Click for Cross Click for JetForums Click for Cheoy Lee Click for Mag Bay Click for Abeking

"CRUDE" oil, an absolute must see program !!!

Discussion in 'YachtForums Yacht Club' started by brian eiland, Feb 22, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. stevenpet

    stevenpet New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Messages:
    96
    Location:
    Monterey, Maui, Salt Lake City
    The Abiotic Petroleum THEORY

    With all due respect, Windswept, there hasn’t been a lot of evidence to support the Abiotic Petroleum Theory that you quoted Dr. Gold in supporting.

    You said “… How is something so vital to life on earth (everything that is actually "green" requires a constant, unending supply of carbon dioxide to exist, all animals and humans supply it in a beautiful circle of life) assumed to be dangerous, or something we should reduce?

    Is there a more benign naturally-occuring substance on earth than carbon dioxide?”


    The debate isn’t about whether or not carbon dioxide is a vital substance for life, or even how benign it is to individual organisms. The entire debate over carbon dioxide is how is it changing our climate and how are these rapid climate changes affecting life on our planet. The greenhouse-effect, the melting polar ice caps, the slowing down of the oceanic conveyor, El Nino, and rising sea levels have NOTHING to do with how plants use carbon dioxide, but everything to do with the environment where we and these plants live.


    You said: “Any why should we not use oil? It's a naturally-occuring substance, too (only uptight Westerners still believe oil is the remains of dinosaur-era organic matter).

    One day our kids will scoff at the cartoon of the dinosaur they used to put on the gas station sign. "Fossil" fuels....Sheeh!”


    Well, not just uptight Westerners, but the vast majority of all scientists too. Besides, the Abiotic Petroleum Theory did not argue that hydrocarbons were NOT created from organic matter, but rather that Abiotic Petroleum COULD occur naturally without the help of organic matter. In other words, it wasn’t a debate of one theory replacing another, but rather, the theory that there were TWO sources of hydrocarbons here on earth, one being biologic and the other being abiotic. The late Dr. Gold and many Soviet scientists in the 50s through the 80s theorized that hydrocarbons could be created abioticly and not biogenic. At this point, none of their theories have been substantiated. In fact, science is 99.99999% confident that, so far, 100%, or ALL of the hydrocarbons discovered here on earth have a biologic origin.

    With that in mind, obviously, the prevailing view among geologists and petroleum engineers today is that oil is a biogenic process—meaning that it is dinosaur-era organic matter—a fossil fuel. So far, absolutely no evidence has been found on earth for the contrary so I wouldn’t bet on school children scoffing about oils not being biologic. (If you would make that bet, email me later because I have some other bets for you to make that would offer far better odds than 99.99999%)

    The scientists who do believe in the Abiotic Petroleum Theory concede that at this time, there are absolutely NO naturally occurring abiotic petroleum reserves known to exist, let alone, being used to supply our modern world's current energy demands. So, no matter what theory of oil development you adhere to, there is no question about oils current limited supply and that burning hydrocarbon fuels are causing significant environment change. Until these theorized naturally occurring oils are discovered, then the press’s “conventional wisdom” is correct in saying that the world IS running out of oil.

    There’s no question about the presence of Carbon in the solar system—in fact, it’s the fourth most common element in the universe. The vast majority of all carbon found on earth today was already on earth when the earth was created so many billions of years ago. No organism on earth creates carbon, but rather, simply borrows it. Carbon exists on our earth in many different forms—including the quite pure forms of carbon in graphite and diamonds. Carbon is also a major component in limestone, dolomite and marble.

    It would be far more appropriate to say that “Gold theorizes that …” not “Gold claims that…” since Gold never substantiated any of his theories. He did present a lot of ideas why he believed his theory—which have since been refuted to not support the APT. However, to be fair, since the theory came out, other hypothetical circumstances needed for abiotic petroleum to occur are now known to exist, but, so far, this in no way proves the Abiotic Petroleum Theory to be true.

    At this point there is more evidence for Aliens and the Chupacabra than the Abiotic Petroleum Theory. I doubt any prudent oil executive would bet money on the idea that “If you’ll drill deep enough anywhere, you will find natural gas. It may not be in commercial quantities every time, but more than likely it will be.” Las Vegas would give you far better odds than the APT theory, yet it still doesn’t make Las Vegas a good bet either.

    However, I’m a strong believer in free enterprise, so I would suggest that you raise some capitol and find out for yourself. After all, if you were correct, it would make you the wealthiest man alive.
  2. AMG

    AMG YF Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    5,266
    Location:
    Sweden
    Just remember, this is mainly a political view, not a scientific. The IPCC report is not the same as the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers.
  3. brian eiland

    brian eiland Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,857
    Location:
    St Augustine, Fl and Thailand
    Thanks Steven, a well presented and intelligent response
  4. stevenpet

    stevenpet New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Messages:
    96
    Location:
    Monterey, Maui, Salt Lake City
    Greenhouse Effect, Melting Polar Ice Caps, the slowing Oceanic Conveyor, El Nino, rising sea levels, carbon dioxide, sun spots, ice ages, pollution, ice core climatology, vulcanization, the Abiotic Petroleum Theory, etc. etc.

    AMG, I would say the exact opposite is true. The above topics were introduced to us by science and will only be answered by science although politics may have a lot to say about it. We can debate the energy crisis, global warming, the existence of God, what happens to us when we die and a myriad of other political (and religious) issues until we’re blue in the face. But until science substantiates or disproves any of the above—then the debate will continue on as nothing but political conjecture.
  5. AMG

    AMG YF Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    5,266
    Location:
    Sweden
    This is exactly what I just said. People in general are not familiar with the content of the IPCC reports and the scientific references. All they know is what is conveyed in the SPM that is quoted by media and politicians.
  6. stevenpet

    stevenpet New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Messages:
    96
    Location:
    Monterey, Maui, Salt Lake City
    I should probably clarify a few things I said earlier.

    Statistics: Whenever there is a number showing how confident a conclusion is, then it’s easy to determine the margin of error from that number. If the research is 95% confident, then the margin of error is +/- 5%. The margin of error is mostly determined by the sample size in relation to the population size being studies—in this case hydrocarbons. So, with the confidence level cited in support of biologic origin, a margin of error of +/- 0.00001 would mean that a very large sample size, possibly even all of the population is being tested as to whether or not it has a biologic origin or not. It would be an incredible waste of money to sample every well, when a reliability level of even 99% (margin of error of +/- 1%) would be conclusive enough. So, I would assume that somewhere in the oil extraction or refining process that they are able to determine if a hydrocarbon is biologic in origin or not.

    Dr. Gold: I would not conclude that Dr. Gold was a bad scientist trying to sale a bad idea—I would say that the exact opposite is true. I’m sure he was thoroughly aware of the standards of the scientific method and that being a good scientist, he hypothesized and theorized with the knowledge and information he had available to him. He never expressed his hypotheses and theories as fact since he knew full well that they were not. His theory has not been shown to be wrong, it’s just that here on earth there hasn’t been enough evidence to show that it’s correct.

    Politics: The Abiotic Petroleum theory is an excellent example of how good science is easily misrepresented to fit a particular political or ideological agenda. We'e all seen examples of how this happens. [Like evolution and eugenics.] Here in the United States, I mostly see this theory being cited as fact by groups that believe there is no energy crisis or global warming and that God made this earth and all the resources on it just for us humans—His children. So why would He, an infallible God, make an earth where we could actually run out of hydrocarbons and where hydrocarbons could actually destroy our world as we know it?

    A good THEORY being used to substantiate a political or idealogical BELIEF.
  7. brian eiland

    brian eiland Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,857
    Location:
    St Augustine, Fl and Thailand
    The Great Oil Hoax

    ...this came across my desk just recently in the form of one of those finacial newsletters seeking subscriptions. I edited and abreviated it slightly, but for the most part this fellow got it right...BE PREPARED.

    THE GREAT OIL HOAX​

    Discover the biggest lie of the last 30 years...
    …and what George Bush was told behind closed doors​


    Those Saudi Arabians, you've gotta love 'em. First, 15 out of 19 hijackers on Sept. 11 were Saudis, but Saudi Arabia had NOTHING to do with it, or so we're told. Besides they love us, don’t they?

    Now Saudi Arabia is about to drop another bombshell on us, and this one will make Sept. 11 look like small potatoes. I never thought I'd say anything could make Sept. 11 look like small potatoes. But this does, at least when it comes to the economy. Sept. 11 shut the markets down for a few days. When the next crisis hits, you'll wish the markets would shut down so you wouldn't have to watch the carnage.

    What Bush learned behind closed doors.​

    If some well-informed experts are right, Saudi Arabia's oil reserves are a fraction of what they've been telling us. Why does it matter? Because everyone has believed for decades that Saudi Arabia's oil supply is virtually unlimited. That's what the Saudis have said over and over again for more than 30 years.

    If an oil shortage threatens to cause a recession or a market crash, we can count on the Saudis to come through…so people think.?? But in a private briefing, one of America's top oil experts told President George Bush exactly what I'm telling you. (Brian’s note: Doesn’t this really explain our attempt to gain some control over the world’s second largest know reserves…IRAQ ??)

    In fact, this same man was a consultant to the secretive task force that drew up Vice President Dick Cheney's energy plan in 2001.(Brian’s note: Another reason Cheney fought SO HARD to keep this meeting a SECRET!!)

    In other words, the guy is a heavy hitter who knows the energy business. He warned Bush that the Saudis don't have anything near the oil reserves they claim. They already pump less oil than most "experts" think, and here's the real kicker...
    Saudi oil production is about to drop sharply. And it will keep going down for good.

    Other experts have analyzed the numbers and come to the same conclusions. If the charges are true — and I believe they are — we could be facing...

    Oil at $150 per barrel and gasoline at $6 a gallon or more
    The oil is running out. It's as simple as that. But that's not what you hear from so-called experts. If you ask government officials, our intelligence agencies and even powerful Wall Street financiers, they tell you the opposite. They say the Saudis could quickly double their oil production from the current level if they wanted to. And given a few years, they think the Saudis could produce four times as much oil as they do now. This is like the Iraqi WMDs all over again. The intelligence agencies and the conventional "experts" are dead wrong. The oil isn't there.

    Saudi Secrets and Funny Math
    The cupboard is bare and nobody knows it. Americans used to run Aramco, the huge oil company that manages the Saudi fields. But in 1979, the Saudis booted us out and took over.

    And then a funny thing happened… The Saudis started keeping everything a secret. No one knows for sure how much oil they've got in the ground, or how much they produce each year, or how much they could produce if they wanted to push it to the max. It's all secret.

    Experts try to figure out how much oil the Saudis sell by monitoring tanker traffic in and out of the world's ports. That's how little we know for sure. But wait, it gets worse!

    After the Saudis took over, an even funnier thing happened...Their figures for proven reserves kept going up and up and up — even though they didn't find any major new oil fields! In 1979, the Saudis adjusted proven reserves upward by 50 billion barrels. Then eight years after that, their proven reserves magically grew by another 100 billion barrels. Their estimated reserves increased by 150% in nine years — to a total of 260 billion barrels. And they didn't find a single major new oil field!

    And here's the funniest thing of all...For the last 18 years, they've claimed they own 260 billion barrels of proven oil in the ground. The figure never goes down, even though they pumped out 46 billion barrels during that period. Let me see...260 minus 46 equals 260. Saudi math!

    Based on these bogus figures, the Saudis claim they can produce as much oil as the world wants for the next 50 years. As recently as 2004, they claimed their reserve estimates are
    actually conservative That's why most of the world's governments and intelligence services believe the Saudis could pump 20 million barrels of oil a day if they wanted to. Trouble is, we've got no proof except their say-so.

    If it were true, we wouldn't have a thing to worry about. But it's not. Before Aramco's American owners were shown the door in 1979, they told Congress that Saudi Arabia had proven reserves of 110 billion barrels. There have been no major new discoveries, so 110 billion barrels was probably just about right. And since then, about half of that has been used up.

    So why do the Saudis insist everything is just fine and they have 260 billion barrels of reserves? One reason is they wanted to discourage non-OPEC nations from looking for more oil or switching to alternatives. It was a devious plan, and it worked perfectly. But that wasn't the only reason the Saudis lied about their reserves. They did it because everyone does it! Everyone in OPEC, that is.

    The Biggest Lie of All: OPEC's Imaginary Oil
    In the 1980s, OPEC's claim of total reserves magically leaped from 353 to 643 billion barrels without a single major discovery. Industry experts call it the quota war. You see, OPEC had to limit how much oil each member could sell, because prices were too low.

    The quotas were based on...each member's oil reserves! That's right: The amount of oil OPEC would let a member pump depended on how much that member had in the ground. So it paid for OPEC members to claim the biggest reserves they could. And that's what they did.

    The Saudis alone jacked up their estimate by about 100 billion. Kuwait added 50% to its reserves in one year, 1985. Venezuela doubled its reserves in 1987. Iraq and Iran doubled their estimates, too. What's more, OPEC members did like the Saudis and kept their reserve estimates the same year after year, as if no oil were being pumped out and sold.
    Everyone claimed to have a bottomless well.

    Now, if you're like me, you prefer to base your financial decisions on the real world, not on a fantasy. Let's look at how much oil there really is...
    In the 1970s, when Western managers were still in charge, they believed for a time that Saudi output could reach 20 million barrels a day. But by the time the Americans lost control in 1979, they figured the peak would be 12 million.

    They also predicted that peak production would last only 15–20 years. Lets see 1979 plus 20 is 1999. We're past the peak, if these men were right. But we already know they were too optimistic. The truth is that Saudi production never got to 12 million.

    "In all probability, output peaked in 1981 at an unsustainable level of about10.5 million barrels per day," according to Matthew R. Simmons, a leading oil industry authority”.

    And yet the lies go on...In 2004, Saudi officials claimed they boosted production to 9.5 million barrels per day and maintained that level for five months. It's almost sure they were lying. The International Energy Agency is the group that keeps an eye on these things for the developed, oil-importing countries. The IEA could find no sign the Saudis were selling more oil. As far as anyone can tell, they pump only around 5 million barrels a day, and that's all they've pumped for years.

    It's déjà vu all over again. In spite of being lied to at least once, the IEA, the U.S. Department of Energy and other forecasters believe the Saudi claims. ALL their projections of our energy future ALWAYS assume the Saudis could produce 15–20 million barrels a day. The lies have worked. Not only do Western politicians believe them, but so do many oil industry experts and investors with huge amounts of money at stake. They've been had. We’ve all been had.

    We went through three recessions from 1973–1983. Care for a repeat? Our whole economy is at risk. Your investments are at risk. Your retirement plans are at risk.

    America has been so prosperous the last couple of decades, a lot of people forget what the energy crisis of the '70s was like. Let me remind you: The price of a barrel of oil shot up 400%. Long lines formed at gas stations practically overnight. Folks had to pay four times as much for a gallon of gas, and there came a week when one out of every five gas stations in the United States had no gas to sell at any price.

    The U.S. had three major recessions within 10 years after the first oil crisis in 1973. And those recessions were deep, with double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates and double-digit inflation:
    Think 10–12% unemployment.
    Think 15–18% mortgage rates.
    Got the picture? That was the '70s. Not fun. My take is that a similar crisis will rock the nation before we solve our problem with clean coal, liquefied natural gas, oil from tar sands, high-mileage cars and safe nuclear plants.

    How oil could go beyond $150 in 24 hours
    If you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend Saudi Arabia has plenty of oil, be my guest. But XXX Investments is for investors who want to face reality and be prepared. Every shred of evidence points to no Saudi buffer for world oil markets. And that's a real problem because oil consumption soared from 52 million barrels a day to 82 million in the last 19 years, and it's expected to grow to 120 million in the next 20...

    If the oil can be found, very doubtful, high-priced oil is here to stay

    There are three ways oil could race past $150 a barrel: It may get there gradually...or on a faster pace of a year or two...or overnight, literally within 24 hours. Pick any one of the three. No matter how you look at it, it's a sure thing the days of cheap oil are over. We're never going to see $30 oil again, and we may never even see $50 oil. Soon oil in the $100s may very well return to stay.

    "You never really run out of oil," says a Houston energy consultant named Henry Groppe. But many years ago we ran out of $2 a barrel oil, then we ran out of $25 oil, and now we're running out of $40 oil…"(and for now we’ve settled at $60)

    That's for sure. And that means you need to readjust your holdings....The disaster could hit very fast. There could be a deep, sharp reduction in Saudi oil production literally any day. It's guesswork, but energy expert Matthew Simmons says,
    "It will take energy forecasters and policymakers by total surprise. Not a single serious energy plan devised in the past three decades has envisioned such a scenario."

    He's told interviewers that Saudi output could drop 30–40% from the already low level of just 5 million barrels. Simmons doesn't claim to know for sure, but I believe he's right.

    In the big oil crisis of 1973, oil went to $100 in current dollars. Back then, the problem was just political. Angered by U.S. support for Israel, the Arab oil producers cut our supply. After things calmed down, there was plenty of oil.

    This time the problem is real and there's no quick fix. There's a sword hanging over our heads, and most people don't even know. Just consider this...

    Three quick disasters could send oil over $150 in 24 hours

    1) Monster Storms
    2) War & Revolution at the chokepoints
    3) Terrorism

    …and meantime the Saudi reservoir quantity is this fictional buffer :rolleyes: :eek:
  8. AMG

    AMG YF Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    5,266
    Location:
    Sweden
    This is great news, nobody has to consider any tax raises on fuel, as the prices will self regulate, and for the AGW-alarmists, the feared CO2 emissions from oil will soon be over.

    This would save us a lot of worries...:rolleyes:
  9. HMI

    HMI New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Messages:
    23
    Location:
    Tampa Florida
    Saudi Arabia apparently has the largest reserves of phosphates.
    Don't know about the rest of you but I find that interesting.
  10. stevenpet

    stevenpet New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Messages:
    96
    Location:
    Monterey, Maui, Salt Lake City
    Brian,

    Thanks for that very informative post. For me the "hard evidence" to substantiate what you said above is the current decline of the Saudi Arabia economy. During the 80s I was a teen in the silicon valley and Saudia Arabia as drawing a lot of labor from our area to their country to fuel their oil boom. They were becoming highly Westernized at a very fast pace. But, now that the boom is over, the poor are once again poor and the slums are re-emerging and becoming worse then ever before.

    No wonder the disillusioned youth and the poor are angry with Western Society since their promise of a better future was very short lived.

    I suppose if I had a limited resource and it was running out...I would tell lies too. Otherwise, you might go off and find another source. However, if I can lead you into believing there is no shortage, then I would be able to capitalize on the inflated prices caused by the limited supply.

    The prince of Dubai is much more candid about the situation. He openly admits that his country's "window of oil wealth" is limited, and that is why he's investing heavily in making Dubai a world-class travel destination.

    Take care Brian. It's always a pleasure.
  11. AMG

    AMG YF Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    5,266
    Location:
    Sweden
  12. OutMyWindow

    OutMyWindow Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    906
    Location:
    ...............

    Attached Files:

  13. Kevin

    Kevin YF Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    2,693
    Location:
    Montreal, Qc, Canada
    Ssshhh... don't give them any ideas. They might try to invade. :p
  14. brian eiland

    brian eiland Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,857
    Location:
    St Augustine, Fl and Thailand
    Never say never

    "Canada's greatest buried energy treasure,"...but at what cost to extract in both monies, pollution, and raping the landscape

    Also note this chart's percentages are based on US imports, not world supply
  15. brian eiland

    brian eiland Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,857
    Location:
    St Augustine, Fl and Thailand
    Crude Cassandra

    Cassandra (a person whose warnings of misfortune are disregarded)

    ...excerpts from an article I read recently
    Simmons’ message is always some variation on the global implications of Peak Oil—that point after which global crude supplies wane, prices soar and shortages spur geopolitical strife. The Ukraine-Russia gas tiff is a first taste of the transnational energy disputes to come

    He insists we’ve already passed Peak Oil—but the world won’t realize it until economic recovery stimulates oil thirst anew. When that comes, gird for shortages and $500 a barrel. “There’s no logical reason for the price to be this low. If it doesn’t reverse itself soon, it will destroy the industry’ he says. If Simmons ruled the world, he’d order an oil price floor of at least $150 a barrel to stimulate exploration and to combat rust, which he says is the biggest threat to the oil supply. He figures it could cost $100 trillion to replace aged pipelines, rigs and platforms. That’s quite a sum—70 years of oil industry revenues, at present rates.

    According to the U.S. Department of Energy and the International Energy Agency, non-OPEC output appears to have peaked in 2006 at just above 51 million barrels per day (bpd), and fell below 50 million in 2008. World output inched up to 86 million bpd a year ago only by the dint of spigot-opening by OPEC
    “We’ve avoided shortages only by squeezing every molecule of natural gas liquids, ethanol and biofuels, by increasing refinery gains a bit, by drawing down stocks:’ says Simmons. “That’s how we balanced a market we couldn’t supply.” OPEC’S numbers include natural gas liquids (like propane and butane), up from 4.5 million bpd to 5 million in two years. US. figures also include ethanol, which now contributes 600,000 bpd. Back out such substitutes and crude oil volumes have been flat at around 75 million bpd for four years. Simmons prophesies that in ten years oil will be down to 60 million bpd and natural gas production will be off 20%. He thinks the Saudis are lying about their ability to crank up output and that natural decline rates from existing fields will overwhelm new fields from Iraq, Venezuela or Nigeria.

    Simmons contends that traders were forced to liquidate oil contracts as credit dried up, causing prices to fall. As credit markets recover, he says, traders will bid up oil once again

    Simmons’ critics insist he doesn’t appreciate the power of new technology to tap previously unreachable deposits trapped in shale or under ultradeep water. “Technology is fabulous, but it does exactly the opposite of what people thought it was going to do—it accelerates decline rates:’ he says. “The simple analogy is you’re having a Slurpee-slugging contest. You have a normal vertical straw and someone comes along with a multilateral straw. You’re not getting more out, just getting it out faster.” This paradox is evident at Cantarell, Mexico’s largest field. For 15 years it produced 1.5 million bpd like clockwork. Then natural decline set in. State oil company Pemex drilled dozens of new wells and built a system to inject nitrogen gas. This boosted output to 2.1 million bpd in 2004. Then the collapse: Cantarell is down to 800,000

    Simmons fears overproduction today will bring total collapse tomorrow. A fourth of the world’s oil comes from the 20 biggest fields, 60% from the 800 biggest. In his 2005 book Twilight in the Desert, Simmons asserted that Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar field, the world’s biggest at 5 million bpd, was on the brink of collapse. “The world can’t afford to have Ghawar fail the way Cantarell has”, says Simmons. The Saudi leadership despises him. “Ghawar is very healthy:’ says Saudi Aramcn’s upstream chief Amin Al-Nasser. “If I needed more production, I could go to Ghawar and boost it to 10 million bpd.” Aramco, now pumping fewer than 9 million bpd, insists it could sustain 12 million bpd for decades and plans to boost recoverable reserves 40% to 450 billion barrels, enough to last for 15 years at today’s consumption rate.

    I think they think it’s possible:’ says Simmons, “But I guarantee you it isn’t. Remember that Royal Dutch Shell also believed passionately five years ago that it had 16 billion barrels of proved reserves.” It then took 4 billion of those barrels off its books and the responsible executives off its payroll.

    Mattew Simmons of Simmons & Co...a Houston investment bank he founded 40 years ago
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.