David McGowan, April 13, 2004
From "The Global Energy Outlook for the 21st
Century," a lecture delivered on May 21, 2003 by Peter R. Odell, Professor
Emeritus at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam, where he was the Director
of the Center for International Energy Studies:
Finally, a word of caution on the essential fragility of a
study on the very long-term future for the world's energy supply which accepts
without question the validity of the original 18th century hypothesis that
all oil and gas resources have been generated from biological matter in the
chemical and thermodynamic environments of the earth's crust. There is an
alternative theory - already 50 years old - which suggests an inorganic origin
for additional oil and gas. This alternative view is widely accepted in the
countries of the former Soviet Union where, it is claimed, "large volumes
of hydrocarbons are being produced from the pre-Cambrian crystalline basement".
Recent applications of the inorganic theory have, however, also led to claims
for the possibility of the Middle East fields being able to produce oil "forever"
and to the concept of repleting oil and gas fields in the gulf of Mexico.
More generally, it is argued, "all giant fields are most logically explained
by inorganic theory because simple calculations of potential hydrocarbon contents
in sediments shows that organic materials are too few to supply the volumes
of petroleum involved."
The significance of the alternative theory of the origin of
additional oil and gas potential is self evident for the issue of the longevity
of hydrocarbons' production potential and production costs in the 21st century.
Instead of having to consider a stock reserve already accumulated in a finite
number of so-called oil and gas plays, the possibility emerges of evaluating
hydrocarbons as essentially renewable resources in the context of whatever
demand developments may emerge. If fields do replete because the oil
and gas extracted from them is abyssal and abiotic (based on chemical reactions
under specific thermodynamic conditions deep in the earth's mantle), then
extraction costs should not rise as production from such fields continues
for an indefinite period. Neither do estimates of reserves, reserves-to-production
ratios and annual rates of discovery and additions to reserves have any of
the importance correctly attributed to them in evaluating the future supply
prospects under the organic theory of oil and gas' derivation. In essence,
the "ball park" in which consideration of the issues relating to the future
of oil and gas has hitherto been made would no longer remain relevant.
[more:
http://www.clingendael.nl/ciep/pdf/Odell_2003_05_21_lecture.pdf]
From "The New Pessimism about Petroleum Resources: Debunking
the Hubbert Model (and Hubbert Modelers)," by Michael C. Lynch, president
of Strategic Energy and Economic Research, Inc. and research affiliate at
the Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
Recently, numerous publications have appeared warning that
oil production is near an unavoidable, geologically-determined peak that
could have consequences up to and including "war, starvation, economic recession,
possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens" (Campbell in Ruppert). The
current series of alarmist articles could be said to be merely reincarnations
of earlier work which proved fallacious, but the authors insist that they
have made significant advances in their analyses, overcoming earlier errors.
For a number of reasons, this work has been nearly impenetrable to many observers,
which seems to have lent it an added cachet. However, careful examination
of the data and methods, as well as extensive perusal of the writings, suggests
that the opacity of the work is - at best - obscuring the inconclusive nature
of their research.
Some of the arguments about resource scarcity resemble those made in the
1970s. They have noted that discoveries are low (as did Wilson (1977) and
that estimates of ultimately recoverable resources (URR) are in the range
of 2 trillion barrels, approximately twice production to date. But beyond
that, Campbell and Leherrere in particular claim that they have developed
accurate estimates of URR, and thus, this time the wolf is really here. But
careful examination of their work reveals instead a pattern of errors and
mistaken assumptions presented as conclusive research results.
The Hubbert Curve
The initial theory behind what is now known as the Hubbert curve was very
simplistic. Hubbert was simply trying to estimate approximate resource levels,
and for the lower-48 US, he thought a bell-curve would be the most appropriate
form. It was only later that the Hubbert curve came to be seen as explanatory
in and of itself, that is, geology requires that production should
follow such a curve [editor's note: if, that is, petroleum is organic in
origin]. Indeed, for many years, Hubbert himself published no equations
for deriving the curve, and it appears that he only used a rough estimation
initially. In his 1956 paper, in fact, he noted that production often did
not follow a bell curve. In later years, however, he seems to have accepted
the curve as explanatory.
[...]
Revival of the Hubbert Method
The recent authors, notably Campbell and Leherrere have apparently rediscovered
the Hubbert curve, but without understanding it, at least initially. Campbell
and Leherrere initially argued that production should follow a bell curve,
at least in an unconstrained province. But this is demonstrably not the case
in practice: most nations' production does not follow a Hubbert curve.
In fact, Campbell (2003) shows production curves (historical and forecast)
for 51 non-OPEC countries, and only 8 of them could be said to resemble
a Hubbert curve even approximately.
The authors initially responded to this weakness by arguing the Hubbert
curve could have multiple peaks, which of course means it would not follow
a bell curve at all, and destroys the explanatory value of the bell curve.
As the alleged value of the Hubbert curve lies partly in demonstrating the
production decline post-peak, not knowing whether any given peak is the
final one renders this useless, nor would the peak imply that midpoint production
had been reached (indicating URR).
Recognizing this, the theory has been modified again, to "The important
message from Hubbert's work, which is often forgotten by economists, is
that oil has to be found before it can be produced." (Laherrere 2001b, p.4)
In other words, the Hubbert curve, originally held as scientific
and inviolable, is of no particular value. Yet the authors have not
only mistakenly believed in its properties, they have not been forthcoming
about their own errors.
[...]
Opaque Work, Unproven Assertions
The lack of rigor in many of the Hubbert modelers' arguments makes them
hard to refute. The huge amount of writing, along with undocumented quotes
and vague remarks, necessitates exhaustive review and response ...
Perhaps because they are not academics, the primary authors have
a tendency to publish results but not research. In fact, by relying heavily
on a proprietary database, Campbell and Leherrere have generated a strong
shield against criticism of their work, making it nearly impossible to reproduce
or check. Similarly, there is little or no research published, merely the
assertion that the results are good.
[much more at: http://www.energyseer.com/NewPessimism.pdf]
From James Bernstein's "Oil Giants Taking Heat," Newsday, March
31, 2004:
Worried about a downward slide in oil prices later this
year, OPEC is expected today to announce a cut in production, which will
likely result in higher pump prices. But consumer groups are charging that
big oil companies are largely responsible for the current upward spiral
in gasoline costs, saying they have deliberately withheld supplies and reduced
storage capacity.
[...]
But in the United States, consumer groups say the blame for higher pump
prices lies not so much with OPEC as with the huge oil companies. Public
Citizen, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog organization, is preparing to
release a report later this week charging that the oil industry deliberately
consolidated in the 1990s so that it could withhold supplies and reduce storage
capacity.
[...]
The Consumer Federation of America said in a recent report that
in the past 15 years, more than 70 refineries in the United States were
closed. Additionally, its report said, the nation's storage facilities were
reduced by nearly 15 percent. Mark Cooper, the organization's research director,
said an updated report is expected soon.
"The problem is not crude oil," Cooper said. "It's inadequate refinery
capacity and inadequate stockpiles, all of which are the result of decisions
made by the oil companies to tighten the market."
[more: http://www.nynewsday.com/business/local/newyork/ny-bzoil313730511mar31,0,4111615.story]
From "Mergers, Manipulation and Mirages: How Oil Companies Keep Gasoline
Prices High, and Why the Energy Bill Doesn't Help" (March 2004), the Public
Citizen report referenced in the Newsday article:
The United States has allowed multiple large, vertically integrated
oil companies to merge over the last five years, placing control of the market
in too few hands. The result: uncompetitive domestic gasoline markets. Large
oil companies can more easily control domestic gasoline prices by exploiting
their ever-greater market share, keeping prices artificially high long enough
to rake in easy profits but not so long that consumers reduce their dependence
on oil ...
The largest five companies operating in the United States (ExxonMobil,
Chevron Texaco, ConocoPhillips, BP and Royal Dutch Shell) now control:
- 14.2% of global oil production (nearly as much as the entire
Middle East members of the OPEC cartel).
- 48% of domestic oil production (which is significant given the
fact that the U.S. is the 3rd largest oil producer in the world).
- 50.3% of domestic refinery capacity.
- 61.8% of the retail gas market.
- These same five companies also control 21.3% of domestic natural
gas production.
It is therefore little wonder why these top companies enjoyed after-tax
profits of $60 billion in 2003 alone.
These figures are in stark contrast to just a decade ago, when the top five
oil companies controlled only:
- 7.7% of global crude oil production.
- 33.7% of domestic crude production
- 33.4% of domestic refinery capacity.
- 27% of the retail market.
- In addition, in 1993, the top five U.S. companies controlled
only 12.7% of domestic natural gas production.
The major difference between 1993 and 2003 is that the largest oil companies
have merged with one another, creating just a handful of oil monopolies that
control significant chunks of the American oil and gas markets. Armed with
significant market share, companies can more easily pursue uncompetitive activities
that result in price-gouging ...
Gasoline prices are rising because of uncompetitive actions by this handful
of new mega-companies, not because of environmental regulations ...
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concluded in March 2001
that oil companies had intentionally withheld supplies of gasoline from the
market as a tactic to drive up prices -- all as a "profit-maximizing strategy."
These actions, while costing consumers billions of dollars in overcharges,
have not been investigated by the U.S. government.
... Since 2001, President Bush has been removing more than 100,000 barrels
of oil a day from the market to stock the SPR [Strategic Petroleum Reserve],
filling it by more than 100 million barrels since he's been in office to
over 640 million barrels -- well more than 90% capacity. President Bush's
actions, while providing more than enough protection against external supply
shocks, severely strains domestic supplies for the market.
[...]
Companies have exploited [their] strong market position to intentionally
restrict refining capacity by driving smaller, independent refiners out of
business. A congressional investigation uncovered internal memos written
by the major oil companies operating in the U.S. discussing their successful
strategies to maximize profits by forcing independent refiners out of business,
resulting in tighter refinery capacity. From 1995-2002, 97% of the more than
920,000 barrels of oil per day capacity that have been shut down were owned
and operated by smaller, independent refiners.
[...]
If these allegations of price gouging sound too conspiratorial for some to
accept, examples in related industries demonstrate that price-fixing, collusion
and price-gouging are regular occurrences in today's economy, as large corporations
routinely abuse their market power to engage in anti-competitive behavior.
[...]
Contracts representing hundreds of millions of barrels of oil are traded
every day on the London, New York and other energy trading exchanges. An
increased share of this trading, however, has been moved off regulated exchanges
such as the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and into unregulated Over-the-Counter
(OTC) exchanges. Traders operating on exchanges like NYMEX are required to
disclose significant detail of their trades to federal regulators. But traders
in OTC exchanges are not required to disclose such information allowing companies
like Enron, ExxonMobil, and Goldman Sachs to escape federal oversight and
more easily engage in manipulation strategies.
The growth of these OTC exchanges exploded in 2000 when Congress
passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. The Act, among other things,
punched a large loophole in government of energy trading by greatly expanding
the ability of traders to operate in unregulated over-the-counter exchanges.
These OTC markets do not feature the tighter regulation that typically applies
to traders engaged in regulated exchanges, such as the New York Mercantile
Exchange (NYMEX). Since this deregulation law took effect, the industry
- led by Enron - has been plagued by dozens of high-profile scandals attributed
to the lack of adequate regulatory oversight over traders' operations.
Free from government transparency regulations, energy traders have demonstrated
an ability to manipulate prices more easily.
[...]
The fuel economy average for passenger vehicles in the U.S. peaked in 1988.
Due to the changing mix of vehicles on the road and the absence of meaningful
government action, the average is currently lower today than it was a decade
ago. This fuel economy is stagnating because no new significant car or truck
fuel economy standards have taken effect for 15 years, and SUVs and pickups
are subject to lower standards than regular autos.
[full report: http://www.citizen.org/documents/oilmergers.pdf]
From a press release for the Consumer Federation of America report
(July 2001) referenced in the Newsday Article:
Gas price increases are not mainly the result of any change
in crude oil prices. Instead, they have been caused principally by growing
industry concentration that has allowed refiners and marketers to reduce
refining and storage capacity and withhold supplies in individual markets.
Between 1994 and 1999:
- Over ten percent of the nation's refineries and branded gasoline
stations were closed. In the past 15 years, more than 70 refineries were
closed.
- The nation's petroleum storage facilities were reduced by nearly
fifteen percent.
- The industry systematically lowered stocks on hand to the point
where only a one or two-day supply above minimum levels was available to
keep the country's gasoline distribution running (compared to a supply of
a bout a week in the 1980s)
This consolidation and concentration has been permitted by mergers that
allowed the industry to manipulate prices. By standards of the Reagan Administration's
Justice Department, four-fifths of the national refinery and gasoline markets
now are considered to be dangerously concentrated.
"A concentrated, vertically integrated industry has responded slowly to
price shocks and has even acted to keep supplies off the market," noted Cooper.
"While the industry complains that clean air standards requiring different
additives in different markets restrict region-to-region flows of gasoline,
these requirements actually give individual suppliers greater market power,
aggravating the concentration problem," added Cooper.
Over the past two years, the refiner/marketer share of the pump
price has more than doubled, escalating industry profits. Compared to 1999,
in 2000 net income from refining and marketing doubled. In the first quarter
of 2001, profits increased by nearly 75 percent.
[full report:
http://www.consumerfed.org/gaspricespiral.pdf]
Lastly, these interesting comments from some correspondence by the late
Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty:
Oil
is often called a 'fossil' fuel; the idea being that it comes from formerly
living organisms. This may have been plausible back when oil wells were
drilled into the fossil layers of the earth's crust; but today, great quantities
of oil are found in deeper wells that are found below the level of any
fossils. How could then oil have come from fossils, or decomposed former
living matter, if it exists in rock formations far below layers of fossils
- the evidence of formerly living organisms? It must not come from living
matter at all!
[...]
This response is for Daniel E. Reynolds, 29 July 1996 on the subject of
"Oil - A renewable and abiotic Fuel?"
Dan, your use of the word "abiotic" is good. As a non-fossil fuel, petroleum
has no living antecedent. It contains chemical elements found in living
matter; but it is not "formerly living matter." There has not been enough
true "formerly living matter" through all of creation to account for the
volume of petroleum that has been consumed to date.
My background in this subject goes back to 1943. I was the pilot who
flew a U.S. Geological Survey Team from Casablanca to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
We met the Cal. Standard Oil team holding down that lease. Then we went
back to Cairo to meet President Roosevelt during the Nov. 1943 "Cairo Conference"
with Churchill and Chiang Kai Shek. FDR ordered the immediate construction
of an oil refinery there for WW II use. This led to ARAMCO.
During the "Energy Crisis" of the 1970's I was detailed to represent
the U.S. Railroad industry as a member of the "Federal Staff Energy Seminar"
program started by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, sponsored
by Georgetown University. That began in Jan 1974 and continued for four years.
It was designed to discuss "the working of the United States national
energy system, and new horizons of energy research." Among the regular
attendees were such men as Henry Kissinger and James Schlesinger...most
valuable meetings.
During one meeting we took a "Buffet Break" and I was seated with Arthur
Kantrowitz of the AVCO Company..."Kantrowitz Labs" near Boston. At the
table with us were four young geologists busily talking about Petroleum.
At one point one of them made reference to "Petroleum as organic matter,
and a fossil fuel." Right out of the Rockefeller bible.
Kantrowitz turned to the geologist beside him and asked, "Do you really
believe that petroleum is a fossil fuel?" The man said, "Certainly" and
all four of them joined in. Kantrowitz listened quietly and then said,
"The deepest fossil ever found has been at about 16,000 feet below sea
level; yet we are getting oil from wells drilled to 30,000 and more. How
could fossil fuel get down there? If it was once living matter, it had to
be on the surface. If it did turn into petroleum, at or near the surface,
how could it ever get to such depths? What is heavier Oil or Water?" Water:
so it would go down, not oil. Oil would be on top, if it were "organic"
and "lighter."
"Oil is neither."
They all agreed water was heavier, and therefore if there was some crack
or other open area for this "Organic matter" to go deep into the magma of
Earth, water would have to go first and oil would be left nearer the surface.
This is reasonable. Even if we do agree that "magma" is a "crude mixture
of minerals or organic matters, in a thin pasty state" this does not make
it petroleum, and if it were petroleum it would have stayed near the surface
as heavier items, i.e. water seeped below.
My D. Van Nostrand "Scientific Encyclopedia" says "Magma is the term
for molten material. A natural, complex, liquid, high temperature, silicate
solution ancestral to all igneous rocks, both intrusive and effusive. The
origin of Magma is not known." My "Oxford English Dictionary" does not
even have the word "Magma."
Some years ago I wrote two or three pages that appeared in the McGraw
Hill Yearbook of Science and Technology, i.e. "Railroad Engineering." Even
that source is a bit uncertain about the "origin of petroleum" to wit:
"Less than 1% of the organic matter that originates in or is transported
to the marine environment is eventually incorporated into ocean sediment,"
and
"Most petroleum is formed during catagenesis (undefined anywhere). If
sufficient organic matter is present oceanic sediments that undergo this
process are potential petroleum sources. Deeply buried marine organic matter
yields mainly oil, whereas land plant material yields mainly gas." (Their
idea of "deeply buried" is the "out.")
All this leaves us no where. I still go with Kantrowitz. Since oil
is lighter than water, everywhere on Earth, there is no way that petroleum
could be an organic, fossil fuel that is created on or near the surface,
and penetrate Earth ahead of water. Oil must originate far below and gradually
work its way up into well-depth areas accessable to surface drilling. It
comes from far below. Therefore, petroleum is not a "Fossil" fuel with
a surface or near surface origin.
It was made to be thought a "Fossil" fuel by the Nineteenth [sic] oil
producers to create the concept that it was of limited supply and therefore
extremely valuable. This fits with the "Depletion" allowance philosophical
scam.
During one of our C.S.I.S. "International Nights" (1978) the Common Market
Energy boss, M. Montibrial of France, told us that while petroleum was
being marketed then for $20.00 per barrel or more, it cost no more than
25 cents per barrel at the well-head. There is our petroleum problem!
We were paying more than $1.50-$1.60 per gallon, one 42nd of a barrel,
at that time. Interested folks need to learn more about the Chartered Institute
of Transport, and not waste their time with OPEC, the "Cover" story.
Those who pumped the Pennsylvania wells "dry" during the late eighteen
hundreds saved what they had for those better days.
L. Fletcher Prouty
[http://www.prouty.org/oil.html]
Originally published at:
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr59.html
More research that punches a big
hole in the Peak Oil hysteria
 New:proof of the oil Non-Crisis by Lindsay Williams
There has not been enough true "formerly living
matter" through all of creation to account for the volume of petroleum
that has been consumed to date
This material is copyrighted by its original publishers.
It is reprinted by
The Seventh Fire
News without permission, solely for purposes of
criticism, comment, and news reporting, in accordance with the Fair Use
Guidelines of copyright material under
§ 107 of U.S.C.
Title 17.
This is a crazy world. What can be done? Amazingly, we have been mislead. We have been taught that
we can control government by voting. The founder of the Rothschild dynasty, Mayer Amschel Bauer,
told the secret of controlling the government of a nation over 200 years ago. He said, "Permit me
to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws." Get the picture?
Your freedom hinges first on the nation's banks and money system. Freedom is connected with Debt Elimination for each individual. Not only does
this end personal debt, it places the people first in line as creditors to the National Debt ahead
of the banks. They don't wish for you to know this. It has to do with recognizing WHO you really
are in A
New Beginning: A Practical Course in Miracles, an informational study.
Disclaimer - The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The myriad of facts, conjecture, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information in the articles, stories and commentaries posted on this site range from cutting edge hard news and comment to extreme and unusual perspectives. We choose not to sweep uncomfortable material under the rug - where it can grow and fester. We choose not to censor skewed logic and uncomfortable rhetoric. These things reflect the world as it now is - for better and worse. We present multiple facts, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information.
Journalism is (or used to be) the profession of gathering and presenting a broad panorama of news about the events of our times and presenting it to readers for their own consideration. We believe in the intelligence, judgment and wisdom of our readers to discern for themselves among the data which appears on this site that which is valid and worthy...or otherwise. See full legal disclaimer
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. (attributed to Voltaire), but certainly embodies what the 1st amendment of the constitution refers to as the freedom of speech
Bill of Rights
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
|
Is the high cost of quality supplemental health care getting
you down? Are you one of 7 out of 10 Americans with no
Dental saving program? Look no further...it is now possible
to access affordable dental, vision, prescription and chiropractic
programs for your entire household*. http://www.MyBenefitsPlus.com/40540141
* DISCLOSURE - This is not insurance. The Plan provides discounts at certain healthcare providers for medical services. The Plan member is obligated to pay for all healthcare services but will recieve a discount from those healthcare services who have contracted with the Discount Medical Plan. |
|
|
What are stem cell enhancers? 
There is now an all natural, plant based extract, patented in 2004, and identified as a stem
cell enhancer. The patent states that this natural botanical and its extracts support the release
of adult stem cells from the bone marrow and into the bloodstream where they can then circulate
throughout the body, helping to maintain the body's own Natural Healing System |
|
To contact the webmaster
please click on the dragonfly. |
|
 Queen
Victoria is back and she is amused! This time she's not taking HeRself
....or anything... seriously. HerStory Cont. |
The most effective CANDIDA DEFENSE product available. This proprietary formula
is teeming with live bacteria that start to work right away to help rid the body of tough Candida
organisms.
email us or visit this site: ghtdirect.com/KARA |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Lady Thyme Herbs
|
|
|
Remembering Kent State 1970 When thirteen students were shot by Ohio
National Guard Troops during a war demonstration on the Kent State University Campus on the
first week of May 1970, four young lives were ended and a nation was stunned. More than 30
years later, the world at war is a different place. However, those thirteen seconds in May,
1970 still remain scorched into an Ohio hillside. Through archival tape and interviews,
Remembering Kent State tracks the events that led up to the shootings. Listen to Remembering Kent State 1970 with Real Player
|
|
