of Petroleum -- Biogenic and/or Abiogenic and Its Significance in Hydrocarbon Exploration and Productions
Sponsored by American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Program Committee
Michel Halbouty, Michel T. Halbouty Energy Co. Peter Odell, Erasmus University Barry Katz, ChevronTexaco Ernest A. Mancini, University of Alabama. Conference Site and Dates July 11-14, 2004 Vienna, Austria
Conference Goals
Discuss the evidence and data for an organic and abiogenic origin of petroleum; discuss the types of tests that could be designated to determine the mechanism for the formation of petroleum; discuss the similarities and differences in exploration strategies using an organic model compared to an abiogenic model for the origin of petroleum; discuss and debate these exploration strategies; discuss the ramifications of an abiogenic origin of petroleum in estimating basin resources and in determining field reserves; and discuss the significance of an abiogenic origin of petroleum to the future supplies of petroleum.
Discussion
An understanding of the origin of petroleum is a crucial element in the design of successful hydrocarbon strategies and in their production. Such knowledge is also important in estimating sedimentary basin resources, in determining field reserves, and in predicting the future availability of petroleum supplies globally.
Most members of AAPG have been taught and accept that the origin of petroleum is organic. Therefore, exploration strategies are designed using geochemical data from sedimentary petroleum source rocks. Petroleum resources available in a given sedimentary basin are estimated based on the organic and physical characteristics of the source rock and their thermal and chemical alteration histories, similarly field reserves are determined based not only on structural and reservoir parameters but also upon source rock data. This methodology has been used widely by the petroleum industry. What if the source of petroleum is not from sedimentary source rocks, but from an abiogenic source that is not limited by the physical, chemical, and biological constraints that affect the type, quality and volume of petroleum derived from an organic source?
For half a century, scientists from the former Soviet Union (FSU) have recognized that the petroleum produced from fields in the FSU have been generated by abiogenic processes. This is not a new concept, being first reported in 1951. The Russians have used this concept as an exploration strategy and have successfully discovered petroleum fields of which a number of these fields produce either partly and entirely from crystalline basement. Is this exploration strategy limited to the petroleum provinces in Russia or does such a strategy have application to other petroleum provinces like the Gulf of Mexico or the Middle East? Some believe this is a possibility for fields in the Gulf of Mexico, and others argue for application to fields in the Middle East.
[QQ note: the preceding two paragraphs illustrate a problem in many anti-abiotic arguments, in which is issue in contention is limited to the "refilling" of existing fields; this misses the issue of exploration strategy and reserve estimates which have been based on biogenic geological criteria. This document clearly argues that the assumptions made about petroleum origins have a crucial effect on the way reserve statistics are calculated, and in past choices of where to drill.]
Along these lines, this Conference is designed to provide an opportunity to present the hypotheses, evidence and data for an organic origin of petroleum and for an abiogenic origin of petroleum through oral and poster presentations. Day 1 sessions mostly address the abiogenic side, whereas on Day 2, the organic and alternative origins are discussed. Day 3 addresses combination origins, as well as economic significance of the various exploration and production strategies discussed. Ample time is scheduled for discussion and debate of the hypotheses for the origin of petroleum, and the program will conclude in a summary panel discussion at the end of Day 3. The significance of an organic compared to an abiogenic origin of petroleum to the industry will be emphasized and demonstrated through presentations on exploration strategies using both organic models and abiogenic models. Ample time is scheduled to discuss and debate the similarities and differences of these exploration strategies. Also, the ramifications of basin resource estimations and field reserve determinations will be discussed, and the significance of these estimations and determinations in the prediction of the future world's supply and price of petroleum will be debated. Other topics include the differences in modeling approaches of petroleum origin, generation, expulsion and migration under an organic origin compared to an abiogenic origin. Presentations on petroleum migration will address the timing and distance of migration under the scenario of an organic origin and under a scenario of an abiogenic origin. Ample time is scheduled to discuss and debate the significance of migration, the timing of migration, and the migration distance given an organic origin or an abiogenic origin.
For a list of participants in the conference, see posts 236-238 at this page:
http://www.ateism.ru/cgi-bin/atheism/msgbook/tema.pl?t=m764&n=250
both sides of the oil origins argument, with a rather good summary of the abiotic theory & evidence:
Origin of oil by Tom de Booij
http://www.egoproject.nl/Links.html#link9
contrasting viewpoints on oil reserves:
http://www.egoproject.nl/Links.html#link8
The Russians and Ukranians accuse Thomas Gold of plagiarism and misrepresenting their versions of abiotic theory:
http://www.gasresources.net/Plagiarism(Overview).htm
Sometime during the late 1970's, a British-American, one-time astronomer named Thomas Gold discovered the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins.Ý Such was not difficult to do, for there are many thousands of articles, monographs, and books published in the mainstream Russian scientific press on modern Russian petroleum science.Ý Gold reads the Russian language fluently.
ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ In 1979, Gold began publishing the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of petroleum origins, as if such were his own ideas and without giving credit to the Russian (then, Soviet) petroleum scientists from whom he had taken the material.Ý Gold tried to alter the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins with notions of his own in order to conceal its provenance, and gave his 'ideas' the (very misleading) name the 'deep gas theory.'Ý
ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ Worse yet, Gold's alterations of modern Russian petroleum science are utterly wrong. Specifically Gold's claims that there exist large quantities of natural gas (methane) in the Earth at depths of its mantle are completely wrong, - such claims are upside-down and backwards.Ý At the pressures of the mantle, methane is unstable, and the hydrogen-carbon system there evolves the entire suite of heavier hydrocarbons found in natural petroleum, in the Planck-type distribution which characterizes natural petroleum.Ý Methane at pressures of the mantle of the Earth will decompose to evolve octane, diesel oil, heavy lubricating oils, alkylbenzenes, and the compounds found in natural petroleum.Ý [These properties of the hydrogen-carbon system have been described at greater length and rigor in a recent article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.]Ý Regrettably, Gold is as ignorant of thermodynamics as he is of ethics.
[clearly, one must be wary of arguments which set up Gold as a straw-man, whether knowingly or not... in any case, the scientific debate seems to have suffered from a lack of attention on the Russian-Ukranian theories in the english-speaking world.]
Letter from Prof. V. A. Krayushkin to Prof. John Briggs, on Thomas Gold's plagiarism and his failure to credit Russian / Ukranian sources: http://www.gasresources.net/VAKreplytBriggs.htm
During the years 1957-1982, the leader of the Ukrainian scientific school in the field of deep abiotic petroleum origins was Professor V. B. Porfir'yev himself. Professor Porfiryev became the leader of the Soviet school of abiotic petroleum origins after the death of Professor N. A. Kudryavstev in 1972.Ý This school has during the past decade included such scientists as K. A. Anikiev, N. S. Beskrovnyi, Z. A. Buniat-Zade, I. I. Chebanenko, G. N. Dolenko, V. F. Derpgolts, V. I. Filippovskiy, I. Ya. Furman, V. A. Gorin, I. V. Grinberg, A. K. Ivanov, I. Kh. Kaveyev,Ý V. P. Klochko,Ý R. S.Ý Kopystianskiy, V. A. Krayushkin, P. N. Kropotkin, M. N. Kudryavsteva, N. R. Ladyzhenskiy, G. N. Ladyzhenskiy, A. S. Lazarenko, B. Yu. Levin, V. F. Linetskiy, V. A. Lobov, M. M. Luspey, Yu. A. Muraveynik, V. P. Palamar, L. N. Panasenko, M. Ye. Petrikovskaya, G. V. Rudakov, A. F. Shevchenko, O. I. Slenzak, V. B. Sollogub, V. I. Sozanskii, S. I. Subbotin, Je. M. Tabatadze, L. N. Yelanskiy, and V. M. Zavyalov.Ý Included among these scientist are 17 Doctors of Science, 10 Professors, 4 members of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, 3 corresponding members of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and one corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R.
ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ The main biographical facts (the books) and the most important events (the thoughts) from the life of V. B. Porfir'yev and his scientific school for the years between 1957-1982 were reproduced in 22 monographs, 15 symposium books, about 950 articles and in his ideas presented as papers to the three International Geological Congresses, the World Petroleum Congress, three sessions of the Carpathian-Balkan Association of the International Geological Congress, five All-Union and three Republican conferences.Ý Much about these works were published in the article, Krayushkin, V. A., 1989, 'On the way towards a new learning about petroleum', Geol. J., No. 3, p. 130-135Ý (in Russian).
For Thomas Gold's side, these are two of his books:
Power from the Earth: Deep Earth Gas, Energy for the Future (1987)
http://www.sitbot.net/re/DeepAbioticGasGold
The Deep Hot Biosphere (1999)
http://www.sitbot.net/re/DeepAbioticOilGold
Interview with Thomas Gold, 2000:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/gold_pr.html
Here's an endorsement of the Russian abiotic theory from Peter O'Dell, emeritus professor and former director of the center for international energy studies at Erasmus University in Rotterdam.
http://www.kkrva.se/sve/energi/odell.shtml
It must be noted that is not only proponents of abiotic theory who argue that the "peak oil" argument is over-hyped. Michael Lynch has emerged as a frequently-cited contrary voice.
Closed Coffin: Ending the Debate on "The End of Cheap Oil" A commentary
Michael C. Lynch, Chief Energy Economist, DRI-WEFA, Inc.
http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch2.html
The past five years have seen a renewed debate on the issue of oil supply and the possibility of a near-term peak in production and the concomitant adverse economic consequences. A number of articles have stated that discoveries over the past thirty years have been only a fraction of consumption and that according to the Hubbert Curve method, world oil production is close to a peak. What few people realize is that these arguments are based entirely on a very particular technical argument, and recent evidence has highlighted its fallacy.
[...] while we need be concerned about quite a number of issues related to petroleum supply -- depletion, change in reserve growth, concentration of production in politically stable areas -- a possible near-term peak in production (conventional or otherwise) is not one of them. It takes a lot of nails to close a coffin, but the size and quality of these will hopefully ensure that it remains closed.
The New Pessimism about Petroleum Resources: Debunking the Hubbert Model (and Hubbert Modelers)
Michael C. Lynch
http://www.energyseer.com/NewPessimism.pdf
excerpts:
Recently, numerous publications have appeared warning that oil production is near an unavoidable, geologically-determined peak that could have consequences up to and including ìwar, starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiensî (Campbell in Ruppert 2002) The current series of alarmist articles could be said to be merely reincarnations of earlier work which proved fallacious, but the authors insist that they have made significant advances in their analyses, overcoming earlier errors. For a number of reasons, this work has been nearly impenetrable to many observers, which seems to have lent it an added cachet. However, careful examination of the data and methods, as well as extensive perusal of the writings, suggests that the opacity of the work isóat bestóobscuring the inconclusive nature of their research.
Some of the arguments about resource scarcity resemble those made in the 1970s. They have noted that discoveries are low (as did Wilson (1977) and that most estimates of ultimately recoverable resources (URR) are in the range of 2 trillion barrels, approximately twice production to date. But beyond that, Campbell and Laherrere in particular claim that they have developed accurate estimates of URR, and thus, unlike earlier work, theirs is more scientific and reliable. In other words, this time the wolf is really here. But careful examination of their work reveals instead a pattern of errors and mistaken assumptions presented as conclusive research results.
. . . The lack of rigor in many of the Hubbert modelersí arguments makes them hard to refute. The huge amount of writing, along with undocumented quotes and vague remarks, necessitates exhaustive review and response. A later paper will provide more complete coverage of the debate, but the focus here will be on the primary substantive shortcomings.
Perhaps because they are not academics, the primary authors have a tendency to publish results but not research. In fact, by relying heavily on a proprietary database [IHS Energy], Campbell and Laherrere have generated a strong shield against criticism of their work, making it nearly impossible to reproduce or check.4 Similarly, there is little or no research published, merely the assertion that the results are good.
. . . The primary error for Hubbert modelers is the assumption of geology as the sole otivator of discovery, depletion and production. In the work of Campbell, Deffeyes, and Laherrere, they go further, equating causality with correlation. This is one ofmost basic errors in (physical or social) scientific analysis.
. . . The argument that the drop in global discoveries proves scarcity of the resource is the best example of the importance of understanding causality. While it is true that global oil discoveries dropped in the 1970s from the previous rate, this was largely due to drop inexploration in the Middle East. Governments nationalized foreign operations and cut back drilling as demand for their oil fell by half, leaving them with an enormous surplus of unexploited reserves. It is noteworthy that none of those pessimistic about oil resources show discovery over time by region, which would support this.
. . . The many inconsistencies and errors, along with the ignorance of most prior research, indicates that the current school of Hubbert modelers have not discovered new, earth-shaking results but rather joined the large crowd of those who have found that large bodies of data often yield particular shapes, from which they attempt to divine physical laws. The work of the Hubbert modelers has proven to be incorrect in theory, and based heavily on assumptions that the available evidence shows to be wrong. They have repeatedly misinterpreted political and economic effects as reflecting geological constraints, and misunderstood the causality underlying exploration, discovery and production.
The primary flaw in Hubbert-type models is a reliance on URR as a static number rather than a dynamic variable, changing with technology, knowledge, infrastructure and other factors, but primarily growing. Campbell and Laherrere claim to have developed better analytical methods to resolve this problem, but their own estimates have been increasing, and increasingly rapidly.
The result has been exactly as predicted in Lynch (1996) for this method: a series of predictions of near-term peak and decline, which have had to be repeatedly revised upwards and into the future. So much so as to suggest that the authors themselves are providing evidence that oil resources are under no strain, but increasing faster than consumption!
Michael Lynch's analysis of the recent downgrading of reserve estimates by Royal Dutch Shell:
The Shell Reserve Downgrading: Year of the Monkey Business? (January 04)
http://www.energyseer.com/Monkey%20Business.pdf
FTW has emphatically taken the side of Bush energy advisor Matthew Simmons in a debate over Saudi Arabia's oil reserves, held at the elite US think-tank CSIS:
A Tale of Two Planets
A Report on the Conference ìFuture of Global Oil Supply: Saudi Arabia" Held at CSIS, Washington DC, February 24th 2004Ý
by Julian Darley
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/031704_two_planets.html
A few questions: given that Washington is now increasingly filled with war-cries against Saudi Arabia, and it is an open secret that one policy being considered is the destabilization of Saudi Arabia followed by a partition into two states, with the US taking control of the oil-rich eastern section as part of a general regional strategy to control oil, isn't it worth just a little skepticism about what is coming out of an elite think-tank like CSIS (whose roster includes Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski), especially when any discussion of supposed Saudi overestimation of oil reserves has such an obvious political impact?
Background on CSIS: http://www.csis.org/about/index.htm#4
For the sake of argument, the Saudi response: http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=42933
Water, Water Everywhere (but not a drop to drink)
Author: Michael C. Lynch, President, Director Petroleum Services February 27, 2004 - Released: 3/6/2004 http://www.aramcoexpats.com/ArticleDetail.asp?article=701
This week saw a most unusual spectacle, resulting in a spate of news articles that may be difficult for the uninitiated to understand. Matt Simmons, an investment banker based in Houston and a longtime oil and gas price bull, presented an extremely alarmist view of Saudi Arabiaís oil production capacity and was rebutted by two officials from Saudi Aramco, which historically has been extremely reticent to release any details of its operations. The arguments presented are interesting not for their content but for the nature of the debate (reliance on inference instead of analysis) and the provision of data from Saudi Aramco about their operations.
Much of the work done by Matt Simmons in the past few years on global oil and gas has relied heavily on inference, suspicion, and concerns while containing little or no real data. Yet, he claims that his new report is based primarily on readings of nearly 200 technical papers published by Saudi engineers and various publications of the Society of petroleum engineers (SPE). Although there is no reason to doubt this, the nature of the information he has collected must be questioned. A quick perusal of the draft report shows that there are virtually no tables or diagrams relating to Saudi oil fields, and the only hard information consist of scattered numbers, anecdotes and facts. Few if any are presented in any type of context.
...
The production practices that so concerned that Simmons, such as the use of MRC Wells, reflected the behavior of a nonprofit maximizing organization, i.e., a state oil company. The Saudis are attempting to maximize recovery, not value in their fields. They are willing to produce more slowly and with the best possible technology in virtually every instance, even if that means not producing it economically optimal rates. That is to say, the net present value of production in the field is reduced by some other practices, even though the ultimate recovery of physical oil is maximized. The Saudis pointed out that the Yibal field in Oman suffered from the use of the MRC Wells, specifically because the producing company had not done the type of expensive geological modeling which is now common practice in Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps more important, the Saudis refuted several of his interpretations (similar to arguments I have made in the past). The Saudis do not produce many of their fields because they have abundant producing capacity without them for example. Also, Saudi Arabia is not intensively explored and has large areas with petroleum potential that are virtually undrilled. (Matt responded that he was referring to aerial magnetic surveys.) it was also pointed out that Mattís reference to 1975 field reserve estimates were not relevant: the fields he referred to had already produced more than was estimated as proved reserves in the 1970s, reflecting reserve growth from better reservoir modeling, more drilling, and the use of advanced technology. (Indeed, in responding to a remark about the so-called ëspurious reserve additionsí in the 1980s, when many OPEC members raised their reported reserve levels without explanation, they responded that they had gone years without revising them even as their own expectations of recovery increased, and had merely decided the time was right to report them more accurately.)
...
There literally seems to be no evidence that the Saudi oil fields are facing any unusual challenges or that Saudi production will be constrained in the future by anything other than policy. All of the concerns appear to be instances where the most pessimistic interpretation has been chosen, such as fields not operating because of technical difficulties rather than weak demand. The use of vague language (ìtiredî fields, ìchallengesî) rather than specifics about efforts and costs indicate that this is one more instance of Malthusian bias.
misc. data:
THE OIL RESERVE FALLACY: Proven reserves are not a measure of future supply
C. 2003 By Bill Kovarik
http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/
The Middle East does not have two thirds of world oil reserves, as the oil industry claims, but only two thirds of one type of reserve. According to the US Geological Survey, the Middle East has only half to one third of world oil reserves. There is a large supply of oil elsewhere in the world which is available at only slightly higher prices.
The second item on the following page argues that the debate over drilling in Alaska's ANWR is a red herring, and questions whether US domestic oil reserves may be greater than the statistics seem to represent:
http://www.oilandgasreporter.com/stories/090101/cov_opinions.shtml
more arguments against the "fossil fuel" theory:
From The End of Fossil Fuels by Thomas Brown
http://www.borderlands.com/archives/arch/endfos.html
The Fake Oil Crisis of 1973
Some "peak oil" writers have opined that the crisis of 1972-73 was a kind of "rehearsal" for what is supposedly in our very near future. It is startling to consider, in light of this, the evidence that that crisis was likely a completely contrived affair.
In "A Century of War -- Anglo American Oil Politics and the New World Order" (1992), petroleum industry expert and economist F. William Engdahl presents evidence that the 1973 OPEC "oil shock" and the accompanying oil "shortage" were secretly planned by the highest levels of the US and British elites, with Henry Kissinger playing a key role:
http://earth.prohosting.com/~jswift/engdahl.html
A concise summary of the entire book can be found here:
http://how-the-world-really-works.prosperitydoctor.com/a-century-of-war-5.html
Corroboration of Engdahl's account was provided a few years agb by Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, who was Saudi Arabia's OPEC minister at the time:
'I am 100 per cent sure that the Americans were behind the increase in the price of oil. The oil companies were in in real trouble at that time, they had borrowed a lot of money and they needed a high oil price to save them.'
He says he was convinced of this by the attitude of the Shah of Iran, who in one crucial day in 1974 moved from the Saudi view, that a hike would be dangerous to Opec because it would alienate the US, to advocating higher prices.
'King Faisal sent me to the Shah of Iran, who said: "Why are you against the increase in the price of oil? That is what they want? Ask Henry Kissinger - he is the one who wants a higher price".'
Yamani contends that proof of his long-held belief has recently emerged in the minutes of a secret meeting on a Swedish island, where UK and US officials determined to orchestrate a 400 per cent increase in the oil price.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,421888,00.html
addendum:
McGowan NEWSLETTER #57
Has no direct info on oil but concerns McGowan's difficulties with the organizers of the ongoing 9-11 Internation Inquiry.
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr57.html
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
