U.S. Stocks Gain, Led by Energy Shares on Halliburton Earnings.
Halliburton jumped $1.59 to $19.85. Excluding an acquisition charge and $693 million in costs related to redemption of convertible bonds, per-share profit was 76 cents, 2 cents higher than the average of 24 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg.
``Whenever somebody reports numbers that exceed expectations, that's a positive not only for the individual stock but the broader market,'' said Dean Gulis, who helps manage about $2.5 billion for Loomis Sayles & Co. in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. ``In a case like Halliburton, it carries over to its sector. You have a good number of attractively valued opportunities out there.''
Exxon gained $4.79 to $72.83. Crude oil for November delivery climbed as much as 5.8 percent to $76 a barrel in New York on speculation OPEC will cut production to halt a 50 percent slide in prices from July's record.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
13 comments:
OIL INDUSTRY STILL EXPLORING FOR OIL
Contrary to the seemingly popular "Peak" oil belief, the oil industry is still looking for petroleum and finding it.
Proven and probable oil reserves keep going up.
And those oilfield services companies that have the most advanced, cutting edge technology will make the most money.
In a note of caution, the real question is what will be the profit picture in the 4th quarter, after all, that when the price drop will be more fully reflected in the oilfield services sector.
Gasoline has been spotted at below $3 a gallon.
A tremedous relief has been given to American individuals and businesses.
Perhaps that will help lift the economy out of this trough.
What it has done is reduce by $250 billion the amount of money sent overseas for foreign oil.
That's a good development for America.
RESPONSES TO COAL MAN
This comment picks up on my previous series of responses to The Coal Man. To see his most recent, full comment and my subsequent responses, please click the following linked Oil Is Mastery post, Oil Falls Below $70. and review the comments section.
In my book the most persuasive arguments rest on original documents and the readers' ability to review the documents and draw their own conclusions.
In that spirit, I re-link, here, the documents that support my contention that the "oil window" has been falsified by the discoveries off the Brazilian coast of ultra-deep, ulra-hot, ultra-pressurized oil deposits.
I re-link, here, because with a long, long comment like Coal Man's, part of the propagnda strategy is to take the readers' minds off the original documents, or take advantage of those readers that never read the documents, and substitute his interpretations of those documents, as opposed to the documents original meaning.
April 28, 2008 (Bloomberg) Brazil Oil Trapped by 500-Degree Heat, Salt Barrier (Update2)
May 6, 2008 (Bloomberg) Petrobras Moves Up Tupi, Says Fields Can Be Exploited (Update1)
December 1, 2007 (McClatchy) Massive deep-water oil find in Brazil challenges technology
Readers, you make the call:
Reports about "pipe ratings" and "pipe specifications"?
Or:
Reports about ultra-deep oil in extremely hot and pressurized deposits that challenge technology because temperatures and pressures exceed the standard "fossil" theory paradigm of the the "Oil Window"?
Can't kerogene be created by Fischer Tropsche?
Can't Fischer Tropsche occur at plate boundaries where currents (amperes) occur due to (hypothesized) voltage potential differences between plates. If there is sufficient amperage between plate boundaries (redox happening between sides), that would explain the presence of detectable magnetic fields where oil exists. Perhaps redox could also explain why an impermeable source rock suddenly produces oil at the rock boundaries(say, hydrogen gas production from reduced metals being oxidated by electrons, then the heat from that reaction melding the hydrogen and carbon monoxide or carbonized detritus thereby producing water and oil which don't mix).
The possibilities of oil production are not limited to the mantle. It could be from photoreactive sources too, assuming UV ionization in the atmosphere of certain planets and moons.
ONE OF A SERIES: RESPONSE TO COAL MAN
Coal Man's comments on the Brazilian ultra-deep oil deposits and the diamondoid question are illustrative. My comments were based on news reports, which I linked to so readers can draw their own conclusions.
I will re-link and add two additional links on the diamondoid issue:
May 7, 2004 (UPI) Space Daily, Diamondoids Can Be Refined From Crude Oil
December 3, 2002 (San Fancisco Chronicle) Miniature diamonds found in oil
Chevron, Molecular Diamond Technologies, Diamond Discovery
I started off the discussion with this quote:
"Although they learned to synthesize adamantane, fusing even a few such cages together proved extraordinarily difficult, and
efforts at creating larger diamondoids failed."
"So they don't create diamondoids in the laboratory willy nilly."
And here is Coal Man's initial response:
"Yes they do. And it is quite easy. Adamantane is a diamondoid.
It is true is is more difficult to create the larger variety but adamantane is simple.
And THEY did not invent the "SIMPLE" procedure: the procedures are half a century old.
Here is the most commonly applied method:
Schleyer, P. von R. (1957). "A Simple Preparation of Adamantane". J. Am. Chem. Soc."
Here is a additional quote from the San Francisco Chronicle: "Smaller diamondoids had been synthesized in the 1950s, Marchand wrote, but scientists were unable to produce larger ones, which potentially are more useful."
Note the straw man argument emphasizing the synthesis of Adamantane.
Why a straw man argument?
Because the quote I cite is quite clear: "Although they learned to synthesize adamantane..."
Remember, this isn't my statement, this is one of the Chevron scientists.
The point of citing the quote was the second half of the quote: "...fusing even a few such cages together proved extraordinarily difficult, and efforts at creating larger diamondoids failed."
This quoted sentence is the basis for my summary: "So they don't create diamondoids in the laboratory willy nilly."
But instead of taking the obvious and reasonable meaning of the quote and my summary, Coal Man takes off on a strawman argument that Adamantane is simple to produce.
I never said Adamantane wasn't easy to produce, it's the higher diamondoids that are difficult or impossible to produce.
And for which I provided quotes from the scientists themselves.
Coal Man uses the "strawman" propaganda tactic to distract from that agrument.
I go on to state: "Waqar Qureshi, vice president of ChevronTexaco Technology Ventures, said: 'Diamantane and triamantane can be synthesized in laboratories, but it's very difficult and very expensive. The cost of synthesizing these diamondoids is probably in the tens to hundreds of dollars per gram. But we can extract it for orders of magnitudes lower in cost.'"
And:
"The diamondoids are formed in the extreme heat and pressure found in crude oil buried at great depths, so petroleum deposits exposed to hotter temperatures should be enriched in the molecules, Carlson said, adding that gas condensates found in deposits rich in natural gas seem to be the best sources for diamondoids."
Coal Man responds: "Where have you ever read anything about MANTLE PRESSURES; THE STORY YOU FABRICATED?"
Notice Coal Man immediately jumps to shouting, "THE STORY YOU FABRICATED?
Please, I'm the one who linked to news report.
It's true, the news report doesn't state specifically "mantle pressures".
The reader doesn't know what exact pressure other than the statement: ""The diamondoids are formed in the extreme heat and pressure found in crude oil buried at great depths..."
Again, I provided the scientists' statements and the link to the original report.
My point was that we know diamonds form in the mantle, no scientist disputes that, so is it REASONABLE to draw the conclusion that diamondoids also form in the mantle?
Now some readers might decide that wasn't a reasonable conclusion, but that hardly measures up to "fabrication".
Particularly when I provided both the quotes and the linked report.
In hindsight, I should have made it clear I was using the scientific fact that diamonds form in the mantle as part of the basis of my conclusion.
To that extent, I stand corrected.
But on the larger point (diamondoids are evidence of crude oil's mantle origin), after making that factor explicit, I stand on my conclusion.
Again, readers are free to decide whether my conclusion was warranted.
But instead, Coal Man leaps to call me dishonest.
That's his style.
Which brings up a point:
Coal Man, repeatedly screamed, "READ YOUR OWN LINKS!" in response to the Brazilian ultra-deep oil reports.
But why didn't he go ahead and link the stories, so readers could see for themselves? (It's not that hard to link a document.)
Because Coal Man didn't want readers to see the reports, rather, he wanted them to stay in his "cocoon", or world-view under his control and take his word for it.
Another reason why a propagandist will put out an extremely long tract like Coal Man's.
Frankly, reading the origninal documents can be a relief because nobody is forcing an argument down your throat, one way or the other (depending on the document). The reader is "free" of the opposing advocate's gyrations and urgings.
Ultimately, that's where the "rubber meets the road". Readers are free to reach their own conclusions.
I suggest readers take the time to review the scientific papers on the side-bar available for direct link at their leisure and convenience.
Because as much as Coal Man wants Abiotic Oil to be about me, it's not.
It about the science and the physical reality deep in the Earth.
The papers are numerous and mostly their tone is one of calm measured science.
That's the way it's supposed to be.
Others Comments on Diamondoid Issue:
Geology Guide says:
“I simply can’t give any weight to diamondoids. If they’re indestructible enough to occur in all petroleum, they should be everywhere, like zircons. They should be thoroughly recirculated by plate tectonics. In a word, they should be contaminants”
Terembura says:
"You may dismiss diamondoids in crude oil as contaminants, but can you do the same to inclusions of hydrocarbon fluids in diamonds? Or do you postulate diamonds of biological origins? Now, that would be an interesting track to take."
Hydrocarbons Encapsulated in Diamonds From China and India
Leung, I.; Tsao, C.; Taj-Eddin, I.
It's disturbing that the oil industry doesn't do experiments to prove or disprove fossil theory. Basically, that says to me, "hey, we don't give a shit about how oil gets here, we just give a shit about the computer programs and the technology used for finding it". They'd have much better luck, I think, if they did pay closer attention to the formation of oil.
Quantum_Flux:
You bring up an interesting point: Electrical currents and their elctromagnetic fields may, indeed, promote hydrocarbon formation.
That could be why hydrocarbons have been detected in the interstellar medium.
How?
The electrical currrents and their electromagnetic fields do two things. First, the electric currents supply the energy to facilitate thermo-molecular bonding of hydrogen and carbon. Two, the electromagnetic fields and their "pinch" effect may draw the hydrogen and carbon elements together.
There is also some evdidence for elecric currents and electromegnetic fields having an impact here on Earth as well.
Remember, electric currents take the path of least resistence, that path, as your suggest, may be at the edges of the tectonic plates and other faults that provide a "path" for electrical currents.
Most electric currents and electromagnetic fields can't be seen or felt.
An interesting proposition: Electromagnetic fields are the creature of electric currents, in other words, electromagnetic fields only exist as the result of electric currents.
So, with Earth's strong electromagnetic field surrounding it, what does that suggest about the level of electric currents constantly flowing in and around the Earth?
The implications are astounding!
How extensive this "electric" effect is on Earth's crust and mantle could be a subject scientifically investigated.
As I noted before, ExxonMobil has an ad out on T.V. that states they are using technology that detects electrmagnetic fields in an effort to help them find oil deposits.
Plasma is a powerful medium, ions and electrons in "free flow" would seem to have a significant impact on chemcial reactions and the formation of molecules both mineral and even possibly biological.
That's a a good insight on your part, Quantum_Flux.
Regarding your comment about the oil industry relying on computer programs to find oil:
As for as the oil industry is concerned: All they care about is finding oil. The rest is "window" dressing (no pun intended).
And that's the point: To the extent that Abiotic Oil theory would help the oil industry, they'll use it.
That's why ultra-deep water, ultra-deep, drilling is an important issue.
The oil industry will go wherever the oil is, no matter what. To the extent their quest draws them ever into depths and areas (deep seas) that disprove "fossil" theory, they'll live with it.
Eventually, it will get harder and harder for them to publically ignore the reality of Abiotic Oil.
The oil industry knows about Abiotic oil theory; trust me on that one.
And they take cognizance of where it predicts oil will be found more than is readily evident.
But also to the extent their computer programs and technology find oil, they are satisfied.
After all, finding oil and selling it are why they're in business.
They are not in the business of "rocking the boat".
I'm convinced, I like the interplay of ideas on this website. Perhaps electric charge currents build up on iron asteroids due to the incident UV radiation on the bright side and the infrared radiation on the dark side. (absorption of photons converted to phonons which drive an electric current which then catalyzes the carbon-material and then on the other side of asteroid the excess heat is dumped or radiated as infrared)
Thompson-Seeback Effect
Perhaps the Thompson-Seeback Effect is also what drives the moon's magnetic field which (if hypothesis is correct) should align with the direction of incident solar radiation from the bright side to the dark side. This effect could also be what causes asteroids to spin.
(however, I contend that the moon's spin is due merely to gravitation effects, not EM effects. The Earth's wobble is a much more complicated phenomina to explain though due to many competing factors.)
REPLENISHING OF OIL FIELDS
Eugene Island isn't the only oil field to be noted to "replenish".
Apparently, on the other side of the planet, in India, this phenomenom has also been noted: April 18, 2005 (India Daily) A strange phenomenon shows abundance of possible crude oil in earth’s crust replenishing the drawn out reserves
"Almost all over the world, in many oil and gas fields (not all) as crude oil and gas is being pumped out at a rate never witnessed before, the reserves are actually getting replenished through some strange phenomenon."
"According to sources the phenomenon is especially conspicuous in offshore oil and gas fields."
Editorial note: Hmmm? Offshore oil and gas fields. What have we been talking about on this website? And reporting the huge offshore investment by the oil industry.
"According to researchers the earth’s crust which is thinner under the ocean is experiencing a strange behavior that may actually be very helpful for fossil fuel based energy supply."
The second half of the story gives an explanation for the phenomenom.
This is a _________ analysis justified on Plate tectonics, Contintental Drift theory:
"According to some geologists, the lithosphere has recycled itself for millions of years starting from the time when life started on the earth. As a result, fossils are all over the planet’s lithosphere not just on top part of the crust."
Read the whole article for yourself.
Then decide: Is it logical or is it ludicrous?
Or is it Memorex?
Expanding Earth theory is looking bettter all the time.
Anaconda says: "Expanding Earth theory is looking bettter all the time."
Please do more expanding earth stuff ... it is very entertaining. I was pleased to see you guys move on to that. And, no, I'm not here to debate/discuss anything ... so don't get upset/offended when I don't reply. You defeated me a long time ago, I'm just a lurker now :)
BrianR:
Good to hear you're a lurker.
I'm a lurker on your website, too:-)
Further responses to Coal Man are at ESF Research Conference On Earthquakes
Post a Comment