Blogalwarning

The truth that was swept under the rug

Gas Price Roll

By Bigblock57, Blogalwarning blog

Best Price in My Area (Portland Metro, OR) for “regular”.

11/08 When Obama was elected       $1.75.

3/14/09                                                   $1.99

Advertisements

March 15, 2009 Posted by | Gas (and Energy) Price | , , , , , | Leave a comment

An article by Michale Asher: How Oil Drilling Reduces Pollution! The City of Santa Barbara Got It Right!

 

Michael Asher (Blog) – August 29, 2008 11:05 AM (Dail Tech, http://www.dailytech.com)

====================================================

California environmental group advocates drilling to reduce oil pollution on local beaches

In 1969, a Union Oil rig off the coast of Santa Barbara experienced a blowout. Pipes burst, and oil spilled into the sea — as much as 100,000 barrels worth. The resultant oil slick so horrified local residents that Earth Day was born.  Soon thereafter, the first of a series of laws banning offshore drilling was enacted.

The chance of another spill, locals reasoned, just wasn’t worth drilling. And despite four decades of progress in eliminating such accidents, the ban has stood. Yet, local beaches still see oil slicks and its resultant damage. Where’s the oil coming from?

Seeps.

A seep occurs when oil escapes naturally from the ground, due to pressure in the underground reservoir.  Off the California coast, seeps release an incredibly large amount of oil. In fact, since the 1969 accident, the amount of such seepage in the Santa Barbara Channel alone has been over 30 times as large as the amount from the spill itself.  

We can’t stop such seeps, but we can reduce them. How? By drilling.

Earlier this year, University of California geophysics professor Bruce Luyendyk spoke to a citizens’ town hall forum at Santa Barbara. He told citizens that the oil mucking up Santa Barbara beaches was due to seeps, not spills. According to Luyendyk, the amount of oil escaping naturally from just one set of seeps in the Santa Barbara channel is equal to about 42 thousand gallons a day — equal to an Exxon Valdez-size oil spill every 5 or 6 years.

Oil isn’t the only thing seeping either. About 3 million cubic feet of natural gas escape each day from the ocean floor off the California Coast. By comparison, your average home uses between 200 and 300 cubic feet per day.

This is oil and gas we could be capturing and using. Instead, it’s going to waste and polluting beaches in the process.

The sheer size of the seepage has led to the formation of a new environmental group, called SOS California — which stands for Stop Oil Seeps. The group wants to lift the offshore drilling ban not to generate oil, but to reduce oil pollution from seepage. They point to university studies which demonstrate that extracting oil through drilling reduces reservoir pressure. That, in turn, reduces seepage. SOS advocates lifting the drilling ban for just that reason — to reduce oil pollution on local beaches.

The Outer Continental Shelf is rich in oil. According to the US DOE, areas now off limits to drilling hold around 18 billion barrels. Other estimates are higher. Alaska’s ANWR holds an additional 10 billion barrels. Together, that’s enough to cut our foreign oil imports by 20% for the next 32 years, and generate $3.5 trillion in revenue. That’s trillion, with a “T”.

Polls show overwhelming support among Americans to lift the drilling ban. But is Washington listening? At the Democratic convention this week in Denver, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stopped to tell a group protesting the drilling ban, “can we drill your heads”? At the national level, the message doesn’t seem to be getting through.

The Santa Barbara City Council recently voted to lift their local ban on drilling, a largely symbolic act since state and federal laws still prohibit it.   It’s a start.


March 7, 2009 Posted by | Energy | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fossil oil? Peak oil?

By Bigblock57, Blogalwarning blog.

The truth about “Peak Oil” (Is oil “Fossil Oil”?)
Before discussing the question “are we really running out of oil?” it is essential to discuss the term “Fossil Oil”.
Fossil oil means that the source of the oil we pump out of the ground is fossils. The theory is that dead ancient dinosaurs and plants covered by layers of dirt accumulated over thousands of years transformed to oil. Evidence that supports that theory is the fact that ancient fossils are found in oil. However, no one had ever demonstrated in a scientific experiment transformation of dead animal or plant to oil.
It is very important to know if fossils really are the source of oil in the ground. If they are, then yes, we are running out of oil. There was finite amount of bio-mass from dinosaurs and plants on earth in the era considered to be the source of oil. Thus, there is finite amount of oil in the ground and sooner or later we are going to run out of it.
However, there is another theory about what the source of oil is. It is the “Abiotic” theory. “Abiotic” means that the source of oil is not biological material. While it is not being mentioned in media headlines in the west, the Russian oil industry is laughing all the way to the bank at the “Fossil Oil” theory. If relied on “Fossil Oil” theory, Russia would have hardly had any oil industry at all. The Russian oil industry pioneered the “Abiotic” theory which enabled (not only) the Russians to find oil in places considered “dry” by the “Fossil Oil” geologists. Russia, with its oil industry based on the “Abiotic” theory, produces just as much oil as Saudi Arabia, and is poised to keep increasing its output.

The Aboitic theory claims that the earth generates vast amounts of oil. This oil is being pushed out from the core of the earth towards the surface by the huge pressure inside the earth and by the centrifugal force created by earth rotation. The oil finds cracks in rock to move through and ends up resting in relatively shallow porous formations of rock. This is where “Fossil Oil” Geologists find the oil and they conclude that it is from organic source because it contains fossils. According to the Abiotic theory, these fossils are dislodged by the oil as it moves through cracks in rock and do not indicate the source of this oil.

According to Aboitic theory, the deeper we drill, the more oil we will find.

Evidences that support the theory of Abiotic source of oil.
1.The Dnieper – Donetsk basin in Ukraine was surveyed for oil in the 1950.’s It was concluded (by “Fossil Oil” geologists, one of them American) that this area is not likely to have commercial amounts of gas or oil. The basin was abandoned by the oil industry. In the 1990’s the basin was surveyed again, by “Abiotic” geologists. 37 out of the 61 wells drilled were proven to produce commercial amounts of oil. The basin is a huge source of oil. Many of the fossils found in the oil pumped from this basin, were from eras older than the rock in which it was found. The theory is that the oil made its way up from deeper in earth, dislodging fossils along the way and carrying them upwards. Two of the wells are under volcanic rock where sediments of dirt that included dinosaurs and plants (according to the “Fossil Oil” theory) could not have reached to.

2.Eugene Island 330 is an oil well off the coast of Louisiana. It started producing oil in 1972. Its output peaked at 15,000 barrels a day. In the early 80’s its output dropped to 4,000 barrels a day and its reserve was estimated to be 60 million barrels. In 1986 its output jumped to 13,000 barrels a day and its reserve was estimated to be 400 million barrels. The fossils in the newly replenished oil were from an older era than in the oil produced by this well in its earlier years. The most likely explanation to this event was that this well was injected with fresh supply of oil from deeper in earth.

3.Oil and Natural Gas are chemically based on chains of Carbon and Hydrogen. It was believed in the past that these Carbon-Hydrogen chains can only be created in living organisms. The whole science of “Organic Chemistry” was based on that concept. This belief, in part, drove the theory of “Fossil Oil”. Oil, made of Carbon Hydrogen chains had to come from a living source. However, astronomers know that planets contain large amounts of Carbon and Hydrogen, and Methane (Natural Gas, also a Carbon-Hydrogen compound) was found in comet Haley…

4.In 2004, American scientists from Indiana and Harvard Universities, Carnegie Institute and Livermore National Lab teamed together to demonstrate the Abiotic theory. They were able to create conditions similar to those near the core of earth: When they combined under these conditions minerals that are present inside the earth, like iron oxide, calcium carbonate and water (none of them an “organic” material), they could create Methane. (Natural Gas) which is a Carbon-Hydrogen compound.

5.“Cold vents”, openings in the ocean floor that inject Methane into the ocean were discovered since 1984 in the seas near California, Gulf of Mexico, Japan and Antarctica.

So, are we running out of oil?

Maybe not. According to the Abiotic theory oil is a renewable energy resource. What a concept!

“Peak Oil” is a theory of “Fossil Oil” geologists. According to “Peak Oil’, oil production in the world will peak at a certain point in time from which it will decline until we will run out of oil. “Peak Oil” geologists look at total proven oil reserves in the world in a certain year, total world oil consumption during that year and then they calculate when we will run out of oil.

But there is a problem. World oil reserves increase every year. World oil reserve was 645 Billion barrels in 1980, 1 Trillion barrels in 1990 and 1.28 Trillion barrels in 2005. Same trend holds for natural gas. This does not discourage “Peak Oil” geologists. Each year, when higher oil reserve is reported, they re-calculate the year in which we will run out of oil. Predictions in the 1970’s were that world will run out of oil anywhere between 2003 and 2050. Since then, proven world oil reserves have more than doubled in the face of growing consumption.

Why is Abiotic theory being ignored in the west?

Obviously, Its all about politics. There are many groups with agendas that play into the politics of oil in the US and in the west. The flag of the environmentalists establishment is global warming. A lot has been written about all the data that questions if global warming is as severe as we are lead to believe, and how much of it is man-made. However, if one pushes forward the catastrophic man-made global warming belief system, a logical conclusion is that to slow or stop global warming, among other things, you need to burn less “fossil oil”. And if we are running out of it – it is a good idea to consume less of it anyway…  This is a simple scare tactic. Anything that goes against this line of thought (like the possibility that there is an infinite abundance of oil available to us) will not find its way to the major media power houses that are completely in bed with the global warming industry. The UN and other world powers are riding the global warming in their effort to establish global government. The Kyoto accord which is their vehicle is nothing but a global tax  and wealth re-distribution system that will force governments to raise taxes in their countries to fund this grandiose project. Even mainstream man-made global warming environmentalists agree that the Kyoto accord – even if followed to the letter by its signers, can hardly do anything to reduce greenhouse gases. But it will take huge amounts of resources that could otherwise be effectively used for the benefit of humanity. (See the book “Cool it” and a separate article coming on this subject).

The bottom line.

The possibility that oil is not from fossils and is actually a renewable resource is not imaginary. But do not expect any free discussion or flow of information on this subject. Too much money and power are at stake.

Reading

Black Gold Stronghold by Jerome Corsi and Craig Smith.

December 30, 2007 Posted by | Energy | , , | Leave a comment