Saturday, January 24, 2009

Israel Finds Natural Gas 3 Miles Deep

Jerry Corsi: Israel finds huge natural gas reserve. (Hat tip: Music Row Blogger)

NEW YORK – A huge deep-water natural gas find off the coast of Israel promises to be a boon to the Jewish state's economy as well as a stimulus to other developers searching for offshore oil and natural gas in the Mediterranean.

Noble Energy, a New York Stock Exchange-listed company, has discovered an estimated more than 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in three high-quality reservoirs drilled in the company's Tamar No. 1 well in the Mediterranean Sea, about 56 miles off the Israeli northern port of Haifa.

Noble Energy drilled the Tamar No. 1 well to a depth of about three miles, beneath 5,500 feet of water.

The find is significant for those who believe the Bible indicates Israel is sitting on a massive oil reserve that would reshape the geopolitical structure of the Middle East.

The find also lends support to the abiotic theory of the origin of oil that holds oil is created naturally within the mantle of the earth, not by biological origins. ...

"This is one of the most significant prospects that we have ever tested and appears to be the largest discovery in the company's history," he continued.

"We are witnessing an historic moment in Israel's energy market," Israel's National Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer told Reuters. "If it turns out in a few weeks that the indicators received in recent days are true, then we are talking about the biggest find in Israel's history."


fritzius said...

In this article it is stated:

"The find also lends support to the abiotic theory of the origin of oil that holds oil is created naturally within the mantle of the earth, not by biological origins. ..."

Maybe so, maybe not.

(Burn before reading!!)

According to the controversial author Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979), our petroleum deposits originated from biological processes which took place in the atmosphere of Jupiter. (Several species of hydrocarbons have been spectroscopically detected in the Jovian atmosphere in recent years. See: Seo, H., et al, J. Korean Astronomical Soc., 38, 471-478, 2005).

According to Velikovsky, the petroleum from Jupiter was transported to earth by Venus in it's early existence as as comet-like body and found its way to great sub-surface depths when the earth was being torn asunder in what I like to call "close encounters of the worst kind."

See: Immanuel Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision, Macmillan, 1950.

OilIsMastery said...

Velikovsky's theory is an abiotic theory since there are no dinosaurs or cyanobacteria living in the plasma tails of comets.

fritzius said...

I suspect you're right about the lack of dinosaurs in the plasma tails of comets. Don't know about the cyanobacteria.

Velikovsky postulated that the biological source of the petroleum was in the Jovian atmosphere. Venus served as the Jupiter-to-earth delivery mechanism.

Raptor Lewis said...

Can the Earth increase in mass? If so, has it?

OilIsMastery said...


I say yes.

For example, during photosynthesis, energy from the sun is converted into mass on the Earth.

Tassos, S.T., Excess Mass Stress (E.M.S.): The Driving Force Behind Geodynamic Phenomena, Proceedings of the International Symposium On New Concepts In Global Tectonics, Pages 26-34, Nov 1998

Bloggin' Brewskie said...

Sweet - I posted a similar article several days ago on my new blog, Ghawar Guzzler.

Anaconda said...

@ fritzius:

I have written many comments on this website and marshalled bodies of evidence supporting Abiotic Oil theory.

(That was my orginal purpose for commenting on this website.)

The scientific evidence is overwhelming.

I also have written many comments on this website and marshalled bodies of evidence supporting Plasma Cosmology theory.

The scientific evidence is also overwhelming.

But I most definitely am not a Velikovskian. I had never heard of him or his theories before already being convinced of Plasma Cosmology theory based on scientific evidence gained through observation and measurement, both in the laboratory and in the field (space).

Velikovsky didn't know much about Abiotic Oil theory and he tended to see everything through the lense of his own theory.

It's news to me that he believed petroleum came to the Earth from Jupiter via Venus, but not surprising.

Hydrocarbons are ubiquitous in the solar system and, indeed, as far as Man can detect, the whole Universe. This is no surprise if one considers hydrogen and carbon are two of the most common elements in the Universe and considering their atomic, electron make-up.

Velikovsky was wrong about oil being brought in from another planet or it being derived from biological processes.

Frankly, Velikovsky was wrong about a number of subjects. But he was right about the electromagnetic nature of the Cosmos.

Dr. Anthony Peratt is a leader in plasma physics, all of which have been proven in the laboratory through experiment and testing. Dr. Peratt is affiliated with this laboratory:

Los Alamos National Laboratory. Est. 1943.
Operated by Los Alamos National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy
National Nuclear Security Agency
Washington, D.C.

Los Alamos National Laboratory . Est. 1943.

I suggest you review the documents and explanations.

All electromagnetic theories have been demonstrated in the laboratory.

It is a rush of fancy and defensiveness to maintain that the properties of electromagnetism don't function in space, quite the contrary has been observed and common sense would dictate.

So, Abiotic Oil theory and Plasma Cosmology are in no way in conflict, in fact, the evidence suggests that electromagnetic forces positively effect abiotic oil production.

Jeffery Keown said...

What provides the conductivity of electricity through the vacuum of space? I accept that there are electrical currents running through closely-packed planetary nebula or proplyds (spelling?)but hard vacuum can't possibly support gravity-simulating current, can it?

OilIsMastery said...


Space is not a physical material object or a vacuum except in mathematical imaginations.

Space is the a priori form of our intuition (Kant 1781, 1787).

The physical reality is that "space" is full of plasma.

Therefore there is no action at a distance.

"That gravity [electromagnetism] should be innate inherent and essential to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by and through which their action or force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, February 1693

Anaconda said...

@ Jeffery Keown:

Electromagnetic attraction and repulsion are actually facilitated in space because there is no obstacles to that attraction (or repulsion).

The reference of your question is a common misperception due to Man's environment, here, on Earth. Earth is dominated by the other three states of matter: Solids, liquids, and (neutral) gases.

Earth is, in a sense, an anomaly to the ubiquitous existence of plasma in the Universe where science has, so far, detected that 99% of matter in the Universe is plasma with charge seperation.

Space is not a complete vacuum, rather it is filled with plasma at various densities. Some quite low densities, but present never-the-less. The strength or intensity of electric currents is defined by amperes and voltage. Amps is how much electricity flows and voltage is the energy carried by the current.

In this low density environment the electromagnetic attraction is vastly stronger than the gravitational pull, 10^39 power stronger. So, plasma is attracted together. Low density space (space with a low density of plasma) doesn't present an obstacle for electromagnetic forces.

For electrons and positive ions to be attracted to each other requires no conductive medium (there are arguments for ether, as a conducting medium, but at this time there is not enough evidence to support that contention).

Obseriving electron and positive ion behavior, at greater distance there is attraction, but at close distance there is repulsion. That is why electrons and positive ions don't cancel out in space to form neutral bodies. Although, certainly, there are times when it does cancel out and create neutral bodies, such as the Earth.

The idea of the necessity of a conductive medium arises out of the Earth's low plasma environment. And the plasma that does exist in Earth's environment is generally such a low level of current and energy that Man is not even aware of it (yet, is gaining more awareness all the time).

Many neutral gases, solids, and liquids are insulators in Earth's environment.

Space has no such obstacles.

Again, I strongly encourage you to read the link provided to the Los Alamos Laboratory for a well laid out explanation.

Anaconda said...


That hydrocarbons were found deep under the Mediterranean Sea is not surprising.

Hydrocarbons have been found off the coast of Libyia, Egypt, and other Mediterranean countries.

The Dead Sea has had hydrocarbons upwelling into its waters for thousands of years.

As per the posted article: "Noble Energy drilled the Tamar No. 1 well to a depth of about three miles, beneath 5,500 feet of water."

If I read this right, it means that after reaching under 5,500 feet of water, there was roughly 19,000 feet of rock to drill through before htting gas.

That's a pretty deed level to expect methane producing "bugs", but conceivably possible, though not likely.

What is more probable is that abiotic methane from deep deposits were found. By the way, oil geologists will admit to abiotic methane production.

Now, what would startle the oil industry is if gas explorers start finding large deposits of oil at similar depths in the Mediterranean Sea.

I offer this link concerning the Dead Sea:

Evidence of Hydrocarbon Migration in Volcanic Piles of Rift Systems:

"The tectonic-geochemical model of hydrocarbon migration is working out by tracing the Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) in the both non-altered and altered basalts in the Cenozoic and Recent Kura (Azerbaijan), Dead Sea (Israel) and Iceland rift systems."


"In basalts of the Dead Sea rift among PAH substituted homologues of naphthalene, benzofluorene, chrysene and pyrene, as well as unsubstituted individual components – pyrene and coronene were found out. The hydrothermal and oil PAH associations were disclosed in the altered basalts at the intersection of recent Earth's crust blocks indicating on the process of moving hydrocarbons by hydrothermal fluids."

Put the posted article and the linked report together and it suggests there are numerous sources of hydrocarbon in the area.

These sources were not predicted by "fossil" theory.

That has been a recurring theme with recent oil & gas discoveries: Found in places where "fossil" theory failed to predict oil whould be located.

Anonymous said...


Slight correction perhaps - you are aware of the vast deposits of kerogens in the oil shales and tar sands etc - these solid hydrocarbons cannot be formed in situ from the diagenesis of buried biomass - its thermodynamically impossible.

Hence the vast accunulations of these primary sedimentary deposits of hydrocarbon may well have been deposited in Velikovsky's terms.

However the deep sources, eg the topic of this post by OIM, comes from down-under als Russian-Ukrainian Theory.

There is, therefore, an important difference in provenance for the two hydrocarbon sources - one internally to the earth, the other externally as Velikovsky suggested.

fritzius said...

Thomas Gold's Deep Hot Biosphere, Springer (1998) is a must read on the topic of deep abiogenic hydrocarbons. He gives the Russians proper credit.

OilIsMastery said...

LOl Fritzius. You honestly think Thomas Gold gave proper citations and credit to Russian work?

fritzius said...

Yessir!! Great book. Gold repeatedly says, "I didn't think this stuff up." (I still think the source of the deep hydrocarbons is an open issue.)

OilIsMastery said...


I have a first printing hardcover in front of me now as I type this. Mendeleyev is cited twice on pages 41 and 57. Kudryavtsev is cited twice on pages 57 and 58. Not very thorough in my opinion.

As far as open questions, I think it's safe to say all questions are open, although we all have our opinions...=)

fritzius said...

I no longer have a copy of Gold's book. (It was a loaner.) If my memory is not completely shot, it seems that near the end of the book Gold re-visits the fact of the long term Russian investigations on deep hydrocarbons.