Thursday, September 10, 2009

No Fossils In Fuel



"The modern theory of the abiotic deep petroleum origins recognizes that petroleum is a primordial material of deep origin which has been erupted into the crust of the Earth. In short, petroleum is not a 'fossil fuel' and has no intrinsic connection with any biological detritus 'in the sediments'." -- Vladimir A. Kutcherov, geologist, August 2008

"There is no doubt that our research proves that crude oil and natural gas are generated without the involvement of fossils. All types of bedrock can serve as reservoirs of oil." -- Vladimir A. Kutcherov, geologist, September 2009

KTH Royal Institute of Technology: Easier to find oil. (Via Science Daily)

Researchers at KTH have been able to prove that the fossils of animals and plants are not necessary to generate raw oil and natural gas. This result is extremely radical as it means that it will be much easier to find these energy sources and that they may be located all over the world.

“With the help of our research we even know where oil could be found in Sweden!” says Vladimir Kutcherov, Professor at the KTH Department of Energy Technology in Stockholm.

Together with two research colleagues, Professor Kutcherov has simulated the process of pressure and heat that occurs naturally in the inner strata of the earth’s crust. This process generates hydrocarbons, the primary elements of oil and natural gas.

According to Vladimir Kutcherov, these results are a clear indication that oil supplies are not drying up, which has long been feared by researchers and experts in the field.

He adds that there is no chance that fossil oils, with the help of gravity or other forces, would have been able to seep down to a depth of 10.5 kilometres in, for example the US state of Texas, which is rich in oil deposits. This is, according to Vladimir Kutcherov, in addition to his own research results, further evidence that this energy sources can occur other than via fossils - something which will cause a lively discussion among researchers for a considerable period of time.

“There is no doubt that our research has shown that raw oil and natural gas occur without the inclusion of fossils. All types of rock formations can act as hosts for oil deposits,” asserts Vladimir and adds that this applies to areas of land that have previously remained unexplored as possible sources of this type of energy.

This discovery has several positive aspects. Rate of success as concerns finding oil increases dramatically – from 20 till 70 percent. As drilling for oil and natural gas is an extremely expensive process, costs levels will be radically changed for the petroleum companies and eventually also for the end user.

“This means savings of many billions of kronor,” says Vladimir.

In order to identify where it is worth drilling for natural gas and oil, Professor Kutcherov has, via his research, developed a new method. The world is divided into a fine-meshed grid. This grid is the equivalent of cracks, known as migration channels, through strata underlying the earth’s crust. Good places to drill are where these cracks meet.

According to Professor Kutcherov, these research results are extremely important not least as 61 percent of the world’s energy consumption is currently based on raw oil and natural gas.

The next stage in this research is more experiments, especially to refine the method that makes it easier to locate drilling points for oil and natural gas.

The research results produced by Vladimir Kutcherov, Anton Kolesnikov and Alexander Goncharov were recently published in the scientific journal Nature Geoscience, Volume 2, August.

For more information, please contact Vladimir Kutcherov at vladimir.kutcherov@indek.KTH.se or on +46 8790 85 07.

33 comments:

Anaconda said...

@ OilIsMastery:

Great find!

It would seem the dam is beginning to crack and I think it is only a matter of time before it bursts wide-open.

The world at large will recognize oil is abiotic.

Of course, we already knew about this, but what is significant in my opinion is that the KTH Royal Institute of Technology has put their scientific prestige behind this finding.

Institutional prestige is no small thing in the world of Science.

Also, ScienceDaily has carried the release and put it on their website, again, scientific media exposure is important and carries weight with other media outlets.

Finally, and maybe most important (in a bittersweet way) is that the research results produced by Vladimir Kutcherov, Anton Kolesnikov and Alexander Goncharov were recently published in the scientific journal Nature Geoscience, Volume 2, August, a peer-reviewed journal.

The overwhelming scientific evidence is forcing the peer-reviewed world of geophysics to acknowledge the reality of abiotic oil.

This is the physical reality: Oil is abiotic, always has been and always will be!

"He [Kutcherov] adds that there is no chance that fossil oils, with the help of gravity or other forces, would have been able to seep down to a depth of 10.5 kilometres in, for example the US state of Texas, which is rich in oil deposits."

Of course, this website has been reporting and commenting on the depth of the oil deposits and the impossibility of "fossils" getting that deep from the beginning over a year and a half ago.

"In order to identify where it is worth drilling for natural gas and oil, Professor Kutcherov has, via his research, developed a new method. The world is divided into a fine-meshed grid. This grid is the equivalent of cracks, known as migration channels, through strata underlying the earth’s crust. Good places to drill are where these cracks meet."

Again, this website has been reporting and commenting on the "cracks of the world" and the relationship between oil deposits and the location of these fault lines of the Earth for a long time.

Consensus, herd animals, would never have been so bold as to make the case a firmly as you, OilIsMastery, and I have made the case for Abiotic Oil theory.

We were relentless in fact.

We held firm to our convictions.

Great job OilIsMastery.

Thank you for travelling on this journey of discovery with me -- if only via electronically.

What a journey it's been!

diatreme said...

Can anyone name a single oil well within the state of Texas that is 6 miles deep?

Does anyone know of a publication that claims that any oil, anywhere, has ever seeped down from a surface source to a depth of six miles?

The subject is too important to taint with sloppy facts or reasoning.

OilIsMastery said...

Diatreme,

"Can anyone name a single oil well within the state of Texas that is 6 miles deep?"

British Petroleum's Tiber well in the Gulf of Mexico is 6 miles deep.

OilIsMastery said...

Anaconda,

"Thank you for travelling on this journey of discovery with me -- if only via electronically.

What a journey it's been!"

Yes! Thank you!

Quantum_Flux said...

To quote Anaconda:
"This is the physical reality: Oil is abiotic, always has been and always will be!"

....well, except for the case of biodiesel.

Quantum_Flux said...

However, I'm willing to hedge my bets that many of the basic organic molecules necessary for the formation of life actually originally came from oil, and water. My bet is that Oil + Water are the basic ingredients for the spontaneous formation of living cells, perhaps in lightning like the stanley miller experiment.

Jeffery Keown said...

Your conviction and dedication to Abiotic Oil is impressive. I wish you more success.

I hope these results pan out, for your own worldview as well as the future of the world.

A great deal of science fiction has been written about the state of affairs when resources run dry. Perhaps they get to stay fictional now.

Perhaps there is more to it than methane and ethane after all.

Jeffery Keown said...

I was discussing these results with a co-worker. We both feel that the Oil Industry won't let "infinite oil" become a household word.

If, in fact, the supply is infinite, the ones who control the flow of oil won't want their profits to go away. Ever.

OilIsMastery said...

QF,

If life were simply chemicals I would agree with you but I think the soul isn't chemical or material in nature.

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

Both political parties perpetuate these lies and, since they have monopoly control of the education system, the children suffer by only reading Lyell, Newton, and Darwin and ignoring contradictory views.

diatreme said...

The Tiber hole is 7 miles deep but the Gulf of Mexico is not in Texas.

Quantum_Flux said...

To each his own Oils.

OilIsMastery said...

Diatreme,

The Gulf of Mexico is offshore Texas.

Jeffery Keown said...

There is no valid scientific "contradictory view" of the Theory of Evolution. It is a confirmed fact. Anyone who says differently, is selling something, in denial, or an idiot.

Take your pick.

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

"There is no valid scientific 'contradictory view' of the Theory of Evolution."

It's exactly this sort of fundamentalism, theological closed-mindedness, and religious dogmatism that undermines and delegitimizes sciences.

Karl Popper said in order for a theory to be scientific it has to be able to be falsified. So according to you evolution is not scientific because it cannot possibly be falsified.

Are you saying there was no such thing as science prior to or after Darwin?

I guess we can all go home then because Darwin figured out everything we ever need to know about biology.

OilIsMastery said...

The tuatara didn't evolve from any animal and is not evolving into any other animal.

The shark didn't evolve from any animal and is not evolving into any other animal.

Echinoids didn't evolve from any animal and are not evolving into any other animal.

Cyanobacteria haven't evolved in over 2.8 billion years.

Archaea haven't evolved in over 3.5 billion years.

These are the facts.

Quantum_Flux said...

Every one of those you just mentioned have evolved from something and are either going to be extinct like the dinosaurs (yes, the "terrible lizards" of many 100's of millions of years past are extinct now and their historic existance and time period is clearly evidenced by analysis of and around the fossil records) or will evolve in response to ever changing predation-prey cycles.

Jeffery Keown said...

Why do you persist? Everything is evolving toward something else. Speciation is an ongoing process dependant on mutation, isolation, and natural selection. You do not understand these things, or you are unwilling to see them.

Cyanobacteria haven't evolved in over 2.8 billion years.

Some of them evolved into chloroplasts. Others are very different chemically from their ancestor species.

The tuatara didn't evolve from any animal and is not evolving into any other animal.

The tuatara evolved from basal sphenodonts. They evolved from amphibians.

Archaea haven't evolved in over 3.5 billion years.

Punctuated equilibrium. Look it up. You think only gross anatomical changes count as evolution. Changes to Archaea that would make them vulnerable to the extreme environments they live in kill them off. They are constrained by their environment to a set of changes that preserves their unique adaptations. Animals that do not live in acid or boiling water have morphological freedom to go where mutation takes them.

Echinoids didn't evolve from any animal and are not evolving into any other animal.

You don't believe in euechinoids or sand dollars or sponges?

All of these are variations on the insanely stupid question "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

You understand a great deal, mythology (to a point) geology (some of it) physics (the stuff you agree with) but you do not understand the theory of evolution; I suggest you quit commenting on it.

You have quickly classified yourself as being in denial of evolution. You have no alternate scientific view. You might hav a religious view, but there is not a single testable hypothesis that you can bring to bear against it. Please present one.

Popper's point is easily agreed with, if we found a rabbit in the Burgess Shale, evolution would be in serious trouble. If a horse sprouted wings, evolution would be falsified.

However, these things do not happen. Morphology and embryology are clues to the reality of evolutionary development. Birds can have teeth, whales can have legs and humans can be born with tails. These are proof of forms our lineages had in the past.

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

"Everything is evolving toward something else."

No. The DNA for archaea and cyanobacteria are not evolving towards anything because they are the same now that they were billions of years ago.

"In history and in evolution, progress is always a futile Sisyphean struggle...." -- Matt Ridley, zoologist, 1993

"Speciation is an ongoing process dependant on mutation, isolation, and natural selection."

Speciation and domestic selection are not evolution of one animal into another. DNA does not allow pigs to fly. In fact, DNA prevents pigs from ever evolving wings and DNA prevents any animal evolving into another animal.

OilIsMastery said...

The Indian baby's “tail”, like nearly all cases of human “tails”, is not a real tail. And it is not evidence of evolution. It doesn't have any bones in it, doesn't have fur like a monkey's tail, and doesn't have a nerve cord.

Also, the boy can't use it like a monkey uses its tail to wrap around branches, and it is so different from a monkey's tail that it shouldn't be called a tail at all. No monkey or ape would be proud to have this “tail”, because it is a useless, non-functioning appendage.

Does this baby's tail have anything to do with the idea that humans and monkeys may be related? Not in the slightest. It is just skin and fatty tissue, and can easily be cut off.

As biologist Dr. Gary Parker once said about these fatty tumor tails: “So far as I know, no one claims we evolved from an animal with a fatty tumor at the end of its spine.”

Baby Born With Tail Is Not Evolution

OilIsMastery said...

And take the sad case of a baby boy born in Bangladesh on August 25, 2008. He had two heads, and lived only a few days. (See photo at Telegraph.co.uk.)

The boy, named Kiron, was born from one embryo. The mother's gynecologist, Mohamad Abdul Bari, said the baby had one stomach and ate normally with his two mouths. He had one genital organ and a full normal set of limbs.

No evolutionist claimed that the boy's two heads indicated anything about evolution. Because there is no creature with two heads they can link with this baby.

Yet the “tail” abnormality is promoted by a few imaginative evolutionists as evidence that we evolved from monkeys or apes with tails.

It is nothing of the sort.

Human babies born with tails are no more evidence that humans evolved from apes or monkeys than human babies born with 8 limbs are evidence that we evolved from spiders.

Jeffery Keown said...

Nice strawman! I read the article you cited. It's on a creationist anti-science website. I guess I was right about you.

I do like the bit about folks paying to see the little mutant. People are easily suckered with nonsense like this. That the poor little kid had to endure such exploitation is a fine example of child abuse for religous reasons.

No, such caudal teratomas are not true tails. You cite it like that case (and yes, other similar teratomas) is an issue evolution proponents have to deal with.

Your claim that DNA doesn't allow for evolution makes no sense whatsoever to anyone who understands evolution.

As it makes sense to you, I gotta think it's just one more proof of your state of denial. You do not care to understand genetics, biology, inheritance, mutation, morphology, development or any other concept relating to the path life on this planet has taken.

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

Need I remind you that you worship the creationists Newton and Lemaitre as infallible omniscient demigods who can never be questioned? I guess I was right about you.

Jeffery Keown said...

Please search this blog for my name and Newton's. Note where I disagree with his Creationist views. Hell, you two have more in common than he and I.

As for LeMaitre, looks as though he, like Newton, had some good ideas, but has his flaws.

Besides, who I hold in regard has little to do with the reality of Evolution.

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

By discrediting creationist theology like Newtonian gravitation and the Big Bang all you do is discredit your own views.

Quantum_Flux said...

OIM is being petty, mainly because he doesn't understand newtonian gravitation, the big bang theory, or evolution.

OilIsMastery said...

QF,

You're abosolutely right I don't understand them. No one does.

"But what do you know about gravitation? Nothing, except that it is a very recent development, not too well established, and that the math is so hard that only twelve men in Lagash are supposed to understand it." -- Isaac Asimov, writer, 1941

Jeffery Keown said...

By discrediting creationist theology like Newtonian gravitation and the Big Bang all you do is discredit your own views.

For someone so intelligent, you certainly allow your stubbornness to make you look like a complete fool. I'm on record around here about the theological leanings of certain scientists (all of them in fact), so I won't address it.

My original point was that you have no alternative path for the development of life, and now, days and posts later, you still haven't presented one. Why? It does not exist.

That you do not accept/understand evolution is of zero consequence. That billions of others also do not is of dire concern. AiG, Harun Yaha, The Taliban, Westover Baptist, Bill Dembski, ICR and others keep humanity mired in a dark age of superstition surrounding our origins.

We are apes. The simian lineages evolved from small lemur-like critters, who diversified into monkeys, chimps, bonobos, gorillas and ourselves over 37 million years of climate change and isolation. Our DNA shows this lineage clearly with chromosonal fusion. There is no other answer at this time in history. I understand those words make me seem like a fundamentalist wackjob, but it's in the rocks, the DNA and the bones.

You, and the rest of the world, lose on this one.

Anaconda said...

@ Jeffery Keown:

Keown wrote: "I was discussing these results with a co-worker. We both feel that the Oil Industry won't let "infinite oil" become a household word.

If, in fact, the supply is infinite, the ones who control the flow of oil won't want their profits to go away. Ever."

Jeffery, you are right that the oil industry wants to keep their profits up. And, again, you are right, in my opinion, that the profit motive is the principle reason that the oil companies and British/Anglo oil geologists cling to the "fossil" fuel paradigm.

But ultra-deep oil is relatively expensive to produce and the oil companies, as any businesses, deserve profits.

I do have an idea, though:

It political, so is subject to criticism, but, namely, that the oil companies publically admit oil is abiotic -- not "infinite" (never underestimate Man's ability to exhaust a resource) -- but in return, be willing to allow offshore drilling, anywhere, the oil companies think there is oil.

A pretty tempting carrot?

(Now, I wouldn't keep the oil companies from drilling, anyhow, because we, the good ol' U.S. of A., need the oil.)

But express approval -- zero red tape -- would be something the oil companies would think hard about.

So, there are ways to make the oil companies talk -- in good sorta ways...

abiotic said...

Being involves in the subject for the last 20 years or so I learned one important thing: $Money$ $Money$ $Money$ Is the only argument!!

During the years of 1989 to 1991 I was involve with Thomas Gold for the search of Abiotic Hydrocarbon in an unconventional geological environment (granite like rocks) in Quebec, Canada.

Through Abiogenic Fuel Limited and his partners we spent millions of $ to locate the best site for a deep well. Early 90’s were a very bad time to raise money for the search of hydrocarbon in general so we had to delay the project for years...and forever!!

The Unconventional world (word!!) of hydrocarbon is now much more popular than in the early 90's so that's why I reactivated the project two years ago. With partners I owned over 600 square kilometres of ground for the search of hydrocarbon. I give technical and scientific presentations here and there to help to convince the financial community that there is huge potential out there!!

Unfortunately, even if tons and tons of new articles confirming that hydrocarbons are massively form down deep, the world is still blind...or wants to stay blind.

We all heard that, apparently, Russian are producing from this model for years and years but, sincerely, I believe that we need to make our own discovery (in Europe or North America), based on this model, other than major oil producer, to convince the world.

20 years ago, I knew enough about the idea to convince myself about the success of the model, I tested it in the field and it works. Now and again the issue is MONEY. Raise enough money to drill deep holes (6 to 10 km) in granite type rock to lead the World to a brand New Economic Distribution of Hydrocarbons’ Resources!!

Anaconda said...

@ abiotic:

Thank you very much for commenting!

Yes, you are absolutely right.

BIG money -$$$- is needed so that individuals convinced of the reality of Abiotic Oil and willing to reveal the physical reality of Abiotic Oil to the public at large can invest in a series of oil wells where should oil be located, there would be no other explanation, but the reality of Abiotic Oil.

But as the Swedish drill holes (Siljan Ring) showed, the risk is high.

(I think they found Abiotic Oil within the Siljan Ring, but it wasn't enough to be commerically viable, so it was discredited in the court of public opinion and geologist circles.)

Success is a must (failure would embolden the naysayers), not to mention it would disappoint the investors and discourage further investment.

Canada does seem to be a logical place for exploration as the Canadian tar sands suggest that massive amounts of oil have erupted from the Canadian shield or craton in the geologic past.

Also, there are other telltale signs that massive amounts of hydrocarbons exist or at least existed (of course "existed" in the past tense does nothing at all to demonstrate the reality of Abiotic Oil, today) under the Canadian shield or craton.

Still, it seems the best place to find ultra-deep oil is in locations above deep faults in the Earth's crust.

I suspect the Russians' ultra-deep oil wells are located in areas above dormant faults and rifts within the Asian craton.

(Not widely known is the fact that most cratons or shields, the world-over, are riddled with cracks and faults that are not active, but are possible locations for ultra-deep oil to well up from below.)

abiotic, do you know if the Russians locate their ultra-deep wells above dormant faults and rifts within the craton or do the Russians go straight into slabs of grantic bedrock?

I've openly wondered and speculated from time to time on whether there could be huge "domes" filled with oil underneath the cratons?

And if such oil "domes" exist, successful tapping could lead to production that would rival the biggest oil fields in the world.

However, I have not been able to find a lot of evidence that these speculated oil "domes" exist.

Rather, the evidence keeps pointing to the deep cracks and faults and then the sedimentary trapping structures above the faults (or in the case of ultra-deep offshore oil wells, below the salt barrier which acts as a trapping structure above the faults).

How deep would a bore hole have to go to reach an oil "dome" if they exist?

Sorry, for the questions, abiotic, but you seem to have the knowledge and I'm always searching for more knowledge.

Thanks, again, for the comment.

abiotic said...

Anaconda, thanks for your comments…

I feel less lonely than 20 years when I was trying to convince my colleagues that Crystalline Rocks may be the future for hydrocarbons!

I also feel a bit more enthusiasm when I see more and more congress having sessions devoted to the Abiotic Theory…An interesting one was held in Olso in 2008 with a session title as follow : Abiotic deep origin of hydrocarbons: Myth or reality? And have a major StatoilHydro as the main sponsor.

But I thought I was dreaming when, on July 27, 2009, I saw an official press release from the Carnegie Institut confirming that a research conducted by scientists at the Carnegie Institution’s Geophysical Laboratory, with colleagues from Russia and Sweden, announced - Now for the first time, scientists have found that ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can be synthesized under the pressure-temperature conditions of the upper mantle —the layer of Earth under the crust and on top of the core.

I was a bit surprise cause I thought that others scientist came to the same conclusions…a while ago!! Anyway it’s good news, It will help to convince fortunate people to invest in deep wells specially. Moreover this research was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security.


OK…Back to the reality!!!

The Journal of Petrolium Geology published in his resent issue (April 2009 – Vol. 32, No 2 – www.jpg.co.uk) a detailed article on the Bach Ho Field (BHF) of Vietnam (White Tiger Field) with the following title : BACH HO FIELD, A FRACTURED GRANITIC BASEMENT RESERVOIR, CUU LONG BASIN, OFFSHORE SE VIETNAM: A “BURIED-HILL” PLAY. Other similar environments are also discussed.

Oil and gas may be found at different Level in the crust, in different rock type with different ages. In the case of the BHF most of the reservoir resides in a clastic sediments derived from weathering and mechanical reworking of material eroded from an adjacent or underlying igneous-metamorphic high (Granite).

Just like in Vietnam faults associated with deep fractures are the main plumbing.

Rifts are very important and very good targets since they are the focus of deep source of volcanism and fluids migrating from the upper mantle to form Carbonatites intrusions (Carbone Rich Igneous Rock).

A good example is the Oil & Gas Fields in the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin (Rift System) in Ukraine. During the first five years of exploration, in the early 1990’s, of the northern flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin, a total number of 61 wells were drilled, of which 37 are commercially productive, an exploration success rate of 57%. Reservoirs depths are from 3000 m to over 4500 m. In addition to the reservoirs in the sedimentary rock, above, the exploration drilling has discovered five reservoirs in the Precambrian crystalline basement rock complex at depths ranging from several meters to 200 meters below the top of the crystalline basement. Rift environment are very well known worldwide.

Oil-Gas are known to be located mostly in sediments…as the final host (bed) rock because it’s the easiest and more obvious geological environment to look for. We usually find what we’re looking for!!

Gold is where you find it! Since the plate tectonic theory is applied, geologist discovered more and more metals (precious and bases metal) in environments that we could ever imagined.

Just like new organic life developing in very deep sea around toxic Black Smokers seated on pure volcanic environments…during the last 20 years several new hydrocarbon reservoirs were discovered in geological environment such like Basalt, Andesite, Granite, Gneiss, Serpentinite etc…

So again the more will be looking in these unconventional environments the more hydrocarbons we will find.

OilIsMastery said...

Hi Abiotic. Welcome to the website and thank you for your veteran commentary.