Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Bounties Of The Deep

Bounties Of The Deep.

A multinational consortium has struck oil in ultra-deep waters in the Gulf of Mexico.

The companies said an exploration well called Stones #3 had hit reservoirs of natural gas and oil in 7,500 feet of water and at a total depth of 29,400 feet.


Anaconda said...


Blackwell Publishing,
Precambrian sedimentary Environments,
Edited by Wladyslaw Altermann and Patricia Corcoran,

Publishing House, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
Precambrian Petroliferous Deposits on the Southern Siberian Platform Exploration for Extractable Hydrocarbons,
D.I. Drobat et al.,

The Precambrian eon is 7/8ths of Earth's history, ending 543 million years ago, just after animal life began. It's veiled in mystery, yet one thing is clear: Petroleum has been found in Precambrian sedimentary deposits.

This is contrary to "fossil" theory, which according to Colin Campbell, "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." See (OIM) post, The Lies Of Colin Campbell, October 4, 2007.

As stated in Precambrian Sedimentary Environments, "...important hydrocarbon, coal and graphite deposits are also hosted by Precambrian rock."

Since "fossil" theory depends on the claim that oil originates from organic detritus, the theory has a big problem with Precambrian petroleum deposits because life started late in the Precambrian eon, so one would have to assume (there's that word again) that life started creating petroleum right out of the crib, so to speak.

Of course, many of these deposits are deeper than the 15,000 foot "oil window," "fossil" theory stated before that claim got blown out of the water.

The existence of coal in Precambrian rocks is especially important because "fossil" theory claimed coal was the detritus of land plants -- there were no land plants in the Precambrian eon.

The Russians are finding crude oil in Precambrian deposits, as stated in the above reference:

"...high hydrocarbon potential of Precambrian deposits."

"Large amounts of hydrocarbons were accumulated in reservoir traps."

"Considerable amounts of hydrocarbons are concentrated there in a subsalt [subsalt? interesting] carbonate complex."

"The discovery of large and giant petroleum deposits in the Precambrian deposits of the Siberian platform."

It makes sense that the Russians would report crude oil in Precambrian deposits, as they never wasted any time with the foolish notion of "fossil" fuel.

How many times does "fossil" theory have to be proved wrong before oil geologists reconsider their foolish nonsense?

Crude oil has been around along time as shown by these discoveries in Precambrian rocks. All this makes perfect sense if oil's origin is abiotic: Planet Earth was producing petroleum long before life began.

Say good-bye, "fossil" theory, your supporters are wearing no clothes!

Yes, the emperor has no clothes.
The moral to the story is simple: No matter how many people say, "such and such is true," if the reality is different -- if only one person calls it out, reality wins out over a popularity contest.

Truth for its own sake.

United in the bond of that common understanding.

Anaconda said...


Salt has a long and fruitful association with oil deposits. As far back as the 1901 Spindletop gusher in Texas, oil finds have been associated with formations of salt. Spindletop was found atop a salt dome. Similar oil discoveries were found in conjunction with salt dome geology.

In the early development of seismic imaging, impenerable layers of salt in the deepest reaches were labeled "abyssal salt," as the imaging techniques couldn't see any farther.

This was not a problem, as generally, the oil industry was looking for shallow deposits of petroleum.

What was of note was that this "abyssal salt" layer was quite common.

Today, while some things have changed, others remain the same. It's still hard to "image" through this thick layer of salt that exists in the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Brazil, and even is detected under the great Ghawar oil field in Saudi Arabia, and many other places. What has changed is that with the advent of ultra-deep, deepwater, deep-drilling, and the discovery of crude oil in the subsalt region, it's vitally important to understand this salt layer and what relation it has with petroleum.

Understanding the salt's origin would be helpful in understanding its relation to oil.

It has been assumed this salt is the result of deposition, by way of evaperation of seawater millions of years ago. There seems to be general consensus on this point, but what if there is another explanation: A hypothesis that the salt was expelled from the inner reaches of the planet in the dark mysterious depths of the past.

Salty seawater is assumed, but how did the seawater get salty. There seems to be an assumption that when water erupted from the inner core of the Earth, it was salty (however the oceans came to be).

But what if great masses of salt came first?

What if seawater picked up its salt from great exposed masses of salt already expelled from the earth? This is a hypothesis, so by nature speculative and subject to further investigation.

If true, what would this mean in relation to oil? Nothing, if petroleum was, indeed, a "fossil" of organic detritus, as that would have come much later than primordial salt flows. But if oil is abiotic, as this blog and this writer postulate with impeccable scientific evidence, then that might explain why such large deposits of crude oil are trapped below the salt layer: Abiotic oil is expelled up under this layer of salt, and while in may places the oil escapes the salt to continue to move up through the stratigraphic column, in many places it doesn't, and remains trapped.

If so, the largest oil deposits are likely to be closest to their original place of expulsion from the primordial fractures and faults, indeed, below this thick layer of oil trapping abyssal salt.

With Salt domes, oil wells have been gushers because oil got trapped in caves or depressions right atop of the dome, held in by other minerals also caught atop the dome, as it rose to near the surface. What if that oil had been trapped atop the salt dome from the very start of the dome's long journey?

Why do crude oil and salt have such strong association?

Maybe, because they have always had close proximity, as both are products of abiotic processes of Earth.

Again, this is only a hypothesis.

But the implications are astounding for the possibility of unfathomable amounts of petroleum.

How many Ghawars could there be?

How many would we need?

While only a hypothesis, and admittedly against the scientific consensus, more scientific study needs to be done.

The truth is, man doesn't know a lot about ancient geologic ages, and the forces acting on the Earth at that time.

In reality, man doesn't know a lot about the Earth's geology right now.

Man needs to be humble in the face of the unknown, but not afraid to move forward to make discoveries and dispell the darkness.

Anaconda said...


(AP) Dallas, Texas
Exxon Mobil Boss gets to Keep 2 Titles, May 28, 2008

ExxonMobil shareholders reject Rockefeller family bid to seperate the jobs of Chairman and CEO, which was really about diverting investment away from ExxonMobil's core business: Production and marketing of petroleum.

This writer urged the rejection of the Rockefeller bid, see (OIM) post, Sakhalin 1: 7 Miles Deep, April 24, 2008, Comment #7, Rockefellers Signal Disagreement With ExxonMobil, 5/2/08.

Anaconda said...


Ghawar: The Anatomy of the World's Largest Oil Field,
Abdulkader M. Afifi,

(OIM) Post, Technical Barriers To Carioca Field, May 3, 2008, Comment #9, Existence of "Oil Dome" Final, Indisputable Proof of Abiotic Oil?, 5/8/08

Is Ghawar an anomaly, a one time occurance, or are there more Ghawars to be found?

The question has been asked in oil circles for years. So far, the answer has been elusive at best, or a simple, no, Ghawar is a one of a kind.

It's been like hunting the Great White Whale, Moby Dick.

First, you have to ask what kind of geological structure is Ghawar? The above reference gives the short answer: An anticlinal fold, or "roll" over a basement horst, which has been "reactivated episodically." The sedimentary layers are formed in an echelon or "chevron" of ascending anticlinal folds. Please see Figure 8. in the above reference, notice how the folds penitrate into the basement and that abyssal salt is depicted as partially overlying the basement. Figure 9. provides a seismic view, again, notice how the faults and fracturing penitrate into the basement.

It's a large geological structure, other oil bearing anticlinal structures are smaller, most, much smaller.

How did it get so large? It's postulated, here, that when the Arabian plate swung into and collided with the Eurasian plate the geology folded as a result of pressure from both sides. This caused an upheaval and fracturing pattern, followed by collaspe and subsidence on a repeated basis, leading to the echelon structure. The abiotic oil pressure from below caused a cascading of oil upward throughout the echelon structure.

But what is remarkable, and, so far, unique, is that the whole structure got "lifted" or pushed upward toward the surface -- squished to the top.

But was there another force, besides the colliding tectonic plates at work? The appearance of abyssal salt provides a clue. The salt is not especially thick, it may not even cover the whole basement. Oil is used as hydraulic fluid. It can transfer tremendous pressure in the right circumstances.

It's the contention, here, that active upwelling of abiotic oil from source fissures pushed up, rupturing the abyssal salt membrane above the precambrian basement, releasing huge amounts of abiotic oil, and its upward pressure assisted in causing the echeloned, anticlinal fold -- as opposed to merely taking advantage of an existing fold. The three countervailing forces, combined with an overall "lifting" of the entire regional structure, as a result of the "pinching" action between the two tectonic plates, raised Ghawar to the surface like the fabled lost city of Atlantis rising from the sea.

What does all this say about the possibilty of more Ghawar like oil finds?

The greatest possibility is in ultra-deepwater off the continental shelfs. Ghawar was "lifted" to the surface by chance, unique, tectonic circumstances present at the collision point where it formed.

It is probable, while the forces present at Ghawar assisted in rupturing the abyssal salt membrane (probably a thinner membrane to begin with), there are many other places where the abyssal salt membrane has not been ruptured. But, never the less, repeated fracturing and faulting has occured, as a result of tectonic pressure and abiotic pressure buildup that results in periodic release of pressure by expulsion of material (abiotic oil) up under the abyssal salt layers.

So, possibly an exact replica of Ghawar will not be found. But there is a strong likelyhood of repeated reduced scale oil deposits, possibly rivaling Ghawar because the oil will be in a higher state of purity as a result of its proximity to the primordial source fissures, as opposed to being dispersed into the geologic column.

And, the number of these sub-abyssal salt reservoirs are likely to be substantial in number.

The association between salt and oil is strong.