Hair Doo For Grecian Dress

debris of bacteria in oil, other questions

Moreover, one can ask more questions when these biological debris.

course, we saw that it was very possible that there are bacteria living in the land that would have contaminated the oil.

But insofar as the amount of organic debris should be small, one wonders how scientists are doing to detect them. These bacteria are primarily made of carbon. Yet, precisely, they swim in a sea of oil, which is also mainly carbon, such as bacteria in question. And we wonder how it's done so well to distinguish these carbonaceous debris from the rest of the carbon. Both distinguish

lead, or sulfur, which are very different carbon and have a molecular weight also very different, okay. Distinguish different types of compounds in the oil present in significant quantities, okay. But successfully identifying the tiny fragments of bacteria, which should not represent more than a few billionths of the total mass of oil, there is much doubt. Apparently, using chromatography to the identification. Is that is specific enough to successfully identify these compounds present in minute traces in the middle of lots of other carbon compounds? It begs the question.

So it begs the question of the possibility of identifying the actual traces of biological organisms in oil. And if the remains are not identifiable, the story of biological evidence could simply be a lie invented to counter easily people asking questions. Maybe people knowing that the official theory is false, expressed concern about the weakness of the theory in question and were told he had to invent evidence. Evidence obtained with complicated equipment and therefore, few people would question it.

also provided for the remains lately (for example, the remains of bacteria living in the Earth's crust), we can accept that it was not distorted. Both for bacteria remains dating back hundreds of millions of years, frankly, they should have been destroyed or recombined with the oil, since that time. So, if indeed there was debris, it would be justified much more easily with the theory of bacteria living in the Earth's crust with the official theory.

Last Posting Day For Australia

biological debris in oil, so-called proof of the orgine biological thereof

According to the official theory of oil, there would be biological debris that would fall into the oil. And, according to the official theory, it proves that oil is of biological origin. That would be the remains of bacteria that were there originally.

But it is by no means an argument refuting the theory of abiotic oil. To make this refutation, there should be no other explanation possible when the presence of these traces. Now we can explain that to at least two other ways.

1) It is possible that these are only biological contamination once the oil came to the surface. Or via the tube wells, which are certainly not kept in sterile conditions.

2) It has been shown that there are bacteria living in the stone to great depths. So it could be simply a contamination during the ascent of oil to the pocket where it will stand. This contamination during ascent is a more than likely. And even once in the reserve, oil is likely to be contaminated. So now, we are sure these bacteria will be found in the oil during extraction.

So this argument that supporters of oil would biotic final, is no absolutely not.

Red Flower British Pm

Some information from an engineer Schlumberger

The chance would have it, a few months ago during a family reunion, I learned quite a distant member of my family there that night, worked for Schlumberger. He worked in oil exploration as an engineer for dozens of years, traveling from one place of production to another. So he's very experienced in this field of oil exploration.

During the meal, the discussion drifted to his work. We then issued some information, not fundamental, but interesting.


Petroleum Exploration

On oil exploration and the possibility of finding new fields, we were treated following the revelations. In fact, I think he talked about it when it came about world oil reserves.

1) Wanting to show us that we are far from having explored everything and can easily fall into new wells, even in areas of major production, he gave us the example of an independent company acquired a concession to Shell Offshore North and found a large oil fields.

2) Idem. He said that Saudi Arabia has been little explored. He gave us the example of a well found by chance between two production zones, just 15 km. This shows that only 15 km from the deposits in question had not been explored. So much for the myth of the total grid area of the most important production. And if even the most productive areas were not squared, one can imagine other areas.

It goes in the direction of the idea that there is still plenty of oil to find, and that Shell and other companies do not hurry too much for find new fields.

For the case of fields in Norway, it was probably expected to find oil and that the dealership sold by the Shell was a company effectively controlled by Shell, allowing it to pay less taxes. Otherwise, why would sell Shell a concession which is suspected of finding oil so it can make itself the exploration and reap substantial profits after the discovery?

He also told us that the power of the financiers had slowed the search for new deposits for 20 years.

So the search for new deposits has been deliberately slowed down. It has nothing to do with the fact that we would find nothing. And if the search was slowed during the past 20 years, this is not because we do not find anything, but because of the financial decisions of the heads of these companies. If you want to be on the plane not conspiracy, it's normal. The ancient wells already provided the perfect application. And it is clear to return to the idea of conspiracy, that if we had done research in non-producing countries, most would become independent, thus destroying the international oil business and political control that allows the different nations. And even in producing countries, the proliferation of wells would have led to a collapse in oil prices.

Regarding oil exploration in France, he told us that France has been little explored.

So the idea that France was explored and fro across and we have found nothing is wrong.


Quantity barrels from which a well is profitable

We speak of oil in France, while another family member asked if these wells should not make much were profitable, he we learned that a well in the Paris region is profitable after 10 barrels per day, even at 2000 meters . And, even with oil prices at $ 25. It's very easy to drill. We were amazed. But it was something so obvious to him that the coup is as if speaking to some guys who arrive completely. Of course, it reflected the cost of exploration.

It changes greatly from what is heard saying in general. In general, we hear that a well must go to be enormously profitable, especially if it is deep. A well of 2000 meters is presented as very deep and we can imagine it is very expensive and should make it at least, say 500 or 1,000 barrels per day to be profitable (well, at least at least a few hundred barrels per day).

So a shallower wells, the threshold of profitability must be even lower. Probably 5 bbl / day.


On the offshore oil African

We learned that terrestrial sinks in Congo had been abandoned in favor of offshore wells because the oil company was too embarrassed by the rebels.

So, as I mentioned earlier, we leave out the wells onshore for offshore wells, which are much less easily controlled by the African authorities, which allows the sale of oil which has not been reported to government authorities of the country. This will therefore make more profit.

On the history of the rebels, it is clear that this is a pretext. One can think of three possibilities.

Let the attack by rebels of the wells is a pure invention, or a very strong exaggeration on the part of the company to have a reason to justify the abandonment of wells. Given the power of oil companies, it is unclear they have difficulty to protect their wells.

Either it is a reality. But in this case, one wonders who is behind. Probably a power that has an interest in the company abandons the field. It is unclear just rebels without a sub dare attack a power that could easily reduce them to ashes. There would therefore necessarily a power back. But given that oil company executives are certainly part of the clique that runs the world affairs in hand, there is no other power that would be likely to develop such an attack. So it is not credible.

Either it's both. Rebels have actually attacked the wells of the oil company. But they were paid by it for the thing is done and the oil company has a reason for the abandonment of wells onshore.

What Does Mean Red Flower That Everybody Wears

Lindsey Williams: agent of influence or honest man?

Obviously, there is the credibility of what Lindsey Williams said.

1) This book is there a complete invention?

course, Lindsey Williams could lie. It could be a kind of "false flag" business can rise to deceive people. We saw that for example for September 11 where people who present themselves as dissenting from the official are actually government agents.

But we must see that the book was published in 1980, therefore, at a time when power had total control over information. At this point, it was the era of mass media kings and their influence on public opinion was absolute. The power had won the information war. Without access to newspapers, radio and television, dissident voices were relegated to an audience of small groups. So, the power had no interest in inventing a story as this one. Nobody could get out of this case. And even if someone would release it would have been confined to a confidential hearing (what happened to Lindsey Williams, since virtually no one has apparently never heard of). Out such a story just to prevent the release of a real case, a case which could easily have been buried, it would shoot itself in the foot in a completely delusional, so it was useless.

So, under these conditions control of information, we do not see too what would have been the interest of the thing. It could have been used to light a fire-cons, in case someone else would have had inclinations to leave a case similar. But at the time, nobody or almost nobody knew about such matters. So the government should have issued a book for use against fire when there was no fire and it was not likely to be there (because if the book was a book done by the container government, it would mean that no independent person has never released a book on the subject). In short, the idea of a book published to manipulate public opinion seems a priori absurd (course of time, the government plans are very tricky, so you can never say never).

And then, the oil company or the government would have refuted his claims. What has apparently never been done.

So, a priori, Lindsey Williams is telling the truth.


2) The company would be innocent?

Another question arises. Lindsey Williams tells us that the manager told him it was the government that forced the company operating the Prudhoe Bay (ARCO) not to use or exploit the sub-fields of Kuparuk and Gull Island and do not reveal reservations in these places, and that the company had no part in these decisions. I think not. The most senior officials of the company would have to be aware and active in the decision process leading to the non-exploitation (Gull Island) or under exploitation (Kuparuk) of these deposits.

As a priori, Lindsey Williams is not lying, in my opinion, there are two possibilities:

1) The official who found the pot to the roses in Lindsey Williams saw that he had made a mistake, sought to mislead into believing that it was only the government was behind when he knew the company was also involved. But if he was involved, then it would not make the ball in question. So this assumption does not hold.

2) The charge to which Lindsey Williams has dealt was honest and he himself was misled by officials higher up, which made him believe that was the big bad government, not companies. That's why the manager has revealed the matter to Lindsey Williams. He was not aware he had to hide this stuff at people outside the company. Then, its hierarchy, told him especially not to speak of this discovery, and provided as the reason, the fact that it was the government who was behind this decision. And then, with pressure from his superiors, he asked Lindsey Willliam reveal nothing. Sounds like the version most likely.

Indeed, it can be a way to control high officials, but more or less honest. For such people, that kind of decision comes from the government, it may be the reason of state. Whereas if it came only from the company, it would be treason.

Similarly, if it came from the company and the government, it would be the plot. What could cause the indignation of honest and courageous and encouraging reactions of termination of the case. So it's probably smarter to put concerned only the government.

And if it comes from the government alone, a guy who wants to speak knows he can not go to the authorities and worse, he'll have all the secret services of the government against him. It calms passions. Whereas if only one company is involved, we may decide to go more quietly authorities of the state, see the papers, to prove the case. Involving the government alone can have a reaction to submission to authority (it accepts the idea that the ways of government, such as the lord works in mysterious) and fears about the immense power that represents the state.

course, Lindsay Williams is a cons-example, since he spoke. But, a priori, it was a person who is particularly pure, courageous and naive with respect to government action. And it was not financially linked to the oil company. Most other people are more cynical, less courageous, and derive their income from the oil company. So the likelihood of this kind of people talking is almost nil.

Here, in this case, the reason was the influence of so-called environmentalists. Therefore, the matter was not even suspicious. It was not even presented by the government as a lie, as the concealment of the truth. It was just an unfortunate problem of influence of environmentalists. What fate, and the annoying problems of politics.

Finally, if there was still the fact of lying to the American people on the reserves present in the area. But much of the case remained near normal.

In any case, we see that the oil companies are quite likely to lie about the state of their reserves. They are quite capable of lying on giant fields that could make the U.S. independent in oil.