Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Democrats For Oil Dependence

Democrats reject Bush's call to lift ban on offshore oil drilling

WASHINGTON - With gasoline topping $4 a gallon, President Bush urged Congress on Wednesday to lift its long-standing ban on offshore oil and gas drilling, saying the United States needs to increase its energy production. Democrats quickly rejected the idea.


Quantum_Flux said...

Does abiogenic theory propose that Alaskan oil fields contain more or less oil than boigenic theory proposes?

Anaconda said...

To Quantum_Flux:
Abiotic theory does suggest the Alaskan oil fields do, indeed, have more oil, than "fossil" theory.

This is due to Kudryavstsev's Rule, which says that in regions with petroleum deposits, there are more petroleum deposits down through the stratigraphic column to the bedrock and below the bedrock.

In short:

Where there's oil,
there's more oil.

Already, Alaska has over 15 wells that have been drilled or will be drilled that are over 20,000 feet deep.

"Fossil" theory claims that any deeper than the "oil window," which is 15,000 feet deep, and oil breaks down into methane because of the heat.

But everybody knows that's garbage because oil has been found so many times beyond 15,000 feet deep.

The new "out" for oil geologists is to claim the "burial age and maturation," haven't been long enough to destroy all the oil, but that too will fall by the wayside.

Generally, "fossil" theory suggests that oil deposition primarily happened in two epochs, so there tends to be a limited number of stratigraphic sedimentary layers where the oil will be located.

Abiotic oil theory is not limited by this false idea. Abiotic oil theory is only limited by the number of sedimentary "trapping" structures in the column down to bedrock.

This "limited epoch" corollary of "fossil" theory has also been proven false many times by actual discoveries of oil at numerous stratigraphc depths all the way down to the bedrock and into bedrock.

So, in essence, Abiotic Oil theory has already been proved, but while there are some oil geologists that subscribe to Abiotic Oil theory, most cling to "fossil" theory, even after actual oil discoveries have proved Abiotic Oil in numerous oil fields.

Although, more numerously in Russian oil fields because of the fact that Abiotic Oil has been incorporated into Russian exploration and drilling methods for many decades, while in the West, American and British oil geologists have just begun to incorporate Abiotic Principles into their exploration and drilling practices.

Alaska has a lot of oil, more than is generally recognized now, because of myopic Western oil geologists.

Quantum_Flux said...

Hmmm, that does make sense. So, how does this come into play when biotic and abiotic geologists are looking for oil?

Anaconda said...

To Quantum_Flux:
You just hit a grand slam home run. This writer has made several references to Pangea and even that very animation in previous comments.

The reason Pangea is so important is that the movement of the continents created tectonic collisions when continents collided, or caused ruptures in the Earth's crust when continents pulled apart.

According to abiotic theory, these disruptions, or disturbances in the Earth's crust allow petroleum created deep in the mantel to rise toward the surface.

As a result of these collisions and ruptures, "Source Faults" are created, along with many fissures, conduits, and literally "cracks in the Earth" from which abiotic oil eminates and then rises into the various sedimentary "capstone" or "roof rock" geologic structures that form the reservoirs in which petroleum comes to ultimate repose.

Also, just as important, the collision areas and rupture areas create the above mentioned "trapping" sedimentary layers that then serve to collect the rising oil into reservoirs.

Pangea, and the animation of the moving continents gives a great visualization to the concepts involved in abiotic oil.

Quantum_Flux, thanks for the direct link, as Pangea and the concept of an active crustal environment are basic building blocks in understanding abiotic oil.

Abiotic oil depends on an active Earth geology.

Best regards,


Quantum_Flux said...

I suppose, then, that the motion of the plates and the distribution of the continents were set into motion by an unstable body at Earth's L5 point dubbed Theia which is what caused the formation of the moon. I think that must also have something to do with the differences in between the angular momentum of Earth's inner core and the rest of the outer part of Earth too.

Anaconda said...

To Quantum_Flux:
In this writer's surprise at your direct link to Pangea, the camparison to "fossil" theory was neglected, but the comparison is important, as well, because significant distinctions between the two theories can be pointed out.

Tectonic faults in the Earth's crust are where the majority of the world's oil deposits are located, as you can see by linking to the articles at the left-hand column under Continental Rifts.

So, a major tenet of Abiotic Oil theory is verified by the location of the world's oil deposits above the Earth's major tectonic faults.

Meanwhile, "fossil" theory doesn't have a compelling explanation for why the world's oil deposits are concentrated above tectonic faults.

Oh, sure, "fossil" theory has an explanation, but it's not compelling or even satisfactory in this writer's opinion.

It goes like this: Tectonic faults exist in low lying areas in the Earth's crust, where shallow seas with oxygen depleated bottoms existed creating ideal conditions for organic detritus (dead algea) to sink to the bottom without decomposing and then subsequently being buried in sediments that covered over the organic detritus and built up over geologic time.

And, then the sediments hardened into reservoir structures, so that when the organic detritus converted into oil, it flowed into the reservoir structures created by the sediments. The crustal activity causes the anticlines and fault traps which form the reservoir sructures.

That's how the theory goes, anyhow.

This writer has several objections. One, not all of these areas where low lying shallow stagnant seas. Also, the oil accumulations that have been discovered are too great when compared to the potential area that the oil would accumulate from.

The classic example is the Saudi Arabian oil field, Ghawar, the largest in the world. An estimated 19 mile cube of oil has been produced from that field.

That's like a cube over three times higher than the altitude commercial jets fly at, almost 100,000 feet.

There simply is no explanation given by "fossil" theory for how such a vast accumulation of oil would be in that one field.

On the other hand, Abiotic Oil postulates that Ghawar sits over a very active spot in the Earth's crust where two tectonic plates swung together, which can be seen on the animation of Pangea. The area's tectonic collision point was constantly "reactivated" and pinched together causing an echelon of folded anticlines stacked on top of one another -- ideal oil trapping, reservoir rocks, with this above a repeatedly jostled underlying fracture network in the basement rocks where the two jagged tectonic edges came together. This repeated jostling induced expulsions of petroleum though a very active "Source Fault."

"Fossil" theory simply doesn't have the detailed explanation consistent with the observable geology for Ghawar that Abiotic Oil does.

Which is a recurring theme throughout the comparison of the two theories. Too many "events" under "fossil" theory are left unexplained or unverified by hard, observable, scientific evidence.

So, while tectonic faults, are the mother of all "Source Faults" under Abiotic Oil theory, which is verified by the location of the bulk of the world's oil deposits, "fossil" theory relegates tectonic faults to a secondary cause of petroleum location.

Because it's not the tectonic fault, per se, but the low lying area containing a stagnant shallow sea that is primary to "fossil" theory.

Of course, this flys in the face of the observable association between "source Faults" on a tectonic scale and the world's oil supplies.

Anaconda said...

To Quantum_Flux:
The Theia idea is interesting and this writer likes the animated diagram, which gives a good image of the concept. Certainly, it's something to think about.
Thanks for the tip.

Quantum_Flux said...

Okay, so it's up to whether the serpentine belts contain the massive amounts of carbon-hydrogen reduction capacities to produce the observed volumes of the oil then, or if that carbon came from fossil sources.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe that the biomarkers observed in oil came from higher up sedimentary sources and that the oil formed in the Temp-Pressure of the mantle of the Earth as a result of chemical reductions in the serpentine belt with ionized hydrogen sources and then upwelled through the fault lines to a higher confining layer upon continental plate collisions.... I think I'm getting the picture here. I think there obviously, intuitively, must be much more carbon in the rock than in the form of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time.

Quantum_Flux said...

You might dislike this, but seals seem to possess a form of intelligence, as do dolphins and chimps. I think that's why Al Gore, and democrats in general, are against oil drilling (some 50 miles???) off the Alaskan coastline. There would, first and foremost, have to be some kind of an assurence that such drilling is environmentally responsible before such a drilling proposition makes it past congress. Pristine Alaska is not nearly anywhere near as an acceptable drilling place as dead zone Gulf of Mexico, or so the rational goes I believe.

Anaconda said...

To Quantum_Flux:
This writer has "slept on" the Theia concept, and it makes sense.

Crustal geologic activity is produced by the dynamic tension between the crust and the mantle. When an alien body impacts the Earth, it causes shockwaves down through the crust into the mantle.

The Theia idea suggests that as a result of this cataclysmic impact the mantle and crust attained a lasting "off-kilter" effect, contributing to the dynamic tension between the Earth's crust and mantle.

A provocative, but plausible explanation that helps explain volcanic activity and potentially Abiotic Oil, as well.

Anaconda said...

To Quantum_Flux:
Yes, the misnamed "bio-markers" identify the oil as rising from deep below the sedimentary deposit in which the oil was located.

Specifically, the petroleum has "spores and pollen" from older geological ages that it carries up into the younger sedimentary reservoir structures. These "pores and pollen" are consistent with the "spores and pollen" from the previous geological ages laid down in earier, deeper sedimentary layers.

And the deepest oil, directly out of the crystalline basement rocks, "bedrock," has no spores and pollen at all.

This scientific observation completely contradicts "fossil" theory, which dictates that all oil must have these spores and pollen as part of its congenital make-up.

Oil geologists in essence "hang themselves on their own petard."

Quantum_Flux said...


Anaconda said...

To Quantum_Flux:
On the contrary, this writer has always been of the opinion that animals are smarter than given credit for, by most people. So, it does not surprise this writer that scientists are finally asking the question: "How do seals navigate?"

This writer has always been a nature lover.

So, the environmetal concerns of oil exploration and production weigh heavily on this writer. And, consequently, have been of concern when researching this subject.

This writer is happy to report that the oil industry has made leaps and bounds in environmental protection technology. It's in the oil industry's interest to do so: One, the product, oil, is valuble, so they don't want to lose it, but just as important, if not more so, is the political reality that fears of oil spills have haunted the public and led directly to the current 27 year ban on offshore drilling.

The oil industry has worked hard to answer those justifiable concerns. And, has had remarkable success with advances in safety and environmental technology.

Safety and environmental concern go hand-in-hand.

In the Gulf of Mexico, in the aftermath of huhricanes Katrina and Rita, it was found that negligible amounts of oil was lost into the environment.

By the way, the fishermen of the Gulf of Mexico would strongly disagree with your characterization of the Gulf as a "dead zone."

It's not -- some of the most productive fisheries in the world are in the Gulf. Shrimp is very sensitive to environmental pollution because shrimp live, eat and breed on the sea bottom.

Yet, shrimp thrive in the 'oilpatch' out in the Gulf of Mexico.

Also, another concern is "visual blight." Nobody wants oil derricks "right off the nation's beaches."

And that won't happen.

Quantum_Flux, as you stated, almost all oil drilling is done "over the visual horizon" off the shore. 13 miles is the extent that can be seen out to sea from beaches. Most oil drilling is done considerably farther out to sea than that.

Certainly, regulations placing drilling platforms and oil derricks "over the visual horizon" can be enacted.

It's safer for the oil companies, too -- safety is their primary concern.

As far as Alaska goes -- this writer has suggested in a previous comment that ANWAR stay off the table for now, to get the "political ball rolling" on offshore exploration and production.

But, in reality only a microscopic speck of ANWAR would be impacted by the proposed oil production.

But admittedly that's a political "hot patato."

Anaconda said...


Some people have argued that it would take ten (10) years to bring any ANWAR oil to market, even if oil exploration and production were allowed, making ANWAR shimmeral, or not effecting today's high cost of oil, and high gas prices at the pump.

But, part of today's high cost of oil, is the idea and psychology that supplies won't or can't increase. So, the reality of ANWAR oil on the horizon would have a moderating influence on today's price at the pump.

Also, experts say the oil could be available much sooner, closer to two or three years,

How or why is that possible?

Because the proposed oil fields in ANWAR are in close proximity to current oil production sites, only 60 miles or so. Compared to the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline's 800 mile journey, that's a stroll down the 'ol boardwalk. And, there are no physical obstructions, its as flat as , well, a "boardwalk."

So connecting to present facilities could be done in little over a year.

Also, oil production technology has increased tremendously in the last few years, particularly technology focussed on increasing the speed of drill bit breaking ground to oil flowing in the pipeline.

The ANWAR oil is in shallow deposits, easing and speeding its way to production and the pipeline heading ultimately to American consumers.

So oil could very conceivably be flowing down the Alaska Pipeline within two or three years.

That's a prospect of sufficiently short time line to have an immediate impact on today's psychology in the world's oil markets.

Alaskan oil is a win-win situation.

Quantum_Flux said...

To be honest, I see no reason why we can't cultivate the anoxic regions of the Dead Zone and utilize that water for producing hydrogen (starting the USA and Mexico on a hydrogen economy). Anoxic water is extremely hydrogen rich, there are plenty of nutrients in it from farmlands and the algea just grows and then dies.

Of course I would really need more facts and figures, but I think that would be something worth investigating. Or, perhaps, making methane fuel cells from it.