THE ABIOTIC OIL HYPOTHESIS: AN INFORMAL SURVEY
The controversy surrounding the hypothesis that oil and natural gas are produced naturally in planets, and are not the result of the decomposition of plants and animals (that just happened to die in a heap), has heated up again. Frankly, I tend toward accepting the hypothesis, because it never made much sense to me that all this oil came from the source alleged for the fossil fuel hypothesis. The hypothesis was, as most know, first comprehensively advanced by Russians, and used to locate new reserves of oil and gas.
What interests me, however, is, again, the political implications of the hypothesis. That it would be given credence by Russia in the wake of the collapse of Communism is interesting because it's another possible signal that Russia was and is trying to step away from the influence of the Anglo-American corporate-banking elite, who have, of course, pushed the hypothesis. It was, if memory serves me correctly, the Rockefellers (who else?) who had a hand in advancing the "fossil fuel" idea.
Inherent in that idea is the notion of the limited nature of the supply, its scarcity. What always bothered me about the fossil fuel idea was, as far as I know, no oil exploration geologist made it a part of the rationalization behind exploration, i.e., he didn't think "Now, where would a bunch of dinosaurs likely have died all together and formed a pool of oil?" Abiotic oil challenges the notions of scarcity, and the paradigm that serves the large petroleum companies.
But this is not my purpose in writing this blog... My purpose is rather to find out what you think about the hypothesis. Does it serve the goals and plans of the corporate elites? or does it hinder them? At the very least, it is a debate that needs to occur, and by asking, I hope to contribute in some small measure to that debate... so, let me hear from you in the comments section; I'd like to know how everyone views it.
48 Comments
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.
It’s interesting consult the site below:
http://origeminorganicadopetroleo.blogspot.com/2011/02/normal-0-21-false-false-false-pt-br-x.html
Here are some papers that were approved just recently. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6843.full.pdf+html
Abiotic oil and gas is feasible. Deep within the earth it is not much different than a large Fischer-Tropsch reactor; high pressures/temperatures with catalytic reactions where simple hydrocarbons reform to long-chain hydrocarbons (synthesis). Also, peak oil can also be correct Some reserves can be replenished over time, some cannot. Thinking crude oil to be exclusively “fossil” is ridiculous. What can we say about coal?
Actually there would be a huge market crash if they proved the supply was endless..
Societal conditioning makes you want to say “too good to be true.” And yet, some of what you can read on the subject sure makes it look possible.
I’m sure that whatever you add to the subject will be well worth reading.
YES !!! I found the elusive Dr Gold interview I had posted a couple of years ago at RCH’s first forum. I thought it was lost or that it had been pulled-off the web.
Here it is and it is very revealing indeed.
Oral History Transcript — Thomas Gold
http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/28197.html
And this the key section where Gold is asked about his camera, the astronauts’ training, the photographing mission outcome, his questions to the returned astronauts and their incredible (incredulous?) response:
DeVorkin:
Now. you gave me a very interesting story about your contact with the astronaut Allan Shepard. Can you recount that now, in such a way that we can understand what involvement you had in training?
Gold:
Well, not very much, unfortunately, in the training, but in each of the first three missions that carried this camera, I had one or two sessions with the astronauts before they went, and would just discuss with them how to handle the camera. They had practiced the mechanics of the camera all right. how to extend the thing and so on, how to get the film out of it, because only the film came back and the camera stayed there.
So they were quite familiar with that. But I discussed with them what to photograph and how to use the camera in detail, and. as you know, the camera was absolutely easy to use, in the sense that it was a walking stick. On the moon it didn’t weigh very much — though weight is no problem on the moon — so one would just walk around with it on the moon, and only had to press a trigger on the handle to take a close-up picture of the surface. There were 110 stereo frames available, in the film in each case. It was vacuum film and made specially thin so as to get a large number of frames into the camera. We’d gone to great trouble in the design to make sure that there was absolutely nothing that stood in the way of pressing the button. No adjustments of any kind to be made, nothing had to be watched.
So we thought that we would get back a substantial fraction of the 110 or all 110, why not? There was not much work, while you’re walking around, to press the button 110 times. The three missions only brought back 18, 15, 16 pictures each. And even among those, there were brilliant pictures. There are some displayed in this building here. When you came in you may have seen them. They show remarkable things. Namely they show the surface having fine features in it that one still has no understanding of — parallel lines, curious details. It showed also some glazing phenomena. Some glass. in curious ways, is seen dribbling down from little lumps, frozen of course, but looks as if it had dribbled down, see, sort of like icicles hanging down from little ledges. Very curious, and very hard to explain what the processes were that produced this.
DeVorkin:
You had predicted a major, heat flash when the sun was in a T Tauri phase.
Gold:
I had said that heat flash from the sun would be registered on the surface of the moon more than it would be registered on the earth, because the atmosphere would easily absorb that sudden heat flash, and there wouldn’t be all that much to show on the ground. But in the absence of an atmosphere. a thin layer of surface material would be heated very violently, of course. Well in fact the astronauts, despite my discussion with them each time, just did not press the button, or only so few times. I don’t understand to this day what the reason for that was.
DeVorkin:
How did they accept you when you met with them and showed them how to use the camera and talked to them about it? Were they receptive, friendly?
Gold:
Most of them weren’t all that friendly. They always conveyed the attitude, “Well, we’ll do what we want to do, we’ll listen to you, but — “. They kept you at bay, mostly.
DeVorkin:
Now, before the first flight, before, I assume, you had any inkling that they wouldn’t cooperate, you talked directly with Allan Shepard and people like that.
Gold:
I talked to the first crew, with Neil Armstrong and. the other men, very little. The scientists who did the training program with the astronauts were, I think, exclusively geologists. I remember very well the words of the astronauts afterwards stating that they trained them in the sharp angular rocks of Flagstaff, volcanic hard rock, and taught them how to trace layers from one place to another, stratigraphy. The astronauts when they came back they said that on the moon they didn’t see any of the features that they’d been taught to identify, that the whole instruction that they’d received meant absolutely nothing to them on the moon. and they didn’t see anything that allowed itself to be traced in this way. They didn’t see any of the sharp angular rocks.
The geologists who trained them thought, up to the very day that the first Apollo mission went, that the main hazard would be sharp rocks that would erode the surface of the space suit, that they had to be careful in that respect. The moon room at Houston in which the astronauts trained in the space suits was a room of volcanic pieces. There’s no good debating now that it was otherwise. It clearly was the opinion of the geologists who did the training program that this was the best simulation of the lunar surface.
DeVorkin:
Was it people such as Eugene Shoemaker?
Gold:
It was, yes. They thought this up to the day they went, despite the fact that we’d already seen otherwise in the Surveyor shots. They still insisted that it was volcanic rock that was going to be the material that the astronauts would walk on. And of course I kept saying, “No. it’s going to be powder. and what you have to worry about is that the powder will make everything dirty and the camera will get dirty and with big gloves they won’t be able to adjust the lenses on the camera and the life plugs might get dirty and so on. “I made a lot of fuss about the possibility of dust getting into everything. And indeed the first mission did have trouble, when they wanted to change the life plugs over from the back pack to the vehicle, when they went back into the vehicle, they wouldn’t go in, and they were quite terrified for a moment that there was a problem there. The did go in, in the end, but then the second mission already had the clearances increased so that a little dust wouldn’t hurt that much.
DeVorkin:
Now. apparently then the astronauts were correct in coming back and saying that there was no relation to what they’d learned on earth.
Gold:
Yes, that’s right.
DeVorkin:
But did they follow the directions of the geologists?
Gold:
The training program continued as if it didn’t matter.
DeVorkin:
Even after the first mission?
Gold:
Yes. Exactly like that. After we already knew the dusty nature of the surface, I offered to build a correct experiment with rock dust of various kinds with the proper mechanical properties, vacuum properties and so on. and so I said. “If you want me, I will go to Houston and set up a moon room which is as realistic as we can make it, with dust.” No.
DeVorkin:
Who said no?
Gold:
Gilruth and the people in Houston. The furthest I got there was that I had one meeting with the senior people in Houston on what might be the dust hazards. But that’s all. There was never any attempt to set up a room in which to practice with the dust, and astronauts also continued to be trained on the rocks of Flagstaff. Crazy, but that’s how it was. They thought each time that they would go to another site on the moon and there would be hard rock. They weren’t persuaded that this dust stuff was all over the moon.
DeVorkin:
That it pervaded the entire moon, even the highlands. Now. after the first flight, and they brought back the camera and only a few frames were exposed, and of those none were of virgin ground.
Gold:
Oh yes, there were some photographs of virgin ground. But let me tell a curious story regarding, I think, the second mission. In each case I was allowed to be present at the debriefing when the astronauts returned. They would sit in their cages behind glass, because of this ridiculous story that they’d bring back the lunar plague or something.
DeVorkin:
Wasn’t that Carl Sagan’s idea?
Gold:
I don’t know. It may have been. Absolute rubbish of course, but still they were segregated from the rest of humanity. and so one talked to them through microphones in glass cages. So I was always allowed a certain amount of the time to question them, and I remember that I complained that we had very few photographs of the virgin surface — they clearly knew I was interested in the virgin surface — and could you please tell me whether in addition to what I can see in the photographs. do you have any descriptions of your visual impressions that you would like to make? And the first response was. “Well, it looked sort of ordinary.” I said, “There’s nothing ordinary about the moon. We just want to know really what it looked like.” “Well. now that you ask yes, there were some features that we could describe. There were three types of surface texture that we could see. One was just lumpy, just little lumps, like broken up lumps, of dirt. soft lumps, arbitrary shaped lumps.”
DeVorkin:
Not a pumice but a dirt?
Gold:
Dirt. yes, soft, so that you’d squash the lumps completely when you walked around on them. The other type of surface, well it was rather regular. It looked, they said “like a beach sand. as if it had been washed.” — very well. expressed — as “smooth by the tide, by the receding tide, and then there had been a heavy rain on it, so that it was all dimply, with rather equally sized dimples densely packed.” A very good description. I’ve never seen that ground, but at least it was a description that provided one with a good image.
DeVorkin:
Who provided that description, Armstrong or the other one?
Gold:
I think it was the second mission and I don’t remember.
DeVorkin:
Shepard?
Gold:
No. Shepard was the third. I don’t remember now. And I said, “And the third type of ground?” “The third type of ground, well, it had parallel lines on it, like the marks of a garden rake, maybe a little closer.” “And how far did such a pattern extend?” “Well. it seemed to be sharply distinguished from the other types of surface, had a definite edge, and some of those marks, some of those parallel lines would go down and up over the shallow little craters, undisturbed by it, and stretch as far as you could see.”
DeVorkin:
Fantastic.
Gold:
So I was absolutely flabbergasted. I couldn’t say anything rude in that circumstance, but I was absolutely flabbergasted that I had to draw such a fantastic story out of them! That they would not have come back and volunteered that. They would not have said any of that if I hadn’t fished for it. “Did you photograph any of that?” “No.”
DeVorkin:
Did they say why not or did you ask why not?
Gold:
Yes. I said. “Well, we don’t seem to have that on the photographs.” “Well, “they said, “we didn’t get to do that.”
DeVorkin:
Have you compared your experiences with other principal investigators who tried to get the astronauts to do experiments? What about the ultraviolet camera that was sent up by NRL that was to find the earth’s geocorona or other far ultraviolet things? Did you ever talk with them and find out what their experience was?
Gold:
No.
DeVorkin:
Did you know whether there was the same degree of non-cooperation with the other experiments? “
Addendum:
More on Jack Kenney can be found here:
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%27Jack+Kenney+of+Gas+Resources+Corporation%27&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
With regard to the paragraph of my transcript that cites the names of Russian geologists supporting the abiogenic origin of petroleum, various articles and citations by them and/of them can be found here:
Nikolai Alexandrovitch Kudryavtsev:
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%27Vladilen+A.+Krayushkin%27&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Kudryavtsev
Petr N. Kropotkin
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%27Petr+N.+Kropotkin%27&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petr_N._Kropotkin
Vladimir B. Porfir’ev:
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%27Vladimir+B.+Porfir%27ev%27&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_B._Porfir%27ev
Emmanuil B. Chekaliuk:
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%27Emmanuil+B.+Chekaliukv%27&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuil_B._Chekaliuk
Georgi E. Boyko
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%27Georgi+E.+Boyko%27&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_E._Boyko
Grygori N. Dolenko
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%27Grygori+N.+Dolenko%27&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grygori_N._Dolenko
Victor F. Linetsky:
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%27Victor+F.+Linetsky%27&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_F._Linetsky
Iona V. Greenberg:
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%27Iona+V.+Greenberg%27&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Nikolai S. Beskrovny:
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%27Nikolai+S.+Beskrovny%27&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Vladilen A. Krayushkin:
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%27Vladilen+A.+Krayushkin%27&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Georgi I. Voitov:
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%27Georgi+I.+Voitov%27&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Disclaimer: Over 3 years have passed since I did my preliminary research into this subject. I have copied and pasted my entire transcript here and have not had the opportunity to re-check the links to see if they are still active.
Here is another interview of Dr Gold published in Wired magazine:
‘Fuel’s Paradise’: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/gold_pr.html
Dr Gold was also the designer of the stereoscopic camera used by Apollo astronauts in three separate missions.
“THE APOLLO LUNAR SURFACE CLOSE-UP CAMERA has to be the ultimate point-and-shoot. It cost $1.3 million—and that was 30 years ago. Designed to shoot close-up stereo pictures of the moon’s surface, it was also called the Gold camera, not because it was pricey but because the man who thought it up is Thomas “Tommy” Gold, a British scientist who fiddled in his basement with a 35-mm Nikon and a wooden template until he had the proper angles, focal length, and other requirements for the moon camera’s optics. (“I took a beautiful picture of a grasshopper—it was absolutely gripping,” Gold recalls.) Kodak provided the technology and built the camera, known officially as the ALSCC; it was used on the moon by Neil Armstrong, Alan Bean, and Alan Shepard during Apollo 11, 12, and 14.
The slide pairs produced by the Gold camera, seen with a stereo viewer, show stunning 3-D glimpses of the lunar surface in segments measuring seven by eight centimeters (2.8 by 3.2 inches). They show what you would see if you could get your nose within about 11 inches of the surface, something the astronauts could not do in their stiff spacesuits. Altogether, the three astronaut photographers took 48 slide pairs, and most of them show a surface structure you would never imagine from standing head height. The slides are strikingly beautiful, but the camera, like its originator, was a source of tremendous controversy.”
Source:
‘Shooting the Moon’ – Air & Space Magazine, May 01, 2002:
http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/shooting-moon.html
I found the following part of the above article pertinent to the ongoing debate about the quality of and missing colour photographs of the Moon, shot by the Apollo missions astronauts.
Included in the extract below is this suggestive comment:
“Three decades have not diminished Gold’s habit of referring to the astronauts as “prima donnas.” He has a special place in the darker part of his heart for Alan Shepard, who “played golf instead of snapping pictures,” and has never really overcome his disappointment over the small number of ALSCC stereo pairs—48 total for the three missions that carried the camera.’
“Though NASA was pleased with the camera’s initial testing, the buck really stopped with the astronauts who would actually take the camera for a walk and snap the pictures. They were exposed to the camera in the training sessions, and Gold had a half-hour to talk to whichever astronaut on each mission was scheduled to handle the camera. And here the road was often as bumpy as the lava rock terrain the astronauts used for training. While there was no obvious hostility between Gold and the astronauts that could compare with the open and often expressed antagonism among the scientists, some tension was there.
Three decades have not diminished Gold’s habit of referring to the astronauts as “prima donnas.” He has a special place in the darker part of his heart for Alan Shepard, who “played golf instead of snapping pictures,” and has never really overcome his disappointment over the small number of ALSCC stereo pairs—48 total for the three missions that carried the camera.
For the astronauts, Gold was an irritant, and few would have said that he was the sort of irritant that produces the pearl. In a recent exchange of e-mails, Neil Armstrong answered “no” when I asked whether the astronauts resented Gold. But he added: “We objected to the camera being put on the flight very late in the pre-flight process without normal coordination.” Harrison (Jack) Schmitt, a geologist who walked on the moon with Apollo 17 and was mission scientist for some of the earlier flights, says much the same thing. “What bothered the astronauts the most was that this camera came in at the last minute and modified the training program. Most people don’t realize how intense these training programs were, especially for Apollo 11, where we’d never done it before.” He adds: “The only way anybody would agree to use it was to shoot targets of opportunity. If we had the time we’d pull it out and take a few pictures.”
Alan Bean, who used the camera during Apollo 12, has a different perspective, perhaps because his mission included no hurried addition of the camera to the checklist. He says he would have liked to take more pictures (he took only 15), but the camera was the last thing on the checklist before extra-vehicular activity termination. Bean reads that section of his checklist aloud: “Stereo close-up photos. Retrieve ALSCC. Deploy skirt. Photo: unexpected features, glassy features, rock-soil junction up and down hill, undisturbed surface level and sloped, rock surface, boot prints, LM footpad, material adhering to boot, craters and clumps. Put film in equipment transfer bag.” Bean adds: “We had seven minutes to do all that, from 2 plus 48 to 2 plus 55. Deploy the camera, get it ready, get the pictures, take out the film cassette. So you can see what kind of priority it had.” Bean also praises the camera itself, as it was very astronaut-friendly. “You could just put it in the right place and pull the trigger.”
A great deal more edification and raised eyebrows can be had by reading the entire article.
Some two years ago, in the course of my research into Apollo missions photographic anomalies, inspired by RCH’s research and before ‘Dark Mission’ had been published, I found an interview with him, that I regret to say I can no longer locate. Though I shall keep looking. At the time, I posted it to RCH’s first (or, second?) FB public group…..it may be lurking out there or more likely it is irretrievably lost – I refer to the one I posted of RCH’s board.
The point is, though I don’t like to quote from memory and without giving specific references, that in said interview, Dr Gold stated that he spoke to the Apollo 11 astronauts while they were isolated in quarantine via the module’s audio link and asked them how did his camera perform. One of them responded by saying that he only took only used a quarter of the total film length available and when Dr Gold asked him why he did not take more shots, the astronaut just shrugged and kept quiet.
Joseph, I thank you for your most gracious and valuable resource that you have given us in this your forum, as well as in gizadeathstar.com, your FB page, your YT Channel and your site’s Members Section.
I had looked into the subject and the debate surround theorists of abiogenic and biogenic origins of petroleum. Searching through my archives, I found this reference list I had made some 3 years ago. Perchance it is will still be relevant to the present debate on your board, Joseph. By now, I favour the abiogenic origin of petrol. Part instinct and part information.
Abiogenic hypotheses were proposed in the 19th century by Alexander von Humboldt, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev and the French chemist Marcellin Berthelot. Abiogenic hypotheses were revived in the last half of the 20th century by Russian and Ukrainian scientists, who had little influence outside the Soviet Union because most of their research was published in their native languages. The theory was re-defined and made popular in the West by Thomas Gold, who published all his research in English.
Astronomer Thomas Gold was the most prominent proponent of the abiogenic hypothesis in the West until his death in 2004. He cited the presence of methane on Saturn’s moon Titan and in the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune as proof of the formation of hydrocarbons without biology.
Sources:
Thomas Gold: The deep, hot biosphere. Copernicus Books (1999). ISBN 0-387-98546-8
Thomas Gold (1993). The Origin of Methane (and Oil) in the Crust of the Earth, U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 1570, The Future of Energy Gases. USGS.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021015163818/www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/usgs.html
http://trilogymedia.com.au/Thomas_Gold/usgs.html
Thomas Gold (1993). The Origin of Methane (and Oil) in the Crust of the Earth, U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 1570, The Future of Energy Gases.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021015163818/www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/usgs.html
Resource Geology 56 (1):
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-3928.2006.tb00271.x
http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf
Gold, T., and M. Held, 1987, Helium-nitrogen-methane systematics in natural gases of Texas and Kansas: Journal of Petroleum Geology, v. 10, no. 4, p. 415–424.
(No link available)
Geoffrey P. Glasby (2006). “Abiogenic origin of hydrocarbons: an historical overview”
http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf
“No Free Lunch, Part 1: A Critique of Thomas Gold’s Claims for Abiotic Oil”, by Jean Laherrere, in ‘From The Wilderness’:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102104_no_free_pt1.shtml
“No Free Lunch, Part 2: If Abiotic Oil Exists, Where Is It?”, by Dale Allen Pfeiffer, in From The Wilderness;
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011205_no_free_pt2.shtml
Russian geologist Nikolai Alexandrovitch Kudryavtsev proposed the modern abiotic hypothesis of petroleum in 1951. On the basis of his analysis of the Athabasca Oil Sands in Alberta, Canada, he concluded that no “source rocks” could form the enormous volume of hydrocarbons, and that therefore the most plausible explanation is abiotic deep petroleum. However, humic coals have since been proposed for the source rocks Kudryavtsev’s work was continued by Petr N. Kropotkin, Vladimir B. Porfir’ev, Emmanuil B. Chekaliuk, Vladilen A. Krayushkin, Georgi E. Boyko, Georgi I. Voitov, Grygori N. Dolenko, Iona V. Greenberg, Nikolai S. Beskrovny, and Victor F. Linetsky.
Source: http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2004/stanton/index.htm
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
(No link found)
Jack Kenney of Gas Resources Corporation is a prominent proponent in the West. He cites experiments in diamond anvil high pressure cells have resulted in partial conversion of methane and inorganic carbonates into light hydrocarbons, in most of the sources given below, as an example.
Sources:
Gas Resources Corporation – J. F. Kenney’s collection of documents:
http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm
Kenney, J.F.; I. K. Karpov I.K., Shnyukov Ac. Ye. F., Krayushkin V.A., Chebanenko I.I., Klochko V.P. (2002). “The Constraints of the Laws of Thermodynamics upon the Evolution of Hydrocarbons: The Prohibition of Hydrocarbon Genesis at Low Pressures.”
http://www.gasresources.net/ThrmcCnstrnts.htm
Kenney, J., Shnyukov, A., Krayushkin, V., Karpov, I., Kutcherov, V. and Plotnikova, I. (2001). “Dismissal of the claims of a biological connection for natural petroleum”. Energia 22 (3): 26–34.
http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm
Kenney, J., Shnyukov, A., Krayushkin, V., Karpov, I., Kutcherov, V. and Plotnikova, I. (2001). “Dismissal of the claims of a biological connection for natural petroleum”. Energia 22 (3): 26–34.
http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm
Kenney, J., Kutcherov, V., Bendeliani, N. and Alekseev, V. (2002). “The evolution of multicomponent systems at high pressures: VI. The thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen–carbon system: The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99 (17): 10976–10981.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/17/10976
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12177438
Chang-jun Liu; Gen-hui Xu and Timing Wang (March 1999). “Non-thermal plasma approaches in CO2 utilization”. Fuel Processing Technology 58 (2–3): 119–134.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0378-3820%2898%2900091-5
G.J. MacDonald (1988). “Major Questions About Deep Continental Structures”. In A. Bodén and K.G. Eriksson. Deep drilling in crystalline bedrock, v. 1. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. 28–48. ISBN 3-540-18995-5.
Keith, S., Swan, M. 2005. Hydrothermal Hydrocarbons. AAPG Research Conference, Calgary, Canada, 2005.
Abstract: http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/keith/keith.htm
J. L. Charlou, J. P. Donval, P. Jean-Baptiste, D. Levaché, Y. Fouquet, J. P. Foucher, P. Cochonat, 2005. Abiogenic Petroleum Generated by Serpentinization of Oceanic Mantellic Rocks. AAPG Research Conference, Calgary, Canada, 2005.
(No link found)
S. B. Smithson; F. Wenzel, Y. V. Ganchin and I. B. Morozov (2000-12-31). “Seismic results at Kola and KTB deep scientific boreholes: velocities, reflections, fluids, and crustal composition”. Tectonophysics 329 (1–4): 301–317.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0040-1951%2800%2900200-6
Gas Origin Theories to be Studied, Abiogenic Gas Debate 11:2002
http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm
I am a reader.
I first came across the term “abiotic” in reading: ‘Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil’ by Jerome Corsi. This dovetailed into my theory or power orhestration by the faction of elite families controlling the money supply/power source monoploy. Not only in wood, coal, & petroleum as they themselves evolved BUT in communications(media), and other venues. Abosulte masters of organization.
In combing the internet I happened across Red Ice Creations and a recent podcast of the despicable(also a Looney Toons fan, i.e., Daffy Duck) Banksters that Dr. Joseph Farrel articulated brilliantly upon. I then checked my library & found his most recent book they had, The Philosophers’ Stone Alchemy and the Secret Research for Exotic Matter.
The point to this is that it IS part of their modus operandi to achieve percieved scarcity. Control is their calling card.
For them war is not an aberration, it is the very purpose of war. In fact William F. Engdahl does some brilliant work on this in his serires A century of war. In it he show that the banks not only profited from both World Wars, they orchestrated the start of both.
In the Philosophers’ Stone I found the tie ins to what Dr. Farrell wrote startling. One the tied in with the early secret societies that are still very present in the halls of powers’ back rooms & off site get togethers. Another book that touches this very dark side is John W. DeCamp’s ‘Franklin Cover-Up: Child Abuse, Satan, & Murder In Nebraska.
It was great finding a scholar who gets it.
Although not all think as I do, Dr. Farrell is one who is right on target in his analysis.
As an aside I will mention that the Cap N Trade scheme on Global Warming is a hoax. A good article on that is: “There’s Money To Be Made”, by Ken Silverstein in Harper’s Magazine. Two good books: T”The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change” (2003) & “Slaying the Dragon-Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory” (2011).
In Dr. Farrell’s concern of the purposeful meme being spread on the coming 2012 end of the world, I concur. There are vested interests behind it who don’t have the people of the world’s best interest behind their agenda(to say the least).
Finially on the subject of memes there is a boo called: “Columbus and Other Cannibals by Jac D Forbes that discusses a disease called “wetijo psychosis”, the sickness of exploitation that has been spreading for thousands of years. It is extremely deep and goes into early religions.
Although this is the first time I’ve addressed an author in this fashion. The Dr.s work merits it from my perspective.
Great work Dr. I’am looking forward to reading more of your fine publications.
the Elite control the supply of oil just like DeBeers controls diamonds.For me its so simple there’s not much of a debate.Abiotic it is!
New spokesperson for global warming:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378178/Charles-Manson-breaks-20-year-silence-40th-anniversary-gruesome-Sharon-Tate-murders.html#ixzz1JttZ6ZOq
(Just adding a little levity here–don’t send me your letters)
Christine, you have some wonderful points, I just wish I could understand them:-)
A fantasy model: oil is the Earth’s blood and, like us, can make more blood when it has a bleed. Oil plays an important part in the cirulatory system of the planet, along with water, air and heat. The Earth makes more oil/blood in a similar fashion that we do… 🙂
I apologize to everyone for any grammatical and spelling erors in my post. it is very late at night and I did not take the time to proof read like I should have. That deficiency, not the late nights, is what kept me out of graduate school in philosophy.
It does not follow from oil being of abiotic origin that the theory of peak oil is incorrect, as has been stated implicitly or explicitly in several posts. The theory of peak oil is far more complex than it is usually represented to be by its oponents on programs such as Alex Jones, Coast To Coast, Camelot, Jeff Rinse, etc. The consistent misrepresentation of the peak oil argument by its opponents on such programs only lends strength. though not proof, of the peak oil position. I am no expert on the theory but I have read enough of the literature to know when their opponents are misrepresenting their arguments and it happens with regularity.. The amount of money being spent by the oil companies to fight the theory of peak oil would also, at least on the surface, seem to indicate that they are not behind it. However without sufficient proof one way or the other a plausable “story” can be created that they are for it or, just as easily, against it. As long as some concrete proof or rigorous reasoning is lacking any story can sound convincing, especially if it is consistent with a predisposition to the conclusion to which the story leads. The same is true for the theory of global warming. Personally I find it more consistent that they would rather not alarm us in any way so as to keep us in our trance-like consumer state of consiousness and not awaken to the dangers that both of these theories suggest are facing us. If we were to become alarmed, wake up and become active we just might start digging deeply enough to find out what they are doing. We just might find out that we do not need to be paying for energy at all. More dngerous than that is the fact that a decentralization of energy production would be a great contributor to our independance from the elite The fear of that occuring would seem to me to be of far more concern to the elites than adding an extra 10, 20 or even 100 percent to their bottom line. I think the elite would rather have the people believe they are making excessive profits than that we are facing catastrophic change. While this hardly constitutes proof, judging from the people that I encounter in my life the theory of peak oil is almost unheard of whereas the idea that the oil companies are raping us is easily accepted as the truth. As a disclaimer to this last statement it must be offered that I live in Kansas. That could very well explain that phenomenon.
Slightly off topic:
Oil: whatever the source, currently provides our power today and I fear for quite
some time in the foreseeable future. Global elitists aside, certainly they control
and deepen their pockets, but the problem falls on the common folk to cope.
Granted, we intuitively “know” other, much cheaper sources of energy exist. But even if those other sources were revealed tomorrow, how could they be implemented without totally demolishing a century long economic chain of industry built upon oil, from oil field worker down to the end user and the huge web of jobs (people) in between. It is nightmarish to contemplate.
Of the auto industry: I would hope some group of crackerjack engineers would
quickly develop the means to retrofit our cars and trucks, ships and planes to
accommodate the new “hidden” technology. But at what cost? But it’s gonna have to happen, perhaps in my children’s or grand children’s lifetimes.
Now if the source of oil is planet produced in the crust, I’ve read that it is very deep. And deep = big drilling $s. I’ll end with this. I don’t believe for a second that we’re running out of oil no matter how it is created. I think for the time being humanity must find a collective way to force the oil producers to admit the abundance not scarcity of oil and bring down the cost. I know I can’t afford the $100.00 it costs for a tankful of gas.
I think anyone who seriously looks at the evidence would have to think that the theory has far greater merit than the fossil fuel “myth” – that of course doesn’t mean their are limitless supplies but there is probably a lot more than we think and the resource is renewable.
However I also believe that there is a huge amount of suppression regarding “free energy” by which I mean tapping into the natural aetheric energy of the Universe. Also water as a fuel has been demonstrated widely. Oil is more limited and thus allows more control and taxing of the masses so whilst its probably a renewable resource lets all still push for freedom of information and better fuel sources. I don’t see all those UFO’s whizzing around on jet engines either and whatever their using I wouldn’t mind getting my hands on one for a blast!!!!!!!!!
I never went for the “organic” material theory about how oil was formed, either. I do tend to stand with the abiotic theory….and I think there IS plenty of it. The ruling elite have us over the “oil” barrel and obviously they wish to keep us there. If the abiotic conjecture turns out to be true I think it is possible that the ruling elite may hold that information they will no doubt use to further our dependency on “their” oil. How? I’m quite sure yet and I don’t think they are either. I believe they would rather not have to deal with it…it would be another set of lies they have to broadcast to the masses. Since it appears that, most likely, this controversy won’t go away, they’re going to have to use it to their advantage in whatever manner they may need at the time. Could this hurt them and their “world domination” effort? Yes, it’s possible due to the possibility it would reveal to the masses that oil is not in short supply but handled correctly (and I see no reason why it wouldn’t be), it could be spin put on it to make us believe just about anything….as long as we can have our oil. They surely are far more worried about the free energy information getting out than they are the masses finding out that oil is made by a natrual process and “there’s more than we thought!” and it was found by some “new technology” in the search for oil.
I am an engineer working in the oil industry in Houston. Within the industry, the idea that oil comes from the fossilized remains of plants and animals is regarded as an idiotic fairy tale, but useful for pricing purposes because it readily lends itself to the claim of scarcity, as others have noted. The world is awash in a glut of oil. There is no shortage and there never has been. Everything is lies and manipulation.
Perhaps the abiotic theory is being utilized as a simple Shock Test.
Input = shock…….. Response dictates direction of agenda.
It is yet another metric to determine the cognition and discernment capacity of mankind. It as well may be perhaps a way to palpate the level of consciousness and acumen of the population, to see how many are ready to shift gears to a new energy paradigm at best or at worst a means to rationalize continuing down the path of current energy production.
In any event, it does serve well to provide to those in charge with a clear picture of the collective consciousness of the public, and how to guide them when desired.
First I do not think You are getting a very good picture of popularity of abiotic oil theory in general population based this survey in this page. The people visiting this page are vastly more knowledgeable than general population. I can tell You that 99% of people in Eastern-Europa are never heard about it and see You as a nut case if you argue for it. It is especially clear in academia where you can easily make yourself a fool on the eyes of your co-workers.
By and large I agree with the points stated above- the main reason to hide abiotic oil theory for general public because it’s implies that earth is much more dynamic system than previously thought, almost a lifelike system or a dynamic free energy system. The behavior that is governed by very different set of physics laws than currently thought.
Very interesting comments here, thanks a lot.
A. I am not given to trusting of William Lindsey, or any other particulars, but he brings some very interesting new information and if it can be verified it sure makes oil a non scarcity subject, but rather manipulated, and strengthens Lysanders comment and Farrell’s Abiotic. So if we can find these documents W. lindsey referred to, it would be a revealing add to this subject.
http://endtimesdeception.blogspot.com/2011/04/lindsey-williams-middle-east-rest-of.html
52:26 min – also a very interesting clip from Nigel Farage MEP, co-president, EFD Group, European Parliament Strasbourg, 24 Nov. 2010.
– THE HIGHLIGHTS I am referring and should be verified if true.
The Crude oil bay Alaska oil potential has been suppressed for commodity a long time as he talks about. But the latest discoveries I did not know about is:
92 min – The Us Geological Service reports in april 2008, revised report from 1995, that: Dakota – Montana area – Bakan reserve, is the largest domestic oil discovery since Crude oil bay, Alaska. With the potential to eliminate all dependence on foreign oil. 500 billion barrels of oil, WOW. Worth 50 to 100 trillion dollar. And it is light sweet crude oil, cost of production 16 dollar per barrel.
98 min – Stanberry report, April 2006. There is a second reservoir. Hidden 1000 feet beneath in the rocky mountains lies the largest untapped oil reservoir in the World. It is over 2 trillion barrels. In august of 2005 president Bush ( the burning Bush) spoke of it. 8 times the size of Saudi Arabia fields.
Pluss two other big field in the Greenpeace protected Arctic.
Have any of you heard of this. I think the reports are true and they have known it for a long time. With remote viewing technology they can scan the crust in ways we have not heard yet.
B. Norway – Statoil makes ‘significant’ oil discovery with Skrugard in the Barents Sea, 500 million barrels of oil in just one well.
It seems more and more that the Nordic sea between Norway and Russia has enormous potential for new oil. Russia has also found large new reservoirs.
C. Without finding new oil we can reduce the consumption of oil by 20 to 50 % by Tomorrow—-, and the technology is very well known and simple:
You add above 7 % of hydrogen to the gas, or HHO Browns gas from water electrolysis, thus we use water. In this way the efficiency of the combustion get more efficient (20-50%, higher amount of H or HHO get greater yield). Hydrogen is a fast igniter, combustion gets faster and cleaner. So clean that almost no pollution begets not even CO, and the car engine will last almost the double.
CO2 is not a problem and never has been, the greenhouse effect of CO2 is not true, most of the greenhouse absorption due to CO2 happens at 20 -50 ppm, present level is 350 ppm. The more CO2 the more O2 and plant life will be produced. http://brneurosci.org/co2.html.
The greenhouse effect is due to water vapour and clouds, over 95 %, and the solar activity, it is a very rigid self regulating system with its own cyclical geo-rhythm.
Discussion:
I have not studied the dialectic between Abiotic or Biotic oil, and I don’t form my believes upon opinion. I wish I had some reliable science report to study, anyhow.
Added to your statements, and this information given here is true; is it not quite obvious we are being fooled, Occams razor. And just by these data being correct the, Abiotic hypothesis grows in strength. No way can I comprehend how plant-animal life can form such amounts of oil, neither do we see such happening today, as they decay into the soil components. Even a huge flood, with landmasses moving and heaping the biotic mass can form such huge reservoirs, operating at different layers and depths.
This is manipulation at super grand scale, and just by the case them pushing the scarcity, promoting the biotic paradigm and hyping the environment scare, I am highly likely to believe just the opposite.
Good job, Normann, my friend.
Quoted; CO2 in the atmosphere gets absorbed by the oceans then the CO2 saturated sea water gets pulled toward the core and super heated under pressure. Suggesting that this is how oil is made. We can burn as much as we want and the planet recycles it and produces more. A natural cycle. The anti-SUV, global warming nuts will explode.
What about Phosphorus and the link to oil production peak and a nutty nazi novelist?
Phosphorus peak about 2040
http://phosphorusfutures.net/peak-phosphorus
Oil peal about 2040
Guenther Shwab’s Nazi eco ‘policies’ in the novel ‘Dance with the Devil’
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100076404/why-do-i-call-them-eco-nazis-because-they-are-eco-nazis/
“One of the primary pioneering theorists on apocalyptic global warming is Gunther Schwab (1902-2006), an Austrian Nazi. In 1958, Schwab wrote a fictional novel built off of Goethe’s(1749-1832) Faustian religious play Dance with the Devil. While a few scientists since the late 1800’s had contemplated the possibility of global warming coming from industrial pollution, Schwab used Goethe’s dramatic approach to convert the theory into an apocalyptic crisis. The book outlines many looming environmental emergencies, including anthropogenic global warming. Guenther Schwab’s very popular novel was an apocalyptic game changer. By the early 1970’s, it had been translated into several languages and had sold over a million copies.
At one point in his novel, Schwab opines on the fragile relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Assuming the planet has only about 100 years remaining, Schwab frets over the continuing rise of carbon dioxide that “will absorb and hold fast the warmth given out by the earth. This will cause the climate to become milder and the Polar ice will begin to thaw. As a result, there will be a rise in the level of the ocean and whole continents will be flooded.”
You’ll note from that “whoulda thunk?” that I am not altogether surprised by the Nazi connections with the green movement and AGW theory. That’s because, during my research for Watermelons, I discovered how intimately they were bound. The Nazi obsession with “Blut und Boden” (”Blood and Soil”) and the quest for Lebensraum did not die with Hitler in his bunker in 1945: in only slightly changed form they continue to permeate green ideology, in everything from the worship of all things “organic” and the rejection of GM, artificial fertilisers, chemicals (and all the other hideous methods by which we keep the Third World from starving) to the fixation held by so many environmentalists from the Prince of Wales to John Holdren that there simply isn’t enough space on the earth to house and feed us all and that something must be done about population. (The only real difference between the Thirties Nazis and their modern eco counterparts is that they were a bit more honest as to exactly HOW they were going to deal with this population “problem”).
One of the many reasons, I’m fully aware, that I inspire such foaming hatred among the Guardianistas, Independent readers, and young Twitterers with their as-yet-undeveloped frontal lobes and their post-Thatcher “uni” era pretend education in non-subjects like “Climate Science” and “Media Studies” is because they seriously object to my use of the word “Eco-Nazis” and “Eco-Fascists” when talking about the Green movement. But the thing is, see, because I read English at Oxford – in an era when they weren’t giving away degrees free with packets of cornflakes – I was taught to write with a certain rigour and to choose my words carefully.
When I bandy about terms like “Eco-Nazi” and “Eco-Fascist”, I am not using them in the manner of the lazy ad homs I see so frequently directed at me by the ignorant, puerile trolls who lurk below this blog. I do it because they are apt. Furthermore, I generally take care – using a method unfamiliar to trolls called “constructing an argument” – to explain precisely why I am using those terms. Here, for example, are my thoughts from only a few weeks ago on Green MP Caroline Lucas.
There is a distinction here: when left-liberals tend to call someone a “Nazi” or a “fascist” or “Far Right” it tends to mean little more than that they disapprove of them and wish to tarnish their reputation without having to explain what exactly it is they object to. (We saw this technique used, for example, on the BBC’s disgraceful documentary about “Far Right” Dutch MP Geert Wilders the other night: if it had been made by Hamas it could not have been more biased). Those of us at the right/libertarian/conservative end of things tend not to use our terms so lazily. If we call someone a Nazi or a Fascist it’s because we recognise in their ideological leanings they same belief in an all-powerful state, in diminished property rights, in corporatism, in heavy regulation and against liberty and free speech which were prevalent in Thirties Germany and Italy. The Greens would have been right at home there. Especially in the SS: on Himmler’s orders, they ate nothing but “organic food”. Mm. Healthy! And so good for nature!”
2040
‘food’ for thought…..
MattB- Extremely well written piece.
There are all sorts of large private property rights associated with Facism and Nazism–Krupps and BMW spring to mind.
It’s pretty insulting that you’d claim otherwise. The simplistic equation that you’ve made: Stalinism equals Nazism just doesn’t work. If I want that kind of made up history all I have to do is watch Fox News in the USA.
I lean toward the abiotic theory myself. The whole “dead animals” thing is idiotic and totally unsupported by any known chemistry or biochemistry. However, the creation of petroleum by interactions in hydrocarbons like methane and electrical discharge is well demonstrated.
There is also a similar theory regarding water. Both were explored in Infinite Energy magazine when Mallove was still around.
Abiotic oil theory is very interesting on the surface but the question is the amount of time it takes the earth to make new oil. This question of the theory is yet to be answered or at least I haven’t seen it yet. At the very least abiotic theory frees us from the from the stand point of a different view point of how we view the world. If there is something else that we as a society can focus our desires on in the “belief” of a new paradigm breaking through, which has always happened viewing history, its just a question of “time” ie..when will the new paradigm come into being breaking the old. Then “big oil” will have lost their power over us. The issue is, we as a society can “believe it in” as some very enlightened souls of the past and present have pointed out. We do have that Power! As Dr. Farrell has pointed out with his conversations with GeorgeAnn Hughes on “The Byte show”, I know Dr. Farrell understands what I am taking about. 🙂 (By-the-way, Dr. Farrell thank you for doing those shows!!!)
Another thought to ponder is the amount of patents that have been closed off from public view for reasons of “national security”…hmm who’s national security, corporation’s security???? I have seen figures as high as 6000 have been classified in this manner. Gee I wounder what kind of gems there are that can blow both theories out of the water and usher in a new paradigm of peace and prosperity? As always with new knowledge comes the wisdom to handle the knowledge.
I think it is both. Based on what I have read and what I have seen, I think it is possible for both to exist. We are drilling and finding fossil fuels and using them that much is true. The Russians are drilling very deep wells and claiming that they are finding abiotic oil. Does it have to be one or the other? No. It does not. There is obviously room in the earth for both. I worked with a Geologist once who said that the professor in his Geology class at college laughed at the theory of earth crust displacement. This was shortly after WWII. Geology is a very young science so they have much to discover.
This theory seems largely discarded but not forgotten, much like certain unified field theories 😉 , I believe Fletcher Prouty wrote a few words about this theory and that he believed it.
Wasn’t part of the problem of this theory that it was supposed to predict other oil deposits and when this was being validated , they didn’t find any or they only found empty holes….now does that mean its an untrue theory or someone already went in at some point in history and pumped it just like we do today…
I think the amounts of oil resulting from the abiogenic theory is negligible, same for fossil derived oil. I suggest that given the extent of silicates in the Earth’s crust, about 74%, we should consider silicates as a candidate for micro-organisms deep in the crust transmuting silicon into carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen for molecular synthesis and ultimately for reproductive purposes, and only deriving oxygen chemically from the separation of SiO2. Trace elements are derived from surrounding rocks.
SiO2 —-> Si + O2
Si —-> 2C + H2 or Si —-> 2C + He
Si —-> N2
So, in a sense it is an abiogenic theory in that the raw material is silicon dioxide, but it is also a biogenic theory in the sense that dead micro-organisms under pressure are converted into hydrocarbons, nitrogen and oxygen, helium and water. Over time this process has created the Earth’s Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere, and the oceans, and the pools of hydrocarbons in the crust.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102104_no_free_pt1.shtml
“No Free Lunch, Part 2: If Abiotic Oil Exists, Where Is It?”, by Dale Allen Pfeiffer, in From The Wilderness;
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011205_no_free_pt2.shtml
Russian geologist Nikolai Alexandrovitch Kudryavtsev proposed the modern abiotic hypothesis of petroleum in 1951. On the
basis of his analysis of the Athabasca Oil Sands in Alberta, Canada, he concluded that no “source rocks” could form the
enormous volume of hydrocarbons, and that therefore the most plausible explanation is abiotic deep petroleum. However, humic
coals have since been proposed for the source rocks Kudryavtsev’s work was continued by Petr N. Kropotkin, Vladimir B.
Porfir’ev, Emmanuil B. Chekaliuk, Vladilen A. Krayushkin, Georgi E. Boyko, Georgi I. Voitov, Grygori N. Dolenko, Iona V.
Greenberg, Nikolai S. Beskrovny, and Victor F. Linetsky.
Source: http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2004/stanton/index.htm
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
(No link found)
Jack Kenney of Gas Resources Corporation is a prominent proponent in the West. He cites experiments in diamond anvil high
pressure cells have resulted in partial conversion of methane and inorganic carbonates into light hydrocarbons, in most of
the sources given below, as an example.
Sources:
Gas Resources Corporation – J. F. Kenney’s collection of documents:
http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm
Kenney, J.F.; I. K. Karpov I.K., Shnyukov Ac. Ye. F., Krayushkin V.A., Chebanenko I.I., Klochko V.P. (2002). “The Constraints
of the Laws of Thermodynamics upon the Evolution of Hydrocarbons: The Prohibition of Hydrocarbon Genesis at Low Pressures.”
http://www.gasresources.net/ThrmcCnstrnts.htm
Kenney, J., Shnyukov, A., Krayushkin, V., Karpov, I., Kutcherov, V. and Plotnikova, I. (2001). “Dismissal of the claims of a
biological connection for natural petroleum”. Energia 22 (3): 26–34.
http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm
Kenney, J., Shnyukov, A., Krayushkin, V., Karpov, I., Kutcherov, V. and Plotnikova, I. (2001). “Dismissal of the claims of a
biological connection for natural petroleum”. Energia 22 (3): 26–34.
http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm
Kenney, J., Kutcherov, V., Bendeliani, N. and Alekseev, V. (2002). “The evolution of multicomponent systems at high
pressures: VI. The thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen–carbon system: The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of
petroleum”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99 (17): 10976–10981.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/17/10976
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12177438
Chang-jun Liu; Gen-hui Xu and Timing Wang (March 1999). “Non-thermal plasma approaches in CO2 utilization”. Fuel Processing
Technology 58 (2–3): 119–134.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0378-3820%2898%2900091-5
G.J. MacDonald (1988). “Major Questions About Deep Continental Structures”. In A. Bodén and K.G. Eriksson. Deep drilling in
crystalline bedrock, v. 1. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. 28–48. ISBN 3-540-18995-5.
Keith, S., Swan, M. 2005. Hydrothermal Hydrocarbons. AAPG Research Conference, Calgary, Canada, 2005.
Abstract: http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/keith/keith.htm
J. L. Charlou, J. P. Donval, P. Jean-Baptiste, D. Levaché, Y. Fouquet, J. P. Foucher, P. Cochonat, 2005. Abiogenic Petroleum
Generated by Serpentinization of Oceanic Mantellic Rocks. AAPG Research Conference, Calgary, Canada, 2005.
(No link found)
S. B. Smithson; F. Wenzel, Y. V. Ganchin and I. B. Morozov (2000-12-31). “Seismic results at Kola and KTB deep scientific
boreholes: velocities, reflections, fluids, and crustal composition”. Tectonophysics 329 (1–4): 301–317.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0040-1951%2800%2900200-6
Gas Origin Theories to be Studied, Abiogenic Gas Debate 11:2002
http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm
Here’s a bit of info on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJdNqYeVwX4
Jerome Corsi, Ph.D wrote a book in 2005 called “Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil” in which he lays out the elites desire to make oil scarce so that it can be manipulated and used it to control societies. He also illustrates how the dollar is supported by oil by how much money is exchanged daily as this commodity is traded around the world. The numbers are mind boggling. And where there is that much money there is power and control.
The elites have done this same thing with other things such as DeBeers and the diamond trade where they have cornered the market and control it to such an extent that they can take a semi-precious stone like a diamond and make it one of the most expensive stones that one can buy.
Abiotic oil is anathema to the goals of the elite in that if the scientists and geologists were to renounce the myth of peak oil which by the way was concocted by a geologist who just happened to be working for Shell Oil, they would not be able to control and manipulate world markets for their benefit. We have got to remember that its about control. Once they can control a widely used commodity such as oil they can control the benefit they receive from that commodity.
It is the same with a “commodity” called money where the private bankers control the issuance of money thus control its value and they gain all the benefits of this. For this reason all of western science and media are on board with the “fossil fuel/peak oil” myth since they all owe there allegiance and livelihoods to this controlled paradigm.
Western “democratic” governments also support this myth since they are all bought and paid for by these multinational corporations which control and perpetuate this lie. Thus we see legislatures passing statues and regulations protecting the myth through the guise of protecting the “environment” and have a “green” low carbon footprint. All of which adds to the levels of control of the nations and societies that have a constant need for these commodities and by controlling the supply through scarcity they can pretty much name their price as we are seeing right at this moment. Plus by controlling the governments whose constituents are dependent upon oil they can nudge these governments into military conflicts that also effect the “cost” of the commodity.
Which immediately raised the problem: If Corsi claims something, that something is almost always untrue.
For me, the astronomical discovery of clouds of hydrocarbons floating is space [http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=hydrocarbn+clouds+in+space&qpvt=hydrocarbn+clouds+in+space&FORM=IGRE] and on Titan pretty much settles it. Now coal, full of plant fossils, does seem to have a terrestrial origin. Catastrophism explains that occurrence quite well, however. Destruction, rapid inundation, anaerobic conditions upon burial are all occurring today.
Last comment seem to disappear? Try again then…
Things to be considered if abiogenic theory is correct, which it isn’t:
1) effect on cost of extraction and refining?
2) effect on petrodollar? other currencies?
3) effect on trade surpluses/deficits and national debts?
4) effect on speculators?
5) effect on fuel costs?
6) effect on costs of derived products ( examples http://www.saveandconserve.com/2007/05/petroleum_based_products_a_long_list.html )
7) effect on environment?
8) effect on health?
9) effect on populations human or otherwise?
What are the goals of the corporate elites? to make profits? to control or dominate all life like Sauron? what does it mean practically for them to be in control? controlling behaviour? manipulating our feelings?
In any case, it may not make a difference if abiogenic theory were correct if extraction exceeds production deep in the earth.
Jay wrote: “In any case, it may not make a difference if abiogenic theory were correct if extraction exceeds production deep in the earth.”
exactly the position I took when I first heard of it, and is also the position of
someone mentioned at http://www.oilempire.com
There is one issue there though, eventually extraction rates would be matches with production rates, resulting in a yearly quota. This provides a sort of limiting factor on the petroleum economy. Given the list…
http://www.saveandconserve.com/2007/05/petroleum_based_products_a_long_list.html
… I would suggest there would be some products prioritized over others, in accordance with severity of need, and in accordance with alternative means of synthesis or substituted technologies.
Addendum, this sort of limiting factor will disappear if the likes of Titan’s resources can be tapped, and a Polymerization plant be set up to harvest methane and ethane and convert it to petroleum, if there is still a need for petroleum by the time such things are possible.
My take: It can both help, and hurt them. Help in the sense that it still gives them control (in a sense) over the direction of oil prices and a trump card to pull to remove the incentive to pursue alternative sources, but hurt in the sense that nations can now
A) Pursue this idea to it’s logical conclusions, i.e. search for oil in their own backyard, thus breaking free from the “Petro Elite.”
B) Perhaps take this idea and run with it policy wise, freeing up the market for oil companies to form and remove a large part of the market share from the mega oil corporations, thus rendering them and their influence (especially the political clout held by the Saudi’s and OPEC) less extensive.
Either way, the direction that our civilization is heading is going to need a much more cost-efficient, effective, productive, and decentralized energy system. An energy system that the one you and many other researchers believe exist, fits that bill perfectly.
I think in the long run it helps the elite. It buys them time. Changes the focus of people from panic about peak oil and therefore the need to come up with an alternate to oil. I see it as a trump card so to speak to be played when the fairy tale of fossil fuel has run it’s course. They are now in the process of running up the price and then suddenly when all seems to be lost, a new discovery! When oil is over $200 a barrel suddenly the revelation that they have a new discovery! The bigger picture is that they are lothe to disclose the unlimited source of energy in their hidden physics knowledge for the many obvious reasons.
I apologize profusely if my commentary appears twice- it seems my Email address is being compromised at the mement- could it be something I’ve written?
Hi Dr. Farrell,
thank you so much for posting your views- they are always greatly appreciated 🙂
you wrote: “it never made much sense to me that all this oil came from the source alleged for the fossil fuel hypothesis”- I knew you are a clear thinker- were there THAT many dinos to create a ‘bazzilion’ tons of oil waaay under the levels of found fossils?- if I recall correctly (and I definitely stand to correction) L. Fletcher Prouty (I viewed this on YouTube) stated that no fossil has been discovered under 16000 feet- oil drilling occurs much deeper-
you wrote: “it never made much sense to me that all this oil came from the source alleged for the fossil fuel hypothesis.” (see above under “clear thinker”)- yeah, to me neither-
you wrote: “It was, if memory serves me correctly, the Rockefellers (who else?) who had a hand in advancing the “fossil fuel” idea.”- wow, what a concept!- could we have guessed?- no, honey, look, you have never once mentioned in your books (at least the ones I’ve read) the (your) Rockefeller connection (please correct me vehemently if I am wrong) came from my latest posting sourcing David Icke- yes, I know you think he’s probably a “nut case” but what will people think of YOU after reading “Genes, Genetics, etc.”)?-
we need to keep things in perspective-
you wrote: “Does it serve the goals and plans of the corporate elites? or does it hinder them?”-
I think the answer is obvious: everything currently (and past) occurring on this planet suits the oligarchs- can we not see this?- if oil is abiotic it’s definitely an “open system” (to quote your concept)-
hey, Dr. Farrell, “keep on truckin'”- I just have such tremendous respect for your intellect, tremendous insights, relentless research and above all your infectious modesty- despite your incredible off-the-charts intellect and insights you are the first person to admit to “maybe” have made a mistake every once in awhile- hey, guy, we’re all subject to human frailties and everyone of us is a truth-seeker viewing things through a provided filter-
many warmest regards,
Larry
Abiotic oil, well perhaps, but one thing to remember about the claims for biotic oil: It’s not dead dinosaurs, it’s dead bacteria.
Absolutely right that abiotic oil challenges the scarcity mindset; that scarcity mindset is a subset of the claim that the second law of thermodynamics is universal.
Given the pollution from extracting, refining, and then burning oil, it doesn’t seem like a great energy solution, whatever the source.
Problem is that carbon based fuels are still most of the macro economic/ecological problem whether it’s true or not doesn’t change our problems. Though I imagine a huge stock market rally and hats thrown in the air if an endless supply is discovered.
Interesting question. It may ultimately be meant to serve the interests of the elite since they control production of said fuels. If there was a limit as in peak oil, and the hypothesis of oil as generated by living things would seem to support that notion, then they would lose some of their control. If you look at some of the deepest wells like Deepwater Horizon, it was getting oil from 7 miles below the sea floor. Can a geologist explain the necessary process for how a large portion of living things can be made to move 7 miles below the surface of the Earth and stay intact as a virtual reservoir? The elites need energy as do regular folks. They may have access to hidden and secret technology that they are loathe to make available to the public. If there were severe shortages of energy production and they still had access to as much energy as needed that would be a big arrow pointing at them.