Posted on 03/29/2010 10:16:16 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In the West it is almost universally held that all oil and gas is derived from fossils. This is not the case elsewhere, particularly among Russian and Ukrainian scientists who have, over several generations, tenaciously propounded the notion that oil and gas are abiotic, can be found deep below the surface of the earth in most parts of the world and in very large amounts.
Western geologists and scientists find the theory either annoying or amusing and refuse to consider it seriously although there are exceptions. The theory continues to be held in much higher regard by Russian scientists and geologists (including some working in the West) for historical and perhaps ideological reasons.
Many Russian geologists and petroleum researchers credit the rise of Russia over the past 50 years as the largest producer of oil and second largest producer of natural gas in the world to the successful application of the abiogenic theory of oil and gas formation. The Russians claim to have successfully drilled over 300 ultra deep (around 40,000feet) oil and gas wells through granite and basalt based on this theory. These claims have been questioned by Western geologists and petroleum engineers.
The most recent attempt at gaining credence for the abiogenic idea was only a few months ago. A research team at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, led by Vladimir Kutherov, demonstrated that animal and plant fossils are not necessary for producing oil and natural gas. The team simulated the thermal and pressure processes that occur in the inner layers of the earth to generate hydrocarbons, the chief component of oil and natural gas. The team also noted that oil and gas has been found 7 miles below ground in Texas and fossil oil and gas could not, via, gravity have seeped down to such depths.
According to the Prof. Kutherov all types of bedrock can serve as reservoirs of hydrocarbon energy and their method of discovery can enhance exploration success rates from 20 % to 70 %. The research team has developed a new technique for locating oil and gas resources. It consists of dividing the globe into a fine grid, which corresponds to underground fissures or migration channels. Hydrocarbon resources will be found wherever migration channels intersect, predicts the team.
An abiogenic theory of petroleum is not new, dating from the 16th century. In the 19th century two very accomplished scientists, Alexander von Humboldt and Dimitri Mendeleev(of the Periodic Table fame) advanced the concept. In the 20th century the Russian- Ukrainian School of geology emerged in the Soviet Union to vigorously formulate the modern theory of abiogenic oil and gas. In the West, the most eloquent and determined proponent was the famous astronomer Thomas Gold. After his death, Jack Kenney of Gas Resources Corporation has become the leading Western exponent.
The prevailing abiotic theory is that the full complement of hydrocarbons found in oil and gas are generated in the mantle (40 to 90 miles below the surface of the earth) by non-biological processes. These hydrocarbons then migrate out of the mantle into the crust where they escape or are trapped by impermeable strata that lead to reservoir formation.
Specific examples to support the abiotic theory have been cited over the years. Each example has been dismissed by the Western establishment as specious while it has been hailed by proponents as convincing. This is always so when a deeply entrenched belief and massive money flows encounter a subversive idea that profoundly threatens the prevailing order. The debate is becoming increasingly shrill as the two diametrically opposed views of Peak Oil and Abiogenic(Superabundant) Oil collide in a clash not only of science but, far more importantly, of money and ideology.
Specific examples cited are the impressive recharging from below, not the sides, of the Eugene Island field (wells in deep decline exhibiting sharply increased production; recovery far in excess of estimated remaining reserves) off new Orleans; the White Tiger oil field in Vietnam( discovered by a Russian company, Vietsovpetro) in fractured basement granite; the Panhandle-Hugoton field (high helium content) in Teaxs-Oklahoma, the Shengli Field and Songliao Basin in Northeastern China( supposedly mantle derived natural gas), and the well known Chimaera natural gas seep in Turkey. This seep has been known to be continuously active for thousands of years and represents the largest cataloged emission of abiogenic methane on land. The vast amounts of methane released by the biggest mud volcano eruptions are allegedly greater than found in the most abundant natural gas fields in commercial production. The presence of considerable amounts of hydrocarbons not associated with tectonic structures is also presented as evidence and, of course, the enormous methane hydrate deposits found all over the world are asserted to be of abiogenic origin. Finally, theory advocates aver that the impressive record of recent ultra deep drilling in the Gulf of Mexico supports their idea.
The matrix of scientific, political and business interests in the West, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Brazil (an emerging oil exporter of consequence) and Venezuela that refuses to countenance abiogenic theories is big and potent. These interests want oil and gas to be scarce and expensive for a variety of reasons. It is natural and understandable that no credible test of the theory will be attempted within the ambit of these interests.
The Russian authorities and oil and gas companies seem to be deeply conflicted between intellectual pride (it is their theory, after all) and the desire to keep oil and gas prices high via the idea of scarcity when talking to the rest of the world about their abiogenic oil and gas reserves.
It seems to the author, however, that China and India have compelling economic and national security interests in proving or disproving the theory, convincingly. If the theory is false then they are no worse off than today. If it is correct then they, of the major nations in the world, have the most to gain in subverting the prevailing oil and gas order of the world. So, of course, do scores of millions of ordinary Americans who care nothing about theories but want cheap, abundant, reliable oil and gas.
BTTT
To buy into the theroy that we are running out of oil, you have to beleive that the process by which it is formed no longer happens.
Here we go again....
Some of the other moons and planets seem to be made of frozen methane.
I don’t think we’ll find frozen dinosaurs and forests there. So that would make it sound like hydrocarbons are the basic building block of the universe.
Although, who knows. The sooner we put a lander on the surface maybe the sooner we find out. The universe may be weirder than we know.
The fossil fuel crowd can predict where to find oil which strongly bolsters their theories. The abiotic theories will always be little more than curious sidenotes until they can reliably predict where to find oil.
Read the article...
>To buy into the theroy that we are running out of oil, you have to beleive that the process by which it is formed no longer happens.
True. Even if oil and NG are generated via biological organisms then it should be replicable... of course maybe it’s the “Western World” that is indoctrinated; consider how this could/would impact [the] evolutionists, who claim that oil IS dinosaurs.
Of course there’s nothing that says that oil and NG _can’t_ be produced biotically AND abiotically; in fact this could be expected if it were a process that operated on carbon-concentrates as Earth-borne life is Carbon-based.
>The fossil fuel crowd can predict where to find oil which strongly bolsters their theories. The abiotic theories will always be little more than curious sidenotes until they can reliably predict where to find oil.
See my post #8.
Not only has the U.S. economic growth been stunted by our insistence on not drilling our own oil, but we have funded Muslim terrorist states, incurred large deficits, and built strategic oil reserves all in vain.
I did. The abiotic crowd has a theory which has yet to be put to the test. My point still stands, they have to show that their theory can reliably predict where to drill.
I agree.
In the ‘70s scientist discovered deep ocean thermal vents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vent
The oceans are pulled in toward the core boiled and enriched and then vented. Hmmm...aren’t the oceans the largest carbon sinks on the planet? Yes they are, so CO2 in the atmosphere gets absorbed by the oceans then the CO2 saturated sea water gets pulled toward the core and super heated under pressure. Suggesting that this is how oil is made. We can burn as much as we want and the planet recycles it and produces more. A natural cycle. The anti-SUV, global warming nuts will explode.
Perhaps both theories are correct? There’s more than one way to create chained hydrocarbons. Scientistst argued about light for decades before they finally agreed that it was both a particle and a wave.
Well for starters.
1, I believe there are substantially more conventional reserves that have not been tapped at all. This is contrary to the peak oil folks.
It’s not an either/or question. You don’t have to choose between an abiogenic origin or peak oil. There are more fossil fuel theories than just ‘peak oil’, which has consistantly been proven wrong.
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=2482838%2C15
The claim is that there is enough oil for 2041 years.
I’m not worried about oil or fuel, but I am worried about this radical socialist administration.
“To buy into the theroy that we are running out of oil, you have to beleive that the process by which it is formed no longer happens.”
Or what is more likely is that it happens at a rate much slower than our consumption rate. If so then the outcome is indistinguishable from it no longer happening.
All major field being in production decline is a good indicator that if they are being replenished they aren’t being replenished at any significant rate.
Abiotic, is it? Hey, maybe it's antibiotic, and cures (pick your favourite disease), AND!! it's included under this new bloody statist 'healthcare' plan!
And (said he, channelling the late Billy Mays) wait! There's more! This is a ONCE IN A LIFETIME chance to see real-live bullshit in action. AND!
It won't even cost you $19.95!! Order now!...and if you order within 15.349827 minutes, we'll throw in a FREE key to the US Treasury's printing presses!
Joe...m'FRiend, dontcha get just bloody tired of this kwapola? I do.
Nonetheless, best to ya!
“There are more fossil fuel theories than just ‘peak oil’, which has consistantly been proven wrong.”
The theory of ‘peak oil’ as I understand it refers to the peak of oil production of a given field, and is based on geology. It was originally proposed by Marion Hubbert based on his work as the chief geologist for Shell Oil and was originally known as ‘Hubbert’s peak’ theory. From what I have read it has been proven correct over and over again by the production rates of many field of differing sizes. Even the Ghawar field is showing the same predicted production behavior.
What ‘peak oil’ theory are you referring to that has been consistently proven wrong.
I’m referring to the alarmist position wrt to total worldwide oil reserves. We were already supposed to be out of oil 10 years ago according to their predictions.
I’m not referring to the principle behind the wells and their usual lifespan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.