To start off with todays post, here are some pictures of our gardening efforts in central Oregon.
Squash taking over part of the garden. So far, beautiful plants
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f63cd/f63cd08c7e0196b1832cee27f6a1040189687168" alt=""
Murph doing the retired gardener thing
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d7282/d72822b308bb7f977d5d74a23aaf81bf2d6746e1" alt=""
coconut peanut sauce with garden vegies and shrimp
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a66e4/a66e49921230e9f1183983b13b56510133c229f2" alt=""
Egg bagels, new recipe
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ae335/ae335da2cf4bb8a6c2a0f0e47aad1cd9c14f7b95" alt=""
Close up of artichokes and fennel
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1a3ad/1a3addb7df66088b2dd936b5e73567bd4340ffb6" alt=""
Todays post is from Belgium, who has been doing some examining of the abiotic oil controversy that has yet to heat up. This is for your consideration and discussion. We have talked about this a bit before, but this is a more in depth examination. Interesting stuff.
INFINITE PEAK OIL OR INFINITE OVER THE PEAK PRICE GOUGING?
THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM AND A DISAGREEMENT
We have read in the comments of a recent post that “Carbon Capping” will be the next artificially created financial bubble. I am not altogether sure what Carbon Capping actually is, it sounds to me like the public is being ‘invited to participate’ in financing carbon emission reducing technology however I am not going to speculate any further on this. A few years ago Al Gore was the Olympic torch bearer of carbon emissions related to climate change awareness. Today, with alternative theories circulating which have gone largely unchallenged, rather ignored, his message, which still has a noteworthy following, is looking increasingly jaded.
This post is not primarily concerned with the climate change issue, as important as that is but goes back over old ground, at least eight years to my knowledge, probably longer, to examine whether the holy cow of peak oil is real or not.
I found an internet article dealing with this a couple of years ago but for whatever reason the link became lost before I read it out. I recently found it back again and this is the main source of what follows. Some embedded links in the article have been included in the ‘sources’ to validate supporting evidence. I am of course referring to abiotic oil. This is oil claimed to be formed deep within the earth’s magma which then finds its way into the near surface layers of the crust through deep fissures and is then trapped beneath mainly sedimentary rock.
I first became aware of this as a result of a most unseemly and petulant spat between Mike Rupert and Dave McGowan. At least it was unseemly and petulant on Mike Rupert’s part. There had obviously been a history between these two before the contretemps came over my horizon. I do not wish to dwell on bad feelings but it is important you should know the background to each parties stand. In his blog CIA (Centre for an Informed America) Dave McGowan writes so:
“On February 29, 2004, I received the following e-mail message from Michael Rupert of From the Wilderness:”
“I challenge you to an open, public debate on the subject of Peak Oil; any time, any place after March 13th 2004. I challenge you to bring scientific material, production data and academic references and citations for your conclusions like I have. I suggest a mutually acceptable panel of judges and I will put up $1,000 towards a purse to go to the winner of that debate. I expect you to do the same. And you made a dishonest and borderline libellous statement when you suggested that I am somehow pleased that these wars of aggression have taken place to secure oil. My message all along has been, “Not in my name!”
Put your money where your mouth is. But first I suggest you do some homework. Ad hominem attacks using the word “bullshit”, unsupported by scientific data are a sign of intellectual weakness (at best). I will throw more than 500 footnoted citations at you from unimpeachable sources. Be prepared to eat them or rebut them with something more than you have offered”.
“Wow! How does high noon sound?”
I think Mike Rupert’s arguments are fairly well known to many of the readers here. His first blog From the Wilderness was a subscription journal. For those who are not familiar with him his current blog “Act 2 From the Wilderness” can be found here:
http://www.iterasi.net/openviewer.aspx?sqrlitid=dvr5avxcs0ocgam-mdlvua
Rupert’s argument is that since oil is a fossil fuel derived from plant and animal degradation it can be found only near the earth’s surface and since its quantity is finite then someday it will run out. This will result in loss of transport; loss of agriculture; loss of water purification and pumping, in fact the whole infrastructure of modern society. Since this society is dependent on oil, when it finally runs out society will collapse with it and there is no real alternative.
Dave McGowan called his post, the first paragraph of which is reproduced above, his ‘opening statement’ and if Mike Rupert wished to pursue matters further he was agreed to a debate without a purse but with both parties publishing the substance of the debate and its results in their respective blogs. So far as I am aware this is where the matter ended although Mike Rupert is still making the claims which he reneged to debate after his challenge above. Mike Rupert in my view should either accept his own challenge or, if he has experienced a peripatetic moment, quit himself like a man and say he now believes he got it wrong, has changed his former point of view and now believes something else. Maybe the pull of the lecture circuit is too addictive?
What follows is a little one sided however my purpose here is to summarize McGowan’s arguments in order for the still relatively unknown abiotic oil question to reach a wider audience. The decision of who has the stronger argument I will leave to the individual reader.
Firstly to deal with the libelous / semi-libelous statement that Mike Rupert is promoting a war agenda, the argument runs as follows. Since those calling the shots are following a war agenda against largely Muslim states, the pro war lobby does not need convincing, it is only the anti war following that needs to be brought on board. If they become convinced that their whole way of life is about to collapse with no alternative, no way out and the (Muslim) nations that still have oil will then effectively rule the world, then they will reluctantly be persuaded to give their support to wars against those countries which do have oil. That these oil producing countries are aware of the peak oil argument and are still willing to sell it to the west does not seem to cross their horizon. Thus Peak Oil is being marketed to those who want to bring the troops home.
One of Mike Rupert’s arguments is "One of the biggest signs of the reality of Peak Oil over the last two decades has been a continual pattern of merger-acquisition-downsizing throughout the (oil) industry." To which McGowan replies: “Really? And is that pattern somehow unique to the petroleum industry? Or is it a pattern that has been followed by just about every major industry? Is the consolidation of the supermarket industry a sign of the reality of Peak Groceries? And with consolidation of the media industry, should we be concerned about Peak News?”
Rupert’s arguments are persuasive -- a non-renewable resource consumed with a vengeance obviously can't last for long. The only flaw in the argument, I suppose, would be if oil wasn't really a 'fossil fuel,' and if it wasn't really a non-renewable resource.
Before 9/11 (or 11/9 if you are reading this outside USA) peak oil was a known but sidelined subject. After then nearly every major newspaper has been beating the drum and a plethora of books on the subject have hit the shelves. It seems the train was shunted out of the sidings and onto the express line. Most of us know how the established media works and nothing gets onto the main line unless a bill of goods is to be left under Joe Public’s nose.
Coming back to the origin of the black gold itself, we have previously been skeptical of the dead dinosaur theory. If we concentrate only on the Middle East’s estimated 660 billion barrels of oil and assume each individual dinosaur yields a very unlikely 5 barrels then that means that in excess of 130 billion dinosaurs in one of the worlds most arid areas got snuffed and buried before they decomposed or got eaten by scavengers and we are panicking about six billion humans spread over the whole planet. Apart from Nigeria and Venezuela the other areas are just as unlikely, Alaska north slope, north eastern Russia etc. Trying to fathom the real origins of oil, a paragraph in the Encyclopedia Britannica ends thusly: "In spite of the great amount of scientific research ... there remain many unresolved questions regarding its origins.”
EUGENE ISLAND 330
This is not an island at all but rather an area of sea bed in the Gulf of Mexico about 80 miles from the Louisiana coast. Compared to other oil fields it is described as ‘postage stamp size’. It was discovered in 1972 at a depth of about 6,000 feet (1 mile) below Eugene Island 330 and shortly thereafter peaked at a production level of 15,000 barrels /day. Following the normal depletion pattern this declined to 4,000 barrels / day by 1989 but then a remarkable thing happened. Suddenly and inexplicably fortunes reversed and the field is now continuously pumping at 13,000 barrels / day. Geologists have established that it is not seeping sideways from adjacent oil fields so there is only one direction it can come from, upwards from deep below in the magma. That was quite a feat for all those dinosaurs to accomplish. Estimated reserves from this tiny field have been revised from 60 million barrels to a finger in the wind figure of 400 million barrels. Not only that, geologists say that the oil that is being presently pumped is hotter and from quite a different geological age than that pumped ten years ago. This has led scientists to consider the possibility that Eugene Island 330 is refilling itself and moreover that oil may not be the limited resource we have always assumed it to be.
Here is a snippet that is going to upset the environmentalists amongst us so if you would prefer you can jump to the next paragraph now. The seabed in the region of Eugene Island 330 is described as ‘unworldly’ consisting of deep fissures and crevasses in the earth’s crust. These fissures continuously belch out crude oil and gas and this has been going on since before humans knew about the existence of oil. The quantity is estimated to be greater than all of the oil corporation’s spills combined; more than the Exxon Valdez, Tory Canyon and the others whose names do not immediately spring to mind. Larry Cathles, a chemical geologist at Cornell University conducted a survey of 9,600 miles of seabed off the coast of Louisiana including Eugene Island 330 and reported that rocks at an average depth of seven miles down have already generated approximately 184 billion tons of crude and gas; that is about 100 billion barrels. If any of you are like me and have trouble visualizing big numbers, we are talking about this relatively small area of seabed generating about 30% in excess of all the oil humans have consumed over the whole petroleum era. Cathes says “If this is going on worldwide then that’s an awful lot of hydrocarbons.”
The obvious question is how can any of this be explained by a theory that insists that oil is a fossil fuel created in finite quantities by a unique geological process that occurred millions of years ago?
DOES ABIOTIC SCIENCE STAND UP?
In August 2002, the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a study authored by J.F. Kenney, V.A. Kutchenov, N.A. Bendeliani and V.A. Alekseev. The authors argued, quite compellingly, that oil is not created from organic compounds at the temperatures and pressures found close to the surface of the earth, but rather is created from inorganic compounds at the extreme temperatures and pressures present only nearer the core of the earth.
It would seem then that we can safely conclude that what Kenney, et. al. have presented is valid science, since it definitely was published in a peer-reviewed journal. And what that valid science says, quite clearly, is that petroleum is not by any stretch of the imagination a finite resource, or a 'fossil fuel,' but is in fact a resource that is continuously generated by natural processes deep within the planet.
Geotimes also noted that the research paper "examined thermodynamic arguments that say methane is the only organic hydrocarbon capable of being formed within Earth's crust." Indeed, utilizing the laws of modern thermodynamics, the authors constructed a mathematical model that proves that oil can not form under the conditions dictated by the 'fossil fuel' theory.
The team led by J.F. Kenney of the Gas Resources Corporation in Houston, Texas, mimicked conditions more than 100 kilometers below the earth's surface by heating marble, iron oxide and water to around 1500° C and 50,000 times atmospheric pressure.
They produced traces of methane, the main constituent of natural gas, and octane, the hydrocarbon molecule that makes petrol. A mathematical model of the process suggests that, apart from methane, none of the ingredients of petroleum could form at depths less than 100 kilometers. By now some of the non chemists reading this may be wondering where the carbon for the hydrocarbons comes from and the answer is from the marble. Marble and limestone are different crystal forms of calcium carbonate which on heating breaks down to form calcium oxide and carbon dioxide. Most chemistry teachers tell their students that nearly all chemical reactions are reversible; all you have to do is bang enough energy into the system to make the reaction work backwards. I know one teacher who didn’t appreciate the smart assed kid who asked how you go about un-boiling an egg. I think he said something about it being a complex system and us not yet having enough knowledge to comprehend the intricacies properly. At least that’s probably what I would have said if it had happened to me. The hydrogen obviously comes from the water. At the extreme temperatures and pressures involved the science says that hydrocarbons can form. We all know that a fine spray of gasoline; a bit of compression from a piston in an engine cylinder and (usually) a bit of energy in the form of an electric spark and bingo – the process is reversed – back to carbon dioxide and water.
STALIN’S EQUIVALENT OF THE MANHATTON PROJECT
A year or so after the end of WW ll, Stalin recognized that the possession of oil was the precursor to military strength. Since he had to defend the greatest land mass with the longest border in the world, the USSR needed more oil than it appeared to have. He was smart enough to recognize that it was not enough to send teams of geologists into remote areas to search for it. He needed to know everything about it, from how it was formed, how reserves are generated and how best to explore and extract it, in fact the total knowledge of every aspect of oil that mankind was capable of discovering. To this end he assembled the largest number of geologists; chemists; physicists and thermodynamic experts the world has ever seen working on this topic. The project ran from 1946 and is still in existence today. What resulted became known as the Modern Russian - Ukrainian Theory of Deep Abiotic Petroleum Origins. This theory has been accepted as established fact by virtually the entire scientific community of the (former) Soviet Union. It is backed up by literally thousands of published studies in prestigious, peer-reviewed scientific journals together with as many books as the peak oil subject has generated. But not one has ever appeared in the English language. Not that is, until J F Kenny, an American who works for the Russian Academy of Sciences and is CEO of Gas Resources Corporation of Huston Texas, the only westerner ever to take up the abiotic cause, published a report in 2002.
As a result of this massive project Russia has pursued exploration not only in sedimentary rock areas but also in areas where geologists predict deep crystalline deposits of marble and iron (ferric) oxide. Eighty out of ninety fields in western Siberia have been discovered in this way and eleven major and one giant field have been discovered in this way in the Dneiper – Donits basin. Exploration is currently underway in Azerbaijan; Tartarstan and Asian Siberia.
WESTERN REACTION TO J F KENNY’S REPORT
The petroleum corporations and the geochemists that rely on them for their pay checks were out and out pissed. The usual parade of experts were trotted out but try as they might, they could not refute the validity of the research, so they resorted to an unusual tactic. They admitted that oil could be formed in the lab by such techniques but took the view that just as common salt can be formed in the lab by reacting caustic soda with hydrochloric acid and saying this has nothing to do with the salt that is found in the sea, similarly this oil formed in the lab has nothing to do with the fuel we put in the tank of our car. Showing that oil can form without a biological origin does not disprove or discredit anything about the fossil fuel hypothesis. They did "concede," however, that oil "that forms inorganically at the high temperatures and massive pressures close to the Earth's mantle layer could be forced upwards towards the surface by water, which is denser than oil and will therefore sink. It can then be trapped by sedimentary rocks that are impermeable to oil."
What they were acknowledging, lest anyone misunderstand, is that the oil that we pump out of reservoirs near the surface of the earth, and the oil that is spontaneously and continuously generated deep within the earth, could very well be the same oil. But even so, they insist, that is certainly no reason to abandon, or even question, our perfectly ridiculous 'fossil fuel' theory.
One article in the Economist gave the abiotic question a fair and reasonable airing but most of the others in the western MSM who pick up the subject every year or two run it like an “is it real or not” Loch Ness Monster story.
CONCLUSION
This post is essentially a summary of Dave McGowan’s reply to Mike Rupert. A link to the original article is included in the sources. Space did not allow me to discuss in any sort of detail J F Kenny’s report so for those wishing to follow the science I have included that link also.
You can judge for yourself. You can choose for the dead dinosaur squashed fish and cabbage theory which, apart from methane is alleged not to be thermodynamically feasible at the temperatures and depths involved or you can choose for sixty years of peer reviewed research which has resulted in the discovery of many major oil fields together with a single giant one.
Even those who are mystified by economic arguments can appreciate the simple concept of supply and demand, the less there is of something that is desirable the higher the price goes in order to eliminate some people from the market. Peak oil produces the illusion of resource depletion but it only slight of hand on the part of the oil corporations so that they can price gouge you at the pumps and swell their already obscene profits. It certainly seems as tough the intent is to run the dwindling supply story well past the point when the last drop should have dripped from the nodding donkey’s mouth, always grabbed at any price by an unquestioning public. And then like the rabbit in the magician’s hat, the suppliers will produce this recently discovered ‘new oil’. But we may have to drill sixty miles down for it - and we will do it for you but it does bear a cost.
If oil is always and readily available then it follows that wars of aggression in the Middle East which result in hundreds of thousands of deaths are fought for greed and not need. To put this another way, if oil supply does not have a peak then those who would wage such wars on your behalf against the largely Muslim world for their own purposes, would have to find a totally different excuse.
There are two final points I would like to make. Firstly there is a truism that just because you have managed to silence someone, it doesn’t mean that you have got them to agree with you however you may wish to question Mike Rupert’s current stand.
Lastly, if we really are off the hook so far as oil is concerned, its continued accelerated use will have an increasing knock on effect on world-wide pollution and on other resources.
SOURCES
Main article from Dave McGowan:
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr52.html
Further reading:
A link to scientific; economic and political considerations regarding abiotic oil:
http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm