Peak Oil News: Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer

Saturday, September 29, 2007

Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer

By F William Engdahl

The good news is that panic scenarios about the world running out of oil anytime soon are wrong. The bad news is that the price of oil is going to continue to rise. Peak Oil is not our problem. Politics is. Big Oil wants to sustain high oil prices. Dick Cheney and friends are all too willing to assist.

On a personal note, I’ve researched questions of petroleum, since the first oil shocks of the 1970’s. I was intrigued in 2003 with something called Peak Oil theory. It seemed to explain the otherwise inexplicable decision by Washington to risk all in a military move on Iraq.

Peak Oil advocates, led by former BP geologist Colin Campbell, and Texas banker Matt Simmons, argued that the world faced a new crisis, an end to cheap oil, or Absolute Peak Oil, perhaps by 2012, perhaps by 2007. Oil was supposedly on its last drops. They pointed to our soaring gasoline and oil prices, to the declines in output of North Sea and Alaska and other fields as proof they were right.

According to Campbell, the fact that no new North Sea-size fields had been discovered since the North Sea in the late 1960’s was proof. He reportedly managed to convince the International Energy Agency and the Swedish government. That, however, does not prove him correct.

Intellectual fossils?

The Peak Oil school rests its theory on conventional Western geology textbooks, most by American or British geologists, which claim oil is a ‘fossil fuel,’ a biological residue or detritus of either fossilized dinosaur remains or perhaps algae, hence a product in finite supply. Biological origin is central to Peak Oil theory, used to explain why oil is only found in certain parts of the world where it was geologically trapped millions of years ago. That would mean that, say, dead dinosaur remains became compressed and over tens of millions of years fossilized and trapped in underground reservoirs perhaps 4-6,000 feet below the surface of the earth. In rare cases, so goes the theory, huge amounts of biological matter should have been trapped in rock formations in the shallower ocean offshore as in the Gulf of Mexico or North Sea or Gulf of Guinea. Geology should be only about figuring out where these pockets in the layers of the earth , called reservoirs, lie within certain sedimentary basins.

An entirely alternative theory of oil formation has existed since the early 1950’s in Russia, almost unknown to the West. It claims conventional American biological origins theory is an unscientific absurdity that is un-provable. They point to the fact that western geologists have repeatedly predicted finite oil over the past century, only to then find more, lots more.

Not only has this alternative explanation of the origins of oil and gas existed in theory. The emergence of Russia and prior of the USSR as the world’s largest oil producer and natural gas producer has been based on the application of the theory in practice. This has geopolitical consequences of staggering magnitude.

Necessity: the mother of invention

In the 1950’s the Soviet Union faced ‘Iron Curtain’ isolation from the West. The Cold War was in high gear. Russia had little oil to fuel its economy. Finding sufficient oil indigenously was a national security priority of the highest order.

Scientists at the Institute of the Physics of the Earth of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Geological Sciences of the Ukraine Academy of Sciences began a fundamental inquiry in the late 1940’s: where does oil come from?

In 1956, Prof. Vladimir Porfir’yev announced their conclusions: ‘Crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths.’ The Soviet geologists had turned Western orthodox geology on its head. They called their theory of oil origin the ‘a-biotic’ theory—non-biological—to distinguish from the Western biological theory of origins.

If they were right, oil supply on earth would be limited only by the amount of hydrocarbon constituents present deep in the earth at the time of the earth’s formation. Availability of oil would depend only on technology to drill ultra-deep wells and explore into the earth’s inner regions. They also realized old fields could be revived to continue producing, so called self-replentishing fields. They argued that oil is formed deep in the earth, formed in conditions of very high temperature and very high pressure, like that required for diamonds to form. ‘Oil is a primordial material of deep origin which is transported at high pressure via ‘cold’ eruptive processes into the crust of the earth,’ Porfir’yev stated. His team dismissed the idea that oil is was biological residue of plant and animal fossil remains as a hoax designed to perpetuate the myth of limited supply.

Defying conventional geology

That radically different Russian and Ukrainian scientific approach to the discovery of oil allowed the USSR to develop huge gas and oil discoveries in regions previously judged unsuitable, according to Western geological exploration theories, for presence of oil. The new petroleum theory was used in the early 1990’s, well after the dissolution of the USSR, to drill for oil and gas in a region believed for more than forty-five years, to be geologically barren—the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the region between Russia and Ukraine.

Following their a-biotic or non-fossil theory of the deep origins of petroleum, the Russian and Ukrainian petroleum geophysicists and chemists began with a detailed analysis of the tectonic history and geological structure of the crystalline basement of the Dnieper-Donets Basin. After a tectonic and deep structural analysis of the area, they made geophysical and geochemical investigations.

A total of sixty one wells were drilled, of which thirty seven were commercially productive, an extremely impressive exploration success rate of almost sixty percent. The size of the field discovered compared with the North Slope of Alaska. By contrast, US wildcat drilling was considered successful with a ten percent success rate. Nine of ten wells are typically “dry holes.”

That Russian geophysics experience in finding oil and gas was tightly wrapped in the usual Soviet veil of state security during the Cold War era, and went largely unknown to Western geophysicists, who continued to teach fossil origins and, hence, the severe physical limits of petroleum. Slowly it began to dawn on some strategists in and around the Pentagon well after the 2003 Iraq war, that the Russian geophysicists might be on to something of profound strategic importance.

If Russia had the scientific know-how and Western geology not, Russia possessed a strategic trump card of staggering geopolitical import. It was not surprising that Washington would go about erecting a “wall of steel”—a network of military bases and ballistic anti-missile shields around Russia, to cut her pipeline and port links to western Europe, China and the rest of Eurasia. Halford Mackinder’s worst nightmare--a cooperative convergence of mutual interests of the major states of Eurasia, born of necessity and need for oil to fuel economic growth--was emerging. Ironically, it was the blatant US grab for the vast oil riches of Iraq and, potentially, of Iran, that catalyzed closer cooperation between traditional Eurasian foes, China and Russia , and a growing realization in western Europe that their options too were narrowing.

The Peak King

Peak Oil theory is based on a 1956 paper done by the late Marion King Hubbert, a Texas geologist working for Shell Oil. He argued that oil wells produced in a bell curve manner, and once their “peak” was hit, inevitable decline followed. He predicted the United States oil production would peak in 1970. A modest man, he named the production curve he invented, Hubbert’s Curve, and the peak as Hubbert’s Peak. When US oil output began to decline in around 1970 Hubbert gained a certain fame.

The only problem was, it peaked not because of resource depletion in the US fields. It “peaked” because Shell, Mobil, Texaco and the other partners of Saudi Aramco were flooding the US market with dirt cheap Middle East imports, tariff free, at prices so low California and many Texas domestic producers could not compete and were forced to shut their wells in.

Vietnam success

While the American oil multinationals were busy controlling the easily accessible large fields of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and other areas of cheap, abundant oil during the 1960’s, the Russians were busy testing their alternative theory. They began drilling in a supposedly barren region of Siberia. There they developed eleven major oil fields and one Giant field based on their deep ‘a-biotic’ geological estimates. They drilled into crystalline basement rock and hit black gold of a scale comparable to the Alaska North Slope.

They then went to Vietnam in the 1980s and offered to finance drilling costs to show their new geological theory worked. The Russian company Petrosov drilled in Vietnam’s White Tiger oilfield offshore into basalt rock some 17,000 feet down and extracted 6,000 barrels a day of oil to feed the energy-starved Vietnam economy. In the USSR, a-biotic-trained Russian geologists perfected their knowledge and the USSR emerged as the world’s largest oil producer by the mid-1980’s. Few in the West understood why, or bothered to ask.

Dr. J. F. Kenney is one of the only few Western geophysicists who has taught and worked in Russia, studying under Vladilen Krayushkin, who developed the huge Dnieper-Donets Basin. Kenney told me in a recent interview that “alone to have produced the amount of oil to date that (Saudi Arabia’s) Ghawar field has produced would have required a cube of fossilized dinosaur detritus, assuming 100% conversion efficiency, measuring 19 miles deep, wide and high.” In short, an absurdity.

Western geologists do not bother to offer hard scientific proof of fossil origins. They merely assert as a holy truth. The Russians have produced volumes of scientific papers, most in Russian. The dominant Western journals have no interest in publishing such a revolutionary view. Careers, entire academic professions are at stake after all.

Closing the door

The 2003 arrest of Russian Mikhail Khodorkovsky, of Yukos Oil, took place just before he could sell a dominant stake in Yukos to ExxonMobil after a private meeting with Dick Cheney. Had Exxon got the stake they would have control of the world’s largest resource of geologists and engineers trained in the a-biotic techniques of deep drilling.

Since 2003 Russian scientific sharing of their knowledge has markedly lessened. Offers in the early 1990’s to share their knowledge with US and other oil geophysicists were met with cold rejection according to American geophysicists involved.

Why then the high-risk war to control Iraq? For a century US and allied Western oil giants have controlled world oil via control of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Nigeria. Today, as many giant fields are declining, the companies see the state-controlled oilfields of Iraq and Iran as the largest remaining base of cheap, easy oil. With the huge demand for oil from China and now India, it becomes a geopolitical imperative for the United States to take direct, military control of those Middle East reserves as fast as possible. Vice President Dick Cheney, came to the job from Halliburton Corp., the world’s largest oil geophysical services company. The only potential threat to that US control of oil just happens to lie inside Russia and with the now-state-controlled Russian energy giants. Hmmmm.

According to Kenney the Russian geophysicists used the theories of the brilliant German scientist Alfred Wegener fully 30 years before the Western geologists “discovered” Wegener in the 1960’s. In 1915 Wegener published the seminal text, The Origin of Continents and Oceans, which suggested an original unified landmass or “pangaea” more than 200 million years ago which separated into present Continents by what he called Continental Drift.

Up to the 1960’s supposed US scientists such as Dr Frank Press, White House science advisor referred to Wegener as “lunatic.” Geologists at the end of the 1960’s were forced to eat their words as Wegener offered the only interpretation that allowed them to discover the vast oil resources of the North Sea. Perhaps in some decades Western geologists will rethink their mythology of fossil origins and realize what the Russians have known since the 1950’s. In the meantime Moscow holds a massive energy trump card.


At 9:36 PM, September 29, 2007, Blogger jv said...

Is there a good account of the origins of the Ghawar oil deposits specifically? I've found articles on the origins of the dolomite at Ghawar, but nothing on the marine deposits that ended up as oil.


At 7:01 PM, October 03, 2007, Blogger ginckgo said...

This Engdahl instantly lost all credibility by stating that geology textbooks claim that petroleum comes from dinosaur remains. I have a phD in Geology and Palaeontology and I know for a fact that not a single scientific publication claims such an origin. For petroleum the source organic matter comes from marine algae and plankton trapped in carbonaceous sediments. Coal comes from terrestrial plant remains. Animals do not constitute a big enough biomass to make any contribution.

As for deep oil? Physics and chemistry both show that carbonaceous material of organic origin subjected to some heat and pressure at depth will reorganise to form the complex molecules found in petroleum. But if it goes too deep (i.e. the depth where deep oil should come from), the cemical bonds start getting increasingly cracked, and the resulting molecules get smaller and simpler until eventually all thats left are gases such as methane. finally all you get is graphite or maybe diamond, the only stable form of carbon at great depth. And no, you can't bring these materials up the other way and expect the process to reverse.

'Primorial' gives the impression that it's of similar composition as the material that gave rise to life. But after billions of years underground it would have been extensively altered to mineral form.

Another problem is presented by the view that reservoirs are continuously replenished from depth. If the rate is sufficient to keep up with our rate of extraction, then in the past we should have been drowning in tar pits, which occur where petroleum seeps through cracks in the cap rock above the reservoir. Over time this will happen due to tectonic activity, and bacteria can't decompose all of it if it bubbles out too fast. If the rate is slow enough that it doesn't cover the earth's surface, then it has no impact on replenishing reservoirs on human time-scales.

Many of the Russian wells with oil shows are still no convincingly proven to not simply recycled the drilling oil.

The Ghawar field certainly has a source rock, the Tuwaiq Mountain Formation, which under different circumstances may not have produced a super-field, but because of the unique tectonic history and structure of the Arabian Peninsula, the circumstances created an extremely efficient system.

And Engdahl is trying to have it both ways. He asserts there's a conspiracy by the oil industry to not explore according to deep oil hypothesis (it's not a theory - look up the scientific definition of 'theory') so they can have huge profit margins, but on the other hand the Middle East was invaded because there's no more oil to be found. The oil exploration industry is composed of hundreds of independent smaller companies that all want to hit pay dirt. If there is the slightest inkling that deep oil would give one of them a better chance than all the others, they would jump on it without hesitation. Finding the first super-field in almost half a century would have greater appeal than trying to raise profits on ever diminishing reserves.

Wegener? yeah there is generally some inertia before a paradigm shift, but that's what science is about, accepting the best explanation for ALL observations, even if it totally invalidates your past career.

At 9:40 PM, October 15, 2007, Blogger Matthew said...

Massive abiotic oil is just plain daft.

Petroleum occurs only in limited regions which all have the properties explained by the biotic oil hypothesis.

Then, there are the isotopic ratios and chirality which unquestionably point to a biological source.

This abiotic oil "theory" is just plain fraud.

And in any case, if it wasn't, it is irrelevant, because the supposed abiotic processes which make more petroleum are enormously slower than our depletion of petroleum anyway. Even the biological processes which made oil then are still going on. But again, it's just zillions of times slower than the rate we're using it.

What matters is how economically important petroleum was made, and that is clearly biological and slow.

Get back to being a peak oil believer, and stop dissing mainstream science.

At 4:14 PM, October 21, 2007, Anonymous driller_nic said...

I first heard about the Soviet abiotic ideas about the origins of oil a decade ago from a soviet trained wellsite geologist: he said it was a wacky theory....

It doesn't really stand up, the author of this article doesn't seem to know that much about petroleum geology (or geology- Wegener'a contintal drift hypothesis was supported by lots of geology, but couldn't supply a 'how' the continents drifted; then along came the DSDP, DOP and JOIDES, the discovery of mid ocean ridges and a mechanism for continents to move and continental drift became plate tectonics....)

How about a review of the Dnieper-Donets Basin from a biological origin of oil? Every fairway I've ever worked on has had a source rock: the coal measures in the Southern North Sea, the Kimmerridge clay in the Northern North Sea, the Tertiary shale in the Gulf of Guinea, the silurain Qusaiba shale of Central Saudi Arabia, I'm sure there's a suitable source rock there for the Donets basin!

At 2:14 PM, May 07, 2008, Blogger Anaconda said...

To Gincko:
Engdahl was being facetiously dismissive of "fossil" theory by referring to dead dinosaurs; in fact, he does refer to algae. You are taking undue umbrage as an excuse to justify your general dismissal of abiotic oil theory.

Gincko quote:
"Physics and chemistry both show that carbonaceous material of organic origin subjected to some heat and pressure at depth will reorganize to form the complex molecules found in petroleum."

What specific experiment shows organic detritus will "reorganize" under "some" heat and pressure to form petroleum?

Sorry, there is no experiment, or even a theoretical model conforming to physical and chemical laws, as expressed by mathematical equation.

"[R]eorganize"? What does that mean? How does it work? What experiments or specific explanations are there?

Or are you referring to the "experiment" where a piece of bitumen is heated and oil is excreted? Sorry, that doesn't prove anything.

The quoted statement above is an "assumption" that gets rolled out many times by "fossil" theory advocates, when in fact, that statement is flat out false -- prove it otherwise with specifics -- that would make a difference.

Gincko quote:
"But if it goes too deep (i.e. the depth where deep oil should come from), the chemical bonds start getting increasingly cracked...[and turned into] methane."

This is the 15,000 foot oil "window." But oil has been discovered 37,000 feet deep at Sakhalin Island by ExxonMobile, and Chevron has found "high quality crude oil" in the Gulf of Mexico at just over 30,000 feet below the foor of the Gulf.

And, of course, there is a new Brazilian deepwater find of possibly 33 billion barrels of oil as deep as 32,000 feet below sea level that is under huge pressure and is 500 degrees Fahrenheit, much hotter than the "oil window" says oil can even exist at.

These oil finds and many more, blow a big gaping hole in the "oil window" of fossil theory. In contrast, all these finds conform nicely to abiotic oil theory.

"...[T]he view that reservoirs are continuously replenished from depth." is a problem for abiotic oil theory. Yes, no one knows the rate of regeneration, although, geologists know that earth processes, such as earthquakes, are episodic and cyclical in nature, so oil upwelling toward the surface could be a cyclical or episodic event.

There is more scientific evidence supporting abiotic oil theory than "fossil" theory.

To Mathew:
Actually, crude oil and hydrocarbons in general are ubiquitous around the world. And, yes, there are deposits that are difficult if not impossible to explain using a biological origin model.

Mathew quote:
"Then, there are the isotopic ratios and chirality which unquestionably point to a biological source."

J.F. Kenney of Gas Resources Corporation has an excellent paper refuting both "isotopic ratios" and "chirality," as evidence of biological origin, entitled, Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection (2001).

Funny, both Mathew and Gincko say that even if abiotic oil is true, but doesn't "replenish" then it's irrelevant. While, it's possible that petroleum isn't replenishing on a human time scale (although, there is interesting evidence that suggests, in fact, it is replenishing), it still would be very important, on a scientific level; truth for its own sake, is always valuble. But on a commercial level, abiotic oil would likely mean more recoverable oil, replenishable or not.

The "it may be true, but it doesn't matter" argument is very weak. To trot out that argument shows how weak "fossil" theory really is.

The blog Oil Is Mastery is devoted to abiotic oil theory with direct links to scientific papers, trade online magazines, and news articles, along with comments.

The science makes the argument.

At 7:46 AM, June 04, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Abiogenic hydrocarbons and mantle helium in oil and gas fields

Jenden, P.D. ; Kaplan, I.R. ., Canoga Park, CA ; Hilton, D.R. ; Craig, H. , La Jolla, CA

United States Geological Survey, Professional Paper ; Vol/Issue: 1570

Published 1993

Selected quotes from abstract:

"the median abiogenic methane content of commercial gases is estimated to be less than 200 ppm by volume "

"this calculation suggests that little confidence should be placed in the resource potential of abiogenic natural gas"

With regards to the White Tiger oil field in Vietnam:

"Wallace G. Dow, an AAPG member and consultant in The Woodlands, Texas, calls the Cuu Long oil "paraffinic, classic lacustrine crude" expelled into fractured basement from lower source rock.

"The oils in the basement are virtually identical to the oils in the sandstone sitting around the basement," Dow said.

"This is the key -- they migrate updip through faults into the basement, in horst blocks," he said.

Dow emphasized that the oil's components indicate a lacustrine organic facies with lipid-rich, land-plant debris and fresh-water algal material, refuting theories of abiogenic origin in this area."

Lets face it guys, abiogenic oil is only one step above Intelligent Design as pseudoscience.


Post a Comment

<< Home