It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Oil is not of fossil origin and is inexhaustible

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:30 PM

Originally posted by jitter
reply to post by rickyrrr

Well ricky you had me up til the mention of Hitler.
Godwin's Law proves itself again.

I know.

It was deliberate


posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:33 PM
reply to post by StumpDrummer

Nope AFIK.

So maybe there is no such thing as crustal expansion.... huh?


posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 04:43 PM
Funny thing. That is always the "recognized" scientist which is aggressive. Someone bring up something to discuss, and the answer is "your dumb" "make researchs" etc.

I'm sorry but i dont give any more credit to mainstream [insert matter here]

So many lies and false certitudes. Our Scientists should keep a low profile instead of barking at people willing to discuss a subject.

Oh and please dont burn the OP so fast, this way we could have saved galileo, right ?

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 05:50 PM
reply to post by aorAki

I used to do oil & gas reservoir stuff in Calgary, Alberta, Canada
and Shell (Royal Dutch Shell Group) has reports in their own library
of the abiotic origin of SOME oil within the geostrata of today's
drilling landscape.

When drilling from the Top (topmost layer of soil or rock) to the
Bottom (Precambrian formations) , Biotic oil is a byproduct
of the carboniferous era which saw the enormous uptake of
carbon by the giant flora and fauna of the day.

Dead flora and fauna + time + layers of sediment + pressure =
heat = decomposition = coal = biotic oil.

That is a scientific fact where the above ingredients WILL
eventually get you oil (hydrocarbons)

Abiotic Oil is not oil in the organic-origin sense but rather
infused carbon within the lower geostratigraphic layers
(that has little flora and fauna-based biomass) which has
had hydrogen molecules added by way of chemical processes
more related to vulcanism and molecular integration
rather than the biomass disintegration found in the
upper layers of Earth strata.

On a chemical basis, if I take gaseous hydrogen (mostly as
sulfides) and infuse carbon into it with lots of heat, pressure
and crustal movement deep within the earth, i'll eventually get
long chains of hydrocarbons that will in themselves decompose
into shorter chains giving me methane gas, pentanes, hexanes, etc.

The longer Hydrocarbon chains that survive the geo-forces
will eventually collect into pools within deep formations
which can be drilled for. These HC (Hydrocarbon) formations
are at MUCH HIGHER pressures and FAR GREATER depths than
biomass-based HC formations so they are economically
unfeasible until prices go higher than the $150/barrel range.

In some estimates made by friends in the industry,
there could be from 4 to 12 TRILLION barrels of Abiotic oil
at levels that are located near or BELOW the Precambrian
strata, mostly near crustal boundaries (i.e. deep underneath
the pacific coastal Ring of Fire) and deep into areas
near magma chambers that have LOTS of gaseous hydrogen
sulfide and infused carbon within hard rock formations.

When volcanic cracks form near the magma chambers,
the hydrogen will diffuse into exposed rock containing
loosely bound carbon molecules to first form long HC chains
that break down under heat and pressure to form the
shorter chains. If the cracks seal quickly enough, the longer
HC chains will survive and cool enough to form liquid hydrocarbon
at a quality rating of LIGHT SWEET CRUDE (i.e. less than 0.5%
Sulphur and almost no sedimentary biomass) which pool into
many smaller reservoirs up to a few hundred or thousand cubic
metres in size that can then aggregate into large reservoirs
that can be cubic kilometers in size as tectonic plate movement
forces individual pools to merge.

While very deep, these pools are very viable in that they are
actually full blown pools of liquid hydrocarbon and NOT widely
diffused within the sedimentary layers requiring the usual and
expensive well injection to get it out. It's own pressure will
move the liquid HC to where we want to collect it.

This type Abiotic oil would be MOST COMMON in areas of high
vulcanism and rigid igneous (not sedimentary) rock formations.
Mostly right off the coasts of British Columbia, Washinston state,
Southern Alaska, Indonesia, Eastern Japan and anywhere else
DEEP and near crustal boundaries:

See the black lines and red dots on this tectonic
plate boundary photo to find likely places for Abiotic Oil:

See this page for a primer on Abiotic Oil (also known as
Abiogenic Origin Oil:

Depth estimates would be in the area of
8 km to 40 km down for Abiotic oil which is quite
a bit further down than the usual 1500 feet to
20,000 feet for many modern oil & gas wells.

It's a matter of economics, but one poster is correct that
there are ENORMOUS SUPPLIES of such oil down there but
it is currently NOT FINANCIALLY PRACTICAL to drill down
to 8 to 40 km.

For a more localized source of Abiotic oil, I suggest near the large
Caldera in Wyoming under Yellowstone Park at around
25,000 metres (78,000 feet or so) down.

I would expect that there would be in excess of a trillion barrels
of Abiotic Light Sweet Crude Oil within that area alone!

Now whether it's a GOOD IDEA to continue to BURN hydrocarbons
as fuel is a whole 'nother question in itself. But if we really,
really want and need it, it's there!

[edit on 2009/11/18 by StargateSG7]

[edit on 2009/11/18 by StargateSG7]

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 06:30 PM

Originally posted by StargateSG7
reply to post by aorAki

I used to do oil & gas reservoir stuff in Calgary, Alberta, Canada
and Shell (Royal Dutch Shell Group) has reports in their own library
of the abiotic origin of SOME oil within the geostrata of today's
drilling landscape.

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it. Starred.
I'm sure there is SOME abiotic oil and, well, there have been a number of papers on the same thing. My main beef is with the 'absolutionism' of the title.

What an interesting life it sounds like you've had (if I can glean correctly from between the lines!).

Keep the discussion going

In other news: I'm still unsure why people seem to have an inherent distrust of Science and scientists. Really quite baffling.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by aorAki]

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:11 PM
And to add to this debate on Abiogenic Origin Oil,
on a technical basis, the Planet Jupiter has enough
floating hydrocarbon chains such as Methane, Hexane,
Ethane, Pentane, etc. blasting through it's atmosphere
that we could burn it for MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF YEARS
before it ever runs out. Convert those short-chain hydrocarbons
into complex molecule liquid oil using a process similar to
electrolysis (i.e. using electricity to force HC long-chain bonds
to occur), there would be a pool of petroleum in the range of
crude oil which could power our civilization for millions of years
if we chose to use that sort of energy source as the continuing
basis of our modern civilization.

And since the Lithosphere region (boundary between
hard Crust and magmatic Mantle) of the Earth has the
right conditions for forcing Abiogenic oil synthesis via
the introduction of static electricity (from crustal movements),
plus hydrogen gas + sulphur & carbon and heat & pressure,
it would be almost an automatic conclusion that such hydrocarbon
synthesis of short HC chains and long HC chains to occur on a large scale.

Ergo...I suspect that my hometown region in Vancouver, Canada
probably has 10 to 20 Billion of barrels of Abiotic oil about 20 km
to 40 km deep into the boundary between the Pacific and
North America tectonic plates...and since that area is only
about 20 to 100 km offshore, we have the undersea
oil-recovery technology to drill that deep in an economically
feasible manner if the cost of oil rises to something like $150
to $170 a barrel US.

I still think we should be concentrating on other energy sources
such hot or cold fusion or even the esoteric Zero Point Energy,
but if necessary we could continue our way of life at the cost
of eventual severe environmental degradation by drilling
DEEP for Abiotic Oil.

Any Comments?

[edit on 2009/11/19 by StargateSG7]

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:32 PM
reply to post by endisnighe

Your source doesn't say anything other than that the conditions could cause these reactions to happen. It is likely that deep source methane is real. See, for example, Thomas Gold's theories and related evidence. Methane is different from complex hydrocarbons found in oil, especially those that can be directly traced to chlorophyll.
As to the reservoirs "refilling" as stated by the drillers, what is likely happening is not a refilling of the reservoir but a repressurization of the reservoir near the wellbore after partial depletion. If you think of the reservoir as a sponge and pump part of it dry, it takes some time for the oil and gas [this is called "associated" gas] to migrate back near to the wellbore.

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:37 PM
reply to post by StargateSG7

There isn't enough oxygen to burn hydrocarbons imported from other planets. It has been said there is more reduced carbon in methane hydrate deposits than in all other sources combined. Burning all of this would greatly deplete oxygen in the atmosphere.

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 12:59 AM

Originally posted by StargateSG7
...and since that area is only
about 20 to 100 km offshore, we have the undersea
oil-recovery technology to drill that deep in an economically
feasible manner if the cost of oil rises to something like $150
to $170 a barrel US.

Great posts and great insight

However, we now know that the Energy/Economy symbiosis appears to have a reset point somewhere under $147 (let's say $150) /bbl.
Look at what happened when we got to $147 USD/bbl in 2008.

Unless deep drilling technology can make some significant technological/economical breakthroughs that enable us to continue to access 'cheap oil', that deeper oil is probably going to stay put.

Addendum: the last few months, there has been increasing opinion amongst energy economists in particular, that the threshold for oil prices to maintain a BAU global economy is now around the $80 USD/bbl mark! What that means is basically we are at the moment, only several dollars away from kicking back into recession. If oil prices stay above the 80 USD/bbl threshold, we are once again heading towards trouble.

[edit on 19-11-2009 by mckyle]

[edit on 19-11-2009 by mckyle]

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 01:56 AM
reply to post by polar

Abiotic oil has been thoroughly refuted:

Can you argue against these refutations?

To me the idea of "inexhaustible oil" is a pipe dream to excuse and dream of a future of boundless consumption and materialism without restraint, when in reality such a thing is not possible, and without the bounds of moderation applied fast to our consumptionism, such consumptionism will lead to grave trouble.

Some critiques of my own:

But we never found fossils of animals or plants in oil reserves. This lack of evidence shows that the theory of fossil fuel is only a belief without any scientific basis. Geologists that spread the theory of fossil fuel, still have not submitted any proof of the transformation of bodies in oil.

When organic matter is turned to oil, it is broken down so that it does not leave any solid shapes: after all, oil is a liquid, so organic matter that turns into it must lose its shape. The fuel is the fossil, there are not fossils in the fuel and biogenic theory makes no claim to the contrary. That is what the term "fossil fuel" means, a fossil that is also a fuel.

- The oil reserves, which should be empty since the 70's, back to fill up again for themselves. The oil reserves can not explain this phenomenon. Can only be explained by the incessant production of abiotic oil inside the earth.

Why then is it getting harder to get more oil? Why don't the wells keep "filling back up"? Why do ever more desperate technologies and devices keep getting fielded to pull out more oil? If it's just "filling back up" then there should be no need for any of that stuff at all.

- Oil can not have 500 million years and remain so fresh in the ground today. The long molecules of carbon have would be decomposed. The oil we use is recent, otherwise it would have already volatilized long. This contradicts the appearance of oil reserves, but proves the theory of abiotic oil.

Why would it have volatilized like this, given that it is sealed deep underground? What would be doing the volatilization? And why don't the supposed even deeper abiotic hydrocarbon sources get cracked all the way to, well, gas? (As if it is, what turns it to oil when it comes up? I haven't heard of gas converting to oil.) I.e. why don't we just have gas fields, and no oil fields?

[edit on 19-11-2009 by mike3]

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 12:08 PM
Im not any expert in this topic, but I read somewhere that this "filling up" of some oil wells is because you suck up the oil only from the place of your drill, but the oil reservoir is larger and porous, and by sucking up the oil in one place you create a concentration difference which will cause neighbouring oil to flow in and fill the place of your drill again after some time.
Sounds logical to me.

Also, if this is true, then there is a mystery: how did the oil get there? It is composed of light elements which should be near the surface of the primordial Earth, like hydrocarbons on Titan are.

The same phenomenon, but on a solar system scale (probably coupled with some effects of the Sun), causes the excess amount of hydrocarbons on Titan in the first place..

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:51 AM
Ok, one reader suggests that more sources are needed on the subject of abiotic sources of oil. Well I've written a few pieces on the subject listed below.


Well Oiled
13 Dec 2004 ... Loosely connected to this is the abiotic theory of the origins of oil ... But briefly, the theory of the abiotic generation of oil says that ...
Creative-i / PEAK OIL AGAIN…and Again and Again and Again…(Pt. 2 ...
28 Jul 2009 ... Russian geophysicists had been building their abiotic thoughts after reading the brilliant German scientist Alfred Wegener, who, in 1915, ...
The Truth about 'Peak Oil'
6 Dec 2004 ... and for many years the Russians have been using the abiotic theory for successfully prospecting for oil. The importance of this cannot be ...
Russian geophysicists had been building their abiotic thoughts after ... Filed in Creative-i on the USA | Also tagged abiotic, Peak oil | Comments (1) » ...
Creative-i / PEAK OIL AGAIN…and Again and Again and Again… (Pt. 1 ...
14 Jul 2009 ... was posted on Tuesday, July 28, 2009, at 06:00 by The Ed. Filed in Creative-i on the USA and tagged abiotic, ExxonMobil, Peak oil. [...] ...

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:11 AM
reply to post by Solenki

There is also the issue of competition. The top executives of oil companies would know that there is an inexhaustible source of oil.

They would all branch out and form their own drilling companies. If it is so easily available they can pretty much buy any empty land and drill to find oil.

Since this is not happening on a world wide scale, I'll assume that oil is still a scarce resource.

However, it is an entertaining article. What would we do with all this oil? Maybe trade ETs for technology? Is that where this article is going?

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:23 AM
"Abiotic oil has been thoroughly refuted:"

Actually I somewhat beg to differ on that statement as I have found that
within the very report you have proferred up as an example as a refutation,
it does seem to mention that oil was found within deep well sources,
but just not economic enough to drill for on a wide scale basis and
this oil was found to have properties that MAY be consistent with
non-biomass-based processes of formation.

There is also substantial geophysical research reports within companies
such as Chevron, Shell, Imperial Oil/Exxon that have EXPLICITLY detailed
the LIKELY ABIOGENIC ORIGIN of such liquid hydrocarbon via
geothermal/tectonic processes. So I must treat the above
report with a bit of disdain when multiple 500 page reports created
by such multi-billion dollar corporations (and sometime offered within the
public domain I must say!) have shown that while the processes are not
fully understood, some logical hypotheses have been offered with some
backing by hard-science including the production of synthetic petroleum
and more general long-chain and short-chain hydrocarbons
using heat, pressure and electricity applied against and within
environments that emulate the Lithosphere and of environments
that emulate higher level vulcanism such as in magma chambers.

While rare compared to the actual unit volume of the Earth,
a few tens to hundred cubic kilometers of Abiotic oil is not
out of the question from a purely organic chemistry basis.
Ergo the original estimates from some rather prestigious
institutions within the corporate oil & gas world have offered
up estimates from 4 to 12 TRILLION BARRELS of possibly
available liquid hydrocarbons that might be found
deep within the Earth's lower crust, that while currently
economically unfeasable to recover would not be so
if prices rise beyond $150/barrel in today's dollars.

We cannot take ONE report as a valid refutation of a
theory of oil formation. All we can do is further research
and MORE TESTS to see if a true emulation of Lithospheric
environments on a consistent basis points to such Abiotic
fields being available deep within the Earth.

So far lab tests HAVE concluded that such
oil synthesis IS POSSIBLE!

All we have to do NOW is do some synthetic seismic surveys
that go FAR DEEPER and FAR MORE REMOTE than those done now.
Only THEN can we positively make a statement either way
as to the finding and recovery of Abiotic liquid hydrocarbons
that are economically usable and recoverable.

[edit on 2009/11/20 by StargateSG7]

[edit on 2009/11/20 by StargateSG7]

[edit on 2009/11/20 by StargateSG7]

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:56 PM
reply to post by StargateSG7

Where do you see that mentioned in the articles?

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:42 AM
reply to post by mike3

This line in my opinion says it all:

"Sampling has been done along the mid ocean ridges, and while the results
do suggest the production of methane and equally simple hydrocarbons from
the mantle, the amount is negligible."


The keywords are Simple Hydrocarbons which are short chain HC molecules
from usually DEEP sources not noted for containing the carboniferous-era
or organic-material laced strata that one finds in the upper layers of the Earth.

Short HC chains found in deep well holes is ALMOST always produced by
volcanic action or in areas containing extreme pressures and heat
(i.e. lower part of the Earth's crust or near calderas). In many cases
these are simple hydrogen/sulphur compounds caused by reactions
with sedimentary rock that has been pushed DOWN deeper into high
heat/high pressure areas by tectonic activity BUT those short chains
can also be indicators of long HC chain breakdown which MIGHT/COULD
indicate proximity to actual CAVERNS of liquid/viscuous hydrocarbons
created by electo-static reactions in high heat & pressure in parts of the
lower crust that are sedimentary in nature. Electricity + Heat + Pressure
+ Sedimentary Rock can form long organic chains!

If suddenly cooled by way of tectonic movement AWAY from the
heat source, those mostly gaseous forms of long-chain HC CAN FORM
LARGE pools (KM cubed sizes!) of liquid hydrocarbon such as OIL with
LITTLE SUPLHUR CONTENT (i.e. sweet crude) which is a valuable commodity!

And while we'd have to drill down between 20 to 4o+ km to reach that
type of oil, it's still POSSIBLE with our present day techology!

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:05 AM
reply to post by StargateSG7

Why do you invoke electrostatics in your proposed synthesis pathway?

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 08:09 PM
reply to post by pteridine

In order to produce organic chains of molecules, heat and pressure are not
enough! And simple oxidation or other molecular interactions are also
not enough to produce a long chain hydrocarbon molecule.

There are theories that life on Earth began with simple molecules
that were combined in new ways to form the basics of organic chemistry
and this catalyst was electricity in the form of lightning or electrostatic
forces induced by tectonic activity in the Earth.

And since there IS some evidence of long chain and viscuous liquid
hydrocarbon DEEP within the Earth, I suggest to you that our own
technology to synthesize such organic material using electrolysis,
suggests that large tectonic plate activity where multiple layers of rock
of different dialectric properties can slip & slide past each other forming large
electric potentials between the layers will allow single large discharges or
many smaller discharges of electricity to catalyse the reactions of organic
molecules into complex hydrocarbon chains up to and including liquid oil.

And because the rock where such reactions would take place would
be largely devoid of carboniferous-era detritous, the sulpur content
of the resulting long chain HC molecules would be very low...ergo...
a very valuable commodity!

We can create artificial oil in a lab using similar procedures
of heat + pressure + electricity so it is not out of this realm
that up to many Cubic Kilometre-sized reservoirs of liquid oil
could be produced by the MUCH LARGER processes of
tectonic and volcanic activity DEEP within the Earth
between 20 to 50 km down near the lower crustal boundaries.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:15 PM
reply to post by StargateSG7

Organic components in subducted bitumen would decompose to lighter hydrocarbons and percolate upwards. This would happen with heat, alone, and would result in methane, ethane, and small amounts of longer chain hydrocarbons. Possible synthetic routes that could produce longer chain linear hydrocarbons in quantity would require carbon monoxide and water [steam] at least. Look up water gas shift reaction and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.
Underground lightning is not necessary.

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 12:22 AM

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by StargateSG7

Organic components in subducted bitumen would decompose to lighter hydrocarbons and percolate upwards. This would happen with heat, alone, and would result in methane, ethane, and small amounts of longer chain hydrocarbons. Possible synthetic routes that could produce longer chain linear hydrocarbons in quantity would require carbon monoxide and water [steam] at least. Look up water gas shift reaction and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.
Underground lightning is not necessary.

In higher level strata, the reactions you describe are correct but one issue,
if I am correct, is that the reactants in lower strata are at much high
pressures that would prevent the reactions from taking place,
thus a more unusual form of catalysis is required to jumpstart the
longer chain formations such as the introduction of an electrical
current to break the bonds of some of the reactants to form
the longer chain molecules.

AND to illustrate the largest issue, the sheer AMOUNT of abiogenic oil
that is likely near the lower crust (based upon lower strata composition
and high powered synthetic seismic surveys that indicate extremely large
reservoirs of SOMETHING resembling a viscuous matter that is NOT magma,
performed by entities such as Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon, Chevron etc in the
later 1990`s) is in the cubic kilometres of size and water gas shift reaction
and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis require much LOWER PRESSURES in order to
even create small amounts much less cubic kilometre size reservoirs.

The problem I have is that I have no way to DEFINITIVELY PROVE
that the reservoirs deep in the Earth`s crust are abiotic oil because
those km+ sized reservoirs are 20 to 40 km down. We KNOW they
are NOT magma chambers and we KNOW they are not Gaseous
so it is LIKELY they are long chain liquid hydrocarbons.

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in