A theory Russian dating back fifty years on the abiotic and not fossil oil and gas is challenging traditional education. U.S. theories on the origin of natural resources would be an unscientific absurdity that remains to this day, unprovable. Such research and expertise if they are proven and applicable upset the world economy and change the relations of domination in the future.
The good news is that catastrophic scenarios wishing that humanity is on the verge of running out of oil is incorrect. The bad news is that oil prices will continue to increase. Peak oil is our problem. Policy is. The major oil companies want to keep oil prices high. Dick Cheney and his friends are just as willing to help.
On a personal basis, I have been researching oil issues since the first oil shocks of the '70s. In 2003, I was intrigued by something called Peak Oil Theory. This theory seemed to explain the otherwise inexplicable decision by Washington to risk all in a military aggression against Iraq.
advocates of the theory of peak oil, led by former geologist Colin Campbell of British Petroleum and Texas banker Matt Simmons, argued that the world faces a new crisis is the end of the era of cheap oil or Peak Oil World perhaps by 2012 or perhaps even in 2007 . Oil reserves are supposedly their last drops. They highlighted the soaring prices of gasoline and oil as well as the decline of production in the North Sea, Alaska and other oil fields, to prove they were right.
According to Campbell (note 1), the fact that no new deposits of comparable size to those of the North Sea has been discovered since the discovery such deposits in the North Sea in the late 60s, is proof. According to some reports, he even managed to convince the International Energy Agency and the Swedish government. However, this does not prove he is right. Fossils
intellectuals?
The Peak Oil school rests his theory on conventional Western geology textbooks, most written by geologists Americans or British, who say that oil is a "fossil fuel", a residue or biological detritus fossilized remains of dinosaurs, or perhaps algae, meaning thereby a product whose supply will end. The biological origin is central to the theory of peak oil which is used to explain why oil is only found in parts of the world where it was geologically trapped there for millions of years. This would mean for example that the remains of dead dinosaurs began to be compressed and that during a period 10 million years, they would be fossilized and trapped in underground reservoirs of perhaps 4000 to 6000 feet (1 to 2 km) beneath the surface of the earth. In rare cases, so goes the theory, huge amounts Organic matter should have been trapped in rock formations located in the shallow ocean as in the Gulf of Mexico, the North Sea or the Gulf of Guinea. Geology should only try to understand where these pockets in geological layers, called reservoirs, lie within specific sedimentary basins.
A completely different theory on the formation of oil appeared in Russia in the early 50s and it remains virtually unknown in the West. It asserts that the conventional wisdom on U.S. biological origins is absurd unscientific remains unprovable. They indicate that western geologists have repeatedly referred to the end of oil during the last century, waiting to find more, more.
This explanation of the origins of oil and gas is not only in theory. The emergence of Russia and prior of the USSR as the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas is based on the application of theory in practice. This has geopolitical consequences of any size.
Necessity is the mother of invention
In the '50s, under the veil of 'Iron Curtain' Union Soviet faced isolation from the West. The Cold War was in full swing. Russia had little oil to fuel its economy. Finding enough oil on its own territory was a national security priority from the highest authorities.
Scientists at the Institute of Earth Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences as well as those of the Institute of Geological Sciences of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences began to investigate fundamental to the late 40: Where does the oil?
In 1956, Professor Vladimir Porfir'yev presented their findings "Crude oil and natural gas have no intrinsic relationship with the biological material near the surface of the earth. They are primitive materials that have sprung from the depths. "The Soviet geologists had just turned Western orthodox geology on its head. They named their theory on the origins of oil, the theory of "abiotic" that is to say non-organic, to differentiate it from the Western theory of biological origins.
If they were right, the oil reserves on earth would be limited only by the amount of hydrocarbon constituents present in the bowels Earth at its formation. The availability of oil would depend only on technology to drill ultra-deep wells and explore into the interior regions of the earth. They also realized old fields could be restored and could continue to produce in the way deposits are filled again by themselves. They argue that oil is formed deep in the earth, under conditions of high temperature and under very high pressures comparable to those required for diamond formation. "Oil is a primordial material of abyssal origin which is transported under high pressure through eruptions "cold" in the crust, "said Porfir'yev. His team dismissed the idea that oil is biological residue of plant and animal fossils and sees it as a hoax designed to perpetuate the myth of limited supply.
Defying conventional geology
The Russian and Ukrainian scientific approach radically different from the origins of oil allowed the USSR to make discoveries of huge gas and oil in areas previously considered unsuitable for the presence of oil according to Western geological exploration theories. The new theory on oil has been used in the early 90s, well after the dissolution of the USSR, to drill oil and gas in a region held for more than forty-five years to be geologically barren pond, the Dnieper-Donets basin, located between Russia and Ukraine. According to their theory
abiotic (non-fossil) of abyssal origin of petroleum, petroleum geophysicists and chemists in Russia and Ukraine have begun a detailed analysis of the tectonic history and geological structure of the crystalline basement of the Dnieper-Donets Basin . After analysis and tectonic analysis of the deep structure of the sector, they made geophysical and geochemical investigations.
A total of sixty one wells were drilled, of which thirty seven were commercially productive, representing a rate extremely impressive exploration success by nearly 60%. The size of the open field is comparable to the North Slope in Alaska. However, drilling wild U.S. was considered a success with a success rate of 10%. Nine of ten wells are virtually "dry holes. "
Russian geophysical expertise to find oil and gas was tightly wrapped in the traditional Soviet veil of state security during the Cold War era and has remained largely unknown to Western geophysicists, who continued to teach fossil origins and, therefore, the severe physical limits of oil. Slowly she begins to rise among some strategists in and around the Pentagon well after the war against Iraq in 2003, to the effect that the Russian geophysicists might be "something" of major strategic importance.
If Russia had the scientific know-how and the western geological environments do not possess, Russia would have in hand a strategic asset with major geopolitical consequences. There would be no surprise that Washington wants to erect a "wall of steel" with a network of military bases and missile shields around Russia, to cut its ties and its port for feeding the pipeline 'Western Europe, China and the rest of Eurasia. The worst nightmare of Halford Mackinder, in other words the development of cooperation due to the convergence of mutual interests of the major states of Eurasia, supported by the need and need for oil to maintain economic growth, would come true. Ironically, it was this [pattern] disregard for the U.S. to capture the vast wealth of oil from Iraq and possibly Iran, which catalyzes the closer cooperation between traditional Eurasian foes and China and Russia, which catalyzes a greater awareness on the part of Western Europe that their options are dwindling.
Marion King Hubbert, King of the theory of peak oil
The peak oil theory has its roots in a paper published in 1956 by the late Marion King Hubbert, a geologist working for the Texas company Shell. He said that production of oil wells is similar to the curve of a bell and once the "peak" is reached following the inevitable decline. He predicted that oil production in the United States would peak in 1970. In modest man, he named the production curve he invented, Hubbert's curve, and its peak, the Hubbert Peak. When the yield of oil extraction in the United States began to decline around 1970 Hubbert gained a certain fame.
The only problem is that the peak does not depend on depletion of the resource in the oil fields of the United States. There was a "Peak" because Shell, Mobil, Texaco and the other partners of Saudi Aramco were flooding the U.S. market with imports from the Middle East very cheap, exempt from tariffs, at prices so low that many producers U.S. soil from California and Texas could no longer compete and were forced to close their wells.
The success of Vietnam
While the U.S. oil multinationals were busy controlling the easily accessible large fields of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and other areas of cheap oil and abundant over the years 60, the Russians were busy testing their theory abiotic (non-fossil). They began drilling in a region of Siberia considered sterile. There, they developed eleven major oil fields and one Giant field based on their assessments abyssal geological and "abiotic". They drilled into crystalline rock of the basement and found the black gold at a scale comparable to the North Slope in Alaska.
They subsequently in Vietnam in the 80s and they have offered to finance drilling costs to show that their new geological theory worked. Oil field in Vietnam's White Tiger drilled at sea by the Russian company Petrosov in the basalt rock at about 17,000 feet deep (about 5 km below ground) allows the extraction of 6,000 barrels of oil per day to supply energy hungry economy of Vietnam. In the USSR, the Russian abiotic geological experts have honed their knowledge and the USSR became the largest oil producer in the world in the mid 80s. Few in the West understood why, or have bothered to ask.
Dr. JF Kenney is one of the few Western geophysicists to have taught and have worked in Russia, studying Vladilen Krayushkin under, the same one who developed the huge Dnieper-Donets Basin. Kenney said in a recent interview that "having produced the amount of oil that the only Ghawar (Saudi Arabia) has produced to date, would have required a cube of fossilized dinosaur detritus, in Assuming a conversion efficiency of 100%, measuring 19 miles deep, width and height. (Approximately 30 km in height and width depth) "In short, an absurdity.
Western geologists do not bother to present scientific proof of fossil origins. They simply assert as a holy truth. The Russians have produced volumes of scientific papers, most in Russian. The dominant Western journals have no interest in publishing such a revolutionary vision. Career and Academic Professionals whole are at stake after all
Close the door
The 2003 arrest of Russian Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the oil company Yukos Oil, took place just before he could sell a major part Yukos Oil to ExxonMobil after a private meeting that Khodorkovsky had with Dick Cheney. By obtaining this interest in Yukos Oil, Exxon would have had control of the largest set of resources in the world geologists and engineers trained in the techniques abiotic deep drilling.
Since 2003, the number of Russian scientists who shared their knowledge has markedly decreased. Offerings in the early 90s to share their knowledge with U.S. and other oil geophysicists were coldly rejected by geophysicists Americans involved.
So why a high-risk war to control Iraq? For a century now that the big oil companies and their U.S. allies in Western countries control the world oil via control of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Nigeria. Today, seeing the giant oil fields dry up, companies see the oil fields controlled by the governments of Iraq and Iran as the largest reserves of cheap oil and easy to [drill] that survives to this day. With the huge demand for oil from China and now India, it becomes a geopolitical imperative for the United States to take direct military control of these reserves in the Middle East as quickly as possible. Vice President Dick Cheney arrived in his current position through Halliburton Corporation, the largest company worldwide geophysical services in the oil sector. The only potential threat to this control of oil by the United States happens to lie inside Russia and with the giant Russian companies now controlled by the state. Hum! According
Kenney the Russian geophysicists used the theories of the brilliant German scientist Alfred Wegener at least 30 years before the Western geologists have "discovered" Wegener in the 60s. In 1915 Wegener published the theory novel, "The genesis of Continents and Oceans", which suggests that there are more 200 million years, there was a single super-continent "Pangaea" and has been separated in the present form of the continents by what he called "Continental drift. "Until the
60, the alleged U.S. scientists such as Dr Frank Press, then scientific advisor to the White House, referred to Wegener as" crazy. "Geologists in the late 60s were forced to swallow their words as Wegener offered the only explanation that allowed them to discover the vast oil resources in the North Sea. Maybe in a few decades, the Western geologists will rethink their mythology of fossil origins and realize what the Russians have known for 50 years. Meanwhile, Moscow has a major energy asset.
F. William Engdahl - diatala.org
Note:
So, the theory of abiotic oil, what is it?
is the theory that oil was not formed from trees, other plants and animals suddenly buried in sediment, but was formed from the carbon in the Earth's mantle, between 100 and 300 km.
is a theory which was built mainly by Russian scientists, from the 50s. Russia was and is still the official theory.
What are the implications of this theory?
Already, it means that, insofar as there are massive amounts of carbon in the Earth's mantle, there is a lot more oil than what we hear. Probably, for tens of thousands of years, if not hundreds of thousands of years.
It also means that there are many more places now. And in almost all possible fields (not just sedimentary). In short, there are almost everywhere on earth.
And it also means that the deposits are replenished over time. This is what we found on some fields whose production had declined, which then began to increase.
What makes the abiotic theory convincingly
1) was found oil where according to official theory we would not find
2) was found oil at depths where there should not be Oil
3) oil wells produce more again while production fell
4) The fact that the production biotic or violate the second law of thermodynamics
5) Other factors making the biotic theory unconvincing.
first argument of the abiotic oil
The fact that we found oil on terrain where we could not find any.
According to official theory, oil has been created from the Carboniferous forests. Repeatedly, sediment covered the same place. And each time a bit before being rejected in turn covered by a layer of sediment. So to find oil, we must look at sedimentary rocks. Can not find oil in land with a rock crystal, since the phenomenon of recovery could not be done.
Only problem is that precisely, we found oil in crystalline rock terrain. So, it confirms the theory of abiotic oil and invalid the official theory.
is the case in Russia. In the sector of the Caspian Sea, there are more than 80 fields of oil and gas producing from crystalline rocks. In western Siberia, on 90 fields, there are 80 producing partly or completely from the crystalline rock. Same in the northern flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin, where 11 major fields and 1 giant fields produce from a core of crystalline rocks.
argument supporters of oil biotic response to these facts is that the oil would have migrated to areas sedimentary rock crystal as a result of landslides and through faults in crystalline rock (which otherwise is waterproof).
The problem is that normally, the oil is going to where there's less pressure. And there, on the contrary, he would have gone to places where there is more pressure. Moreover, the crystalline regions in question are sometimes removed from more than 20 km from the sediment.
second argument abiotic oil
was found oil at depths where there would not have to have oil.
Supporters of the official theory (in the West) oil, since oil is made from plants suddenly buried under a layer of sediment (the Carboniferous), inevitably, the oil can not be found at depths gigantic. There has never been decreed maximum depth (which shows that the construction of this theory is fairly mild). But a priori, it should not exceed 2 or 3 km. The supporters
the theory of abiotic oil, of course, disagreed. As oil comes from the depths of the earth, we must find great depth, far greater than what would have supposed supporters of biotic oil.
And indeed, again, the proponents of abiotic oil people have been right. It has found oil at depths of more than 5 km. Much too deep to come from forests of the Carboniferous.
3rd argument
abiotic petroleum oil wells produce over again while their production declined.
If the proponents of oil abiotic are right, then the deposits can be refilled from below (thanks to oil that comes from the depths). While with the biotic oil theory, phenomena of this kind should not occur. They may eventually be refilled, but the sides, not from below.
But again, experience sembe give reason for supporters of abiotic oil. There are fields that are filled from below. It
notament the case for deposit offshore of Eugene Island 330 in the Gulf of Mexico (in the U.S. zone, about 150 km from the coast of Louisiana). In the early 70s, the field produced 15,000 barrels in day. In 1989, production had declined to 4,000 barrels per day. And suddenly, production fell to 13,000 barrels per day. As a result, estimates of reserves of the deposit from 60 million barrels to 400 million. Finally, it seems that the age of oil pumped from the increase in production is different from that pumped before.
Obviously, the case of Eugene Island is unique in its scope. This allowed to clearly see that there was filling. Maybe other fields are filled, but as they are slower, it does not realize the filling.
The problem with the classical theory is that the fields could be filled only on the sides. Only if a field is operated over a wide area, it meant that there is another side to fields which has not been exploited. And over the fields, the wider the probability of filling the sides is low. Moreover, if it is filled by the sides, so we should drill on the sides to see if there is a new field.
However, in my opinion should be careful about what happened to Eugene Island. Indeed, it is quite possible (I talk more later) that Americans are cheating on their actual production capacity. So it is possible that what happened to Eugene Island had little to do with an unexpected increase in production. However, the side pretty sudden thing suggests that this is not a desired increase in production.
fourth argument of abiotic oil
is one of the strongest arguments. But also one of the techniques. According
abiotic oil theorists specializing in chemistry, oil can not come from plants that would be converted into oil because it would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Conditions of pressure and temperature present there or is supposed oil have formed the theory that short in the West (between 500 m and about 4 km below the earth's surface), the plants simply can not be transformed spontaneously into oil. The best they can do is turn into methane. But they can not turn into heavier hydrocarbons. It is well known physicists, chemists, chemical engineers, mechanical engineers and thermodynamics since the late 19th century.
Obviously, that argument alone invalidates any biotic oil theory.
View gasresources site for details: http://www.gasresources.net/
Other arguments: the coal is abiotic
The fact that coal is abiotic obviously considerably strengthen the idea that oil is too. If coal is abiotic, then the oil is likely to be.
According the official theory, coal was formed from the slow transformation of conifers from the Carboniferous and Palaeogene. These conifers were suddenly buried under a layer of sediment. Then, on the other conifers grown on this layer of sediments themselves before being buried under another layer of sediment. Etc. ... However, there are many things that go wrong with the official theory of the formation of coal.
If the coal was formed from the tall conifers Carboniferous (ca. -300 000 000 years), but also trees Paleogene (ca. -60 million years) (very strangely, there would be no training coal between say 250 million years and -60 million years, according to current theories), there should be tons of fossil reptiles, amphibians, insects, dinosaurs in the bottom of mines. Coal mines should be real El Dorado for the Paleontologists. Conifers are
the main source of amber, it should also be of amber in huge quantities. It should be hundreds of years that seek amber priority at these locations.
And then, as the transformation process in coal is close to the process of fossilization, trees and ferns should have kept their shape in the mines. There should be full of coal as a tree, or with lots of inclusions in the shape of ferns. So, ditto, paleontologists should look for specifically in the mines to find plant species of Carboniferous and Palaeogene.
But no, nothing like that. Found few fossils, but rarely so hard, and mostly near the surface. So the coal mines are not at all a paradise for paleontologists. Similarly, until further notice, the mines are not known to contain enormous quantities of amber (or even much at all). And coal has not kept the shapes of trees and ferns. Biotic theory of coal does not really stick with these facts. Coal is clearly abiotic.
Thomas Gold, who, although plagiarist Russians (who are the true founders of the theory of abiotic oil) appears, this time, having spawned an idea original (two actually), would have as a theory that 1) the coal oil would (obviously abiotic) that would have turned into coal in short time, 2) that the fossils to be found in coal are therefore in fact animals or objects that have poured in to flush old oil slicks on the surface.
That would explain quite well what we observe. Very low presence of fossils in the coal mines, but still present. Presence of fossils in shallow water. No amber. No conservation of the shape of trees and ferns. Another argument
abiotic oil: coal abiotic
2 Another factor going against the idea that coal is of biotic origin.
In the woods, there is very little sulfur. In charcoal, in which elements are more concentrated, there is in the 0.03% sulfur. So there must be even less in the wood (which contains much more water).
But in the lignite, there are between 2 and 5% sulfur, either in the 100 times more sulfur than coal. Where does all that if sulfur lignite was formed from wood that contains less than 0.03%?
By cons, oil, it contains between 0.5 and 2% sulfur (the rate of 0.5% is far from being the majority of oil). So if the coal was formed from oil, sulfur levels between 2 and 5% is explained much better.
Where does the theory of abiotic oil?
In fact very soon, scientists have questioned the biological origin of petroleum.
Whoever made the first assumption that oil came from the decomposition of plants and animals was a Russian scientist who lived in the 18th century. Is that in 1757 Mikhailo V. Lomonosov hypothesized that oil was formed from organic detritus.
But soon others were rejected this hypothesis. The first to do so were the French chemist Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac and the German naturalist and geologist Alexander von Humboldt in early 19th century. Both have suggested that oil has nothing to do with biological matter decomposes near the surface of the earth but it is an abiotic substance coming from the deep.
Then came the French chemist Marcellin Berthelot, who, in turn, has challenged the hypothesis of biotic oil. This led to experiments in 1859 led to believe that the generation of oil has nothing to do with a biological process. He produced the sequence of n-alkanes and showed clearly that these were generated in total absence of any molecule or biological processes. Berthelot's research were later continued and refined by other scientists as Biasson and Sokolov. All have found similar phenomena and concluded the same way that oil had nothing to do with biological material.
During the last quarter of the 19th century, the Russian chemist Dimitri Mendeleev also examined and rejected Lomonosov's hypothesis. In contrast to Berthelot who had made no suggestions about where did the oil and how he had been trained, Mendeleev stated clearly that petroleum is a primordial material coming from the depths. He also issued the hypothesis of the existence of deep faults allowing the oil to travel from the depths to the surface.
But it was shortly after the end of the Second World War, Russia, the science of abiotic oil has grown. The Russian government at the time had come to realize that oil was a fundamental resource. In 1947, Russia had very limited oil reserves. Its resources were the most important fields located near the town of Baku, in the Peninsula region of Abseron (now in Azerbaijan). At that time, the fields near Baku were considered to be in depletion and near exhaustion. In 1947, after being forced to withdraw from the northern regions of Iran, the Soviet Union realized that the Americans, French and English did not authorize them to operate in the Middle East, or Africa, or Indonesia or Burma or Malaysia or Asia, nor in Latin America. In short, anywhere. The Soviet government was therefore obliged to find reserves on its own soil.
So, he initiated a program such as "Project Manthattan" in which the highest priority was given to the study of all aspects of oil: its origin, how reserves are generated, and of course, the best strategies for oil exploration. Receiving at the time of an excellent education system built from the 1917 revolution, the USSR could develop a science of oil in 5 years.
In 1951, the first theory Russo / Ukrainian abiotic origin of oil was set by Nikolai A. Kudryavtsev the conference of all unions on the geology of oil. There analyzed the hypothesis of biotic oil and showed defects. He was quickly joined by many other Russian and Ukrainian geologists, among whom were PN Kropotkin early, KA Shakhvarstova, GN Dolenko, Linetskii VF, VB Porfir'yev, and KA Anikiev.
During the first ten years of its existence, the modern theory of abiotic oil was subject to much discussion and controversy. Between 1951 and 1965, thanks to the leadership of Kudryavtsev and Porfir'yev, a growing number of geologists published articles demonstrating the flaws and inconsistencies inherent in the old hypothesis of biotic oil. At the end of this decade, the inconsistency of the biotic theory had been completely demonstrated, the hypothesis of Lomonosov discredited and the new theory firmly established.
So, the theory of abiotic oil is not the result of a few strange, but many scientists established and recognized. Rather, the theory of biotic oil which it has never been seriously tested.
Reserves: Oil for 100,000 years?
How much do you estimate the amount of recoverable oil?
Obviously, it is impossible to make precise estimates, since we do not know the exact proportion of carbon in the mantle and we do not know the exact percentage of oil we could recover the mantle. We are reduced to conjecture.
What is certain is that there are at least 10 very large times more recoverable oil than we think (the reserves are officially estimated at about 150 billion tons. So about 50 years consumption This annual 3 billion tons). So we must have oil for at least 400 or 500 years. And probably as much gas. Already
to estimate the amount of oil present in the mantle, can be based on the amount of carbon that contains it. The land is 6000 billion billion tonnes. If carbon is only between 1% and 5% of this mass, it's been between 60 and 300 billion billion tons of carbon. If 10% of this carbon is present in the mantle in the form of hydrocarbon, it is between 6 and 30 billion billion tons of hydrocarbons (gas, but probably mainly oil). If you can not recover if only 10% of these hydrocarbons, it would make between 600 million and 3 billion billion billion tons of recoverable oil. In short, we have oil to between 200 million years and 1 billion years. If it is 1% of recoverable, it killed between 20 million and 100 million years. If carbon is only 0.3% of the mass of the earth, like the sun, then we would have 6 million years of consumption.
can also be estimated from the amount of coal estimated officially. Offcial estimated coal reserves of 10,000 billion tons (including 9,000 non-recoverable, but it is not important here).
Already, if coal is abiotic, one might think there are easily 10 times more than official estimates (not necessarily recoverable) or 100,000 billion tons.
Because coal is a trace of oil that would come close to the surface, it is clear that much more oil than coal. So no one can estimate how much oil problem in the mantle least 1000 times more, so 100 million billion tons. In short, there is in the mantle at least 600,000 times more oil than the official estimate. If we can recover at least 10%, it's been 3 million years of consumption at current rates. If it is 1% of recoverable, it is 300 thousand years of consumption.
short, this is not tomorrow that oil missed, but in hundreds, thousands or tens or hundreds of thousands of years, even millions of years. From
oil everywhere?
Besides the fact that reservations can feed ourselves without oil problem for thousands of years, the fact that oil is abiotic implies that we can extract oil from everywhere on earth. In addition, of course, oil is not limited to sedimentary areas.
It seems that oil from depths more easily extractable seismic fault zones. Indeed, the presence of one or more faults allows the oil to go up along them. But it seems that even without fault, we can extract oil (see some deposit in Russia).
Moreover, the number of countries producing oil is very much in line with the theory that there is oil everywhere. The number of oil producing countries is actually quite high and spread over the entire planet. In America, the USA are producing, Canada too, Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador, Argentina. Africa: Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Nigeria, Angola. Middle East: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Syria, Kazakhstan, Oman, Qatar. In Asia, China product, as Vietnam, Indonesia, India, Malaysia, Taiwan. Australia produces. And Europe: England, Norway, Ukraine and Russia. Besides the countries that produce it but in small amounts (France, Germany, Italy, etc. ...).
According to the theory of abiotic oil, certainly there are oil reserves in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., for thousands of years of consumption. Same for other countries that have no production or production minimal.
Similarly, large countries that produce oil reserves and certainly opportunities production well above those that they display.
Oil companies know the oil abiotic
It is obvious that oil companies are well aware that the theory of abiotic oil is true, there are great quantities of oil under our feet, and there will be no supply crisis for thousands of years or more. A number of politicians from rich countries know it. They lie so knowingly
for over 100 years old when they say that oil comes from the decomposition of plants and that there is a very limited amount.
Why? Well, obviously because oil can have money and power. A tremendous amount of money and power.
wealth of oil companies is based on a relative scarcity of the product and a very large part of their profit and based on international trade of it.
On the relative scarcity of product, it is obvious that if tomorrow, all over the world were capable of producing oil, it would be worth nothing. Its selling price would drop nearly at its cost of extraction. Margins, which are currently the most enormous does exceed 20 or 30%, or even less, if the states are mixed to control prices. Profits become so ridiculous. There would be such a competition it would be impossible to have high prices. And this would be true to say the least for thousands of years. So no hope of a rise in prices.
oil companies are also living in international trade, therefore, the fact that there are countries producing / exporting countries on one side and the other buyers. It is, for them, there is a limited number of exporting countries could make a profit on the sale easier. Because, on a national market self-sufficient, the government may decide to limit the price of a barrel. While with the market Internationally, these are companies that can scheming to maximize their profit and to vary prices according to their convenience.
could even specify: it is necessary for them, preferably, there are only a few producing countries militarily weak and with limited technical skills. Thus, large companies may require producing countries to go through them: on the one hand because of their technical skills, and secondly because a militarily powerful country may force their hand to choose its oil companies, under penalty otherwise have problems. And suddenly, the consuming countries, too, are forced to go through these few companies, which are therefore a huge turnover. Being beyond the reach of state buyers, it may agree to manipulate prices to make huge profits. And consumer states may also be threatened embargo by countries that control these companies, or in any case, they may be at risk of having supply problems. So they are forced to spin cloth.
But if, suddenly, all countries of the world or almost produce their own oil, it's the end of this trade. No more manipulation of the market and huge profits, the finite control of prices by multinational companies. This will now state that can control the price. And finally also the threat of an embargo or supply problems.
Moreover, if tomorrow, the main consumer countries are also becoming producing countries, to the extent that countries are generally high technical level, they will possess the technical skills to exploit their own oil. Then they could well decide to dispense with the major oil companies, and mount a national company. This would, in addition to a substantial reduction in market shares of major oil companies, the emergence new competitors. And, the new producing countries which would not have as good technically much more free rein to create competition between oil companies. A country like Ethiopia could create competition possible Deutsch petroleum, petroleum or China, or an Italian petroleum in terms of their transparency, price, etc. ... Anyway, anyway, these markets (in poor countries) are and will remain niche markets, given that being poor, they consume, and therefore produce little.
Yes, if tomorrow, people came to learn that oil is found in huge quantities anywhere on earth, and economic consequences were drawn, this would be death of trade and power of oil companies.
So obviously it is out of question for the oil companies, let the world know that there are massive amounts of oil everywhere. So obviously it will make a total blackout on the theory of abiotic oil.
Regarding governments aware, it is often the governments of countries whose companies are masters of the market. It is obvious that control the production and the oil market (hence its supply) can control many countries and gain considerable power.
0 comments:
Post a Comment