High Prices and Energy Crisis in Australia - a Con Job

There is no shortage of Oil - Just a war to grab and monopolise the lucrative energy market.

OIL PRICE PARITY

The price we in Australia pay is set by the Organisation of Oil Exporters and Producers (OPEC). The Fraser government signed the Oil Price Parity Agreement in 1978.

The Oil Price Parity is ONE SIDED. We are tied into a 25 year contract to sell our gas to China at 3 cents per litre. Who would sign an agreement to sell a commodity at three cents knowing that inflation will push that price to at least 30 cents a litre in 25 years? This deal was clearly white collar crime. Why doesn't OUR SELLING PRICE change each day on energy market as do the OPEC prices? The answer BRIBED POLITICIANS.

We sell our oil under contract at $6 - $10 per barrel and buy OPEC oil at $60 per barrel (predicted to go to $100 IF WE FALL FOR IT and do not protest too much). Florida doesn't supply 1% of world oil - losing Florida oil would not change the world price-per-barrel by one cent.

Bass Strait oil is produced at $3 per barrel. Yet we pay the OPEC price of $60 and soon to be $100 IF WE FALL FOR IT. Then the government adds 38.1% excise and 10% GST (on-top) and in some states there is a 10% state tax. In all, the government-take of your $1.30 at-the-pump price is about 60 cents.

AUSTRALIAN CRUDE

We export 523,000 barrels a day and import 530,000 barrels a day - a net import of 7,000 barrels a day - about what we need to import in heavy Arab crude for lubrication oil and greases. What is the ratio of lube oil to petrol per week in your car? Not one drop of imported crude oil goes to the petrol pumps around Australia - SO how can OPEC prices affect the price of our oil at the pump? It is a fair bet that the 523,000 we import that is offset by exports doesn't even leave the country except on paper. We consume xxx so imports make up xxx percent.

Australian crude is already distillate as it comes out of the ground. It needs no refining. Like many crude oils it can be put, from the ground, straight into any diesel engine. The filter must be changed more often because there is some sediment. This is how the oil poppet pumps operate in desert areas. Oil, in the desert, is cheaper than water. Water won't provide its own energy to pump more water.

ENERGY NOT AN EXHAUSTABLE RESOURCE

It is unlimited and renewable. Oil/Coal/Gas doesn't come from decayed vegetable matter. It is driven off the magma (molten core of the earth). It comes up as gas, is trapped, condenses, and by a chemical/bacterial process changes to oil and eventually to coal.

The bacterial change is an observable process. At Laverton (Vic), in the RAAF, we had a Fuel Section dedicated to solving the problems of the bacterial growth (Contamination/Fuel Filter Blockage) in aircraft fuel tanks and ground storage tanks. We grew the various contaminants in glass tanks. Huge grotesque black shapes grew in those tanks (as they did in aircraft tanks). They did no harm in glass tanks but, when they broke up by vibration in an aircraft they stopped fuel flow through the lines so the PILOT AND CREW HAD TO WALK HOME. This bacterium is what turns oil to coal.

GAS IS UNLIMITED

The reserves are so huge and so pressurised they are considered un-tappable. There is no secret where the huge reserves are and there is no need to search for oil. With modern technology the sub-stratas are known, mapped, and vetted.

There are no unknown reserves.

OIL EXPLORATION "EXPLOITATION"

The oil barons drill to test quality, using speculators money, find the hydrocarbons they knew were there, declare the finds uneconomical, cap the wells, and sit back as the share values plummet to zilch, and then they buy them up. The oil barons never relinquished one oil lease that they declared unviable because they knew they could go there any time and get the oil we paid to find.

Nearly all fields are being topped up from below. The top-up process is known as Abiotic Oil from geopressurised gas. Many fields considered "exhausted" have come to life again. The Yates field in Texas is a prime example. Such fields stop flowing when the source of inflowing oil from below becomes blocked as a paper filter becomes clogged and impregnable. Nature finds another path and the oil field can be tapped again.

Russia is a now a big oil producer because they understand the process and drill at depths better than 30,000 feet (9,000 metres)

Australia consumes 653,000 barrels a day (b/d), exports 523,000 b/d and imports 530,000 b/d

WORLD GAS

At the Brae B, in the North Sea, they went too deep on one of the first production wells and hit a reservoir of geopressured gas. The pressure was so great it started lifting fifteen thousand feet of drill pipe, drill mud, and a drill stem nearly three miles long. There is so much methane in the earth that they wanted to AVOID hitting this deep reservoir. At that time it was considered just too dangerous to exploit. That has now changed thanks to the Russian technology.

In Australia the North Rankin "A" platform was developed to exploit the Carnarvon basin which is just off the northwest coast of Australia near Karratha. When North Rankin was built it was the biggest gas platform in the world. For twenty years now it has been producing at the rate of 180 million c.f. of gas p/day., and 47,000 tons of condensate per day. It shows absolutely no sign of slowing down.

This single platform provides all the natural gas fuel for the entire west coast of Australia. In addition, every year, this one platform produces between 7 and 8 million tons of Liquefied Natural Gas. The LNG provides most of the gas energy requirements for Japan (at 3 cents/litre). Then there are several million tons of condensate and LPG and so forth which are shipped into international markets.

It is estimated that there is more oil and gas in Alaska and offshore of Alaska than in all of Saudi Arabia. Similarly, there is more oil and gas in Alberta, Canada than in Saudi Arabia. Similar reservoirs exist off the California coast, the Florida coast, Mexico, the South China Sea and the Great Rift Valley in the horn of Africa. Why do you think we sent the army into Somalia? It wasn't the media scam "Nation Building" - JUST OIL

The Falklands Islands (Malvinas), sits on one of the largest concentrations of hydrocarbon fuels in the world. Do you really think the Brits killed all of those men in the Falklands war for God, the Queen and a bunch of sheep farmers? Even more significant, do you think the Argentineans risked going to war with the United Kingdom because they wanted the Falkland Islands---a patch of barren real estate that is only suitable for sheep farming? - JUST OIL.

The world is fighting over oil, not because we are running out of oil, but because there is so much of it. It is not the shortage of oil that drives nations to war, but the overwhelming desire to control it. Oil is power. That is one of the main reasons for Gulf War I and Gulf War II. But, the real reason has to do with Globalism and the agenda of the New World Order (World Financiers Inc.)

The US has enough fuel reserves to last for an estimated 3500 years and any world shortages are not due to lack of reserves. It is the aim for total control so they can maintain the price squeeze. They still invade Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, soon Iran, and then Venezuela. Australia didn't need to be invaded. USA simply said, "We do not recognise Australia or New Zealand's claim to Antarctica". Go to www.CIA/antarctica and call up Antarctica. Check for yourself. They just took it. So far they have prospected and found silver, lead, zinc, copper, gold, uranium, platinum, oil, shale, gas and coal - all for the protection of the delicate flora and fauna.

WHY WOULD USA INVADE VENEZEULA?

http://www.eastbaynews.org/stages/word_sta...N=050711_1_word

MÉRIDA, VENEZUELA - The State Oil Company of Venezuela, PDVSA, confirmed today the discovery of four billion square feet of natural gas in western Venezuela, believed in June to have only been 2 billion square feet. It also confirmed that it possesses the largest single reserve of oil in the world. In addition to the estimated 78 billion barrels of conventional oil reserves, there are 235 billion more barrels of heavy and extra-heavy crude, known as Orimulsion, in the Rio Orinoco region. This means that Venezuela possesses under her soil nearly fifty percent of the total amount of oil in the entire Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, Iran and Qatar have a combined total of 676 billion barrels while Venezuela's total alone is 313 billion barrels.

Australia should be competitive. The cost of bringing a barrel of oil out of Bass Strait is actually under $3. & all other Australian oil fields are well under $10. The excise tax is currently 38.1 cents per litre on which we have an illegal tax on tax the GST of 10%. State Labor governments with exception of Queensland impose up to ten cents per litre fuel tax.

The Australian working men, farmers, retirees and others on fixed incomes are suffering as fuel prices impact on us due to the tyranny of distance in Australia. Our manufacturers are disadvantaged trying to compete with places like Indonesia where local petrol prices are from 11 - 14 cents per litre. Our trade balance is a disaster. Each month puts us further behind while Howard's tax drunk heroes push their government take through the roof. It matters little how much they take in tax - they are soon back for more.

EVERY PROBLEM HAS A SOLUTION

First we withdraw from the fraudulent and one sided Oil Price Parity Agreement.

Secondly we legislate that no elected government can commit this nation to contracts beyond the term of that government and no firms can make contracts into the future beyond three years.

We then offer an amnesty to all for three months. The deal is any firm or employee thereof who is or was aware of the capping of valuable hydrocarbon deposits shall be indemnified from prosecution if he/she turns State Evidence.

All politicians will be required to declare any assets or monies held overseas. All property not declared will be forfeited where possible or such value deducted from local assets if not.

Any person whose evidence leads to a conviction of a firm or directors should be rewarded with up to 50% of the guilty parties' assets or of the money recovered.

All leases, where there has been no provable drilling within the last five years, will be given warning that, unless there is active drilling the leases will be terminated within two years. If any firm tries to use shonky lawyers to overturn our decision to evict the charlatans who pretend to be oil companies, then we will simply impose a tax to drive them into insolvency or out. If Howard can get away with a retrospective legislation and tax then so can we.

We set an absolute limit on fuel tax - that tax is not to exceed 50% of production costs with effect immediately and to be phased out to equate to any blanket sales tax within two years.

All oil companies with no drilling rigs will be listed on the stock exchange as gambling institutions.

We require that all foreign firms and government agencies lodge, with the federal and state governments, copies of all data they have taken on Australia's and Antarctica's energy, mineral, rural, maritime, flora, fauna and water resources.

If competition is good and is forced on Australia then it is good for the Multinationals - so - of all oil leases 50% will be subject to exploitation by local firms as part of our National Competition Policy.

The falsification of data and financial records is done with intent to defraud. It is a crime. Jail penalties, punitive fines and confiscation of assets must be introduced to discourage blatant theft of Australia's wealth.

All assets of offending companies will be frozen. Sixty six percent of these assets will be disbursed to the shareholders duped by the concealing of the true value of hydrocarbon deposits found at their expense. The remaining 33% will be retained by government so voters will have access to decisions and accounts vital to the national interest.

The USA will be called to the World Court to either repudiate her claim to Australian and New Zealand territory in the Antarctic or justify the legality of that claim.

CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM AND SUGGESTIONS TO IMPROVE THIS WELCOME

It is still rough but still, send it out so others can comment and wake the sheeple.

A. R. (Tony) Pitt, 79 Ferry St, Maryborough Qld 4650 - Phone 07 4122 1412

So, what do we make of this?

It looks like the above post is written by somebody who is quite intelligent but a little bitter at something (not you ofcourse JD) and is looking to start up a political party.

from www.aspoitalia.net

Abiotic Oil: Science or Politics?

By

Ugo Bardi

www.aspoitalia.net

[ugo Bardi is professor of Chemistry at the University of Florence, Italy. He is also member of the ASPO (Association for the study of peak oil). He is the author of the book "La Fine del Petrolio" (the end of oil) and of several studies on oil depletion.

Ugo Bardi offers a simple assessment of the abiotic theory. His logic is so clear, and the culmination of his argument is so cogent, that even a child could understand it. And the conclusion is inescapable - at least to honest enquiry - abiotic theory is false, or at best irrelevant. -DAP]

OCTOBER 4, 2004: 1300 PDT (FTW) -- For the past century or so, the biological origin of oil seemed to be the accepted norm. However, there remained a small group of critics who pushed the idea that, instead, oil is generated from inorganic matter within the earth's mantle.

The question might have remained within the limits of a specialized debate among geologists, as it has been until not long ago. However, the recent supply problems have pushed crude oil to the center stage of international news. This interest has sparked a heated debate on the concept of the "production peak" of crude oil. According to the calculations of several experts, oil production may reach a maximum within a few years and start a gradual decline afterwards.

The concept of "oil peak" is strictly linked to a view that sees oil as a finite resource. Several economists have never accepted this view, arguing that resource availability is determined by price and not by physical factors. Recently, others have been arguing a more extreme view: that oil is not even physically limited. According to some versions of the abiotic oil theory, oil is continuously created in the Earth's mantle in such amounts that the very concept of "depletion" is to be abandoned and, by consequence, that there will never be an "oil peak."

The debate has become highly politicized and has spilled over from geology journals to the mainstream press and to the fora and mailing lists on the internet. The proponents of the abiotic oil theory are often very aggressive in their arguments. Some of them go so far as to accuse those who claim that oil production is going to peak of pursuing a hidden political agenda designed to provide Bush with a convenient excuse for invading Iraq and the whole Middle East.

Normally, the discussion of abiotic oil oscillates between the scientifically arcane and the politically nasty. Even supposing that the political nastiness can be detected and removed, there remains the problem that the average non-specialist in petroleum geology can't hope to wade through the arcane scientific details of the theory (isotopic ratios, biomarkers, sedimentary layers and all that) without getting lost.

Here, I will try to discuss the origin of oil without going into these details. I will do this by taking a more general approach. Supposing that the abiogenic theory is right, then what are the consequences for us and for the whole biosphere? If we find that the consequences do not correspond to what we see, then we can safely drop the abiotic theory without the need of worrying about having to take a course in advanced geology. We may also find that the consequences are so small as to be irrelevant; in this case also we needn't worry about arcane geological details.

In order to discuss this point, the first task is to be clear about what we are discussing. There are, really, two versions of the abiotic oil theory, the "weak" and the "strong":

- The "weak" abiotic oil theory: oil is abiotically formed, but at rates not higher than those that petroleum geologists assume for oil formation according to the conventional theory. (This version has little or no political consequences).

- The "strong" abiotic theory: oil is formed at a speed sufficient to replace the oil reservoirs as we deplete them, that is, at a rate something like 10,000 times faster than known in petroleum geology. (This one has strong political implications).

Both versions state that petroleum is formed from the reaction of carbonates with iron oxide and water in the region called "mantle," deep in the Earth. Furthermore, it is assumed (see Gold's 1993 paper) that the mantle is such a huge reservoir that the amount of reactants consumed in the reaction hasn't depleted it over a few billion years (this is not unreasonable, since the mantle is indeed huge).

Now, the main consequence of this mechanism is that it promises a large amount of hydrocarbons that seep out to the surface from the mantle. Eventually, these hydrocarbons would be metabolized by bacteria and transformed into CO2. This would have an effect on the temperature of the atmosphere, which is strongly affected by the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in it. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is regulated by at least two biological cycles; the photosynthetic cycle and the silicate weathering cycle. Both these cycles have a built-in negative feedback which keeps (in the long run) the CO2 within concentrations such that the right range of temperatures for living creatures is maintained (this is the Gaia model).

The abiotic oil-if it existed in large amounts-would wreak havoc with these cycles. In the "weak" abiotic oil version, it may just be that the amount of carbon that seeps out from the mantle is small enough for the biological cycles to cope and still maintain control over the CO2 concentration. However, in the "strong" version, this is unthinkable. Over billions of years of seepage in the amounts considered, we would be swimming in oil, drowned in oil.

Indeed, it seems that the serious proponents of the abiotic theory all go for the "weak" version. Gold, for instance, never says in his 1993 paper that oil wells are supposed to replenish themselves.1 As a theory, the weak abiotic one still fails to explain a lot of phenomena, principally (and, I think, terminally): how is it that oil deposits are almost always associated to anoxic periods of high biological sedimentation rate? However, the theory is not completely unthinkable.

At this point, we can arrive at a conclusion. What is the relevance of the abiotic theory in practice? The answer is "none." The "strong" version is false, so it is irrelevant by definition. The "weak" version, instead, would be irrelevant in practice, even if it were true. It would change a number of chapters of geology textbooks, but it would have no effect on the impending oil peak.

To be sure, Gold and others argue that even the weak version has consequences on petroleum prospecting and extraction. Drilling deeper and drilling in areas where people don't usually drill, Gold says, you have a chance to find oil and gas. This is a very, very weak position for two reasons.

First, digging is more expensive the deeper you go, and in practice it is nearly impossible to dig a commercial well deeper than the depth to which wells are drilled nowadays, that is, more than 10 km.

Secondly, petroleum geology is an empirical field which has evolved largely by trial and error. Petroleum geologists have learned the hard way where to drill (and where not to drill); in the process they have developed a theoretical model that WORKS. It is somewhat difficult to believe that generations of smart petroleum geologists missed huge amounts of oil. Gold tried to demonstrate just that, and all that he managed to do was to recover 80 barrels of oil in total, oil that was later shown to be most likely the result of contamination of the drilling mud. Nothing prevents others from trying again, but so far the results are not encouraging.

So, the abiotic oil theory is irrelevant to the debate about peak oil and it would not be worth discussing were it not for its political aspects. If people start with the intention of demonstrating that the concept of "peak oil" was created by a "Zionist conspiracy" or something like that, anything goes. In this case, however, the debate is no longer a scientific one. Fortunately, as Colin Campbell said, "Oil is ultimately controlled by events in the geological past which are immune to politics."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Thomas Gold, of Cornell University, has been one of the leading proponents of the abiotic oil theory in the West. The theory, actually, had its origin in the work of a group of Ukrainian and Russian scientists.