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.
I agree. The ones who believe we can drain the earth of oil over 150 years are also the ones that believe they can point to anthropogenic global warming by looking at 100 years of temperature records.
“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.”
OK, thanks. Unfortunately the term ‘peak oil’ has been hijacked by a bunch of doomsdayers that have corrupted it’s original scientific meaning. Much like the big-bang, evolution, and other scientifically sound theories have been misrepresented and distorted beyond recognition by participants in those debates.
I don’t get the notion that in order to prove or disprove abiotic oil theories you must first be able to predict where you might find it. Those are 2 separate fields of inquiry. Abiotic oil may exist but it would still have to be proven where you would or would not find it.
It would seem to me that abiotic oil would have lesser amounts of calcium and more iron as opposed to biotic sourced oil since the animals and plants they came from would have had greater amounts of calcium while alive. Abiotic oil should have a differing oil finger print including greater residual trace radiation than life sources, ie radon. Just guesses, certainly willing to be educated.
2.) I have also read that the Ukranians drilled deeper than anyone had ever drilled guided by the abiotic theory and they found oil.
3.) It makes pretty good sense that the immense amount of heat/energy trapped deep down in the earth could convert the two most abundant elements on earth, carbon and hydrogen into chains of liquid hydrocarbons which would then work their way up towards the surface due to pressure and density differences.
4.) There are clearly powerful forces at work who stand to lose a great deal of money if the abiotic theory is true.
I can see why people believe in it, but from what I can see, the enviro-tards have consistantly underestimated reserves.
Up here in Canada, the oil sands all end at the Alberta border because the neighbouring provinces haven’t done much exploration.
Peak oil was always fear-mongering bs like global warming.
If this is true, then we would never have found any oil. We look for oil where ancient living things would have pooled. And we find it there.
30 years ago I struggled with a descision ... engineering or geology, I (thankfully) chose engineering.
However, my point was that my Professor insisted that the world would start running out of oil in 2020. Experience has turned that theory on its head!
It seems that Abiotic Oil theory is a little like Natural Warming theory. There’s plenty of evidence for Natural Warming ... but the science gets starved because Global Warming fits the Political Agenda.
I really don’t have “skin” in this game; however, it irks me when a promising theory is rejected out of hand by the “orthodoxy” through simply declaring it “heretical”.
Thanks for the ping. I would be interested in seeing a trial well drilled per Russian predictions with outside observers present. If they really have drilled wells that deep in Russia and produced oil where none is supposed to be and their theory is correct it needs to be put to the test.
[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;]
What, Americans are “indoctrinated”? Who would do such a thing, who would lie to children and to foolish adults.
The communist left wing that controls America and many western nations on a collision course with God and His Christ is who.
The left is way to stupid and arrogant and must be dealt with hardly, as is their way.
Yep. The only money ever came out of a well drilled on an 'abiotic' model in the US I know of was produced from the investor's pockets...
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Now, back to eating this slice of blue sky pie...
My best to You and yours, too!
BTTT
If oil is mostly 10 or 20 miles down, it becomes too expensive to get to. You burn most of it just to lift it. And if we run short of shallow oil, there will be none left to drill with.
If we have an inexhaustible supply of oil, we still don’t have an inexhaustible supply of air. There is plenty of oxygen to burn. And you can discount global warming. But at 3%-5% concentration, CO2 is toxic. At 5ppm per decade, 3% will be reached in just 60,000 years. Maybe we’ll evolve to adapt by then.
Oh well, carry on.
>If this is true, then we would never have found any oil. We look for oil where ancient living things would have pooled. And we find it there.
Not necessarily, if the process that produces oil operates on carbon concentrations [regardless of being a bunch of prior-living things] then it would stand to reason that massive amounts of carbon-based life would generate some oil as well.
>If we have an inexhaustible supply of oil, we still don’t have an inexhaustible supply of air.
Except that we have these things that taken carbon-dioxide and release oxygen called plants. There’s even some that take in a staggering amount of carbon-dioxide.
>But at 3%-5% concentration, CO2 is toxic.
I’m not sure that this is true. A counter-example would be the paper-bag-breathing hyperventilation treatment... I have NEVER seen or heard of someone dying [doing this] because of carbon-dioxide toxicity.
Further, some greenhouses use carbon-dioxide saturation [via tanks] to help encourage plant-growth... again, I have never heard of one of these farmers dying [from going in and checking the plants] because of carbon-dioxide toxicity.
The suicide-by-car-exhaust is due more to carbon-MONOXIDE which bonds to your red blood-cells like oxygen would and then never unbinds, making it literally dead-weight.
IOW, I’m unconvinced the 3%-5% concentration is actually true.
I believe that was done several years ago when scientists showed that compressing granite produced methane.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFMMR51A0957K
The challenge now is to prove that the methane is being produced in quantity deep within igneous rock and that it is "floating" upwards and being converted into crude oil.
Reliably predicting the location of oil fields that are not part of geologic basins might prove the abiotic theory as would finding oil/gas at depths impossible for sediment to be at.
I believe that was done several years ago when scientists showed that compressing granite produced methane.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFMMR51A0957K
The challenge now is to prove that the methane is being produced in quantity deep within igneous rock and that it is "floating" upwards and being converted into crude oil.
Reliably predicting the location of oil fields that are not part of geologic basins might prove the abiotic theory as would finding oil/gas at depths impossible for sediment to be at.
good article - and good brief overview - see also the following link for a slightly more extended overview on this very significant topic
VC. Kelessidis, 2009. Challenges for very deep oil and gas drilling – will there ever be a depth limit ? Paper presented at the 3rd International AMIREG Conference, Athens, 7-9 Sept.
http://drillinglab.mred.tuc.gr/Publications/56.pdf
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.