Thursday, June 19, 2008

Transocean Doubles Day Rate To BP

Transocean in 5-yr, $1.06 bln rig contract renewal

HOUSTON, June 19 (Reuters) - Transocean Inc (RIG), the world's largest offshore contract driller, said on Thursday a contract has been renewed for one of its ultra-deepwater rigs that may be worth as much as $1.06 billion.

The rig will be contracted at a rate of about $581,000 per day, more than double its prior daily rate of $208,000.


Anaconda said...


Isn't the day-rate increase a clear indication that demand is going up relative to supply? If so, doesn't that suggest there are 'players' in the market who believe ultra-deepwater, deep-drilling ships are a key component of a successful oil exploration & discovery strategy. In fact, with the jump in price, and the apparent willingness to meet this demand, it seems both sides in the bargain understand these rigs are a necessity.

People, who give 'green lights', are following somebody else's advice that these "ships" will find big oil plays in deepwater.

Based on that advice -- large financial decisions are being made.

So, while publically, a few small fry are disparaging deepwater, and crying, "Peak" oil; privately, the "big boys" are listening to the "money" advice, that says: "Yes, I know it's expensive as heck, but that's where the oil is, and you need to go get it. Pay the money, and we'll find the right place to look and find the big play."

It's hard to avoid the conclusion, the geologists giving that private advice know the inherent limitations of "fossil" theory.

There's an old saying in business: "Money speaks louder than words."

The money is on Abiotic Oil principles, as testified by that contract for day-rates between Transocean and British Petroleum.

There's another old saying in business: "When money talks, people listen."

So, perhaps, more folks ought to take Abiotic Oil seriously. After all, the big money folks already are.

But this writer suggests -- it's not so much the "why" or "how" that big money cares about -- it's simply:

Find oil, NOW!

"Yes. Master."

But this writer wants to understand nature, and wants to spread that knowledge.

So while "big money" doesn't care how you get it, just as long as you get it, this writer will continue to publically persaude readers of this website of the truth of one of nature's best kept secrets.

Abiotic Oil should not be a secret any longer.

Anaconda said...

by Thomas the music

She blinded me with science
It's poetry in motion
As deep as any ocean
She blinded me with science
I can hear her machinery

Have a look
The spheres are in commotion
The elements are in harmony
And hit me with technology

I can smell the chemicals
Blinding me with science

She tidied up and I can't find anything
All my tubes and wires
And careful notes
And antiquated notions
But it's poetry in motion
As deep as any ocean
Sweet as any harmony

She blinded me with science
And hit me with technology
As deep as any ocean...

Quantum_Flux said...

Sheesh, it sounds as though, when Western companies are drilling for oil, that is just as random (hit or miss) today as it was when the first rigs were put in some hundred odd years ago.

(I still subscribe to the beverly hillbillie story of "shooting at some food and up from the ground came some bubbling crude".... but that certainly must not be the way it all begain though)

Anaconda said...

To Quantum_Flux:
Yes, when only 1 out of 28 holes drilled come in with oil -- you know it's a fickle business.

But seismic imaging has done a lot to improve the success rate. And that's because with the most advanced technology the oil can virtually be "seen" underground.

Quantum_Flux, you bring up a good point. If "fossil" theory geologists know so much about oil and where it's located, how come they drill so many dry holes?

This writer suspects that's one reason conventional oil geologists "cling" so tightly to "fossil" theory. Can you imagine what the oil companies reaction would be if they learned geologists had been selling a bogus theory to them all these years?

And, your observation brings out another excellent point. Oil geologists and their advocates like to talk about how successful "fossil" theory has been finding oil -- and that's all what matters in the end...right?

But when you remind them it's 1 out of 28 -- things get kind a quiet, and the conversation tails off to other things.

Also, is it possible there is a competitive issue at play: Abiotic theory is one "school" of thought, and fossil theory is another "school" of thought? And this is analogous to the rivalry between Medical Doctors and Doctors of Osteopathy?

But in this competition the fossil theory "school" has successfully locked out the abiotic "school" completely.

And abiotic theory has never been able to found its own "schools" like the osteopaths were able to do.

Should this analogy be correct, then the pieces start falling into place. And then it becomes clear why "fossil" theory is so dogged in its opposition to abiotic theory, in the face of competent, compelling, scientific evidence.

Quantum_Flux, what do you think of this analogy?

Anaconda said...


Rivalry between Medical and Osteopathic theories of the human body led to exclusion and restriction.

Rivalry between competing "schools" of thought is nothing new in human affairs. In fact, it's one of the oldest forms of competition and struggle between groups of men. The rivalry between Medical theory and Osteopathic theory parallels that of Abiotic theory and Fossil theory both in time and results.

Healing the human body of its infirmities has been a quest for untold generations. But for much of that time it was shrouded in mystery and superstition.

The local shaman or witch doctor that seemingly displayed an ability to heal -- and foretell events, had great status in his local community with power over various events, far and beyond the simple healing of the sick.

But the 'how' or 'why' was a closely held secret.

In Early America, "doctors" were at once highly regarded and greatly disdained -- depending on their track record of success.

The science of healing was almost none existent, note that leeches were used on President Washington in his final illness.

This non-scientific approach was in practice up until the second half of the 19th century, when the general "Scientific Revolution" applied the scientific method to many fields of human endeavor. The "Industrial Revolution" was as much a revoltion of applied science as an engineering and technology revolution.

Science and technology go hand-in-hand.

As a result "schools" of medicinal practice began to open and disciplines of thought emerged.

Medical thought revolved around the primacy of pharmacology -- drugs. And the theraputic impact of drugs on specific organs of the body. The authority to prescribe drugs was the major power of Medical Doctors. This "school" of thought and practice rose quickly to dominate medicinal practice.

But another rival "school" of thought also arose: Osteopathy placed its emphasis on wholistic treatment of systems in the body, deemphasing pharmacology, yet reserving a limited place for drugs and surgery (the other presumed reserve of Medical Doctors).

In reaction to the rise of Osteopathy, and its implicit challenge to Medical Doctor's monopoly on medicinal healing (and the money and status gained thereform) Medical Doctors took determined action to deny Osteopathy the right to prescribe drugs and do surgery.

Going so far as approach state legislatures in the early 20th century to outlaw Osteopaths ability to prescribe drugs or do surgery. (After the food and drug act of 1906, medical doctors were largely given the power to prescribe controlled substances.)

This effort to "put Osteopaths out of business" almost succeded, but the outshoot of this effort was that Osteopaths had to open their own Osteopathic schools and hospitals, because Medical Doctors, while not succeeding in getting the state to "in effect" ban Osteopathy, did exclude Osteopths from "their" hospitals and schools.

A rigid seperation took place.

Today, the rivalry has mellowed and Osteopaths are allowed to use Medical hospital facilities, although, Osteopaths still maintain their own schools of Osteopathy.

Interestingly, because of the same forces of advancing science in the latter half of the 19th century, the study of geology was becoming the science of geology. But geology in someways, while an Earth science, which would seem to be more directly tied to chemistry and physics than even medicinal science, took a radically different direction by not employing the hard sciences of chemistry and physics, but, instead employed a more qualitative process: Descriptive and persuasive deductive reasoning (to this day advanced chemistry and physics are not emphasized in "schools" of geology). Oil geology took its cue from the broader "science" of geology in its methods of reasoning.

As opposed to the pure sciences of chemistry and physics which rely on mathematical inductive reasoning.

This writer suggest this historic development of oil geology, which excluded abiotic theory, paralleled the rivalry of Medicine and Osteopathy in the same time frame and for the same reasons: The incorporation of scientific method in disciplines that, theretofore, had not relied on scientific method.

But that opposite results occured:
The non-scientific "school" of geology subsumed oil geology and banished abiotic oil theory because the inductive mathematical approach disagreed with the deductive, descriptive results that geology "stamped" on the origin of petroleum.

Where as, Medical Doctors were more "scientifically" inclined than their rival, Osteopaths.

Yet, today, Osteopaths and "Medicals" have an uneasy truce, while the scientific, mathematically supported abiotic oil theory is vigorously rejected and excluded by conventional geology, which includes oil geology.

This writer suggests the difference between the two rivalries is that in medicinal healing, Medical doctors went too far in attempting to ban Osteopaths from practice, and in losing became more mellow with the assurance science was on their side:

While oil geologists never attempted to ban abiotic theory, the non-scientific approach held a broad general sway in geology, so abiotic oil theory was in effect systematically smothered and suppressed.

But because oil geology is non-scientific, never mellowed in self-assurance, so to this day, fights abiotic theory tooth and nail, as a matter of professional survival.

And because "fossil" theory is non-scientifically based, its followers know that in a head-to-head rigorous scientific comparison with abiotic oil theory, it would be found lacking: So, it leaves "fossil" theory no choice: Ignore abiotic theory as much as possible, but if confronted with no escape, distort and lie, as necessary to maintain it's grip on professional power and status.

This website is replete with examples of "fossil" theory's strategy in action: Ignore, and if confronted lie.

The remedy for the present situaltion is obvious: Found an Abiotic "School" or "schools" that then can compete and win the battle to discover oil.

Anaconda said...


Why has the broader geological community been so supportive of "fossil" theory in its battle to keep Abiotic Oil Theory marginal and considered a fringe theory?

The answer is that Abiotic Oil Theory has much broader implications than simply the origin of petroleum and the discovery of oil.

Reviewing the body of scientific work that is supplied by direct link at the left-hand column of the Oil Is Mastery website makes clear Abiotic Theory impacts all aspects of the "Science" of Geology.

The Abiotic Theory of Earth's evolution and chemical and physical mechanics constitutes "The Abiotic Revolution" of Earth Sciences.

So, that admitting the scientific prowess of Abiotic Oil Theory in the specific discipline of petroleum origin and exploration & discovery, throws into question the whole underpinnings of the current accepted tenets and principles of the geological "science" discipline.

It shakes the study of geology to its very foundations.

And, yet, it's manifest that with Abiotic Principles as a guiding method of analysis to Earth's formation and structure, questions long unanswered by current geology can now be answered with straight forward clarity and certainty.

The stakes, here, are enormous in terms of status and power.

Revolutions are rarely "bloodless" affairs.

This won't be either.

Quantum_Flux said...

In modern medicine, you always have to look at the purity (and impurities) of the drug, the concentration of the active agent, the solubility of the compound, the side effects, etc. In general, the body has the ability to produce the necessary neurological agents on it's own if it is given the proper dietary nutrition in the right proportions (which is different for everybody). However, then you consider that the soil that our federally subsidized crops grow on require those nutrients to begin with (such firtilizers are more expensive) in order for that to add to diets. I think that most of our medical/health related problems come from improper and malnourished diets and pollution. Most farmers only apply a firtilizer that contains some amount of pounds per million pounds of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium because that is the minimum requirement ($$$) for healthy and disease resistant plants and for keeping a firtle conditioned soil.

In effect, I think the vast medical industry thrives on giving people the synthetic chemicals that their bodies are incapable of producing because of malnourishment and/or because of some other sort of neurochemical/hormonal imbalance due to lack of excercise and other physical activities.

From a Scientific American video I recently watched, I know that telomeres (the biological clock of cell reproduction having to do with the prevention of DNA mutations during reproductions), free radicals (cationic cell oxidizing agents in the blood system), and the density of caloric intake play a significant part in the aging process in cells.

As far as the wholistic approach to a healthier life, eh, I veiw it as another club in the bag. It is very important to stay healthy by eating the proper diet that works for you. There are, however, things to watch out for as far as unvalidated claims and unregulated supplements and whatnot. In general, I see no reason why a wholistic approach can't be analyzed by a scientific approach, in fact, I think that is exactly what Richard Dawkins does in this amusing 5-part video series.

Anaconda said...

To Quantum_Flux:
Can this writer take your response as a "yes" the analogy makes sense?

Quantum_Flux said...

I don't like analogies.

Anaconda said...


Quantum_Flux said...

Analogies are a source of cognitive dissidence. An analogy, at best, can be a model of reality based on a mathematical equation. At worst, however, analogies can be used to dramatically oversimplify things which can lead to generalizations and false conclusions.

Anaconda said...

To Quantum_Flux:
Cognitive dissonance -- like it makes you mentally uncomfortable because it challenges established beliefs?

That concern doesn't carry any weight with this writer.

Analogies are a basic way in which the "Human Animal" reasons: "Such and such is like such and such," therefore, a certain conclusion can be drawn.

But, yes, it's subject to error like all human reasoning techniques. As they say, "to error is human."

Now on the other hand, can analogies be abused or over-simplified? Yes, but that's where judgment and common sense play in.

Or in other words: Verification.

While over this writer's head, mathematical equations are very helpful in describing present relationships and future chemical and physical reactions and results.

Mathematics is a form of "Verification."

And a form of "Prediction."

A Mathematical "Proof" as it were.

It's one reason this writer is convinced by Abiotic Theory -- its backed up by mathematical equations conforming to chemical and physical laws, while "fossil" theory isn't.

Galileo was right: The language of Nature is mathematics.

So if you can't describe the physical observations, eventually in mathematical equations -- your interpretation of those observations isn't conforming to reality.

It's made up and make believe -- just like "fossil" theory.

"Fossil" theory doesn't pass Galileo's mathematical language test.

Anaconda said...

To Quantum_Flux:
In one sense you are absolutely right!

"Fossil" theory and the "science" of Geology has relied too heavily on analogy. That is the basic premise of Uniformitarianism, which is the starting point for the study of geology: The past is explainable by what is observed today.

But what is manifesting itself, with ever more acute observation, is the reality that Earth in its present form doesn't always explain the past.

Cataclysm is now recognized as much more an active principle driver of Earth's formation and development than it was in the past.

"Gradualism" was a corollary to Uniformitarianism.

An example of this cataclysmic principle are the Supervolcanoes cited at the left-hand column.

Supervolcanoes were not recognized or discovered until the late 1980's, partly, because they were simply not suspected, as it was beyond present observations of the size and strength of today's volcanoes.

On the other hand, analogy is basic to human thought processes.

That is why many words have a direct relationship to a physical object in nature. Representation of ideas by words corresponding to objects in the physical world is a process of analogy. Comprehension or "understanding" many times comes from this analogy exercise.

The key is to balance the various human thought processes.

And look for verification through the language of mathematics where possible -- which it is in the physical sciences.

Anaconda said...


Quantum_Flux: Another example of the "Cataclysm" principle is the idea you introduced, where the Theia foreign body impacted Earth eons ago to create the Moon and set up or increase dynamic tension between the mantle and the crust, contributing to the "Crustal Activity Continuum."

Although, the Theia idea is provocative because of the "foreign body" angle.

And Abiotic Theory incorporates the Cataclysm concept quite nicely, because coal and the huge tar sands of Canada are evidences and examples of the Cataclysm Principle at work in hydrocarbon deposits.

The Saudi Arabian oil field Ghawar might be considered an example, but one can argue Ghawar didn't result from a cataclymic event.

But a potential corollary to the Cataclysmic Principle in regards to petroleum would be this:

If super-giant magma chambers exist below bedrock where supervolcanoes erupt, in fact, fueling the super-massive eruption, which scientific observation has found is true. Could there be super-massive petroleum chambers below bedrock in the Earth's crust?

At this point there is no clear evidence of such, but the possiblity is intriquing.

Where and under what circumstances would this senario most likely occur, if it exists at all?

An El Dorado of oil?

Such is man's imagination.