The Official Abiotic Oil Thread

deconstructionist

yes, i meant the former Soviet bloc.

this only covers 1980-2003, but it documents a sharp decline in the 90s and a sharp increase around the turn of the century...

This covers 2001 - 2005, and shows a marked increase in the former Soviet bloc's production.

This would not be so remarkable until you consider that they had already peaked... They're going back up... I'm not saying that the wells are replenishing themselves with oil from the mantle... but it is known fact that they are drilling beneath the fossil layer. and i haven't seen any convincing explanation as to how they have increased production by about 5 mbpd (upping their production by almost 75%) in the past 5 years.

I personally think that regardless of oil's origins--it boils down to how many barrels can we pump out in a day vs how many barrels can we use in a day... and it remains to be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that what's going on in the former soviet bloc has anything to do with abiotic oil or that petroleum geologists are horribly wrong in the prevailing 2 trillion barrels ultimately recoverable estimates...
_________________
UNLESS

mekrob · Expert Joined: Dec 09, 2005 Posts: 2663

I think one thing needs to be said about abiotic/biotic oil. Even if oil is abiotic and there are trillions more much deeper, we won't be reaching it. It's not because we couldn't. It's just that no one will be looking for it. The increase in the FSU's oil production in the past 5 years is what has given the validity to the abiotic oil theory. But Russia is the main proponent of this theory and of the increase in oil production in the FSU. Russia is about to hit a peak within a few years, which is probably more artificial than natural, caused by a nation that is full of oil and power. They see no need to continue to fill our SUV's (not literally). I'm sure they'd much rather (Putin that is) be the main power in the world (maybe with China by her side). They also lack in infrastructure (which is caused by a lack of incentives-not free). This will cause them to peak and maybe even enter into a (controlled) decline. It is in their best interests after all. The dialogue between the West and Russia isn't too great and Putin/Bush definately aren't helping the situation. The drop in production or even a stagnation will probably let the furor over abiotic just wither, thus we'll probably never know whether abiotic is most likely true, although we sure can speculate on PO.com. This could be voided if Russia decides to come over to capitalism and a free market. Rolling Eyes

net-paw

Attempting to get anyone who is a "peak oil" activist to even attempt to look into abiotic oil is fultile.

One link that has been pointed to is the work of J F Kenney. This has been brought up in hundreds of discussions on peak oil all over the internet from indy media sites to this very site and thread here.

What you WON'T find is a scientific examination and debunking of the work by J F Kenney. By this I don't mean very small sections of his paper ie: the source of various oil supplies in Russia, but the mathematics, the chemistry and the physics of his work(s). YOU WILL NOT SEE THIS SCIENTIFICALLY DEBUNKED OR REFUTED ANYWHERE. Interesting is it not, that a peer reviewed paper, or papers proposing, no i'll correct myself here, that PROVES that biogenic origins of oil is NOT possible has NEVER been debunked.

Ignored as being irrelivent, yes. Debunked, nope.

Funny thing is he is not the only one ( not from Russia ) who has worked on similar lines. Did you know that Western scientists have made abiotic methane and shown that it is IMPOSSIBLE to distinguish from supposed biotic methane ? ( You can find this in science daily, it is interesting to note when reading the paper that they created abiotic methane in much the same way as J F Kenney did and the scientist proposed the same would apply for oil as well... well if he had the funding to continue ) Abiotic gas indistinguishable from biogenic, who would have thought.

Something else to consider. The recent Iraq fiasco involving the US and others was planned a long time before 911, funny thing is they planned this as pecurser to Iran. Funny how they are talking up the nuclear threat in Iran and saying Iran wants to "wipe Israel of the map" ( By the way if you actually read the transcripts of this supposed quote it is not what was said at all... I believe it was wipe the REGIME off the map. Not disimilar to the US retoric of regime change...but I degress ) Besides the Iran's intent on changing the oil bourse to euros ( which is what Iraq had intended to do before it was attacked ) but Iran is critical for control of the Caspian sea area. Not just because of piplelines and such but also because of the amount of oil that is UNDER the caspian sea.

Now if you look into what oil is available under the Caspian you will commonly find pessimistic estimates of 5-10 Billion barrells. But if you dig a little deeper you will actually find estimates of 200 Billion Barells and more. There are some interesting papers that cover this very topic. If you could for a moment consider that the more optomistic estimates are true, then it gives a very good reason for the US wanting a presence in this area (apart from the allready large amounts of oil in the middle east anyway), This would be a very good way of curbing the growth of Russia, China and not to mention India. If the US can stop development of this oil it can stifle the threat of these countries to US domination and corporate control.

Something else of interest to note. One of the early US presidents ( and i'll leave you guys to look this up yourselves ) supposably wrote a book about oil of the coast of Vietnam a long time before the vietnam war, of course China should have really had access to this oil but the vietnam war put a stop to that. On the same day the vietnam war officialy ended, the US oil companies stopped surveying the coast of vietnam. You can find that quote from the words of the head of the oil company involved if you look hard enough.

Also something that is mentioned many times in here is the 1970's oil crisis. What they don't mention is that the whole oil crisis of the 70's was staged. Not a conspiracy theory at all but staged to increase the price of oil. There is a book that covers that topic and shows the people involved ( Kissinger was a key player ) and also the organisations behind it, detailing the meetings and the people there. Also during the cold war there was a pipeline that carried oil from Russia all the way to Iran ( yes the pipleine still exists ). oil was piped from russia, then sold through Iran to the US. Russia was supplying the US with oil throughout the supposed "cold war". Don't read that in your garden variety "peak oil" literature.

There are also some intersting things to note about the funding for research into Eugene Island that is a favourite debunking piece of "peak oilers" that they fail to mention or acknowledge.

But after all that does it mean I belive "peak oil" won't happen or is not real. Well yes and no both at once. Yes it will happen. It is not real, in the sense that it is staged. Well the extent of it is staged anyway. For a variety of reasons, but the main one is control. 911 was a platform to gain a stranglehold in the middle east and particularly the Caspian Region.

The fact is "peak oilers" quote from people such as Matthew Simmons. Mention the fact that he is so embedded in with the "Bush Regime" and that fails to deter them. Yes there are others too but the fact is the figures they are quoting from are from the very organisations that are benefiting from this supposed shortage of oil. They don't just believe it they treat it as gospel to an almost religious fanatical extent, while crucifying anyone who contradicts their belief.

Problem is that to mention to them throughout history the oil companies and those that control them have manipulated events, governments, education, medicine and science to such an extent and they automatically think you are a conspiracy nutbag. It;s a shame they are so caught up in facts and figures to do a bit more reading outside the peak oil sphere.

Oh yes "peak oil" is real. Just not for the reason that is commonly put forward here ie: oil is biogenic and is running out quickly. ( Oh and by the way, though I am inclined to believe oil is abiotic in origin doesn't mean that I think we can consume it at ANY rate. i do believe that it still needs to be conserved ) "Peak Oil" is just another way of spreading fear and fear is a form of control. Just look at what this phoney war on terror has done to peoples civil liberties ( and it will only get worse ).

emailking · Intermediate Crude Joined: Mar 11, 2006 Posts: 747

What is the JF kenney link? I don't want to go through 33 pages.

net-paw

Actually it's on this page. But hell to make it even easier than doing a google search....

http://www.gasresources.net/

Have a happy day Smile

net-paw

"This could be voided if Russia decides to come over to capitalism and a free market"

Oh geez you really don't believe in all that free trade, globalisation corporation claptrap do you ? Take a hint. Watch the corporation and see what so called free trade has done to the world. Then perhaps read some of Chomskey's work ( though I don't necesarily agree with some of his thoughts ) or even better read some writings of John Pilger. Another one to look up while you are googling is F. William Engdahl ( Especially since he writes about oil geopolitics ).

Anyone who believes free trade and capatalism is a force of good on the world needs their head read. ( I mean that as a generalisation ) Free markets are NOT "FREE".

mekrob · Expert Joined: Dec 09, 2005 Posts: 2663

Netpaw, I was being sarcastic with my remark on Russia becoming a 'free market'. I don't know why someone as intelligent as you didn't pick up on it. Rolling Eyes

And if PO is just a fraud to get people to be afraid, then the conspirators sure are doing a horrible job given the fact that there are only ~6000 people that are members here (and most of them don't come anymore). Gotta hand it to those guys for making us all afraid.

And I'm glad that a president wrote a book about finding oil off the Vietnam coast. Because when I want information about the possibility of oil formations, I turn to the commander in chief. Not geologists.

net-paw

Errr. I'm not that intelligent.

As for PO being a fraud. Huh just 6000 on this board ? It's not the fatc that the every day person is going to become afraid perse. The undercurrent of Peak Oil is indeed pervasive. It is mentioned in many a news article even with the local papers here in Australia. It is mentioned in the financial papers and is discussed in political forums here in Australia.

To say the apathetic masses will suddenly run around tearing their hair out is missing the point.

Keep your eyes and ears open over the next 3-6 months. When the oil squeeze really hits ( After the US attacks Iran ) then Peak Oil will REALLY start to hit the mainstream in a big way. When petrol prices jump through the roof and it affects peoples ability to get by then the media will really thrust PO down our throats. Don't think the US will go for Iran. Ha we'll see, it's been the plan for a long time.

Oh and trusting the commander in chief ? I take it you were being sarcastic there Smile

You are American yes ? Well I can understand you believing the word of a geologist over the commander in chief. Mind you when the commander in chief wrote the book when he was actually a geologist would that sway your opinion somewhat ? The president was Hoover just in case you were wondering.

Oh and before dismissing the abiotic theory out of hand have a real close look at JF Kenney's papers. Not just a superficial one. Read it then re-read it again. If you start to get a grip on what he says in his papers you will understand why it has never been debunked by the biotic oil believers. Most "geologists" would not have the background in chemistry or physics to even get a proper grip on what he is saying. Never mind the fact that won't acknowledge it or even study those papers for themselves as their beliefs are so ingraned. No one has been able to debunk what he has said in his papers. It's almost laughable. Yet an unproven in fact a debunked theory is accepted as gospel. Perhaps the fact that Rockefellar controlled the US and western education and even publishing systems has something to do with that.

Look into who started up the US education board, then have a look at the papers, interviews and opinions of those people in regards to that education system. It is a sad fact of life that these people have a dim view on the masses. The education system was set up to groom those they thought of as worthy and to hell with the rest. Sounds almost kooky but unfortunately history shows how twisted these people really are.

But yeh.

mekrob · Expert Joined: Dec 09, 2005 Posts: 2663

Ok, I'm not completely against abiotic oil, but I don't have the background in chemistry, physics or anything to write about it or really even research it, so I don't try to understand deeply the origin of petroleum. I'm not going to bother with Kenney's papers (for the time being until I know more chem, geo and phys) if they only deal with the science of the stuff. So do they? Or is it more on the 'conspiracy theory' sides (kooky as you put it)? Is it all science? Or does he actually talk about how abiotic oil would debunk PO? I mean, there is no real reason to look into abiotic oil if the proponents can't even say that it will overrule PO, since PO is the main subject of this board? Does Kenney say that oil is replenishing to attainable levels for our use? or just that oil is constantly being made in the Earth? If its the latter, then it doesn't matter to us, and I have yet to read any abioticists argue that wells are replenishing while backing them up with facts. And I'll remind you, Eugene Island is one case out of 4000 fields. You never take the exception as the rule. Never.

net-paw

See therein lies the problem. You have admitted that you have as yet not read the papers, because your understanding of chemistry etc is not up to scratch. ( Which is fair enough really, yet you really don't need to understand it all at once. Just a matter of getting hold of what he says then looking into it a bit more using other referances to increase your understanding ).

Kooky stuff ? Hell no. His papers are quite the opposite. It's me who reads the kooky stuff to get a better understanding of how the world operates. But I guess that's another topic alltogether.

Does he say that oil replenishes at x rate ? Hell no. You say that if it does not replenish at x rate then it has no relevance ? Therein lies the other problem. IF it is found that oil is abiotic does it not bring into question much of the information spread by the oil companies, chemical companies etc. Are the facts and figures quoted by the oil companies in fact accurate ? I'll leave you to figure that one out. But by placing his papers in the too hard basket like many have you are in fact placing your trust in something almost blindly. I say almost because I know "peak oilers" and people such as Matthew Simmons quote figures left right and centre, but what if the very basis of the PO theory, that oil is a "fossil fuel" is proven to be a scientific lie ? How does that relate to exploration etc ? Again I'll leave you to think about that one.

But again his papers have never been debunked. Though I understand your response to some extent it is a common one, even the so called experts avoid his papers at all costs. Do you think this is an accident ? I am not the only one who has shown this point that his papers prove oil is in fact not biogenic and has called for science to debunk it. I am not holding my breathe though.

Of course the whole debate would be nipped in the bud if his papers were shown to be wrong. Anyway, not trying to convince yourself one way or another. In all truth it won't really change the outcome as I mentioned before. PO will happen but for geoploitical and ecenomic reasons and for control of course. Not because of a shortage of oil in the commonly accepted sense. Now if people choose to believe the rantings of those connected to the Bush regime then that's their perogative. But for people on this board to dismiss those who believe in abiotic oil as "flat earthers" and then dismiss j f kenneys papers out of hand smacks of ignorance.

mekrob · Expert Joined: Dec 09, 2005 Posts: 2663

emailking · Intermediate Crude Joined: Mar 11, 2006 Posts: 747

It seems to me that the geologists are the ones claiming that oil is biotic, and the oil companies rely on the geologists to the extent that they care about such.

I am intiruged by this abiotic oil idea. I have no reason to doubt thousands of geologists (who are probably right), and it probably means nothing for Peak Oil. But I think I will have a look at these papers if I ever get around to it, just so I can see both sides, as I would not know one way or the other from my general scientific knowledge alone.