Jerome Corsi - The Great Oil Conspiracy (abiotic oil)

[JohnQPublic]

Jerome Corsi - The Great Oil Conspiracy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NvuR8wIHkE

[JohnQPublic]

He was way off on the polls, apparently (Romney ahead, surge in Oct, etc.). I was mainly interested in the abiotic oil aspect.

[JohnQPublic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJdNqYeVwX4

[JohnQPublic]

Synthesis of hydrocarbons under upper mantle conditions: Evidence for the theory of abiotic deep petroleum origin (http://http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/215/1/012103/pdf/1742-6596_215_1_012103.pdf) V Kutcherov1,2,4, A Kolesnikov2, T Dyuzheva3 and V Brazhkin3

[JohnQPublic]

Michael Rupert (fossil fuels) vs. Jerome Corsi (abiotic) debate with George Noori


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sek5CuFNCek

[JohnQPublic]

An introduction to the modern petroleum science, and to the Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins. (http://www.gasresources.net/)

[JohnQPublic]

More evidence for "Abiotic" oil (http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/12489/2012-08-28/more-evidence-abiotic-oil)
Home (http://www.greenparty.ca/) / Blogs (http://www.greenparty.ca/blog) / Alan David Bergey's blog (http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/alan-david-bergey) /

By Alan David Bergey on 28 August 2012 - 2:30pm
My belief is that oil comes not from living organic matter but produced from the primordial earth. It was then locked deep within the earth as the earths crust formed.. This theory comes from Russian scientist in the 1950’s. (Its not a new theory) Below I note the main reasons why the “Fossil fuel” theory should be refuted.
1. There is massive amounts of oil. Every time the industry says “they are running out of oil” they find more. They have been claiming that they are running out of oil for 100 years (with a big scare in the 1970’s) and as time has gone on the have always found more reserves. The oil industry itself has consistently underestimated the oil reserves especially if “recoverable reserves” are considered rather than proven reserves.
How much oil is there? There is a Massive difference between “ known oil in place” and “proven oil reserves”
By definition “Proven oil reserves” are those reserves claimed to have a reasonable certainty (normally at least 90% confidence) of being recoverable under existing economic and political conditions, with existing technology. At present for the whole world this is estimated to be 1.35 Trillion barrels. For the USA this is at present is estimated to be 22 Billion Barrels ( Conventional drilling for oil). For Canadian tar sands it is 173 Billion barrels. Therefore as technology increases or the price increases “known oil in place” ( read below) can become “proven oil reserves”
“ known oil in place” is what geologist estimate is the total amount of oil that is there. For USA, it is 3 Trillion Barrels, if all oil shale’s are included, (1000 times proven reserves). The Bazhenov. field in Western Siberia, in Russia has recently been estimated to be 80 times the size the of the Green river formation in the USA the largest previous known formation. See web article below. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/06/04/bakken-bazhenov-shale-oil/) For the Canadian tar sands 1.7 – 2 Trillion Barrels, a minimum of 10 times proven reserves. The Venezuelan, government claims a reserve of bitumen even greater than Alberta's, Estimated total of Canada+ Venezuelan 3 -5.4 Trillion Barrels. .
Map of known tar and oil shale’s on the planet and articles. http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/09/09/OilSandsWorld/ http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/01/14/TarSandsWorldsDirtiest/
2. Initial theory of Fossil oil. When the initial theory of “Fossil oil” appeared around 1890 the scientific community did not know that the primordial earth had a atmosphere consisting of mainly Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Water vapor and Ammonia. Nor did they know that these compounds existed on the gas giants and some of their moons in our solar system. The theory was therefore by default because they could not think of any other place the oil could come from.
3 Russian oil exploitation. There are presently more than 80 oil and gas fields in the Caspian district alone which were explored and developed by applying the perspective of the abiotic theory which produce oil from the crystalline basement rock. (Krayushkin, Chebanenko et al. 1994) Crystalline basement rock forms below sedimentary rock. Clearly the oil could not form above basement rock and then seep through it. Similarly, exploration in the western Siberia cratonic-rift sedimentary basin has developed 90 petroleum fields of which 80 produce either partly or entirely from the crystalline basement.
4 Depth that oil is found. Oil is being found at depths of 30,000 feet. The deepest fossils known are from 16,000 feet. How could oil form from fossils if some oil is 14,000 feet below any of the deepest fossils.
5 Chemical differences of Crude Oil to that in life.
The various elements that make up the cell ( Life) and Crude Oil are:



Element

Weight %
in life

Weight %
in oil
Ratio:
Life / oil

Element is:




Hydrogen

10.2

14
1:1.37

Concentrated




Oxygen

66

1
66:1

De-concentrated




Carbon

17.5

84
1:4.8

Concentrated




Nitrogen

2.4

1
2.2:1

De- Concentrated




Sulfur

0.2

2
10:1

Concentrated




Phosphorous

0.9

0.00015
10000:1

De- Concentrated




Calcium

1.5

15* ppm
1000:1

De- Concentrated




Magnesium

500ppm

5* ppm
100:1

De- Concentrated




Vanadium

Trace(1 ppm)

1200 ppm **
1200:1

Concentrated



* Maximum found in Pakistani oil fields
** Vanadium is present in fossil fuel deposits such as crude oil, coal, oil shale and tar sands. There is considerable variation in concentration.. In crude oil, concentrations up to 1200 ppm have been reported.
Chemical nature of Crude Oil. Crude oil is mainly hydrocarbons with very little oxygen and consists mainly of the following compounds.


Paraffin’s, general formula: CnH2n+2 (n is a whole number, usually from 1 to 20) straight- or branched-chain molecules can be gasses or liquids at room temperature depending upon the molecule examples: methane, ethane, propane, butane, iso-butane, pentane, hexane
Aromatics, general formula: C6H5- Y (Y is a longer, straight molecule that connects to the benzene ring) ringed structures with one or more rings. Rings contain six carbon atoms, with alternating double and single bonds between the carbons typically liquids examples: benzene, naphthalene
Napthenes or Cycloalkanes general formula: CnH2n (n is a whole number usually from 1 to 20) ringed structures with one or more rings. Rings contain only single bonds between the carbon atoms typically liquids at room temperature examples: cyclohexane, methyl cyclopentane
Other hydrocarbons Alkenes general formula: CnH2n (n is a whole number, usually from 1 to 20) linear or branched chain molecules containing one carbon-carbon double-bond can be liquid or gas examples: ethylene, butene, IsobuteneDienesand Alkynes general formula: CnH2n-2 (n is a whole number, usually from 1 to 20) linear or branched chain molecules containing two carbon-carbon double-bonds can be liquid or gas examples: acetylene, butadienes

This nothing like the compounds in life, which tend to be carbohydrates, Cm(H2O)n Polysaccharides(e.g., starch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starch) and glycogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycogen)), cellulose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose) in plants and chitin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chitin) in arthropods), amino acids (Some Nitrogen) and fats and fatty acids (Glycerol based). The “oil experts” say the decayed products of life are buried deep underground and cooked under heat and pressure to obtain crude oil. ( OK but I have yet to see validated chemical reaction to produce crude oil under those conditions. )
However Ultra Violet (UV) free radical polymerization seems quite possible with the action of UV light from the sun on the primordial atmosphere. I suspect something like below.

CH4 + hv ----------------------------- CH3· + H ( Free radical)
CH3· + CH3· ------------------------- C2H6 (Ethane)
CH3 CH3 + hv --------------------------------- CH3 CH2· + H
CH3 CH2· + CH3 CH2· ----------- C4H10 (Butane)
CH3 CH2 – CH2 CH3 + hv ------ CH3 CH· - ·CH CH3 + 2H
CH3 CH· - ·CH CH3 ® CH3 – CH – CH - CH3 (Butene)
Higher molecular weight polymers can be formed by more addition of methane / ethane and obviously for higher chain molecules (C6+) cyclic compounds. The higher the molecular weight / boiling temperature the more likely the hydrocarbon will “rain out” of the atmosphere.
There are also papers describing that electrical discharge ( Lightening in atmosphere) can also polymerize methane to higher molecular weight hydrocarbons.
UV polymerization of methane is also suggested for Titans (Saturn’s moon) atmosphere of methane into ethane and higher molecular weight alkanes
Earth : Average distance from sun 149.6 million km
Saturn : Average distance from sun 1.43 billion km == 9.5 times distance therefore 91 times less UV light per unit area than earth ( R2)
If it can occur on Titan then it could certainly happen on the primordial earth.

7 Oil found under salt domes: Conventional theory says that oil is under salt domes because the salt was deposited through drying of lakes and seas. Fossil life was buried underneath the salt layer ( How? Why not within the salt!) then all is deeply buried. The salt being a weak rock buckled under pressure ( Yes ) forming salt domes. I think that the buckling of the salt causes cracks in the underling rock and so allows abiotic oil to come up from deep below and is trapped beneath impermeable rock / salt layer.
8 Life recycles, generally not buried in the earth. When a plant or animal dies very little is truly buried. Mostly it is re-cycled by insects, micro-organisms, fungus’s, bacteria and Actinolites.
9 How much oil have humans used? Estimates vary, Istvan Lakatos and Julianna Lakatos-Szabo of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences estimate 700 Billion barrels. John Jones in the School of Engineering, at the University of Aberdeen, UK estimate 944 Billion barrels. Today oil consumption estimated at 90 Million barrels per day. Therefore 32.5 Billion barrels per year. Therefore in 29 maximum of years this will be we will double the oil we have used. ( At no growth).
9 Economics of oil What this means is that all the oil companies have to do is to drill deeper into basement rock where there has been folding or cracking underneath so that oil seepage could occur and they are likely to find conventional oil. Although drilling deeper is more expensive it is not prohibitively so and as technology increases going deeper will be more economic. The other important issue is this. As explained above there are massive amounts of unconventional oil. The amount of money spent by oil companies on Research and Development for extracting unconventional oil will almost certainly reduce the extraction and processing costs. Shell recently estimated that it could extract shale oil at $30 a barrel and the present 2012 price is $70-$90 a barrel.
The price of oil today is almost nothing to do with the cost of getting it out of the ground. The reality is that the high price is due to speculation ( World price for oil) and deliberately induced shortages both in crude oil production and refinery production.. I have read that oil could be extracted in shallow wells ( Saudi Arabia) at a profit of $5 a barrel. Even the Canadian tar sands may only require $25 per barrel. Speculation is very finicky. If it is thought there was a over abundance of oil then the “world price” could drop dramatically and conversely a shortage large price increases and we are seeing large fluctuations in price over short periods of time.
The environmental cost are not in the equation for costs. For instance if climate change effects food production or global warming causes the sea level to rise the cost of coastal flooding is not considered.
Green party policy. Therefore to stop using oil must be political. It cannot be economic because technology will keep the price down and present oil speculation is questionable for long term high prices. Green Party policy must be “ Stop drilling for more oil” Even if for instance they were to find a massive oil field in Canada that was “cheep oil” we cannot allow the oil companies to extract it.
We need to take political stand for the future and the environment and ignore the present false economics of oil.
To emphasize this the Green Party should stop calling oil a fossil fuel and name it by its more accurate name of “abiotic fuel”. ( This also includes natural gas.)
The last thing the planet and the human race needs is more oil!
Alan Bergey

[JohnQPublic]

Against Abiotic Oil (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41684/abiotic-oil-vs-the-traditional-theory-of-oil-deposit-formation)

The fact remains that the abiotic theory of petroleum genesis has zero credibility for economically interesting accumulations. 99.9999% of the world's liquid hydrocarbons are produced by maturation of organic matter derived from organisms. To deny this means you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.


The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.
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).
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).
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).
Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).
The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory. 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).
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).
The almost complete absence of significant petroleum occurrences in igneous and metamorphic rocks (the rare exceptions discussed below).
The evidence usually cited in favour of abiogenic petroleum can all be better explained by the biogenic hypothesis e.g.:

Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in igneous rocks (better explained by reaction with organic rich country rocks, with which the pyrobitumens can usually be tied).

Rare traces of cooked pyrobitumens in metamorphic rocks (better explained by metamorphism of residual hydrocarbons in the protolith).
The very rare occurrence of small hydrocarbon accumulations in igneous or metamorphic rocks (in every case these are adjacent to organic rich sedimentary rocks to which the hydrocarbons can be tied via biomarkers).
The presence of undoubted mantle derived gases (such as He and some CO2) in some natural gas (there is no reason why gas accumulations must be all from one source, given that some petroleum fields are of mixed provenance it is inevitable that some mantle gas contamination of biogenic hydrocarbons will occur under some circumstances).
The presence of traces of hydrocarbons in deep wells in crystalline rock (these can be formed by a range of processes, including metamorphic synthesis by the fischer-tropsch reaction, or from residual organic matter as in 10).
Traces of hydrocarbon gases in magma volatiles (in most cases magmas ascend through sedimentary succession, any organic matter present will be thermally cracked and some will be incorporated into the volatile phase, some fischer-tropsch synthesis can also occur).
Traces of hydrocarbon gases at mid ocean ridges (such traces are not surprising given that the upper mantle has been contaminated with biogenic organic matter through several billion years of subduction, the answer to 14 may be applicable also).

The geological evidence is utterly against the abiogenic postulate.
Also

Abiogenic Origin of Hydrocarbons: An Historical Overview by Dr. Geoffrey Lasby (http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf)
Abstract: The two theories of abiogenic formation of hydrocarbons, the Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins and Thomas Gold's deep gas theory, have been considered in some detail. Whilst the Russian-Ukrainian theorywas portrayed as being scientifically rigorous in contrast to the biogenic theory which was thought to be littered with invalid assumptions, this applies only to the formation of the higher hydrocarbons from methane in the upper mantle. In most other aspects, in particular the influence of the oxidation state of the mantle on the abundance of methane, this rigour is lacking especially when judged against modern criteria as opposed to the level of understanding in the 1950s to 1980s when this theory was at its peak.
Thomas Gold's theory involves degassing of methane from the mantle and the formation of higher hydrocarbons from methane in the upper layers of the Earth's crust. However, formation of higher hydrocarbons in the upper layers of the Earth's crust occurs only as a result of Fischer-Tropsch-type reactions in the presence of hydrogen gas but is otherwise not possible on thermodynamic grounds. This theory is therefore invalid. Both theories have been overtaken by the increasingly sophisticated understanding of the modes of formation of hydrocarbon deposits in nature.

[JohnQPublic]

Organic Carbon on MARS is abiotic (http://www.accn.ca/index.php?ci_id=3478&la_id=1)

Earth Chemistry http://www.cheminst.ca/multimedia/site_ACCN/ACCN_PICS/Back_Issues_2012/JulyAugust_2012/ChemNews_EarthChem.jpg
The Tissint meteorite, a 58 gram sample of which is shown here, landed near Tata, Morocco in July of last year and was confirmed as martian in January. A new study shows that it and several other martian meteorites contain organic carbon of non- biological origin.
By Tyler Irving
Posted July 2012
Curiosity, NASA’s latest Mars rover, will begin its search for chemical evidence of past life on the red planet in early August. But according to a new paper in Science, the surface of Mars contains organic carbon generated by non-biological sources, which could make that search even harder.
Very rarely, material ejected from the surface of Mars by cosmic impacts can make its way to Earth in the form of meteorites. Only about 60 martian meteorites are known, eleven of which were part of the study conducted by an international team of experts, including Chris Herd of the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Alberta. Inside the martian minerals, the team found particles of carbon. “What's interesting about this stuff is that it’s not just graphite, it's organic macromolecular carbon,” says Herd. Organic carbon is present in the dust from which the solar system formed, as evidenced by primitive meteorites which can contain anything from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to amino acids. Similar material would have been incorporated into Mars as it formed, stored in its interior, and could later have reached the surface by means of lava flows.
To test this theory, lead author Andrew Steele of the Carnegie Institution of Washington used confocal Raman spectroscopy, which allows for accurate determination of both the form and location of the carbon within a given meteorite’s crystal structure. In every case, the organic carbon particles were found in inclusions within igneous minerals. “The only way it could get there is if it was present in the original magma,” says Herd. “If it had been formed by some kind of biological process, you'd expect to find it associated with rust or material that formed through alteration by water, not with the igneous minerals.” Although the finding doesn’t completely rule out the possibility that Mars once harboured life, it serves as a reminder of just how hard Curiosity will have to work to prove otherwise.

[JohnQPublic]

Michael Rupert (fossil fuels) vs. Jerome Corsi (abiotic) debate with George Noori


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sek5CuFNCek

They discuss Tiger Fields in the South China Sea off Vietnam.
Corsi calims it is known abiotic (no sediment).
Rupert says, well therte is sedimaent around it.

Remember the recent headlines?

South China Sea dispute: China summons US diplomat
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19135427)


"...China lays claim to parts of the sea, overlapping areas claimed by the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Brunei and Malaysia..."

White Tiger oil field: all facts at a glance (http://en.vionto.com/show/me/White+Tiger+oil+field)

The White Tiger oilfield (also Bach Ho) is a major oilfield in the Cuu Long basin of the South China Sea located offshore due east of the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. The field contains major reserves hosted within highly fractured granitic basement rocks.

Where is the Cuu Long basin?

4100


A bigger view (http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/map_of_southeast_asia.htm) (consider Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Brunei and Malaysia)

Interesting. Russia claims abiotic oil. Vietnam claims abiotic oil in the South China Sea (started late 1990s), suddenly China is ready to go to war around oil fields in the South China Sea.











(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19135427)

[gunDriller]

to me this seems like a non-debate debate.

of course oil (long hydrocarbon chains resulting an oozing liquid which can be distilled into a fuel to run your car on) can have sources other than fossil fuel.

the primary question is - how much does it cost to recover from the ground, both in terms of energy (EROEI), and in terms of $$ ?

once the cost of recovery approaches the price it can be sold for, mineral extraction ceases*. there are comparable economics for gold, silver, and other mineral resource extraction.

* of course, mineral extraction can always be re-started. e.g. oil fields that were abandoned when oil was $10 a barrel can become profitable again - both in terms of energy return & dollar return - when oil is $70 a barrel, for example.


of course, there is a lot of money in promoting an optimistic "cornucopian" viewpoint on energy resources. Cambridge Energy Resources charges $ 4 figures for their reports.

heck, i can twist the numbers to give a desired outcome too.


getting back to reality, we still do have a lot of natural gas to extract. there is a good interview with Wilbur Ross about the economics of natural gas transport. Liquefy vs. compress.

http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2012/11/22_Wilbur_L._Ross,_Jr._files/Wilbur%20Ross%2011%3A22%3A2012.mp3


the basic concept of "Peak Oil" is merely that if you do a summation of the production of individual oil fields, you get a bell-shaped curve. i.e., production eventually declines. the curve may not even be bell-shaped.

one of the things oil companies are doing is accelerating the rate of extraction of existing fields. this looks good in the short term, but hastens the moment when the fields exceed their EROEI, and are abandoned.


Bottom line is, when people-kind has burned all the "low-hanging fruit" - oil, natural gas, coal, methane hydrates, etc., we will have burned many hundred cubic miles of hydrocarbon liquids, solids, and gases, creating thousands of cubic miles of gaseous CO2 and also some H20 (basic products of combustion).

the carbon in the carbon dioxide and the hydrogen in the water thus formed will not magically re-combine into a hydro-carbon.

production will eventually decline. production would have already declined, if not for current "augmentation" techniques, which may be likened to getting that last bit of toothpaste out of the tube. deep-water drilling, for example, and water-injection.


there really is no disagreement between the Peak Oil'ers and the Jerome Corsi's of the world. Corsi knows that production will eventually decline, that the Earth will not magically produce oil forever just because people-kind decided to build their entire society around it.

the only question is WHEN, and what the production curves will look like, and what the economic effects will be.

Classic "Peak Oilers" tend to be "doom-oriented", and may have prepared for the Production Peak delineated by retired Princeton Geologist Ken Deffeyes - November/ December 2005 (since modified by enhanced recovery methods, into a production curve which is often called the "Undulating Plateau".)

Personally, I defer to the judgment of geologists such as Deffeyes & the late Matt Simmons, and oil industry economist Robert Hirsch.

[JohnQPublic]

gunDriller- I agree with a lot of your points, but I think there are still some very significant aspects regarding whether oil is "fossil" or "abiotic". From a "peak oil" perspective it may or may not matter in the short term. The implication is that if oil is abiotic, some wells could replenish themselves. Whether in time to help us now is not known.

Also, whether oil is fossil or abiotic also has powerful significance to our worldview. If oil is abiotic, another plank of evolutionary theory is shown false. The idea of an old (ie., billions of years) universe also loses a supporting point. So this goes to the heart of the matter (the truth).

The key thing is not to let others control the debate. I.e., all that matters is peak oil theory, so even if oil is abiotic, it may not replenish fast enough to maintain/increase production..., therefor it does not matter. It does matter. A degree of pragmatism is good in daily life, but in bigger things, letting pragmatism dominate the conversation leads to not exploring bigger truths.

[JohnQPublic]

...
Personally, I defer to the judgment of geologists such as Deffeyes & the late Matt Simmons, and oil industry economist Robert Hirsch.

Deffreyes looks ok (Shell geologist). The oil companies are part of the ruling establishment, so what they has to say is also in question (i.e., BP- "beyond petroleum", 'my ass').

But Hirsch is part of the intelligence network (SAIC and Rand), and Simmons is an investment banker. Unfortunately this means to me to take what they say with a mine of salt.

From Wikipedia

Hirsch:

His previous management positions include:


Senior Energy Program Advisor, SAIC (World oil production)
Senior Energy Analyst, RAND (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND) (Various energy studies)


SAIC, Inc. (formerly Science Applications International Corporation) is an American defense company headquartered in McLean, Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean,_Virginia) that provides scientific, engineering, systems integration, and technical services and solutions. SAIC works extensively with the United States Department of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense), the United States Department of Homeland Security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security), and the United States Intelligence Community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community), including the National Security Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency), as well as other U.S. government civil agencies and selected commercial markets.

Since the 1950s, the RAND has been instrumental in defining U.S. military strategy.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] Their most visible contribution is the doctrine of nuclear deterrence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_deterrence) by Mutually Assured Destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_Assured_Destruction) (MAD), developed under the guidance of then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara) and based upon their work with game theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory).[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND#cite_note-14) Chief strategist Herman Kahn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Kahn) also posited the idea of a "winnable" nuclear exchange in his 1960 book On Thermonuclear War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Thermonuclear_War). This led to Kahn being one of the models for the titular character of the film Dr. Strangelove (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove_or:_How_I_Learned_to_Stop_Worrying _and_Love_the_Bomb).[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND#cite_note-15)[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND#cite_note-16)

Matthew Roy Simmons (April 7, 1943[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Simmons#cite_note-4) – August 8, 2010) was founder and chairman emeritus of Simmons & Company International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simmons_%26_Company_International), and was a prominent figure in the field of peak oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil). Simmons was motivated by the 1973 energy crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_energy_crisis) to create an investment banking firm catering to oil companies. In his previous capacity, he served as energy adviser to U.S. President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush). He was, up until his death, a member of the National Petroleum Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Petroleum_Council) and the Council on Foreign Relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations).



As much as I would like to think otherwise, I have to question what "official" sources have to say about energy.

[gunDriller]

But Hirsch is part of the intelligence network (SAIC and Rand), and Simmons is an investment banker. Unfortunately this means to me to take what they say with a mine of salt.


depends on the subject.

http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2008-1213-2.mp3

that's a link to a panel discussion with Simmons & Hirsch in 2008. one of the best webcasts on the subject of energy i've ever heard.

not unlike listening to some crazed baseball fan talk about the 1966 (or whoever, whenever) Yankees or Mets. Simmons' recall of production numbers & oil field histories is superb.


in terms of Independence of Thought, i wouldn't trust Hirsch on a subject like 9-11.

but a young guy like Zion Crime Factory, who has done some great work on 9-11, knows little about energy history & technology.

Simmons, although he managed an investment bank with $60 Billion in assets, showed some true independence the last 10 years of his life.

[Uncle Salty]

No way oil is a fossil fuel. If you added up all the oil that has been used and then figure out how many dinosaurs, trees, and shrubs would have to have been alive to then be morphed into oil, it just does not add up.

Fossil fuel, the holocaust, diamonds are rare, etc... Who benefits??

[singular_me]

the peak oil whether true or not is IRRELEVANT as we have all the means to dump oil by now... fusion, electromagnetism, solar, etc... its all about control and alternative energies go along with much less or no dependency.

[JohnQPublic]

the peak oil whether true or not is IRRELEVANT as we have all the means to dump oil by now... fusion, electromagnetism, solar, etc... its all about control and alternative energies go along with much less or no dependency.

Not quickly enough to avoid a complete breakdown. Fusion is still a ways off. Solar is coming, but no one is making anywhere near enough solar panels to do the job yet. Nuclear is still a possibility (preferably thorium if it is what is claimed). There is a lot of work still needed to get alternatives up and running on a system wide basis (even at a local level at a high enough capacity).

[gunDriller]

the peak oil whether true or not is IRRELEVANT as we have all the means to dump oil by now... fusion, electromagnetism, solar, etc... its all about control and alternative energies go along with much less or no dependency.

we have the ability to master any one of those technologies - and the resources to build your own power sources, with the exception of fusion.

if these alternatives will bring you freedom - what's to stop you, or any one of us ?


fusion requires a lot of infrastructure and so far is only useful if you have a humongous lab, where it has not paid for itself even in terms of energy output.


as for the others - to master them takes a LOT of work. to implement it at the small scale level, it helps to have access to a machine shop.

when we tell ourselves we have to use "their" energy, we cede control.


of course, there are many, many ways to hurt yourself along the way. e.g. if you make your own lead-acid batteries. it's not hard to make lead sheet, and lead is cheap, as is the dilute sulfuric acid required. it's just those damn lead FUMES which are dangerous as hell.

[JohnQPublic]

India Sets Off For Naval Showdown With China (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-03/india-sets-naval-showdown-china)


"As if global geopolitics were not tempestuous enough, it seems China's increased military presence near Indian state-run explorer Oil and Natural Gas Corp's (ONGC) Nam Con Son basin operations near Vietnam are sparking India's navy into action. India's Navy Chief Joshi according to Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/03/us-china-sea-india-idUSBRE8B20KY20121203), said it was prepared to act, if necessary, to protect its maritime and economic interests in the region..."

http://thehanoist.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/vietnam-offshore-blocks.jpg



(http://thehanoist.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/great-game-in-the-south-china-sea/)Great game in the South China Sea (http://thehanoist.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/great-game-in-the-south-china-sea/)
By The Hanoist