By Dr. Jerome R. Corsi
Scientists create hydrocarbons in lab, supports abiotic oil theory
More bad news for those who believe oil is dinosaur soup or the residue of
ancient decaying forests was produced when a team of international
scientists published earlier this month in an international scientific
journal that fossils of animals and plants are not necessary to generate
crude oil or natural gas.
In a paper published in Nature GeoScience titled, "Methane-derived
hydrocarbons produced under upper-mantle conditions," three scientists from
the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C.,
the Lomonosov Moscow State Academy of Fine Chemical Technology and the Royal
Institute of Technology in Stockholm produced ethane, propane and butane
from synthetic chemicals in the laboratory setting.
Using laboratory conditions designed to replicate the heat and pressure
conditions of the earth's upper-mantle, the scientists demonstrated "that
the synthesis of hydrocarbons heavier than methane can be produced by
abiotic processes in the upper mantle."
This new research adds to the mounting scientific evidence that the
prevailing biological theory of the generation of oil is and always has been
nonsense.
Instead, the abiotic theory, that Craig Smith and I advanced in 2005 when we
published "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of
Oil," has increasing validity, maintaining that advanced hydrocarbons,
including oil and natural gas, are produced in an ongoing chemical process
within the upper mantle of the earth, such that these hydrocarbons can be
transported through deep faults to shallower regions in the earth's crust
where they deposit in as the oil and natural gas reserves typically found in
sedimentary layers of rock below the earth's surface.
These newly published scientific findings explain why offshore deep-water
oil and natural gas exploration is producing huge new discoveries that U.S.
petro-geologists had neglected to predict, going back to the 1950s when
Shell Oil's M. King Hubbert first proposed the Malthusian theory of "peak
oil" arguing that eventually the world would simply use up all the oil and
natural gas there was.
Just consider the abundant offshore oil and natural gas discoveries that
have made headlines so far just this month:
* Red Alert reported earlier this month that BP's discovery of the huge
Tiber well was found at a depth of 35,055 feet (6.6 miles) below the Gulf of
Mexico, at a depth where no biological debris could be assumed to have
produced the oil; by comparison, the elevation of Mount Everest is 35,000
feet.
* Brazil is becoming a lead oil producer, thanks to the discovery of the
Guara oil field in the deep waters in the Atlantic off Brazil's shore,
adjacent to the giant Tupi oil field that Brazil found in 2007 in the
oil-abundant Santos Basin, as reported by the Financial Times.
* Even President Hugo Chavez is touting a major oil find off the shore
of Venezuela, saying the Venezuelan find will likely equate to a massive
1.44 billion barrels of oil, about the same quantity as believed to be
contained in the Guara oil field reserves off the coast of Brazil, according
to the Financial Times.
Still, old ideas die hard, even when, like the biological theory of the
origin of oil, the idea has little basis in science.
WND has repeatedly demonstrated that U.S. petro-geologists remain wedded to
the concept that some sort of biological residue designated as "kerogen"
precedes the stage in which sedimentary rock bearing biological material
transforms into oil-producing hydrocarbons.
Increasingly, scientists are recognizing what WND has repeatedly published,
namely, that the Fisher-Tropsch equations developed by German chemists in
the Weimar Republic describe the chemical reactions involved when
hydrocarbons are generated through abiotic processes in the earth's crust.
Still, proponents of the biological theory of the origin of oil continue to
ridicule the abiotic theory as maintaining "there is a near unending supply
of oil under the ground," as if the abiotic theory of the origin of oil were
as silly as Juan Ponce de Leon's search some 500 years ago for the legendary
Fountain of Youth.
Thus, the politically biased Wikipedia always takes pains to typify that the
abiotic theory of the origin of oil as "arguing that oil is produced from
chemical reactions in the earth, in contrast to the scientific community's
consensus that oil is produced from the bodies of animals and/or plants."
In reading this excerpt from Wikipedia, Red Alert is reminded that the
political far-Left in the United States also likes to maintain with Al Gore
that the "scientific community's consensus" has established beyond doubt or
question the validity of global warming, despite abundant scientific
evidence the earth in recent years is actually cooling down.
About Dr. Corsi:
DR. JEROME R. CORSI received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political
science in 1972. He is the #1 New York Times bestselling author of The Obama
Nation and The Late Great U.S.A, as well as the forthcoming America For Sale
all available from Threshold Books. He is the coauthor of Unfit for Command:
Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. Corsi is a senior staff
reporter for World Net Daily.
About Red Alert:
Jerome Corsi's RED ALERT is your weekly, global financial strategies
newsletter. Designed to be your guide to economic trends in the best of
times and the worst of times, it is edited by New York Times best-selling
author Jerome Corsi, a WND staff writer and columnist. For 25 years, Corsi
worked with banks throughout the U.S. and the world developing financial
services marketing companies to assist banks in establishing broker/dealers
and insurance subsidiaries to provide financial planning products and
services to their retail customers. Corsi developed three third-party
financial services marketing firms that reached annual gross sales levels of
$1 billion in annuities and equal volume in mutual funds. Corsi received his
Ph.D. in political science from Harvard University in 1972.
Most of the primordial hydrocarbons may exist as abiotic gas rather than abiotic oil.The methane would have to be converted by way of chemistry into liquid fuels like gasoline or diesel.Included along with the methane you might also have primordial hydrogen gas as well.
While vast quantities of primordial methane and hydrogen may indeed exist deep within the mantle(even many oil companies and geologists admit it may exist),how practical or feasible will it ever be compared to more concentrated oil of fossil origin much closer to the surface?
While the overall quantity of abiotic methane and hydrogen in the lower crust and upper mantle may be far more vast than shallower deposits of fossil origin closer to the surface,it's distribution is spread more widely throughout the lower crust and mantle...... rather than being concentrated into commercially viable quantities.
And how feasible is it to drill a shaft 100 miles deep,when the cost of drilling with depth increases not in a linear fashion,but explodes exponentially with depth?
Not to mention the hellish temperature and pressure at a depth of 100 miles.All the advanced technology in the world can never overcome this problem.Any temporary hole or open cavity would instantly collapse and implode upon itself due to the pressure.
So that while the overall amount of abiotic gas may be vast,it may forever remain untapped due to the reasons that I have just cited...... and of mere academic,scientific interst only...... rather than practical to commercially exploit.
Posted by: Chris Skinner | October 23, 2009 at 02:17 PM
Oh,and one more thing.All that dinosaur nonsense is just a popular myth borne of ignorance.Not even the professional geologists who believe in fossil theory believe this nonsense.Instead,it was all formed by microscopic algae,bacteria and marine organisms.
Posted by: Chris Skinner | October 23, 2009 at 02:26 PM
So this means we can mine mars for oil!
Posted by: Sam | December 14, 2011 at 02:32 PM