Sunday, November 16, 2008

Endless Oil

Robert Langreth: Endless Oil?

Radical [sic] Russian researchers say we are looking for oil in all the wrong places.

Everybody [sic] knows [sic] that oil and gas drilled out of the earth comes from the remains of plants and animals trapped underground millions of years ago. This received wisdom [sic] so dominates our thinking that it is enshrined in the very language we use--fossil fuels. They took eons to form, and we are using them up far faster than they can be replenished.

What if the whole theory [sic] is wrong?

That's the premise of a small but passionate band of Russian and Ukrainian contrarians. They argue that oil and gas don't come from fossils; they're synthesized deep within the earth's mantle by heat, pressure and other purely chemical means, before gradually rising to the surface. Under the so-called abiotic theory of oil, finding all the energy we need is just a matter of looking beyond the traditional basins where fossils might have accumulated.

The idea that oil comes from fossils "is a myth. … We need to change this myth," says petroleum engineer Vladimir Kutcherov, at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. "All kinds of rocks could have oil and gas deposits."

Alexander Kitchka of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences brashly estimates that 60% of the content of all oil is abiotic in origin, and not from fossil fuels. He says companies should drill deeper to find it.

Kitchka says oil may be found in all sorts of geological structures such as volcanic rock or deep-sea thermal vents where companies aren't looking today.

Kutcherov points to a handful of productive oil fields in Vietnam and elsewhere that lay in hard rock such as granite. Traditional theory says oil shouldn't be present there. Certain wells in the Gulf of Mexico have produced more oil than expected. The abiotic crowd says they are slowly being refilled from a deeper source.

The abiotic oil theory goes back centuries and includes as its prominent champions Dimitri Mendeleev, best known for inventing the periodic table. It didn't gain much visibility in America until the late Cornell University astronomer Thomas Gold championed it in the 1980s. He said that oil contains organic compounds not because it is derived from fossils but because giant colonies of deep-earth bacteria feed on deep hydrocarbon pools way down in the mantle.
The New Oil Paradigm No One Is Talking About.

Offshore production is increasing, and the industry may soon be asked to reconsider its basic assumptions about oil. Over the past few decades, a number of industry experts and geologists have conducted research suggesting that the origin of hydrocarbons may be abiogenic, not organic. Stated simply, the abiogenic oil theory posits that oil is not formed from plants and animals compressed for millions of years in sediment rock. Instead, oil is a primordial substance created before the formation of Earth, and found deep underground.

The abiogenic theory raises questions about both "peak oil" and the conventional wisdom that petroleum is a "fossil fuel." The theory is not widely discussed in the West, though it has proponents dating back more than a century.

Deepwater wells are teeming with abiogenic potential. As early as 1995, a New York Times article quoted Dr. K. K. Bissada, a Texaco geochemist: "I think we pump oil out much faster than oil can come in. ... But from a long-term perspective, I believe that hydrocarbons are coming in from great depths and are filling the newer reservoirs at shallower depths.''


Anaconda said...


BrianR has responded to the Oil Is Mastery post, Expanding Earth Outline, October 21, 2008, with a three-part series of posts on Expanding Earth theory versus Subduction theory. Really, more of a layout of various scientific papers with accompaning maps, pictures, and diagrams, Clastic Detritus: Suduction Denialism, Part 1: The Backstory (first of three parts, all available).

OilIsMastery said...

I replied.

Anaconda said...


The significance of this story is not so much the story itself -- it's a rather mundane recounting of Abiotic Oil theory, but that Forbes.Com carried the story.

Energy & Genius
Endless Oil?
Robert Langreth, 11.13.08, 06:00 PM EST
Radical Russian researchers say we are looking for oil in all the wrong places.

Forbes magazine is a heavy hitter in the financial media. Editors of the online version, clearly did research (possibly even on the Oil Is Mastery website) on the subject of Abiotic Oil theory before giving the green light to publish the story.

The scientific evidence is, here, on the Oil Is Mastery website, the best "one stop research center" on Abiotic Oil theory available on the internet.

When Forbes talks, people listen!

Quantum_Flux said...

Drill for Natural Gas, Pollute seems as though certain government protected secretive industrial drilling muds contain some not so environmentally or groundwater friendly stuff, and in dangerously high concentrations too. Dangerously high levels of fluoride and benzene are being found in groundwater near (20+ mile radius?) some of the places where fracking is being done to get the natural gas. Not something Obama will let slide by any means.

OilIsMastery said...

Benzene has a half life of 3-10 days in the atmosphere and an evaporation half-life of 2.7-5 hours in water so poses no long term threat to drinking water. Granted I wouldn't want benzene in my drinking water...haha.

Quantum_Flux said...

Yeah, I suppose both of those are treatable groundwater conditions, albeit it costs more money to treat of course.

Anaconda said...


It's apparent oil geologists have given up the line that abiotic oil doesn't exist:

"No one doubts that inorganic hydrocarbons may occur in association with hydrothermal systems." -- Michael D. Lewan, geologist, 2005

"I don't think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic source of hydrocarbons." -- Michael D. Lewan, geologist, 2002

"Abiogenic petroleum generation is an entirely unrelated concept, involving hydrogenation of free carbon (graphite, diamond etc) at extreme pressures and temperatures in the presence of certain catalysts and supercritical water. The abiogenic generation theory is not the part rejected by conventional industry geologists - far from it." -- anak-betawi, stated oil exploration geologist, 2008

(anak-betawi incorrectly states the serpentization, abiotic oil process, but hey, at least it's a start.)

The Coal Man, who made two lengthy comments on this website claiming to be an oil geologist, also admitted the existence of abiotic oil.

"No-one disputes that non-commercial deposits of abiogenic hydrocarbons do exist, but commercial quantities seem to be elusive." -- Paul Wilson, oil geologist, 2008

So while the existence of abiotic oil is no longer in dispute among oil geolgists. The fall back position is three-fold:

1. Maintain any amounts of abiotic oil is limited in quantity, with no commercial deposits.

2. Maintain no oil deposits have been "undisputably" proven as abiotic oil. Best expressed by anak-betawi: "...nor has indisputably abiogenic petroleum been discovered in sufficient quantities in conventional plays to be worth considering as an alternative source of oil..."

3. Declare there are no viable mechanisms for abiotic oil to travel to oil trapping structures. Again, best expressed by anak-betawi: "No adequate focussing or migration mechanism into viable traps...has been proposed...[for "abiogenic" oil.]"

Yes, now that abiotic oil theory has been proven experimentally in the laboratory, and numerous "pathways" to abiotic generation have been established, oil geologists have fallen back on the above three arguments.

The first argument of limited quanities of abiotic oil fails as previously commented, here, on this website because by admitting "abiogenic generation" exists then the door is open to robust abiotic oil generation as oil geologists have never identified any limiting factor for abiotic oil processes, and the materials and conditions needed for abiotic oil formation are plentiful both in the deep crust and shallow mantle.

The second argument that no "undisputably" proven abiotic oil has been identified fails because of several reasons. As much as "fossil" theory advocates claim science supports their doesn't. In reality science supports the contention that all petroleum is abiotic, and, of course, there will always be oil geologists in denial, who will dispute abiotic oil theory. As sad as it is for science, there will likely never be unanimity.

The third argument is what I want to address in more detail in this comment.

The side-bar has a section titled "Tectonic Oil". Oil deposits are concentrated in areas that have deep faults that reach down to the bottom of the crust and even into the mantle.

This paper makes it clear that large oil & gas deposits are associated with tectonic faults which reach deep down into the Earth providing conduits for oil & gas to travel into sedimentary trapping structures: Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields, by Dr. Paul Mann, 2004.

As a result of this identified clustering of the world's oil fields along tectonic faults, the oil industry is working to better understand the tectonic fault system.

It's ironic to note that while oil geologists deny abiotic oil travels from "source faults" and even deny that the source fault "mechanism" has even been proposed as the conduit for abiotic oil, they, themselves, are intensely interested in "faults".

Any review of exploration reports and descriptions of oil discoveries will find the reports and descriptions replete with references to faults and fissures of various kinds.

The distinction for oil geologists is that faults are only good for trapping oil, not as a the source itself.

Faults on the edge of tectonic plates are the deepest faults of all, and as stated above that strangely enough is also where the biggest oil deposits are found.

Sedimentary Basins and Petroleum Geology is a website devoted to "tectonic basins", as expressed by its web address -

The author is an oil geologist researcher whose research is currently funded by StatoilHydro, a Norwegian oil company and ConocoPhillips, an American oil company.

What are "tectonic basins"?

Tectonic basins are sedimentary deposits positioned over tectonic faults.

You guessed it. The oil industry wants to better understand the tectonic "source faults" under sedimentary basins.

As stated by the website's author, it's about the geological history and timing of oil trapping structures: Image of the week #5, October 10, 2008.

"In itself, the image is probably not that helpful for petroleum exploration. I've used it to try to get some idea of the timing of faulting in the study area. If you knew the timing of hydrocarbon migration in your basin, the fault timing might tell you about seal/trap integrity. If the faults were active after hydrocarbon migration, there's a good chance that fault traps would be disrupted.

However, if you go back to the dataset from which the image was derived, it can tell you quite a lot. It is possible to map out the units that are juxtaposed across the fault: this can give important information on the likelihood of sealing across the fault.

In the study area, there is no oil or gas. But the area can be used as an analogue for other geologically similar hydrocarbon provinces. Most obviously this applies to the offshore Gulf of Suez, but it is also applicable to some parts of the North Sea (which is why StatoilHydro and ConocoPhillips have been involved)."

The author follows up with another post: The long and the short of faults, November 6, 2008.

" We have collected a large amount of terrestrial LIDAR data from this half-graben, and used it to accurately map the structure and stratigraphy of the study area. By combining those data with our structural and sedimentological analysis, we can get an idea of how the fault system evolved over time, by looking at how sedimentation responds to the evolving structure."

As written before, the author states it is about the timing of oil trapping structures and their integrity to hold oil.

But, here, the paper is being re-interpreted from an Abiotic Oil theory perspective.

One thing I've noticed about reports of oil discoveries: They always state the geologic age, i.e., Jurassic, Devonian, or Triassic of the rocks in which the oil deposit is found.

Why is that important?


The same reasoning as this author gives for why it's important to understand the fault's history.

What's important about that?

Oil companies have detailed records of oil finds, not open to public inspection or widely available. Undoubtedly, some geologic ages have larger, better oil finds on average within its layers than others, but not for the reasons given by the oil geologists.

Oil geologists claim that some ages were more conducive for "organic detritus" than others.


No, the real reason is because some ages were more geologically active, therefore, the age produced more or less porous, sandy oil trapping sedimental structures. Different geologic activity levels produce different geological fault/sedimentary dynamics which control the size and distribution of oil deposits. Understanding the fault activity, "the timing of the faults" is crucial to understanding where oil is located based on abiotic oil principles.

The better a fault's history is understood, the more precise oil geologists can be in pinpointing oil deposits. Tectonic faults are re-activated at regular intervals, the more "cyclic intervals" can be identified as corresponding with specific layers in the sedimentary column the more oil is likely to be found.

If you know the timing and development of a "source fault" then you may be able to predict what sedimentary layers are likely to have larger oil deposits.

The above discussion not only explains the "mechanism" of how abiotic oil travels through conduits to oil trapping structures, but also predicts which sedimentary basins and at what depth in those "tectonic basins" are likely to hold large oil deposits.

Knowing the "timing of the faults" is a tool of Abiotic Oil theory.

Anaconda said...


Two different individuals stating they are oil geologists have made comments on the Oil Is Mastery website disputing Abiotic Oil theory:

TheCoalMan and anak-betawi.

Each has demonstrated knowledge consistent with their claimed status as oil geologists and at the same time made statements demonstratetively false.

What to make of this situation?

Are they internet frauds posing as oil geologists or are they oil geologists that are willing to use deception to protect "fossil" theory and "Peak" oil?

I have to admit I've vacilated back and force.

Let's look at a statement from the most recent to comment, first.

anak-betawi stated:

"anak-betawi states: "Abiogenic petroleum generation is an entirely unrelated concept, involving hydrogenation of free carbon (graphite, diamond etc) at extreme pressures and temperatures in the presence of certain catalysts and supercritical water. The abiogenic generation theory is not the part rejected by conventional industry geologists - far from it."

What's wrong with the above quote?

Well, as I originally commented: "(anak-betawi incorrectly states the serpentization, abiotic oil process, but hey, at least it's a start.)"

I let anak-betawi's incorrect statement of the serpentization, abiotic oil process go, in essence with a shrug of the shoulders.

But I shouldn't have let it go, and I'll explain why right now.

Taking anak-betawi at his word that he's an exploration oil geologist, it's part of his profession and business to understand ANY process that creates petroleum.

So, the reader needs to ask why anak-betawi would misstate the serpentization, abiotic process, which utilizes carbonaceous minerals which are common in the deep crust?

As stated, here, in Peridotites, Serpentinization, and Hydrocarbons

Stanley B. Keith and Monte M. Swan
MagmaChem, L.L.C, Sonoita, AZ

Well, anak-betawi is either incredibly careless and sloppy (the abstract's text was even available to read without linking)

Or anak-betawi misstated the sepentization process on purpose.

Why would anak-betawi misstate the serpentization process on purpose?

What would anak-betawi have to gain?

One of the central contentions in his comment was that, (paraphrasing) "abiotic oil exists, but in minute quantities."

This contention is maintained across the majority of the oil geologist community (it's one of three "fall back" positions, after admitting the existence of abiotic oil).

Anak-betawi knows that the above linked scientific abstract makes clear the materials and conditions for serpentization are abundant. But that contradicts the narrative he wants to project that abiotic oil exists, but only in small, insignificant quantities.

So what does he do to attempt to bulster his desired narrative of Abiotic Oil theory?

anak-betawi intentionally misstated the serpentization process substituting diamonds and graphite, two other carbon sources.

Why substitute diamonds and graphite?

Because of the perception the general reader has that both are rare in the crust, and, indeed, diamonds and graphite are rare in the crust.

This is a subtle way to attempt to further his desired narrative of limited quantities.

Subtle, but an intentional effort to decieve, never the less, so it must be called out.

So, oil geologists have to resort to deception to defend "fossil" theory.

Not a good sign for "fossil" theory, is it?

Anaconda said...


"All serious geo-scientists completely agree that abiotic hydrocarbons are common." -- TheCoalMan, Oil geologist, 2008

Okay, that's not the statement I'm challenging. I couldn't find the above quote for a prior comment at the time, so I thought I'd post it now that I have it.

Here we go on challenging TheCoalMan's statements.

TheCoalMan states:

"Oil-prone kerogen has chemical potential above all of the molecules found in petroleum."


"The chemical potential of oil prone kerogen exceeds the molecules in petroleum."

And finally,

"In this case, the second law of thermodynamics actually prohibits it to happen; the potential of the oil-prone kerogen is higher than any of the oil molecules."

All three of these quotes have in common the idea that kerogen has more chemical potential energy than petroleum.

Kerogen has as it's "active" ingredient C215H330, a heavy hydrocarbon.

C215H330 is what "fossil" theory claims "cracks" into lighter hydrocarbons.

But C215H330, hydrocarbon, is also found in heavy crude oil.

Venezuela heavy oil is found in the Orinico oil field which sits atop a major tectonic fault. This oil is concentrated heavy oil, C215H330 is a constituent part of this petroleum.

So the idea that the heavy, C215H330, hydrocarbons in kerogen don't exist in petroleum is completely false.

Any competent oil geologist would know this.

But TheCoalMan demonstrates a depth of knowledge in other areas which suggest he is, indeed, an oil geologist.

Why the deception?

Because I had stated that kerogen came from petroleum. This is a simple ready explanation which blows the "fossil" theory concept of kerogen out of the water.

As stated, here, in Peridotites, Serpentinization, and Hydrocarbons

Stanley B. Keith and Monte M. Swan
MagmaChem, L.L.C, Sonoita, AZ

"Type I kerogen in black shale vents from Mg peridotite-sourced brines whereas Type II kerogen in black shale vents from quartz alkalic peridotite-sourced brines. Correspondingly hydrocarbon chemistry divides oil and gas into 2 major types: 1) magnesian sweet, low-sulfur paraffinic-naphtheric, 2) quartz alkalic sour, high-sulfur aromatic asphaltic. Geochemical markers that tie oil and gas to specific peridotite hydrothermal sources include nano-particle native metals and diamonds, and V-Ni porphyrins."

So it's not just Anaconda that's saying kerogen is an abiotic oil product; recognized geo-scientists are also stating it in a published scientific paper.

So, as we've seen, there is a ready scientific explanation for where kerogen comes from and it's not organic detritus.

But TheCoalMan couldn't let that stand; he had to attempt to knock it down, even if he had to lie to do it.

And be a nasty cocksucker in the process. That's right, a nasty lying cocksucker.

In other words, TheCoalMan is nothing but a slime ball.

There are other deceptions that TheCoalMan engaged in, not to mention every propaganda ploy known to man. Goebbels would be proud of TheCoalMan.

So, is this where oil geologists are in terms of advocating "fossil" theory?

Not all of them I know. Many oil geologists follow the evidence wherever it leads them; they have pride in their scientific integrity.

But others are willing to engage in deception and outright lies to protect "fossil" theory and its corollary "Peak" oil.

A sad day for those oil geologists that are willing to lie to protect an antiquated and false scientific hypothesis.

Anaconda said...

Postscript to proceeding comment: For those that are new to this website, and they haven't read the original comments by TheCoalMan, here is the link to his comments under the Oil Is Mastery post: Oil Falls Below $70, October 16, 2008.

Please review the comments (I know it's a long slog).

TheCoalMan's long-winded comments are unendingly derisive and full of personal attacks. My biting characterization of TheCoalMan in concluding the proceeding comment is a measured response in the face of his provocations, taking into account the hypocrisy evinced in his comments.

For those still offended by my harsh language, my aplogies.

Anaconda said...


In reviewing TheCoalMan's statements, it's clear he's an oil geologist who keeps giving out easily provable false statements.

TheCoalMan stated:

"In this case, the second law of thermodynamics actually prohibits it to happen; the potential of the oil-prone kerogen is higher than any of the oil molecules."

This is an interesting statement upon close examination.

In TheCoalMan's comments he repeatedly argued that organic detritus does turn into petroleum.

The potential chemical energy of organic detritus is certainly lower than petroleum. Yet, in the above quote TheCoalMan attempts to claim that because petroleum has a lower potential chemical energy than heavy hydrocarbons, C215H330(the "active" ingredient in kerogen) , it can't turn into petroleum.

TheCoalMan's quote is problamatic for several reasons.

TheCoalMan argues that organic detritus (mostly algae) can turn into petroleum. No oil geologist claims organic detritus (algae) has a higher potential chemical energy than petroleum. Yet, TheCoalMan argues that organic detritus can turn into kerogen (the heavy hydrocarbon, C215H330 component), but the higher potential chemical energy petroleum can not because it violates the second law of thermodynamics.

TheCoalMan states: "...the second law of thermodynamics actually prohibits it to happen..."

Go figure?

But as stated previously, this statement ignores the fact that heavy oil around the world has heavy tomic weight hydrocarbons, C215H330, as a component of its overall chemical makeup and profile.

So, no increase in potential chemical energy is required for petroleum to form kerogen. (Most oils have some component of heavy oils, obviously, light crude has the smallest percentage of heavy atomic weight hydrocarbons.)

In conclusion, not only does TheCoalMan engage in having it both ways: Dismissing the second law of thermodynamics when it comes to organic detritus (algae), but imposing it to bar petroleum from becoming "kerogen", but also he ignores the make-up of heavy oils so that his statement doesn't accurately describe how the heavy atomic weight, C215H330, component of petroleum (particularly in heavy oils that have high percentages of C215H330) becomes the "active" ingredient in kerogen.


A house keeping issue needs to be clearly addressed: Heavy oils and their consituent heavy atomic weight hydrocarbons, C215H330, can "crack" in nature.

Anaconda stated: "C215H330 is what "fossil" theory claims "cracks" into lighter hydrocarbons."

This was an inartful statement.

A reader could conclude from that quote that I don't believe heavy hydrocarbons can be cracked in nature into lighter hydrocarbons. That would be false, I know heavy hydrocarbons can and are cracked in nature.

I should have said that heavy hydrocarbons can't be cracked after organic detritus becomes heavy hydrocarbons because organic detritus never becomes heavy hydrocarbons in the first place.

There will be conditions, generally higher temperatures and lower pressures where these heavy hydrocarbons can be "cracked", even all the way down to methane. The Earth is a wonderous and dynamic abiotic chemical formation mechanism.

Anaconda said...


I have explained the so-called "diagenesis" step multiple times.

"Fossil" theory states that "somehow" organic detritus jumps up from a low potential chemical energy molecule, organic detritus, to a high potential chemical energy molecule, heavy hydrocarbon, C215H330, in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

So far this is nothing new.

But "fossil" theory also says it takes some unknown geologic time for so-called "diagenesis" to happen.

If it takes literally tens of thousands of years for this "process" to happen, then I got a question: How come there are never any reports of finding quote "source rock" that is immature? Meaning, that algae or someother organic detritus is in a state before "diagenesis" is complete?

I've never seen a report to that effect.

You would think oil geologists would hail it: "Source rock found in intermediate state before diagenesis completed."

Or "Source rock found in 'half-way' stage before diagenesis complete."

But no, that's never been reported.

And it never will because organic detritus doesn't turn into kerogen so there is no "intermediate" sample to find.

But remember, if so-called "diagensis" actually did happen then inevitably "source rock" would be found where the organic detritus was "half-way" between it's first deposit in the bottom of a water basin and being heavy hydrocarbon, C215H330.

What would this "half-way" state be like, what would its chemical makeup be?

I've never even seen a hypothesis of what the "half-way" stage might look like.

I've never seen this question asked before. Of course, oil geologists don't want to talk about "diagenesis" in the first place, let alone about a "half-way" state between organic detritus and heavy hydrocarbon, C215H330.

After all, there must be a "half-way" state if it takes tens of thousands of years to become heavy hydrocarbon.

Of course, the question is never asked in oil geologist circles for the simple reason it would expose the farse that is the idea organic detritus magically turns into heavy hydrocarbon, the "active" ingredient in kerogen.

When you add it all up -- you're left shaking your head.

Anaconda said...


"Take some algae concentrates, extract the macromolecules, heat it in an inert atmosphere in a reaction chamber, and it will spontaneously partly decompose into a fluid in most respect similar to crude oil, including tons of biomarkers." -- TheCoalMan, 2008

I've previously noted this statement, but it's appropriate to bring it up again because it's patently false.

No experiment has been carried out in the laboratory which confirms the above statement.

The statement is a crock of you know what.

(I already challenged TheCoalMan to cite the published scientific paper that demonstrates the above statement. So far, I've yet to hear from TheCoalMan, not surprisingly.)

This statement, along with several others is why I would hope TheCoalMan isn't a real oil geologist, but as I've said before, TheCoalMan in other passages displays knowledge consistent with an oil geologist.

Why does TheCoalMan make so patently false (and easily proved) statements?

TheCoalMan has to because otherwise the whole "fossil" fuel theory comes crashing down. He darn well knows that the pressure and temperature conditions in sedimentary layers don't supply the energy to overcome the second law of thermodynamics (even though he trashes J.F. Kenney, he implictly admits that Kenney's contention is correct that the second law of thermodynamics prevents algae from converting to heavy hydrocarbon, C215H330), so he "cooks up" this whopper of a lie, to avoid the second law of thermodynamics.

Too bad, the statement is not only false, but also contradicts "fossil" theory, itself.

It must be hard, today, being an oil geologist willing to lie to protect "fossil" theory and what I suspect is more important, "Peak" oil theory.

Anaconda said...


"Interesting, since according to Anaconda, the kerogen is formed by oil flowing into the impermeable shales. Ever wondered, Anaconda, why shales are the common flow barriers which facilitate accumulation of oil and gas below them: the petroleum does not manage to flow into them because they are too impermeable." -- TheCoalMan, 2008

This is a misstatement of my position on the significance of shale's impermeable quality.

I never said, "kerogen is formed by oil flowing into shale."

Kerogen, rather, the heavy hydrocarbon, C215H330, settles onto the bottom of a water body as sediment, along with other material, including organic detritus, and as time passes the sediment is covered over with other layers of sediment and compressed into shale. The heavy hydrocarbon, C215H330, is already present in the sedimentary material before it's compressed into shale.

Actually, because shale (once it's compressed and takes its final form) is impermeable, oil can't flow into or out of shale. Why is this significant? Because "fossil" theory claims petroleum flows out of shale (the kerogen in the shale) when it cracks into lighter hydrocarbons due to heating.

Why is it important for TheCoalMan to intentionally misstate my position?

Because the desription is too detailed and precise. An advocate of "fossil" theory can't get around my description of how heavy hydrocarbon, C215H330, gets into oil shale (kerogen).

So the only thing TheCoalMan can do is intentionally misstake my description of the process of how oil shale (kerogen) forms and hope nobody picks up on it.

Frankly, TheCoallMan's strategy counts on reader's preconceived biases and prejudices to believe in "fossil" theory. TheCoalMan knows (or at least hopes) that a good sounding "story" even if full of distortions, lies, and misstatements will be swallowed by readers predisposed to believe a spiel (a lengthy, usally extravagant speech or argument intended to persuade) about why oil is really made from algae.

Also known as the "big lie" sold to gullible people (known as "marks") wanting to believe what the speech maker wants to sell.

TheCoalMan's spiel is a sophisticated piece of garbage.

You almost are left to wonder if somebody paid the guy to spew his garbage, here, and hope as much as possible would stick.

That's why TheCoalMan never came back.

TheCoalMan is a liar and a conman, plain and simple.

Anaconda said...


Crude oil prices jumped roughly 9% on Monday, November 24, 2008, then settled slightly on overnight trading. (Bloomberg)

Warning: political economy editorial.

Abiotic oil is a scientific fact, but this writer recognizes subsalt oil is expensive. A healthy ultra-deepwater, ultra-deep drilling offshore oil industry needs $60 a barrel oil for continued profitability and investment viability. $70 to $90 a barrel crude oil is preferred to spur additional investment for future supply expansion.

Spelling out the scientific truth about oil's origin is not meant to leave the oil industry failing to make profits. The oil industry must make profits to reinvest in more production.

Abiotic oil is not a threat to long-term profitability -- just the opposite. Long-term supplies at reasonable prices will spur long-term economic growth and insure steady profits for the oil industry as production expands and demand rises in steady tandem with each other.

Oil is the workhorse of the world economy, it need not be flashy to be rewarded justly.

"Peak" oil is dead as a door nail.

Long-term growth and profitability rest on abiotic oil.

But market manipulation or "bouncing" the market on "Peak" oil fears is wrong and self-defeating.

The oil industry should embrace abiotic oil for long-term stability and security.