Thursday, October 4, 2007

The Lies Of Colin Campbell

Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and carbon is the fourth most common element in the universe. One would think that these two elements are able to bond together all the time and are constantly binding together throughout the universe. Yet not according to so-called "Dr." Colin Campbell, British Petroleum's chief propagandist for the biogenic petroleum origin cult and it's "fossil" fuel myth. According to Colin Campbell hydrogen and carbon only bonded together twice in the history of Earth.

The bulk of the world's production comes from organic-rich deposits laid down in two exceptional epochs of extreme global warming 90 and 150 million years ago.
Indeed it would be strange if hydrogen and carbon only bonded twice in the Earth's history during periods of extreme global warming.

According to science there is a different reality than the myth perpetuated by British Petroleum. According to the modern theory, and more importantly empirical data, hydrocarbons are constantly being created.

Below the Gulf of Mexico, hydrocarbons flow upward through an intricate network of conduits and reservoirs. They start in thin layers of source rock and, from there, buoyantly rise to the surface. On their way up, the hydrocarbons collect in little rivulets, and create temporary pockets like rain filling a pond. Eventually most escape to the ocean. And, this is all happening now, not millions and millions of years ago, says Larry Cathles, a chemical geologist at Cornell University.

"We're dealing with this giant flow-through system where the hydrocarbons are generating now, moving through the overlying strata now, building the reservoirs now and spilling out into the ocean now," Cathles says.

He's bringing this new view of an active hydrocarbon cycle to industry, hoping it will lead to larger oil and gas discoveries. By matching the chemical signatures of the oil and gas with geologic models for the structures below the seafloor, petroleum geologists could tap into reserves larger than the North Sea, says Cathles, who presented his findings at the meeting of the American Chemical Society in New Orleans on March 27.
Also see Colin Campbell: Wrong Again.

7 comments:

Jack said...

Have you noticed that you and British Petroleum share two things, your initials and your undying devotion to biofuels. Just kidding. Great Blog.

Anaconda said...

References:
Basement Tectonics of Saudi Arabia as Related to Oil Field Structures
H. Stewart Edgell, 1992

WorldOil.com
Tectonic Setting of the World's Giant Oil Fields
Paul Mann and Lisa Gahagan, Mark B. Gordon, 2001 (WorldOil.com is linked at the bottom of the page), Both studies can be Googled.

TECTONIC PLATES AND DEEP DENIAL

Strike-Slip Fault Zone, Pop-up Block, Uplift, Detached Megablock, Extensional Block Faulting, Thrust Sheets, Fold-over, Lithotectonic, Thrust Fault, Regional Faults vs. Local Faults, Horsting, Fissures, Fractrues.

What do all these words have in common?

These words describe geologic structures on the edges of tectonic plates where collisions and interations take place. These words are the basics in understanding the interaction of the earth's crustal geology since acceptance of Tectonic Plate, Continental Drift theory in the mid 1960's.

Before the mid-sixties, Tectonic Plate, Continental Drift theory was considered lunatic and derided and riduculed, even though it was first proposed in the early 20th century, and it had long been noted how neatly the edges of the continents fit together.

Of course now Tectonic plate theory is univerasally accepted as the model for understanding earth's geology.

But they are also words used over and over in the exploration and discovery of petroleum. You just about can't read technical data about areas of potential oil discovery or production without these words.

Turns out, as the title of one study indicates, the majority of the world's giant oil fields are located above where tectonic plates collide, fault, and fracture. Giant oil fields contain 65% of the world's proven reserves.

Without question the edges of tectonic plates go hand in hand with crude oil. And not long since man considered the origins of 'rock' oil, it has been noted that oil was prevalent in areas with deep faults, as if oil, did in fact, well up from those very same deep faults and fissures. Even today, oil geologists constantly refer to the various geologic formations that result from tectonic collisions, yet never admit in their deliberations that, indeed, oil may emanate from these same faults in the earth's crust.

Time after time, place after place, when the exploration and production of oil is at hand, you're taking about the deep faults between the tectonic plates.

Funny how these oil geologists refuse to simply say, "two plus two equals four," or, in other words, "Oil is discovered in large quanities around the edges of tectonic plates, therefore oil must emanate from the deep fissures existent between the plates."

But no. That would be too easy!

And this corollary between the interface of tectonic plates and the location of large deposits of oil starts right off at the top.

The oil fields of Saudi Arabia sit atop one of the most robust tectonic fracture and fault networks in the world. According to one study's author, H.
Stewart Egdell, "Basement horst [a block of the earth's crust seperated by faults from the adjacent relatively depressed blocks] that has been periodically reactivated, underlies the world's greatest oil field, Ghawar."

Periodically reactivated?

Think of a glass of ice water with regular little ice cubes floating at the top; you jostle or agitate the drink and all the cubes slosh around and then reform a network of interlocking cubes. During the jostling, fluid is able to move up and around the cubes as they collide with each other.

And apparently above our nice little drink of jostled ice cubes rests the biggest oil field in the world.

Why don't oil geologists connect together the robust network of "periodically reactivated" basement horst and the huge oil deposits above?

Truth is humanity tends to stay in a pack, Mr. Edgell noted the connection in his study, other geologists didn't follow up on his work -- probably for fear of ostracism in the profession.

And to be fair, Saudi Arabia is secretive.

Another item of note is that a cube 19 miles square of oil has been produced at Ghawar. Far more oil than any reasonable calculation of organic detritus that could have built up in the area. You would think that item would have an impact on geologists, but apparently not.

Also known about the Saudi Arabian oil fields is that Koudryavtsev's Rule applies: In areas with giant oil fields the geologic strata is rich in oil all the way down to the bedrock and beyond.

Think of a glass container of thick, rich honey; then shake it up, there will be bubbles, top to bottom, all through the column of honey. The bubbles of air represent pockets of crude oil.

This phenomenon is present the world over in giant fields above robust networks of fissures and faults, and while almost impossible to explain with traditional fossil theory, is easily explained using the abiotic model. Oil leaks out of the basement rocks and "rains" up toward the suface, collecting in different oil trapping, reservoir structures. Another prime example of Koudryavtsev's Rule is the Gulf of Mexico.

A description of the edges of tectonic plates and oil being discovered can be repeated many times over around the world. Check out the study published in World Oil magazine.

But it's worth mentioning, here, that the Gulf of Mexico is another place with a robust network of fissures and faults. Partly this network is a result of being on the edge of a tectonic plate, but geologists also believe that a meteorite that struck the earth 65 million years ago and wiped out the dinosaurs, landing in the Gulf of Mexico, off the Yucatan peninsula, also contributed to faulting in the area.

The famous Eugene Island replenishing oil well probably is due to this abundant inter-connected network of deep faults and fissures thoughout the Gulf's basin.

Is it a coincidence that it's here that the first deepwater, deep-drilled oil deposit was found, the Jack 2? Remember, this oil is beyond the 15,000 foot deep "oil window" that fossil theorists claim oil can't exist below.

How much more scientically elegant is it to postulate that oil comes from deep below in the mantel and rises through faults in the earth's crust to be trapped in reservoir rock formations, like upturned umbrellas catching the failing rain?

Abiotic origin is the simplest explanation available.

Fossil origin is the twisted and tortuous explanation left after 250 years. A theory first postulated in 1757.

Geologists are in deep denial

Anaconda said...

FROM ETERNITY TO HERE, or
From the Primordial Mantel to the Crust

Reference,
Energy Bulletin, October 20, 2004
A Rebuttal of Thomas Gold's Claims for Abiotic Oil (Summary Only)
By Jean Laherrere
Edited by Dale Allen Pfeiffer

"They have not explained how these compounds would remain stable as they slowly rose to the crust through zones where pressure was not sufficient to hold them together but where temperatures were still high enough to break them down to methane."

In short, how does abiotic oil get from the mantel to the crust without busting up?

First, it needs to be recognized that the pressure required to create the abiotic oil is more than the pressure required to maintain the abiotic oil once formed. This is akin to the idea that the energy activation level needed to start a chemical reaction is higher than the level needed to continue the reaction once started.

The pressure may simply never drop low enough in relation to temperature to compel thermal breakdown of the abiotic oil as it migrates from mantel to crust.

We now know that the 15,000 foot "oil window," by which any oil deeper would theoretically breakdown to methane is inaccurate as oil has been discovered at least 30,000 feet deep and even deeper to 37,000 feet deep.

Abiotic oil may maintain its pressure by migrating upward with great force pressing it up from below to the crust, therefore, maintaining high enough pressure in relation to temperature to not compel breakdown.

abiotic oil may, indeep, partially breakdown to methane, under reduced pressure, but as it expands absorbs energy creating a chimney effect, much like propane escaping from a cooking cartridge cools as it expands, allowing abiotic oil to continue to the crust where it lodges under pressure.

It could be a combination of any of these various processes.

The point is that the smug assumption that abiotic oil would breakdown into methane before it reached the crust, has readily and easily understood responses which explain how abiotic oil could, in fact, reach the crustal environment after originating in the mantel.

Abiotic oil theory's scientific elegance shines.

Anaconda said...

WHY IS DEEP OIL, WELL, SO DEEP?
AN ABIOTIC EXPLANATION

This blog has argued that deepwater, deep-drilling demonstates the existence of abiotic oil. But, other than the sheer depth and being beyond the "oil window," there hasn't been a physical explanation offered.

To provide an explanation one has to look at where deepwater, deep-drilling has found paydirt, and that is beyond the edge of the continental shelf (for background, please see post, Keep it Simple, semptember 20, 2007, comments # 3 and 4). The face at the edge of the continental shelf sluffs off or collaspes creating a fan of sedimentary material at the base. Or in the case of the Gulf of Mexico, deep canyons extend into the face of continental shelf, like side canyons on the Grand Canyon in Arizona. These "side canyons" in turn have either one or both opposing faces sluff-off into the canyon filling it with sedimentary debris.

So far, so good. But where does the abiotic explanation come into play?

It's argued, here, that the collasped material, if it did have oil bearing deposits before the collaspe, this material would be displaced and dispersed by the collasping process. The reservoir pressure would be released; physical enthropy would cause the oil to disperse upon a relaxing of the pressure and the physical agitation of the "landslide," avalanche action would further cause the oil to disperse. Liquid oil would not survive the tumble into the confined canyon, which would act like a restraining box, to stack the debris higher, or off the face into the sedimentary debris field, extensional fan, at the continental base.

The sedimentary debris at the end of its fall would then reform into a hardened mass, like the snow in an avalanche, when it eventually comes to rest. Snow at the bottom of an avalanche has been described to be like concrete.

This hardened mass then acts as a cap, which would maintain pressure for any oil entering from below up underneath the sedimentary pile. That is why the oil is found so deep because it's literally at the bottom of the pile. Think about that...25,000 feet below the top of the pile, and the oil is entering from below, from an even deeper source. There is only one explanation for where that oil is coming from, an abiotic expanation.

Also consider how deep that canyon would be without the debris piled up. That makes the Grand Canyon seem not so deep (Grand Canyon is approximately a mile deep).

While, it's already been argued why this isn't "fossil" oil, an additional point can be made. If somehow the "fossil" oil did, indeed, survive the avalanche process, by some unknown mechanism or the material had not gone through the "generation kitchen" process and so was still solid, at the time of the avalanche, wouldn't that oil or "kerogen" be spread out in the sedimentary strata, or column, and not concentrated at the bottom of the pile?

The two objections cited above must be overcame for a "fossil" theory explanation of deep oil to make sense.

While an abiotic explanation once made, is easy to visualize and makes sense. A deep crack, fissure, or "canyon," that cuts sharp and deeply into the crust reaching downward towards the mantel provides an avenue for abiotic oil to rise from the mantel. Or reverse the image: A crack, fissure, or "canyon" rising from the mantel reaching upward towards the crust, provides an avenue for abiotic oil to rise and then lodge in the sedimentary capping deposits.

In the continental face example, notice the oil is located at a slightly shallower depth (16,000 feet, as opposed to 20,000 foot depth, and up to 30,000 feet), reflecting the lack of a retaining structure, so the debris spreads out more, there may be a crevice, or crack running along the foot of the continental face that gets covered over, by the debris fan, which then traps abiotic oil when it rises up from deep below.

The diamondoid phenomenon (for background and references, please see post, Scientists Prove hydrocarbons are Abiogenic, February 2, 2008, comment #5) also suggests an abiotic source. Why does shallow crude oil have only traces of simple single "cage" structured diamonoids and deep oil have higher concentrations and more complex molecular structures with multiple "cages" stuck together. Because the shallow oil has to work up through more "straining" or filtering material. The deep oil comes to rest with less filtering through the geological strata. Literally, the diamondoids get broken apart by the grind, and less diamondoids make it though, and more complex diamondoids remain in the abiotic oil where there is less filtering effect.

Deep oil: Is there a mystery?

Anaconda said...

WHY IS DEEP OIL, WELL, SO DEEP?
AN ABIOTIC EXPLANATION
POSTSCRIPT

It must be remembered that the sluffing, "landslide," avalanche process described above happens underwater. This creates a "slurry" effect with the water mixing in with the collasping material, which promotes the collaspe and the mixing action.

A good mental picture is of a pyroclastic flow down the side of a erupting volcano, or a "mud" flow down a river valley off of a volcano. The eruption of Mt. St. Helens provides examples of both.

This gives a good approximation of the violent churning action during a "sluffing" event, and gives weight to the contention that any oil deposits would not survive that violent action.

Anaconda said...

BRAZIL OIL FIELD COULD BE HUGE FIND
Sao Paulo, Brazil (AP) Alan Clendenning, April 14, 2008

Again, another huge oil find just beyond the edge of the continental shelf in deepwater far below the surface of the seafloor. It's too early to tell, but 33 billion barrels of oil was the figure thrown out by the Petrobras spokesman. Does that sound like a trend?

This phenomenon is starting to look like it runs up and down the edge of the continental shelf off the coast of Brazil, right along the base of the shelf. Abiotic oil or "fossil" oil?

You make the call.

Anaconda said...

WHY DEEP OIL MIGHT REPLENISH

One of the most controversial issues of abiotic oil theory is the idea that oil wells might replenish over time. Eugene Island is the best known example of this phenomenon.

Oil wells are known to deplete and this is the basis of Peak theory. Although, there are tales from the oil 'patch', rumors really, that oil wells do inexplicably retain their pressure and oil production long past what was originally expected. So, if there is replenishment of oil wells, where and under what geologic circumstances would you expect to find the best candidates for replenishment?

Here, it is argued that deep oil is the best candidate. Why? Because the oil reservoir is in closest contact or proximity to the source fissure the oil emanates from. Therefore, the pathways the crude oil takes from the mantel to the crust are more likely to remain open because pressure is maintained and the conduit is less likely to get disrupted by geologic shifting.

In contrast, the more shallow the oil reservoir, the more likely that the pathway the oil took to reach the reseroir will have collasped or been cut off by geologic shifting between the source fissure and the sedimentary deposit because chances are greater they are seperated by unstable geologic strata.

Of course, this brings up the question of the rate of abiotic oil creation in the mantel and expulsion from the source fissures. No one knows the answer, and speculation is all over the board. This post describes the work of Larry Cathles of Cornell University which strongly suggests that abiotic oil rises to the surface on an ongoing basis, measurable on a human time scale.

If so, this has tremendous implications for the oil industry, and an added incentive in the hunt to find deep oil.