Misguided Foreign Policies Against Russia And Others Damage The U.S. And Its ‘Allies’

October 12, 2022

Political corruption, a lack of knowledge, and irrational foreign policies have brought the U.S. to a point where it is losing its primacy in the world.

In response to the 2014 U.S. coup in Kiev the Russian Federation supported ethnic Russian rebels in the Donbas region to resist that anti-Russian progroms with which the Nazi-controlled Kiev regime threatened them. This blocked U.S. plans to move Ukraine into NATO and to station U.S. missiles directly at the Russian border.

In 2016 the Democrats sought revenge by pushing fake claims of Russian interference in U.S. elections. To justify her loss in the presidential election Hillary Clinton created 'Russiagate', the false claim the Trump was somehow directed by Russia. She was supported by high ranking officials throughout the deep state and especially within the FBI. In hindsight their behavior was beyond belief:

An FBI supervisor repeatedly testified Tuesday that agents did not corroborate an explosive allegation from a former British spy of a “well-developed conspiracy” between the Kremlin and Donald Trump’s first presidential campaign before citing the claim as a reason to initiate surveillance of a former Trump campaign official.
…
The FBI used the unconfirmed report, Auten testified, to seek court approval of a secret surveillance warrant to monitor Carter Page, a Trump campaign adviser, and then successfully got that warrant reauthorized on three occasions, based in part on the same, uncorroborated claim.
…
Auten told the jury that shortly after receiving the first batch of Steele documents in the fall of 2016, a group of FBI officials met with Steele and offered him “anywhere up to $1 million” for information that would corroborate the claims in his reports. But Steele never did provide corroboration, Auten said in response to Durham.
…
Steele had been hired to produce reports by research firm Fusion GPS, which had been retained by a law firm that represented Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic National Committee.

'Russiagate' created a feverish anti-Russian atmosphere especially within the Democrats and their followers.

Adding to this was a serious ignorance of Russia economic and technological capabilities. U.S. politicians rely on biased media which created a false picture of Russia. I did my best to debunk that as often as I could:

The rest of the NYT piece is not any better than its very first paragraph. It simply repeats false stereotypes about Putin as an "autocratic leader" or about the non-existing Russian influence on U.S. elections.

Nearly thirty years ago when the Soviet Union broke apart Russia had a deep fall. The liberalization of its economy had catastrophic consequences. But it has since reformed itself. It is now back to its traditional position in the world. A large Eurasian power which is in nearly all aspects independent from the rest of the world and able to protect itself. It must therefore be taken into account when one thinks of global polices. That is simply a fact and not the effect of a "mindgame" that Russia allegedly plays with the "west".

That the U.S. still has problems to understand that is not Russia's fault but the result of the skewed descriptions of it.

I wrote the above in December 2019(!). Ten month later I revisited the issue:

Over the last years the U.S. and its EU puppies have ratcheted up their pressure on Russia. They seem to believe that they can compel Russia to follow their diktat. They can't. But the illusion that Russia will finally snap, if only a few more sanctions ar applied or a few more houses in Russia's neighborhood are set on fire, never goes away.
…
Russia does not accept the fidgety 'rules of the liberal international order'. Russia sticks to the law which is, in my view, a much stronger position. Yes, international law often gets broken. But as Lavrov said elsewhere, one does not abandon traffic rules only because of road accidents.

Russia stays calm, no matter what outrageous nonsense the U.S. and EU come up with. It can do that because it knows that it not only has moral superiority by sticking to the law but it also has the capability to win a fight.
…
Russia is militarily secure and the 'west' knows that. It is one reason for the anti-Russian frenzy. Russia does not need to bother with the unprecedented hostility coming from Brussels and Washington. It can ignore it while taking care of its interests.

As this is so obvious one must ask what the real reason for the anti-Russian pressure campaign is. What do those who argue for it foresee as its endpoint?

The answer to my question was revealed in mid of last year when the U.S. and the EU threatened Russia with 'crushing sanctions'. The idea was to destroy Russia's economy to then breakup the country. It was a very stupid one:

Russia is the most autarkic country in the world. It produces nearly everything it needs and has highly desirable products that are in global demand and are especially needed in Europe. Russia also has huge financial reserves. A sanctions strategy against Russia can not work.

To use the Ukraine to gaud Russia into some aggression to then apply sanctions was likewise a rather lunatic attempt.
…
Instead of splitting Russia from China the U.S. has unintentionally done its best to push them into a deeper alliance. It was the most severe strategic error the U.S. could make.

Instead of a taking a new strategic posture that would support a pivot to Asia strategy the U.S. is now moving troops back to Europe.

The narrow-minded bigotry of U.S. decision makers, fed by a belief in U.S. exceptionalism while lacking any conception of real power, has led to this defeat.

The U.S., through NATO, had build up the Ukrainian army with the intent to use it against Russia. As NATO General Secretary Stoltenberg proudly claimed:

As you know, NATO Allies provide unprecedented levels of military support to Ukraine. Actually NATO Allies and NATO have been there since 2014 – trained, equipped and supported the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

The recent war was launched by Ukraine on February 17 with artillery barrages against the Donbas republics. Massive sanctions against Russia were introduced. The Russia army finally marched into Ukraine.

It took only a few weeks to recognize that the sanctions, as I had expected, utterly failed. In the first days the Rubel fell only to come back much stronger. There were no shortages for Russian consumers. Russia's industries kept buzzing along.

But the sanctions did crush the 'west' and especially its consumers.

Over the years the U.S. and the EU have held up sanctions against the oil producers Iran, Venezuela and Russia. They also destroyed parts of Libya's oil industry. In total the sanctions have kept some 20% of global oil production either off the markets or made them more difficult to buy and sell. On top of this U.S. relations with major Middle East producers, especially Saudi Arabia, have cooled down.

In late 2021 consumer prices for hydrocarbon products exploded. When they threatened to derail the Democrat's chances in the mid terms President Biden used tax payer money, in form of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to subsidize gasoline prices:

The United States and five other world powers announced a coordinated effort to tap into their national oil stockpiles on Tuesday, attempting to drive down rising gas prices that have angered consumers around the world.

The move appeared to underwhelm oil traders, who had been expecting President Biden to announce a larger release from America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is the biggest in the world with 620 million barrels.
…
The concerted effort, the largest ever for a release of strategic reserves across multiple countries, is meant to address fluctuations in supply and demand for oil, administration officials said. And it was a shot across the bow of OPEC Plus, the name for the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries as well as Russia and other countries. Mr. Biden has pushed those countries to increase production, but has been rebuffed.

The move could bring a response next week when the group holds its monthly meeting. While it could prompt those countries to increase production, it could just as easily push the cartel to restrict supply further and push global prices higher.

The SPR voter bribe has since continued:

Since 2021, the nation’s SPR has diminished by about 35%, with 2021 starting with 638 million barrels in inventory. By the end of the year, that figure had dropped to 594 million barrels. Today, there are 416 million barrels—and even more are set to be released.

The U.S. has not only sanctioned major oil producers, it also instigated a war against the third largest (Russia) and pissed of the second largest one (Saudi Arabia).

The peak of such stupidity was the idea to limit the price 'allowed' to be paid for Russian oil:

A sane actor would conclude that the sanctions were a mistake and that lifting them would help Europe more than it would help Russia. But no, the U.S. and European pseudo elites are no longer able to act in a sane manner. They are instead doubling down with the most crazy sanction scheme one has ever heard of:

[T]he European Union pushed ahead on Wednesday with an ambitious but untested plan to limit Russia’s oil revenue.
…
Under the plan, a committee including representatives of the European Union, the Group of 7 nations and others that agree to the price cap would meet regularly to decide on the price at which Russian oil should be sold, and that it would change based on the market price.

How do you make a big producer of a rare commodity sell those goods below the general market price? Unless you have a very strong buyers cartel that can also buy the product from elsewhere you can not do this successfully. It is an economic impossibility.
…
Russia has declared that it will not sell any oil to any party that supports the G7 price fixing regime. That is why neither China nor India nor any other country besides the EU and U.S. will agree to adhere to it.

A month ago OPEC+ finally fired back by decreasing its output aim by 2 million barrels per day. To some of them a price of oil around $80 per barrel is simply a budget requirement:

The quiet understanding emerging from [Biden's] trip was that Saudi Arabia would increase its production by about 750,000 barrels a day, and that the United Arab Emirates would follow suit with an additional 500,000, pushing down gas prices and worsening President Vladimir V. Putin’s ability to fund a war that was stretching much longer — and with much higher casualties — than Mr. Biden had expected.

But the production increases were fleeting. While Saudi Arabia boosted production significantly in July and August, it backed away from their promise to sustain those levels over the rest of 2022. Its leaders, and all of OPEC, worried that the specter of global recession was driving prices down, from $120 a barrel over the summer to below $80. Below that level, they fear, budgets have to be cut and social stability is threatened. So the Saudis decided they had to act.

The sanctions and the bad relations with Saudi Arabia mark a major failure of U.S. foreign policy writes M. K. Bhadrakumar:

The Biden Administration tempted Fate by underestimating the importance of oil in modern economic and political terms and ignoring that oil will remain the dominant energy source across the world for the foreseeable future, powering everything from cars and domestic heating to huge industry titans and manufacturing plants.
…
The Western powers are far too naive to think that an energy superpower like Russia can be simply “erased” from the ecosystem. In an “energy war” with Russia, they are doomed to end up as losers.

Historically, Western nations understood the imperative to maintain good diplomatic relations with oil-producing countries. But Biden threw caution into the wind by insulting Saudi Arabia calling it a “Pariah” state. Any improvement in the US-Saudi relations is not to be expected under Biden’s watch. The Saudis distrust American intentions.

The congruence of interests on the part of the OPEC to keep the prices high is essentially because they need the extra income for their expenditure budget and to maintain a healthy investment level in the oil industry. The International Monetary Fund in April projected Saudi Arabia’s breakeven oil price — the oil price at which it would balance its budget — at $79.20 a barrel.

The budget point is an obvious one. But more important is that all of OPEC+ recognize the new sanction scheme as a potential attack on each of them:

Meanwhile, a “systemic” crisis is brewing. It is only natural that the OPEC views with scepticism the recent moves by the US and the EU to push back Russia’s oil exports. The West rationalises these moves as aimed at drastically reducing Russia’s income from oil exports (which translates as its resilience to fight the war in Ukraine.) The latest G7 move to put a cap on the prices at which Russia can sell its oil is taking matters to an extreme.
…
No doubt, the West’s move is precedent-setting — namely, to prescribe for geopolitical reasons the price at which an oil-producing country is entitled to export its oil. If it is Russia today, it can as well be Saudi Arabia or Iraq tomorrow. The G7 decision, if it gets implemented, will erode OPEC’s key role regulating the global oil market.

Therefore, the OPEC is proactively pushing back. Its decision to cut down oil production by 2 million barrels per day and keep the oil price above $90 per barrel makes a mockery of the G7 decision. The OPEC estimates that Washington’s options to counter OPEC+ are limited. Unlike in the past energy history, the US does not have a single ally today inside the OPEC+ group.

Due to rising domestic demands for oil and gas, it is entirely conceivable that the US exports of both items may be curtailed. If that happens, Europe will be the worst sufferer. In an interview with FT last week, Belgium’s prime minister Alexander De Croo has warned that as winter approaches, if energy prices are not brought down, “we are risking a massive deindustrialisation of the European continent and the long-term consequences of that might actually be very deep.”

All this is the consequence of U.S. 'Russiagate' phobia, originally raised for purely domestic policy reasons. It is a consequence of misrepresenting and misjudging the size and importance of Russia's economy. It is consequence of believing that Russian (and Saudi) interests can be ignored.

Russia's aim is to de-NATO-size Europe. It will do this by using the sanctions against it to deprive Europe of cheap energy. Sustained over months or years it is all that is needed to make NATO fall apart.

The sanctions will finally split Europe from the U.S. and its failed foreign policy.

Some U.S. politicians still think they must continue to pile onto the mountain of failure that U.S. foreign policy has become:

The congressional backlash against Saudi Arabia escalated sharply on Monday as a powerful Democratic senator threatened to freeze weapons sales and security cooperation with the kingdom after its decision to support Russia over the interests of the US.

Washington’s anger with its Saudi allies has intensified since last week’s Opec+ decision to cut oil production by 2m barrels, which was seen as a slight to the Biden administration weeks ahead of critical midterm elections, and an important boost to Russia.
…
Hitting out at Mohammed bin Salman’s decision to “help underwrite Putin’s war through the OPEC+ cartel”, Menendez said there was “simply is no room to play both sides of this conflict”.

“I will not green-light any cooperation with Riyadh until the Kingdom reassesses its position with respect to the war in Ukraine. Enough is enough,” he said.

Another Democratic senator and a member of Congress – Richard Blumenthal and Ro Khanna – expressed similar sentiments in an opinion piece for Politico that also accused Saudi Arabia of undermining US efforts and helping to boost Russian president Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

The senators want to block weapon sales to Saudi Arabia. Mohammed bin Salman will rather happily buy Russian air defense system. In contrast to U.S. systems they have the advantage of actually functioning. Saudi Arabia's Intermediate Range Missiles are from China. It will be happy to add more of those too.

Pissing off Russia, China and the whole Middle East – all at the same time – while condemning its 'allies' to a systemic economic crash and utter poverty, is the result of an irrational U.S. foreign policy.

I find it unlikely that the Biden administration with its librul ideology will be able to correct its own errors. The failures and mistakes will stay uncorrected and their consequences will multiply. It will take a regime change in Washington, and a change in its deep state ideology, to find back to some realistic view on foreign policies.

Posted by b on October 12, 2022 at 16:06 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Hi
Thanks for this blog entry (a fantastic wrap-up of the situation) and for your work in general, very much needed and appreciated.
There is an issue that I haven’t heard much about, but it seems that Poland is ramping up its defence budget, up to nearly 5% GDP.
Now, the business-as-usual assumption here is that that equipment is going to be facing East: Russia wins big in Ukraine and the Poles are facing the Russians at their border. Or they go into Western Ukraine, and they have to face the Russians (or, who knows, a Galitzian insurgency) there. Fine.
But those weapons can also be turned West. And here is the worm in my brain that just does not want to go away: you say that “The sanctions will finally split Europe from the U.S. and its failed foreign policy”, which is a fair bet. I have thought of that possibility, and I think that it will eventuate (unfortunately, Europe will have to go through a lot of pain before that happens). The key country here is Germany. If Germany changes course, NATO is dead. But politically, that German change of mind would only come from the right. The left is hopeless (look at the Greens). That’s part of a pervading pattern in the mechanisms of political control in the West, at least in the last 3-4 decades: the left response to a crisis is deactivated by different means, and when finally things get so bad that people will vote for anything anti-system, there is only the far-right left as such force. And I think that that is what is going to happen in Germany: an anti-NATO far-right.
The question that does not leave me alone is: Are all those Polish weapons going to be to defend itself against Germany? Or better: Are they going to be part of the American plan to put military pressure onto Germany once the German public turns against NATO and there is someone in Berlin that hints at taking that sort of action? This is Poland and Germany, and the sort of discourses that can be activated all across Europe, but particularly in Poland, against Germany (and a strong, nationalistic Germany at that) can make the Russiagate narrative look like a lame propaganda exercise by some sort amateur.
Do you have any particular views about these Polish budget developments?

Posted by: viscaelpaviscaelvi | Oct 13 2022 23:33 utc | 201

Worse than the White House are members of US Congress, United across the aisle.one dissident is Paul Rand who has faith in isolationism of America and Cold War policy of containment. No more wars on foreign soil.
Posted by: Oui | Oct 13 2022 19:00 utc | 192

I surmise that you meant Rand Paul.

Posted by: David Levin | Oct 14 2022 0:34 utc | 202

The US thinks, “We are the World”. Really, it is “we are A world”, just one of many and a very, very fake world constructed not by nature but by Hollywood and Disney. So logic and reason don’t apply. It is all about the story. And momentary satisfaction. This will continue until the American “world” is revealed as a facade.Walk through a door and see nothing there. That is why multipolarity matters so much. One earth, many worlds. https://julianmacfarlane.substack.com/p/one-earth-many-worlds?

Posted by: julianmacfarlane | Oct 14 2022 5:05 utc | 203

@c1ue | Oct 13 2022 18:15 utc | 191

The methane lakes on Titan exist because there is no life, plus it is so cold that they don’t break down from chemical processes.
That abiotic hydrocarbons existed in Earth’s past is not in question

Good, so we have established that abiotic oil is a thing, both on Titan and on Earth, and by extension anywhere.

– the question is if they exist now after billions of years of life, temperature and other forms of breakdown.

More interestingly is whether it is constantly being replenished, which it obviously is. Chemistry does not go on vacation.

As I have noted – the worldwide fossil fuel industry has spent tens to hundreds of billions drilling for oil and natural gas, and have found literally a handful of large abiotic accumulations to date.

Calling the industry “fossil fuel industry” is a political statement with a bias in it. It is politically more than a little difficult in the west to say that abiotic oil exists, much more difficult to say you have found it. If you don’t want to see it, you will not. Now, the Russians have immense resources in hydrocarbons as we know, I suspect they have their own point of view on this.

Posted by: Norwegian | Oct 14 2022 5:33 utc | 204

@Posted by: Norwegian | Oct 14 2022 5:33 utc | 204
One problem is that if long chains of hydrocarbons (and not just methane) are produced at the depths suggested by abiotic theory they have to pass unscathed upwards through decreasing pressure while still very high temperatures and that’s what the specialists are pointing out as an unsurmountable obstacle. It just dissociates according to specialists. I gave a link on the previous page and it got cluttered but not by me. As an alternative all docs may be found by google
Abiotic Oil: Science or Politics? – By Ugo Bardi
No Free Lunch, Part 1: A Rebuttal of Thomas Gold’s Claims for Abiotic Oil, by Jean Laherrere; edited by Dale Allen Pfeiffer
No Free Lunch, Part 2: If abiotic oil exists, where is it? – by Dale Allen Pfeiffer
No Free Lunch, Part 3 of 3: Proof, by Ugo Bardi & Dale Allen Pfeiffer
Always listen to both sides before you make up your mind

Posted by: petergrfstrm | Oct 14 2022 8:43 utc | 205

Regarding the origin(s) of oil, perhaps comet tails constitute another possibility. Space probes have detected hydrocarbons therein, and ancient writings tell of raining naphtha.

Posted by: David Levin | Oct 14 2022 13:34 utc | 206

Regarding the origin(s) of oil, perhaps comet tails constitute another possibility. Space probes have detected hydrocarbons therein, and ancient writings tell of raining naphtha.
Posted by: David Levin | Oct 14 2022 13:34 utc | 206
Well that settles that! Now we know that there are algae and plankton and possibly even dinosaurs on wherever those comets came from! Indeed, possibly in the comet debris which gets through our atmosphere and comes to earth as micro-particles around which raindrops form in clouds are the seeds of future life. Maybe we came from comet-sourced hydrocarbons!! (which might explain our collective greed and stupidity and fascination with moving fast and blowing things up!)

Posted by: Scorpion | Oct 14 2022 13:48 utc | 207

Posted by: Scorpion | Oct 14 2022 13:48 utc | 207

If you should come across evidence for any of the speculation in your comment, kindly post applicable links.

Posted by: David Levin | Oct 14 2022 16:43 utc | 208

If you should come across evidence for any of the speculation in your comment, kindly post applicable links.
Posted by: David Levin | Oct 14 2022 16:43 utc | 208
Next time I’m up there I’ll be sure to try to get some specimens. (Of course if had mastered Dream Yoga decades ago as had the opportunity to do, wouldn’t need the space ship!)
Seriously: they have already found bacteria which survive in space, I believe, so space is not a completely dead zone nor, most likely, a pure vacuum, rather a relative one (meaning our bodies don’t function in it). But I think common sense permits us to observe and conclude that even if occasional bits and pieces of life do make it through our atmosphere, at least on the material plane our planet is more or less isolated from any other.
We have no idea where the intelligence to ‘code’ DNA comes from even though evidence that there is intelligence in the mix is staring us in the face. Darwinianists, of course, believe it’s a random, bottom-up process. I suppose its feasible, and certainly it is scientifically fashionable, but it’s also extremely unlikely and the theory was developed before DNA was discovered.
Assuming there is some intelligence behind the coding function clearly at work in DNA structure and function, we probably cannot find it in material sources. That being the case, influence from afar in terms of life origins may not be so far-fetched even though in our current culture we lack the ability to consider, let alone analyse, non-material functions. And of course in non-material dimensions, physical distance is less of, or indeed not at all, a factor.
In various Asian traditions of yore they speak of multiple planets in multiple universes along the lines of ‘if it can be imagined it can be manifest.’ Our own planet and existence is beyond explanation and miraculously extraordinary though we take it for granted through habitual patterning (which those same Asian traditions claim is what actually creates the seemingly solid realm we karmically share making our material reality a form of collective dream). Most likely there are infinite other ones that are similar (because they ‘exist’) and yet entirely different (because each is a unique reality matrix). But as long as we identify with perceptions occurring within the bounds of our current plane here on material Earth, most likely we can never see those others realms, just like a radio which can only tune into one station cannot perceive any other stations even though (in this analogy) we know there are others out there.
Indeed, those inclined towards magical thinking might go so far as to suggest that the reason oil exists and was discovered is because we invented machines which needed such a miraculous and workable fuel source. Since its discovery, humanity is three to four times more populous with far higher standard of living. Demonizing hydrocarbons, as is now fashionable in many developed world circles and think tanks, is truly perverse. But here we are…

Posted by: Scorpion | Oct 14 2022 17:22 utc | 209

Scorpion @ 209
Only a tenuous connection to your comment… hadn’t thought about it in a while.
About 25 years ago, I watched a Hindu priest on a local access cable channel explain that the earth is like a magnet for life energy forces of all kinds. These forces then manifest themselves in material form upon entering the life envelope of the Earth’s atmosphere. He hypothesized that other envelopes exist and that life energy flows around the universe seeking expression in these special pockets like the Earth.

Posted by: Objective Observer | Oct 14 2022 17:58 utc | 210

Creating a moral equivalence between Russia and the West is lunacy and betrays total ignorance of European history and even current European realities.
Ask yourselves why did every single former Soviet-occupied state lined up behind Ukraine’s fight for independence from Russia.
Some of these countries have conservative governments like Poland and Hungary, and others like Slovakia and Romania have center-left liberal governments.
Yet they all support Ukraine in any way they can.
Because they know,their people know (anybody over 30) what it is like to live under Russian rule.
It is no picnic.
This is not some grand conspiracy or injustice against Russia.
Yes, cynical neocons and others who hate Trump used Russia to smear and to accuse baselessly. But that doesn’t mean that Russia doesn’t meddle in elections. Especially in Europe, and especially in the parts of Europe they once ruled during the cold war.
Ukraine was a plundering ground for the corrupt Russian governing elite, and its loss of it means losses for some important and powerful Russians.
That’s what the fight is about. Ukraine’s resources, and Ukraine’s human resources. All stolen during this invasion. From their grain to their children, Ukrainian assets (including the contents of museums) are shipped to Russia like a big loot fest.
Europeans understand the implications of a Ukraine lost to Russian rule.
Their energy imports would be controlled by Russia up to 100% (esp in Eastern and Central Europe). The trade routes through the Black Sea would be totally controlled by RUssia.
As will food and agricultural supplies up to about 60-70%. In the hands of KGB thugs who will then use these supplies to force political and strategic concessions from EU and NATO member states.
Plus the famous WW III issue.
WW III is likely when Russia and NATO collide at some border.
Before the invasion, there were a couple of such borders. Kalinigrad, and the two Baltic states of Estonia and Latvia. Now Finland and Sweden were added to that as Putin directly threatened them after the invasion and has been harassing Sweden since he came to power in 1999. Russian subs were going into Swedish fjords, Russian spies and Russian operatives were all over the country and regular drills took place at the Swedish border by Russian forces.
At some point, Sweden chose to join NATO after 50 years of the cold war during which it didn’t feel it had to.
That tells you a lot of what Putin is about.
Should Ukraine fall under Russia as was attempted on February, 4 more NATO borders would appear on Russia’s frontiers, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Romania.
That would increase the likelihood of a clash between NATO and the Russians.
This is why NATO and Europe are clear on this
Now it is also true that the Biden regime is using Ukraine to push through the demented communist Green NEw Deal. By hiding behind the conflict.
Biden could return to Trump’s energy policies and bring oil back down to the Trump levels ($35-55/B) and essentially cut the funding to the Russian army. As Russia’s oil is profitable only above $80/B.
Bringing down oil would force Russia to negotiate some peace and a settlement in Ukraine.

Posted by: Armaros | Oct 14 2022 18:31 utc | 211

@Norwegian #204
You said

Good, so we have established that abiotic oil is a thing, both on Titan and on Earth, and by extension anywhere.

No, we have done no such thing.
The presence of methane lakes on Titan which were formed when Titan was formed (or soon thereafter), and which have been sitting there ever since – is NOT a proxy for abiotic oil on Earth where modern terrestrial methane emissions are well documented as either leaking out into space or is broken down by the ecosphere even in human lifespans – much less billions of years.
You said

More interestingly is whether it is constantly being replenished, which it obviously is. Chemistry does not go on vacation.

Replenishment is a very generic statement. Replenishment can occur from existing ancient deposits of biomass. Replenishment can occur from the supposed large reserves of abiotic carbon that isn’t locked into carbonaceous rock. Replenishment by itself is meaningless.
But lets look at the possibility of non-carbonaceous rock replenishment vs. carbonaceous rock replenishment – both “abiotic”.
Yes, there are examples of hydrogen production from rock in the form of geothermal vents. However, if hydrogen production from rock is a thing – presumably also carbon extraction – which in turn form hydrocarbons – then there should be hydrocarbon accumulations all over the place in geologic formations which serve as “catch basins”.
This is how biotic hydrocarbons are found: they look for places which have biotic biomass under catch basins. But these catch basins exist in lots of other places – and they have been explored. Almost Zilch.
There are literally countable, on one hand, abiotic accumulations in such catch basins. And it isn’t for lack of trying – if in fact hydrocarbons are plentiful and orthogonally available vs. biotic matter, it would be fantastic. But no evidence whatsoever to date despite many, many attempts.
Now let’s look at non-carbonaceous hydrogen/carbon accumulations. Here is where the time problem comes into play. If there are truly enormous deposits everywhere – why is there almost zero evidence of this converting into hydrocarbons? Hydrocarbons not caught in catchbasins leach to the surface – that’s how the early oil wells and historical sources of naptha were found.
All I am saying is that there is zero evidence of large scale abiotic hydrocarbon production/accumulation to date.
This doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but it does mean that the burden of proof lies heavily on those asserting massive abiotic hydrocarbon deposits when so few have been found to date both in terms of active oil/natural gas exploration and in terms of naturally occurring seeps.

Posted by: c1ue | Oct 14 2022 20:02 utc | 212

This doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but it does mean that the burden of proof lies heavily on those asserting massive abiotic hydrocarbon deposits when so few have been found to date both in terms of active oil/natural gas exploration and in terms of naturally occurring seeps.
Posted by: c1ue | Oct 14 2022 20:02 utc | 212
Reasonable. But have you studied what the Russians did 20 or so years ago with deep drilling and now large production? That would constitute some sort of proof by demonstration, no? Or maybe there is little information on what they did? Or maybe my characterization is inaccurate? It’s just what I read when the peak oil stuff was raging. I actually subscribed to Ruppert’s newsletter for a while but then looked at counter arguments and found them more likely. Including the abiotic hypothesis.
It doesn’t matter all that much where it comes from or how it is formed. What matters is how much is available at an affordable price. If we are truly running out, of course that is serious. But if we are not because there is much more down there (as I suspect – let’s face it the extraction industry has plenty of motivation to restrict supply) then we shouldn’t get our knickers in a twist about it all so much. And the idea that the use of hydrocarbons for power and locomotion is changing the planet’s climate is ridiculous. Maybe the climate is changing and maybe we even have a little something to do with it (more likely deforestation changing weather patterns or some such), but the notion that power station, cow farts and automobiles are going to cause the planet to become uninhabitable is totally absurd. But if there is one thing we’ve learned the past few years it’s that the masses – including ones with PhD’s – will swallow pretty much any tall tale they are spoon fed. Scary…

Posted by: Scorpion | Oct 14 2022 20:22 utc | 213

What motivates the Ruling Class hostility toward Russia and China is that they are seen as obstacles to implementation of the Globalist project of:
—Green Masochism
—Normalization of sexual deviance
—Open borders
—Destruction of Christianity
—And most importantly one-world, unelected Leviathan government along the lines of the EU model.
It’s not the American people that hold these views. The majority, perhaps 60% concentrated in what are called the Red States, hold these views in contempt. The Ruling Class hates the majority of the American people just as fervently as they hate Russia and China.
We have no more influence or control over our American wing of the Ruling Class than you Europeans have over the EU. Just like you, we are merely their pawns.

Posted by: Wade Hampton | Oct 14 2022 22:49 utc | 214

@Scorpion #213
What I have read about Russian abiotic papers is that it was significantly ideological. Or in other words, some truth but also a dollop of Soviet propaganda.
This is further supported by feedback from people in the fossil fuel industry who note that Russian oil – at least that which is exported to the West is NOT abiotic.
The abiotic deposits in production that are known to the industry in the West are not in Russia.
As for deep: not the least bit clear why that matters. “Deep” needs to first be defined: is it deeper than Brazilian salt deposits? Deeper than the deepest Gulf sub-Caribbean? Deeper than the deepest well drilled – in terms of vertical depth reached – which was in Texas?
The Truth About The World’s Deepest Oil Well – oilprice.com

Rosneft states it on its website, in a press release on the completion of O-14, that the total depth of the well, including the vertical and the directional section, is 15 km, of which the non-vertical section extends 14.13 km, or 46,900 feet.
In other words, the true vertical depth of the well is less than 1 km or 3,280 feet. The so-called “measured depth” (the 15 km/49,000 feet) is impressive as well, of course. It is simply not the same as the “true vertical depth” that would have lent credence to all those amazing comparisons with buildings and flight heights.
…
So, if not the O-14, which oil well is the deepest in the world? In terms of true vertical depth, the Bertha Rogers No 1 natural gas well in the Anadarko Basin used to be the deepest in the world, at over 31,400 feet. Unfortunately, at this depth the drillers struck liquid sulfur, which put an end to plans to continue drilling.
In terms of vertical depth, though, BP’s Tiber field in the Gulf of Mexico, drilled by the infamous Deepwater Horizon, became the location for the deepest oil well. The Tiber well’s depth – true vertical depth – was more than 35,000 feet.
There is also a record-breaker in terms of water depth: Maersk Drilling’s Raya-1 well offshore Uruguay was drilled in water depths of 3,400 meters or 11,156 feet.

So what is the “deep” you reference in context to the above?
And then answer the question: why does depth matter at all in terms of biotic vs abiotic? As I noted previously: the biotic oil and natural gas that is harvested is not literally pulled from the center of the biomass accumulated from past ages. The hydrocarbons form when the biotic mass sinks deep enough into the Earth’s crust that there is sufficient heat and pressure to reform the biomass into hydrocarbons; the hydrocarbons then migrate upwards and are captured in the catchbasin formations which the fossil fuel explorers search for.
But as I already noted: every single natural gas and/or oil well is fingerprinted because explorers want all the information they can get to determine how much deposit there is – and knowing the fingerprint is an important part of that.

Posted by: c1ue | Oct 15 2022 3:13 utc | 215

Posted by: c1ue | Oct 15 2022 3:13 utc | 215
A year or two ago I tried to review my old reading of this stuff but couldn’t find anything, either because it’s not there any more or because of my admittedly sub-par search skills.
All I recall is that they had a different theory of the origins of oil based on which they looked at terrain formations differently and went far deeper. Maybe it was all a slick marketing trick, I really don’t know. I do know that around the time this debate was going on Russia went from being a minor player to World #1 – or at least that is what was being said around that time. So I have always assumed that for whatever reason they must be doing something right.
Without a clear understanding of how the stuff comes to be I suspect it’s hard to know how much of it there is and/or how much is being made on an ongoing basis. You tend to know much more about these things than I do (which is little) but I’m sure you also know there’s a huge amount of BS in our world, that oil is one of the major sources of energy for our modern post-industrial revolution world, so you put those two factors together and chances are that even if the DID have a good idea of how much there is that doesn’t mean it will be published far and wide. I just get a little skittish when people declare that we are running out in X years and therefore have to transition to Y within that time. I’m not sure such statements are based in confirmable fact.

Posted by: Scorpion | Oct 16 2022 3:13 utc | 216

@Scorpion #216
There is indeed a lot of bullshit around – which is why I have been sticking to independently verifiable facts.
There is a map of “biotic fossil fuel source layers” which I have seen several times – it is based on the industry’s working (and verified by results) thesis on biotic oil based on a past era’s anoxic ocean’s bottom accumulations. This map covers the Middle East, the West African oil producing regions, and Russia as well – which is why the (independently verified) biotic nature of Russian oil imported into the US is consistent. The rise in Russian oil imports is entirely a function of technology and capital investment than it is abiotic sources.
Secondly, I looked at the chemical operations needed to convert biotic matter into oil vs. say, hydrogen and carbon bearing rocks. The requirements are dramatically different.
Thirdly, the (lack of) presence of seeps or other surface evidence of massive abiotic hydrocarbon accumulations is a major problem with the theory.
Lastly: note that abiotic theory could well be correct in and of itself, but be utterly useless in terms of usable hydrocarbons. What do I mean? The natural gas and oil reserves that have been, and are being exploited today, are massive. There are many more places where accumulations of hydrocarbons exist but which the scale of is too small to be worth drilling for (and building pipelines to). Fracking is one example: a high enough accumulation of hydrocarbons in the continental US but which was not economically recoverable until the fracking technology changed the economic equation. Even now, there is a massive formation around, I think, Colorado which is basically completely undeveloped.
So: it is more than possible that rocks are being converted into hydrocarbons, but the resulting amounts are very small and widely distributed – i.e. useless.
As for peak oil: I have repeatedly noted that it really should be peak cheap oil. There is all manner of oil out there but the vast majority isn’t economic to harvest. The same holds even more true for natural gas: as I posted previously, the US was flaring 200 to 300 bcf of gas a year for decades until recently, and flared 185 bcf as recently as 2017. The rise in natural gas prices since the oil frackers started becoming “fiscally prudent” has reduced the flaring amount, but it is almost certainly still triple digits. This isn’t just belief – it is based on evidence of dramatic shifts in reserve levels which occur as prices change.

Posted by: c1ue | Oct 16 2022 12:44 utc | 217

Posted by: c1ue | Oct 16 2022 12:44 utc | 217
Thank you. Fascinating.
So I take from your post that they can determine whether oil is biotic or abiotic in origin and that there indeed might be two different types? I thought there was an argument about it because they don’t actually know. The fossil fuel theory was a speculation from the 1700’s I think (or some such). The abiotic theory is mainly that the fossil theory is wrong but doesn’t really profess to know exactly what it is and where it comes from.
Is this correct? Or am I either entirely mistaken from poor memory about stuff read years ago or things have moved on greatly since then and am just out of touch?

Posted by: Scorpion | Oct 16 2022 14:16 utc | 218

Back to Main