• Home
  • Current News
  • Russians & NASA Discredit ‘Fossil Fuel’ Theory: Demise of Junk CO2 Science

Russians & NASA Discredit ‘Fossil Fuel’ Theory: Demise of Junk CO2 Science

Written by

Last week new NASA photographs proved methane lakes exist on Saturn’s moon, Titan, showing that such hydrocarbons (or so-called ‘fossil fuels’) are seemingly plentiful in our solar system. Cassini passes Saturn This startling discovery turns on its head the long-held western belief that petroleum is a limited resource, because it is primarily derived (we had been told) from the fossilized remains of dead dinosaurs and rotted carbon-based vegetation.

But with that notion now exploded in the article ‘NASA Finds Lakes of Hydrocarbons on Saturn’s Moon, Titan‘ thanks to NASA’s Cassini spacecraft, energy scientists are now compelled to admit that petroleum oil is, in fact, substantially mineral in origin and occuring all through the galaxies.

Two Years ago it was reported that the Max Planck Institute, Germany have discovered that the Horse Head Nebula galaxy in the Orion constellation contains a vast field of hydrocarbon (see ‘Top German Scientists Discover ‘Fossil Fuel’ in the Stars‘). 

As such, long-held fears about Earth’s shrinking ‘fossil fuel’ reserves may be bogus. These important new cosmological discoveries come coincidentally at a time when huge succeses in American oil drilling technology (‘frakking‘) are bringing a glut of oil onto the energy markets, causing a slide in global oil prices. Fresh oil reserves are being struck all over – some miles beneath the oceans, where Dino the dinosaur never roamed.

As we reported (November 08, 2014) NASA’s new evidence supports previously controversial Russian claims that ‘fossil’ fuel theory is junk science.  No wonder skepticism of the wide-ranging Green Agenda grows and serious doubts are rising as to whether humans need to divest themselves of the supposedly fast-diminishing energy source after all.

Bodies of credible, independent western scientists, collaborating and collating their findings via the internet through fledgling organisations such as Principia Scientific International are calling for a re-assessment of over 2,000 eastern European peer-reviewed science papers on the issue, previously ignored by western governments, state-funded universities and the mainstream media.

For decades Russian scientists have known that the fossil fuel theory is bogus and have compellingly demonstrated that petroleum is derived from highly compressed mineral deposits deep beneath the surface. But the most startling consequence to these findings is that oil is a constant renewable regenerating in nature.

Since the Middle East oil crisis of the 1970’s gasoline suppliers have stoked media fears that our planet’s reserves are fast in decline. The term ‘peak oil’ was coined and we were told ‘fossil fuels’ would have to become increasingly more expensive as our insatiable appetite drank this ‘finite’ liquid energy source dry. Are we talking conspiracy theory or well-intentioned, but misguided group think that limits to our industrial expansion were essential if we were to tackle ‘peak oil’ and fears over man-made global warming (which has been stalled for a generation).

Let’s be in no doubt, the emergence of group think about our ‘carbon footprint’ (dare we call it, propaganda) suited the long-term interests of the oil industry and western governments. ‘Big Oil’ has benefited from being told by academics that their resource was precious and limited (putting upward pressure on prices). Tax-raising governments are being increasingly taken to task for encouraging (through generous research grants) sympathetic academics to get on board to build a consensus on these inter-related but evidentially weak scientific theories.

Repositioning Theory as Fact

For decades the terms ‘peak oil’ and ‘fossil fuels’ have been synonymous. They imply we are inexorably faced with diminishing natural resources and the days of cheap carbon-based energy are gone. Supplanted in the public consciousness as real we grew to accept the inevitable coming of ever-higher energy prices as a consequence of our energy-reliant, consumer lifestyle.

Journalists gleaned their own ‘evidence’ for such an apocalyptic narrative from bleak books such as James Howard Kunstler’s ‘The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century’ and Richard Heinberg’s ‘The Party’s Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies’ among others and the public were sold on the fears.

Constantly fed a diet of this garbage our collective unconsciousness unwittingly allowed the repositioning of Hubbert’s Theory of Peak Oil into fossil fuel fact.

As a consequence, in 2005, Congressional Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett, Republican of Maryland, and Senator Tom Udall, a New Mexico Democrat created the Congressional Peak Oil Caucus and at a stroke turned attention to debunking such ‘limits to growth’ fallacies.

Scientists who dissented from the (peer-reviewed) groupspeak were vilified or ignored. In the 1980’s distinguished British scientist, Sir Fred Hoyle FRS was one who tried and failed to expose the chicanery of proponents of the fossil fuel theory and diminishing world oil reserves. Hoyle, without the benefit of the worldwide web tried repeatedly to expose this flimflam,

The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time.”

The English professor valiantly argued that oil is abiogenic (i.e. from mineral deposition) and cannot be a biotic (from fossils). Yet despite his eminent stature Hoyle’s sage insight gained him no media platform.

Along with Hoyle other western scientists refused to toe the politically correct line as evidenced in an increasing number of articles to redress the balance about petroleum economics. While several papers by Professor Michael C. Lynch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also exposed the myth of “oil exhaustion” and demonstrating the high-pressure genesis of petroleum. No media voice for them either.

Russia Becomes World Energy Superpower

Only in Russia, a nation that since the 1990’s and fall of the Berlin Wall, has eschewed military supremacy to become a global economic superpower, did Hoyle’s and Lynch’s words find a welcome community of likeminded scientists. Indeed, outside of the English-speaking world there is no controversy and its common parlance that oil is a mineral, not a biological product and as such our planet has endless untapped reserves.

As a consequence of applying this knowledge Russia has gone from strength to strength astutely capitalising on its ‘liquid gold’ reserves. “I would describe the mindset right now among the Russian political elite as infused with ‘petroconfidence’,” So says Cliff Kupchan of the Eurasia Group, in an interview with the BBC.

Indeed, between 1951-2001, thousands of articles and many books and monographs were published mainly in the mainstream Russian scientific journals proving abiotic petroleum origins – all ignored by western governments and media. For example, leading expert V. A. Krayushkin has alone published more than two hundred fifty articles on modern petroleum geology, and several books.

Russian mineralogists, oil explorers and each successive government since the dark days of the former Soviet Union have been unalterably upbeat that they’ve ousted the ‘peak oil, fossil fuels’ nonsense. And who are we to argue – they’ve got the money in the bank to prove it.

As a result Russia is firmly ensconced as the world’s second-largest oil exporter and is becoming so preeminent in the field of oil and gas exploration and innovation that the nation is set to usurp the U.S. not as a military force, but as the world’s energy superpower for the 21st century.

Oil – Our Greatest Natural Renewable Energy Source

Exploiting their cutting-edge technology Russia has successfully discovered numerous petroleum fields, a number of which produce either partly or entirely from a crystalline basement and which appears distinctly self-replenishing. Yes, you read that right – Russia enjoys the best naturally renewable energy source – petroleum! No billions wasted on wind farms, solar or wave white elephants here.

Indeed, to our former soviet cousins, the idea of ‘peak oil’ is laughable because, if they’re calculations are right, oil is the most bountiful, most efficient and cheapest renewable fuel and will last at least for many hundreds of years to come.

Disgruntled that the Russians have been allowed to take such a big lead the brightest and the best in the west are now using the blogosphere in helping to forge resurgence against the fossil fuel, peak oil myth. So says Daniel Yergin, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power” and chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a company that advises governments and industry.

Yergin like others cites the compelling evidence that the MSM won’t show you; these anti-fossil fuel theorists cite alkanes, kerogens and many other petroleum related chemicals that have been found on meteorites – which we know can support no organic life and thus proving the lie of the fossil fuel theory.

Why are We Still Being Lied to?

Indeed, so lame has the fossil fuel theory become that even its most strident supporters are unable to muster the flimsiest of evidence for their position. In “The Abiotic Oil Controversy” key proponent of the abiotic (fossil) origin, Richard Heinberg admits his case is exposed as threadbare lamenting,

“Perhaps one day there will be general agreement that at least some oil is indeed abiotic. Maybe there are indeed deep methane belts twenty miles below the Earth’s surface.”

So scant is the evidence to support Heinberg and other western pro-fossil fuel theorists that in researching his article ‘The Evidence for Limitless Oil and Gas’ (Digital Journal), Bill Jencks reveals,

I searched the internet including Google Scholar and there seems to be no ‘absolute proof’ or support from direct modern research for the Biogenic Theory of oil and gas formation. This theory — for want of a better word — seems to be greatly ‘assumed’ by geologists throughout geological research.”

Like me, Jencks found a mountain of evidence backing Russian claims. From the Joint Institute of the Physics of the Earth Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow we find incredible sources as revealed by A Dissertation by J.F. Kenney which condemns the outmoded 18th century “anarchaic hypothesis” that petroleum somehow (miraculously) evolved from biological detritus, and is accordingly limited in abundance.

Instead, the fossil fuels hypothesis has been replaced during the past forty years by the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins which has established that petroleum is a primordial material erupted from great depth. Kenney states,

Therefore, petroleum abundances are limited by little more than the quantities of its constituents as were incorporated into the Earth at the time of its formation; and its availability depends upon technological development and exploration competence.”

In a straight scientific shootout Peak Oil Theory vs Russian-Ukraine Modern Theory the Russians win hands down. But it remains a peculiar anachronism that there is no body of American or other English language peer review to verify or disprove the Russian science.

But why are we still being lied to? With such unwillingness to correct these intellectual failings it is little wonder that there is growing dissatisfaction among voters and thinkers in English-speaking nations and the EU. Those who study carefully the facts now reasonably conclude that beyond the media hard sell there is no energy crisis; the world has a plentiful supply of cheap renewable petroleum and another enviro-myth needs to be mercilessly culled.

References:

Kudryavtsev N.A., 1959. Geological proof of the deep origin of Petroleum. Trudy Vsesoyuz. Neftyan. Nauch. Issledovatel Geologoraz Vedoch. Inst.No.132, pp. 242-262 (In Russian)

Kudryavtsev N.A., 1951. Against the organic hypothesis of oil origin. Oil Economy Jour. [Neftyanoe khoziaystvo], no. 9. – pp. 17-29 (in Russian)

Related news:

 
 “A recent report by consulting firm EY put the total number of megaprojects bankrolled by oil majors at around US$1.1 trillion. Most of these projects are already behind schedule and over budget.”[Editor’s note: They’re not bankrolling that kind of money unless there was a near-certainty of finding more oil]

 

Tags: , , ,

Trackback from your site.

Comments (57)

  • Avatar

    D. Andrew White

    |

    Biomarker hydrocarbons and C13:C12 ratios clearly mark the majority of petroleum as being biotic, i.e. derived from ancient cyanobacteria & algae. Likewise most methane has C13:C12 ration indicative of biotic origins.

    The existence of some abiotic methane is interesting, and potentially a source of energy. But it is already known that natural gas is abundant. Abiotic methane could postpone Peak Natural gas.

    Liquid petroleum is another matter. There are indications of traces of abiotic oil. They are thinly dispersed, and generally extremely deep. The EROEI of such oils must be extremely low (Energy Skeptic). This putative abiotic petroleum therefore is almost certainly not going to help postpone Peak Oil.

    Dreams of perpetual abiotic oil generation are simply wishful thinking.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      suresh

      |

      [quote name=”D. Andrew White”]Biomarker hydrocarbons and C13:C12 ratios clearly mark the majority of petroleum as being biotic, i.e. derived from ancient cyanobacteria & algae. Likewise most methane has C13:C12 ration indicative of biotic origins.

      The existence of some abiotic methane is interesting, and potentially a source of energy. But it is already known that natural gas is abundant. Abiotic methane could postpone Peak Natural gas.

      Liquid petroleum is another matter. There are indications of traces of abiotic oil. They are thinly dispersed, and generally extremely deep. The EROEI of such oils must be extremely low (Energy Skeptic). This putative abiotic petroleum therefore is almost certainly not going to help postpone Peak Oil.

      Dreams of perpetual abiotic oil generation are simply wishful thinking.[/quote]https://cbfool.wordpress.com/2015/08/07/dismissal-of-the-claims-of-a-biological-connection-for-natural-petroleum/

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Nochance

    |

    Regardless whether oil is organic or not… We Should be more worried about the destruction being caused by the abuse of these fuels.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Alder

      |

      It is mid-September, not the grape growing season in Western Australia. Yet I bought some today. The shop knew they were from the US but not from which part. An example of the beauty of air-freight,refrigeration, and trade. Oil, whether organic or not, in service to human welfare.
      Is there a downside? Not the non-existent human induced climate change which is a rent-seekers scam.
      Can fuels be abused? Yes indeed, by the thousands of parasites and destroyers who flit around the globe to attend climate change conferences in luxury resorts trying to add to our tax burden, slow our economies, and promote their sense of do-goodism while in fact doing much harm.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    The Professor

    |

    YOU ARE ALL WRONG !!! oil including deep and surface oils came from earth passing through the tails of comets … another “mythological science” is that comets are dirty snowballs … they are actually the plasma discharge of the solar capacitor and hydrocarbons are formed (and seen regularly) in the tails of comets … spectrometers cannot tell the difference between short and long chain HC molecules but the long chains have been directly measured on comet nuclei (baked on by the high temperatures associated with the plasma discharge process) … this is a complex process in fact the formation of the earth all at one time is also a myth … unfortunately the abiatic oil concept is based on many myths including the “earth formed all at one time” myth … before you start discussing things like the origin of oil you have to get your “where and when did earth’s surface come from” story straight … the reality is that earth’s surface has formed and reformed many times at the hands or LARGE comets (not tiny Halley’s comet sized comets) … the deep pools were laid by comet passage encounters (some lasting months at a time) after which earth layered and layered to bury them deep in the rock structure … the one thing we agree on is THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF OIL and IT DID NOT COME FROM DINOSAUR BONES (how the scientific community got away with that joke is more than i can imagine but then again the majority of all modern science is a joke) … is it possible that deep oil is concurrent with abiatic AND comet pollution oil sources … of course … but the surface oil is certainly from comet sources … the ancients even talk about the rain of burning naptha which formed the surface pools that were first used and refined around 1200 AD in “arabia” … for more details see the web page http://www.jmccanneyscience.com

    Reply

  • Avatar

    SURESH

    |

    Current Biogenic theory is a nothing but a big cartel only ,who have grown up by reading this theory from school time .
    2. There is hard need for the followers of abiotic theory to unite at one international stage and i am making efforts to unite them . any follower of abiotic theory can send me mail so that i may add him/her in my mailing list .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    SURESH

    |

    how will you reconcile this paper for even economical oils in the current fossil fuel theory . ). According to the author of the paper ,they have analyzed 68 Brazilian oil and nine foreign oils and determined 24 metal traces in the oils showed fine correlation of the oils with CI chondrite and mantle peridotites, and worse correlation with oceanic and continental crust, and none with seawater
    http://cdn.intechweb.org/pdfs/14082.pdf

    Reply

  • Avatar

    James Cummins

    |

    The origin of life on earth is about the most profound question that science can attempt to answer. I personally think that a myriad of conditions had to be met for something like a proto-bacteria to develop. Furthermore I think that setting strict boundaries for live/not live may be a mistake. Air bubbles in water and water itself can organize and separate charge. I guess that puts me in league with Goldilocks in thinking that this planet is and was just right!

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gilian

      |

      If one had a soup of different RNA enzymes that would self-replicate; in a mixture with other RNA enzymes that can also self replicate; interactions between those two sets of enzymes will lead to mutations, and the fastest replicating species will begin to dominate the mixture.

      All it would take is one. Just one formation of an RNA ‘word’ that is self-replicating and you have the precursor for life as-we-know-it that will move on to generate more members like itself. Given enough time and you will have complex life.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm

      I think that the idea of mixing the concepts of abiogenic oil with abiogenesis makes a great deal of sense. It assumes an origin for oil, and it explains the development and the existence of life in one go.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Gilian

      |

      Now that I have discussed that, I should mention that I am on the ‘pessimistic’ end of the the abiogenic oil issue. I am not sure how quickly crude oil is generated, even if I don’t believe it to be generated on geological time-scales; all that it takes for us to run ourselves out of the stuff is for us to use it at a rate that is greater than the ‘easily’-accessible reserves in the ground can replenish themselves.

      As a matter of being better prepared and ‘hedging’ our bets, just so that we don’t find ourselves needing gasoline, in the future, and not having enough; developing a diverse plethora of methods for generating energy would seem to be a wise course of action.

      Wind, solar, nuclear-fission, nuclear-fusion (if it’s reality isn’t perpetually 20 years from being realized), biogenic, whatever… we need them. And ideally a set of energy sources that are energy dense and not too ‘wimpy’ (I’m looking at you; wind and solar).

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Gilian

        |

        Energy sources that multiply our electricity bills by a factor of 2 or more should not be favored. Such sources used on a universal scale would make ‘everything’ more expensive; clothing, food, shelter, you know… only everything we need.

        Reply

    • Avatar

      Gilian

      |

      James Cummins,

      I appreciate your patience with my comments and questions. I realize that my approach to this issue has been like an ‘over-exuberant puppy’. Your knowledge of geology is clearly greater than my own; physics is more my strong suit.

      It has been really nice not to see one of these comment threads devolve into a bunch of ad-hominem (as seems to be happening in one of the global warming articles, at the moment).

      You seem a decent fellow; I wish you well.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        James Cummins

        |

        Thanks Gillian,
        I appreciate a discussion where I learn something.
        I’m convinced that the hydrocarbons we are currently extracting have been processed by photosynthesis and/or bacteria. Every carbon atom in my body was once in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
        Now, because of this discussion, I’m not so sure about the original source(s) of the carbon.
        Thanks!

        Reply

  • Avatar

    James Cummins

    |

    Well, I have to concede that hydrocarbons have been found in pre cambrian seds. I was unaware of the Nonesuch fm. Oil has also been found in pre cambrian formations in areas of overthrusting. So never say never! Having said that, I would note that the Nonesuch fm. is estimated at 1.1 billion years old. Fossils of bacteria have been found in rocks that are estimated at 3.45 billion years old. That leaves lots of time for bacterial and algal metabolism to produce hydrocarbons.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gilian

      |

      So then, now I have to ask; where did any of that algae come from in the first place? How did it come to be? What did it evolve from?

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Gilian

    |

    http://geol.queensu.ca/people/price/pdf/SullivanVolCh5%28Price%26Sears%29.PDF

    In this document exists this statement:

    “Seismic reflection images that were acquired by Duncan
    Energy of Denver, during exploration for oil and gas in the
    Purcell anticlinorium and southern Rocky Mountain trench,
    show that there are large tectonic overlaps across the trans-
    verse, northeast-trending segments of Moyie-Dibble Creek
    fault and the St. Mary-Lussier River fault (Cook and Van der
    Velden, 1995).”

    There has been surveying that has been attempted in that region. Hmm… I need to consider this.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    James Cummins

    |

    If the hydrocarbons on earth are of abiotic origin why don’t the pre-cambrian sedimentary rocks host oil,gas or coal deposits? I can’t find evidence of oil or gas being produced from the Belt or Purcell super groups here in W. N. America. Very few fossils too.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gilian

      |

      “If the hydrocarbons on earth are of abiotic origin why don’t the pre-cambrian sedimentary rocks host oil,gas or coal deposits?”

      What about the Nonesuch formation in the Precambrian rift beneath the mid-continent of the US?

      Observe this statement:

      “Now, there is also some evidence of Precambrian oil from Precambrian source
      rocks. Beneath the sediments of the mid-continent of the US, there is a huge
      graben, the Precambrian rift. In it is the Nonesuch formation.”

      From this source:

      http://www2.asa3.org/archive/asa/200505/0447.html

      And here are a few highlights from that document:

      “The Nonesuch is composed of thin black,
      evenly laminated shales and siltstones. Thin sections show
      that it is organically rich…” Carol Kindle Lee S. Duff Kerr,
      “Mid-continent Rift- a
      Frontier Oil Province”, Oil and Gas Journal, (August 13,
      1984), p. 144-150, p. 148.

      “The Nonesuch shale drips oil when it is encountered in mines, such as the
      White Pine Copper Mine in Michigan.” Hunt, Petroleum Geochemistry and
      Geology, W. H. Freeman, 1996, p. 16-17

      These statements would appear to contradict your first sentence. There *does* exist some evidence for oil in the pre-cambrian era.

      You make the statement:

      “I can’t find evidence of oil or gas being produced from the Belt or Purcell super groups here in W. N. America.”

      The Belt and Purcell super groups are in a National Park, which is a protected region. It would surprise me to learn that drilling had been attempted in that region. Has surveying for oil even been attempted in that region?

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Gilian

      |

      http://geologyclass.org/Precambrian%20Concepts.htm

      This article mentions that precambrian geology is poorly understood. The precambrian rock from the Archaen era is generally composed of igneous, metamorphic, and some sedimentary rock.

      Since precambrian rocks tend to form the base upon which more modern sedimentary rock settles, we don’t have that many examples of it to draw evidence from.

      If most of the precambrian rocks are buried deep in the ground; the temperature and pressure profiles of the ground beneath the precambrian ground would have increased over time as the precambrian ground had more sediment accumulating on top of it. We find today that most of the commercially interesting oil is found between 2000-5500 meters below the ground. One could posit that in the precambrian systems, the bulk of the oil would have existed at whatever depth produced the necessary temperatures and pressures that one would find today at 2000-5500 meters below the ground.

      My guess is that the most simple life would have begun in the hydrocarbon pits; it would have percolated up through the ground into the ocean; and it would eventually evolve into all of the biodiversity that the fossil record indicates.

      However, starting from a chemical beginning; it would mean that the first organisms would have started at the very smallest imaginable scales, smaller than bacteria. The first life was likely the size of a small virus.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Gilian

      |

      “I can’t find evidence of oil or gas being produced from the Belt or Purcell super groups here in W. N. America. Very few fossils too.”

      You know, actually, I’m not seeing any drilling operations on the map of Wisconsin, at all.

      http://www.drillingmaps.com/wisconsin.html#.VR9zPWbfw4Q

      It is very difficult to produce oil or gas when you don’t even drill.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    SURESH

    |

    There are tons of evidences that oils we are using in our daily life were once present at mantle level conditions also and current biotic theory has zero respect for ALL these strong evidences . to prove any theory we required tons of evidences but single against it can disprove it . So i am in favor of balanced hypothesis that can reconcile the both . please google the abiotic origin of hydrocarbons and learn how to reconcile these in biotic theory . sorry i can not help you at biotic theory as it is .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    SURESH

    |

    If the dispute between biotic v/s abiotic is, weather the majority commercial interesting hydrocarbons has been expelled from sedimentary source rocks or not ,than i am in favor of followers of biotic theory .
    If the dispute is weather the expelled hydrocarbons from sedimentary source rocks are biotic or abiotic in origin than i am in favor of followers of abiotic theory on the basis of evidences .
    current biotic theory is scientific but starts from 10 not from 1 . from 1 to 10 it is “EMPTY” .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Dave C

    |

    This article, and the accompanying comments, are so full of mis-information and dis-information that it strains credulity. The article’s author obviously has little knowledge of modern petroleum geology and geochemistry, but does have a large political axe. A few examples: 1) the oil industry didn’t support “Peak Oil”. The arc of the industry has been that as oil reserves tighten, new technology generally leads to increased exploitation of previously unknown or unproducible supplies. 2) Far from being an “Economic Superpower” with “cutting edge technology:, Russia is an increasingly militarized and authoritarian petro-state that is extremely dependendent on western exploration and production technology. As for the technical reasons, suffice it to say that a lot of people have studied this problem for over 100 years, and the evidence, dispassionately evaluated, is that petroleum, especially oil, is derived from biological precursors (both algae and higher plants, but not dinosaurs). The Russian literature has been reviewed and evaluated, and found, for the most part to be lacking, not the least because during the Soviet era it was heavily politicized. Think Lysenko and biology. The best argument for the validity of the biological origin is that oil companies (including Russian oil companies) use it (successfully) to explore for oil. These companies are in the business to make money, not perpetrate frauds, so they use the best techniques to explore and produce petroleum, not those that fit a particular view.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gilian

      |

      The author of this text does seem to have a rather ‘optimistic’ view of Russia as a State; I suppose that he is entitled to his opinion.

      “The best argument for the validity of the biological origin is that oil companies (including Russian oil companies) use it (successfully) to explore for oil.”

      Among the advocates of abiogenic oil and those of fossil oil there doesn’t appear to be disagreement over the fact that you have a higher chance of finding oil near carbon-rich areas. This leaves me confused regarding your point… how do oil companies use the ‘biological origin theory of oil’ to explore for oil?

      Is their technique not to find, ‘fossil’ river deltas, or ‘carbon rich areas’; use sonic emitter arrays to identify an area that has the density profile that you would expect to see from oil, then punch a hole in the ground to see if they were right?

      The techniques are more complex than my description above; and if you are more familiar with them than I then please… enlighten us all, tell us about them. 🙂

      Reply

      • Avatar

        jsullivan

        |

        Hi Gilian,
        I have read with much interest your comments on PSI’s article on this issue. Would you have the time and inclination to put together an article for us presenting your findings? It would be most helpful to have your contribution published so that the discussion can be better informed and help us progress towards a more rigorous assessment of these competing theories.
        Many thanks,
        John O’Sullivan
        CEO: Principia Scientific International http://principia-scientific.org/

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gilian

          |

          When I was young I wondered where oil came from. Reading the resources that were available at my elementary school library, I learned that the prevailing idea was that oil came from ancient life that had collected at the bottom of the ocean over time, it had formed over a period of millions of years of sedimentation. At the time I thought the idea that we might be burning the leftover residue of dinosaurs was pretty interesting. But there were pieces of it that never really made much sense to me.

          For instance, how did the detritus reach a depth of several miles beneath the Earth in large quantities; and as it was reaching those depths, how did it decompose? There is such a thing as catagenesis; but does that accurately account for the amount of oil that we have been using?

          I heard Thomas Gold’s theory (although he was not the first to think of it), and as a chemical description for the origin of oil, it seemed to make more sense than what I had been taught as a child. From my understanding of the physical processes, both the Fischer Tropsch process, and catagenesis would lead to crude oil, given the requisite time. I have no doubts that there is a degree of both biotic and abiotic crude oil. Although at the commercial scales that we use gasoline; the abiotic concept appears more likely from my interpretation of the theories.

          I wish that I had more training in geology than I have. At $35+/article, it would be very expensive for me to review even a small piece of the literature on the subject and to synthesize a more clear concept. Even if I could, most of the readers wouldn’t be able to review the literature in the same way that I did, under the current publication system. Under the current publication model; intelligent discourse on these subjects is unfortunately confined to the ‘prestigious’ journals that these discussions tend to be published in.

          The public, and our politicians necessarily cannot really have a clear concept of what is discussed in those journals because they are effectively blocked by the paywalls.

          Reply

        • Avatar

          Gilian

          |

          Oh well, the politicians and the public can always rely on lobbying institutions like the IPCC and the Heartland Institute to synthesize the discussions in those journals into an accurate, unbiased framework. 😛

          Reply

  • Avatar

    SURESH

    |

    TRUE ORIGIN OF HYDROCARBONS

    ————————————————————————-

    We have sufficient evidences that majority of commercially interesting hydrocarbons have been expelled from organic rich source rock and are trapped in the reservoir rocks. We also have the evidences showing presence of biological molecules in all commercial oils.

    We have observed the abundance of similar hydrocarbons on many other planetary bodies viz. comets and moons (eg. Titan) etc. which are thought to have been formed without any involvement of any biological material . The common association of hydrocarbons with the inert gas helium is also not explainable in current theory of biotic origin of petroleum. We have observed presence of some traces element like V, Ni, Cu, Co, Zn.. etc in hydrocarbons which also do not clearly explain the biotic origin of petroleum ( szatmari et al,2005). According to the author of the paper ,they have analyzed 68 Brazilian oil and nine foreign oils and determined 24 metal traces in the oils showed fine correlation of the oils with CI chondrite and mantle peridotites, and worse correlation with oceanic and continental crust, and none with seawater. No doubt, the biotic theory has some important evidences but on the other hand the followers of abiotic theory also have strong evidences which cannot be denied. So we require a new theory that can reconcile the strong evidences of both the current theories. Taking strong evidences of both the theories we can easily conclude it.

    Majority of commercially interesting hydrocarbons accumulations have been formed from the organic rich sedimentary source rocks but essentially from those which has been formed with the involvement of abiotic hydrocarbons. And these abiotic hydrocarbons were once hugely present on the surface of the earth in past geological time. Sedimentary rocks that have been formed without any involvement of these abiotic hydrocarbons are not suitable to form commercial hydrocarbons deposits. So abiotic sources are the major contributor in the commercial accumulations of hydrocarbons. Hence a well balanced theory is today’s major requirement which will help future hydrocarbon exploration efficiently.

    AUTHOR

    SURESH BANSAL

    PB,INDIA

    sureshbansal342@gmail.com

    http://www.universetoday.com/12800/titan-has-hundreds-of-times-more-liquid-hydrocarbons-than-earth/

    http://cdn.intechweb.org/pdfs/14082.pdf

    Reply

  • Avatar

    SURESH

    |

    TRUE ORIGIN OF HYDROCARBONS

    ————————————————————————-

    We have sufficient evidences that majority of commercially interesting hydrocarbons have been expelled from organic rich source rock and are trapped in the reservoir rocks. We also have the evidences showing presence of biological molecules in all commercial oils.

    We have observed the abundance of similar hydrocarbons on many other planetary bodies viz. comets and moons (eg. Titan) etc. which are thought to have been formed without any involvement of any biological material . The common association of hydrocarbons with the inert gas helium is also not explainable in current theory of biotic origin of petroleum. We have observed presence of some traces element like V, Ni, Cu, Co, Zn.. etc in hydrocarbons which also do not clearly explain the biotic origin of petroleum ( szatmari et al,2005). According to the author of the paper ,they have analyzed 68 Brazilian oil and nine foreign oils and determined 24 metal traces in the oils showed fine correlation of the oils with CI chondrite and mantle peridotites, and worse correlation with oceanic and continental crust, and none with seawater. No doubt, the biotic theory has some important evidences but on the other hand the followers of abiotic theory also have strong evidences which cannot be denied. So we require a new theory that can reconcile the strong evidences of both the current theories. Taking strong evidences of both the theories we can easily conclude it.

    Majority of commercially interesting hydrocarbons accumulations have been formed from the organic rich sedimentary source rocks but essentially from those which has been formed with the involvement of abiotic hydrocarbons. And these abiotic hydrocarbons were once hugely present on the surface of the earth in past geological time. Sedimentary rocks that have been formed without any involvement of these abiotic hydrocarbons are not suitable to form commercial hydrocarbons deposits. So abiotic sources are the major contributor in the commercial accumulations of hydrocarbons. Hence a well balanced theory is today’s major requirement which will help future hydrocarbon exploration efficiently.

    AUTHOR

    SURESH BANSAL

    PB,INDIA

    sureshbansal342@gmail.com

    http://www.universetoday.com/12800/titan-has-hundreds-of-times-more-liquid-hydrocarbons-than-earth/

    http://cdn.intechweb.org/pdfs/14082.pdf

    Reply

  • Avatar

    James Cummins

    |

    First you have to eliminate the biogenic sources. If the hydrocarbons are simply percolating up through porous sediments why aren’t the oceans (and most freshwater lakes) topped with a layer of hydrocarbons?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gilian

      |

      If I were to be snarky…

      At the moment, large swathes of the gulf of Mexico is topped with a layer of hydrocarbons. 😛

      Reply

  • Avatar

    David Smith

    |

    What should also be mentioned is how the Russians exploited “Kudryavtsev’s Rule” – aka the presence of surface hydrocarbons is a strong indicator of deeper hydrocarobn deposits nearby. That’s one reason we see many of these new oilfields being developed in areas where surface deposits of coal were historically present.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Mark Luhman

    |

    James, People have found oil in granite, no enough to be useful but it was there, It was granite shattered by a meteor. The reason we find oil in sedimentary rock is because it is porous were most igneous rock are not. We also most always find oil near fault lines where the continental rock is fractured and allow for the oil to percolate up.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    James Cummins

    |

    Why are our terrestrial sources of hydrocarbon in sedimentary rocks? Why do we not find oil reserves in basement rocks. Why are oil and gas deposits related to current and “fossil” river deltas? The gas giant planets and their moons are not proxies for terrestrial geological processes.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gilian

      |

      Describe your terminology. Explain your argument, please. Why can we find water in sedimentary rocks? What is your point?

      “Why do we not find oil reserves in basement rocks?”

      Basement rocks are igneous, or metamorphic in origin. I can’t imagine that it would be easy to drill into basement rock; wouldn’t an oil company be foolish to try when it’s so much easier to drill into sedimentary rock?

      “Why are oil and gas deposits related to current and ‘fossil’ river deltas?”

      A ‘fossil’ river delta appears to be an area where a significant amount of coal and other types of carbon compounds are plentiful.

      Where did the carbon originally come from? If we are to believe the astrophysicists, then all of atoms on the periodic table originate from star nucleosynthesis, this includes carbon. When stars explode or nova; chunks of their body get thrown into space. Some of these chunks containing all sorts of different matter formed into planets. When the matter formed into planets, where did the carbon go? When there was no life; where did the carbon go? Presumably there were layers of the carbon that precipitated near the crust. Could these be the ‘fossil’ river deltas?

      “The gas giant planets and their moons are not proxies for terrestrial geological processes”.

      Are you suggesting that the laws of chemistry don’t work the same way on different planets? It’s not about ‘terrestrial’ geological processes; it’s about ‘planetary’ geological processes.

      The concept is simple. Lower carbon chains, like methane (CH4) can interact with other low carbon chains under high enough temperature and pressure to form higher carbon chains, like ethane (C2H4). These reactions continue up the reaction chains until higher carbon chains are produced, like octane, like nonane, like decane.

      Why wouldn’t these reactions work at a depth of 5-10 km below the surface of the Earth?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        SURESH

        |

        1. I fully agreed that majority commercial oils has been expelled from sedimentary source rocks ,oil widow,biomarkers etc .
        2. Infect current biotic theory has suggested a well tested method to find new locations of oils and i fully agreed with and there is no need to change it however new signature can be added to reduce the cost of exploration of new oils .
        3. on the other hand there are very strong evidences of abiotic theory that indicate us that these same hydrocarbons were once huge present at mantle level conditions also .

        http://cdn.intechweb.org/pdfs/14082.pdf

        and i have no hesitation to respect the strong evidences of both . i want to do a minor change in current fossil fuel theory that majority commercial oils has been expelled from sedimentary source rocks but only from those which has been formed with the involvement of pre generated abiotic hydrocarbons bearing sludge ( sticky .waxy and heavy in molecular weight) . sedimentary rocks that has been formed without any involvement of these abiotic hydrocarbons are not suitable to form commercial interesting oils . so abiotic sources are the major contributor in commercial interesting hydrocarbons also . these abiotic hydrocarbons were once huge present on the surface of the earth like currently huge present on the surface of the Titan . http://www.universetoday.com/12800/titan-has-hundreds-of-times-more-liquid-hydrocarbons-than-earth

        infect both the theories has strong evidences as well as strong critiques also ,so we required a new balanced hypothesis that can respect the strong evidences of both and i have done a minor change in biotic theory so that we may respect the strong evidences of both .

        4. please note that hydrocarbons we are using in our daily life or commercia viable are actually not biogenic in origin but these abiotic hydrocarbons has obtained the biotic characteristics in the burial history of the mixture of abiotic hydrocarbons sludge +deceased organic matter to confuse us .

        Reply

    • Avatar

      Gilian

      |

      Here is an interesting article on the subject:

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110415104540.htm

      The folks at Lawrence Livermore are some of the best and the brightest scientists in the business. Is the claim that oil can be formed from the Fischer Tropsch process starting with methane really so foolish?

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Gilian

      |

      I found a fantastic explanation for how the biogenic theory for oil works:

      http://www.quora.com/Is-oil-from-biological-origin

      – Thank you Ryan Carlyle.

      I will summarize Carlyle’s explanation, there are three main components that geologists look for when they drill for oil: source rock, reservoir rock, and trap rock.

      The source rock is pregnant with Kerogen. What is kerogen? Kerogen is a mixture of organic material. Under the biogenic definition; it was ancient ‘plant matter or plankton’; under the abiogenic definition, it was ‘carbon rich’ minerals.

      Reservoir rock is a spongy kind of rock with enough pores to allow liquid to easily move through it. This is where the oil will settle.

      Then trap rock; which is not permeable to oil.

      Presence of source rock, with trap rock at the base, and reservoir rock above the trap rock, an oil basin may form in these conditions.

      With this simple model, someone can take seismic measurements of the ground and ascertain whether or not oil is likely to collect in a particular place.

      Ryan Carlyle makes the statement:

      “We drill through the trap-like shapes and see if there’s oil in the upside-down bowl underneath. Historically, this only worked about 10% of the time, but with modern techniques, a 50% success rate for a high-profile drilling campaign is achievable. That’s a spectacular success rate, and it’s based on the paradigm of biological oil. “

      When he says that the theory is based on the paradigm of biological oil; this is where I stop and disagree with Carlyle’s conclusion that this model is more indicative of the validity of biogenic oil than abiogenic oil.

      If source rock, or kerogenic rock is interpreted as primordial carbon-pregnant rock, left over from when the planet was formed rather than existing from dead plantlife and plankton; then you can see that the simple model with source rock, reservoir rock, and trap rock can be just as validly interpreted under an abiogenic paradigm as a biogenic paradigm.

      In other words, the theory works, it stands on it’s own and it is agnostic with respect to the biogenic or abiogenic origin of oil.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Gilian

        |

        Let us spend some time discussing Kerogen; or ‘source rock’.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerogen

        I will use a special notation to describe the type of carbon chain.

        nC – n, the number, C, of carbon

        1C – CH4, H:C ratio – 4
        2C – C2H6, H:C ratio – 3
        3C – C3H8, H:C ratio – 2.67
        4C – C4H10, H:C ratio – 2.5
        5C – C5H12, H:C ratio – 2.4
        6C – C6H14, H:C ratio – 2.33
        7C – C7H16, H:C ratio – 2.29
        8C – C8H18, H:C ratio – 2.25

        H:C ratio formula – (2n+2)/n

        A note:

        limit(H:C ratio formula) as n approaches infinity: 2

        For regular hydrocarbon chains that we care about for refining energy as fuel; the hydrogen to carbon ratio is greater than two.

        Something else to note:

        Proteins are composed of hydrocarbons; but these tend to have very large concentrations of Carbon, and very complex connections between the carbon atoms. Of course, proteins are found in living creatures.

        Kerogen types:

        Type I: This is where the majority of the oil comes from. At a Hydrogen:Carbon ratio of greater than 1.25; this describes long thin carbon chains where the hydrogen content exceeds the carbon content. Under abiogenic theory; this class of hydrocarbons would come directly from the Fischer-Tropsch process.

        The wikipedia article describes this type of kerogen as being originally from algae.

        Type II: This leads to less oil than Type I. This has a Hydrogen:Carbon ratio of less than 1.25; so it describes molecules with larger interconnected networks of carbon chains than Type I.

        The wikipedia article describes this type of kerogen as being originally from plankton or marine life.

        Type III: This form of kerogen is even less productive than Type II in producing oil. This has a Hydrogen:Carbon ratio of less than 1. It describes even more complex molecules with even larger interconnected networks of carbon chains than Type II.

        The wikipedia article describes this type of kerogen as being originally from plant life.

        Type IV: This form of kerogen is composed of Residue and has virtually no capability of forming hydrocarbons. This is more complex even than Type III.

        As we can see, the higher the kerogen type, the more complex the kind of hydrocarbon molecule that one describes. The proteins necessary for complex life like people, would most closely correspond to Type IV.

        Also the lower the kerogen type, the better it is at generating petroleum.

        The primordial carbon-rich minerals left over from when the Earth was first formed would have corresponded with Type I. Types II-IV would have formed later.

        Type I is better at generating oil. Therefore, could one conclude that the abiogenic theory is a better explanation for where oil comes from than the biogenic theory?

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gilian

          |

          My friend, Mr. Cummins; let’s dance. 🙂

          Reply

        • Avatar

          Gilian

          |

          “Type IV: This form of kerogen is composed of Residue and has virtually no capability of forming hydrocarbons. This is more complex even than Type III. “

          I made a mistake here. Type IV kerogen has virtually no ability to form crude oil within a short timeframe. Obviously sugar is converted to fats in the body all the time; and these could be argued to be a form of hydrocarbon (albeit not the kind of ‘hydrocarbon’ that most people discuss).

          Reply

        • Avatar

          SURESH

          |

          According to the Wikipedia kerogen is organic in origin and i fully agreed but organic is not a guarantee of biogenic also . please show me a paper proving the biogenic origin of kerogen

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Gilianin

            |

            Suresh, I am sure that there is a multitude of papers that claim to demonstrate the biogenic origin of kerogen.

            What I am advocating is that Type II, III, and IV kerogens are more likely to be biotic in origin; and that type I is more likely to be abiotic in origin.

            Furthermore, it is a common theme in our culture to describe the first creatures as having crawled from the ‘primordial ooze’; I would advocate that if you want to know what the primordial ooze was, all that you have to do is look at a crude oil pit and there it is! That is, it was, and it will continue to be the primordial ooze where life first came from!!!

            And in the beginning, the primordial ooze was abiotic in nature.

            More on this soon…

          • Avatar

            SURESH

            |

            Gilian, Even the Wikipedia of kerogen is not sure about that the whole material has been formed by deceased biological material . Wikipedia of kerogen includes ;
            ===Extra-terrestrial===
            * [[Carbonaceous chondrite]] [[meteorite]]s contain kerogen-like components.Nakamura, T. (2005) “Post-hydration thermal metamorphism of carbonaceous chondrites”, ”Journal of Mineralogical and Petrological Sciences”, volume 100, page 268,[http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jmps/100/6/260/_pdf] (PDF) Retrieved 1 September 2007 Such material is thought to have formed the [[terrestrial planet]]s.

            * Kerogen materials have been detected in [[Interstellar medium|interstellar clouds and dust]] around [[star]]s.Papoular, R. (2001) “The use of kerogen data in understanding the properties and evolution of interstellar carbonaceous dust”, ”Astronomy and Astrophysics”, volume 378, pages 597-607, [http://cds.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/pdf/2001/41/aah2968.pdf] (PDF) Retrieved 1 September 2007
            please send me a more papers that can prove that the whole material has been formed from deceased biological material only .

          • Avatar

            Gilian

            |

            Suresh; interesting evidence, very interesting. Under the biogenic theory for the origin of oil, the existence of kerogen in the interstellar medium would suggest that life produced those kerogens… meaning, there is life elsewhere in the universe.

            Under the abiogenic theory for the existence of kerogen, the kerogen is simply leftover products from stellar novae. This suggests that there could be life developing elsewhere in the universe under the same laws and limitations that life has developed here.

          • Avatar

            SURESH

            |

            [quote name=”Gilianin”]Suresh, I am sure that there is a multitude of papers that claim to demonstrate the biogenic origin of kerogen.

            What I am advocating is that Type II, III, and IV kerogens are more likely to be biotic in origin; and that type I is more likely to be abiotic in origin.

            Furthermore, it is a common theme in our culture to describe the first creatures as having crawled from the ‘primordial ooze’; I would advocate that if you want to know what the primordial ooze was, all that you have to do is look at a crude oil pit and there it is! That is, it was, and it will continue to be the primordial ooze where life first came from!!!

            And in the beginning, the primordial ooze was abiotic in nature.

            More on this soon…[/quote]how will you reconcile this paper for commercial interesting hydrocarbons in current fossil fuel theory and there are tons of papers that indicate that hydrocarbons we are using in our daily life are once also present at mantle level conditions and can be formed at these conditions also . According to the author of the paper ,they have analyzed 68 Brazilian oil and nine foreign oils and determined 24 metal traces in the oils showed fine correlation of the oils with CI chondrite and mantle peridotites, and worse correlation with oceanic and continental crust, and none with seawater
            http://cdn.intechweb.org/pdfs/14082.pdf

          • Avatar

            Gilian

            |

            Suresh, when I say, “I am sure that there are a multitude of papers that claim to demonstrate the biogenic origin of oil.” — there is an implication in my statement that you were missing.

            ‘Claiming’ to have evidence which demonstrates the biogenic origin of oil is not the same as proving the biogenic origin of oil.

            If one looks at a physical phenomenon with the wrong model in mind, then the lens through which you are looking at the evidence will lead you to the wrong conclusions regarding the evidence.

            The paper that you have here seems to demonstrate that it is unlikely that most of the Brazilian oils come from an oceanic seawater environment.

            Suresh, you do understand that I find the idea of biogenic sources as the origin of all oil unconvincing, don’t you?

          • Avatar

            SURESH

            |

            [quote name=”Gilian”]Suresh, when I say, “I am sure that there are a multitude of papers that claim to demonstrate the biogenic origin of oil.” — there is an implication in my statement that you were missing.

            ‘Claiming’ to have evidence which demonstrates the biogenic origin of oil is not the same as proving the biogenic origin of oil.

            If one looks at a physical phenomenon with the wrong model in mind, then the lens through which you are looking at the evidence will lead you to the wrong conclusions regarding the evidence.

            The paper that you have here seems to demonstrate that it is unlikely that most of the Brazilian oils come from an oceanic seawater environment.

            Suresh, you do understand that I find the idea of biogenic sources as the origin of all oil unconvincing, don’t you?[/quote]
            Yes, pre mind set up is a big problem . take example of Galileo .
            2. Actually Earlier I was discussing this matter at AAPG discussion board . This discussion has been started by mr Umair under the heading of ” DISCUSS THE ORIGIN PF PETROLEUM….. IS IT ORGANIC OR INORGANIC IN ORIGIN ???. this discussion has been started at last of 2012 and was live till feb 2015 . I was the main and almost only opponent in this discussion while majority people were in favor of biogenic theory only . This was the longest discussion in the history of that AAPG blog . when I put them in serious problem than they suddenly closed the discussion without any prior notice . I am almost sure that match was diverting in my side . there are many discussion that can not fetch even ten twenty comments and are still alive from last three years but this discussion that has fetched more than 3250 comments they have closed it .

          • Avatar

            Gilian

            |

            Take, for instance, the chemical ‘estrogen’, or actually, it’s a group of chemicals. There is E1 – Estrone, E2 – Estradiol, E3 – Estriol.

            What is estrogen chemically? Let’s look at Estradiol…

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estradiol

            Just look at it. See how simple it really is. It looks like a bunch of benzene rings that have just been strung together. C18H24O2.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene

            This is the kind of chemical that could easily and readily form in a soup of random hydrocarbons.

            And this is the hormone that we associate with females; not just ‘human’ females, females for most species!

            For respiration we need:

            Oxygen + Glucose –> ‘Carbon dioxide’ + Water

            Unbalanced chemical form of same equation:
            O2 + C6H12O6 —> CO2 + H2O

            This is why we need to breath; the cells in our bodies use glucose to power themselves, it is with this equation above that our cells extract energy. Look at how simple glucose as a molecule really is!

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucose

            It also looks similar to benzene; but the OH molecules sticking out of it are different.

            In crude oil you have hydrogen, carbon, oxygen; all of the components that one would need for life to form.

            You see, it’s not that the crude oil came from life (it can, but not on a large scale); the life came from the crude oil!

          • Avatar

            Gilian

            |

            Here is the (possible) story for where life came from:

            In the beginning, when the universe was new, the universe was expanding and accelerating in it’s expansion following the big bang. Not much existed, in the universe at this time period except for electromagnetic radiation (photons, or light), alas, it was still too hot for anything but light to exist.

            As the universe expanded and cooled, the light began to condense into subatomic particles; electrons, quarks, anti-quarks, muons, all sorts of subatomic particles. As the universe continued to cool, the quarks would combine to form neutrons and protons. The protons would attract the electrons that happened to be about; and hydrogen along with perhaps some helium was formed.

            Hydrogen, lots of hydrogen, great clouds of it! Clouds much bigger than the galaxies that we know today!

            Hydrogen has mass. So the clouds of this stuff would be gravitationally attracted to the rest of the same cloud. They were drawn inward to form stars.

            Great balls of gas would contract in on themselves; and the first proto-stars were formed. The center of these stars would be hot from all of the pressure of all of the other hydrogen that was pushing on them. Enough hydrogen would lead to the centers of these proto-stars becoming hot enough that the barriers of the electron clouds around the hydrogen atoms could be broken; penetrated by other hydrogen. A proton could combine with another proton, one proton could convert itself to a neutron; and so deuterium is formed.

            Enough deuterium would eventually be produced in this process that, in the center of the star; it would not be an uncommon thing for the deuterium to combine with more deuterium to form helium.

            Helium would eventually combine to form lithium; then beryllium would form; and onwards through the periodic table, all of the different types of atoms would form until a special kind of atom with 26 protons came into being. Iron.

            Iron is special, in that it is one of the most stable elements on the periodic table in the nuclear sense. It takes a great deal of pressure and heat to cause iron to fuse. When Iron forms in the star, and when it becomes common enough that it begins to ‘choke’ the regular fusion process within the star. The heat from fusion would cease to generate enough dynamic outward pressure to keep the rest of the mass of the star from collapsing in on itself.

            When the mass of the star collapse in on itself, the pressure and the heat in the center of the star would spike up. A great shockwave would reverberate through the mass of the star and all of the rest of the elements on the periodic table would be formed; the shockwave would blow chunks of the star out into space; along with many of the atoms which had been formed in the plasma. This includes carbon, an atom with 6 protons.

            Eventually these chunks of plasma would form planets.

            More to come…

          • Avatar

            Gilian

            |

            Many of the planets might have begin as great arcs of residual plasma from the nova. The plasma would be a random soup of all sorts of atoms. Eventually the plasma would form into a ball… well, under the influence of it’s own gravitational pull.

            There is an interesting aspect of liquids and this goes for neutral plasmas too; denser materials tend to move towards the bottom of the container. Or, when the container is a ball in space; the denser materials would settle closer to the center of the ball, and the less dense materials would tend to diffuse towards the outer edge of the ball.

            The Earth may have formed in this way.

            Eventually the plasma would cool; although the center of the planet in this process would remain quite warm. Perhaps much of the heat from the original plasma would remain in the center. Or perhaps, if the denser atoms had drifted towards the center of the planet, perhaps many of the atoms with 89-92 protons would have drifted towards the center of the planet and would keep the center of the planet hot with a furnace of fission. This would serve to keep the center of the planet hot and continuously supplying energy to allow for the convection of magma that would create the Earth’s magnetic field.

            Or perhaps it was primarily a nickel-iron core that remained hot enough to supply a magnetic field for several billion years; actually, to be frank; geophysicists are a bit divided on this particular point.

            Of course, there was a great deal of carbon that had existed in the original plasma; some of it would remain within the magma, as a nice *hot* liquid. The exterior of the planet would radiate enough heat into space that it would cool and begin to condense into the first tectonic plates.

            Some of the carbon, evidently, ended up condensing within the tectonic plates as well. Much of it would have condensed into a globular mass of mineral carbon, it would be coal. Much of the carbon would exist in other forms.

            Carbon has this unique ability to bond with as many as 4 other atoms. This makes carbon able to form some very large and extraordinarily complex structures. Hydrogen, the very first of the atoms that existed in our universe can bond to only one other atom.

            One of the very simplest carbon molecules that can exist is CH4. It would not be unheard of for coal (solid carbon) to bond with any available hydrogen in it’s surroundings to form CH4. We know that there is a great deal of CH4 in the ground.

            Higher carbon chains could have been formed from the Bergius process.

            nC + (n+1)H2 –> CnH(2n+2)

            See:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_liquefaction

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergius_process

            Although the Bergius process was an ‘artificial’ process used to liquify coal into higher carbon chain compounds; all that the reaction needs is high temperatures, high pressures, and a metal catalyst. There very likely exists natural conditions underneath the ground that lead to this reaction.

            More on this to come…

          • Avatar

            Gilian

            |

            I have outlined that the Bergius process may have been one way for the primitive hydrocarbons: CnH(2n+2) to have formed. There likely exists a host of other reactions that exist that lead to the generation of the primitive hydrocarbons and many variations on the primitive hydrocarbons.

            Assuming all of these processes to be ongoing, continuous; we can see a way for a great mixture a hydrocarbon soup to come into existence:

            methane – 1n –> You will know this gas if you eat too much cabbage.

            ethane – 2n

            propane – 3n

            butane – 4n

            pentane – 5n

            hexane – 6n

            septane – 7n

            octane – 8n –> This is what we burn in our cars. This is gasoline.

            nonane – 9n

            And the rest of the higher alkanes could be produced.

            See this link:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_alkanes

            From the Bergius process, and a whole host of other reaction processes, there would exist a great soup of hydrocarbons from 1C to nC. This soup *is* crude oil.

            At this stage, from this story; perhaps it is clear where most of our crude oil probably came from.

            This is the point where we can begin to discuss where life may have come from. Among the reactions that process the hydrocarbons underneath the ground, are the processes that lead to the creation of benzene… a nicely combustible, yet highly carcinogenic substance (why is it highly carcinogenic?).

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene

            If, in those great pits of kerogens, there exists oxygen, and oxygen related compounds (this shouldn’t be a great leap of the imagination); then there exists the possibility for reactions to exist that lead to the creation of organic alcohols, and ethers.

            The presence of oxygen in the kerogen pits should allow for the ready generation of ethers.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ether

            The ethers could be easily dissociated by inorganic and organic acids to create alcohols.

            I have already made the observation that a chemical of estrogen, estridiol, looks like four benzene rings all concatenated together. But one can also extrapolate that in this soup of hydrocarbons exists the conditions necessary to create the nucleotides that we find in DNA and RNA.

            Nucleotides like Guanine, Cytosine, Thymine, and Adenine make up the chains that form our DNA.

            Let us look at Guanine, very quickly:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanine

            It can be formed from a very simple and readily available group of chemicals:

            10NH3 + 2CH4 + 4C2H6 + 2H2O → 2C5H8N5O (guanine) + 25H2

            If there exists ammonia in the environment, then there exists the ability of the hydrocarbon pit to generate the nucleic acids.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acid_sequence

            These, along with carbohydrates, and proteins are all the building blocks of life.

            This is why I posit that it was not life that gave rise to the existence of crude oil; but that it was crude oil that gave rise to the existence of life.

  • Avatar

    SxyxS

    |

    sadly neither my knowledge nor my english is good enough to say something of value,
    but there is one really interessting thing:
    If fossil fuels are really fossil,there would be no clean groundwater.
    Groundwater has existed hundreds of millions of years before fossil fuel dids.
    As fossil fuels are “oil” based and therefore hydrophob, they could never ever pass the groundwater barrier.
    Fossil fuel would either stay on top of groundwater or emulate /pollute groundwater forever.
    +water is more fluid than oil=water should get deeper into the earth than oil.
    A factor against “non organic oil” is-in saudi arabia oil is very close to the surface.It usually cannot be “produced ” in deepest region of earth core+
    If oil is produced inside the earth,oil would have started
    to reach the surface in many regions of the planet.Just like volcanos “oil” volcanos would appear all over the world in regions where pressure of “non organic oil” became to high.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Mervyn

    |

    Here are some interesting facts…

    The largest known oil reserve in the world is the Alaskan Gull Island oil find of 1976 off the oil rich Prudhoe Bay, whose own oil analysis is as follows;

    Sulphur content – 0.9%
    Flash point of the oil – 35 degrees F
    Wax content – 6%
    Asphalt content – 2%
    Crude oil freeze temperature (pour point) – 15 degrees F

    Here is a comparison between just three of the known oil fields in Alaska, on the North Slope:

    Prudhoe Bay could produce 2 million barrels of oil every 24 hours for up to 40 years at artesian pressure. Its average depth of oil is 600 feet of pay zone, in an area 100 square miles.

    The Kuparuk oil field’s average depth of oil pool is 300 feet of pay zone, with an area of field twice the size of Prudhoe.

    The Gull Island oil field average depth of oil pool is 1,200 feet of pay zone, with an area of field at least four times the size of Prudhoe, and estimated to be the richest oil field on the face of the earth.

    America will never run out of oil with such immense known oil reserves as Gull Island that the government insisted at the time be capped and classified.

    The world will never run out of oil.

    Reply

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.