portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

bikes/transportation | energy & nuclear | environment

Peak Oil: It's Not Just For Breakfast Anymore

a couple of good articles from Common Dreams today - read 'em and weep, petroleum junkies!
Published on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 by TomDispatch.com

The View from Hubbert's Peak

by Mike Davis
 http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0526-07.htm
[MUST-READ ARTICLE]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Published on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 by the Toronto Star

We are Finally Running Out of Cheap Gas Good
by Mitchell Anderson

As gas prices loft into the stratosphere, likely never to come down, we can expect to hear much doomsaying about how this will end the world as we know it. Let's hope so.
 http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0526-11.htm

homepage: homepage: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/05/288552.shtml

Ride your bike 26.May.2004 14:40

bent_rider

Critical Mass This Friday

Peak Oil Is A Myth 26.May.2004 18:34

Petroleum Geologist

The world will run out of oil... In 100 to 150 years. The reason is that peak oil arguments are based upon "proven reserves" of crude. True geologists can mathematically estimate a large amount of undiscovered reserves of crude. Furthermore, there are substantial reserves of other petroleum deposits in shall and sand. The issue is that these reserves are more costly to extract. Now if free markets had been allowed to operate in the 70s and 80s, there would have been a greater shift toward tooling to extract these resources (much of the sand being in Canada). However, there was an entrenched industry that had to power to permeate government policy and protect its interest in proven reserves of crude. The fact that it has ultimately proven even more expensive is of no consequence, since the taxpayer has picked up that tab for the oil companies, and the military industrial complex has found rationale for its own existence. Those that know better have made sure that fiscal policy shift the burden of these costs onto the poor, and here we are in an infantile state of the New World Order.

Peak oil is clever counter-intelligence and a propaganda tool. Don't buy it.

"Petroleum Geologist" is a Shill, and it's S_H_A_L_E, not "shall" 26.May.2004 19:09

geologist

"there are substantial reserves of other petroleum deposits in shall [sic] and sand. The issue is that these reserves are more costly to extract."

--you'd better believe it "Petroleum Geologist" (out of work, are you?) - not only shale and tar sands which will be extremely inefficient to extract (until the "slightly easier" to extract reserves run out, and by then it'll be essential no matter what the cost), but ALL petroleum reserves are becoming more and more costly to extract. This includes the Saudis who made their last major reserve discovery 40 years ago - even the gigantic projected 220 billion barrels in Iraq for which we illegally invaded will be increasingly expensive and technologically difficult to extract.

new discoveries of economically extractable/viable global oil and gas reserves have been totally outpaced by demand increases.

you need to READ and UNDERSTAND what PETROLEUM geologists like M. King Hubbert and Kenneth Deffeyes (read his book from the library or your bookstore) have explained about the cost of extracting ever-less-frequent deposits and reserves.

when you combine all of this with skyrocketing demand for petroleum fuels and products - these days driven not just by US demand but also Central/East Asia and especially China - you have Peak Oil.

besides Kenneth Deffeyes' book, another must-read:

THE PARTY'S OVER - The Peak of Oil Production and Fate of Industrial Societies

by Richard Heinberg

Petroleum Geologist is a disinformationalist hack 26.May.2004 19:50

sandi nista

In counter to the arguments that shale and tar sands are a panacea against the imminent running out of oil, leading petroleum geologist, Colin Campbell states that such sources of unconventional oil will only delay the peak for a few years. For the record, Colin J. Campbell wrote the report about the peak of oil which sold for about $30,000 a copy, back in 1997. This report was disseminated to the major oil companies. Read the full article here:  http://www.mbendi.co.za/indy/oilg/p0070.htm

Furthermore I would like to add 26.May.2004 20:03

sandi nista

that even the Department of Energy states that oil reserves, at most, will last another 30-40 years and their estimates of oil reserves are liberal because in factoring in the remaining supplies, they use a "best case" senario which is conjured up out of people's heads. It has nothing to do with any research on the actual amount of oil available, because it bets that large reserves will be found. However, technology in oil exploration is so advanced that most of the oil reserves that have been found are all we can hope to find. Most REAL geologist conclude that the peak of oil is due to happen within the next 10-15 years. Just do a search on peak oil and see what REAL research is out there. I sincerely doubt that Petroleum Geologist know his ass from a hole in the ground. Also there are a collection of articles on the topic at dieoff.com. Even Scientific American did an article called "The End of Oil" and it is worth checking out. Just search their site using this title as the key word. Sorry, but there is just too much evidence to counter what Petroleum Geologist is saying. Do the research, dammit, and find out for yourself. Don't let people dictate what you think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, Do The Research... Peak Oil Is A Myth 26.May.2004 21:16

Petroleum Geologist

Speaking on behalf of a retired ARCO geologist...

No, I'm not a hack. Why would I bother? Sorry if my time isn't worth a spellcheck on Indymedia, but the accuracy is out there. Shale and tar sand reserves are known. It's a matter of capital tooling for extraction processes that are mutually exclusive from current PP&E. The time to panick is when Return On Net Assets (RONA) turns against tooling for the extraction of these assets.

I want to see Bush out of office as much as the next guy. Maybe you are right and I am wrong, but based on a lot of inside oil and auto industry info, I am not wrong. I am trying to illuminate counter-intelligence. The friends of the Bush Administration have no loss for Ivy League professors who will support the the World Trade Center Collapse Theory either. I'm just saying, think about it... What would predictions of Peak Oil really bring other than additional support for pulling out of Iraq and endorsing policies of greater conservation? The flip side is a public that might agree that military intervention is the way to go to protect US economic and military superiority.

I may be wrong, and I fully accept that, but lets think about it both ways. We know, afterall, that the CIA (under Bush's mentor Dulles) infiltrated the 60's antiwar movement and drug culture. Just think about it, okay? Counter-information can be powerful and dangerous in the absence of critical thinking.

Peace...

"Petroleum Geologist" - why play the 'Bush' card? 26.May.2004 22:16

geologist

you are completely ignoring the GLOBAL increase in demand for oil and petroleum extracted products.

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/279384.shtml

US gasoline prices - and consumer prices/scarcity - are only just beginning to be affected by this supply/demand disparity. and the supply is affected by many factors, including:

1. gasoline refining capacity
2. access and availability of geologic reserves
3. individual nation-states strategic petroleum reserves
4. OPEC constraints on production and market recipients

this isn't an issue of "counter-intelligence" or cloak/dagger infiltrative "political disinformation". ultimately Peak Oil has little - persay - to do with BushCheney and the US Oil Regime. Peak Oil won't "make them pull out of Iraq" or reverse their imperial designs (they are now shooting for Africa  http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0113-06.htm  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/284472.shtml ) - those policies may indeed be oil-driven, but they are also entwined with geopolitical plutocratic ideology and corporate lobbying, and we are FAR BEYOND any kind of scientific or technological 'reasoning' or implementation of 'conservation' on a mass, nationwide scale. That policy died with the 55-MPH limit, the Carter Administration and its energy conservation initiatives (culminating with the installation of solar panels on the roof of the White House in 1979, which Yuno Hoo had removed a year later).

We're now in Year 24 of the Reagan Revolution (Karl Rove - quoted by Jim Hightower - refers to GWB as "Reagan: Phase III"). Industrial civilization has already GONE OVER the precipice. There is no "return" from the 'control room' point of view - it's too big now, and too late. Hybrid cars certainly aren't going to turn things around (did introduction of computers create a 'paperless' office? on the contrary, they and computer printers vastly *increased* the amount of office paper consumed and generated) Peak Oil not a "political" issue, because the current power structure of all global societies will be using and extracting petroleum until it becomes absolutely too expensive, scarce or dangerous to do so.

the 'message' of Peak Oil - if any - is for all of us within the constraints of our societies and personal finances/resources to begin preparing for the consequences, which include increased scarcity of all petroleum-based and -fueled resources and systems.

get off the grid. grow your own food. dump the urban lifestyle. get used to consuming less, and less often. and prepare for population decline, which will occur via famines, wars, and disease over the next several decades. obviously, it won't be possible for every person on the planet to transform or 'be enlightened' immediately, but rising costs and constraints will eventually force everyone to comply. better that you know now, than act like you didn't later. ways to soften the blow of Peak Oil.

Shell Oil has just revised its oil reserve projections for the ****4th**** time this year (after being accused of fraud and sacking three of its top directors):
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,1223866,00.html

I strongly encourage you to READ -

Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage
by Kenneth S. Deffeyes

another good article is Dale Allen Pfeiffer's Eating Fossil Fuels:
 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/284044.shtml

and the Colin Campbell material:
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2002/10/29732.shtml

p.s. SORRY I got the title of the Heinberg book wrong - the correct title is:

The PARTY'S OVER
Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies

By Richard Heinberg

(this book has a full chapter on the "never-mind" "anti-Cassandranites" like you, "Petroleum Geologist")

Peak Oil Is A Myth 26.May.2004 22:54

Petroleum Geologist

Nope, increasing global demand is fully accounted for, not ignored. If you really want to guage the threat of "peak oil" look at capital investment among automotive and energy companies. There is currently a boom in a new cycle of capital investments. The "big corporations" on the inside of the lobbying are not going to invest billions in something they believe doesn't exist.

Again, I don't suggest that the transition to shale and sand deposits, or toward the "unproven" reserves of Siberia (actually, any Military Intelligence expert you talk to will substantiate that the US is fully aware the greatest reserves are in Siberia). Nor do I suggest that aggressively tapping those reserves is a good thing because of the environmental destruction it could bring in one of the world's most pristine wildernesses, but it is true. One of the things that always amazed me as a progressive (I still don't have the answer to this one) is why the US refuses to acknowledge the great reserves Russia is sitting on. Here is an odd case of where the big oil companies are more eager to strike deals with Russia than the Bush/Republican government will let them. Clearly, there is more to be said about the cozy relationship between the Houses of Bush and Saud than meets the eye.

I would like to note 27.May.2004 00:03

that

The reserves in Russia have not turned out to be as high as anticipated.
Oh, and if you are getting the idea that you can obtain an accurate picture of oil reserves from industry, you are dead wrong. Industries overstate their proven reserves regulary. Here's why
"We should at least define what we try to measure, even if the database is not up to doing it so accurately in all cases. We may start by asking two simple questions:

How much oil has been found? and
When was it found?
They sound simple, but they are difficult to answer because the data are weak. There is no consistency in what is reported. There is a large range even for production, which is simply reading the meter. Reserve estimates are still less reliable. The treatment of gas liquids ranges widely.

There are two main sources of public data: the Oil & Gas Journal and World Oil, which are trade journals that compile information given to them by governments and others. They are not in a position to assess the validity of the information supplied to them. Another widely used source is the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. BP is in a position to evaluate the data, but prefers to reproduce the Oil and Gas Journal numbers, understandably not wanting to involve itself with sensitive issues that might affect its relationship with the host governments of the countries where it works. Lastly is the industry database, which is relatively reliable, but too expensive for most analysts to access. All these sources provide different numbers.

The industry is required to furnish estimates of so-called Proved Reserves in its financial reports to governments and the stock-exchanges. These estimates relate to what the wells in the current stage of development are expected to produce, but say little about what the field as a whole may eventually deliver. The industry has accordingly systematically under-reported the size of discovery. It has good commercial reasons for doing so rather than booking all their reserves up front because it smoothes their assets, presenting a better image. It is not its job to forecast the future. For most purposes, it does not matter, but we need to know the real record of the past if we are to use the trend to forecast the future. Governments variously under-report or over-report, or simply fail to update their estimates. As many as 64 countries reported unchanged numbers in 2001, which is utterly implausible.

We need the "best estimate" of the size of the field, namely its Proved & Probable reserves, such that any revisions are statistically neutral.

An oilfield contains what it contains because it was filled in the geological past, but knowledge of how much it contains evolves over time. If we want a genuine discovery trend, we need to backdate revisions to the discovery of the field. Failure to backdate gives the illusion that more is being found than is the case. It is a cause of great misunderstanding


This demonstrates how BP reports reserves, failing to backdate the revisions. It has misled many analysts. The large increases in the late 1980s were simply due to the OPEC quota wars. Nothing particular was actually added. Kuwait added 50% in 1985 to increase its OPEC quota, which was based partly on reserves. No corresponding new discoveries had been made. Nothing particular changed in the reservoir. Venezuela doubled its reserves in 1987 by the inclusion of large deposits of heavy oil that had been known for years, forcing the other OPEC countries to retaliate with huge increases. Note too how the numbers have changed little since despite production.

But it is not quite as simple as that, because the early numbers were too low, having been inherited from the companies before they were expropriated. Some of the increase was justified but it has to be backdated to the discovery of the fields concerned that had been found up to 50 years before.

The failure to backdate gives this misleading popular image of growing reserves. It is widely used by flat-earth economists in support of classical economic theories of supply and demand

By no means all economists believe in a flat-earth. There are enlightened economists who now relate economics with resources, and they are coming to the fore. Financial institutions too are beginning to understand the inevitable reality of the depletion of oil."

Also, you must be pretty busy to work for BOTH the automotive and geology idustrys. Makes me suspicious.Hmmm.


found something out 27.May.2004 00:06

bob

Biodiesel. Some scientists at university of new hampshire claim that biodiesel fuel can be made from algae that grows in saltwater. Apparently, the technology DOES exist to avoid or at least mitigate peak oil problems.

www.biodiesel.org

Debunking "Petroleum Geologist" - Line By Line 27.May.2004 00:13

geologist

"Peak Oil Is A Myth"

--notice how "Petroleum Geologist" has insistently employed this phrase in each headline of his 3 comments.

"Nope, increasing global demand is fully accounted for, not ignored."

--where? you haven't acknowleged it, or accounted for it. China, for example, presently uses only 8 percent of the world's oil, but accounts for 37 percent of consumption growth (and just imagine where they'll be in only 5 or 10 years . . .)
 http://www.counterpunch.org/hallinan05262004.html

"If you really want to guage [sic] the threat of "peak oil" look at capital investment among automotive and energy companies. There is currently a boom in a new cycle of capital investments. The "big corporations" on the inside of the lobbying are not going to invest billions in something they believe doesn't exist."

--auto and energy companies don't make ANY investment decision - and NEVER HAVE - on bases of "reality" or "existence". especially large scale capital investment - that high-stakes game is based entirely on whether the elite players can GET AWAY WITH a huge profit. (ever heard of Enron?)

As for US auto companies, they would never have manufactured smaller, more fuel-efficient cars if Carter-era federal policies like the CAFE standard hadn't compelled them to (no, the 1973 oil embargo and gasoline scarcity *by itself* was not enough to change US auto manufacturers, and look at the land yachts they make now, 30 years later . . . )

What do you think the derivatives market, energy futures markets, and Enron - the biggest corporate financial debacle/swindle ever - are all about? Didn't you READ the Shell Oil article posted above??

"Again, I don't suggest that the transition to shale and sand deposits, or toward the "unproven" reserves of Siberia (actually, any Military Intelligence expert you talk to will substantiate that the US is fully aware the greatest reserves are in Siberia)."

--it's not about 'awareness of reserves' (as shown above, even corporate giants like Shell are scrambling to show how much they are 'potentially' able to exploit for their shareholders - all while under SEC investigation). it's about the economic and technological viability of extracting those reserves TO KEEP PACE WITH GLOBAL AND INDIVIDUAL NATION-STATE DEMANDS. and in the long run - about the actual remaining quantity of the reserves themselves.

"Nor do I suggest that aggressively tapping those reserves is a good thing because of the environmental destruction it could bring in one of the world's most pristine wildernesses, but it is true."

--if you were making an oblique reference to ANWR here: at current consumption rates, the Alaskan reserves would only supply the US petroleum thirst for 4 months.

"One of the things that always amazed me as a progressive (I still don't have the answer to this one) is why the US refuses to acknowledge the great reserves Russia is sitting on. Here is an odd case of where the big oil companies are more eager to strike deals with Russia than the Bush/Republican government will let them."

--don't know what on earth you're on about here. Western oil companies' interest and operations in the former Soviet Union have been rampantly accelerating ever since the fall of the Berlin wall. It's a great deal for them because in the former Soviet Union there are NO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS. Cheney himself has been investigated for a $3.8 billion taxpayer-funded oil junket with Halliburton and the Russian mob:
 http://www.public-i.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=172&L1=10&L2=70&L3=15&L4=0&L5=0&State=&Year=2000
[the above Public I investigative report is a MUST READ]
 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/economy/story/0,1598,759142,00.html

they're dealing wherever and whenever US or global politics will permit them to strike: Russia, Siberia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzebikistan (for both petroleum and natural gas pipeline contracts). as you may know, there is a relative disconnect and competition between the Russian/French corporate oil axis and the British/US corporate oil axis, and it shows in the geopolitics of Iraq.

"Clearly, there is more to be said about the cozy relationship between the Houses of Bush and Saud than meets the eye."

--yes, G.W. Bush from Arbusto Energy in the late 1970s onward - and his father before that via Pennzoil, Zapata Petroleum and Bechtel - has been closely connected to oil elites in Saudi Arabia. But so have most other US Presidents and their foreign policy advisor / Cabinet cliques been well oil-connected. That's always been the sole purpose of the US Embassy in Riyadh.

but also, Saudi Arabia is declining (not just in estimated petroleum reserves, but also in political regime reliability) as a major global player in the oil stakes. they are past their peak and now declining in oil extraction rates. The 'miracle' of Saudi oil is over:  http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2004/march/03_01_1.html

Even the recent Saudi offer to increase production has failed to affect prices, or to assuage the skyrocketing demand for oil supplies (especially from the US and China):
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,1224086,00.html

to 'bob' on BioDiesel 27.May.2004 00:41

geologist

bob,

you are correct that there are many energy sources - biodiesel included - that can be used to delay the peak occurrence or lessen its slope. and you should definitely investigate, make use of, and be part of them on your own or within energy co-ops.

but in order for these to actually REVERSE the effects of Peak Oil, conservation and alternative fuel/energy technologies and sources needed to have been implemented decades ago and be in widespread use by NOW. (Especially in the global energy consumption leader, USA: we have had the technology ready to be widely developed and implemented since the 1970s - but the post-1980 Reagan era put a stop to government initiatives on this behalf).

at this 21st Century stage it's simply up to individuals, smaller companies, and cooperatives to actively obtain and implement these technologies for themselves, using their own financial and other resources, within constraints of local laws, regulations and raw material/fuel supplies. don't look for too many national governments - and last of all the US government - to assist in their implementation.

to read and understand about this, refer to the Colin Campbell material already cited:

Interview w/Colin Campbell :  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2002/10/29732.shtml


Incomplete analysis 27.May.2004 10:21

StevetheGreen

One important factor that Petroleum Geologist does not speak of is the environmental impact of extracting some of these other so-called "untapped reserves".

First of all:
There is not currently a fiscally feasible method of extracting many of these reserves that will not dramatically increase the costs, which is where the very real fears about dwindleing supplies lies to begin with.

Secondly:
There are billions of barrels of synthetic type of oil called "tar sands" in Northern Canada.
Tar sands are impregnated sands that yield mixtures of liquid hydrocarbon and require further processing other than mechanical blending before becoming finished petroleum products. Until recently Alberta's bitumen deposits were known as tar sands but are now called oil sands. Oil sands are deposits of bitumen; viscous oil that must be rigorously treated in order to convert it into an upgraded crude oil before it can be used in refineries to produce gasoline and other fuels.

Bitumen is about 10-12 % of the actual oil sands found in Alberta. The remaining 80-85 % is mineral matter, including clay and sands, and around 4-6% water. While conventional crude oil is either pumped from the ground or flows naturally, oil sands must be mined or recovered in situ (meaning in place). Oil sands recovery processes include extraction and separation systems to remove the bitumen from the sand and water. Oil sands currently represent 40% of Alberta's total oil production and about one-third of all the oil produced by Canada. By 2005, oil sands production is expected to represent 50% of Canada's total crude oil output and 10% of North American production. Although tar sands occur in more than 70 countries, the two largest are Canada and Venezuela, with the bulk being found in four different regions of Alberta, Canada: areas of Athabasca, Wabasha, Cold Lake and Peace River. The sum of these covers an area of nearly 77,000 km2. In fact, the reserve that is deemed to be technologically retrievable today is estimated at 280-300Gb (billion barrels). This is larger than the Saudi Arabia oil reserves, which are estimated at 240Gb. The total reserves for Alberta, including oil not recoverable using current technology, are estimated at 1,700- 2,500Gb.

The environmental impact as a result of extracting this type of oil would be devastating.

To talk about untapped reserves as though they are the panicea or as though they should quell the very real fears about "peak oil" is both incomplete and irresponsible.

Red herring counter point, Mr Petroleum Geologist 27.May.2004 10:55

MK

Petroleum Geologist says, "Peak Oil Is A Myth," then he says, "The world will run out of oil."

He is right about the world not running out of oil, but that has nothing to do with peak oil. We will have fossil fuels of some kind for a very long time to come, but will they be affordable for the many uses we now of it?

The data is very clear that cheap and easy to extract, refine, and transport petroleum is past peak in most of the world's fields. The remaining petroleum with these assets is in the world's politically volitile regions - hardly places you can reliably count on for sustenance. Even the most optimistic forecasts for the middle east oil is that it will reach peak production in 30 to 40 years, after which production will decline, just as it has in the US for the past 30 years. 30 years is a very short time to develop not only alternative fuels, but alternatives to the fertilizers which enable the world to grow enough for most of us to eat.

The population is going up. Transportation and food needs and wants are going up. Oil production is basically flat. We do not have viable alternatives on line, or even the technology to put them on on line. This is not rocket science! No, we are not going to run out of oil, just like we are not going to run out of gold or diamonds, but all these things are finite natural resources. Like gold and diamonds, scarcity and demand drive prices up. The supply of oil is going to go down, this is a certainty, the demand is going up. If you can't figure out where this is leading, you need to do some more research.

There are several easy to follow links that reflect different views on  http://peakoil.blogspot.com

I am baffled why anybody who has been paying any attention can still believe we are not polluting the planet or depleting its natural resources.


coffin nails 27.May.2004 11:46

Mike and Jerry

Closed Coffin: Ending the Debate on "The End of Cheap Oil"A commentary

Michael C. Lynch, Chief Energy Economist, DRI-WEFA, Inc.

September 2001

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.

The greatest attention was achieved by the March 1998 Scientific American article "The End of Cheap Oil" by Jean Laherrere and Colin Campbell, largely due to the extreme nature of their warning -- production peaking within a few years -- and the alleged irrefutability of it. Subsequently, the authors have been very active publicizing their views, including testimony to the British House of Commons, speaking on BBC, and a number of other venues. A few articles in the general press have been at least skeptical, but most of the work refuting their arguments has been treated cautiously and quite a few lay observers have taken their arguments as truth rather than speculation. Critics of these arguments (like myself) have noted that these forecasts have repeatedly proven to be incorrect, including those by Colin Campbell in particular, who as early as 1989 predicted a peak in world oil production for that year. Their rejoinder has been to note correctly that -- past performance is not proof of future performance.

However, to the more explicit charge that their model is mis-specified, the authors have made a more substantive response. The primary flaw in this type of model is the assumption that recoverable petroleum resources are fixed, when the amount of oil which can be recovered depends on both the total amount of oil (a geological factor which is fixed), but also dynamic variables like price, infrastructure, and technology. If the amount of recoverable oil increases, as it has in the past, then the level predicted for peak production must increase and the date pushed further into the future. This has been observed many times from forecasters using this type of model and relying on estimates of ultimately recoverable resources (URR). But Campbell and Laherrere have asserted that their estimate of URR is both highly accurate and stable because of their calculation using field size estimates showing declining discovery size, moving towards an asymptote. Since they have relied heavily on a privately held database, which is unavailable to the general researcher, it has been difficult for critics to respond to this specifically.

The reliance on discovery trends to estimate URR has received similar criticism as the faulty URR estimates, namely that estimates of field size tend to increase over time with improved recovery methods, better examination of seismic data, infill drilling, and so forth. This means that the size of the recent fields is being underestimated compared to older fields, exaggerating the nearness of the asymptote and understating its size. An analogy would be to plant trees over twenty years and note that the size of the most recently planted trees was shrinking, and concluding that timber resources would become scarce. Campbell and Laherrere have argued in response that increases in recovery at existing fields are artifacts of accounting rules (which is only partly true) and that they have overcome this flaw by their reliance on a database whose reserve estimates do not suffer from this bias. Since the estimate of ultimately recoverable resources is based on their field size estimates, the question of field growth becomes central to the entire debate. And their primary line of defense has been that their critics lack access to this database.

Last year, the publication of the USGS's World Petroleum Assessment provided one particularly sharp nail in the coffin of this argument, when (among other things) they examined the development of field size estimates over time using the same proprietary database which Campbell and Laherrere relied on, and concluded that reserve growth from existing fields, although uncertain, would be substantial. They published a mean estimate of 612 billion barrels (nearly 30 years of current consumption), significantly increasing their estimate of the world's URR.

But the final nails seem to be located in this summer's little-noticed announcement by IHS Energy -- the firm whose field database Campbell and Laherrere have utilized -- of estimated discoveries. According to the firm, discoveries in 2000 were 14.3 billion barrels in 2000, a 10% drop from 1999. This has two interesting implications: first, discoveries have risen sharply the past two years, refuting the statement that poor geology, rather than lack of access to the most prospective areas in OPEC, has kept discoveries low for the past three decades. But also, this implies that discoveries in the past two years have amounted to nearly 20% of the total undiscovered oil which Campbell and Laherrere argued remain! Undoubtedly they -- and others -- will argue that this is due to the firm's inclusion of deepwater reserves, which they are not considering, and that is a factor in the recent robustness of discoveries. However, the primary element behind the greater discovery rates has been the finding of two new supergiant fields in Kazakhstan and Iran. Again, this refutes the argument that discoveries have been relatively low in recent decades due to geological scarcity and supports the optimists' arguments that the lower discoveries are partly due to reduced drilling in the Middle East after the 1970s nationalizations.

And the most crucial fact is actually IHS Energy's reference to earlier discoveries. They have revised their estimates of remaining reserves at end -- 1991 to 1200 billion barrels, implying that oil discovered to that date was close to 1900 billion barrels (since about 675 billion barrels had been produced). This despite the Campbell/Laherrere argument that their data does not experience revisions due to their reliance on P50 (50% probability) estimates, compared to P90 (90% probability) used in the US and by many US oil companies. While there remain uncertainties about future field reserve growth versus historical growth, it becomes clear that it is still continuing and the arguments that they had corrected for the problem are fallacious at best.

Indeed, the sheer size of the revisions are themselves significant. Although I lack access to historical IHS Energy estimates, Campbell and Laherrere had placed "back-dated" reserves in the early 1990s at barely over 1000 billion barrels in their 1998 article. This implies (to be generous) an increase due to revisions of 150 billion barrels or more in a mere five years: 30% more than actual consumption! It means (as I have repeatedly argued) that their discovery trend curves are misleading, because the more recent numbers were understated, and in the future will likely be too low again. The method they use is flawed because of this definitional mistake.

Note also that the amount discovered to 1991 (which would include only minimal deepwater discoveries) is actually significantly greater than the two now estimate would ever be discovered. In fact, IHS Energy puts current reserves at 1100 billion barrels, which, with past production, yields almost 2000 billion barrels, about 10% or 200 billion barrels over the 1800 billion barrels which the duo have confidently predicted would be the ultimate total. Presumably we can expect them to make yet another upwards revision in their URR estimate. Indeed, despite fears of declining discoveries, estimated recoverable resources -- even by pessimists -- have grown faster than consumption. This can hardly be argued as a sign of resource scarcity.

There are many other arguments that have made up part of this debate, and I have tried to deal with each of them in the articles cited below, as well as further forthcoming work. But 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.

  1. "Forecasting Oil Supply: Theory and Practice," Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 2001, forthcoming.
  2. "The Debate Over Oil Supply: Science or Religion?" Geopolitics of Energy, August 1999.
  3. "Farce this Time: Renewed Pessimism About Oil Supply" Geopolitics of Energy, December 1998-January 1999.
  4. "The Analysis and Forecasting of Petroleum Supply: Sources of Error and Bias," in Energy Watchers VII, ed. by Dorothea H. El Mallakh, International Research Center for Energy and Economic Development, 1996.

"Peak Oil"?? Don't buy into the hype! Jerry Russell 3/12/04

Yes, there's some truth to it. As time goes by, oil and natural gas are going to get harder and harder to find, and they're going to get more expensive. But "Chicken Little" is paranoid and delusional, and the sky is not falling any time soon. Figures indicating that production is going to peak in 2004 or 2007, or that it may have peaked already, are based on incomplete evidence and bad science.

Oil is not made of dinosaurs & old lettuce. The origins of oil are abiotic. Other planets in the Solar System, like Saturn and Jupiter, contain significant amounts of methane. Many near-earth asteroids also contain large proportions of carbon. Just like the rest of our solar system, the primordial matter of Earth itself also undoubtedly contains a significant percentage of carbon -- and petroleum can be formed only in conditions of very high temperature and pressure deep within the earth.

Thus, the availability of oil is ultimately limited by our skills in exploration and drilling, and there are no fundamental limits posed by the number of dinosaurs that lived a hundred million years ago.

There may well be plenty of oil to make Global Warming a reality and make the earth into an overheated, living hell. Or for that matter, to disrupt the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Current, and trigger the next Ice Age. We are playing with forces we don't understand, but not only with fire!

"Peak Oil" is being used to push environmentally destructive drilling of American wilderness preserves. Don't let an artificially created panic shortage, become the instrument for the destruction of the heritage that past environmentalists have been able to save.

Solar and Wind Energy are Viable Alternatives

Giant wind turbines have already made a massive contribution to Europe's energy independence. Wind energy costs can be as low as three cents a kilowatt hour -- that's a bit cheaper than natural gas, oil or nuclear power plants.

Huge strides are being made in solar photovoltaic research. Bulky, expensive crystalline silicon cells will soon be obsolete. The future belongs to artificial photosynthesis technology, based in thin-film plastics and built with nanotechnology. This is not science fiction, it is a Venture Capital Reality. The European semiconductor giant ST Microelectronics is aggressively pursuing this technology, and in Silicon Valley, the founders of Google are major funding partners of Nanosolar. When these new solar panels are available on the market, solar power will be cheaper than coal.

Electricity on the grid can't be used to power automobiles directly, but it can be used to make hydrogen, and hydrogen can easily be stored as lithium hydride, and burned directly in internal-combustion engines. Critics of the hydrogen technology complain about expensive cryogenic storage, and unreliable fuel-cell technology -- but they don't tell you about these simple alternatives that work.

Unless this technology can be suppressed by the entrenched elitist oil interests of Skull & Bones and the CIA, the "Fossil Fuel" industry will soon live up to its name -- it will be extinct.

The War in Iraq is not about preserving the American Way of Life in an age of scarcity, and the crimes of September 11 (if indeed it was an "inside job") will not in any way contribute to maintaining a high standard of living for the American people. Americans are not silent benefactors or partners in the theft of Iraqi oil. The only beneficiaries are the likes of Halliburton, Dynergy, Carlysle Group and the family fortunes of the Bushes, Cheneys and Bin Ladens.

Mike Ruppert's $1000 bet

Investigator Mike Ruppert of http://www.fromthewilderness.com/ recently posted the following challenge to the 911 truth alliance mailing list:

I will give $1,000 cash money to anyone who can show me one oil field that is today producing oil from abiotic sources. Thomas Gold's 1980s nonsense discovery in the Gulf of Mexico is today a dry hole. He is laughed at by everyone in the industry, not the financiers, but the geologists (both private and from universities) and the actual drillers.

All that happened in the 1980s was that oil which had been pushed into interstitial spaces by secondary recovery (steam injection) slowly seeped back into the vacuum left by pumping. The well went dry in a few years. This is a common occurrence for anyone who's worked in the industry. Thomas Gold was an astronomer who foolishly decided to leave

[....]

I will hold claimants to the same scientific standards of proof that FTW has used for three years. And, as part of that bet, I will demand that each claimant pay me $50 for my time when I prove them wrong. That's 20 to 1 odds. Just throwing a bs article at me won't qualify. You have to show me a hard scientific paper from a university or a producing well where it has been demonstrated that the oil is abiotic and that reserve are refilling.

[....]

So put you money where your mouth is.

Any takers?

Mike Ruppert

I have accepted Ruppert's challenge, and provided him with the following information:

Abiotic oil is being produced today from the Dnieper-Donets Basin in Russia, according to this article

The Exploration and Development of the Twelve Major and one Giant Oil and Gas Fields on the Northern Flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin. V. A. Krayushkin, T. I. Tchebanenko, V. P. Klochko, Ye. S. Dvoyanin, J. F. Kenney, (2001), Energia, 22/3, 44-47.

The article is available on the Web at http://www.gasresources.net/DDBflds2.htm.

I don't know much about the journal Energia, but I believe it is the one published by the University of Twente in the Netherlands ( http://www.sms.utwente.nl/energia/home.html ; not available without a subscription.)

JF Kenney (the senior author of the Energia paper) has made a major theoretical contribution to what he calls "The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins" with his discovery that petroleum can be synthesized from iron, calcium carbonate and water at conditions of temperature and pressure similar to those found in the earth's mantle. His experiment is discussed in this paper from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

The Evolution of Multicomponent Systems at High Pressures VI. The Thermodynamic Stability of the Hydrogen-Carbon System The Genesis of Hydrocarbons and the Origin of Petroleum. J. F. Kenney, V. G. Kutcherov, N. A. Bendeliani, V. A. Alekseev, (2002), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A.), 99/17, 10976-10981.

Again, this article is available on the Web at http://www.gasresources.net/AlkaneGenesis.htm . As you may be aware, the PNAS is not (strictly speaking) a peer-reviewed academic journal, but submissions must be recommended and endorsed by a member of the very prestigious National Academy of Sciences.

A very interesting analysis of the pros and cons of the abiotic theory may be found at the Association of American Petroleum Geologists website

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.html

In this article, research geochemist Michael Lewan is quoted as one of the most knowledgeable advocates of the opposing theory, that petroleum is a "fossil fuel". Yet even Lewan admits "I don't think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic source of hydrocarbons. The key question is, 'Do they exist in commercial quantities?'"

The AAPG article also mentions a letter published in Nature, April 2002, "Abiogenic formation of alkanes in the Earth's crust as a minor source for global hydrocarbon reservoirs" which discusses evidence that methane gas from the Kidd Creek Mine in Ontario is of abiogenic origin.

The AAPG is organizing a conference in Vienna this July 11-14, 2004, Origin of Petroleum -- Biogenic and/or Abiogenic and Its Significance in Hydrocarbon Exploration and Productions

http://www.aapg.org/education/hedberg/vienna/index.html

The call for papers states

"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."

Note that the organizers of the conference include Michel Halbouty, recipient of a "Legendary Geoscientist" award http://www.agiweb.org/news/spot_01mar02_Halbouty.html as well as Ernest Mancini of the University of Alabama, and the cornucopian author Peter Odell of Erasmus University. Evidently they are taking the abiogenic theory seriously, at least to the extent of organizing this conference.

Ruppert modus operandi

Ruppert's energy editor, Dale Pfeiffer, promptly posted my information to the EnergyResources Yahoo group, moderated by Tom Robertson. This was a breach of etiquette in terms of the policies of the 911truthalliance mailing list (moderated by Lori Price of CLG), and when I complained to the list about this, I received the following response from Mike Ruppert:

Listen, let's take the passive-aggressive gloves off here you asshole.

You have already lost the bet and I have more than enough information to
prove you wrong. What I haven't done yet is write it up or finish
reading the Russian piece thoroughly to see if I can learn something.

So Mike is admitting that he hasn't even finished "reading the Russian piece thoroughly" but he's already sure I'm an "asshole". Well, I would be the first to admit that I have absolutely no qualifications as a petroleum geologist, and if I'm wrong, I'm out fifty bucks and a little embarrassment among friends. If Ruppert is wrong, he's taking part in a massive disinformation campaign, under the auspices of KPFK Radio of Los Angeles.

But I am not expecting that collecting on this bet is going to be easy. As you can see from the following post by Ron Anicich, Ruppert does not react well to criticism:

http://www3.sympatico.ca/ron666/ruppert.html
Over a month later my CKLN colleague Greg Duffell, with whom I have spent many months exploring the many facets of Vreeland's claims, posed the following questions to Ruppert on the same Yahoo discussion forum:

Mr. Ruppert,

I just wish you'd answer my oft-repeated question to you as to whether you discussed your interview with us at CKLN on May 16th with Mr. Vreeland and if you, as he claims, advised him not to do an interview with us scheduled for May 19th. I've asked several times on this forum. Perhaps you haven't seen it.

I'd also like to get clarification about the "Allan Greenspan" wine story, but you seem to avoid any real commentary about that.

I'd appreciate a response to either or both.

Sincerely,
Greg Duffell

What happened next was truly bewildering. Ruppert sent the following reply:

It is futile to try to explain algebra to an impaired third grader. As far as covert operations go, you are in this class. It was either you or your partner who asked me one of the stupidest questions I have ever heard. At that point you became persona non grata to me because you had demonstrated not the slightest degree of humility, manners, or willingness to learn. You just assumed that you knew everything - about everything.

Your worst problem is that you assume great experience and understanding when you are dangerously na?ve. Your most accurate statement in one of your postings was that you were an amateur. I heartily agree.

As to the wine statement there is nothing to explain. Vreeland was disoriented, in obvious pain and I recorded his statements over a hotel phone in Sacramento. When I made the posting I said that I had no way to verify what I had heard. Then I found out - thanks to this list - that Vreeland's attorney Rocco Galati had indeed been poisoned and that it had been reported in a Canadian paper.

I met with Galati in person on my last visit to Toronto and we discussed the poisoning among other issues. I have agreed not to make any further disclosures on the subject until after an upcoming court date where much more will be disclosed.

Your bad manners, your inept arrogance and your bellicose private threats to me off this list are ample evidence of how you should be treated. There are times when a child should not be allowed to interfere in matters of life and death, especially when the child doesn't have the common sense possessed by an artichoke.

That is the last response you will get out of me. Now enjoy your ensuing tantrum. But trust me, as far as Mike Vreeland is concerned, you will have your comeuppance soon enough. And it won't be coming from me.

Have a nice day!

Mike Ruppert

This response speaks volumes about Ruppert. This collection of holier-than-thou unsupported accusations, childish insults and self-righteousness sums up his attitude toward being questioned perfectly. Even when the questions are quite inoffensive and reasonable.

It is also interesting to note that Ruppert admits to making the assertion that Rocco Galati had been poisoned before receiving any confirmation of the fact whatsoever. Even stranger when you consider that Galati was a phone call away the entire time.

Anicich sums up his report thusly:

As I have illustrated clearly here, Ruppert's reporting of the Vreeland story is misleading and inaccurate on many occasions. The innuendo which makes up the bulk of his reporting of this story, while he simultaneously claims to be a "professional journalist," is unconvincing. As far as journalistic standards are concerned, Ruppert rarely rises to the level of the Weekly World News. I am quite concerned about Rupppert's acceptance by people who consider themselves to be progressive for this reason. Many on the left now seem quite willing to lend an ear to a reporter who more closely resembles PT Barnum than a credible journalist.

While Ruppert asks questions that will not likely be answered any time soon and may not even be valid, we run the risk of loosing sight of the true post-9/11 tragedy, the undisputed curtailing of our basic freedoms in the name of a supposed war on terror.

UPDATE 3/14/04: EnergyResources Yahoo Group

Dale Pfeiffer posted my $1000 challenge to Energy Resources, at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/messages/52582

Jean Laherrere responded at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/messages/52655

Unfortunately the bulk of his reply was in an attachment, and as far as I can tell, the contents are not available through the Yahoo system.

Further responses from Dale Pfeiffer may be found at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/messages/52689

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/messages/52693

I made a post to Energy Resources at message 53542, which was simply a link back to this page. Pfeiffer's replies appear at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/messages/53561

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/messages/53562

At message 53562, Pfeiffer apparently re-posts the information that may have been originally contained in Laherrere's attachment (also mirrored here). The information seems to be largely based on USGS figures, which the "dissident" petroleum geologists are readily willing to dismiss when it suits their purposes. Furthermore, with all due respect to Dr. Laherrere, the material has not been published in peer-reviewed journals for the most part.

As you will see if you page through the energyresources links, Pfeiffer has apparently been taking debating style tips from Mike Ruppert.

Dave McGowan of Center for an Informed America also received Ruppert's $1000 debate challenge! See his response at:

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr52.html

UPDATE 3/15/04: A reply from Ruppert has arrived. Serving as judge, jury and executioner, Mike Ruppert has denied my $1000 claim. No surprise about that. His reply is posted here:

http://www.911-strike.com/ruppert-denial.htm

Nothing in Ruppert's reply has changed my mind in the slightest. I say that Ruppert owes me $1000.

Stay tuned as I try to collect!


"Mike and Jerry" is Tilting At Windmills. 27.May.2004 13:09

geologist

hey, NICE HTML USAGE! that'll get some attention for your CONTENTLESS post.

WHO CARES if Ruppert even "loses" the $1000 bet? Abiotic sources of oil (IF they EXIST, and it's a crackpot theory DISCREDITED BY REAL GEOLOGY) will never REVERSE the effects of peak oil even if widely implemented - at best they can only slightly lessen the slope of decline.

oooooooooh, Dave McGowan vs. Mike Ruppert - war of the rightist/Libertarian-leaning "conspiracy theorists" huh?

You're going to have to address the concerns of PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS Kenneth Deffeyes and Colin Campbell if you want any credibility here, "Mike and Jerry".

and your "Jerry Russell" - while even admitting "Yes, there's some truth to it" - is LUDICROUSLY and BASELESSLY asserting that Peak Oil is "being used to push drilling" of ANWR??!? HUH? makes no sense at all. they've been trying to drill ANWR for decades, and the oil majors don't need some 'Peak Oil' excuse (or whatever the hell "Jerry Russell" is referring to) to get that done. They have enough lobby influences on Senators and Congress already. plus, Alaskan oil would only satisfy US petroleum thirst for 4 months at current consumption rates, and other domestic US reserves don't contain much more. (there's actually a much greater risk of NATURAL GAS drilling/extracting projects - by many of the same petroleum corporations - on United States wildlife reserves than petroleum exploitation)

none of what you listed is going to stop the Peak Oil decline.

wind energy, solar energy: OF COURSE (duhhh . . . .) these have all been viable, implementable technologies for decades. didn't you read Popular Science during the 1970s? and certainly they've all become more efficient and affordable since then. BUT IT'S TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE now. Hey - is your Local Utility Company offering DISCOUNTS / REFUNDS just to install PV solar panels yet (let alone after you've jumped the local/state regulatory hurdles and fees to purchase and install them yourself)?

sure, many of these technologies are being implemented on an individual and small-community scale every single day, and will continue to do so. but Peak Oil is a MUCH BROADER issues than little tech-geek debates about alternative energy technologies and sources. (it's **NOT** as simple or cut-dried: "we're running out of oil")

it's about the entire infrastructure of industrialized society which is entirely based and dependent upon Petroleum fuels:

Transportation
Food supplies (growing and retailing)
Communications
Utilities infrastructure
Non-food consumer goods

ALL of these things are totally dependent on the ever-increasing cheap supply of oil.

This is one reason why the current oil barrel price rise is going to have near-term impacts on the US Consumer Price Index. and this is combined with all the other gigantic strains on the US economy right now: soaring Federal budget deficit and trade deficit, declining dollar, job losses, etc.

on the oil reserve estimates - as cited many times above and elsewhere, extractable reserve prediction and estimation is a very inexact science, and when connected with the purely capitalist economic/profit aspect usually ends up with oil corporations making claims that are unsupportable, or reliable only on their 'word'. USGS petroleum reserve estimates are known to be on the 'generous' side numerically, and are not the same types of numbers exchanged or manipulated by individual oil corporations stating their reserves for stockholders. See the Shell Oil case and SEC investigation this year, Enron, etc.

the point is - extractable petroleum reserves are becoming ever-scarcer and ever-more-expensive to obtain, while global demand is steadily and steeply increasing. the Peak Oil conflict in a nutshell.

supply VS. demand and the kosherizing of war by frauds 27.May.2004 21:07

Mike and Jerry

"Peak Oil" is a faith-based assertion.
I prefer the evidence-based method of investigation and explanation known as "science":

==================================================================

Shell to Demolish Profitable Refinery

 http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=114-04062004

Evidence Shows Shell to Demolish Profitable Refinery, Drive Up Gas Prices; Consumer Group Seeks Intervention of Bush, Kerry, CA Attorney General 4/6/2004

To: National and State Desks, Consumer Reporter

Contact: Jamie Court, 310-392-0522, ext. 327 or Tim Hamilton, 360-495-4941, both for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights

SANTA MONICA, Calif., April 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights today released internal Shell documents showing the oil refiner is set to close and demolish its Bakersfield refinery despite the fact the site had the biggest refinery margins, or profits per gallon, of any Shell refinery in the nation as of yesterday.

Shell had claimed it was not economically viable to keep the refinery open and has refused to put it up for sale. Bakersfield supplies 2 percent of the state's gasoline and only 13 refineries feed California's tight gasoline supply (down from 37 in 1983).

An April 5th internal Shell document released today by FTCR shows that Bakersfield's refining margin at $23.01 per barrel, or about 55 cents profit per gallon, topped all of Shell's refineries in the nation. That means, for example, that margins are 36 cents per gallon higher in Bakersfield than in Port Arthur, Texas. The internal document comments under the category of refinery margins "Wow."

"Only an oil company that wants to short the market and artificially drive up the price of gasoline would demolish a highly profitable refinery rather than sell it," said Jamie Court, president of FTCR and author of the book Corporateering (Tarcher/Putnam). " Shell has deceived the public about Bakersfield and must be forced to keep this refinery open or sell it to a competitor. This evidence should also spur a national moratorium on all further domestic refinery closures."

 http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=114-04062004


=================================
You are invited to attend the AAPG International Hedberg Research Conference entitled, "Origin of Petroleum -- Biogenic and/or Abiogenic and Its Significance in Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production," re-scheduled for July 11-14, 2004, at the Geoscience Technology Training Center on the campus of the University of Vienna in Vienna, Austria.

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.
[...]

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.

[...]
Best Regards,

Michel T. Halbouty
Michel T. Halbouty Energy Co.
5200 Westheimer Rd., Suite 500
Houston, TX 77056
USA
Tel.: 1-713-622-1130
Fax: 1-713-622-5360
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Peter Odell
F. Inst. Pet., F.R.G.S.
7 Constitution Hill
Ipswich IP1 3RG
United Kingdom
Tel.: 44-1473-253376
Fax: 44-1473-249125
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Barry J. Katz
ChevronTexaco
4800 Fournace Place
Bellaire, TX 77401
USA
Tel: 1-713-432-6241
Fax: 1-713-432-2657
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Ernie Mancini
University of Alabama
Dept. of Geological Sciences
P.O. Box 870338
Tuscaloosa, AL 35483-0338
USA
Tel: 1-205-348-4319
Fax: 1-205-348-0818
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 http://www.mail-archive.com/ fogri@iagi.or.id/msg00802.html

Keep SPAMMING The "Science", "Mike 'n' Jerry" 27.May.2004 21:54

geologist

refinery shutdowns - in the United States, anyway - are due to Clinton and Bush administration regulatory policy on the types and grades of crude refined and sold. and refining capacity is by far not the only constraint on global oil supplies.

Petroleum supply and demand - as listed and cited above - is calculated and accounted for by several contributing factors.

and good luck with the 'Abiogenic' petroleum [both scientifically and economically]. ooooh, maybe it'll keep the Seven Sisters in business and save us all from "Peak Oil".

Chill Out Dudes!!! I'm On Your Side 27.May.2004 23:41

Petroleum Geologist

I'm only saying the "peak oil" hysteria as it is currently being propagandized is a myth. We are not at the mid-point of world petroleum reserves when all sources are taken into account.

The dumb-ass who sought to "dubunk" my argument didn't even read it. I basically made the same argument that tar sand and shale extraction are going to (at least initially) be much more expensive. I also made the point that, if market forces were allowed to work, we'd be further toward the substitution and capital tooling for those sources, because the costs of military control (if privatized) and risk premiums would drive American oil costs up to where (assuming a real free market system) oil companies would have started investing much more in R&D for alternative sources than before.

The Siberian reserves and the reserves in the Dho-Zhang province of (off shore) China are still somewhat undetermined, but we do know A LOT OF FUCKING OIL IS THERE...

I never for one second suggested that ANWR (God, I hate that acronym) could solve the problems of oil supply. It can't and the cost to one of our few remaining, pristine wildernesses is too great. For that matter, the destruction that could be caused in Siberia is too great. I do not advocate environmentally destructive methods of increasing oil supply.

What I am saying is that US foreign policy is being bought and sold to protect Middle Eastern crude for the Suad and Bush families. The market forces are being short circuited by special interests.

And as far as whatever that stupid rebuttle of my capital assets premise was meant to be, I suggest you stop slapping mustard on your buns and get a degree in Petroleum Geology from Cal State Bakersfield or another school with a noteworthy program in the field before you criticize me. The more you rant and rave about propaganda, the more people like Bush and Cheney laugh at their Illuminati kiddy-porn parties about how stupid people like you are to turn against yourself. At least Pappy Bush can be happy that Operation Chaos is still reaping dividends from the stupid American public.

WHOSE "side" are YOU on, "Petroleum Geologist"? 28.May.2004 01:06

geologist

"Chill Out Dudes!!! I'm On Your Side Petroleum Geologist"

--ok, you don't have to 'convince' us . . .

"I'm only saying the "peak oil" hysteria as it is currently being propagandized is a myth."

--WHAT "hysteria"?? WHAT "myth"?? YOUR words, "Petroleum Geologist" (and they describe your behavior). you refuse to consult or acknowledge the references and data presented to you. I heartily recommend that you read Richard Heinberg's book, available from the library. There's an entire referenced chapter on 'Cassandras'. if nothing else, you're not 100% convinced or whatever, you'll enjoy the read.

"We are not at the mid-point of world petroleum reserves when all sources are taken into account."

--WHAT sources?? "all"?? list specifically and quantitatively here what on earth you're blathering about. No-one said "mid point", and it's a debatable estimate whether the peak occurs precisely somewhere between 2000 and 2015. but global production has in fact declined in 2002 and 2003 (which could be an 'anomaly', but . . .) and to take USGS global reserve estimates as an example, there are many geologists within and outside USGS who dispute those or bring entirely different quantities and calculations of them. [plus you've got people like the "Mike 'n' Jerry" clown commenting above about 'abiotic' petroleum reserves . . .]

"The dumb-ass who sought to "dubunk" [sic] my argument didn't even read it."

--WHAT "argument"?? YOU HAVEN'T GOT ONE, NOR DO YOU HAVE ANY BASIS FOR ONE.

"I basically made the same argument that tar sand and shale extraction are going to (at least initially) be much more expensive."

--IT'S TOO LATE. Even if those extraction technologies could be 'widely' implemented (AND THEY WON'T BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A HUGELY COMPLEX, DIRTY, MESSY, TIME-CONSUMING, INEFFICIENT, *****EXTREMELY***** LOW-YIELD, COSTLY PROCESS with tar sands and oil shales) and the reserves exploited at this point, petroleum from tar sands and oil shales will NEVER be extractable on the economies of scale required to sustain increasing global demands. For the umpteenth time, consult the already cited references above.

"I also made the point that, if market forces were allowed to work, we'd be further toward the substitution and capital tooling for those sources, because the costs of military control (if privatized) and risk premiums would drive American oil costs up to where (assuming a real free market system) oil companies would have started investing much more in R&D for alternative sources than before."

--What do you mean by "market forces"?? for tooling and technologies? "assuming a real free market system"??????? "if they were allowed to work" ??!?!??!??????????? WHAT ARE YOU BLABBERING ABOUT? THIS IS THE *****REAL***** WORLD, "Petroleum Geologist". It is a world defined by skyrocketing demand for petroleum, and leading the way is CHINA. it is also defined by geopolitical interests of the Central Asian region and reserves there.

"The Siberian reserves and the reserves in the Dho-Zhang province of (off shore) China are still somewhat undetermined, but we do know A LOT OF FUCKING OIL IS THERE..."

--"FUCKING OIL"? sounds good, "Petroleum Geologist" - maybe China will be ok after all (for a while anyway . . .) - and they certainly are making their own deals with Kazakhstan  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3723249.stm and implementing their own offshore oil & gas programs. But they are also negotiating with Venezuela  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/283601.shtml for more, and Chavez seems ready to dump his proprietary 15% of US imports.

"I never for one second suggested that ANWR (God, I hate that acronym) could solve the problems of oil supply. It can't and the cost to one of our few remaining, pristine wildernesses is too great. For that matter, the destruction that could be caused in Siberia is too great. I do not advocate environmentally destructive methods of increasing oil supply."

--I wasn't trying to insinuate that you WANTED to drill Alaska - but you had brought up the topic of drilling for oil in wilderness areas and I felt it needed clarification.

"What I am saying is that US foreign policy is being bought and sold to protect Middle Eastern crude for the Suad [sic] and Bush families. The market forces are being short circuited by special interests."

--"special interests"?? "market forces short circuited"?? Do you think the Shah of Iran was a "special interest"? Have you ever heard of President Mossadegh, what happened to him in 1953, and why? how about Rumsfeld's Gulf of Aqaba pipeline deal with Hussein on behalf of Bechtel? Somalia? please consult the above-posted references about Africa. it's a Revolving Door. Oil Interests DETERMINE U.S. Foreign Policy interests. (there ARE contingency plans for regime change in Saudi Arabia, should it occur . . .) the "special interests" you cite are IN THE WHITE HOUSE:

Bush=ZapataPennzoilArbustoBechtel
Cheney=Halliburton
Rice=Chevron, etc.

"And as far as whatever that stupid rebuttle [sic] of my capital assets premise was meant to be, I suggest you stop slapping mustard on your buns and get a degree in Petroleum Geology from Cal State Bakersfield or another school with a noteworthy program in the field before you criticize me. The more you rant and rave about propaganda, the more people like Bush and Cheney laugh at their Illuminati kiddy-porn parties about how stupid people like you are to turn against yourself. At least Pappy Bush can be happy that Operation Chaos is still reaping dividends from the stupid American public."

--you may or may not have a degree (which may or may not be in geology), but your total lack of acknowledgement or understanding of Shell Oil's SEC investigation for fraudulent projections is an indicator. Ranting and raving will do you no good, "Petroleum Geologist" - you have to face up to the fact that the industry you (supposedly) worked in for a career is a complete fraud, its CEOs allowed to sustain themselves based entirely upon the vastness of their capital holdings, insider speculation, and concomitant control over means and infrastructure of production and regulatory oversight. and I agree, geologists can't get no respect. Hell, even you won't listen to Kenneth Deffeyes  http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/about-ken.html

as far as "stupid American public" - I may be a lot of different things but that is one description I definitely DON'T fit.

btw the "Illuminati kiddy-porn parties" are hosted by the White House at Bush and Cheney's request (for real). and at Bohemian Grove, of course ;-)

Science in the Era of PNAC 28.May.2004 09:20

Mike and Jerry (Already Published)

quote:
==================
due to Clinton and Bush administration regulatory policy on the types and grades of crude refined and sold
==================


I'm sorry...but when did ipse-dixit assertions become scientific?

I missed THAT boat!

"Mike and Jerry" Already ABIOTIC. 28.May.2004 13:24

geologist

"I'm sorry...but when did ipse-dixit assertions become scientific? I missed THAT boat!"

--GOOD LUCK with the 'abiotic' petroleum, "Mike and Jerry"

 http://kiplingerforecasts.com/news/XmlStoryResult.php?storyid=200405131180.3_770300123642ce3e
Several small refineries have closed in recent years due to increased regulation, and more refinery closings are expected as new standards for cleaner-burning fuel take effect.

Environmental regulations require refiners to manufacture 18 different blends of clean-burning gasoline, which are customized for certain regions. Each blend comes in three grades -- regular, midgrade and premium. The numerous blends pose a challenge for refiners.

 http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Mar/08/bz/bz03a.html
This year, the Environmental Protection Agency required companies to lower the sulfur content in gasoline, and some plants decided not to make the necessary investment and closed, said Gene Edwards, a senior vice president at Valero, a large refiner. States like New York will start adding ethanol to their gas, which not all refineries can produce, and which could require substantial upgrades, he said.

 http://epw.senate.gov/107th/ens_5-18.htm
Comments of Clint W. Ensign,
Vice President, Government Relations
Sinclair Oil Corporation
On the issue of Tier 2 / Gasoline Sulfur Standards
Before the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety
of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate
May 18, 1999

The Oil Industry, Gas Supply and Refinery Capacity: More Than Meets the Eye
wyden.senate.gov/leg_issues/reports/ wyden_oil_report.pdf
1. major oil companies pursued efforts to retail refinery capacity as a strategy for improving profit margins
2. competing oil companies worked together to subvert supply
3. oil companies are reaping record profits, yet may benefit from a proposed national energy policy that would offer financial incentives to expand refinery capacity

anti-environmental regulatory Peak-Strawman 29.May.2004 11:51

Mike and Jerry (Already Published)

quote:
========================================
1) Why has Shell made this decision?
The Bakersfield Refinery is located very near its crude supply source in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV). Co-location with its crude source is the only factor making the refinery economic. With the significant decline in SJV Heavy Crude, there is simply not enough supply to ensure continued operation would be economically viable.


2) How do you know there has been a reduction in SJV Heavy Crude?
Our own research shows us the continued rate of decline in production, and that research has been confirmed by reports published by the California State Department of Conservation and the California Energy Commission.

 http://www.shellbakersfieldrefinery.com/
[news & info > fact sheets > FAQ]
=====================================================

Q: How do "environental regulations" mesh with Shell's "own [private] research" explanation?
A: They don't!


quote:
=============
For half a century, scientists from the former Soviet Union (FSU) have recognized that THE PETROLEUM PRODUCED FROM THE 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.
[...]
Best Regards,

Michel T. Halbouty
Michel T. Halbouty Energy Co.
5200 Westheimer Rd., Suite 500
Houston, TX 77056 USA

Peter Odell
F. Inst. Pet., F.R.G.S.
7 Constitution Hill

Barry J. Katz
CHEVRON TEXACO

Ernie Mancini
University of Alabama
Dept. of GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES
================================

Good luck with the conference! Are you attending, "geologist"?