AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Question on prediction...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
A few days ago, a regional talk-show host out of Vegas, Casey Hendrickson, mentioned a former USSR defected spy who predicted the fall of the Berlin wall, the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the transmogrification of Soviet Communism into an ecofront to maintain hegemony. He said the economic basis of what propped up the USSR was failing, the writing was on the wall, and a long-term program was initiated to avoid a real evolution away from the command-economy and international power. Hendrickson said the writer was laughed at, at the time—but upon reflection, looking back over the past two decades, everything he said has occured like clockwork.

Anyone know who this is? I don't think it was Ion Mihai Pacepa, but Pacepa was dead on about many things concerning the USSR and Iraq. I understand this writer Hendrickson referred to published his predictions in a book, that was relatively unread. His predictions were based on supposed inside information—and not speculation.
Don't know Bill. However, the Russian paradyne has changed. It is a fact that Russia is now a Fascist state. However, more important is the rise in Russian energy politics. Russia is on the road to becoming a serious player in world politics because of the wealth and control it exerts over others, because of Black Gold, and Natural Gas. I'm half way through "Black Gold Stranglehold", and because of Russia's Abiotic oil philosophy, it has enabled Russia to gain on the energy power market.

This factor of gaining so much wealth due to energy distribution is staggering and Russia is quickly becoming the biggest player in the game. This may well put us on a collision course with Russia in the near future. This is why we too should be drilling like crazy and going DEEP for that stuff coming from the mantle. To hell with this "fossil fuel" or "Peak Oil" philosophy. Neither are true. And Russia is playing it for all it is worth.
John L Wrote:Don't know Bill. However, the Russian paradyne has changed. It is a fact that Russia is now a Fascist state. However, more important is the rise in Russian energy politics. Russia is on the road to becoming a serious player in world politics because of the wealth and control it exerts over others, because of Black Gold, and Natural Gas. I'm half way through "Black Gold Stranglehold", and because of Russia's Abiotic oil philosophy, it has enabled Russia to gain on the energy power market.

This factor of gaining so much wealth due to energy distribution is staggering and Russia is quickly becoming the biggest player in the game. This may well put us on a collision course with Russia in the near future. This is why we too should be drilling like crazy and going DEEP for that stuff coming from the mantle. To hell with this "fossil fuel" or "Peak Oil" philosophy. Neither are true. And Russia is playing it for all it is worth.
John I almost choked on my breakfast.

Do you really believe ExxonMobile, BP, Chevron et al would not be drilling to an abiotic model if it was the 'sure fire' certainty your messianic postings on this subject would suggest? Do you honestly believe these huge multinationals don't have the finances to temp Russian geologists, allegedly steeped in abiotic theory, to come work for them?

Lets look at the new fields being brought into production in Russia, where are they? Largely offshore on the continental shelf.
Why were they not recognised and exploited previously? It needed western companies like ExxonMobile and BP to bring the right thinking, exploration methods and drilling techniques to exploit fields like Sakhalin 1 and 2. Which by the way conform to a biotic model.

Russian companies have been quick to embrace western exploration techniques and thinking. There is no mystery as to why Russian oil and gas reserves are expanding at such a pace, it has been the introduction of modern western techniques in targeting and drilling resources previously not recognised by the Soviet exploration teams.

Quote:Most estimates [Granberg et al., 1993; Malovitski et al., 1994] suggest that promising oil- and gas-bearing areas are found on about 90% of all Russian shelves. They cover 5.2-6.2 million square kilometers. Potential recoverable hydrocarbon resources of the Russian continental shelves are estimated within 90 to 100 billion tons of oil equivalent. Natural gas resources account for 80% of them.

Practically everywhere on the Russian shelf, the affinity between the offshore petroleum-bearing provinces and corresponding geological structures of the adjoining inland areas is found. Global experience indicates that in such cases, the oil and gas potential of the shelf fields is higher than that of the onshore accumulations.

Source: http://www.offshore-environment.com/russianoil.html
The potential that exist on the Russian continental shelf is huge, no wonder they're so keen to annex large parts of Arctic Ocean sea floor.

"We too should be drilling like crazy and going DEEP for that stuff coming from the mantle", if oil companies aren't going to do this based on sound economic sense what's your solution, go Soviet and compel them? :lol:

Deep we are going deep, Chevron's Tahiti field in the Gulf of Mexico is 4km below sea level and a further 8km below the seabed!
You have your hard rock position Pepe, as one of the 'old guard', and I have mine. Time will prove me correct.

If you think all that oil comes form all that many dinos and trees, we would already be out of oil by now.

Perhaps I will start a thread on this subject and let you have it out with Sunsettommy.
John L Wrote:You have your hard rock position Pepe, as one of the 'old guard', and I have mine. Time will prove me correct.

If you think all that oil comes form all that many dinos and trees, we would already be out of oil by now.

Perhaps I will start a thread on this subject and let you have it out with Sunsettommy.
---------------------------
Yes, but that is what the 'Peak Oil' theory is about. That we are almost out of oil already....

Time will prove if there is substantial oil of abiotic origin. The share of geologists believing in the abiotic theory is low, about as low as the share of climatologists not believing in AGW.

/track_snake
track_snake Wrote:
John L Wrote:You have your hard rock position Pepe, as one of the 'old guard', and I have mine. Time will prove me correct.

If you think all that oil comes form all that many dinos and trees, we would already be out of oil by now.

Perhaps I will start a thread on this subject and let you have it out with Sunsettommy.
---------------------------
Yes, but that is what the 'Peak Oil' theory is about. That we are almost out of oil already....

Time will prove if there is substantial oil of abiotic origin. The share of geologists believing in the abiotic theory is low, about as low as the share of climatologists not believing in AGW.

/track_snake

If that is true, then why does the official estimate of reserve oil keep going up each year? If we are running out of oil and Hubbert's "peak" is correct, then why does his Laffer Curve keep having to be revised all the time? In other words, as we continue to demand more of it, more just keeps being discovered. There is simply NO WAY there could be that many dead dinos and prehistoric trees to account for all the hydrocarbon being found.

And the reason why there is so much Off Shore drillin' (Thank you Senator Kennedy 8) ) is because it is easier to get closer to the mantle, where all this 'stuff' is coming from. Peak Oil; Fossil Oil? Bullshit!! Just as I stated before, and Pepe cried foul, other theories were also castigated. Just ask Eugene Shoemaker about that. Oh, that's right, he's dead, isn't he? Shock

Conservatives, such as Pepe, are reluctant to think out of the box, so they hold on to tried and tested things that worked in the past. That's why the old saying about Necessity being the Mother of Invention, is all bunk! When things get dicey, humans always fall back on old habits, because that is all they know well. I learned that from one of my North American Pre-Colombian Archaelolgy professors at U of Tennessee. Humans have trouble thinking outside the box, and Pepe is no exception here.
John L Wrote:
track_snake Wrote:
John L Wrote:You have your hard rock position Pepe, as one of the 'old guard', and I have mine. Time will prove me correct.

If you think all that oil comes form all that many dinos and trees, we would already be out of oil by now.

Perhaps I will start a thread on this subject and let you have it out with Sunsettommy.
---------------------------
Yes, but that is what the 'Peak Oil' theory is about. That we are almost out of oil already....

Time will prove if there is substantial oil of abiotic origin. The share of geologists believing in the abiotic theory is low, about as low as the share of climatologists not believing in AGW.

/track_snake

If that is true, then why does the official estimate of reserve oil keep going up each year? If we are running out of oil and Hubbert's "peak" is correct, then why does his Laffer Curve keep having to be revised all the time? In other words, as we continue to demand more of it, more just keeps being discovered. There is simply NO WAY there could be that many dead dinos and prehistoric trees to account for all the hydrocarbon being found.

And the reason why there is so much Off Shore drillin' (Thank you Senator Kennedy 8) ) is because it is easier to get closer to the mantle, where all this 'stuff' is coming from. Peak Oil; Fossil Oil? Bullshit!! Just as I stated before, and Pepe cried foul, other theories were also castigated. Just ask Eugene Shoemaker about that. Oh, that's right, he's dead, isn't he? Shock

Conservatives, such as Pepe, are reluctant to think out of the box, so they hold on to tried and tested things that worked in the past. That's why the old saying about Necessity being the Mother of Invention, is all bunk! When things get dicey, humans always fall back on old habits, because that is all they know well. I learned that from one of my North American Pre-Colombian Archaelolgy professors at U of Tennessee. Humans have trouble thinking outside the box, and Pepe is no exception here.
-----------------------------------
Well...

As you see, time will prove who is right. There are still many sedimentary rocks around the world that has not been explored fully for their possible content of biotic oil. Much of that is on the continental shelves.

And as you know, I am not fully against your abiotic theory. Only that I don't see it as the dominant source of the oil that we can find around the globe.

/track_snake
John Wrote:NO WAY there could be that many dead dinos
What exactly do dinosaurs have to do with it? The fossils in fossil fuel are myriad of miniscule algae and marine plankton, or the huge forests of periods such as the Carboniferous. Fossil fuel formation predates dinosaurs by many many millions of years. The contribution dead dinosaurs made, if any, was slight in the extreme.

John Wrote:You have your hard rock position Pepe, as one of the 'old guard', and I have mine.
John Wrote:Conservatives, such as Pepe, are reluctant to think out of the box, so they hold on to tried and tested things that worked in the past.
As for painting me as some old school geologist shows you know absolutely nothing about the work of a commercial geologist, I need to, and do, stay very much up to date with current theory, I'm not working in academia, I get paid by the multi-nationals for thinking outside the box. The position of gold exploration is no different than oil, everyone thinks it's all been found, it hasn't, it's just more remote or in many instances missed.

I don't subscribe to Peak Oil, sure the low fruit have gone, but there's plenty more on the higher branches; rising prices allow the financing to exploit these. Offshore exploration around Russia's Arctic and East coasts is a case in point, there are potentially huge reserves there, but the technical problems are significant. Modern geophysics with 3D imaging and modelling make targeting more precise, technology from the North Sea and Gulf of Mexico mean we can drill in deep waters, advanced drilling techniques using directional drill heads mean we can hit our targets.

And no we're talking about drilling on the Continental Shelf, the submerged continental crust, not on the oceanic crust of the deep ocean floor. Offshore sedimentary basins such as the Gulf of Mexico or North Sea contain many kilometres of sediments rich in organic matter. Nothing to do with "because it is easier to get closer to the mantle".

I reiterate yet again, if the abiotic model was correct why has 99.9% of commercial oil exploration these last 60 years been driven by the biotic model, and why has it been, and it remain, so successful?
Monsieur Le Tonk Wrote:I reiterate yet again, if the abiotic model was correct why has 99.9% of commercial oil exploration these last 60 years been driven by the biotic model, and why has it been, and it remain, so successful?

Because it is easier for oil to saturate and flow in and around sedimentary rock, that's why. And that is why you will find fossil remains in the oil.
John Wrote:Because it is easier for oil to saturate and flow in and around sedimentary rock, that's why. And that is why you will find fossil remains in the oil.
Easier?!
Dr J.D.A. Clarke Wrote:
  • 1) The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.
    2) The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).
    3) The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).
    3) The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and depositional environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, those indicating marine conditions only in marine sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only bacterial biomarkers).
    4) Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).
    5) The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory.
    6) The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of biological fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything like the fractionation of light carbon that is seen in petroleum).
    7) The location of petroleum reservoirs down the hydraulic gradient from the source rocks in many cases (those which are not are in areas where there is clear evidence of post migration tectonism).
    8 ) The almost complete absence of significant petroleum occurrences in igneous and metamorphic rocks.
(My emphasis)

Source: The Oil Drum - "Abiotic Snake Oil"

Bearing in mind the observable facts listed above, is it not logical to accept a biotic origin rather than necessitate the serendipitous imaginings prerequisite in making an abiotic model fit?
WmLambert Wrote:A few days ago, a regional talk-show host out of Vegas, Casey Hendrickson, mentioned a former USSR defected spy who predicted the fall of the Berlin wall, the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the transmogrification of Soviet Communism into an ecofront to maintain hegemony. He said the economic basis of what propped up the USSR was failing, the writing was on the wall, and a long-term program was initiated to avoid a real evolution away from the command-economy and international power. Hendrickson said the writer was laughed at, at the time—but upon reflection, looking back over the past two decades, everything he said has occured like clockwork.

Anyone know who this is? I don't think it was Ion Mihai Pacepa, but Pacepa was dead on about many things concerning the USSR and Iraq. I understand this writer Hendrickson referred to published his predictions in a book, that was relatively unread. His predictions were based on supposed inside information—and not speculation.
Jesus, there are millions of predictions made each day, and a couple of them actually come true. That's mathematics, not mysticism.
In 1980, Castro and Honecker met for a private talk behind closed doors to keep Russian ears out, and agreed that the 'real existing socialism' had lost the competition with capitalism. So reported by the translator who managed the talk. In case of the GDR, they could wear on nine more years.
Pepe,

Doesn't the peak oil theory simply say production will peak,then decline at a given day? That should be accurate even assuming the low hanging fruit has been picked IF old geological ideas are truly science.

I don't think they are,I think oil is a renewable resource,geology has some new ideas about this issue lately.
Palladin,

The Earth's geological history is ongoing, mountains rise, erode, rivers transport sediment, new rocks are being formed, volcanoes erupt etc, etc, in that sense resources are renewable, but not at the same rate we consume them. So yes, as far as our needs are concerned, resources will become more scarce, and harder to extract.

However the imminent exhaustion of petroleum resources that proponents of "Peak Oil" suggest is not something I accept. There are many areas, such as the Arctic Ocean where exploration is in its infancy. Additionally there are deeper fields to be found beneath existing ones, something that is being seen in the Gulf of Mexico. Add to that the potential in other sources like oil shales and you'll realise that oil isn't about to run out anytime soon, though it's unlikely to get cheaper.

As for geology having some new ideas on oil as a renewable resource, I must assume you are making reference to the discussion above. OK, let's for one moment accept John's messianic vision that oil has nothing to do with bio-matter and everything to do with emanations from the Earth's mantle. Consider that a moment, this would then have been a process going on from an early point in the Earth's history, say some 4bn years or so, it would be no quick a process than formation through bio-matter, if it were seeping away from the mantle in any amount that would meet our present demands we'd be swimming in it! If I were to accept abiotic oil, which I don't based on the observable evidence noted in a post above, I would see it as no more renewable in the short term (i.e. human time span) than biotic oil.
I'm an amateur "oil man" myself with limited education. I do not subscribe to the theory of dinosaurs. I think all organic material including dead dinosaurs created hydrocarbons. All of it in and on the earth over time.

I do think they are created much more rapidly than geology has heretofore believed. It makes sense that you are correct in that our consumption may outstrip natural production,but it may not be accurate,too.

In the mid 1970s,many intellectuals firmly believed we would be out of the black gold by now. The no growth of anything club led by a man named Paul Erdman of the NYT.

In 2007,there are more known reserves than there were in 1973. Yes,investment and technology enhance what we can know.

I agree entirely with you,it is common sense to think under the oceans the earth has locked in pools we haven't imagined yet.
From a purely scientific view of observable facts without logical explanation, living matter consists of electrons that revolve in a left-handed direction. When they die, the motion changes to a right-handed direction. No one is sure why this happens, and much mysticism can arise out of this. The decayed byproducts of left-handed electrons are as right-handed as any other inorganic substance. Why insist only living things can produce petroleum? There are more minerals and chemicals available under the mantle than we can comprehend, plus pressure and heat.

Does biotic theory of oil production ever describe a proven model of how petroleum is created? And if so, has it ever been scientifically replicated? We now can produce artificial diamonds, why not oil?
We can produce oil,it just costs a lot more than we want to pay. But,you still have to start with hydrocarbon in coal form to do that don't ya?

They started to subsidize this avenue in the 70s,then backed off when Reagan got elected.

I don't have the knowledge to agree or disagree with the electron logic,but I know this,whatever creates methane gas,creates oil given time,heat and pressure and a rock formation to contain it.

Buddy of mine served in Iraq in 05 and he saw oil seeping out of the ground in Diyala Province. That seems like it is new creation of oil,otherwise it would seep out and stop.
WmLambert Wrote:Why insist only living things can produce petroleum?
I'm not insisting anything. What I'm saying is that the observable evidence we have for 99.9% of economic petroleum finds is consistent with a biotic model of genesis.

We do create oils from bio-matter, there's a whole industry generating oils for food and as alternatives sources of energy. But nature takes many millions of years of heat and pressure to generate petroleum from organic matter in sediments, though in the laboratory we can generate oil from crushed shales containing large amounts of organic matter, and from coal and lignite.
Pepe, from your previous post, I will agree with you that oil, no matter where it originates, is not infinite. Further, I'm glad to see that you are not a Peak Oil person. That is a bit too pessimistic.

However, if all this oil is coming from deep in the ground, I find it more than fantastic to expect that all this could possibly have come from dead flora and fauna. there is just too much to think it coming from that.

Now, as for coal, I would think that there is where all the dead flora and fauna would be converted. And believe me there is a lot of coal lying around, so I will go along with the Coal = Fossil fuel scenerio. But not the oil and natural gas part. It just doesn't make any common sense. And if you are using the organic matter scenerio, the earth is teeming with organic matter in the form of Anaerobic life. In fact it is believed that there is more weight of anaerobic life than the rest.

Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree about the abiotic oil issue. If the deeper we go the more we find, the fossil fuel crowd will have to acknowledge that they are wrong, because all that organic material could not have been pushed under the plates to that much of a degree. And the more we find the less it could have come from organics.
John Wrote:Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree about the abiotic oil issue. If the deeper we go the more we find, the fossil fuel crowd will have to acknowledge that they are wrong, because all that organic material could not have been pushed under the plates to that much of a degree. And the more we find the less it could have come from organics.
You really do need to understand plate tectonics better. No one is drilling below crustal plates. You need to understand than sedimentary sequences subside under their own weight of accumulation. Seismic reflection data from the South Caspian Sea indicates that the sediments of the Absheron Ridge are some 26-28 km in thickness, making this the World's deepest known sedimentary basin, these sediments are all prospective for petroleum.
John,

I'm not certain that I buy into the abiotic theory, but it's hard not to concede that our understanding of the world is limited and most likely flawed on many levels.

Peak oil ass/umes that our understanding is complete and perfect. That all that's findable has been found. Abiotic or not, extraction is going to be more expensive than the few bucks a barrel that it costs in the ME. But at $80/100/bbl were finally grinding our way to the conclusion that a few extra bucks a bbl to dig a little deeper and in 'inconvenient' and unlikely places is probably worth it.

AGW is part of the same offshoot ... tentacle if you will ... that we have a 'full' understanding of the world around us.

... we don't. Mankind has become too arrogant.
Pages: 1 2