Anerobic Oil

G

gritzle70

Guest
I am not a scientist, but I believe that there is renewable free energy available to everyone. From my non-scientific viewpoint, I would assume it involves EM (Tesla) technology used in a benevolent way (but there is no money to be made by the government in that). Nature has provided us with the gift all along.

The oil cartel has controlled the world's economy for the last 150 years so why not continue the scam.

I read this article, but I found it curious that he is claiming all this oil is available in Colorado, the headquarters of our military/industrial/occult/alien complex.

Although I believe this person is "hawking his product", I googled "Canadian Royal Trust Funds" and did find "legitimate" links which report on these types of trusts.

http://www.ctf.ca/articles/News.asp?article_ID=113

http://www.deltaga.com/reportForm.asp?rep=2

http://www.deltaga.com/reportForm.asp?rep=2

http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/Abacus-Canadian-royalty-trusts.html

Check out the Chinese firm Abacus Consulting Services which is the source of the above report:

Look at their logo

http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/abacus.html

ABA US
C

Does this mean China owns Saudi Arabia and the US oil reserves (or that is its intentions?)

********************

"The US Government's Secret Colorado Oil Discovery"

http://www.stansberryonline.com/OIL/20060405-OIL-COL.asp?pcode=WOILG428&alias=200604OIL&scode=XPPDW002

> Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve
> in the world - more than 2 TRILLION barrels

> Here are the official estimates:

> 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
> 18-times as much oil as Iraq
> 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
> 22-times as much oil as Iran
> 500-times as much oil as Yemen

> And it's all right here in the Western United States.

> James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says, "We've got more oil in this very compact area
> than the entire Middle East."

> A Special Offer for
> New Members - 50% OFF
> The Oil Report costs $199 for a full year.

> But if you sign up through this special offer, I'd like to give you an even better deal...

> I'd like to give you a full year of research - including all the Special Reports I've described in this letter - my > monthly newsletter - and my weekly updates - for just $99.

> That's 50% off the regular rate.

> For the special rate of $99, you'll get:

> 12 issues of The Oil Report
> Bi-Weekly reports from my Oil Diary
> Special Report: The U.S. Government's Secret Oil Supply: How to Make Money in the New American Oil Boom
> Special Report: Deepwater Drilling: The New Frontier
> Special Report: Get Paid to Invest in Oil: Guaranteed Income From Canada's Royalty Trusts

I have read several reports about a deep water oil (abiotic) which is supposedly a renewable resource. I first read about it from a Russian source. However, I have heard that it is very expensive and difficult to extract because it is so deep within the earth.

Is there any genuine scientific evidence which indicates that such a type of oil exists?
 
I heard of 'Oil Shale' a couple of years ago, if I remember rightly, the main problem was cost. From what I can remember, there's lots of the stuff, much more than there is of the usual stuff we get from OPEC. There's stacks of it in various locales around the world. One other location was in the area of former soviet republics in the area NW of the Dead Sea. The former republics ending in 'stan'. I remember the cost of extracting and refining at the time would at those prices have run at a loss. Given today's steep prices, it's now cost-effective to mine this stuff. I think there's loads of it in Venezuela, not sure where else. There's mention of it in somebody's book due out about now, can't be too sure but I think it's Greg Palast's new one.

I found this:

Oil Shale Technology by Sunggyu Lee

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0849346150/104-9634844-4893531?v=glance&n=283155

This book focuses on the fundamental and engineering aspects of shale oil extraction, as well as the mathematical clarification of the complex transport mechanisms involved in oil shale pyrolysis. The influence of the chemical and physical environment on the enhancement of oil yield is explained, and ex situ and in situ technologies are reviewed and compared. The discussion on ex situ shale oil extraction includes both thermal and chemical extraction techniques such as retorting, solvent, and supercritical extraction. Parallels are drawn between the processes available for recovering and using other fossil fuel sources, such as coal and tar sands, and oil shale. In addition to covering the characteristics of oil shale, Oil Shale Technology summarizes the physical and chemical properties of shale oil obtained from various deposits around the world. The influence of the retorting process on the properties of the resulting oil shale is discussed, as are standardized techniques for determining these properties. Engineers, geologists, chemists, chemical engineers, and other researchers in the petroleum and chemical industries should consider this book an important reference resource.

Also there's this:

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/09/oil_shale_retor.html

(All apologies to the insomniacs for I'm about to send them off to sleep, there's some further links/comments re Shale Oil at the bottom of the linked-page, it might be easier to skip the following and just hit the link.)

September 27, 2005
Oil shale retort

A number of observers have been pointing to oil shale as the solution to all our energy problems. If oil shale does turn out to be the resource of the future, then our problems are only beginning.

Instapundit sees a "plan to put Middle East oil producers out of business" in this story from the Rocky Mountain News:

[W]ith crude oil above $66 a barrel at the close of trading [on Sept. 20], oil shale is a promising alternative to crude. The Green River shale deposits in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming are estimated to contain 1.5 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil, and while not all of it can be recovered, half that amount is nearly triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.

Other influential voices sharing Glenn's enthusiasm include Austin Bay, GOP Bloggers, Polipundit, and Econopundit.

American oil companies abandoned oil shale demonstration facilities in the 1980's on the grounds that production was not economically viable. More recently, an oil shale demonstration plant in Queensland, Australia produced 700,000 barrels of oil between 2001 and 2003, and oil shale remains a major energy source for Estonia. At President Bush's direction and with encouragement from this summer's Energy Bill, the Bureau of Land Management sought applications from companies for small-scale research, development, and demonstration projects, for which 18 companies have applied.

"Oil shale" typically is not shale and does not contain oil, but rather is a rock known as marl containing organic compounds like kerogen. When heated to high temperatures (referred to as "retorting"), one can obtain an oil-like substance from the rock which can be refined to produce a transportation fuel. Bubba of Belly of the Beast, who worked for two years on attempted commercialization of oil shale, describes the process this way:

If you heat this shale to 700 degrees F you will turn this organic carbon (kerogen) into the nastiest, stinkiest, gooiest, pile of oil-like crap that you can imagine. Then if you send it through the gnarliest oil refinery on the planet you can make this s*** into transportation fuel. In the mean time you have created all kinds of nasty byproducts, have polluted the air and groundwater of wherever you have extracted it.

The fact that large quantities of heat are required to obtain a usable fuel from the rock means that this is a far less efficient source of energy than conventional oil. Shell claims it can produce 3.5 units of energy for every unit input, though one wonders whether the energy content of all the inputs is taken into account in such figures. The lower this ratio, the more the cost of producing oil from shale would rise as energy prices go up. Another implication of the high energy needs for processing is that significantly more greenhouse gases are released per barrel of usable fuel produced. Concerns about greenhouse emissions appear to have been the basis on which Greenpeace succeeded in closing down the Australian demonstration plant.

The rock expands in size upon heating, meaning you can't put it back in the ground, and it is carcinogenic. Two metric tons of rock are required to obtain a barrel of synthetic crude. Mark in Mexico (hat tip: Ace) spells out the logistical problems that this raises:

Try to imagine the hole a 33,400,000,000,000 tonne excavation would make. Hello, China. Try to imagine the mountain of waste rock (carcinogenic) because the rock expands, kind of like popcorn, when it is heated to remove the kerogen, so more has to go back than is removed. Hello, Icarus. Try to imagine the poisons produced by the processing of all that shale if it is done above ground, or all the dead fish if it is done in situ. Hello, King of the Wasteland-- the Ayatollah of rock-'n-rolla.

Three barrels of water are needed per barrel of oil produced, and it is not clear how current users of that water might be persuaded to surrender its use for oil shale.

Shell is working on an in situ retorting technology, in which the rock could be heated without being removed from the mountain. They claim to be able to produce oil at a cost of $30 per barrel, and in situ processing should reduce the environmental, energy, and water costs.

Stuart Staniford at the Oil Drum noted another problem with relying on oil shale to replace conventional oil resources-- we may need such replacement very quickly, and it will take a considerable amount of time to develop this resource. A recent Rand study concluded it will be at least 12 years before oil shale reaches the production growth phase. And that is a technological assessment, not a reference to the environmental review process. If it takes 15 years to get an oil refinery built and approved, despite well known technology and well understood environmental issues, viewing oil shale as something that could make major contributions to world energy supplies in the immediate future seems highly unrealistic.

Despite these misgivings, I believe that the applications that BLM has received for oil shale demonstration projects should be approved and pursued aggressively. Given these lead times, we certainly need to be developing the ability to exploit this resource, if need be. Bad as this option is, I'm not certain that we have anything better. But unlike the enthusiastic supporters of oil shale, my hope is that we never have to rely on it.
 
If there are large quantities of abiotic oil in Colorado, then do you think the military/industrial/occult/alien complex underground base in Denver might have an interest in accessing this oil. If there is any truth to the statements that the base in several miles below the surface, could they access the oil from underground?
 
Back
Top Bottom