9

Abiotic Oil Is Killing the Peak Oil Hoax

It is looking like oil is far more plentiful than western governments and the mainstream media would like us to believe, and the reason oil is so plentiful is because it is produced deep in the earth by geological processes in addition to any biological processes.

Abiotic oil is explained pretty well by a recent article at Principia-Scientific entitled Fracturing the Fossil Fuel Fables. Another article I recommend is More Evidence for Abiotic Oil.

To an independent thinker, the “fossil fuel” theory that all oil is the product of decaying plant and animal matter has never made much sense, but now, it is just about certainly exaggerated. For example, how does a process that requires no oxygen happen to plant and animal matter that died and decayed on the surface where it was exposed to air? How did it get so deep in the earth after that? Why does it become more plentiful, rather than less plentiful, the deeper one explores? Why is oil found so much deeper than any fossils? Why is the volume of oil in the hundreds of trillions of barrels?

Such honest questions should generate honest debate, but instead, believers respond with emotional religious fervor. Believers have turned Peak Oil into another sacred cow, and thus make it difficult to move forward.

If oil were produced deep in the earth by abiotic processes, then we would expect some old wells to begin to refill – and that is exactly what is happening. We would also expect to drill just about anywhere and find oil – if one drilled deep enough, and I’ve read that is exactly what the Russians are doing. One can thus see why abiotic oil would make the Middle East, Israel, and much of the existing power elite irrelevant. Many recent wars and terrorism would never have happened. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security would never have happened.

It is not hard to understand why western elites would suppress the reality of abiotic oil.

Many Progressive tell me that Peak Oil already occurred a couple of years ago; however, reality keeps forcing them to move their dates back – just like how reality keeps forcing the global warming alarmists to move their dates back. The reality is that both kinds of believers have been moving their dates back for over 100 years!

The reality of global warming and peak oil is that they are an excuse for the kind of powerful global government that can save us, but once we become open to reality, we become immune to such fascism.

The Promise of Reality is Freedom.

Jim
 

Click Here to Leave a Comment Below 9 comments
Anonymous - August 26, 2013

I really like your site — most of it. But 'abiotic oil'? Shocking to me that a person so rational and correct on most everything actually thinks it even exists. It is beyond absurd. It's as absurd as denying that all life has common ancestry. As a PhD in biochemistry who has worked primarily in oil exploration for three decades, I can assure you that 'abiotic oil' is as ridiculous as any claim that the earth is 6000 years old. It makes you sound like a nutjob, but I'll just assume you have very little understanding of and education in the (relatively simple) science relevant here.

Reply
Jim - August 27, 2013

This is in fact the subject on which I am least informed, so I could be wrong; however, I have read several articles, and it makes such a convenient excuse for big government, regulation, world government, etc, that it is very suspicious. Also, the people who are most pro big government are also the most opposed to abiotic oil and who promote Peak Oil most aggressively.

That is all pretty convincing.

On the other hand, if you really do agree with just about everything else I say, and if you really do have a PhD in biochemistry, then that would also be pretty convincing. However, you are anonymous, and you offered no other facts, links, arguments, etc. What's more, you referred to my plausible and rational argument as making me sound like a nutjob, and thus by overstating your case, you again lack the full credibility that you could have brought to the discussion.

You didn't actually say what you think about Peak Oil. Perhaps you agree that peak oil is alarmist and disagree about abiotic oil?

Reply
db1 - September 1, 2013

Hey Anonymous

Can you provide scientific proof that oil is a fossil fuel and not abiotic, after all you are a PhD in biochemistry and should be able to prove all this oil is from prehistoric plants and dinosaurs. I believe the earth is billions of years old and dont believe it at all, especially when the political elites and the MSM continue to spew out this garbage making us feel guilty for using oil as energy and not providing the existing technologies that could provide more efficient energy at a lower cost and impact on the environment

Reply
TOM MITCHELL - December 9, 2013

Well have a look at the Late Emeritus professor Thomas Gold.

He actually work that your ear worked by a process called regeneration. Thye did not believe him for years.

He believe oil was produced by an abioitc process and Scientific American made that a cover story

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gold

Reply
Anonymous - December 27, 2013

The Swedes proved that oil can be created from inorganic matter under various temperatures and pressures fairly recently. Done deal. It's very possible.

Reply
Anonymous - April 19, 2014

And as a PhD in biochemistry who has worked primarily in the oil industry for three decades, you would have absolutely no financial stake in people's assumptions regarding the origins of oil?

You verify yourself with appeal to authority:
"As a PhD in biochemistry who has worked primarily in oil exploration for three decades,"

You begin with statement:
"It is beyond absurd"

You follow with ad hominem:
"It makes you sound like a nutjob, but I'll just assume you have very little understanding of and education in the (relatively simple) science relevant here."

All of these are rhetorical techniques, they have nothing to do with science… you have neither brought to light evidence or anything else to back up the idea of a biological origin of oil. Argument by snobbery really doesn't hold much water (although a PhD in biochemistry is not for the weak of mind, I commend you for earning that).

What gets me is that methane is available all over the place in the universe. Rupert Wildt noticed signatures of methane from Jupiter. About 0.3% of Jupiter is composed of methane, which means that about 5.7e24 kg of methane is available on Jupiter alone. We know that Alkane Metathesis can occur where alkanes (like methane, octane, propane, etc…) can react to form higher and lower carbon chains.

Now let's suppose that the Earth has some 0.46% of carbon by mass, that means that the Earth has 2.76e22 kg of carbon by mass. Now I wouldn't claim to know what fraction of that is bound in the form of hexane, septane, octane, nonane; neither do I know the rate at which these are being produced, but I strongly suspect that abiotic reactions, or Alkane Metathesis reactions, if you prefer, do occur naturally.

In a scenario where we had a bountiful supply of oil beneath the Earth's crust, could the idea of peak oil be used to artificially raise oil prices? Yes, yes it could. Would having people believe in "peak oil" make people in the oil industry more money than admitting that it is as common as water? Yes, yes it would.

There is another scenario that I am more concerned about. In this scenario, we have bountiful supplies of oil that renew themselves at a fairly regular rate (faster than decomposing ancient sea life). What happens if we are consuming the oil at a higher rate than natural processes can produce it? Well, it would mean that if we don't find another energy source before the oil runs out, then we could be walking into some very deep sh**t (pardon my French). This is peak oil in a nutshell, but with a different twist.

Beating us normal-folk over the head with your degree makes you sound like a cad (I don't believe you are a cad, I mean, we are all guilty of acting like one from time to time). In fact, your statement has succeeded in bringing out my inner cad!

Reply
Anonymous - April 19, 2014

I am amazed. This is actually a fairly conservative website. That was not what I was expecting.

Reply
Jim - April 19, 2014

I don't know what you're trying to say.

Reply
Anonymous - October 7, 2014

There is certainly good reason to investigate this area more closely. The Nazis produced massive amounts of synthetic crude oil from coal using an industrial process (Ironically given to them together with patents for making synthetic rubber, and for turning this oil into high octane aviation fuel without which the war would have been impossible by US corporations)

This process on an industrial scale is nothing compared with the conditions that can be brought to bear in nature. One only has to consider the conditions required to form diamonds, and the huge quantities of diamonds that exist (you know diamonds are common, and the price is rigged, don't you?) to realise that conditions of heat and pressure deep in the earth are common.

It has also been calculated that one gallon of gasoline requires 98 tonnes of plant material. All this material would have to be buried in the absence of oxygen. This material is then buried to a depth of up to 30,000 feet.

There is evidence that there are also oceans of water deep within the earth, or at least ones where it is spontaneously formed. If water is present in large quantities, why not oil as well.

It is truly staggering that we know so little about the processes that go on deep inside the earth and yet profess to be experts. In the context of all that is knowable, a PhD means nothing.

A PhD is a specialist in a very restricted area. The rest of their knowledge is no greater than a masters student, or possibly an undergraduate.

As far as working in the oil industry is concerned, that is far too close to be able to see or investigate any unconventional data. The oil industry have nothing to gain from abiotic oil.

The petrodollar system has nothing to gain from abiotic oil. So any insights in the area will come from elsewhere.

It is unlikely academia will provide a lot of support, one word "tenure" universities need money and to a large extent corporations like banks, oil companies and drug and computer companies provide it.

When science gets too close to business, the science suffers.

Reply

Leave a Reply: