Friday, May 30, 2008

Petrobras Finds Light Oil In Shallow Water

Petrobras makes new, "important" light oil find

RIO DE JANEIRO, May 29 (Reuters) - Brazilian state oil company Petrobras on Thursday announced a new "important" find of light oil 36 API grade in the shallow waters of the Santos basin off Sao Paulo state's coast.

Unlike a slew of recent discoveries in the subsalt cluster at great depths at sea, the find was made above the layer of salt about 6,560 feet (2,000 meters) under the ocean floor and and at a water depth of just 770 feet (235 meters), which should make future output easier.

Petrobras is the only company working the BMS-40 block, where it expects to start drilling a second well next month, it said in a statement. It provided no reserve estimates.

The find, located about 170 miles (275 km) south of the coastal city of Santos, was confirmed via a formation test, which showed a high flow rate for the type of reservoir and oil found and an estimated per-well production potential of more than 12,000 barrels per day, the company said.

"The discovery is of great importance because of its potential for light oil production and the reserve's location in shallow waters," it added.

Speaking in El Salvador earlier on Thursday, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said his country "has just discovered big oil blocks with a great potential to turn it into one of the three top countries by oil reserves."


Anaconda said...


Needless to say, finding oil deposits where they are easier to lift for production is good news.

So, while this writer has expounded on subsalt petroleum at length, some would say ad nauseam, because subsalt is where many recent finds have been made, and because oil beyond the abyssal salt barrier validates abiotic oil theory, exploration and discovery offering faster production to market turnaround is great.

Examination of the geology of this recent find is important. What lies below it in the stratigraphic column? This is important in regards to abiotic oil theory because as stated, here, many times, if abiotic oil theory is correct, all petroleum comes from deep below.

Finding the crude oil is important, but understanding the geologic structure it was found in, is just as important, if not more important for discovering additional finds.

Anaconda said...


Relations Between Local Magnetic Disturbances
and the
Genesis of Petroleum,
George F. Becker,
(Available by direct link at left-hand column, under Early Inorganic Theorists)

This is an important work for several reasons: One, it demonstrates inquiry into petroleum's origins was widespread at the turn of the last century; two, this inquiry was not confined to Russia, but was actively pursued in America; three, Mr. Becker reports on several physical observations that contradict "fossil" theory, that even to this day, have not been explained by "fossil" theory advocates.

Books and articles on issues important in today's age, but seperated from the present by the function of time can be valuble in gaining an objective perspective on present issues.


Because the writer is not influenced by the biases and prejudices swirling in today's scientific and political environment.

Today's controversy over petroleum's origins are heavily freighted by political and scientific biases and prejudices unknown a century ago. Mr. Becker is free of those constraints in a way that no one, today, can dispute.

By reading this article, one gets a flavor of where the scientific weight of discussion was at the turn of the last century. Clearly, while the hypothesis of organic origin was a large part of the mix, much scientific activity revolved around the inorganic origin theory.

One, also, gets a flavor of proper scientific method, and what type of discourse, results therefrom.

The physical observations not explained by "fossil" theory:

Today, "fossil" advocates routinely claim that the lack of hydrocarbons associated with volcanic activity is strong evidence against abiotic oil theory. In contrast, Mr. Becker, exhaustively and convincingly, demonstrates, large amounts of hydrocarbons are, in fact, released by volcanic activity, showing the claims of "fossil" advocates are outright false. Becker easily explains why organic detritus could not be the source of the niggardly amounts of hydrocarbons, "fossil" advocates do acknowledge come from volcanic activity. Today's "fossil" advocates know that the emission of large amounts of hydrocarbons from volcanic activity is a killer to their theory. So, instead of acknowledging Mr. Becker's documented physical observations, "fossil" advocates bury the truth, hoping no one will reach back and dig up the documented facts, or they are simply ignorant of that truth.

Either way is scientific fraud on its face.

Mr. Becker, also, demonstrates that many chemical interactions, particuluarly, metals interacting with various rock compounds create hydrocarbons.

The point made is that there seems to be many ways inoranic hydrocarbons are created. And, most important, hydrogen and carbon have a chemical affinity for each other. In other words, if given the chance they will come together.

Admittedly, Russian abiotic theory, as expressed by J.F. Kenney, acknowledges these "Kolb" interactions, but significantly downplays their contribution to the formation of the huge amounts of petroleum abiotic theory claims is created by ultra-high heat and pressure deep in the mantel.

Finally, as the title of the article states, there is the relationship between local magnetic disturbances and large deposits of petroleum.

The article demonstrates this with the Pennsilvania oil deposits still commercially active at the turn of the last century.

Why is this relationship so important?

Because, as the discussion of the "Kolb" reactions described in the article and the Kenney laboratory experiments with ultra-high heat and pressure consistent with the Earth's mantel show, iron is intimately connected to both these processes. And why is that important? Because as Mr. Becker amply displayed, oil deposits create a localized magnetic disturbance as magnitized iron does, again demonstrated by the magnetic disturbance reported around the great iron bearing ore deposits of Minnesota.

This directly contradicts "fossil" theory's organic detritus hypothesis because if hydrocarbons were derived from biological material, there would be no localized magnetic disturbance around oil deposits.

Organic material whether concentrated or not, does not cause magetic distrubances, period.

Petroleum, at least in regards to the Pennsilvania deposits, does cause magnetic disturbances.

The conclusion can easily be drawn that petroleum is closely associated with minerals that cause magnetic disturbance, like iron, which if it was a remnant of biological material, it would not do.

This is a powerful scientific fact contradicting an organic, biological connection to natural petroleum.

Yet completely consistent with abiotic theory.

Thanks to George F. Becker, another nail is hammered into "fossil" theory's coffin.

Anaconda said...

Thank you, Oil Is Mastery for providing the George F. Becker article to the collection of scientific papers available here.

It's a significant addition to the body of scientific work supporting abiogenic theory.

Best regards,


OilIsMastery said...

No problem Anaconda. Becker's Relations Between Local Magnetic Disturbances and the Genesis of Petroleum is cited by Dott (Sourcebook For Petroleum Geology, AAPG Memoir 5, 1969). Thank you for your input as well. This is a fascinating subject...=)

Anaconda said...

It's agreed, Abiotic oil is a facinating subject. It touches on so many areas: Geology, astronomy, astrophysics, chemistry and physics, mathematics (though over this writer's head), and history, politics, and economics.

At its heart is discovery and exploration -- touchstones of what makes man great.

It reaches to the farthest limits of man's understanding of his world. Whether reaching out to the farthest planets of the solar system and it's interstellar debris, or reaching back through the farthest mists of time to understand Earth's formation, or reaching down to the farthest depths of the planet below our feet.

What is this planet made of and how does it work?

The scientific questions would be enough in themselves, but crude oil is the "Prize" in our modern civilization. Politics and economics revolve around it's aquistion and control.

Technology is pushed to its farthest limits in the quest for this elusive substance that makes men's eyes glitter in excitement and lust.

Petroleum is literally the most powerful substance on Earth.

Other than the human mind.

It lays bare the struggle to rid men's minds of superstition, no less than Galilio's investigations. And Plato's Socratic dialogues and his metaphor of the cave, its shadows and the struggle to dispell the shadows and see clearly in the sunlight. And the consequences for those who attempt see the sunlight.

And it's drama: It explores man's emotions, and plumbs the depths of man's conflict between rational thought and the irrational, which evidently, in large part, still grips man's mortal soul.

Who said man has overcome these hurdles, even in science, one of the crowning acheivements of the 21st century.

And the truth, is a grand and glorious truth, a good, which promises to continue to carry man forward, not collaspe in some ugly distopia, which others seem actively to grope for.

Thank you, again, OilisMastery. As stated in this writer's first comment on this blog, Oil Is Mastery is the most complete, on going abiotic website this writer knows of, possibly in the world.

There is no greater work than dispelling falsehood and and promoting truth.

The irony of the abiotic controversy is that so many actively stand in the way, attempting to draw the curtain of darkness over man's mind.

But maybe it's not surprising, the battle of truth versus ignorance and fear, has always been the supreme struggle -- light against darkness.

This is one of the greatest stories ever told!

Best regards,


Anaconda said...


Casting this debate as the forces of "light against darkness" is not conducive to inviting dialogue, discussion, and open debate.

One of the dangers of waxing lyrically, is that the writer can get caught up in the metaphors one is using. Writing, itself, is an exercise in crystalizing one's thoughts. Most of the time, most folks have a muddle of images on any given subject. Writing forces an organization and formality to one's thoughts, that while making for a more forceful, eloquent presentation, also has the tendency of producing a hubris in the writer.

Science is a discipline that walks a fine line: One must be confident in their assertions, yet wary of being arrogant and dogmatic in the face of the unknown.

One must balance earnest conviction with humility, and an ability to be tolerant of the presentation of opposing views, for that is a prerequisite of fruitful dialogue and discussion.

"You are either for me or against me," is not conducive to a free flow of ideas.

To demonize, and what else is characterizing those holding an opposing view as "darkness," is self-defeating in the end to the true spirit of science.

The scientific spirit is the free assimilation of ideas on a voluntary basis because of the ideas' efficacy, that is, their ability to accurately interpret the processes in the world around us, by way of physical observation.

My apology.