The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep abiotic petroleum origin has allowed Russia (9.5 mbpd) to surpass Saudi Arabia (9.2 mbpd) as the world's biggest oil producer: Russia is world's biggest oil producer, above Saudi.
In contrast, the absurd idea that hydrocarbons miraculously evolve from biological organisms in blatant violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics caused American production to peak. In the absense of seismic data, the success rate of American and British petroleum geologists using the biogenic theory has been an absolute failure, 1 sucessful oilwell for every 28 dry holes.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
31 comments:
NIKOLAI KUDRYAVTSEV, 1893-1971: FATHER OF MODERN ABIOTIC OIL THEORY
Kudryavtsev's Rule:
Where there's oil,
there's more oil.
Considering all the oil America has produced, over a century, and, yet, we are still third in the world in oil production, ahead of Iran.
How much more oil could America be producing, right now, but for self-imposed limits, from political restrictions based on antiquated environmental notions, to following a hypothesis shown repeatedly to be based on faulty science?
If you can call it science at all.
And Russia, once viewed as being "oil poor" after WWII, has become the leading oil producer in the world.
And Russia follows the abiotic oil theory, which is backed up by hard empirical science, mathematical modelling conforming to chemical and physical constraints, and, again, where it counts: Russia discovers oil, lots of oil.
Somebody needs to wake up out there.
[OilisMastery] said //"In contrast, the absurd idea that hydrocarbons miraculously evolve from biological organisms in blatant violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics caused American production to peak."//
QF: Methanogens can anaerobically metabolize biocarbons and thus produce methane gas and methanol, and if an airtight pocket is filled with this gas and compressed under a heated situation, it can form higher ordered polymers and hydrocarbons, no problem....lower hydrocarbons evolving into higher hydrocarbons is not a blatant violation of thermodynamics if there is a heat source that is external to the system. The problem with this theory only applies to near surface where the pressures are too low to cause such a spontaneous synthensization of low hydrocarbons to higher such hydrocarbons.
To quantum_flux:
Your contribution is welcome.
It's not that methane can't be created via biological agent; in fact, it's the only hydrocarbon that can be created by biological agency at surface pressure.
There are two issues that place "fossil" theory in contradiction with itself.
As quantum_flux states, "The problem with this theory only applies to near surface where pressures are too low to cause a spontaneous synthenization of low hydrocarbons to higher such hydrocarbons."
Quite true. But "fossil" theory never places methane at depth or pessure or heat to turn methane gas into higher order hydrocarbons.
In fact, the "oil window" turns the necessity of high pressure and heat on its head by stating that too much depth results in temperatures that destroy oil, reducing it to natural gas.
The "oil window" was articulated with no recognition of the part 'pressure' plays in the formation, and just as important, preservation of crude oil in deeper oil trapping structures "At Depth" in the stratigraphic column.
So, fossils are found in tar pits, but the tar pit came before the fossils did? I think that makes good sense.
But what about the dinosaur flock that rapidly gets covered in a mudslide and then more layers in the rock cycle continually develop on top over millions of years though? Is that necessarily a false situation based on errors in geological time scales or is that still considered a possibility these days?
To Quantum_Flux:
Yes, the tar pit came before the fossils, or actual bones. As far as your second example: If you subscribe to "fossil" theory, that would be possible, but this writer holds that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not allow for a pile of dead dinosaurs to turn into oil.
Dead dinosaurs turning into oil is a myth that oil companies popularized as a simplification of "fossil" theory, to catch the imagination of the general public.
Today, and for many decades, "fossil" theory advocates (almost all geologists) have maintained the bulk of organic detritus resulted from accumulations of dead algae sinking to the bottom of low oxygen basins.
This writer doesn't think there were errors of time scale, but rather, errors based on superficial observations. Then erroneous conclusions were drawn from those superficial observations in the geological community at the end of the 19th century.
After that, when "fossil" theory became the accepted majority opinion in the geological community, there was a strong tendency to "fit the facts" to the theory, rather than modifying or discarding the theory when the facts didn't fit the theory.
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN BIO-MARKERS AND BIO-CONTANIMENTS
PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS THAT CONTRADICT BIO-CONTANIMENTS AS "PROOF" OF FOSSIL THEORY
References,
Economic Publications,
The Drilling & Development of the Oil & Gas Fields in the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin,
J.F. Kenney, et al.
(Available by direct link at left-hand column, under Introduction To The Science Of Abiotic Petroleum Origin listed as Gas Resources)
Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum,
J.F. Kenney, et al.
(Available by direct link at left-hand column under Oil Science)
THE distiction between so-called bio-markers and bio-contaniments is very important.
So-called bio-markers are molecules in the oil that resemble certain molecules of biological origin. This argument has been analyzed and convincingly rejected by J.F. Kenney in the above cited scientific paper.
Bio-contaniments are actual spore-pollen and other microphytofossils that are in the crude oil as a result of oil's excellent solvent properties. When oil comes into contact with geologic structures "polluted" with these "bio-contaniments," the oil picks up the "contaniments" by way of oil's solvent properties.
J.F. Kenney analyzed oil from the deepest reservoirs of the Dnieper-Donetsk basin.
Here are his findings:
Bacteriological analysis of the oil and examination for so-called "biological marker" molecules: The oil produced form the reservoirs in the crystalline basement rock of the Dnieper-Donets Basin has been examined particularly closely for the presence of either porphyrin molecules or "biological marker" molecules, the presence of which usd to be misconstrured as "evidence" of a supposed biological origin for petroleum. None of the oil contains any such molecules even at the ppm [parts per million] level.
This quote is powerful -- for not only does it contradict the "source rock"-bio-marker link argument of "fossil" theory, but also contradict the idea that oil "updips" from sedimentary deposits into the basement rock.
Because if the oil did migrate from the so-called "source rock" into the crystalline basement, according to "fossil" theory, there would be these bio-contaminents in the oil.
The express observations report there are no bio-contaniments.
How does "fossil" theory explain the observed phenomenon?
Hmmmm, no bio-markers ought to be a strong argument for abiogenic origin then. How about trace elements of C-14 though?
C14 is a radioactive abiomarker along with all the other abiomarkers found in crude oil.
Biomarkers are a hoax. If lack of C13 isotope were proof of photosynthesis you would have to assume that photosynthesis is occuring on Mars, Titan, and carbon stars HD13716 and HD182040.
To Quantum_Flux:
Yes, the reported physical observations by J.F. Kenney, the leading oil geologist in the United States, is dispositive regarding bio-contaniments.
Quantum_Flux, this writer thinks you are refering to C13/C12 isotopic ratio argument put forth by "fossil" theory advocates.
(Since C14 radioactivity has no relevance to proving or disproving abiotic oil theory.)
J.F. Kenney also analyzes that argument in Dismissal of Claims of Biological Connection... scientific paper cited in the above comment.
Kenney reports several experiments which disprove that argument, again, in a straight forward, easy to understand, and convincing fashion.
The experiments demonstrate that as hydrocarbons travel up through the stratigraphic column, the interaction with the terrestrial medium strips out the C13 isotope and that is why hydrocarbons have the same C13/C12 ratio as biological matter when oil reaches the reservoir deposits.
Quantum_Flux, what is interesting is that this writer has never read of any geologist or earth scientist contradict J.F. Kenny's work in this area on a rigorous scientific basis.
Most ignore it, but of those who do refer to his work, either they misrepresent what the findings are, or treat it in such a superficial way, that the reader doesn't know the true import of Kenney's scientific work.
One would think oil geologists would take note of this failure to point out flaws in Kenny's work.
This writer suspects oil geologists have taken notice -- but the bias is so strong in the general geological community, that none of them has the cajones to stand up and call out these glaring errors in "fossil" theory.
For that reason, this writer states that J.F. Kenney is the leading oil geologist in the United States.
anaconda: Since C14 radioactivity has no relevance to proving or disproving abiotic oil theory.
QF: My bad, I suppose a better thing to have asked, regarding something much older than 50,000 years and buried underground would have been about N-14 content, but even then I suppose there could be N-14 compounds of abiotic origins underground or C-14 resulting from uranium decay on said N-14, or.... I guess it was just an mis-informed question all around on my part.
Yeah, it is quite interesting, my other misconception was in biomarkers. I was just thinking that if oil was from decayed dinosaur tissue, that there ought to be dissolved iron, calcium, etc, in significant ppm's corresponding to bodily tissue percentages, but that might just as well be something that is overwhelmed by the rock material concentrations.
Well, anyway, sounds like this is all on the right track then.
Oh wait a second, algea sludge you say, well that wouldn't even resemble the composition of dino-tissue either. Good thing I'm going to these geology blogs like this, I'm really learning the basics stuff here, thanks for the clarifications [anaconda] and [oilismastery].
I hate to put the nail in the coffin for abiogenesis, but, uh....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece
Can't read that unfortunately.
Scientists find bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol
Hopefully this means there's life on other planets too!
Haha...if true, pretty cool and very impressive. First of all, they've been genetically altered: no surprise there. The periodic table of elements is abiotic; we've never disputed that cows fart methane.
I saw this one a couple weeks ago, so I believe the story is perfectly legit (Machines Like Us is trustworthy enough for me, I'd be surprised if it weren't true):
On the verge of creating synthetic life
To Quantum_Flex:
This writer isn't sure if you're serious. This article seems legit enough, but as OilIsMastery has pointed out these bacteria are genetically modified, which is significant.
But the most important information is missing from the story: What is the chemical composition of the bacterial excretion?
If it's comparable to bio-diesel that's not petroleum or even close to it. Petroleum has a whole suite of hydrocarbons.
You can't fly jet planes on bio-diesel -- you need kerosine (that's what jet fuel is).
You seem a little premature, and frankly, too willing to be satisfied with one non-scientific article.
That's pretty flimsy to hang your hat on and pronounce this article "...put the nail in the coffin for abiogenesis..."
How so?
As to the potential, again, it depends on its chemical composition... can you find that out?
In terms of its use as an 'alternative' fuel, this writer hopes it does pan out big time, because that's exactly what the Saudis and other OPEC members fear -- viable alternative fuels. That would hold oil prices in check -- a good thing.
This writer welcomes this scientific development.
But it doesn't shed any light one way or the other on oil's origin. What it does seemingly shed light on is your apparent willingness to latch onto anything that supports a belief in "fossil" theory.
Which is the same attitude as the oil geologists that subscribe to "fossil" theory, which allows them to accept junk science and ignore empirically based science.
And that's the reason this writer can't tell if you're serious or just being facetious.
It seems to be an iterative process of tweaking and torquing the biology. The company, LS9, basically says that the bacteria consumes wood chips or straw or whatever and it excretes crude oil....I don't know that they've released an analysis of the compositional breakdown yet, (octane I think is what they were saying on MachinesLikeUs) but for all I know it could be a production of longer chains with more time.
Google News Links
I also trust www.answers.com
Abiogenic Petroleum Origin
It sounds like there are quite a few issues with abiogenic theory. See pages 85-96 of the following for more details:
Abiogenic origin of hydrocarbons: An historical overview
To Quantum_Flux:
Thanks for the links. Mr. Pal, a main investor, called his product "renewable petroleum," here's to hoping he's right. But this writer likes to see the science before taking a promotor's assurances. That's the prudent thing to do.
But, again, this article sheds zero light on oil's origin.
Why do you think this article is dispositive regarding abiotic oil theory? Since your previous comment indicates you do.
This writer takes note that you "also trust" answers.com., which provides a Wikipedia article, "Abiotic Petroleum origin."
Yes, this writer is quite familiar with the article, it was one of the first articles read and reviewed by this writer. It certainly isn't dispositive in any fashion, in fact, it claims to be neutral -- or that's the way this writer interpreted the article. But the article had a curious twist:
It left out the most compelling hard science supporting abiotic oil, and inserted naked assumptions supporting "fossil" theory at strategic points in the article when a reader might be at equipoise.
Needless to say, this writer had to see much more evidence before coming to a conclusion -- any conclusion -- this writer needed hard science to be convinced, one way or the other.
As to Mr. Glasby's article, yes, this writer has read and reviewed the article. In fact, the article is available, here, on this website, by direct link at the left-hand column under Oil Science, listed as Abiotic Origin of Hydrocarbons: A Biased Historical Overview (Glasby 2006).
What are the "few issues" you have a problem with?
This writer found that the article had some glaring omissions, and misstatements.
Please list the issues you found had merit and this writer would be happy to provide a response to those specific points in turn.
(As it's a long article, and responding in a shot gun, laudry list fashion would take up much time.)
In conlusion, your response suggests your previous comment was serious. That said, your threshold for accepting evidence and subscribing to an opinion seems remarkably low, particlularly for a scientific question of such magnitude.
Did you read and review any of the provided direct links on this website for scientific papers?
Which ones were those and what was your impression?
This writer looks forward to your response.
Best regards,
Anaconda
Section 1, Paragraph 3: Gold's version of the hypothesis partly is based on the existence of a biosphere composed of thermophile bacteria in the earth's crust, which may explain the existence of certain biomarkers in extracted petroleum.
QF: This is nothing short of biogenic oil production in my book. Maybe this explains methane found in volcanos.
Section 1, Paragraph 4: There is no direct evidence to date of abiogenic petroleum (liquid crude oil and long-chain hydrocarbon compounds) formed abiogenically within the crust, which is the essential prediction of the abiogenic petroleum theory.
QF: I'm just a sucker for direct evidence.
Section 3, Article 1: The abiotic hypothesis is that a full suite of hydrocarbons found in petroleum can be generated in the mantle by abiogenic processes...
QF: This is the big one for me, if hydrocarbons can exist in the mantle and not be destroyed then thermophiles can too, they just require a food source. If carbon bonds then carbon bonds.
S3-A1: [8]...and these hydrocarbons can migrate out of the mantle, into the crust until they escape to the surface or are trapped by impermeable strata, forming petroleum reservoirs.
QF: I have my doubts about that. The further down you go, the less pore spacing there tends to be unless you're near a fault-line or volcano. We know there are sulfur consuming thermophiles living at those places though. Maybe there are thermophiles on Venus too, and maybe we share a common ancestry as old as the formation of the planets themselves (that's a Carl Sagan theory).
Under the "Biotic Microbial Hydrocarbons": The 2nd Law of thermodynamics prohibits petroleum formation at low pressure and temperature .... It's impossible to form petroleum from biogenic detritus.[22][7][8]
QF: Clearly the person who wrote that doesn't realize that there is a GM bug that eats woodchips and craps out crude oil. (I'm looking at Kenney for [22],[7], and [8])
QF: If Kenney said "There have never been observed any specifically biological molecules in natural petroleum, except as contaminants." Then I wonder what he makes of a bacterium that craps out crude oil, octane even.
QF: Kenney said "The claims about “biomarkers” have been thoroughly discredited by observations of those molecules in the interiors of ancient, abiotic meteorites, and also in many cases by laboratory synthesis under imposed conditions mimicking the natural environment." .... Of course, they've never produced octane in a laboratory setting until this genetically modified human coliform.
QF: Kenney said "the indisputably biological material, such as spores and pollen, found in petroleum can be considered as “abiomarkers” of petroleum origin" .... No they can't!
QF: Kenney said "The observations of such molecules in meteorites thoroughly discredited the claims that their presence in natural petroleum might somehow constitute evidence of a biological connection." .... I get the sense that this Kenney guy doesn't like Carl Sagan that much.
QF: Kenney said "Every compound designated as a “biomarker,” and not otherwise identified as a contaminant, has been either observed in the fluids extracted from the interiors of meteorites, or synthesized in laboratories under conditions comparable to the crust of the Earth, - or both." -- Obviously you can abiotically create petroleum in a laboratory, or on a metiorite, but you can also create biotic petroleum too, and that uses much less energy.
QF: Kenney said "If liquid hydrocarbons might evolve from biological detritus in the thermodynamic regime of the crust of the Earth, we could all expect to go to bed at night in our dotage, with white hair (or, at least, whatever might remain of same), a spreading waistline, and all the undesirable decrepitude of age, and to awake in the morning, clear eyed, with our hair returned of the color of our youth, with a slim waistline, a strong, flexible body, and with our sexual vigor restored." -- Hey, I'm all for that one!
QF: Kenney said "The theoretical resolution of these questions had to await development of the most modern techniques of quantum statistical mechanics." -- Photosynthesis is a quantum statistical process. My bet is that subsurface organisms operate like RTG's
Thermoelectrics
I'll bet you could obtain a higher efficiency rating in converting detritus to oil with nanoscale mechanical thermoelectrics than with GM bugs. I got my fingers crossed that this is the case.
nanometer thermoelectrics
To Quantum_Flux:
This writer appreciates the specific responses.
1) Gold's theory is mostly plagiarized from the Russian work. Gold's theory of a "biophere composed of thermophile bacteria in the earth crust," that produce oil was his original contribution and this writer doesn't subscribe to that idea.
(And neither does "fossil" theory for that matter, this writer would add.)
This writer suspects Gold knew he had to put some twist on the Russian theory, or it would be just too blatant that he was plagiarizing their work. But Gold took his motives to the grave.
As to the science supporting Gold's theory -- there isn't a lot, that's why this writer rejects his thermophile hypothesis.
Are there thermophiles? Yes, as Kenney acknowldges, but there isn't any scientific evidence that they produce oil, rather the scientific observation is that the bacteria consume oil, which this website duly notes by direct links to a series of scientific papers that discuss hydrocarbon EATING cyanobacteria.
This observation is the exact opposite of Gold's contention. And bacteria that eat hydrocarbons is totally consistent with abiotic theory. It's a big stretch to observe cyanobacteria that eat petroleum, and then turn around and conclude, "Ahah, the bacteria really produce oil."
You and Gold are flying with nothing but a fig leaf for scientific cover.
As to your musing about bacteria caused methane in vocanic outgassing -- musings don't quite measure up to scientific analysis.
2)"There is no direct evidence to date of abiogenic petroleum..."
This is from Glasby, and it's "the big lie" that has to be told for "fossil" theory to make sense. There is plenty of evidence for abiotic petroleum. The scientific papers available, here, on this website testify to that.
Quantum_Flex, you even admitted as such with your response of "Hmmmm, no bio-markers ought to be a strong argument for abiogenic origin then." 6/16/08, 11:49 AM.
So frankly, that kind of "big lie" exposes Glasby's piece for what it really was: a piece posing as objective, but in truth dishonest, which is counter to the scientific method which requires an advocate for a theory to acknowledge and explain contradicting observations that don't fit your theory.
Clearly, Glasby didn't do that.
"QF: I'm just a sucker for direct evidence."
Or are you just a sucker?
Because, clearly, there is an absolute laundry list of direct scientific evidence, here, for abiotic oil.
This writer will postulate just one example to make the point: The diamondoid presence in all oil, diamondoids are molecular diamonds. Diamondoids can only be created in the laboratory under ultra-high heat and pressure consistent with conditions in the mantle. As diamonds are only created in the mantle, which all authorities acknowledge. So, diamondoids presence in oil is direct evidence that oil and diamondoids are created in the mantle together and migrate into the sedimentary crust together.
And, by the way, your quote misstates abiotic theory -- abiotic theory states that petroleum and natural gas are created in the mantle and not "the crust."
Do you see what this writer meant when it was stated that Glasby made "glaring omissions and misstatements?"
3) Quantum_Flux, your "big one" shows you don't understand abiotic oil theory: The oil is created, according to Kenney's scientific work, at depths in the mantel of anywhere as deep as 60 miles and 1500 degrees Celsius. The pressure in Kenney's lab experiment was 50kbar and 30kbar is equivalent to 60 miles deep.
There are no "bugs" that survive that pressure and temperature.
Your failure to understand the role of ultra-high pressure in creating and maintaining hydrocarbons in the mantle according to abiotic theory is manifest.
Remember, the observation is that cyanobacteria EAT petroleum, not produce it.
It's hard to argue against something you don't understand.
4) Sorry, Quantum_Flux you're completely condradicting yourself. You question sufficient "pore space" for abiotic oil, but then go on to postulate the presence of thermophiles -- it's obvious that if there's "pore space" for thermophiles, then there's "pore space" at the molecular level for abiotic oil.
But at that depth in the mantle "pore space" is misleading. We're talking about an almost chemical plasma type situation. We're talking atom to atom.
Your Venus musings are typical of astrobiologists, who would rather muse about something they have no scientific evidence about, yet turn around and ignore hard, observable, scientific evidence, right here on Earth.
(You really fell in love with those thermophiles, didn't you?)
5) Quantum_Flux, you are making an assumption in regards to one non-scientific news article that what these bugs produce is "full suite petroleum." We simply don't know that at this time.
And, besides, Kenney was talking about dead organic detritus not turning spontaneously into oil, because that is what "fossil" theory postulates.
It could be possible that an "alive" genetically modified bacteria can produce "renewable petroleum," that would be great, but this writer wants to see the hard science.
Also, hopefully, you aren't trying to create a whole new theory of oil creation, as opposed to arguing for "fossil" theory?
But that does sound like what you are trying to do, isn't it?
7) You are carrying on about "crapping bugs" of which there is zero proof, they have never existed in nature, and is totally against "fossil" theory, too. Your fig leaf isn't covering all your private parts as you fly around in the clouds.
8) Frankly, Quantum_Flux, this writer thinks you are starting to lose it, here. Your statement doesn't make sense. You are mixing apples and oranges in desperation. And, your "octane" statement is an unsupported, rather, "flailing" exercise.
9) Yes, "pores and pollen" can be considered as "abiomarkers" because they prove that oil migrates from the very bottom of the stratigraphic column to the reservoir of ultimate repose. Because oil found in shallow sedimentary reservoirs have "pores and pollen" from all sedimentary levels. There are "pores and pollen" from the most ancient sedimentary levels: How did the "ancient" pores and pollen get into the "younger" sedimentary levels, if they weren't carried up by the oil as it migrated from a "Source Fault" in the bedrock through the older sedimentary levels and eventually into the younger sedimentary levels?
Can you explain that observed phenomena?
10) This writer sences you may need some help, Quantum_Flux, if you are now subscribing to the idea that life was running around in the middle of a meteorite.
Can I get you a glass of water?
11) Ah, this writer sees you're going back to relying on unsupported and in essence unrelated items as you flail about.
12) This writer can see the strain has been too much for you, Quantum_Flux, but this writer appreciates, that you were 'game' and responded to the challenge.
That alone is to be commended and respected.
But here is a parting thought for you:
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."
Best regards,
Anaconda
I appreciate your rebuttal, [anaconda]. I suppose that, sometimes, the best way to learn something new is to say something dumb and then see what objections other people have to say about it.
Haha Quantum. That's what I always do...=)
To Quantum_Flux:
There are no dumb questions or challenges -- some are just more effective than others.
All are welcome.
The quest for knowledge can be a humbling experience.
In the end, encouragement is the most effective teacher.
This writer truly appreciates your challenge -- that's how science advances.
Not by one hand clapping in the wind.
Perhaps, also, you have become more familiar with abiotic oil theory, and can hold it at arms length and consider it over time.
Unforced contemplation, if the science or arguments are of quality will work their way over time.
Let's face it, "fossil" theory advocates have done their job extremely well. The idea is projected into everbody starting in childhood.
People who don't know a lick about oil geology, will have a "reflex reaction" against abiotic oil, saying, "it's impossible," based on almost zero knowledge of the hard science.
And feel absolutely confident in doing so, inspite of their lack of knowledge.
How much harder, then, for people (oil geologists) that have been steeped in "fossil" theory, from childhood on into post graduate school, to relax their fierce grip on this theory, that for most, could mean professional suicide, to admit?
(This writer isn't saying you're an oil geologist.)
This writer is attempting to acknowledge it can be very hard to change beliefs that are so "hard wired" into our systems as "fossil" theory truly is.
As this writer said: "You are to be commended" for grasping and working with the concepts and ideas of abiotic theory.
That apparently is more than a lot of oil geologists are willing to do.
Best regards,
Anaconda
MEGA VOLCANOES AND THE "CRUSTAL ACTIVITY CONTINUUM"
75,000 years ago a volcano erupted. But this was no ordinary volcano -- it was a "Mega Volcano," so big it made the 1883 eruption of Krakatua look like a firecracker.
Coincidently, this Mega Volcano is also located in Indonesia at present day Lake Toba, which is actually the crater of what was left of the volcano.
The Yellowstone Caldera in Yellowstone National Park is another of these "Mega Volcanoes."
Coal is another sign of the extreme, brutal, overwhelming power at the extreme of the "Crustal Activity Continuum."
Seams of coal are sometimes fity feet thick, and one coal deposit in Australia is 800 feet thick.
The Canadian oil sands, some have estimated have 1000 billion barrels. These Athabascan oil sands deposits cover thousands of square miles.
These are but a few of the examples of the evidence that oil, coal, and volcanic activity share a common affinity -- manifestation of the most cataclysmic events on the "Crustal Activity Continuum."
Geology has always downplayed the cataclysmic nature of Earth's geology.
How many times does geology get to be wrong before they are dismissed?
Footnote reference:
The End of Fossil Fuels,
Thomas J. Brown
(Available by direct link at left-hand column under Introduction To The Science Of Abiotic Petroleum Origin)
So if the oil-from-the-mantle theory and not from-fossils theory is really true, why aren't there more geologists supporting the idea? If this really is true, why aren't the oil companies exploiting this theory? Is Russia a big oil producer because of their history of this mantle theory, or because of an influx of Western expertise and capital following years of decline production?
I understand that some scientific theories took time to be accepted, however there are a lot of people working on this one, along with a lot of money at stake, and a lot of potential experiments that can be done to confirm theory. So I have a hard time understanding why this theory is so discredited? Are you chalking that up to conspiracy?
RESPONSE TO TUJ:
Why are't more geologists supporting the idea?
Answer: Because "fossil" theory has been uncritically accepted for a long time and to adopt Abiotic Theory puts you, "not only out of the mainstream of geology," but also, makes you a "Revolutionary" in the eyes of the geological community.
In other words, a traitor.
The "science" of geology is unscientific; in that, geologists are not required to have an advanced understanding of chemistry, physics, or mathematics. So most don't, therefore, do not have the scientific confidence to "step out" and be a "long wolf" of dissent in the community.
Oil geologists have tremendous financial incentive to maintain this belief in "fossil" theory. Can you imagine the reaction in the oil industry and the public at large if oil gelogists were to "all of a sudden admit they were wrong all these years?"
Oil companies are exploiting this theory, if not by name, but every time they explore for oil deeper than the 15,000 feet deep "oil window" claimed by geologists.
("Fossil" theory claims there is a 15,000 foot deep "oil window" that limts oil, any deeper and the oil breaks down into natrual gas.)
Oil companies are investing hundreds of billions of Dollars into Ultra-deepwater, deep-drilling exploration & production of oil deposits that "fossil" theory states, "can not exist" because it's "too deep."
Your statement is false. Russia had increased oil production long before any Western "expertise and capital" came into the country.
Russia didn't have a decline of producttion like you state.
Rather, it was the other way around, Western oil companies gained expertise -- not capital -- from Russia. Western oil campanies learned techniques of deep-drilling, which the Russians pioneered and advanced.
Yes, "a lot of money is at stake."
And the "big money" is on exploration techniques that rely on Abiotic Principles: Drilling deeper in fields that have already been developed (ExxonMobil), Ultra-deepwater, deep-drilling (40x$750 million a ship ultra-deep water drill rigs), ultra-deep drilling on land, exploration where "fossil" theory states there will be no oil.
The experiments have been done and have been analyzed, all proving Abiotic oil, but since geologists in general don't have the hard science background and oil geologists in particular are hostile, the geological community is not interested in the results, and in turn back a "branch" of their "school" of thought.
"So I have a hard time understanding why this theory is so discredited?"
First, Abitotic Theory is not "discredited." There are no scientific proofs that discredit Abiotic oil.
You may think that is hard to believe -- but it's true.
True, most geologists don't accept Abiotic Theory, but competent chemists and physicists know petroleum can't be created the way oil geologists say.
Are you chalking that up to conspiracy?"
No. It's more akin to a "group-think" process where the pressure to conform to the beliefs of the group are huge -- including professional ostricism for embracing Abiotic theory.
Yet, for all that, there are geologists who subscribe to Abiotic Theory because of the scientific experiments in the laboratory and field observations of geological formations and associations that confrim Abiotic Oil.
Post a Comment