Posted on 11/23/2005 2:13:47 PM PST by Dan Evans
Following the publication of "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil," Craig Smith and I have received e-mails from Alexander A. Kitchka, a Russian research scientist who is a member of the National Academy of Science in the Ukrane and the secretary of the Association of Ukranian Geologists. Kitchka's research strongly supports the abiotic, "Deep-Earth" theory of the origin of oil.
In October 2005, Kitchka co-chaired a half-day international conference, titled "Origin of Petroleum Conference," held during the annual meeting of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, in Calgary, Canada, June 19-25, 2005. The three goals of the conference as listed on the AAPG website were:
To present the most recent information supporting an organic and inorganic origin of petroleum and to debate the hypotheses for the formation of oil and natural gas.
To discuss the ramifications of an inorganic genesis of petroleum in estimating the oil and gas resources of sedimentary basins, including basement rocks, and in determining oil and gas field reserves.
To explore the significance of an inorganic formation of petroleum to the future supplies of oil and natural gas.
Mainstream "Peak-Oil" advocates in the petroleum industry like to dismiss the abiotic, "Deep-Earth" theory as a "discredited" or "crack-pot" idea, simply because the ideas expressed by abiotic theorists so deeply challenge the conventional wisdom of those who believe oil is a "fossil fuel." As reported by Geotimes in October 2005, the abiotic oil conference at the AAPG annual meeting presented a very different reality:
For the first time ever in North America, proponents of the inorganic origins hypothesis, largely from Russia and the Ukraine, had a major forum for their ideas at a meeting held in June in Calgary, Alberta – a city that has built its wealth on the vast petroleum deposits found in the Canadian province. Held in association with the annual meeting of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists – a group of people whose livelihoods depends on understanding how and where oil and gas comes from – this was no ordinary forum.
Just so no one was confused, the AAPG put a disclaimer on the website page listing Kitchka's conference: "The AAPG does not endorse or recommend any products and services that may be cited, used or discussed in AAPG publications or in presentations at events associated with AAPG."
A dozen research papers were presented at the conference. The Calgary session – an abbreviated version of a planned 2003 Hedberg Conference in Vienna that was postponed – was one of the first times discussion of the abiotic, "Deep-Earth" theory of oil reached the level of being held in conjunction with a major professional petroleum conference. The Explorer newsletter on the AAPG website noted prior to the Calgary annual meeting that the session on inorganic oil was likely to cause some fireworks:
The often-ridiculed idea of hydrocarbons continually welling up from the Earth's mantle to replenish depleted reservoirs is but one of many aspects of the ongoing controversy between the proponents of inorganic hydrocarbon genesis and those who espouse an organic initiation.
Still, the session marked the first time an international conference devoted to the subject of abiotic oil was featured in conjunction with a major oil industry professional group meeting.
Why did the AAPG decide to hold the Calgary session on abiotic oil? The answer is that the arguments and evidence for inorganic oil are gaining ground, despite the reluctance of conventional thinkers in the petroleum industry to entertain any idea that challenges so fundamentally their core beliefs.
A key may be found in the English version of Kitchka's professional paper, which he e-mailed to us – so many oil finds have been made in bedrock structures that "Fossil-Fuel" theorists can no longer keep the lid on. The paper Kitchka e-mailed to us is an expanded version of his Calgary presentation. Kitchka makes the point that oil has been found in basement structures all around the world:
To present time more than 450 oil and gas fields with commercial productivity of the crystalline basement are known worldwide over all continents except Antarctica.
The problem is that according to conventional "Fossil-Fuel" theory, dinosaur fossils and ancient forests are supposed to be found in sedimentary rock, not bedrock. The question of bedrock oil finds has been swept under the rug by conventional petroleum thinkers for decades. If oil is found where no dinosaurs or ancient forests ever were, then the "Fossil-Fuel" theory may end up having been a fiction all along. In more reserved, professional terms, Kitchka presents the difficulty:
There are still no valid criteria for successful oil and gas prospecting in the basement within the frame of the traditional paradigm for the origin of oil.
Evidently the secret of bedrock oil finds cannot be kept any longer. Kitchka describes oil found at bedrock levels within the deep earth as the "final frontier for oil and gas exploration."
However, rather prolific pay zones have been tested in the deep fractured entrails of some fields in West Siberia and offshore Vietnam (Cuu Long basin) where petroleum-content spreads to the depth of 1,000-1,500 meters beneath the basement surface. Thus, it is obvious that reservoir potential and reserves of the Precambrian basement had been greatly underestimated for decades.
Kitchka's point is that paradigms may be shifting in petroleum geology. As Thomas Kuhn pointed out in his classic 1962 book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," paradigm shifts occur in science when conventional thinking can no longer be stretched to explain new discoveries and substantiated evidence to the contrary.
May not change the price, but would have a very strong effect on the politics of conservation and ecology if the main understanding of oil changes from a finite unrenewable resource to a nearly infinite resource.
Not to mention playing havoc with evolutionary and geologic theories about the earth.
I think the politics of conservation has already accounted for it and changed from "We're running out of oil" to "CO2 emmissions will destroy the planet".
It could mean exactly that. Right now conventional geologists prospect only in areas where there is sedimentary rock. If there is oil in the preCambrian basement, there are many new areas to prospect and (hopefully) find new oil.
Here's your indication this was written by a clueless moron (par for the course at WingNutDaily.)
1) The accepted biogenic theory of petroleum has NOTHING to do with dead "Dinosaurs" or "forests."
2) Sedimentary rock can be bedrock.
The world would be an infinitely better place if people that had no understanding of the subject would simply STFU.
Just think of all the environmental and tax legislation that would suddenly become meaningless and moot if it were determined that oil is inorganic and, hence, not fossil fuel.
Yeah - very interesting! Fossil source of oil is disclaimed. In fact, abiotic oil replenishes itself and down deep, deeper than most drilling, there is an endless supply - everywhere on earth. Soviet Russia initiated the research during the Cold War.
If true...
One great thing about FR is that it's so large we have actual members who have actual experience in real life; we do have a lot of petroleum engineers, oil field workers, etc.
A lot of the people whose entire knowledge of petroleum consists of spending 5 minutes reading a couple crappy articles like this WND one then go around spouting off about all the oil fields around the world that are mysteriously refilling...
And I've seen our FReeper oil workers bring them back to reality on what's really happening. It's simply not true. There are a tiny handful of small fields that seem to have refilled from other nearby fields, and it's very, very rare.
It's very tough to argue with people who simply believe what they want to believe, though. And who actually literally think the standard theory says petroleum comes from "dinosaurs."
Name ONE which does not co-exist with a biotic source. Just ONE.
The truth of the matter is that all of these so-called "bedrock" finds are in bedrock overlaid with sediment basins. Further there is no common geologic definition of "bedrock". Its a nebulous term defining a layer of rock which does not specify how the rock was formed. Some areas have limestone layers which are called "bedrock".
But as you mention, the cost of recovery is what sets the price. There is no shortage until the price you are willing to pay is lower than the price the driller wants. May more, and they will find it. Pay more and they will use newer technology to get more out of fields once thought depleted.
We are still picking the low hanging fruit. "Declaring" that it really isn't a fruit at all but rather rather a modified leaf form really does nothing to alter the fact that when you pick all the low hanging ones, you need to find another tree or get a ladder.
The conspiracy theorists should have a field day with this one.
When something dies, the carnivores get theirs, and then the scavengers get theirs, and then the flies and maggots get theirs, and after that all that's left is bones. I've never yet seen anything die and then lie there and turn into oil.
Oil comes from dead microscopic plankton (diatoms, algae, etc.) from either ancient oceans or lakes.
Has nothing to do with dead land animals.
Sort of like the liberal argument changing from "there are to many people are starving" to "we have to many people that are obese (fat)".
You've got some catching up to do. You migh start with the original article on this thread.
But then shows like Coast to Coast AM would have nothing to talk about anymore.
ROFLMAO. My entire point is the original article was written by a complete idiot who literally thinks the standard biogenic theory of oil is that it comes from dead dinosaurs.
You're the one that has catching up to do. I suggest a source less worthless than WingNutDaily. Getting your scientific info from there is like getting marriage counseling from OJ Simpson.
"It's very tough to argue with people who simply believe what they want to believe, though. And who actually literally think the standard theory says petroleum comes from "dinosaurs."
I am not a petroleum engineer nor a oil field worker.
If it is true per Soviet Russia's research that the source for oil in not fossil, then we have a whole new ball of wax.
Needless to say, the oily wealthy (e.g., Rochefellers, et al) from the petroleum industry would discredit this theory about a self-replenishing abiotic source. Would this alter the emissions factor?
No matter what, I don't believe that cows and cattle, and roaming Buffalo burp and fart enough to affect "global warming." However, the foul emissions from politicians definitely have an adverse affect on the earth's well being.
Velikovsky is a rather famous kook.
Regarding why oil is where it is, the Earth is a very old place.
The vast majority of oil formed on the sea floor in the first place, so it shouldn't be a surprise that a lot of oil is drilled in the oceans.
Regarding oil in deserts, well, an awful lot of the land on earth was once covered with shallow seas or lakes; continents move around, rise and fall, etc.
Heck, you can find lots of limestone in deserts. We know for certain that limestone forms SLOWLY in shallow seas. We can observe limestone forming right now in shallow, warm seas around the world.
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.