Oil unlimited?


By Bruce Bartlett


Predictably, the recent rise in oil prices has the usual doom-and-gloom crowd, which has consistently been wrong for 30 years, saying once again that this proves we are running out of oil and that severe curbs on gasoline consumption must be imposed to preserve what little is left for future generations. They need not worry. There is growing evidence that oil is far more plentiful than we have been led to believe.
The prevailing theory of the origin of oil is the dead dinosaur hypothesis and dates back to the 18th century. Its originator was a Russian scientist named Mikhail Lomonosov, who put it this way in a 1757 paper: "Rock oil (petroleum) originates as tiny bodies of animals buried in the sediments which, under the influence of increased temperature and pressure acting during an unimaginably long period of time, transforms into rock oil."
However, in the 1950s, Russian and Ukrainian scientists developed a new theory about petroleum's origins called the abiotic or abiogenic theory. According to this view, oil is fundamentally inorganic and has no relationship to dead plant or animal life. Rather, oil originates deep in the Earth's crust from inorganic material that is part of the planet's origin.
In the words of geologist Vladimir Porfir'yev, "The overwhelming preponderance of geological evidence compels the conclusion that crude oil and natural gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the Earth. They are primordial materials which have erupted from great depths."
For more than 50 years, Russian and Ukrainian scientists have successfully used the abiotic theory to find oil and natural gas. For example, the Dnieper-Donets Basin has yielded a significant amount of oil and natural gas even though it is an area that conventional biological theories reject as unpromising. A recent technical paper found that the results "confirm the scientific conclusions that the oil and natural gas found in ... the Dnieper-Donets Basin are of deep, and abiotic, origin."
As Russia has opened up since the fall of the Soviet Union and because it has become a large and growing factor in the international oil market, American scientists are becoming increasingly knowledgeable about and interested in the abiotic theory of petroleum. Recently, the National Academy of Sciences published a paper on the topic. The Gas Research Institute has financed exploration based on abiotic theories, with encouraging results. And the American Association of Petroleum Geologists has taken an interest in the subject as well.
The leading supporter of the abiotic theory in the United States is Thomas Gold of Cornell University. His 1999 book, "The Deep Hot Biosphere" (Springer-Verlag) is a thorough discussion of the issues. It is based in part on research financed by the U.S. Geological Survey. Among leading scientists whose work supports the abiotic theory are Jean Whelan of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Mahlon Kennicutt of Texas A&M University and J.F. Kenny of the Gas Resources Corporation.
Interestingly, economic research also implicitly supports abiotic theory. A leading researcher in this regard is Michael C. Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research and formerly chief energy economist for DRI-WEFA.
In a new paper, Mr. Lynch debunks a common theory called the Hubbert Curve, which postulates that the yield of oil fields is inherently limited. The problem, as Mr. Lynch points out, is that actual experience in many instances contradicts the Hubbert theory. Its primary flaw is that it views geology as the sole factor in oil discovery, recovery and depletion. In fact, oil prices, government policy and technology play critical roles. But the evidence he presents of oil fields that yielded far more than the Hubbert Curve predicts is consistent with the abiotic theory, which says that oil fields can be refilled from sources well below those in which production now takes place.
Finally, it is important to remember that improving technology improves the oil situation regardless of the theory of its origins. A study last year by Cambridge Energy Research Associates found that five emerging technologies — remote sensing, visualization, intelligent drilling and completions, automation and data integration — will greatly improve the ability of energy companies to increase their drilling success rate, better manage reserves and operate more efficiently.
William Severns, the study's leader, explained, "With these capabilities, companies may be able to increase the amount of oil and natural gas recovered in a given field by 2 percent to 7 percent, reduce lifting costs by 10 percent to 25 percent, and increase production rates by 2 percent to 4 percent."
Of course, higher prices also make known deposits of oil that were previously too costly to exploit viable economically, as well as reducing demand. Consequently, it is impossible to ever literally run out of oil. The possibility should not be a factor in the energy debate.

Bruce Bartlett is senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis and a nationally syndicated columnist.

source: http://www.washtimes.com/commentary...92733-4642r.htm

___________________________________________

Submit to Quotes    

A lot was said that the war with Iraq was over oil.

So we can look at the recent prices in two "conspiracy" ways.

1. The Liberals are behind it theory: The Liberals were able to get OPEC to up the price of oil to make the Bush Administration look bad. They know sooner or later the oil will start flowing from Iraq, but they hope it won't happen until it is time for another Presidential election. Their man gets in, the oil starts flowing and all it good with the word.

2. The Conservatives are behind it theory. The Conservatives are manipulating the price of oil. Their hope is people will get upset about the price of gasoline. Then the oil starts flowing from Iraq and Bush looks like a hero.

___________________________________________
Time is the fire in which we burn.

Submit to Quotes    

I like the fact neither group is willing to reduce standards and go after the environmental mental midgets. We've got raw crude we need 2 more refineries . stop selling the raw crude we have to China N. Korea , India. The oil companies love it they're making record profits . All the money we spent in tax dollars over the years studying the problem and created the situation we are currently in . They could have built at least 1 refinery maybe 2 since the mid 70's.

they don't want to lose the votes of all those '"TOUCHY, FEELY"
nitwits. I say don't drive around an environmentalist. drive over them and save gas. They have the common sense of a " Pet Rock "

They had to have different blends of gas for specific regions ,but never figured out how it would be produced . don't build more refineries they will damage the earth . We can't have more refineries it will add to the problem we already have. They're nuts. If you put their brain in a bird it would fly backwards.

___________________________________________
If pro is the opposite of con? would CONgress be the oppositeof PROgress?

Submit to Quotes    

Or a third conspicy, which is that the OPEC nations are purposely restricting production and driving demand as a silent defiance to recent Western influence. Our neat little inventions such as the satellite dish and the internet are threatening their control over their people. This is their only way of handing it back to us.

___________________________________________
put a few more in the ground

Submit to Quotes    

According to Virginia Mondon, it was a conspiracy of OPEC to sabotage the LP Memorial Day Parade

___________________________________________
Time is the fire in which we burn.

Submit to Quotes    

Really, based on what evidence?

___________________________________________
put a few more in the ground

Submit to Quotes    

Based on a Jack Daniels haze!!



Rocky

Submit to Quotes    

She was saying "Don't let "them" say you cannot have a Memorial Day Parade.

I assume "them" is OPEC. I guess Mondon believes during an OPEC meeting someone noticed LP was getting ready to have their annual Memorial Day Parade. One of the Shieks then yelled "Absolutely not. We will not allow LP to have a Memorial Day parade. Let's raise the price of oil to stop this parade"

___________________________________________
Time is the fire in which we burn.

Submit to Quotes    

Hahahahahahahahahaha

My theory is that the nations that comprise OPEC are controlling the price. They are not producing as much oil as they can (and should)...and that drives prices up.

Whenever they cut production, they usually cite "lower demand" or worries about having too much in reserve as reasons. Lower deman?! There is a multi-national war being waged overseas...there are record numbers of SUV's driving the streets...there are duel-income households requiring two vehicles (not to mention the children's cars). There was a time when a one and half car garage would suffice the average family (look at most of the homes in LP, for instance). Nowadays, the average family needs three vehicles.

We've established that demand is not the issue. And what would they worried about having oil in reserves for? Are they worried that they won't be able to sell it? Give me a break.

The OPEC cartel is out for blood...plain and simple.

You hear about them toying with the idea of basing the price of their oil on the Euro versus the US Dollar. This serves to prove that they are out to make as much money as they can off each barrel of oil.

One thing that article didn't mention: If the price of oil gets too high, you will begin to see a mass exodus of oil-consuming products. Certain substitutes can be used in place of traditional oil (seashells, for instance). You don't see them used often because they are more expensive to refine than oil is.

But if oil becomes too expensive, then a cost-savings benefit may present itself with the alternative fuels. If substitute fuels begin to roll out, you will see a dramatic drop in the price of oil. This would be OPEC trying to steer people away from using alternative fuels.

Another reason for the steady incline may be due to automobile manufacturers drive to produce electric and hybrid powered vehicls. OPEC nations can see the writing on the wall: Large nations powered by electric vehicles. They are trying to gobble up as much money as they can, while they still can.

___________________________________________

Submit to Quotes    

Remember back when Iraq's leader used to defy OPEC and sell more oil than they were supposed to in defiance of OPEC?

And there are still countries that do. I suppose there always will be. If they banded together in solidarity, they could bring the world to it's knees. But the world, especially the USA, would only be on it's knees for a very short time. Necessity is the mother of invention, and believe you me, the invention and production of alternative fuels/sources would accelerate quickly, espeacially considering the base that exists today as compared to the 1970's. OPEC does not want to "make our day."

___________________________________________

Submit to Quotes