Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

K.O. Johnny

Is Peak Oil Cobblers?

Recommended Posts

Speaking to a bloke at work re the Texas oil spill and he mentioned that it may be an almost limitless spill because oil is not organic - and there's a lot more of it the deeper down you go.

Anyway found thisMy link

It doesn't read too tin foil hatty, but I'd like to know what some of you HPC'ers think - I thought it was an interesting article, but I'm not a scientist - is it total cobblers? I'm sure you'll all let me know in no uncertain terms.

Opinion: The Evidence for Limitless Oil and Gas

By Bill Jencks.

+

Everybody seems to believe in Hubbert's Peak Oil Theory. Why do you believe in this theory? Within this article I present fairly convincing evidence that Peak Oil is a theory based on a false premise - that oil is a finite resource.

"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." Sir Fred Hoyle FRS 1982.

"The general concept of petroleum formation by biogenic mechanisms has been firmly entrenched for a long time, but there has been no accumulation of convincing experimental evidence in support of this belief." -- Charles E. Melton and A.A. Giardini, 1983

My own layman's view -- as we all surely believe -- has always been that oil and gas are both derived through the natural and lengthy decomposition of organic detritus. Therefore I've always believed that oil is a finite resource and that it will eventually run out. But recently - and after much hard searching out of the facts, my view has changed. If the Russian view that oil and gas are continuously formed or replaced from a purely physical/chemical thermodynamic process that continuously regenerates oil from ultra-deep locations(>9,000 metres), then the inference here is that oil may, perhaps, not be a finite resource -- and that there is plenty of it.

Oil and Gas Origins - Biogenic or Abiotic ?

Do oil and gas originate from the biological decomposition of organic material (biotic, biogenic) or do they originate simply through a natural physical and chemical thermodynamic process involving just heat and pressure(abiotic, abiogenic)?

It is notable that the whole of Hubbert's Theory of Peak Oil rests completely on the assumption that oil is biogenic in origin. Therefore oil is a finite resource. Simply everyone believes this, because everyone believes that this is a proven fact. I have also read that this Biogenic Theory directly contradicts and offends the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I became suspicious, so I searched all over the internet for substantiative proof -- and particularly the research articles in Google Scholar.

Evidence for The Western Biogenic Theory of Oil Formation

1. In 1757 Russian Scientist, Mikhailo Lomonosov put forward a hypothesis and suggested that oil came from biological detritus.

2. The main argument put forward by the Western Biotic Oil theorists is that biomarkers are always found to exist as organic detritus within all oil deposits, which is certainly true. But unfortunately, oil exists inside the earth, and is surrounded by different types of geological soils - which all contain organic detritus - and oil is a wonderful solvent in which to dissolve and hold this detritus. Also, and by the reverse argument, alkanes, kerogens and many other petroleum related chemicals have been found on meteorites - which can support no organic life. This can be verified by looking at the evidence at the Gas Resources website(read and check the links in the Introduction)and at this CNRS Research site.

2. In his paper "The Abiotic Oil Controversy" by Richard Heinberg which sides with biogenic oil (With relatively little actual quoted research evidence) has even admitted :

"There is no way to conclusively prove that no petroleum is of abiotic origin...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. But the important question to keep in mind is: What are the practical consequences of this discussion now for the problem of global oil depletion? "

The normal geologists view is that all oil and gas formation is biogenic from organic detritus. So I began with Wikipedia which indeed puts forth and recognised the theories of both Biogenic and Abiotic oil and gas origin. And although there has been clear, modern Russian research evidence cited for the theory of Abiotic Oil formation - oddly - there were no proper research citations or references regarding the Western Biogenic Theory of Oil in Wikipedia. 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.

Evidence for the Russian-Ukrainian Abiotic Theory of Oil Formation

I am certainly surprised to admit that there is such a large body of research on this theory -- and all mainly Russian in origin. But this modern research -- which is very detailed, seems to have been generally and surprisingly ignored by the West.

1. In the 19th century various abiogenic hypotheses were first proposed after advances in science in the nineteenth century by Alexander von Humboldt, Dmitri Mendeleev and Marcellin Berthalot.

2. Definition and Evidence

3. An Article called Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection to Biogenic Oil by J F Kenney(within the Scientific Publications Section). This is a detailed and scientifically rigourous paper which sets sets out to disprove all the various "fuzzy" assumptions for the Western Theory of Biogenic Oil Formation. This was the article that completely convinced me of the truth of The Russian-Ukrainian Abiotic Theory of Oil Formation.

4. Nikolai Kudrayvtsev's Theory(1951)

5. Abiogenic(Abiotic) Petroleum Origin - Wikipedia

6. "An Introduction to the Modern Petroleum Science, and to the Russian-Ukrainian Theory of Deep, Abiotic Petroleum Origins"(within the Introduction section) by J.F. Kenney, Russian Academy of Sciences.

7. In the 'Introduction' and 'Scientific Publications' section of GasResources.net there are many bona fide Russian research articles.

8. A Dissertation by J.F. Kenney(Joint Institute of the Physics of the Earth Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow). Here is an extract:

"ABSTRACT: For almost a century, various predictions have been made that the human race is imminently going to run out of available petroleum. The passing of time has proven all those predictions to have been utterly wrong. It is pointed out here how all predictions have depended fundamentally upon anarchaic hypothesis from the 18th century that petroleum somehow (miraculously) evolve from biological detritus, and is accordingly limited in abundance. That 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. 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."

9. Considerations about Recent Predictions of Impending Shortages of Petroleum(within the Economics publication section)) by J.F. Kenney

9. A Russian Book - 'Advanced Drilling Solutions' detailing deep and ultra-deep oil drilling technology beyond the Earth's crust and sedimentary layers to depths of over 40,000 ft'.

10. Confirmation that oil fields in the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin in the Ukraine are Aboitic(within the )

11. Peak Oil Theory vs Russian-Ukraine Modern Theory

Apparent Disinformation and Prejudicial Judgement of the Russian Abiotic Oil Theory

It is peculiar that there has been so little Western scientific peer reviews or acknowledgement or research verification concerning the utra-deep Russian Abiotic Oil Formation Theory. Surely this is suspicious and bears investigating -- even if you don't believe the theory -- because this would certainly remove the geopolitical effects and problems of the current thinking on oil -- that it is running out. Concerning this theory, I have also found some evidence of plagiarism, disinformation and misrepresentation of research data regarding the Russian Abiotic Theory by fairly eminent western scientists and western news resources :

1. Accusations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation of Abiotic Russian Research on Thomas Gold a well known US scientist.

2. Rebuttal of article "Fossil fuel without Fossils" (Nature magazine, T. Clark, 12 August 2002) by J. F. Kenney, V. G. Kutcherov, N. A. Bendeliani, V. A. Alekseev, (2002).

Conclusions

In the end, I have to agree that the Russian Abiotic Theory of Oil Formation - backed up by all its evidence, is far more likely to be the true explanation. And there appears to be little or no conclusive evidence to prove the Western Biotic Theory of Oil. But that leaves much unanswered doesn't it? For what reasons then - in light of these facts and conclusions - is the Peak Oil Theory being so heavily touted - a theory that is wholly dependent on the Western Biotic Theory of Oil Formation which - as I see it - is a completely unproven theory? Are Western geologists and scientists really that stupid or unfair or is there an underlying, hidden agenda and media steerage here - by the Big Oil Majors or OPEC - to perhaps discreetly encourage higher oil prices through promotion of a false "scarcity" of this resource by conveniently supporting the Western Biotic Theory of Oil Formation(now disproven and defunct) to so heavily promote Hubbert's Peak Oil Theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking to a bloke at work re the Texas oil spill and he mentioned that it may be an almost limitless spill because oil is not organic - and there's a lot more of it the deeper down you go.

Anyway found thisMy link

It doesn't read too tin foil hatty, but I'd like to know what some of you HPC'ers think - I thought it was an interesting article, but I'm not a scientist - is it total cobblers? I'm sure you'll all let me know in no uncertain terms.

Opinion: The Evidence for Limitless Oil and Gas

By Bill Jencks.

+

Everybody seems to believe in Hubbert's Peak Oil Theory. Why do you believe in this theory? Within this article I present fairly convincing evidence that Peak Oil is a theory based on a false premise - that oil is a finite resource.

"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." Sir Fred Hoyle FRS 1982.

"The general concept of petroleum formation by biogenic mechanisms has been firmly entrenched for a long time, but there has been no accumulation of convincing experimental evidence in support of this belief." -- Charles E. Melton and A.A. Giardini, 1983

My own layman's view -- as we all surely believe -- has always been that oil and gas are both derived through the natural and lengthy decomposition of organic detritus. Therefore I've always believed that oil is a finite resource and that it will eventually run out. But recently - and after much hard searching out of the facts, my view has changed. If the Russian view that oil and gas are continuously formed or replaced from a purely physical/chemical thermodynamic process that continuously regenerates oil from ultra-deep locations(>9,000 metres), then the inference here is that oil may, perhaps, not be a finite resource -- and that there is plenty of it.

Oil and Gas Origins - Biogenic or Abiotic ?

Do oil and gas originate from the biological decomposition of organic material (biotic, biogenic) or do they originate simply through a natural physical and chemical thermodynamic process involving just heat and pressure(abiotic, abiogenic)?

It is notable that the whole of Hubbert's Theory of Peak Oil rests completely on the assumption that oil is biogenic in origin. Therefore oil is a finite resource. Simply everyone believes this, because everyone believes that this is a proven fact. I have also read that this Biogenic Theory directly contradicts and offends the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I became suspicious, so I searched all over the internet for substantiative proof -- and particularly the research articles in Google Scholar.

Evidence for The Western Biogenic Theory of Oil Formation

1. In 1757 Russian Scientist, Mikhailo Lomonosov put forward a hypothesis and suggested that oil came from biological detritus.

2. The main argument put forward by the Western Biotic Oil theorists is that biomarkers are always found to exist as organic detritus within all oil deposits, which is certainly true. But unfortunately, oil exists inside the earth, and is surrounded by different types of geological soils - which all contain organic detritus - and oil is a wonderful solvent in which to dissolve and hold this detritus. Also, and by the reverse argument, alkanes, kerogens and many other petroleum related chemicals have been found on meteorites - which can support no organic life. This can be verified by looking at the evidence at the Gas Resources website(read and check the links in the Introduction)and at this CNRS Research site.

2. In his paper "The Abiotic Oil Controversy" by Richard Heinberg which sides with biogenic oil (With relatively little actual quoted research evidence) has even admitted :

"There is no way to conclusively prove that no petroleum is of abiotic origin...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. But the important question to keep in mind is: What are the practical consequences of this discussion now for the problem of global oil depletion? "

The normal geologists view is that all oil and gas formation is biogenic from organic detritus. So I began with Wikipedia which indeed puts forth and recognised the theories of both Biogenic and Abiotic oil and gas origin. And although there has been clear, modern Russian research evidence cited for the theory of Abiotic Oil formation - oddly - there were no proper research citations or references regarding the Western Biogenic Theory of Oil in Wikipedia. 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.

Evidence for the Russian-Ukrainian Abiotic Theory of Oil Formation

I am certainly surprised to admit that there is such a large body of research on this theory -- and all mainly Russian in origin. But this modern research -- which is very detailed, seems to have been generally and surprisingly ignored by the West.

1. In the 19th century various abiogenic hypotheses were first proposed after advances in science in the nineteenth century by Alexander von Humboldt, Dmitri Mendeleev and Marcellin Berthalot.

2. Definition and Evidence

3. An Article called Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection to Biogenic Oil by J F Kenney(within the Scientific Publications Section). This is a detailed and scientifically rigourous paper which sets sets out to disprove all the various "fuzzy" assumptions for the Western Theory of Biogenic Oil Formation. This was the article that completely convinced me of the truth of The Russian-Ukrainian Abiotic Theory of Oil Formation.

4. Nikolai Kudrayvtsev's Theory(1951)

5. Abiogenic(Abiotic) Petroleum Origin - Wikipedia

6. "An Introduction to the Modern Petroleum Science, and to the Russian-Ukrainian Theory of Deep, Abiotic Petroleum Origins"(within the Introduction section) by J.F. Kenney, Russian Academy of Sciences.

7. In the 'Introduction' and 'Scientific Publications' section of GasResources.net there are many bona fide Russian research articles.

8. A Dissertation by J.F. Kenney(Joint Institute of the Physics of the Earth Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow). Here is an extract:

"ABSTRACT: For almost a century, various predictions have been made that the human race is imminently going to run out of available petroleum. The passing of time has proven all those predictions to have been utterly wrong. It is pointed out here how all predictions have depended fundamentally upon anarchaic hypothesis from the 18th century that petroleum somehow (miraculously) evolve from biological detritus, and is accordingly limited in abundance. That 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. 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."

9. Considerations about Recent Predictions of Impending Shortages of Petroleum(within the Economics publication section)) by J.F. Kenney

9. A Russian Book - 'Advanced Drilling Solutions' detailing deep and ultra-deep oil drilling technology beyond the Earth's crust and sedimentary layers to depths of over 40,000 ft'.

10. Confirmation that oil fields in the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin in the Ukraine are Aboitic(within the )

11. Peak Oil Theory vs Russian-Ukraine Modern Theory

Apparent Disinformation and Prejudicial Judgement of the Russian Abiotic Oil Theory

It is peculiar that there has been so little Western scientific peer reviews or acknowledgement or research verification concerning the utra-deep Russian Abiotic Oil Formation Theory. Surely this is suspicious and bears investigating -- even if you don't believe the theory -- because this would certainly remove the geopolitical effects and problems of the current thinking on oil -- that it is running out. Concerning this theory, I have also found some evidence of plagiarism, disinformation and misrepresentation of research data regarding the Russian Abiotic Theory by fairly eminent western scientists and western news resources :

1. Accusations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation of Abiotic Russian Research on Thomas Gold a well known US scientist.

2. Rebuttal of article "Fossil fuel without Fossils" (Nature magazine, T. Clark, 12 August 2002) by J. F. Kenney, V. G. Kutcherov, N. A. Bendeliani, V. A. Alekseev, (2002).

Conclusions

In the end, I have to agree that the Russian Abiotic Theory of Oil Formation - backed up by all its evidence, is far more likely to be the true explanation. And there appears to be little or no conclusive evidence to prove the Western Biotic Theory of Oil. But that leaves much unanswered doesn't it? For what reasons then - in light of these facts and conclusions - is the Peak Oil Theory being so heavily touted - a theory that is wholly dependent on the Western Biotic Theory of Oil Formation which - as I see it - is a completely unproven theory? Are Western geologists and scientists really that stupid or unfair or is there an underlying, hidden agenda and media steerage here - by the Big Oil Majors or OPEC - to perhaps discreetly encourage higher oil prices through promotion of a false "scarcity" of this resource by conveniently supporting the Western Biotic Theory of Oil Formation(now disproven and defunct) to so heavily promote Hubbert's Peak Oil Theory?

If oil was being abiotically produced at the rate we are consuming it, then the lower 48 states of the USA will not have peaked in production in the early 70's (as Hubbert predicted), and neither would the North Sea have peaked in 1999. These are both historical facts. Peak oil "theory" is studying the history of past extraction, and applying it to the future. Hubberts theory models a production curve through time, and concludes that a peak in production (from any individual field) occurs when half of the extractable oil has been taken. His assumptions are a little old now, and with modern methods of field recovery, it's not clear whether this is still true. Nevertheless, the only theory involved is the actual model used to predict when the peak will arrive. On a global scale, some say decades (Cells, for example), others say it's already happened. But I think nobody would argue that a peak will never arrive because oil is being exuded from the earth's interior at the rate we would wish to use it, otherwise we'd still be sucking on the North Sea and expanding house prices with the revenues - instead of phantom money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Peak oil is cobblers, imo.

Despite all the oil that's currently available, there are many countries in the world that still suffer from extreme poverty, why? Because they're absolutely useless at exploiting their resources.

There are factors more important than oil availablity that determine the wealth of a nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it sounds very impressive with quotes from people called 'Sir' and 'russian researchers' it is rather one sided.

In reality it 'may' be possible under certain conditions to produce oil without the 'biological detritus' bit, a few molecules of methane and hydrogen has been produced in lab conditions that no geologist has ever been able to find despite all the work on geology for the last couple of hundred years.

Using the 'Lost city' field as an argument is simply a complete lie. The 'Lost City' is a bunch of hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean discovered 10 years ago that seem to chuck out small amounts of methane and hydrogen, not a single drop of oil.

Meanwhile, we can make oil from 'dead stuff' in the laboratory, the chemistry and processes are well understood.

The article you have just posted fails to debunk any of the vast amounts of evidence for biogenic oil and instead just regurgitates a load of speculation that has already been debunked.

For example, how do you explain the biological origins of carbon isotopes found in ALL oil?:blink:

http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/mello/mello.htm

Sorry dude, peak oil is real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, if you have a look at the articles this guy has 'published' as a 'digital journalist' they are all 'opinion pieces' and he writes about politics, economics, anti-peak oil and this fine piece which is anti the germ theory of disease and references lots of 'natural cure' websites.

The guy has no qualifications or experience in the fields he writes about, use wikipedia as 'evidence' and simply publishes shite on the internets as 'opinion'.

You really want to take his word for it? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite

By the way, if you have a look at the articles this guy has 'published' as a 'digital journalist' they are all 'opinion pieces' and he writes about politics, economics, anti-peak oil and this fine piece which is anti the germ theory of disease and references lots of 'natural cure' websites.

The guy has no qualifications or experience in the fields he writes about, use wikipedia as 'evidence' and simply publishes shite on the internets as 'opinion'.

Sounds like he'd fit right in around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the abiotic theory was true, it would be enormously convenient if oil was replenished at the rate that we use it.

That is the point, depends on whether you have hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands or up to millions of years to wait to find out.

Bottom line, the oilfields that have become depleted rapidly reduce output so their reserves are not being renewed at anyting like their extraction rate.

Whether there is much more oil depper down around the world - a different matter altogther whatever the original source of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the point, depends on whether you have hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands or up to millions of years to wait to find out.

Bottom line, the oilfields that have become depleted rapidly reduce output so their reserves are not being renewed at anyting like their extraction rate.

Whether there is much more oil depper down around the world - a different matter altogther whatever the original source of it.

Can't drill too deep though or we will awake the Lizard people as per Dr Who.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For it to be true you have to constantly re-write its definition, so yes it's a load of cobblers. Frequently believed by the same dupes who fell for the great global warming hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the abiotic theory was true, it would be enormously convenient if oil was replenished at the rate that we use it.

Now that's magic!

daniels_paul001.jpg

And cobbblers....

It's funny that Fred Hoyle opined that. He also argued strongly for the steady state model of the universe where it was constantly replenished at its centre. He must have just liked the idea and looked for where he could apply it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you cant create energy out of nothing, oil contains energy from the sunlight collected by the organic life form that died to form oil. You cant have oil magically recreating itself with no energy input

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you cant create energy out of nothing, oil contains energy from the sunlight collected by the organic life form that died to form oil. You cant have oil magically recreating itself with no energy input

Yeah, thats right. And the center of the earth, that super hot core and molten mantle is only kept warm by the massive surface area of the earth absorbing solar radiation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biological origin of oil is underscored by the ratios of Carbon 12 to carbon 13 in the oil.

Living organisms preferentially use Carbon 12 to Carbon 13 and this is reflected in the Carbon isotopes found in oil.

There is also to consider the fact that oil breaks down at high temperatures to natural gas; temperature increases with depth and so oil cannot be forming at some unspecified location too deep in the Earth, as proposed by fans of the abiotic theory.

So il has a biological origin and in the absence of many millions of years to replenish stocks, it is a limited resource.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite

Yeah, thats right. And the center of the earth, that super hot core and molten mantle is only kept warm by the massive surface area of the earth absorbing solar radiation.

This isn't true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, thats right. And the center of the earth, that super hot core and molten mantle is only kept warm by the massive surface area of the earth absorbing solar radiation.

It's kept warm by radioactive decay of elements! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking to a bloke at work re the Texas oil spill and he mentioned that it may be an almost limitless spill because oil is not organic - and there's a lot more of it the deeper down you go.

Anyway found thisMy link

It doesn't read too tin foil hatty, but I'd like to know what some of you HPC'ers think - I thought it was an interesting article, but I'm not a scientist - is it total cobblers? I'm sure you'll all let me know in no uncertain terms.

Opinion: The Evidence for Limitless Oil and Gas

By Bill Jencks.

+

Everybody seems to believe in Hubbert's Peak Oil Theory. Why do you believe in this theory? Within this article I present fairly convincing evidence that Peak Oil is a theory based on a false premise - that oil is a finite resource.

"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." Sir Fred Hoyle FRS 1982.

"The general concept of petroleum formation by biogenic mechanisms has been firmly entrenched for a long time, but there has been no accumulation of convincing experimental evidence in support of this belief." -- Charles E. Melton and A.A. Giardini, 1983

My own layman's view -- as we all surely believe -- has always been that oil and gas are both derived through the natural and lengthy decomposition of organic detritus. Therefore I've always believed that oil is a finite resource and that it will eventually run out. But recently - and after much hard searching out of the facts, my view has changed. If the Russian view that oil and gas are continuously formed or replaced from a purely physical/chemical thermodynamic process that continuously regenerates oil from ultra-deep locations(>9,000 metres), then the inference here is that oil may, perhaps, not be a finite resource -- and that there is plenty of it.

Oil and Gas Origins - Biogenic or Abiotic ?

Do oil and gas originate from the biological decomposition of organic material (biotic, biogenic) or do they originate simply through a natural physical and chemical thermodynamic process involving just heat and pressure(abiotic, abiogenic)?

It is notable that the whole of Hubbert's Theory of Peak Oil rests completely on the assumption that oil is biogenic in origin. Therefore oil is a finite resource. Simply everyone believes this, because everyone believes that this is a proven fact. I have also read that this Biogenic Theory directly contradicts and offends the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I became suspicious, so I searched all over the internet for substantiative proof -- and particularly the research articles in Google Scholar.

Evidence for The Western Biogenic Theory of Oil Formation

1. In 1757 Russian Scientist, Mikhailo Lomonosov put forward a hypothesis and suggested that oil came from biological detritus.

2. The main argument put forward by the Western Biotic Oil theorists is that biomarkers are always found to exist as organic detritus within all oil deposits, which is certainly true. But unfortunately, oil exists inside the earth, and is surrounded by different types of geological soils - which all contain organic detritus - and oil is a wonderful solvent in which to dissolve and hold this detritus. Also, and by the reverse argument, alkanes, kerogens and many other petroleum related chemicals have been found on meteorites - which can support no organic life. This can be verified by looking at the evidence at the Gas Resources website(read and check the links in the Introduction)and at this CNRS Research site.

2. In his paper "The Abiotic Oil Controversy" by Richard Heinberg which sides with biogenic oil (With relatively little actual quoted research evidence) has even admitted :

"There is no way to conclusively prove that no petroleum is of abiotic origin...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. But the important question to keep in mind is: What are the practical consequences of this discussion now for the problem of global oil depletion? "

The normal geologists view is that all oil and gas formation is biogenic from organic detritus. So I began with Wikipedia which indeed puts forth and recognised the theories of both Biogenic and Abiotic oil and gas origin. And although there has been clear, modern Russian research evidence cited for the theory of Abiotic Oil formation - oddly - there were no proper research citations or references regarding the Western Biogenic Theory of Oil in Wikipedia. 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.

Evidence for the Russian-Ukrainian Abiotic Theory of Oil Formation

I am certainly surprised to admit that there is such a large body of research on this theory -- and all mainly Russian in origin. But this modern research -- which is very detailed, seems to have been generally and surprisingly ignored by the West.

1. In the 19th century various abiogenic hypotheses were first proposed after advances in science in the nineteenth century by Alexander von Humboldt, Dmitri Mendeleev and Marcellin Berthalot.

2. Definition and Evidence

3. An Article called Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection to Biogenic Oil by J F Kenney(within the Scientific Publications Section). This is a detailed and scientifically rigourous paper which sets sets out to disprove all the various "fuzzy" assumptions for the Western Theory of Biogenic Oil Formation. This was the article that completely convinced me of the truth of The Russian-Ukrainian Abiotic Theory of Oil Formation.

4. Nikolai Kudrayvtsev's Theory(1951)

5. Abiogenic(Abiotic) Petroleum Origin - Wikipedia

6. "An Introduction to the Modern Petroleum Science, and to the Russian-Ukrainian Theory of Deep, Abiotic Petroleum Origins"(within the Introduction section) by J.F. Kenney, Russian Academy of Sciences.

7. In the 'Introduction' and 'Scientific Publications' section of GasResources.net there are many bona fide Russian research articles.

8. A Dissertation by J.F. Kenney(Joint Institute of the Physics of the Earth Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow). Here is an extract:

"ABSTRACT: For almost a century, various predictions have been made that the human race is imminently going to run out of available petroleum. The passing of time has proven all those predictions to have been utterly wrong. It is pointed out here how all predictions have depended fundamentally upon anarchaic hypothesis from the 18th century that petroleum somehow (miraculously) evolve from biological detritus, and is accordingly limited in abundance. That 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. 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."

9. Considerations about Recent Predictions of Impending Shortages of Petroleum(within the Economics publication section)) by J.F. Kenney

9. A Russian Book - 'Advanced Drilling Solutions' detailing deep and ultra-deep oil drilling technology beyond the Earth's crust and sedimentary layers to depths of over 40,000 ft'.

10. Confirmation that oil fields in the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin in the Ukraine are Aboitic(within the )

11. Peak Oil Theory vs Russian-Ukraine Modern Theory

Apparent Disinformation and Prejudicial Judgement of the Russian Abiotic Oil Theory

It is peculiar that there has been so little Western scientific peer reviews or acknowledgement or research verification concerning the utra-deep Russian Abiotic Oil Formation Theory. Surely this is suspicious and bears investigating -- even if you don't believe the theory -- because this would certainly remove the geopolitical effects and problems of the current thinking on oil -- that it is running out. Concerning this theory, I have also found some evidence of plagiarism, disinformation and misrepresentation of research data regarding the Russian Abiotic Theory by fairly eminent western scientists and western news resources :

1. Accusations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation of Abiotic Russian Research on Thomas Gold a well known US scientist.

2. Rebuttal of article "Fossil fuel without Fossils" (Nature magazine, T. Clark, 12 August 2002) by J. F. Kenney, V. G. Kutcherov, N. A. Bendeliani, V. A. Alekseev, (2002).

Conclusions

In the end, I have to agree that the Russian Abiotic Theory of Oil Formation - backed up by all its evidence, is far more likely to be the true explanation. And there appears to be little or no conclusive evidence to prove the Western Biotic Theory of Oil. But that leaves much unanswered doesn't it? For what reasons then - in light of these facts and conclusions - is the Peak Oil Theory being so heavily touted - a theory that is wholly dependent on the Western Biotic Theory of Oil Formation which - as I see it - is a completely unproven theory? Are Western geologists and scientists really that stupid or unfair or is there an underlying, hidden agenda and media steerage here - by the Big Oil Majors or OPEC - to perhaps discreetly encourage higher oil prices through promotion of a false "scarcity" of this resource by conveniently supporting the Western Biotic Theory of Oil Formation(now disproven and defunct) to so heavily promote Hubbert's Peak Oil Theory?

If his suggestion is true, then that actually makes things worse from a peak oil point of view, not better, because it would mean that the oil won't be replaced with more decomposed dead fish and seaweed in a few million years time.

We know for a fact that oil wells run dry eventually and we have to find new ones. As oil prices rise and technology improves then of course more marginal sources will become economically viable, such as the tar sands in Canada. But the only people who believe that there is an unlimited supply of oil are young earth creationists, and I'm not too impressed with their scientific methods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking to a bloke at work re the Texas oil spill and he mentioned that it may be an almost limitless spill because oil is not organic - and there's a lot more of it the deeper down you go.

Anyway found thisMy link

It doesn't read too tin foil hatty, but I'd like to know what some of you HPC'ers think - I thought it was an interesting article, but I'm not a scientist - is it total cobblers? I'm sure you'll all let me know in no uncertain terms.

First, whatever the source, if oil were being created at the currentl rate of use, then, by definition, every underground 'trap' geological structure would have filled in a geological instant, and would hence have been spilling oil at the current rate of extraction - 80 million barrels/day, about 10,000 times the rate in the GOM - and spilling this oil for millenia.

You''d think someone would have noticed. Especially when the breakdown of this oil took all of the oxygen out of the air. Basically, oil CANNOT be replenished at anything like current extraction rates, no matter what the source.

Second, although the reaction postulated is possible, oil generated at 30km depth where there is no such thing as porosity or permeability, the rocks being ductile, could never reach the surface - or at any rate not quickly enough to avoid breaking back down again. 'Deep faults' is not an answer. You don't get faults that deep except in very rare cases.

(There's also the more technical stuff about biological markers, and the fact that if you heat Kimmeridge shale with water in the absence of air, you get North Sea oil.. )

But if you prefer your conspiracy arguments, consider this: The western oil companies (BP, Shell, Exxon, et, al) used to own the best oil fields in the world, the easy onshore middle east. These fields where promptly expropriated in the 60s and 70s by the various national oil companies of OPEC. In the light of this, you might think that the western oil companies really would put OPEC out of business if they could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite

Is there anything you are not an authority on?

I have a degree in geology, so I probably am an authority on some very basics facts about the temperature of the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest theboltonfury

I have a degree in geology, so I probably am an authority on some very basics facts about the temperature of the earth.

I reckon you just read that Bill Bryson book about everything. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kept warm by radioactive decay of elements! ;)

Actually, I think RichB was sarcastically pointing out that sunlight is not the only source of energy that could theoretically create oil. Not that abiotic oil is anything other than böllocks though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a degree in geology, so I probably am an authority on some very basics facts about the temperature of the earth.

So you admit it!

You are a VI attempting to cloud the issue with your evil discredited science.

Facts shmacts, you just rely on your small minded belief system in 'fossilized sunlight' for your wages so you spread your lies to oppress the rest of us and increase the cost of oil so you can profit from making babies in the third world die.

I would argue further but I have a homoeopathy appointment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite

So you admit it!

You are a VI attempting to cloud the issue with your evil discredited science.

Facts shmacts, you just rely on your small minded belief system in 'fossilized sunlight' for your wages so you spread your lies to oppress the rest of us and increase the cost of oil so you can profit from making babies in the third world die.

I would argue further but I have a homoeopathy appointment.

Dang. My VI in reality has been exposed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 140 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.