This is also very true, Diamonds are actually not near impossible to find if you know where to look, kimberlites is a great place to start and there are plenty in CO.
I agree thatās where the artistry is, and Iām a geometry nut so thereās a math design elegance element I find fascinating, but not all gems get cut or even polished as in this case.
Will do! Me and my wife have a mineral claim in CO on kimberlite, I have a bunch of it that we brought back to the house. Iām just not sure how to crush it without crushing the potential diamonds :/
The Arkansas āpipeā has a long record of producing gem quality stones. They run a disk plow over it periodically, but people are allowed to dig little pits into it harvesting stones. Assiduous searching apparently provides some long time prospectors with a more or less meager subsistence income.
Much luck to you on extraction of gems from matrix. I canāt advise on methodology. Some sort of industrial grade process seems indicated.
My old man worked in a rock quarry. He used to bring home large diamonds, some tens of carots, all the time, problem is they had inclusions and were hazy (not gemstone quality) but diamonds they were.
Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring
Oil may not be formed the way we think it is.
By Gregg Laskoski
|
Sept. 14, 2011, at 5:16 p.m.
Save
More
U.S. News & World Report
Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring
More
It's our nature to sort, divide, and classify. We label ourselves to identify political leanings, religious beliefs, the food we enjoy, and the sports teams we cheer. The oil industry too has its own distinct labels which include the "Peak Oil" theorists, those who believe the world is fast depleting the finite supply of fossil fuel; and the pragmatists, those who recognize that engineering and technological advances in oil drilling and extraction continuously identify new reserves that make oil plentiful.
And there's a third group you may not know. These people are deeply interested in oil and its origins, but their advocacy of "abiotic theory" has many dismissing them as heretics, frauds, or idealists. They hold that oil can be derived from hydrocarbons that existed eons ago in massive pools deep within the earth's core. That source of hydrocarbons seeps up through the earth's layers and slowly replenishes oil sources. In other words, it turns the fossil-fuel paradigm upside down.
[Read: How Much Oil is There?]
Perhaps the breakthrough for this theory came when Chris Cooper's story appeared April 16, 1999, in The Wall Street Journal about an oil field called Eugene Island. Here's an excerpt:
Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, was supposed to have declined years ago. And for a while, it behaved like any normal field: Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330's output peaked at about 15,000 barrels a day. By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels a day.
Then suddenlyāsome say almost inexplicablyāEugene Island's fortunes reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels a day, and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million. Stranger still, scientists studying the field say the crude coming out of the pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed 10 years ago.
According to Cooper,
Thomas Gold, a respected astronomer and professor emeritus at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, has held for years that oil is actually a renewable, primordial syrup continually manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attacked by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the dinosaurs, he says.
All of which has led some scientists to a radical theory: Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some continuous source miles below the Earth's surface. That, they say, raises the tantalizing possibility that oil may not be the limited resource it is assumed to be.
More recently, Forbes presented a similar discussion. In 2008 it reported a group of Russian and Ukrainian scientists say that oil and gas don't come from fossils; they're synthesized deep within the earth's mantle by heat, pressure, and other purely chemical means, before gradually rising to the surface. Under the so-called abiotic theory of oil, finding all the energy we need is just a matter of looking beyond the traditional basins where fossils might have accumulated.
[Read the U.S. News debate: Should offshore drilling be expanded?]
The idea that oil comes from fossils "is a myth" that needs changing according to petroleum engineer Vladimir Kutcherov, speaking at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. "All kinds of rocks could have oil and gas deposits."
Alexander Kitchka of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences estimates that 60 percent of the content of all oil is abiotic in origin and not from fossil fuels. He says companies should drill deeper to find it.
Is abiotic theory the real deal? Is Eugene Island "Exhibit A?" Look how long it's taken for this conversation to reach a tipping point!
I need to dig into this & talk with family that drills & owns rigs for a living. Every single one of them have made it clear that the "empty" wells somehow always fill back up again after being emptied & closed for years.
The industry doesn't like to talk about that. Makes sense though - big oil would love for smaller companies to give up on old wells, and then buy them up for pennies on the dollar.
Many have been found to be attached to deeper sources. So, some thought has been that pressure has been relieved, and it's pushed into there from those harder to access deeper deposits. However, if it's actually truly newer oil, instead of older oil...
The Russian Oil producers and explorers have always believed this and cap wells and wait for the pressure to rebuild. Should be lots of 'Dry' wells in the US just waiting to be re-drilled
That it's not old critters has been known since the beginning of the oil industry. The fossil name partly stuck, because we have presumed that it is a finite resource, similar to mineral deposits. What hasn't been known, is how it was made, exactly. If it is a slowly renewing resource, that could very much change how civilization comes back, after our current fall is completed.
Also, prohibition was not about stopping people from drinking. It was to kill every farmers ability to make ethenol so Rockefeller could own the fuel market. You can make 10 times the amount of ethenol from cat tails than you can from corn. Everything is made to seem complicated and better off left to the "experts". Read David Blume's "Alcohol Can be a Gas!" if you want to be blown away and learn some interesting things about the oil and ethenol industries.
Probably a typo, but just in case you mean ethAnol, because of the single bond carbon to carbon. EthEnol would have a double bond there and is also called vinyl alcohol which falls apart at room temperature.
A buddy of mine and I have been having this arguement. I ask him, show me any study that proves oil comes from fossils. He can't. He can only point to his kids science books that say it. I asked him. Here's the thing, if oil is from dead animals, why would it only show up in specific areas in abundance? Everything dies, all plants an animals all over the place. Wouldn't oil literally be everywhere under ground? He can't answer. It's basic common sense and yet they just believe the kids science book with no actual studies to back it up. Isn't it amazing that the population continues to grow in the billions and yet oil doesn't run out with way more cars and engines used today than ever before?
Now, why call it "fossil fuels"? Well, it sounds old and archaic doesn't it. The powers want to replace fossil fuels because it's "outdated tech and non renewable". So getting a bunch of kids early to believe it's "fossil fuels" males them automatically it's old and therefore should switch to renewables, which sounds so new and innovative, doesn't it compared to "fossil fuels". So their play on words here has an impact on changing kids perception early on that oil is "old" and that it should be replaced with renewables.
But, why isn't anyone challenging it, with so much ready to access information at our fingertips? I knew oil wasn't fossils, birds were probably dinosaur survivors (now a certainty), that ancient Norse and what would become the English had settled the New World long before Columbus (though some newer findings on that are still pretty cool, like there being a real Camelot, narrowed down to a couple locations, and the real King Arthur likely being buried under one of a handful of existing churches in the US), that ice age world maps existed, etc.. That was way back in the 90s, when it took reading actual books, and spending time at libraries.
That was always the Russian theory, which I embraced decades ago. It's really a deep earth process and being produced constantly from high heat and pressure. We had a couple of US oil platforms that appeared to have run dry years ago. But when they uncapped them and tested them a few years later, they were full again.
I have wondered about coal also , they have found man made objects imbedded inside lumps of coal, a hat , and some metal cup, that's what I have wondered about, bc I was taught that it was decayed jungles and forest over millions of years, maybe coal don't take as long as they think to create.
That's because the history is wrong. If you research the early Christians that the Catholics murdered before seeing up the council of nicea and declaring the jewish core cannon to be the old testament you will run into "The Kolbrin" eventually, which is a translation of an ancient Egyptian text which ends after the story of Moses told from the perspective of the Pharaoh through his scribe.
Your eyes will be opened when you see the truth. It has everything. it calls evolution "Awen" and declares that it is the hand of God and that all creatures are continuously molded by it according to the tasks the animal is trying to do over generations and it even includes that unused traits are lost.
It has dinosaurs being fossilised because they were hard to live with, giant insects of the carboniferous, cyclical apocalyptic solar storms, literal actual aliens "who crossed the great dark expanse", Denisovans(giants), Neanderthals(the neck-less ones), pygmies(the small ones).
It even has hominid interbreeding events included where red hair occurs in the species via a mixing of "the sons of God" with a race of hominid called "yoslings" in the text, which resulted in red hair being added to the species but also brought a whole host of sicknesses and diseases into The offspring that the parents were immune to or didn't have.
Anyway the history is completely wrong, and the time frames that they use are totally messed up. It's not their fault though, like there's a global extinction layer from 12,000 years ago and they call the event the younger dryas mass extinction event. 99% of recorded history was lost to the younger dryas mass extinction event and destruction that came with it.
The Kolbrin states that we had airplanes before the last disaster and that will have airplanes again by the time the next disaster in the cycle happens.
OK but that is not a lump of coal. And wood in the handle would not last thousands of years. The limestone explanation for this is very much more likely.
Yes... The point is to show that processes that encase things can happen fast. Coal is just as easy, you just need a fire under a heavy wooden building that gets buried.
But the most interesting thing is the carbon dating and what it shows/implies.
Fossilisation can also happen fast if the conditions are favorable, in fact industrial mineralisation of wood is possible and can be used to make bone grafts.
The main point is the dating, the stories of dragons are real we call dragons dinosaurs
The article you linked from IFLS cited a paper that stated the rock around the hammer is not old. And that there has been no reliable C14 testing done on the hammer due to the owner not allowing it/paying for it. So I am not sure where you are seeing that the rock was from 400 million years ago.
The rock it was in is claimed to be cretaceous rock.
The main point is to show how natural processes of mineralization can do things that you would think would take much longer and that it can do it it places and ways that can be very confusing to archeologists and geologists.
Now think about all the other things that have been buried.
There have a been a number of these exposed in the geological record. I suspect they are built into the solar and galactic system running much like a clock. If this the case, that begs the asking of questions. First is what designed this phenomena in the heavens. We as a species as we stand right now are the progeny of the survivors. In a short time, likely in the next 2 or 3 "11 year solar cycles" the sun will flare again. Unlocking and unleashing "hell" on Earth once again. Some of us will survive, the vast majority will not. The Sun will take out everything metal. The fires from that will wipe out much of what we have built in this grand epoch of time. After that the outer shell of the earth will break loose from the inner core. That will allow the shell to move quite literally under our feet. The large ice masses of the polar regions will swing out to the equator due the forces of momentum. As the solid masses move in this way, the seas will swell first against that movement. Then as liquid is apt to do in such circumstances, it will then move back in the opposite direction. It will do this a few times over the course of a very short and violent time.
Some suggest mile high swells in the first wave. How many people live above a mile high? How many will be able to tread the waters and find purchase on solid ground? How many will have the necessary tools and resources to survive in either case? I believe this is what many ancient stories in the various religious texts allude to having happened before as well as those happening coming again at some future date. South America will be the "new" south pole. Greenland will be at the equator. The axis appears to be along an imaginary line from south of Hawaii to the Congo in Africa.
Now that is what I would call a biblical ending to this, the latest iteration of "modern" civilization. Those that survive, will attempt to tell the story as best they can, but over the centuries and millenia to follow, that story will be... like almost all stories are, retold with the tellers on "spin" until one day the story will be unrecognizable to what was spoken/written/painted by those survivors.
For a much more detailed exploration of this event, I highly recommend visiting
Howdy Neighbor. I am a newbie by comparison but, when I found Ben and Vogt on youtube they both confirmed a long held suspicion that we have been here before... if not much further advanced technologically in our forgotten past. I will never get the math or be able to peruse the deep scientific stuff but the big picture is quite clear to me. Too late for me to do much about it and my son thinks I am going nuts. So I will likely be near the end of my branches of the family tree. C'est la vie. I am looking forward to what comes after this realm.
Yeah, I know how that feels a bit, but what are people supposed to think when you tell them that "the apocalypse" is real and it's cyclical? But then you look at solar astrophysics and you look at what the sun is already acknowledged to do officially and you look at the recurring nova frequency of other variable stars where like that one star in the Andromeda Galaxy nova's every single year almost like clockwork and you think "huh.... we're actually pretty darn lucky or sun only does this once every 110 generations" (the Egyptians considered the 1/4 cycle storms to be significant enough to be apocalypse)
I was blown away when I read that civilizations rise and fall and reach varying degrees of technological advancement between the storms and that we frequently re-invent airplanes in time for the apocalypse to reset us.
For me, reading the chapters on the multiple solar apocalypses humanity survived in the Kolbrin was really a confirmation of Ben Davidson's findings. When you understand what been says is coming and then you open the Kolbrin and you look at what people described, it's a near perfect match, except Ben is expecting this full cycle flip to be as bad as the younger dryas mass extinction event, but that was a relatively bad storm even for a full cycle storm.
To me, there's nothing pseudo-scientific about saying the sun has the very real potential to end life on the planet and that it hits the planet really hard about once every ~3125 years.
Rational wiki is even more cabal controlled than wikipedia, rationale wiki is basically the highschool dropout fact-checker of the research world, you should never use it for anything ever other than entertainment
I know that! But you know it's more reliable than anything you have to say about the Kolbrin. So we should throw out our Bibles and believe everything that's in the Kolbrin? You are the entertainment fren. Beam me up Scottie!
Who says you should throw out your Bible? I said you should research the sects of early Christianity that the Roman Jews killed and tried to erase from history before declaring the jewish cannon to be the old testament.
Take that however you want, but you should research them and see what they have to say before you decide completely to mix The Son, The Father and The Holy Spirit with YHWH.
I saw this video in college but it did not make as much sense as this does now! Especially regarding mineral rights contracts and pricing. Iām glad I watched this again. Thanks Anon!
Aquifers are also a renewable resource, doesn't mean they don't run dry if you pump more than the rate of renewal.
There is no question at all that the EROI of oil has fallen drastically and it's not going to go up unless we stop pumping XXX years and then restart.
And EROI is all that matters. Oil was super cheap in terms of energy required to get more oil. This cheapness this is the source of 100% of our abundance for the last 100 years. And the more we pump, the lower the EROI, the lower the abundance even if it comes back all the time
That said, sun or wind energy has even lower EROI, so that obviously isn't any sort of solution.
True, but if we transition to newer Nuclear, and replace most plastics with plant-based versions, and move to more plant-based fuels, we could, over time, reduce consumption to match replenishment, for those uses where oil is difficult to find a replacement for.
Being in the oil and gas industry Iām positive this is true. Unfortunately however, as long as people believe this lie, I continue to make a great wage. If we could however switch to zero point energy or something along those lines, I would back that 100% for the greater good of humanity.
Then you are contributing to the lie being spread to everyone instead of helping to dispel it for the sake of a paycheck. Why not bring your knowledge of it to help prove it?
I honestly donāt care enough and donāt believe one person saying anything will change anything, and the only way Iād make the income I do is to be a brain surgeon, no thanks lol. Like I said, Iām all for zero point energy or something to better humanity, going through the dangers and process to expose this wouldnāt be worth it, nor would anything change other than potentially killing the wages for my brothers and sisters that are also in this field.
Oil is not a fossil fuel. This āscienceā is the SAME science as āglobal warming/climate changeā, āelectric vehicles are safer for the environmentā, āsolar panels are safe and arenāt incredibly toxic and never breakdownā, etcā¦.
āOil is a fossil fuelā IS THE SAME STATEMENT as the vaccine is āsafe and effectiveā.
Its a control mechanism to prevent critical thinking. It helps to control the financial scam. If oil was going to be gone, it would have already happened. Just like the assholes like Greta Thunberg saying weāll all due to climate change in 2020.
Its the same concept as the De Beers company artificially inflating the price of diamonds. Its a SCAM!
I learned about this about a year ago. Makes a lot of sense to me.
The theory that all the oil is simply dinosaur remains appears perfectly designed to push the argument that well, there's no more dinosaurs, so there will be limited oil.
Haven't gone deep into abiotic oil, but am much more likely to believe that, considering how much rubbish the scammers have pushed on us for centuries.
Hydrogen, oxygen and carbon. The basis of all known life. These elements are abundant on this planet. It could be a store of these constituent components from the large quantities available at the time the Earth was formed. Not much ever leaves this planet, therefore it stands to reason that the Earth is a huge recycling system. The releasing of these components through the chemical processes make these constituent elements available for the creation of life. It also stands to reason that when life forms die, these constituent components break back down and recombine in different ways, one would assume that if it isn't recycled as another life form, then perhaps it can be stored again as petroleum under the right conditions. Perhaps there is merit to both theories? It is possible that in our efforts to classify things in nice neat categories that we are missing the big picture and that H,C, and O are both available in a stored form and also in a recycled form. Just a possibility.
Ca has the 2nd largest reserve. Tons of offshore drilling because if you look up Los Angeles from 1980ās back, youāll see it was nothing but oil rigs on the beaches and as far in as you can see. There were as much as there are palm trees there today. People lived under the worlds. Check it now it. Itās pretty mild blowing when you see this
The same way we can extract oil from plants using high pressures , the oceans can also extract oils from plants and animals at high pressures at the bottom of the sea.
The adiabatic oil hoax has been going on since the 70's. A little bit of logic will tell you that even if it is true, it will make no difference. Think.
We've only been pumping oil for about 100 years. And we're pulling about 100 million barrels a day out of the Earth's crust. If the Earth were capable of replenishing that at anywhere close to that rate, even 1% of that rate, then it would have been doing so for thousands upon thousands of years before we started using it. The Earth would literally be an ocean of oil. The entire surface would be hundreds of feet deep in the gooey crude. So the strong adiabatic oil theory is clearly wrong.
So 1 of 2 things must be true:
the adiabatic oil hypothesis is simply wrong
adiabatic oil doesn't produce oil any faster than the organic theory (the weak adiabatic oil theory)
Either way, it is not something that changes anything.
And another point for thought, a lot of geological engineers have made a lot of money drilling for oil at the same depths and locations where organisms lived millions of years ago. Correlation is not causation, but how many coincidences does it take?
Don't believe every piece of nonsense people spout on Youtube.
I'll cop to the vocabulary brain fart. I meant abiogenic, not adiabatic. That's what happens when you get old.
However, the rest of the argument is solid. After having been around for more than 50 years, nobody has proven it to be a profitable method of finding oil. Nobody. And many people had a big incentive to do so. And even if correct, the strong abiogenic theory is impossible, and the weak theory doesn't change anything. We still have no choice but to move away from oil as an energy source.
Nobody has found those, despite 50+ years of trying. This isn't some new theory. People were touting it back during the oil crisis in the 70's. Sans proof of a commercially viable field, I don't believe it.
Technology such as slant drilling and fracking developed since the 70's has helped America to increase flow after the US peaked. And no, it is not the immediate crisis they say it is if we use the remaining fuel wisely. But if you think there is no concern at all...that is where you and I part ways.
We're obviously using oil way quicker than it can be renewed, but that whole idea that we'd be swimming in oil is bullshit.
Obviously the process can only happen under very specific conditions. It's not the continental shelf sweating it out.
Think about a hot spring. You can pump out the smelly sulfurous water, make a pool or drink of it or whatever, and it will come back and rather quickly. But not all water everywhere is smelly sulfur hot spring water.
And fwiw, places like Saudi Arabia were practically swimming in oil, with pools of it found on the surface
I've worked in the oil industry all my life. This guy doesn't know what he is talking about.
Oil is a fossil fuel.
Is it being regenerated yes, but thet time line is so long that using up existing reserves is a possibility. When I was young in west Texas / southeast New Mexico. The oil companies focuses on only producing zones that contained light sweet crude. The reason for this preference is first of all sweet crude lacks the poison gas H2S and it thus less dangerous to produce, and second it is easier and less expensive to process through the refineries. As sweet crude reservoirs depleted over the years the companies eventually were forced to go to the reservoirs contains sour crude (H2S laden crude). Those were last resort plays.
He says were are routinely drilling 30, 000 feet plus. No we are not. Most onshore plays are less then 10,000 feet deep, and the work to get those deeper plays online is more costly. The offshore plays tend to be deeper. Some of the very deepest in the old Permian Basin were at tops about 16,000 ft.
Let's address how oil is formed. It is continuously forming. This earth is about 4 billion years old. The surface crush has always been in motion with plate tetonics lifting some areas into mountains and subducting other areas. Those subducted areas, and areas were cosmic events have shoved massive amounts of dirt into the air and buried whole landscapes result in trapped carbon based lifeforms both plant and animal. They call it fossil but most of it is actually plant based and most likely the vast volume is really microscopic plants (algae). How many years do you think a subducting plate takes to get to say 5000 ft depth? Eons. During that time the carbon based material is being subjected to heat and pressure. Pressure not only from the depth of the earth over it, but also pressure from the gases being form, and the trapping of areas (reserviors) between ever compressing rock formations. As I said this has been happening on the earth for billions of years, and it is still happening, but does that rate of creation come anywhere near the rate of extraction and use?
I've worked in the oil industry all my life. This guy doesn't know what he is talking about.
Oil is a fossil fuel.
Fren, I will go with the belief that just how God created our water, He also created all the gasses, chemicals, and yes, the oil that we have on our planet. š
Or, God created everything but the oil, gas and coal was formed after everything was buried by the flood. Coal and oil doesn't take very long to form after applying enough heat and pressure. It does not take millions of years, only weeks.
Just like Rockefeller medicine, it was another Rockefeller lie to make you think petroleum was a limited resource.
Similar to DeBeers and diamonds. Nothing perceived as high value is real.
This is also very true, Diamonds are actually not near impossible to find if you know where to look, kimberlites is a great place to start and there are plenty in CO.
Murfreesboro Arkansas has a diamond mine state park. Lots of them just laying on the ground. True.
I am of the belief that, in addition to artificial scarcity, the real value might be in the craftsmanship in cutting the gems.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_Diamond
I agree thatās where the artistry is, and Iām a geometry nut so thereās a math design elegance element I find fascinating, but not all gems get cut or even polished as in this case.
I know, Iāve been wanting to go so bad.
I had planned to retire within bicycle distance of it, but alasā¦. If you do go take a handheld UV light as diamonds fluoresce.
Will do! Me and my wife have a mineral claim in CO on kimberlite, I have a bunch of it that we brought back to the house. Iām just not sure how to crush it without crushing the potential diamonds :/
The Arkansas āpipeā has a long record of producing gem quality stones. They run a disk plow over it periodically, but people are allowed to dig little pits into it harvesting stones. Assiduous searching apparently provides some long time prospectors with a more or less meager subsistence income.
Much luck to you on extraction of gems from matrix. I canāt advise on methodology. Some sort of industrial grade process seems indicated.
My old man worked in a rock quarry. He used to bring home large diamonds, some tens of carots, all the time, problem is they had inclusions and were hazy (not gemstone quality) but diamonds they were.
Thatās awesome!
Sorry for the youtube but it is worth it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrYB-ZvIuPE
Gold?
Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring Oil may not be formed the way we think it is.
By Gregg Laskoski | Sept. 14, 2011, at 5:16 p.m.
Save
More U.S. News & World Report Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring
More It's our nature to sort, divide, and classify. We label ourselves to identify political leanings, religious beliefs, the food we enjoy, and the sports teams we cheer. The oil industry too has its own distinct labels which include the "Peak Oil" theorists, those who believe the world is fast depleting the finite supply of fossil fuel; and the pragmatists, those who recognize that engineering and technological advances in oil drilling and extraction continuously identify new reserves that make oil plentiful. And there's a third group you may not know. These people are deeply interested in oil and its origins, but their advocacy of "abiotic theory" has many dismissing them as heretics, frauds, or idealists. They hold that oil can be derived from hydrocarbons that existed eons ago in massive pools deep within the earth's core. That source of hydrocarbons seeps up through the earth's layers and slowly replenishes oil sources. In other words, it turns the fossil-fuel paradigm upside down.
[Read: How Much Oil is There?]
Perhaps the breakthrough for this theory came when Chris Cooper's story appeared April 16, 1999, in The Wall Street Journal about an oil field called Eugene Island. Here's an excerpt:
Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, was supposed to have declined years ago. And for a while, it behaved like any normal field: Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330's output peaked at about 15,000 barrels a day. By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels a day. Then suddenlyāsome say almost inexplicablyāEugene Island's fortunes reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels a day, and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million. Stranger still, scientists studying the field say the crude coming out of the pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed 10 years ago. According to Cooper,
Thomas Gold, a respected astronomer and professor emeritus at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, has held for years that oil is actually a renewable, primordial syrup continually manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attacked by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the dinosaurs, he says. All of which has led some scientists to a radical theory: Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some continuous source miles below the Earth's surface. That, they say, raises the tantalizing possibility that oil may not be the limited resource it is assumed to be. More recently, Forbes presented a similar discussion. In 2008 it reported a group of Russian and Ukrainian scientists say that oil and gas don't come from fossils; they're synthesized deep within the earth's mantle by heat, pressure, and other purely chemical means, before gradually rising to the surface. Under the so-called abiotic theory of oil, finding all the energy we need is just a matter of looking beyond the traditional basins where fossils might have accumulated. [Read the U.S. News debate: Should offshore drilling be expanded?] The idea that oil comes from fossils "is a myth" that needs changing according to petroleum engineer Vladimir Kutcherov, speaking at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. "All kinds of rocks could have oil and gas deposits." Alexander Kitchka of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences estimates that 60 percent of the content of all oil is abiotic in origin and not from fossil fuels. He says companies should drill deeper to find it. Is abiotic theory the real deal? Is Eugene Island "Exhibit A?" Look how long it's taken for this conversation to reach a tipping point!
I need to dig into this & talk with family that drills & owns rigs for a living. Every single one of them have made it clear that the "empty" wells somehow always fill back up again after being emptied & closed for years.
The industry doesn't like to talk about that. Makes sense though - big oil would love for smaller companies to give up on old wells, and then buy them up for pennies on the dollar.
Many have been found to be attached to deeper sources. So, some thought has been that pressure has been relieved, and it's pushed into there from those harder to access deeper deposits. However, if it's actually truly newer oil, instead of older oil...
The Russian Oil producers and explorers have always believed this and cap wells and wait for the pressure to rebuild. Should be lots of 'Dry' wells in the US just waiting to be re-drilled
That it's not old critters has been known since the beginning of the oil industry. The fossil name partly stuck, because we have presumed that it is a finite resource, similar to mineral deposits. What hasn't been known, is how it was made, exactly. If it is a slowly renewing resource, that could very much change how civilization comes back, after our current fall is completed.
I have a good friend whose family has a single oil derrick in west Texas. It went dry in 1985 so they shut it down.
Fast forward couple decades and oil is at over 100.00 a barrel.
They said, fuck it. Let's pay to have the derrick turned back on.
Guess what?
That single spigot was now pumping over 30 barrels a day.
What a blessing to my friends family and definitely calls into question a lot.
Also, prohibition was not about stopping people from drinking. It was to kill every farmers ability to make ethenol so Rockefeller could own the fuel market. You can make 10 times the amount of ethenol from cat tails than you can from corn. Everything is made to seem complicated and better off left to the "experts". Read David Blume's "Alcohol Can be a Gas!" if you want to be blown away and learn some interesting things about the oil and ethenol industries.
Probably a typo, but just in case you mean ethAnol, because of the single bond carbon to carbon. EthEnol would have a double bond there and is also called vinyl alcohol which falls apart at room temperature.
Oops! Thanks for the correction. It was late and my brain was tired. š
This wouldn't surprise me at all, at this point.
A buddy of mine and I have been having this arguement. I ask him, show me any study that proves oil comes from fossils. He can't. He can only point to his kids science books that say it. I asked him. Here's the thing, if oil is from dead animals, why would it only show up in specific areas in abundance? Everything dies, all plants an animals all over the place. Wouldn't oil literally be everywhere under ground? He can't answer. It's basic common sense and yet they just believe the kids science book with no actual studies to back it up. Isn't it amazing that the population continues to grow in the billions and yet oil doesn't run out with way more cars and engines used today than ever before?
Now, why call it "fossil fuels"? Well, it sounds old and archaic doesn't it. The powers want to replace fossil fuels because it's "outdated tech and non renewable". So getting a bunch of kids early to believe it's "fossil fuels" males them automatically it's old and therefore should switch to renewables, which sounds so new and innovative, doesn't it compared to "fossil fuels". So their play on words here has an impact on changing kids perception early on that oil is "old" and that it should be replaced with renewables.
If you've been told something is true since you were old enough to read, and no one ever challenged it, seriously, you'd simply believe it is true.
Welcome to the Matrix.
But, why isn't anyone challenging it, with so much ready to access information at our fingertips? I knew oil wasn't fossils, birds were probably dinosaur survivors (now a certainty), that ancient Norse and what would become the English had settled the New World long before Columbus (though some newer findings on that are still pretty cool, like there being a real Camelot, narrowed down to a couple locations, and the real King Arthur likely being buried under one of a handful of existing churches in the US), that ice age world maps existed, etc.. That was way back in the 90s, when it took reading actual books, and spending time at libraries.
Today, it's practically inexcusable, IMO.
Kek, have you not witnessed the Matrix, fren?
That was always the Russian theory, which I embraced decades ago. It's really a deep earth process and being produced constantly from high heat and pressure. We had a couple of US oil platforms that appeared to have run dry years ago. But when they uncapped them and tested them a few years later, they were full again.
I have wondered about coal also , they have found man made objects imbedded inside lumps of coal, a hat , and some metal cup, that's what I have wondered about, bc I was taught that it was decayed jungles and forest over millions of years, maybe coal don't take as long as they think to create.
That's because the history is wrong. If you research the early Christians that the Catholics murdered before seeing up the council of nicea and declaring the jewish core cannon to be the old testament you will run into "The Kolbrin" eventually, which is a translation of an ancient Egyptian text which ends after the story of Moses told from the perspective of the Pharaoh through his scribe.
Your eyes will be opened when you see the truth. It has everything. it calls evolution "Awen" and declares that it is the hand of God and that all creatures are continuously molded by it according to the tasks the animal is trying to do over generations and it even includes that unused traits are lost.
It has dinosaurs being fossilised because they were hard to live with, giant insects of the carboniferous, cyclical apocalyptic solar storms, literal actual aliens "who crossed the great dark expanse", Denisovans(giants), Neanderthals(the neck-less ones), pygmies(the small ones).
It even has hominid interbreeding events included where red hair occurs in the species via a mixing of "the sons of God" with a race of hominid called "yoslings" in the text, which resulted in red hair being added to the species but also brought a whole host of sicknesses and diseases into The offspring that the parents were immune to or didn't have.
Anyway the history is completely wrong, and the time frames that they use are totally messed up. It's not their fault though, like there's a global extinction layer from 12,000 years ago and they call the event the younger dryas mass extinction event. 99% of recorded history was lost to the younger dryas mass extinction event and destruction that came with it.
The Kolbrin states that we had airplanes before the last disaster and that will have airplanes again by the time the next disaster in the cycle happens.
That is so interesting. Thank you.
Please share a link to this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Hammer#:~:text=Part%20of%20the%20hammer%20is,encased%20in%20Lower%20Cretaceous%20rock.
OK but that is not a lump of coal. And wood in the handle would not last thousands of years. The limestone explanation for this is very much more likely.
Yes... The point is to show that processes that encase things can happen fast. Coal is just as easy, you just need a fire under a heavy wooden building that gets buried.
But the most interesting thing is the carbon dating and what it shows/implies.
That wiki article is only a starting point, the rock it was encased in was dated to the Cretaceous period 400 million years ago. https://www.iflscience.com/the-mystery-of-the-modern-london-hammer-found-encased-in-ancient-rock-67095
Fossilisation can also happen fast if the conditions are favorable, in fact industrial mineralisation of wood is possible and can be used to make bone grafts.
The main point is the dating, the stories of dragons are real we call dragons dinosaurs
The article you linked from IFLS cited a paper that stated the rock around the hammer is not old. And that there has been no reliable C14 testing done on the hammer due to the owner not allowing it/paying for it. So I am not sure where you are seeing that the rock was from 400 million years ago.
The rock it was in is claimed to be cretaceous rock.
The main point is to show how natural processes of mineralization can do things that you would think would take much longer and that it can do it it places and ways that can be very confusing to archeologists and geologists.
Now think about all the other things that have been buried.
There have a been a number of these exposed in the geological record. I suspect they are built into the solar and galactic system running much like a clock. If this the case, that begs the asking of questions. First is what designed this phenomena in the heavens. We as a species as we stand right now are the progeny of the survivors. In a short time, likely in the next 2 or 3 "11 year solar cycles" the sun will flare again. Unlocking and unleashing "hell" on Earth once again. Some of us will survive, the vast majority will not. The Sun will take out everything metal. The fires from that will wipe out much of what we have built in this grand epoch of time. After that the outer shell of the earth will break loose from the inner core. That will allow the shell to move quite literally under our feet. The large ice masses of the polar regions will swing out to the equator due the forces of momentum. As the solid masses move in this way, the seas will swell first against that movement. Then as liquid is apt to do in such circumstances, it will then move back in the opposite direction. It will do this a few times over the course of a very short and violent time.
Some suggest mile high swells in the first wave. How many people live above a mile high? How many will be able to tread the waters and find purchase on solid ground? How many will have the necessary tools and resources to survive in either case? I believe this is what many ancient stories in the various religious texts allude to having happened before as well as those happening coming again at some future date. South America will be the "new" south pole. Greenland will be at the equator. The axis appears to be along an imaginary line from south of Hawaii to the Congo in Africa.
Now that is what I would call a biblical ending to this, the latest iteration of "modern" civilization. Those that survive, will attempt to tell the story as best they can, but over the centuries and millenia to follow, that story will be... like almost all stories are, retold with the tellers on "spin" until one day the story will be unrecognizable to what was spoken/written/painted by those survivors.
For a much more detailed exploration of this event, I highly recommend visiting
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHSoxioQtwZcJj_9clLz7Bggso7qg2PDj
You about summed it up. I have and have read weatherman's guide to the Sun cover to cover.
I've been an observer for almost a decade now, howdy fellow observer.
Howdy Neighbor. I am a newbie by comparison but, when I found Ben and Vogt on youtube they both confirmed a long held suspicion that we have been here before... if not much further advanced technologically in our forgotten past. I will never get the math or be able to peruse the deep scientific stuff but the big picture is quite clear to me. Too late for me to do much about it and my son thinks I am going nuts. So I will likely be near the end of my branches of the family tree. C'est la vie. I am looking forward to what comes after this realm.
Yeah, I know how that feels a bit, but what are people supposed to think when you tell them that "the apocalypse" is real and it's cyclical? But then you look at solar astrophysics and you look at what the sun is already acknowledged to do officially and you look at the recurring nova frequency of other variable stars where like that one star in the Andromeda Galaxy nova's every single year almost like clockwork and you think "huh.... we're actually pretty darn lucky or sun only does this once every 110 generations" (the Egyptians considered the 1/4 cycle storms to be significant enough to be apocalypse)
I was blown away when I read that civilizations rise and fall and reach varying degrees of technological advancement between the storms and that we frequently re-invent airplanes in time for the apocalypse to reset us.
For me, reading the chapters on the multiple solar apocalypses humanity survived in the Kolbrin was really a confirmation of Ben Davidson's findings. When you understand what been says is coming and then you open the Kolbrin and you look at what people described, it's a near perfect match, except Ben is expecting this full cycle flip to be as bad as the younger dryas mass extinction event, but that was a relatively bad storm even for a full cycle storm.
To me, there's nothing pseudo-scientific about saying the sun has the very real potential to end life on the planet and that it hits the planet really hard about once every ~3125 years.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Kolbrin
Rational wiki is even more cabal controlled than wikipedia, rationale wiki is basically the highschool dropout fact-checker of the research world, you should never use it for anything ever other than entertainment
I know that! But you know it's more reliable than anything you have to say about the Kolbrin. So we should throw out our Bibles and believe everything that's in the Kolbrin? You are the entertainment fren. Beam me up Scottie!
Who says you should throw out your Bible? I said you should research the sects of early Christianity that the Roman Jews killed and tried to erase from history before declaring the jewish cannon to be the old testament.
Take that however you want, but you should research them and see what they have to say before you decide completely to mix The Son, The Father and The Holy Spirit with YHWH.
thank you for sharing
I saw this video in college but it did not make as much sense as this does now! Especially regarding mineral rights contracts and pricing. Iām glad I watched this again. Thanks Anon!
John D Rockefeller might as well have been the ANTI-CHRIST.....all Allopathic formularies are petroleum based in US. Because JDR made money that way.
The earth isn't that old and they are lying to us about how all elements and compounds are formed, not just oil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq6kUbLzYCc
In parts of Canada oil wells have been pumped dry and capped. Thirty plus years later thereās oil in the wells, along with much natural gas.
Aquifers are also a renewable resource, doesn't mean they don't run dry if you pump more than the rate of renewal.
There is no question at all that the EROI of oil has fallen drastically and it's not going to go up unless we stop pumping XXX years and then restart.
And EROI is all that matters. Oil was super cheap in terms of energy required to get more oil. This cheapness this is the source of 100% of our abundance for the last 100 years. And the more we pump, the lower the EROI, the lower the abundance even if it comes back all the time
That said, sun or wind energy has even lower EROI, so that obviously isn't any sort of solution.
True, but if we transition to newer Nuclear, and replace most plastics with plant-based versions, and move to more plant-based fuels, we could, over time, reduce consumption to match replenishment, for those uses where oil is difficult to find a replacement for.
Being in the oil and gas industry Iām positive this is true. Unfortunately however, as long as people believe this lie, I continue to make a great wage. If we could however switch to zero point energy or something along those lines, I would back that 100% for the greater good of humanity.
Then you are contributing to the lie being spread to everyone instead of helping to dispel it for the sake of a paycheck. Why not bring your knowledge of it to help prove it?
I honestly donāt care enough and donāt believe one person saying anything will change anything, and the only way Iād make the income I do is to be a brain surgeon, no thanks lol. Like I said, Iām all for zero point energy or something to better humanity, going through the dangers and process to expose this wouldnāt be worth it, nor would anything change other than potentially killing the wages for my brothers and sisters that are also in this field.
Yep
Yep
Oil is not a fossil fuel. This āscienceā is the SAME science as āglobal warming/climate changeā, āelectric vehicles are safer for the environmentā, āsolar panels are safe and arenāt incredibly toxic and never breakdownā, etcā¦.
āOil is a fossil fuelā IS THE SAME STATEMENT as the vaccine is āsafe and effectiveā.
Its a control mechanism to prevent critical thinking. It helps to control the financial scam. If oil was going to be gone, it would have already happened. Just like the assholes like Greta Thunberg saying weāll all due to climate change in 2020.
Its the same concept as the De Beers company artificially inflating the price of diamonds. Its a SCAM!
I learned about this about a year ago. Makes a lot of sense to me.
The theory that all the oil is simply dinosaur remains appears perfectly designed to push the argument that well, there's no more dinosaurs, so there will be limited oil.
Haven't gone deep into abiotic oil, but am much more likely to believe that, considering how much rubbish the scammers have pushed on us for centuries.
Ok so if oil is not derived from dinosaurs, what is the purpose of it being in the earth?
Hydrogen, oxygen and carbon. The basis of all known life. These elements are abundant on this planet. It could be a store of these constituent components from the large quantities available at the time the Earth was formed. Not much ever leaves this planet, therefore it stands to reason that the Earth is a huge recycling system. The releasing of these components through the chemical processes make these constituent elements available for the creation of life. It also stands to reason that when life forms die, these constituent components break back down and recombine in different ways, one would assume that if it isn't recycled as another life form, then perhaps it can be stored again as petroleum under the right conditions. Perhaps there is merit to both theories? It is possible that in our efforts to classify things in nice neat categories that we are missing the big picture and that H,C, and O are both available in a stored form and also in a recycled form. Just a possibility.
This is literally the theory of the creation of fossil fuels. Plants and animals die, then become fossil fuels over the passage of a very long time.
That is why I said that both theories could be part of the truth.
Ca has the 2nd largest reserve. Tons of offshore drilling because if you look up Los Angeles from 1980ās back, youāll see it was nothing but oil rigs on the beaches and as far in as you can see. There were as much as there are palm trees there today. People lived under the worlds. Check it now it. Itās pretty mild blowing when you see this
Bingo! This.
I have always believed this. So the current practice of P&A (Plug & Abandon) should be just "plug" and come back later.
I am blown away by this! My god, absolutely everything is a big effing lie.
The same way we can extract oil from plants using high pressures , the oceans can also extract oils from plants and animals at high pressures at the bottom of the sea.
Long text are faggots
If you are leftist liberal fag call it fossil fuels and reeeee about climate
If you are conservative intellectual always speak about hydrocarbon fuels.
The adiabatic oil hoax has been going on since the 70's. A little bit of logic will tell you that even if it is true, it will make no difference. Think.
We've only been pumping oil for about 100 years. And we're pulling about 100 million barrels a day out of the Earth's crust. If the Earth were capable of replenishing that at anywhere close to that rate, even 1% of that rate, then it would have been doing so for thousands upon thousands of years before we started using it. The Earth would literally be an ocean of oil. The entire surface would be hundreds of feet deep in the gooey crude. So the strong adiabatic oil theory is clearly wrong.
So 1 of 2 things must be true:
Either way, it is not something that changes anything.
And another point for thought, a lot of geological engineers have made a lot of money drilling for oil at the same depths and locations where organisms lived millions of years ago. Correlation is not causation, but how many coincidences does it take?
Don't believe every piece of nonsense people spout on Youtube.
I'll cop to the vocabulary brain fart. I meant abiogenic, not adiabatic. That's what happens when you get old.
However, the rest of the argument is solid. After having been around for more than 50 years, nobody has proven it to be a profitable method of finding oil. Nobody. And many people had a big incentive to do so. And even if correct, the strong abiogenic theory is impossible, and the weak theory doesn't change anything. We still have no choice but to move away from oil as an energy source.
Let me be more specific:
"economically meaningful" abiogenic oil deposits.
Nobody has found those, despite 50+ years of trying. This isn't some new theory. People were touting it back during the oil crisis in the 70's. Sans proof of a commercially viable field, I don't believe it.
Technology such as slant drilling and fracking developed since the 70's has helped America to increase flow after the US peaked. And no, it is not the immediate crisis they say it is if we use the remaining fuel wisely. But if you think there is no concern at all...that is where you and I part ways.
We're obviously using oil way quicker than it can be renewed, but that whole idea that we'd be swimming in oil is bullshit.
Obviously the process can only happen under very specific conditions. It's not the continental shelf sweating it out.
Think about a hot spring. You can pump out the smelly sulfurous water, make a pool or drink of it or whatever, and it will come back and rather quickly. But not all water everywhere is smelly sulfur hot spring water.
And fwiw, places like Saudi Arabia were practically swimming in oil, with pools of it found on the surface
I've worked in the oil industry all my life. This guy doesn't know what he is talking about.
Oil is a fossil fuel.
Is it being regenerated yes, but thet time line is so long that using up existing reserves is a possibility. When I was young in west Texas / southeast New Mexico. The oil companies focuses on only producing zones that contained light sweet crude. The reason for this preference is first of all sweet crude lacks the poison gas H2S and it thus less dangerous to produce, and second it is easier and less expensive to process through the refineries. As sweet crude reservoirs depleted over the years the companies eventually were forced to go to the reservoirs contains sour crude (H2S laden crude). Those were last resort plays.
He says were are routinely drilling 30, 000 feet plus. No we are not. Most onshore plays are less then 10,000 feet deep, and the work to get those deeper plays online is more costly. The offshore plays tend to be deeper. Some of the very deepest in the old Permian Basin were at tops about 16,000 ft.
Let's address how oil is formed. It is continuously forming. This earth is about 4 billion years old. The surface crush has always been in motion with plate tetonics lifting some areas into mountains and subducting other areas. Those subducted areas, and areas were cosmic events have shoved massive amounts of dirt into the air and buried whole landscapes result in trapped carbon based lifeforms both plant and animal. They call it fossil but most of it is actually plant based and most likely the vast volume is really microscopic plants (algae). How many years do you think a subducting plate takes to get to say 5000 ft depth? Eons. During that time the carbon based material is being subjected to heat and pressure. Pressure not only from the depth of the earth over it, but also pressure from the gases being form, and the trapping of areas (reserviors) between ever compressing rock formations. As I said this has been happening on the earth for billions of years, and it is still happening, but does that rate of creation come anywhere near the rate of extraction and use?
Fren, I will go with the belief that just how God created our water, He also created all the gasses, chemicals, and yes, the oil that we have on our planet. š
Or, God created everything but the oil, gas and coal was formed after everything was buried by the flood. Coal and oil doesn't take very long to form after applying enough heat and pressure. It does not take millions of years, only weeks.
Stopped reading there.
20+ yr pet geologist. I have debunked this multiple times on this site. Crazies gonna be crazy. I have tried to provide rational argumentsā¦
Yes oil is from dead dinosaursā¦
Lol!
Honk! š¤”
Works in oil industry all his life, makes a living off it.
Shilling that oil is a fossil fuel, to maintain way of life.
The irony.
I'm long retired dumb ass, and haven't been associated with the industry in close to a decade now.
Some people here are to damned stupid to even grasp that they are being sold bullshit. Keep on eating it up.