Monday, September 15, 2008

Invisible Hand Shakes Medvedev

Russia Market Drop May Temper Medvedev Georgia Moves.

Sept. 15 (Bloomberg) -- When it comes to containing Russia, the invisible hand of the markets may be the West's most potent weapon.

Tightening access to international credit and mounting stock losses are hurting Russian billionaires as well as state- owned corporations, prompting calls by businessmen to heed Western complaints over Kremlin policy in Georgia.

The head of the country's biggest business association, the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, met President Dmitry Medvedev, urging him to take ``anti-crisis'' measures.

``The stock market is plunging, capital is fleeing, there is a severe shortage of liquidity in the banking system, prices for many core exports are falling and inflationary pressures are strengthening,'' the business group's Alexander Shokhin said today in a live televised Kremlin meeting. Current policies ``may turn out to be inadequate,'' he said.


Anaconda said...


It isn't just Russia that gets shaken by the "invisble hand." A 500 point drop in the Dow makes that clear.

Stability, predictability, and consistency are important for all markets.

I should also add transparency, as well.

Capital flows into Russia are retarded because concern for Russia's financial relationship with the West were raised.

Military confrontation effects financial relations. The two are linked.

Russia can't go it alone.

Neither can the United States.

Military confrontation is a two-way street. It takes two to tango.

The various parties need to step back from the ragged edge of military confrontation.

Although, the financial mess on Wall Street arises from a different source -- the subprime loan debacle -- the final result will depend on whether a solution is found that all interested parties can believe in.

The world financial markets are an interested party in this affair.

Now is not the time to highten confrontation, but to work for cooperation.

How the world financial markets view the United States response to this latest bubble -- the financial bubble -- will determine how severe it ultimately turns out to be.

Anaconda said...


Yes, that's right, instead of oil being the bad guy wearing the black hat in this movie, crude oil could be the good guy wearing the white hat who saves the girl in the last reel.



Man's natural instinct is to engage in activities. In economics, that takes the form of trade in goods and services.

Oil has dropped below $100 a barrel for the first time in along time. Many who bet long on oil have been punished.

Others have escaped financial punishment by dumping futures in oil.

There is no "Peak" oil, there never was.

But as a silver lining to this rather dark cloud currently looming over the economic horizon, reasonable priced oil could be the fresh wind which dispels the dark clouds and spurs renewed economic activity.

Oil is heading to $80 a barrel, that seems inevitable. But just a little more to a sustained $75 a barrel level would be the tonic the American economy needs, as this latest finacial crisis unfolds, to spur the "animal" instincts to their natural inclination for activity.

America is still the pumping heart of the World Economy.

Whether the world likes it or not, that reality is shaking world markets as this writer types.

Reasonably priced oil is an elixir for America's recovery from this deep draft at the economic punch bowl of financial excess.

And as this website and the cited scientific evidence eloquently point to, there is no "Peak" oil.

Crude oil is Abiotic.

Oil needs to get back to being a "work horse" and not a "show" horse.

Oil is worth nothing if it doesn't get used.

Oil is the fuel to the fire of economic activity.

Let's use it accordingly.

Anaconda said...


Asphalt volcanoes have been found 9000 feet deep in the Gulf of Mexico.

The lead author of the cited scientific abstract is Martin Hovland, Statoil ASA, Stavanger, Norway.

Statoil is currently involved with several deepwater oil exploration projects.

This item suggests, along with several other items, that an identified oil company is relying on Abiotic Oil principles for crude oil exploration.

This is a significant identification.

There is more to come from this writer that suggests other oil companies are also relying on Abiotic Oil principles for crude oil exploration & development.

Anaconda said...


The proceeding linked abstract states: "The flows covered more than one square kilometer of a dissected salt dome at abyssal depths (˜3000 m) in the southern Gulf of Mexico."

And further: "The two asphalt-volcanoes discovered occur at the apex of salt domes that pierce through the seafloor."

"At the apex," not off to the side in trapping reservoirs as "fossil" theory would have it.

Rather, the asphalt is an integral component to the salt dome.

The evidence is that the asphalt was extremely hot at the time of expulsion. This is inconsistent with "fossil" theory, which is primarily a "cold theory" where Abiotic Theory is a "hot theory."

A more detailed abstract on asphalt volcanoes and other hydrothermal chimneys states: "The Campeche volcanoes also produce light hydrocarbons."

These geologic features are strongly associated with the location of plate tectonic faults as stated: "From scientific drilling performed by the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP), it is also known that hydrothermal systems continue to be active even long after they have been covered by sediments. This has been demonstrated in the Guaymas Basin, off Mexico/California, and at Middle Valley at the sediment-covered Juan de Fuca Spreading Ridge, NE Pacific Ocean. By virtue of these main properties, we suggest that supercritical water actually causes mud volcanoes to form, and as such, represents the ‘motor’ of creating these features, including asphalt volcanoes."

The water becomes "supercritical" by contact with extremely hot minerals in a pressurized environment.

This is not a process that occurs in the relatively "cool" environment of a sedimentary basin unconnected to a powerful heat source.

Quantum_Flux said...

I don't know if you saw my last post, but n-alkanes can be easily created from triglycerides that are the Free Fatty Acids that are found in Vegetable Oils. This is how biodiesel is synthensized. The pressures required are most likely much smaller than that for glucose or iron oxide/CaCO3 + H20. Perhaps, fossil fuels are not too far fetched after all. How about that!?

Quantum_Flux said...


Centia Is producing n-alkanes from Biodiesel using some sort of pressure vessel, which probably requires much smaller pressures than say FeO + CaCO3 + H2O reactions....

n-alkanes have been successfully produced from Free Fatty Acids (FFAs). NCSU has also developed and demonstrated a patent-pending burner that can safely burn the glycerol generated from Step #1, using the resulting heat as a thermal source back into the process. Figure 3 shows the results from biogasoline testing where the objective was to crack n-alkanes to resemble the carbon number distribution of traditional unleaded gasoline. This was demonstrated at a Step #3 mass conversion efficiency in excess of 90% and was not being optimized.

OilIsMastery said...

Anaconda, thanks for headsup on asphalt volcano.

Quantum Flux, which alkanes did they make? Biodiesel is not natural petroleum.

Quantum_Flux said...

Correct, Biodiesel and Biogasoline aren't natural petroleum, I'm a little unclear as to what they are exactly, but here is the claimed process ....

Step 1: Triglyceride + 3 H20 + (heat and pressure) => Free Fatty Acids + Glycerol

Extract the Glycerol species from the mix and utilize for heating.

Step 2: FFA + Catalyst + (heat and pressure) => n-alkane + CO2

It seems they use a catalytic process called "decarboxylation" to convert these Free Fatty Acids into n-Alkanes.

Separate by alkane length or viscoscity:

C1-C14 => Biodiesel and Biogasoline Reforming Plant

C15-C17 => Aviation Biofuel Reforming Plant

Step 3: C15-C17 n-Alkanes => C10-C14 isoalkanes + Aromatics + napthenes + H2

....Now, tell me if I say something wrong or fishy here "figure 3 shows the n-alkane results % by volume (er, by mole) as a result of 2 separate trial runs of the cracking of biogasoline".

Anaconda said...

This is all to the good. As I've stated before, I support alternative energy sources as long as their economic and self-sustaining, allowing for a research & development bridge.

But your original point was that if it can be done in the laboratory, then it's possible in the field, thus supporting "fossil" theory.

That's a good point, one that I've argued many times on this website.

So the first question is how similar is the laboratory work of Centia to conditions in relatively shallow sediment where "fossil" theory says crude oil & natural gas are formed?

But there is also a second question that needs to be asked: How much triglycerides (fatty acids) survive in the sediment at all?

"Fossil" theory states that kerogen turns into oil & natural gas, but the idea that kerogen is the precursor to hydrocarbons has been analyzed, here, and shown to be completely lacking for a variety of reasons.

The majority of scientific evidence points to kerogen being a residue of hydrocarbons.

Today, there is a shortage of evidence that triglycerides (fatty acids) survive in sediments in appreciable amounts over extended geologic time (the millions of years "fossil" theory says it requires for organic detritus to turn into oil & gas).

Sure, there is swamp gas, and the standard methane creators, but nowhere is there found an extent of sediment with sufficient triglycerides (fatty acids) that accounts for the huge amounts of hydrocarbons found in various geological environments.

It's true that conditions in the distant past could have been different, in deed, the evidence suggests it was different, in terms of the rate of plant and animal production, although, the processes for "preservation" of organic detritus, would tend to be constant. But again once you exclude kerogens as a source, there isn't much evidence that suggests large amounts of organic detritus were "preserved" in the sedimentary environment.

The evidence suggests that almost all organic detritus breaks down in a way that makes it unavailable for hydrocarbon formation even if that was possible. Even in oxygen deprived environments (lake bottoms for instance) there are still agents, whether chemical or bacterialogical, which break down organic detritus beyond a capacity for hydrocarbon formation.

As a final note, the laboratory work you cite is a "real time" process. "Fossil" theory still relies on an unknown "millions of years" concept.

There is no "standard reaction time" mechanism for "fossil" theory.

That is a serious obstacle for "fossil" theory.

Heating a piece of "kerogen" in the lab doesn't prove anything. Increased heat can't be assumed as an equivalent to "millions of years" in a sedimentary environment.

That assumption has little or no scientific support.

It's a naked presupposition.

As you may have noted, initially, I supported the view that J.F. Kenney's work was the limit of Abiotic Theory. A conservative position I felt was reasonable given the scientific evidence I was presented at the time. I since have seen enough field observations and laboratory work to believe catalysts play a much larger role in Abiotic hydrocarbon formation.

Keith's work is a persuasive synthesis and presentation of a significant body of scientific observation and analysis.

I have since endeavored to present, catalog, and argue by scientific reasoning why I support the serpentization process of hydrocarbon formation as suggested by Stanley B. Keith and others.

Catalysts expand the geologic environment where hydrocarbons can form. And it also expands the geologic mechanisms for hydrocarbons being transported to the crust and travelling upward to trapping reservoirs.

Keith presents both evidence of abundant precursor materials for hydrocarbon formation and a chemical catalytic reaction process that is simple and verified in the laboratory in a "real time" process.

Keith's work has been persuasive on my thinking.

That said, "fossil" theory proponents haven't described any catalytic process of chemical catalysts that would support a catalytic reaction or a series of reactions that convert organic detritus to hydrocarbons.

Surely, the proponents have investigated the catalyst concept, yet have found nothing to present to the scientific community for rigorous scientific analysis.

That failure should tell you something: It's the scientific "dog that didn't bark."

"Fossil" theory, to this day, relies on unverified word pictures as a "standin" for a quantified process.

So in review, there is a lack of evidence that shows there was enough "material" to account for the all the hydrocarbon deposits found and suspected of existing, and there is a failure to present a process or "mechanism" that explains the conversion from organic detritus to hydrocarbons.

Quantum_Flux, if the scientific community was starting at scratch, you have to wonder whether "fossil" theory would even be given serious consideration, given the pausity of scientific evidence supporting it.

Essentially, it has been "grandfathered" into acceptance.

That doesn't cut it.

Quantum_Flux said...

Perhaps a hypothesis could be that triglycerides are more stable over the long term when kept in an anearobically sealed container in a refrigerator or freezer.

Pure speculation here on the side of fossil theory, but perhaps, since algea produces the most triglycerides and perhaps there are denser algea that sink down to the bottom in the artic ocean.... then perhaps the unnamed catalyst comes from the sudden volcanic venting on the sea floor through that frigid algal sediment.