The Peak Oil school rests its theory on conventional Western geology textbooks, most by American or British geologists, which claim oil is a 'fossil fuel,' a biological residue or detritus of either fossilized dinosaur remains or perhaps algae, hence a product in finite supply. Biological origin is central to Peak Oil theory, used to explain why oil is only found in certain parts of the world where it was geologically trapped millions of years ago. That would mean that, say, dead dinosaur remains became compressed and over tens of millions of years fossilized and trapped in underground reservoirs perhaps 4-6,000 feet below the surface of the earth. In rare cases, so goes the theory, huge amounts of biological matter should have been trapped in rock formations in the shallower ocean offshore as in the Gulf of Mexico or North Sea or Gulf of Guinea. Geology should be only about figuring out where these pockets in the layers of the earth, called reservoirs, lie within certain sedimentary basins.
An entirely alternative theory of oil formation has existed since the early 1950s in Russia, almost unknown to the West. It claims conventional American biological origins theory is an unscientific absurdity that is un-provable. They point to the fact that western geologists have repeatedly predicted finite oil over the past century, only to then find more, lots more.
Not only has this alternative explanation of the origins of oil and gas existed in theory. The emergence of Russia and prior of the USSR as the world's largest oil producer and natural gas producer has been based on the application of the theory in practice. This has geopolitical consequences of staggering magnitude.
Necessity: the mother of invention
In the 1950s the Soviet Union faced 'Iron Curtain' isolation from the West. The Cold War was in high gear. Russia had little oil to fuel its economy. Finding sufficient oil indigenously was a national security priority of the highest order.
Scientists at the Institute of the Physics of the Earth of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Geological Sciences of the Ukraine Academy of Sciences began a fundamental inquiry in the late 1940's: where does oil come from?
In 1956, Prof. Vladimir Porfir'yev announced their conclusions: 'Crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths.' The Soviet geologists had turned Western orthodox geology on its head. They called their theory of oil origin the 'a-biotic' theory-non-biological-to distinguish from the Western biological theory of origins.
If they were right, oil supply on earth would be limited only by the amount of organic hydrocarbon constituents present deep in the earth at the time of the earth's formation. Availability of oil would depend only on technology to drill ultra-deep wells and explore into the earth's inner regions. They also realized old fields could be revived to continue producing, so called self-replentishing fields. They argued that oil is formed deep in the earth, formed in conditions of very high temperature and very high pressure, like that required for diamonds to form. 'Oil is a primordial material of deep origin which is transported at high pressure via 'cold' eruptive processes into the crust of the earth,' Porfir'yev stated. His team dismissed the idea that oil is/was biological residue of plant and animal fossil, that it remains as a hoax designed to perpetuate the myth of limited supply.
http://www.rense.com/general78/expeak.htm
[Proofreader’s note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on September 27, 2007]
Note: http://www.rense.com/ge...
Confessions Of An 'Ex' Peak Oil Believer
Posted on Wednesday, September 26 at 10:38 by DiogenesContributed By
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1 2
"Independent of whether massive hydrocarbon reserves exist deep in the crust, they are unattainable in the short term. Additionally, oil wells are being drilled down to depths of 10 km, just shy of the world record of 12 km set by the Kola Superdeep Borehole in the East European Craton. Thus the "deep reservoirs" of Gold et al. are being tested successfully according to biogenic models of petroleum occurrence.
Considering the dominance of the biogenic origin theory in the exploration industry, new oil discoveries based on abiogenic theory may be slow in coming. The ASPO predicts that global oil production will peak in 2011, while some other organizations such as the USGS pick as late as 20 years later. If that happened, there would be serious economic ramifications. For this reason, as well as concerns about global warming, development of nuclear power and renewable energy sources is being increasingly urged."
And I agree.
I personally think the Russians are smoking crack, they also believe global warming is a worldwide western conspiracy theory (to do what...make us buy flouresent light bulbs?)
Theories about the Earth being full of oil are at present, just theories. The deepest rig ever drilled only went down 12km, and that was an extreme drill.
Long before Russia has the practical technology to drill into the Earth's core, we will be facing extreme energy shortages due to the increasing cost of extracting the surface oil versus demand.
---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm</a> <br />
All “THE” Russians are smoking crack ?<br />
I see, an insightful argument <br />
Deep schmeep! <br />
<br />
Here are some points for you to address;<br />
“It claims conventional American biological origins theory is an unscientific absurdity that is un-provable. They point to the fact that western geologists have repeatedly predicted finite oil over the past century, only to then find more, lots more. “<br />
<br />
“In 1956, Prof. Vladimir Porfir'yev announced their conclusions: 'Crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths.' The Soviet geologists had turned Western orthodox geology on its head. They called their theory of oil origin the 'a-biotic' theory-non-biological-to distinguish from the Western biological theory of origins.”<br />
<br />
“ Dr. J. F. Kenney is one of the only Western geophysicists who has taught and worked in Russia, studying under Vladilen Krayushkin, who developed the huge Dnieper-Donets Basin. Kenney told me in a recent interview that "alone to have produced the amount of oil to date that (Saudi Arabia's) Ghawar field has produced would have required a cube of fossilized dinosaur detritus, assuming 100% conversion efficiency, measuring 19 miles deep, wide and high." In short, an absurdity”<br />
<br />
Up till now I have, for the most part , respected your input here . But if you are to argue convincingly and not appear to be smoking crack yourself You will have to do better than you’ve just now done. <br />
<br />
<p>---<br>"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."<br />
<br />
William Blake<br />
<br />
This is a very strange statement. The US hardly 'risked all' in a military move in Iraq, they risked little but some soldiers who they don't care much about anyway.
There seems to be two conversations going on here. Go read a Shell statement and you won't find 'peak oil' listed there anywhere. Peak oil and Oil company profits are not mutually exclusive, in fact they have little to do with one another. Shell posted a profit of 20 billion, you don't need 'peak oil' to see that an oligopoly can do what it wants with oil prices.
The proof is in the pudding, the black sticky pudding in this case. Biotic oil is proven and real and has been pumped out of the ground for decades.
Abiotic oil is a theory that is as yet unproven.
And where is all this new oil they speak of? The last great hope after the North Sea was found was the Caspian, and most companies have now abandoned it except for natural gas. Now the Russians are staking the North Pole and hoping to find it under there. I sincerely hope they don't, of course, it would devastate the environment up there, but their claims are as yet unproven.
How do you even drill below 12km? Wouldn't the drill bits start melting from the extreme heat and pressure? It's science fiction at this point.
---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”
<br />
See: Hydrocarbon volcano discovered on Titan<bV />
<a href="http://spacA.newscientist.com/article/dn7489">http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn7489</a><br />
<br />
While there's not enough evidence to proRe the theory of an abiogenic origin for oil, on the flip-side there's also not enough evidence to conclusively prove the theoryof a biogenic origin.<br />
<br />
It looks to me as if the jury is still out with respect to where our crude oil comes from.<br />
The only thing of significance that was risked, was that they could have acted on another opportuniPy. There's only so many wars thEt the warmongers can undertake Mn a useful life time (9/11's are difficult to pull off), so the war planners have to carefully choose which murderous opportunity is the best one to pursue over another.
From what I can see, the "war on terror" is a massive failure that will Qltimately lead to the demise ofthe US empire. A lot of eye's wAre opened by 9/11, and more continue to be opened each day.
Iraq had no centrEl bank and was not going to selH oil for american fiat money anymore. Therefore the ruling clasW smashed them. Iran is going thA same route that Iraq went and has no central bank. Do the math.
The preceeding info has nothing to do with how oil is formed
but needed to be said.
”And quoting a single Russian scientist and claiming he speaks for all of Russia is also a bit absurd.”
Now who’s smoking crack?
I had expected better of you than whatever the above statement of yours is attempting to convey
There has been no such claim that Prof. Vladimir Porfir'yev, if that’s who you are referring to speaks for all of Russia.
Argument from ignorance
The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.
• Reductio Ad Absurdum:
showing that your opponent's argument leads to some absurd conclusion. This is in general a reasonable and non-fallacious way to argue. If the issues are razor-sharp, it is a good way to completely destroy his argument. However, if the waters are a bit muddy, perhaps you will only succeed in showing that your opponent's argument does not apply in all cases, That is, using Reductio Ad Absurdum is sometimes using the Fallacy Of The General Rule. However, if you are faced with an argument that is poorly worded, or only lightly sketched, Reductio Ad Absurdum may be a good way of pointing out the holes.
An example of why absurd conclusions are bad things:
Bertrand Russell, in a lecture on logic, mentioned that in the sense of material implication, a false proposition implies any proposition. A student raised his hand and said "In that case, given that 1 = 0, prove that you are the Pope". Russell immediately replied, "Add 1 to both sides of the equation: then we have 2 = 1. The set containing just me and the Pope has 2 members. But 2 = 1, so it has only 1 member; therefore, I am the Pope."
I remain open to the possibility that there are explanations for oil than those we’ve been told of plus the long history of lies we’ve been told on damned near every subject imaginable
Examine, if you will, these two assertions penned by you,
“Biotic oil is proven and real and has been pumped out of the ground for decades.
Abiotic oil is a theory that is as yet unproven.”
From the article
“Western geologists do not bother to offer hard scientific proof of fossil origins. They merely assert as a holy truth. The Russians have produced volumes of scientific papers, most in Russian. The dominant Western journals have no interest in publishing such a revolutionary view. Careers, entire academic professions are at stake after all.”
“Dr. J. F. Kenney is one of the only Western geophysicists who has taught and worked in Russia, studying under Vladilen Krayushkin, who developed the huge Dnieper-Donets Basin. Kenney told me in a recent interview that "alone to have produced the amount of oil to date that (Saudi Arabia's) Ghawar field has produced would have required a cube of fossilized dinosaur detritus, assuming 100% conversion efficiency, measuring 19 miles deep, wide and high." In short, an absurdity.”
A comparable cube 19x19x19 miles ???
Yeah RIGHT!
---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."
William Blake
"While there's not enough evidence to prove the theory of an abiogenic origin for oil, on the flip-side there's also not enough evidence to conclusively prove the theory of a biogenic origin."
One reason it's called 'fossil fuel' is that it actually does contain fossils sometimes. Ignoring that minor point - that's the whole point of a theory; it fits the evidence we have available. If more evidence comes along, we can adjust.
Until 'abiotic oil theory' says where the raw material comes from, it's not a theory. And until it can say how a uniform hydrocarbon can form from an uneven temperature and pressure difference - I'm not willing to even entertain the theory.
---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
Now I know how Campbell's gets away with calling one of their products "Chicken" soup
---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."
William Blake
It seems logical to assume that all the materials required for the formation of crude oil has always been present on Earth, just as it has been shown to exist throughout the solar system.
"One reason it's called 'fossil fuel' is that it actually does contain fossils sometimes."
To my knowledge, only coal deposits contain actual fossils, and yes that's very convincing proof that at least some coal (if not all coal) comes from fossilized organic material and I certainly won't dispute that conclusion. While it certainly is possible (and a logical assumption) that crude oil and natural gas formed from the same or similar fossilization process that produced coal, there are no available fossils to prove the theory.
"Until 'abiotic oil theory' says where the raw material comes from, it's not a theory."
My understanding is that all the required materials for oil formation are available (as seen throughout the solar system), all that's needed is heat and pressure, and all these conditions are naturally available.
"And until it can say how a uniform hydrocarbon can form from an uneven temperature and pressure difference - I'm not willing to even entertain the theory."
Fair enough, but on the flip side, can the biogenic theory of oil formation explain "how a uniform hydrocarbon can form from an uneven temperature and pressure difference"?