Swedish Scientists & Geologists: Fossil Fuel Theory Busted
What would happen if it were proven that “fossil fuels” weren’t the result of decaying plant and animal matter, were actually created within the Earth due to simple chemistry and you could not be scared into believing that we were “running out” of oil and natural gas?
1. Why the Big Lie about ‘fossil fuels’ was needed: In a video interview (below) Col Fletcher Prouty, former Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President John F. Kennedy. explains how oil was falsely classified a “fossil fuel” in 1892. Prouty reveals how that deception was advanced further in the 70’s by Kissinger and Rockefeller. Prouty also explains that Nixon/Kissinger/Rockefeller were seeking a ‘world oil price’.
Estimates of how much crude oil we have extracted from the planet vary wildly. As late as May of 2009 a report published in the International Journal of Oil, Gas and Coal Technology suggested that we may have used more than we think.
The idea that we are running out of oil is not a new one. Scientists have told us that oil is a limited resource which was formed millions of years ago by the decaying vegetation and biomass of extinct species of plants and animals. With an estimated 1- trillion barrels of oil already extracted from deep wells since commercial drilling began around 1870, many predict that we are nearing the mid-point of remaining oil on the planet.
But there have always been those who claim that oil is a natural substance that forms automatically in the Earth’s mantle. They say that it is virtually everywhere, if you can drill deep enough to tap it.
Proponents of so-called “abiotic oil” claim that the proof is found in the fact that many capped wells, which were formerly dry of oil, are found to be plentiful again after many years, They claim that the replenished oil is manufactured by natural forces in the Earth’s mantle.
Critics of the abiotic theory disagree. They claim that capped wells may appear to refill after a few years, but they are not regenerating. It is simply an effect of oil slowly migrating through pore spaces from areas of high pressure to the low-pressure area of the drill hole. If this oil is drawn out, it will take even longer for the hole to refill again. They hold that oil is a non-renewable resource generated and deposited under special biological and geological conditions.
2. New science from Sweden proves oil comes naturally from rocks: Until now these believers in “abiotic oil” have been dismissed as professing “bad science” but — alas — a new study has proven them correct!
Reported in ScienceDaily, researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have managed to prove that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated. The findings are revolutionary since this means, on the one hand, that it will be much easier to find these sources of energy and, on the other hand, that they can be found all over the globe.
“Using our research we can even say where oil could be found in Sweden,” says Vladimir Kutcherov, a professor at the Division of Energy Technology at KTH.
Together with two research colleagues, Vladimir Kutcherov has simulated the process involving pressure and heat that occurs naturally in the inner layers of the earth, the process that generates hydrocarbon, the primary component in oil and natural gas.
According to Vladimir Kutcherov, the findings are a clear indication that the oil supply is not about to end, which researchers and experts in the field have long feared.
 The abiotic oil formation theory suggests that crude oil is the result of naturally occurring and possibly ongoing geological processes. This theory was developed in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, as the Union needed to be self sufficient in terms of producing its own energy. The science behind the theory is sound and is based on experimental evidence in both the laboratory and in the field. This theory has helped to identify and therefore develop large numbers of gas and oil deposits. Examples of such fields are the South Khylchuyu field and the controversial Sakhalin II field.
In its simplest form, the theory is that carbon present in the magma beneath the crust reacts with hydrogen to form methane as well as a raft of other mainly alkane hydrocarbons. The reactions are more complicated than this, with several intermediate stages. Particular mineral rocks such as granite and other silicon based rocks act as catalysts, which speed up the reaction without actually becoming involved or consumed in the process. Experiments have shown that under extreme conditions of heat and pressure it is possible to convert iron oxide, calcium carbonate and water into methane, with hydrocarbons containing up to 10 carbon atoms being produced by Russian scientists last century and confirmed in recent US experiments. The absence of large quantities of free gaseous oxygen in the magma prevents the hydrocarbons from burning and therefore forming the lower energy state molecule carbon dioxide. The conditions present in the Earth’s mantle would easily be sufficient for these small hydrocarbon chains to polymerise into the longer chain molecules found in crude oil. |
Vladimir Kutcherov adds that there is no way that fossil oil, with the help of gravity or other forces, could have seeped down to a depth of 10.5 kilometers in the state of Texas, for example, which is rich in oil deposits. As Vladimir Kutcherov sees it, this is further proof, alongside his own research findings, of the genesis of these energy sources — that they can be created in other ways than via fossils. This has long been a matter of lively discussion among scientists.
“There is no doubt that our research proves that crude oil and natural gas are generated without the involvement of fossils. All types of bedrock can serve as reservoirs of oil,” says Vladimir Kutcherov, who adds that this is true of land areas that have not yet been prospected for these energy sources.
But the discovery has more benefits. The degree of accuracy in finding oil is enhanced dramatically — from 20 to 70 percent. Since drilling for oil and natural gas is a very expensive process, the cost picture will be radically altered for petroleum companies, and in the end probably for consumers as well.
“The savings will be in the many billions,” says Vladimir Kutcherov.
To identify where it is worthwhile to drill for natural gas and oil, Vladimir Kutcherov has used his research to arrive at a new method. It involves dividing the globe into a finely meshed grid. The grid corresponds to fissures, so-called ‘migration channels,’ through underlying layers under the surface of the earth. Wherever these fissures meet, it is suitable to drill.
According to Vladimir Kutcherov, these research findings are extremely important, not least as 61 percent of the world’s energy consumption derives from crude oil and natural gas.
The next step in this research work will involve more experiments, but above all refining the method will make it easier to find places where it is suitable to drill for oil and natural gas.
Vladimir Kutcherov, Anton Kolesnikov, and Alexander Goncharov’s research work was recently published in the scientific journal Nature Geoscience.
Abstract There is widespread evidence that petroleum originates from biological processes1, 2, 3. Whether hydrocarbons can also be produced from abiogenic precursor molecules under the high-pressure, high-temperature conditions characteristic of the upper mantle remains an open question. It has been proposed that hydrocarbons generated in the upper mantle could be transported through deep faults to shallower regions in the Earth’s crust, and contribute to petroleum reserves4, 5. Here we use in situ Raman spectroscopy in laser-heated diamond anvil cells to monitor the chemical reactivity of methane and ethane under upper-mantle conditions. We show that when methane is exposed to pressures higher than 2 GPa, and to temperatures in the range of 1,000-1,500 K, it partially reacts to form saturated hydrocarbons containing 2-4 carbons (ethane, propane and butane) and molecular hydrogen and graphite. Conversely, exposure of ethane to similar conditions results in the production of methane, suggesting that the synthesis of saturated hydrocarbons is reversible. Our results support the suggestion that hydrocarbons heavier than methane can be produced by abiogenic processes in the upper mantle. Other relevant studies: 1. Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, District of Columbia 20015, USA 2. Lomonosov Moscow State Academy of Fine Chemical Technology, 117571 Moscow, Russia 3. Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden |
Read more at www.viewzone.com
Trackback from your site.
Richard Wakefield
| #
Pure nonsense. Every single oil field can trace its origin to a biological layer. This is done because of chemical signatures. Oil also comes from sedimentary rocks that have a clear biological origin. For example, in Southern Ontario oil baring rock sits unconformably over precambrian rocks. Yet where those precambrian rocks are exposed to the east as part of the Canadian Shield, there is no oil. Zero. The source of the oil and gas in Southern Ontario cannot come from the underlying precambrian, which is 1400 year old eroded mountains.
Second, there are kerogen fields, the precursor to oil formation, that have clear chemical connections to lipids, which can only come from biological sources.
Thirdly, oil can only exist within a narrow window, called the oil window, of temperature and pressure conditions. Below the crust, in the Asthenosphere, is too hot and too much pressure to create oil.
The book Oil 101 explains the origins of oil and thoroughly debunks the abiotic oil theory.
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
Hydrocarbon byproducts of fission heat and elemental elements, forced thru organic sediments, absorb markers that are NO proof of origin.
“Why Big Oil Conquered the World” documentary at CorbettReport website
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
Tell that to oil geologists who use biological markers in sediment to look for oil. No one looks for oil in precambrian terrain.
Reply
Mr. Pettersen
| #
The Russians not only look for oil in these places. They have found more oilfields than the West have.
The Middle East is just such a place and they have lots of oil.
Biological markers only proves that the oil has been in contact with biological material.
Reply
Philip Copestake
| #
Most of the oil in the Middle East, e.g. the Saudi Arabian oil fields, have definitely been sourced from Upper Jurassic organic rich shales that underlie the reservoirs; these are sealed by a layer of salt. The biological isotopes in the oil prove that the oil was generated from organic matter, not just in contact with it; this is a complex process of geochemical laboratory fingerprinting. Please also justify your statement that the Russians have found more oil than the west have. Bear in mind that the largest oil fields in the Middle East were discovered by western oil companies, e.g. Saudi Aramco was esssentially a US oil company before it became state owned as it is today.
Richard Wakefield
| #
Explain the Green River formation, a tight shale (oil cant migrate through it) that has kerogen, which is a type of lipid. Impossible for it to migrate from the Asthenosphere tens of miles deeper. Rock is not porous enough. Abiotic theory cant explain the different grades of oil at different locations. It cant explain why oil is found in rocks deposted in shallow marine environments. Cant explain why oil is not found in sedimentary rocks older than the previous 90% of earth history (older than 500 million years). Oil is found ONLY in sedimentary rocks younger than 400 million years, the time of life.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Group think, Richard? Please explain how Titan Has More Oil Than Earth https://www.space.com/4968-titan-oil-earth.html
“Titan is just covered in carbon-bearing material — it’s a giant factory of organic chemicals,” said Ralph Lorenz, a Cassini radar team member from the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. “This vast carbon inventory is an important window into the geology and climate history of Titan.”
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
When mass, rote indoctrination is called “education”….
there is no “think” in group think….it’s just superstition…
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
There is no oil on Titan. Any chemical is “organic” if it contains more than one carbon atom. Even methane is considered organic. Methane isnt oil. Not all organic chemicals are oil. Not even close.
Reply
Squidly
| #
I am curious how you explain the natural gas on Titan, which there is more than what has been so far discovered on Earth.
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
What is there to explain? CH4 is easy to make, abundant in the universe. It’s also made from the decay of organisms, plus made during the cooking of oil.
Keep in mind simple amino acids have been found in space too.
Rosco
| #
Methane and Ethane are not oil.
Reply
Squidly
| #
If what you say is true, I am curious how oceans of oil have ended up on Saturn’s moon Titan. Please explain…
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
Not sure how many times I have to explain this. There IS NO OIL ON TITAN!!! Very simple hydrocarbons, yes. With 4 or less carbon atoms in the molecules. Oil is FAR more complex, with HUNDREDS of carbon atoms in the numerous complex chains that make up oil.
Reply
Rosco
| #
You are right but the experts here will never listen – they know it all.
Reply
Ron Weir
| #
Ive been in oil and gas exploration for 35 years, and now am back to to a PHd. In order to find an oil pool you need reservoir, seal, migration path and source rock.
The Duvernay is the source rock for the Devonian age oil pools in western Canada. It is an organic rich black shale deposited offshore from ancient Devonian reefs. It is now being drilled horizontally. the sweet spots have TOC of > 4.5 %.
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
“Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste” at CanadaFreePress, Sept 2010.
Some of the Learned have know about abiogenic oil for decades, and written publicly for years. We have been systematically lied to about everything….forever.
Reply
Carl
| #
Whether abiotic or not the current political push to limit globally the burning of hydrocarbons for energy by raising its price has nothing to with how much there is of it and how soon it might run out. Rather the psyche of humanity has been permeated with the notion that the carbon dioxide produced when hydrocarbons are burned is somehow bad for the natural environment (when all it does is promote more robust plant growth.) Therefore hydrocarbons have to be taxed in order to raise money to compensate those who are somehow being damaged by its use. This has been called “Climate Change Reparations.”
The global anti-carbon dioxide propaganda campaign has sadly been very effective. Many intelligent and otherwise well educated people that I know firmly believe that carbon dioxide is some sort of “pollutant”. Debating the origin of oil doesn’t address it’s condemnation as being an unethical energy source, i.e., if you benefit from the burning of hydrocarbon energy you are a “bad” person because you are contributing to the destruction of someone else’s ideal environment. You must therefore pay reparations in the form of a carbon tax to those whom you are harming by living your modern hydrocarbon powered lifestyle.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Very interesting article, explains well the disconnect between Russian oil exploration and the West’s preoccupation with “fossil fuels.” The ocean plays a critical role in this cycle. CO2 in the atmosphere dissolves in the sea up to a limit that is determined by sea temperature as per Henry’s Gas Law. (No chance of overloading the atmosphere with CO2 here). In the sea, CO2 mostly reports as the bicarbonate ion, and the seabed “leaks like a seive”. (No chance of an acid sea buildup occurring here). This allows the carbon to enter the magma layer where the conversion to hydrocarbons takes place. The hydrocarbons move along the Mohorovičić discontinuity until a suitable egress point is found and an oil deposit forms. The process is cyclical.
Reply
Jerry Kennedy
| #
I’m curious about how oil, in reservoirs far beneath the Earths surface, can be pumped dry and yet decades later, refill themselves and be pumped again at a rate proportionate to when first drilled? I’m also curious as to how ancient primal forests ended up thousands of feet below the Earths crust?
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
1) Wells are NEVER pumped dry. At best 60-70% of the oil in ground is ever recovered from a deposit (some are less than 40%). Oil isnt in caverns, it is part of the rock matrix. The recovery is dependent upon the porosity of the rock. Tertiary methods are used, where they pump either nitrogen or sea water (in Saudi’s case) into the field to boost the pressure gradient to get more oil. But the water cut from that is high. Not one deposit has been known to “refill”.
2) Oil didnt come from primal forests, Coal does. But not oil. Every oil field is from shallow marine environments. You would have to look up the geology of individual oil deposits to see the geology and how they got buried. Keep in mind oil deposits are from some 250-350 million years ago.
Read the book Oil 101, it explains all this in detail. Matt Simons’ Twilight in the Desert is also an excellent book on oil.
Reply
Philip Copestake
| #
I am curious about this too, because I don’t believe it. Can Jerry please supply references to these reports of such highly wells becoming more productive than when they were first drilled.
It is true that some oil and gas fields do produce more oil than was originally expected, but that is entirely due to the fact that the amounts of original oil in place are very difficult, in fact impossible to estimate with any accuracy as in early days of field discovery there is relatively little information available on the fields, as few wells have been drilled and usually seismic data quality is poor. It is also possible that the oil is still being generated in those source rocks that are supplying oil (“charging”) the reservoir, if those source rocks are still mature for hydrocarbon generation.
Reply
Ron weir
| #
Richard I’m with you. This article is the biggest piece of junk science I have read in quite a while. My current research is on the Duvernay formation, the source rock for all of the Devonian oil found in Western Canada.
Reply
John Doran
| #
When one realises that ~ 16,000ft is about the deepest any fossil has been found & that oil is regularly drilled at 30,000 to 35,000ft, one has to question oil as fossil fuel.
I used the http://www.duckduckgo.com search engine & put in Thomas Gold Abiotic Oil & got many results.
A top mind like Fred Hoyle pooh-poohed fossil oil.
When you realise that the Rothschild/Rockefeller cabal the Khazarian Mafia, are capable of magicking debt out of thin air & persuading us that it’s money. you kind of suspect that many more deceptions have been foisted on us. Even the two directors of the small German bank did not know they were creating debt out of thin air. This is the formula to enslave individuals & countries to debt:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001070?via%3Dihub
This fraud is what is unsustainable, not man-made CO2.
Read the abstract & the conclusion no 2.
The body of the paper shows how thorough a job this chap did.
Reply
Philip Copestake
| #
the statement by Mr Doran that no fossils have been found deeper than 16000ft is untrue. I have been working on well successions in the oil industry for many years and have myself found many fossils deeper than that.
One problem with the original article here is the way it is reported by sites such as this website. All the uncertainties of the original research become converted into definite statements. The concept of abiogenic origin of hydrocarbons from the mantle is just a theory. What is needed is someone to drill an exploration well in an area where there is no possibility of conventional oil being formed (there are many such areas around the world), e.g. in deep basement rocks, to test the theory, and then carry out geochemical analysis of any found oil to type it to a possible source; it should be relatively easy to see then whether any of the molecular composition of any such oil has a biological signature (distinctive isotopes that characterise biological origin). That will prove the theory; until then, it remains just a theory.
Reply
Philip Copestake
| #
I too have been working in the oil and gas industry for a long while, nearly 40 years. There is no Rockerfeller inspired conspiracy to create the “false” idea that oil is generated from natural heating of organic matter (of biological origin). It is simply that there is a huge amount of evidence and data to support the well established concept that oil and gas are generated by heating of organic matter (held in organic rich rocks, typically shales, termed source rocks), either of marine origin (that generates oil, and later, gas if heated even further) or land orgin (i.e. land plants; this generates gas). This is undobtedly true, as is proven by geochemical “fingerprinting” of oil chemistry with the chemical signature of the source rock, in many, many oil and gas fields the world over. The abiogenic theory is just a theory and isn’t proven; it may generate some oil of course, but it doesn’t overturn the concept that oil and gas are generated from oil and gas source rocks rich in organic matter. This is the fossil fuel concept; the organic matter that is the origin of the oil and gas originates from fossils. But these are not dinosaurs or anything like that, they are microscopic algae (of marine origin, leading to oil generation) or land plant matter (leaves, cuticle, spores etc), derived from land plants. Coal is also formed in this way and ultimately coal, if buried sufficiently deeply, will itself generate gas.
It is possible to find oil in very old rocks, if the source rock is near a basement block, of say, granite, the oil can accumulate in the granite, if it is fissured (i.e. has cracks in it); this is no mystery and is well known; there are fields in the UK (West of Shetland, Lancaster Field) and Vietnam (Bach Ho) with oil in fractured basement of this nature.
It is not true either to say that oil and gas have all been generated in the past and are no longer being generated. Source rocks are today generating oil and gas in subsurface reservoirs, and will continue to do so in the future. Sediments on the sea bed today, rich in organic matter, will become, when buried over millennia, again generate oil and gas. When these fuels are burned, the organic compounds are given off, some as CO2, which is then reused by plants to build plant matter; which will be buried in sediments to start the cycle again; this is the Carbon Cycle and is entirely natural and has been ongoing for millions of years. So there will be oil and gas in the future, however, we are clearly using it faster than it is being generated naturally, so it will run out (at least the ability to extract it economically will run out), so we do have to find alternative supplies of energy, there is no doubt. Unfortunately wind and solar will not provide what we need to support our advanced civilisation and all efforts need to go into finding an alternative energy source. That is the elephant in the room that few appear to be willing to face up to. That and the need to treasure and conserve existing fossil fuel supplies, because they are very precious and valuable. It is a travesty that oil is used for useless materials such as food packaging, and many other low value items such as cheap plastic. CO2 is not a pollutant but is the key to life.
I feel better now I’ve said all that!
Reply
Philip Copestake
| #
I suggest that this site, though I much appreciate the general content, refrains from such sensational, tabloid style headlines as “fossil fuel theory busted”. In this case the fossil fuel theory (which is in fact “fact” not “theory”) is very much not busted by this particular article, which is itself a theory and definitely not proven. Even if it does turn out that it is possible to generate hydrocarbons via abiotic means, this does not mean that the well documented and natural process of oil and gas generation from fossil sources has to be wrong; both processes may be operable. Neither necessarily cancels the other.
Reply