links in the document - link:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/266424The Evidence for Limitless Oil and GasEverybody 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 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?
See my other continuation article "DeepOil, Deep Power and Deep Pockets". for further reading.
link:
http://digitaljournal.com/article/266747Deep Oil, Deep Power and Deep PocketsIs oil running out or not and is Peak Oil a true phenomenon? In this article I examine the dubious reasons for the promotion of The Peak Oil myth and the interplay between power, profit and money.
Within the broil of geopolitical opinion, political correctness, shadow agendas and trite, posturing exchanges between world leaders, it is certainly difficult to sort out the truth form the drivel. When we are told something of earth shattering importance by a mega-country politician we then always have to analyze and decode it. In its first tellings there is no such thing as basic truth. These political deliveries can usually be split into two areas of explanation: The Convenient Excuse and The Inconvenient Reason. Politicians always tell you only the Convenient Excuse which, if you like, is merely barely believeable propaganda. Try this formula with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, the US Polish Missile Base and Georgia and, if you look carefully behind the door, you'll find a damn good alternative rationale for their political actions and purpose -- The Inconvenient Reason -- such as aggression, dominance, greed, oil monopolies and a myriad of other power-play reasons to suit any type of Communist, Democratic or Banana Republic government agenda. Let's face it, there isn't that much difference between Communist and Democratic puckering or babble is there? And this certainly applies to Big Business too, and particularly to the Oil Majors which is what this blog is all about.
Is Peak Oil just a Convenient Excuse for High Oil Prices ?
In my last article - The Evidence for Limitless Oil and Gas -- I presented as much evidence as I could for both the Western Biogenic Oil Formation Theory and the modern Russian Abiotic Oil Formation Theory. Before I researched this, I too was a firm Peak Oil believer. And Peak Oil can only be perpetuated and true if you believe in the Western Biogenic Oil Theory which, from its very explanation, determines that oil is finite. But then I became convinced of the validity of the Russian Abiotic Theory and wondered whether Big Oil was perpetuating The Peak Oil Theory for another reason. Perhaps Peak Oil is the Convenient Excuse and Excess Profit is the Inconvenient Reason ?
Differences in Methods of Oil Exploration between the Russian and Western Oil Theories
These two theories also must govern how you find oil. Using the Western Biogenic Method, you are only looking for an ancient static pool or reservoir of oil within the upper sedimentary layers of the Earth's crust. This is an extremely difficult process, finding oil this way is very hit-and-miss as history has proved. This method of oil exploration, despite technology, still only has a success rate of 1 in 28 wells. Using the Russian Abiogenic Method, you simply look for cracks or fissures within the deeper igneous or metamorphic rock (called cap rock) which, according to the theory, leaks oil upwards through the hard cap rock into the sedimentary layers above. So oil can indeed be found in the sedimentary layers of rock but actually originates at much deeper levels below the hard capstone rock(as per Kudrayvtsev's Rule). Searching for oil this way is much easier - just look for faults and fissures in the tectonic plates as evidenced by volcanoes, mud volcanoes, earthquake regions etc. and you will find oil albeit at much deeper levels. Or you simply drill through the cap rock to the oil below using special ultra-deep well extended-reach-drilling techniques. This kind of extended-reach-drilling technology in regard to its difficulty, compares easily with space technology. Also according to the Russian Abiotic Theory, if you have struck oil in shallow sedimentary rock and the oil becomes exhausted, then simply carry on drilling downwards and you will discover more oil either in the sedimentary layer below or in the region below the fissured cap rock.
Evidence for the Russia Oil Formation Theory also abounds. Off the coast of New Orleans - in the South Eugene oil fields is an example. Several of these wells - in 300 ft of water - were found to be refilling themselves with oil. Further investigation showed that they were refilling from below and not from the sides or above. Other examples are the Vietnam and Ukranian oilfields which the American oil companies had abandoned as exhausted. The Russians moved into these locations and drilled deeper and found more oil. This phenomenon is easily explained by the Russian Theory of Oil Formation, but cannot be explained adequately by the Western Theory of Oil. There is also other evidence in other areas that relates to these "oil refills".
The Discreet Affinity of US Administrations to the Peak Oil Theory
I am pretty stumped as to why the US government still beats its drum concerning its dislike of Middle East Oil dependency - and all this despite the relevance of The Russian Abiotic Oil Theory, a theory that says - more or less - that there is still plenty of oil left inside the Earth. Both Bush and President Obama have huffed and puffed about oil dependency and Peak Oil, currently threatening to open up the offshore oilfields off Alaska and the American West Coast and hang the environmental cost. Bush and Cheney were both die-hard through-and-through American oilmen and are therefore closely aligned to the wishes of The Oil Majors(who funded and installed them into there positions of power in the first place). So, simply put, I just couldn't trust their judgements or their Convenient Excuses -- since they were both probably well into the Peak Oil ruse simply to prop up the "oil scarcity" fable for nothing other than profit.
Consequences of Adherence to the Peak Oil Theory
You want reasons ? Click here to see the current running total of the profits earned by the five oil majors(Exxon, Chevron, Total, Shell and BP) since 2003.
The current rate of profit for the 5 Oil Majors is $3208.86 per second.
