Abiotic Oil Theory: The Bane of Enviro-Marxists

J.J. Jackson | February 8, 2008 

What would happen if it were proven that “fossil fuels” weren’t the result of decaying plant and animal matter, were actually created within the Earth due to simple chemistry and you could not be scared into believing that we were “running out” of oil and natural gas? Why, you would have a lot of people who are banking on that strategy to convince you to accept government control and mandates over how energy is used going back to square one and looking for another way to institute a populist, socialist agenda.

Scientists who have confirmed that abiotic hydrocarbons are being released from the Lost City hydrothermal field in the Mid-Atlantic range at the bottom of the ocean say they are returning to that location this summer to try to confirm the presence of more complex hydrocarbon chains, a result that would further undermine the assumption that oils are the result of decomposed and compressed organisms.”We looked for C1-C4 hydrocarbons – alkanes, alkenes and alkynes – and detected them all,” Giora Proskurowski, the marine geochemist who headed the Woods Hole team that already has done work at the Lost City site, told WND in an e-mail.

“Last year we did not look for more advanced hydrocarbon chains, but this year we will use the sampling methods required to identify more complex hydrocarbons,” he said.

As WND reported, Proskurowski, of the School of Oceanography at the University of Washington in Seattle, wrote in Science Magazine that Lost City vents at the bottom of the Atlantic were exuding abiotic hydrocarbons formed in the mantle of the earth.

Proskurowski attributed the formation of the observed hydrocarbons to processes identified by the Fischer-Tropsch type (FTT) equations first discovered by Nazi German scientists trying to generate synthetic oil from coal prior to the start of World War II.

Think this is all wishful thinking? You would be right to be skeptical. It’s healthy to be so.  But let’s give you a little bit of supporting evidence for the abiotic theory that you might not know about:

The organic theory of the origin of oil suffered a major blow when NASA announced a probe sent to the surface of Titan, the giant moon of Saturn, had discovered Titan was full of Carbon-13 methane.Carbon-13 is the isotope of carbon associated with abiotic generation, compared to carbon-12 which is generally associated with organic origins.

So unless you can come up with evidence that at one time there was life on Titan, those hydrocarbons had to come from somewhere. You an put 2 and 2 together and get the right answer. But if you choose to believe that its 5 (i.e. that “fossil fuels” are only created from “dead things”) that is your own ignorant choice.

Contributor's website: http://www.libertyreborn.com

Content posted by users from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use and each author is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or its owner.
Please Note: The comments section is for both the registered users of this web site as well as non-registered users. All wishing to post comments must comply with our Commenting Rules or risk having their comments stricken. Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of the ownership of this site and should not be taken as such just because they are visible and posted here.

40 Responses to “Abiotic Oil Theory: The Bane of Enviro-Marxists”

  1. LibertarianPrince (Moderator) on February 8th, 2008 7:52 pm

    How long until we get a Global Warming nutcase disciple of Gore here telling us how wrong we are?

  2. RonniesRayGun (moderator) on May 26th, 2008 9:07 pm

    Still waiting … been a while. Yet no takers. Guess the facts on this one have just proven to be too much for their frail brains to handle.

  3. Heh on May 27th, 2008 10:46 am

    Hehe, stupidity of conservatives (be it american or soviet) tend to be on similar grand scale.

    Okay, dear idiots, proof of the pudding err.. oil is in pumping it out. Care to give an example of functioning abiotic oil field? Thus far all have been quite in accordance to biotic oil theory, be they in Texas, Middle East or Russia. Yup, even those couple of silly small supposed “successes” in Russia are explained as biotic (by american oil scientists by the way).

  4. Eric A. on May 27th, 2008 10:54 am

    Doen’t your claim sort of revolve around the pure assumption that abiotic oil doesn’t exist. Doesn’t that fly in the face of the evidence posted above?

  5. LibertarianPrince (Moderator) on May 27th, 2008 6:25 pm

    First, the “soviets” were not conservatives. They were liberals/Marxists. But yes, they were stupid.

    Second, the strawman you have set up here is that there are no functioning abiotic oil fields because oil is not created by abiotic processes therefore, low and behold, there are no functioning abiotic fields. The problem is that you are assuming (and making an ass of yourself in doing so) that oil is not created by abiotic processes and thus there are no abiotic oil fields. You are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    However it is proven that hydrocarbons are created by means other than the theory that decaying animal and plant matter are the source. The chemistry is actually quite simple.

    Eric, you are right. His claim is based solely on his own claim that it doesn’t happen. So that means that he can make the claim and think he is smart.

    The whole theory of where oil comes from (meaning dead plants and animals) is almost completely unbelievable.

    According to Heh’s theory of choice, we can stop looking for life on other planets because since hydrocarbons are only produced from decaying animal matter that means that Titan was once teeming with life.

    Many times people will focus on the existence of Carbon 12 or Carbon 13 in the hydrocarbons as the determining factor of a hydrocarbon’s origin. However that is a false claim. Since the origin of oil has never been shown to come from organic matter (it is only surmised as such) it is impossible to claim that whether it is C-12 or C-13 is the determinant of its origin. The abiotic theory does not deny that living organisms do contribute to the creation of abiotic oil by providing the carbon necessary for the process just like biologists do not deny that the minerals in the foods we eat contribute to our bodies as they grow. Please remember that.

    For example, C-12 which is organic can be converted to hydrocarbons by the same processes which create it from C-13. The process doesn’t care what kind of Carbon it is and since C-12 is generally considered “organic” carbon and “organic” carbon is very ubiquitous, it would be natural to see it in abiotically generated oil. But if you believe that C-12 is a sign of organic hydrocarbons then you would be guilty of misreading science much as the flat Earthers misread science to determine that the Earth was not round or that scientists once misread the clear evidence of the sun centered solar system to justify an Earth centered one.

    Scientists thought out time have made such bad predictions to conform findings to their own predetermined ideas.

    No matter how much the believers in peak oil protest they get antsy every time a new field and new deposits of oil are found. They keep saying “Peak Oil!” but we keep finding billions and billion of barrels more. That certainly doesn’t indicate anything near a “peak”.

    But don’t confuse them with the facts.

    The only reason we have something even close to “peak oil” is because bureaucrats keep telling oil companies they cannot access known and proven reserves. Thus our oil production has “peaked”. But it is an artificial peak.

  6. J.J. Jackson (Admin) on May 27th, 2008 6:41 pm

    There are four categories of things “scientists” know:

    First is the things they actually know.

    Second is the things they think they know and happen to actually know despite never having observed them and poorly contrived experiments (aka blind luck).

    Third is he things they think they know but really don’t know and are wrong about but think they really do know because a theory on a piece of paper that sounds good tells them that it must be true.

    Fourth is the things they have no idea about.

    The total sum of all things in each of the last two categories alone are many times greater than all the things in the first two categories combined.

    On your topic LP of how people can be lead to believe things that aren’t true when they really want to believe them …

    Hey, I know, I’ll claim that the sun will not rise tomorrow unless I beat this drum and I won’t beat this drum unless people pay me $1,000,000 every day. Now some people will naturally believe me and pay me and I will beat the drum and the sun will rise and they will believe that it was my beating of the drum that caused the event.

    Those people that didn’t pay will point their fingers and mock those that did. Those that paid will denounce those laughing at them by saying that since they paid and the sun rose that their paying made the sun rise. And most likely they will also want to institute a tax on those that are mocking them because … well … why should those people get the benefit of their actions that they are paying for?!?! It’s not fair! They shouldn’t bear all the burden of paying me to beat the drum and make the sun come up.

    However that doesn’t explain why the sun rose. It just happens to be two events that happened one before the other.

    Hey … I think I just found the topic for this week’s article! Thanks LP!

  7. LibertarianPrince (Moderator) on May 27th, 2008 8:49 pm

    “Since the origin of oil has never been shown to come from organic matter (it is only surmised as such) it is impossible to claim that whether it is C-12 or C-13 is the determinant of its origin.”

    I should clarify this by saying that the origin of large deposits of oil in the ground has never been shown to come from simply the decomposition and treatment of animal matter.

  8. David Howard on June 2nd, 2008 9:57 am
  9. abiotic oil on June 24th, 2008 8:02 am

    [...] the result of decaying plant and animal matter, were actually created within the Earth due …/2008/02/abiotic-oil-theory-the-bane-of-enviro-marxists/Abiogenic petroleum origin – Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaRedirected from abiotic oil Jump to: [...]

  10. OilIsMastery on July 17th, 2008 10:26 pm
  11. Diana on July 26th, 2008 5:20 pm

    A True Conservative is a Thomas Jefferson Classical Liberal, who said, leave me alone, leave my money and property alone, and demands individual rights…and will not accede to becoming any part of a socialist/marxist/fascist where the individual becomes a “DISPOSABLE TOOL OF THE STATE.”

  12. Diana on July 26th, 2008 5:43 pm

    It is only the INCREDIBLE IGNORANCE OF THE LEFT AND THEIR HAIR-BRAINED LACK OF EDUCATION and attempts at cheap propaganda…that the Left continues to cunt-fuse a True Conservative with Marxism of any type. Why do we have this problem of mis-identification?…Because Public Schools are now propaganda factories run by the Left to indoctrinate children on the same level as Marxist and Communist dictatorships….

    There simply has to be a massive “re-education” campaign in the US …in which True Conservativism is explained well…but that religion of any kinds is NOT a part of any True Conservative philosophy.

    I particularly am pissed off that the “religious” nut cases, and Taliban Christians invaded my Conservative movement, and tried to claim it as their own…forcing True Conservatives by association to adopt their religious agendas.

    As a matter of historical FACT (something backed up by evidence and proof, and not someone’s opinion de jure)…the founders of the United States were Classical Liberals, which are today’s True Conservatives (who “conserve” i.e. save the US Bill of Rights created by Classical Liberals), which includes “No religious domination or control or special rights for the religious of any kind in our laws.

    In fact, the founders of the US were “functional atheists” who only acceded to using the word “Creator” because in the 15th and 16th Century and the Age of Enlightenment(read your history)…the word “Creator” meant “Nature,”….and NOT the god of the Hebrews or Christians. Thomas Jefferson especially was a “scientist” who also called himself an “Epicurean”…as one who makes decisions by what is real, and by what is exampled by “nature,” and not someone’s imaginary god or “belief.” The definition of the word “belief” by the way…is to “claim something is true without any proof or evidence.” Jefferson did not believe in “belief.” Belief was a function of the “church” and witch doctors and those who believed in supernatural states.

    The founders of the US were all too aware of the bloody history of the Christians, who burned, tortured, murdered and stole property from those who didn’t believe in their imaginary god from the very beginning of the Christian church. (Read your history). The founders were also students of the bible and knew that there were more than 100 verses which said: “kill the infidels and nonbelievers, and those who are not like you; rape their wives, slit the bellies of their pregnant women, and murder their children.”

    Don’t believe me? Go to: http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm…. and read the bible verses yourself. These bible verses have been used to justify murder in the past by the religious, and could be used again by the Christians if they ever gain enough power over the US government to impose religious law on this country…Knowing the bible inside and out, the founders of the US…said Not No!…but Hell No! Not on our watch, and in our new country are we going to have religious domination. The founders were NOT going to have another repeat of all the massacres, torture, and murders prevalent in Europe, because of the “Church.” So a True Conservative, is a Thomas Jefferson et al Classical Liberal.

    Who are most often the “Liberals” of today? Socialists, neoMarxists, and Fascists…who want to control you and every aspect of your life, money, property, and “thoughts”…and make you a DISPOSABLE TOOL OF THE STATE. And where did these so-called Liberals come from? In the 1960s, the Marxists infiltrated those who called themselves Liberals and co-opted the name and changed the definitions of many words that appear on the outside to be “fair” but upon closer examination, the Leftist Vocabulary and meanings are right out of the “Communist Manifesto.” For example: Paying “your fair share”…means the government has the right, says the Left, to take any and all money you earn…and give it to those who didn’t earn it or don’t deserve it, without your permission. This is socialism/communism.

    So the next time you use the word Conservative as an epithet…be reminded that you are just another unthinking, brainless, uneducated stooge of the Left and have no Fing idea what you are talking about.

    Diana Wilson PhD

  13. LibertarianPrince (Moderator) on July 26th, 2008 6:07 pm

    Diana, I will ask you only once to please read “the rules” before commenting. You posted two back to back comments which had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this posting which is the Abiotic Theory of oil. That is a big no-no.

  14. Darryl Pendlebury on September 26th, 2008 9:07 am

    Wow Diana you have a PhD. And still you don’t believe all this amazing world we live in was created by a being who did not even have a degree.
    your educated stupidity amazes me.

  15. Chris Skinner on October 23rd, 2009 3:33 pm

    How can abiotic oil theory be the bane of marxists,when the so-called dastardly commie marxists of Russia supported this theory long before Western conservatism ever did?

  16. Caustic Acid on October 23rd, 2009 5:11 pm

    Mr Skinner,

    What evidence do you have that “western conservatism” did not embrace this theory long ago? Is it perhaps because simply many in the scientific community did not? And if so then how does that equate to your theory? This is in all honesty the only way you could even be trying to come to a conclusion such as this even though it is a bad conclusion that equates a political ideology to all within a given profession.

    Now I do not know about the author but to me it seems you are confusing the soviet commies who used fear of the west to promote communism to the environmentalist that today use unfounded fear of environmental disaster to promote communism. By the title he is clearly mocking the second and the fact that they are being torn down by a theory put forth by their fellow travelers is just a delicious irony.

  17. Clarity of thought on November 30th, 2009 10:06 am

    Point 1: The origins of oil are irrelevant if demand outstrips the supply. I dont happen to completely buy into the “Peak oil” argument, but for whatever reason you care to choose, the demand for oil is increasing at a faster rate than we are currently able to supply it – abiotic origin or not.

    Point 2. IF oil is produced through abiotic processes, then the very fact that we are not knee deep in the stuff demonstrates that it forms at precisely the same rate as oil of biological origin. So its origin is irrelevant.

    Point 3. Oil requres very specific and fairly rare geological conditions in order for it to aggregate into deposits large enough for economically viable extraction – and we know where most of these geological conditions exist. So the origin of oil is irrelevant.

  18. J.J. Jackson (Admin) on November 30th, 2009 5:45 pm

    I’ll tell you what, it certainly is fun to watch the anti-oil folks spin! It doesn’t matter what the origins of oil are? Really? Is that the new cop out? Well, I guess education is in order on all your poorly thought out points.

    Demand for oil is increasing at a rate faster than we can supply it? Nope. Oil is there for everyone who can afford its price, a price which is artificially high because supply is artificially limited by retarded government policies like those of the United States which prevent through regulations the ability of people to go get known and proven reserves. In fact with advancements made in recycling used oils the need to keep pumping on a one for one basis is no longer in existence. We actually have to pump less crude these days thanks to these innovations.

    We are not “knee deep” in oil? Well, you can believe that if you like but the facts are that year after year we find more and more and bigger and bigger deposits of oil all over the world. Guess it all depends on your definition of “knee deep” I guess! Literally no of course we are not. But it sure seems like there is a ton of oil out there to be had.

    Again you state in conclusion that, “the origin of oil is irrelevant.” No, it is not irrelevant. But it is “convenient” if you want to make your previous claims stick. The reason it is not irrelevant is because if oil is (at least partially or even majorly) created through chemistry deep in the earth and not through biological decay of dead organic matter then it is a lot easier to make it in a laboratory and ultimately in a plant. Try making oil in a facility if it required you to stock pile rotting carcasses! Now try making oil in a plant when all you need is raw materials, a reaction vessel, some catalysts to lower the temperature of formation to reasonable and cost effective levels and bang! Oil.

    If you come up with any more bright ideas you would like to share with us please come again.

  19. Clarity of thought on November 30th, 2009 7:37 pm

    JJ – I’m not anti-oil at all.
    While (because I’m a conservative), I do happen to think that developing and expanding energy solutions alternative to oil will make the overall “pie” of the energy market (and subsequently the ecomony) larger and more competitive, AND create more jobs, AND stimulate new research and investment (all of which happen to be very good indeed for business). I dont, however, see oil losing its place as the primary global energy source for the forseeable future, and neither do I have a problem with it.
    What I do have a problem with is poor understanding of the basic laws of supply and demand, which for a self proclaimed conservative, your willful ignorance of, is quite unforgiveable.

    By way of an example or three…….

    You manage to contradict yourself nicely in the first paragraph – first you state that demand is not outstripping supply – and then you conclude that it is, but this is artificial due to policies such as those of the US government.
    I stated very clearly in my post that the reasons for the short supply of oil was not a debate I was particularly interested in as it serves no purpose in the topic in question, and that it was merely a fact – it was nonetheless a fact that you eventually agreed with.
    Regardless of the reasons you provide, whether supply is being artificially constricted or not, either supply is outstripping demand, it is or it is not. All you acheived therefore was to make fool of yourself by contradicting your own statement.

    You do however make a valid point that the availability of oil is governed predominatly by economic factors.
    But of course if that is the case (and by and large it is), the origin of that oil becomes irrelevant as it has little or no bearing upon the availability, demand, or price of the commodity.
    I’ll be frank with you JJJ – I’ve met very few conservatives with such a poor grasp of the fundamental concepts of economics – and I’m astonished! If I want a conversation with someone with no understanding of economics I’ll take a trip to my local liberal arts college.

    Getting to the “knee deep” point – this perhaps, deserves some clarification on my part – the brief answer is that if oil replenishes itself at a rate faster than we are consuming it (i.e at a rate of around 10,000 times faster than the prevailing theories of oil formation suggest), then over the billions of years of seepage in the amounts considered, we would be swimming in oil, drowned in oil….. we aren’t ….so we’re back to a scenario where the process by which oil forms become irrelevant because the rate of that formation is the same whether abiotic or not.

    Finally I notice that you chose to ignore my final point – namely that: regardless of the origin of oil, the geological conditions required for oil AGGREGATION,in economically viable quantities, are very specific and relatively rare.
    Considering that we do not see oil wells refilling at rates faster than we are pumping (I will of course grant you that some oil fields have been observed to refill from deeper source rock, but the rate of this has been significantly less than the rate of extraction – not to mention that this serves as no injury to prevailing biotic theories), and considering that with a finite landmass on this planet and with a finite number of sites where these specific conditions arise, we can ONLY condlude that, irrespective of its origins, its supply is indeed limited.

    and thats all she wrote.

  20. Clarity of thought on November 30th, 2009 7:49 pm


    this for this paragraph:

    Regardless of the reasons you provide, whether supply is being artificially constricted or not, either SUPPLY is outstripping DEMAND, it is or it is not. All you acheived therefore was to make fool of yourself by contradicting your own statement.

    reverse the 2 capitalised words

    my bad :-)

  21. J.J. Jackson (Admin) on November 30th, 2009 7:55 pm

    Clarity, come on. People here are not as stupid as you think they are and your claims are so bogus that you clearly have not thought them through.

    You fallaciously claim that I “manage to contradict [myself] nicely in the first paragraph” by somehow coming to the conclusion that I in one breath said that demand was not outstripping supply and then that I claimed just that. Of course this comes from your purposeful misreading of what I said. I clearly pointed out that the supply is there. Its gathering however is prohibited by arbitrary purposes. That is not a contradiction. I know you want it to be, but sadly it is not.

    Supply is defined by what exists. The oil exists.

    You then return to the poor claim of previously that you miraculously claim that regardless of the source of oil that it is still not being produced fast enough to matter either way. The problem with this claim of course is that since we are continually finding more and more oil than we ever thought before there is no way to make such a claim. The only way to make such a claim is if you know where every drop of oil is currently and can monitor its consumption and then witness and measure all new production.

    Can you do this? Nope. Your claim is based merely on your desire for it to be true.

    Then of course you meander off into further poor assumptions claiming that because existing wells are not replenishing faster than we are pumping that therefore this is proof that it is not being produced fast enough.

    The problem with this assumption from a scientific standard is that it assumes that new production will flow into existing aquifers accessed by existing wells. Of course this violates several truisms of geology in that over time areas of rocks become geologically isolated while other become the opposite. If oil exists in a currently isolated aquifer today but filled in the past while it was not so isolated of course the existing wells will not refill obviously.

    Your points were not ignored. They were answered.

    The problem is you base your entire argument on assumptions and not scientific inquiry which shows that your assumptions are indeed poor.

  22. PinguMama (Sr. Moderator) on November 30th, 2009 8:01 pm

    J.J. Jackson = M.S. Environmental Engineering

    He knows what he is talking about when it comes to aquifers, etc.

    Aside from that Clarity do not misrepresent what he has said. People here see through that very quickly and easily. Personally I find your comments and arguments so flawed and well rebutted.

    J.J. Jackson 2
    Clarity of Thought 0

  23. Jiffy The Lubricator on November 30th, 2009 8:08 pm

    Hey look! Another “know it all” resurrecting this thread and trying to look smart.

    Didn’t happen though.

    I think it is crystal as to who has the knowledge and who is the wanna-be.

    Clarity, you need to really work on your argument. Nothing you have said convinces me you have any real knowledge of this topic compared to others.

    I can only shake my head and your sweeping statements made without any possible ability to make them. As J.J. pointed out you are coming from a point of view that can only be came at if you know every ounce of oil on the planet and its location. You cannot know that. Since you cannot know that you cannot make statements about how limited a supply is or is not.

    Meanwhile J.J. correctly points out the fact that we are constantly finding more and bigger oil deposits leading to a reasoned conclusion that there is a lot more out there than we do currently know about. When we stop finding more and more then maybe you can make the claim of limited supply but not until.

  24. Libertarian Prince (Moderator) on November 30th, 2009 8:15 pm

    We have often discussed on this site the difference between easy oil (near surface) and hard oil (deep surface). Many of the deposits we are currently finding are so deep under the ground that it would be incredible to believe that it got there from decaying animal and plant matter.

    I also have to concur with J.J.’s assertions of without knowing where every drop of oil currently is there is no way to inventory and determine if we are using more than is being produced. Of course perhaps the opposite is true too.

    But the supply is there for now. There really is no doubt about this except among the deniers (like the man made Global Warming theorists who need a crisis to help promote their asinine theories).No reason not to get it and use it. The Earth is a great recycler and when we burn it the Earth will bring the byproducts back into the fold.

    The facts are very clear with regards to abiotic oil. First and foremost is that the chemistry works.

  25. Rupper on November 30th, 2009 8:33 pm

    Actually, the production of abiotic oils is pretty quick at the high temperatures and pressures found deep in the Earth’s core. Chemistry is simple and very fast. Forming larger, more complex, heavy hydrocarbons takes longer of course, but overall we are calculating plenty of deep earth production to meet current demands well into the future.

    In fact we are finding, and by we I mean me and my company (BP), new fields of oil by looking specifically for the geological features that the abiotic theory of oil supports and that the biotic theory of oil tells us should not exist where they do. Perhaps the current biotic theories are flawed in that respect. But the abiotic theories work well. Considering we are in the business of energy it doesn’t make much sense for us to pursue a source of energy that we think would be used up.

    Besides, much of the oil that we are producing goes into making things other than energy anyway. If oil comes to an end we are in deeper trouble than not being able to put gas in our tanks believe me you!

    The problem is not the speed of abiotic creation according to the chemistry but often the speed of migration to the upper layers of the Earth’s surface. However by drilling deeper wells we are closer to the source which is what we are currently doing. This means less time for oil to migrate. It tends to take progressively longer for materials to migrate further and further towards the surface because the rock gets harder and denser where as in the more molten segments deeper down it is a much easier path.

    J.J. is right in talking about how geologic structures tend to become isolated over time. This is good for finding oil near the surface which is what we have done for many centuries because if a rock formation was not geologically isolated at this current point in time then the oil would flow out of the formation and move to somewhere else within the Earth’s surface and we would not find the oil where we do today. Of course these types of formations will not refill much less refill faster than we are drawing from them.

    That’s just one big old DUH!

    Keep preaching the truth J.J.

    You obviously know your shit.

  26. Caustic Soda on November 30th, 2009 8:46 pm

    I think it is absolutely hilarious how this dude calling himself “Clarity of thought” is so unclear in his thoughts that it is laughable.

    J.J. clearly said that supply was “arifically” limited. Not that it was actually limited. This is a semantic game that people play when they have no real argument to make.

    Pathetic and sophomoric.

    Just another dweeb trying to look smart but ending up looking dumb.

  27. John Wilder on November 30th, 2009 8:54 pm

    Rupper, we too are using the predictive theories developed by the knowledge and chemistry of abiotic oil to look for new deposits and having great success in finding fields where all previous theories have told us no oil would be found. We are not in the oil business per se but it is peripheral to our geological explorations for various elements. These deep Earth deposits are starting to produce significant results in test drilling which is a nice revenue stream for us through the lean times between other finds.

    [Moderator removed segment of comment determined to be a commercial advertisement.]

    It is remarkable how the theory of oil has developed over the years. Some companies still refuse to accept that this is true which is pathetic.

    Hey, more profits for us right? So why complain?

  28. Rodger Samuel on November 30th, 2009 9:03 pm

    What I know.

    Forty years ago the claim was, “Oh my God we are running out of oil! Ten years left! Ten years left!”

    Reality? We still have lots of oil and I have yet to see a dry pump.

    Thirty years ago the claim was, “Oh my God we are running out of oil! Ten years left! Ten years left!”

    Reality? We still have lots of oil and I have yet to see a dry pump.

    Twenty years ago the claim was, “Oh my God we are running out of oil! Ten years left! Ten years left! This time we mean it!”

    Reality? We still have lots of oil and I have yet to see a dry pump.

    Ten years ago the claim was, “Oh my God we are running out of oil! Ten years left! Ten years left! This time we really mean it AND we are warming the planet because we are burning too many fossil fuels!”

    Reality? We still have lots of oil and I have yet to see a dry pump and the global warmers have egg on their shirts.

    I am so tired of these smarty pants (like Clarity) proclaiming that the sky is falling. How many more times do they need to be proven wrong before people throw them over the side?

    In fact the only reason people like Clarity still exist is that people are gullible. I am not saying that I necessarily believe the whole Abiotic Oil theory but so far the biotic theory isn’t cutting the mustard but they keep coming back with it over and over.

    Something is going on. Maybe the entire Earth 10 miles down is just one big sea of oil or something. I don’t know. What I do know is the people crying limited supply and telling us how we are running out are wrong every time they have spoken.

  29. Libertarian Prince (Moderator) on November 30th, 2009 9:10 pm

    Rodger Samuel on – November 30th, 2009 9:03 pm:

    “What I do know is the people crying limited supply and telling us how we are running out are wrong every time they have spoken.”

    Kinda reminds you of those preachers that would proclaim a date for the end of the world, be wrong, recalculate, be wrong again, recalculate again …

    And still their flocks would show up time and again :D

  30. Adam C. on November 30th, 2009 9:18 pm

    The whole theory of abiotic oil freaks out the geoscientists that have staked their entire careers on finding oil based on the assumption of oil coming form solely dead organic matter.

    Anyone that has studies the topic knows it is plausible.

    A little bit of history on how bone headed so-called scientists can be. When the concept of Plate Tectonics was first proposed it was called all sorts of names by scientists that refused to believe in it just like the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun was scoffed at by people who just had to be right on the opposite stance.

    I don’t want to give the name of the company that I work for but it is a major NG/petroleum manufacturer and we are finding all sorts of new and now proven reserves of both in places that we only looked at after we started incorporating the abiotic theory into our models.

    Hey, its hard to make progress for some.

  31. EdwardE on November 30th, 2009 9:22 pm

    Here is what I know.

    If scientists are correct in their detection of hydrocarbons on the surfaces of moons in our solar system where there has never been life then there is only two explanations for its creation. First it was created in space and two it is created abiotically.

  32. Truddy on November 30th, 2009 9:31 pm

    Mr. Rodger Samuel, YES! The same thing I have always thought! I get so tired of these people telling us that oil is running out yadda yadda and we keep believing them and running back to them like an abused spouse!

  33. Jacob Tim on November 30th, 2009 9:34 pm

    The author is clearly not a straight abiotic oil proponent seeing as how he stated, “But if you choose to believe that its 5 (i.e. that “fossil fuels” are only created from “dead things”) that is your own ignorant choice.” That shows that he believes in both and from what I have seen I have to concur.

  34. Rodger Samuel on December 1st, 2009 5:44 am

    Yeah LP, I know, freaky isn’t it?

    Here is the funny part. If you strip out all the taxes and fees on gasoline that government has raised and raised over the years including both direct and indirect taxes, the true cost to bring one gallon of gasoline to market is about $1.50 per gallon right now. Considering how little oil these freaks complain that we have and with ever increasing demand as nations come onto the industrial scene that is literally peanuts when you consider refining costs.

    They yammer about how it costs so much to get at some of these deposits. But when you take that cost and look at the total gallons they are getting out of the stores it comes out to be just about $.01 to per gallon (rounded up) than they are paying to get a gallon of oil currently because of technological advancements.

    I have a really hard time getting excited about the “end of oil” as so many are proclaiming. And having worked in a refinery for nearly 20 years I am well enough versed in the chemistry of making useful products from all segments of an oil to know that abiotic theory which is basically the creation of light hydrocarbons and then heavier ones not only is plausible in the deep earth but absolutely likely because we do that daily in the plant.

  35. franzen on December 1st, 2009 8:15 am

    it boils down to this. you can either believe the science (chemistry and physics) which shows that abiotic production is possible or you an believe people that want to deny the science. We see how well igoring science has worked ob global waming huh?

  36. pol Jon on December 1st, 2009 2:48 pm

    I see it as so odd that people even question the concept of oil being produced by deep Earth chemistry. 3Recently alot of “scoentists” have had to eat crow with the noe verified process of abiotic methane. how long until they finally have to admit to more? Same type of people that denied the Eart i ound fyou ask me.

  37. Trippin Dad on December 1st, 2009 7:37 pm

    Hey J.J., what do you think about the actual chances for Congress letting us go after all the oil that we have under U.S. soil and our waters? And if it is not that good what do you think the odds are that the abiotic process could be used large scale in a refinery type plant?

  38. B. Owens PhD on December 3rd, 2009 5:34 pm

    B. Owens PhD

    I think that I have to chime in here based on previous comments that Clarity of thought made towards Mr. Jackson previously accusing him of not understanding economics. In my opinion, as an economist, it is Clarity of thought that does not understand economics and is using basic, text book, entry level definitions of supply and demand as taught to neophytes and thinking, incorrectly, that he or she understands enough on the topic to comment.

    What is considered supply actual is not as cut and dry as what is simply available on the market for purchase as Clarity of thought implies but is indeed more broadly defined as known and proven reserves when it comes to feed stocks like petroleum. This is different than how supply is defined in practice and reality from things made from those feed stocks. Example, automobiles in supply are not defined by the numbers of body panels awaiting assembly.

    Mr. Jackson discusses actual supply versus artificially limited supply based from actual supply and is very much correct in his description if not his usage of terminology.

    Proving this to one’s self is easy. When large new finds of petroleum, a feed stock, are discovered and those finds are reachable by current technology they are considered be part of the supply. If petroleum prices are rising, they tend to stabilize or not rise as fast on such news. If these prices are already stabilized they tend to start falling. For futures of course not current on demand delivery. Now, as Mr. Jackson explained, outside factors may inhibit the deliverability of that supply but the supply itself is not affected. Those factors which most certainly include government interference artificially deflect the demand portion of the equation and not the supply portion.

    Simple example of this is the old time closed system of the diver and his air hose fed by a compressor. Under normal conditions the diver gets the air he needs from the available supply through the delivery system of the hose. But if someone steps on the hose and prevents the delivery of the air the true supply of air has not been changed at all. But most certainly the demand for the air at the diver increases rapidly as time passes. But in the overall schema the diver is only a smally defined sphere and it would be false to assume that the supply of air has been alter by this action.

    There is still the same amount of air but only its availability, not its supply as defined economically, has changed. Supply has differing meanings to differing people so this is important to note. Supply in economic terms is the exploitable amount of a resource in existence which has not been changed in this case by the air hose being interfered with or in the example of petroleum government preventing people from accessing known reserves. Availability is defined as local supply and the problem with using availability (or local supply) as the basis is that it can change depending on how you arbitrarily define the “local” area. In the case of worldwide traded commodities, a narrowed sphere only distorts the perceived supply and ignores that what is being looked at is just local availability and not supply as we economists define it.

    The people in Cuba have a problem getting enough fish to eat but the supply of fish in the ocean remains true. Local availability is impeded by a government scared that if fishermen get on their boats to go and catch fish they will not stop until they hit Miami. This is a complication of economics often overlooked by novice economists.

    There is another reason why Clarity of thought’s definition is faulty. The ban on offshore drilling prevents the United States from accessing a lot of petroleum. However many of the wells are already dug but just capped. You can see how defining supply as only that which is actually already pulled from the ground and ready for delivery becomes even more problematic in this instance. Simply uncapping these wells results in production but once again supply has not changed at all. The amount of petroleum is still the same only the location has changed. It has not been processed or changed into something else. The fact that this oil exists exerts a current and downward pressure on world prices even though it is not currently on the market regardless. The reason for this is because the world market knows that under the right circumstances it could become nearly immediately, in economic sense, available to the market. If it was not considered as part of the supply then this would not be true and prices would not be affected by it.

    Another example of how impedance of delivery is not an indicator of scare supply and only effects the demand side would be if a man in his house needs bread but the store, fully stocked with bread, is 50 miles away while his car is broken down leaving him with no means to get to the supply of bread. Let’s say for the sake of argument that he cannot walk there or get someone else to take him. Is there considered a shortage of bread in this instance? There is not. But demand on the man’s part does most certainly increase as time passes. However if you define your sphere of supply and demand conveniently enough and say that that sphere is the man’s house then you would falsely be proclaiming that there is a shortage in the supply of bread and draw false conclusions.

    There is more to economics than just supply and demand. There is everything that happens in between and while a local availability of a good may be scarce because of the impedances and because you misdefine your sphere for convenience, it does not necessarily mean that supply is affected.

    Hope this clears some things up and educates some people. I’ve tried to explain it in as much layman’s terms as possible.

  39. sywars on December 11th, 2009 1:50 am

    Agreed with Clarity of Thought. So long as our rate of consumption doesn’t exceed the rate at which the deposits accumulate, assuming that biotic or abiotic theories are correct, it doesn’t really matter, unless, as one admin stated we can get more bang for our buck than 1:1. Unfortunately, there’s little that can be done at this point to separate the Sciences of Biology, Chemistry, and Geology from the Sciences of Scarcity and politics. Very interesting information and research being done in this field. I hope to read more about it, if anyone would like to enlighten me some more. Let’s just keep some civility and open minds about everything. So many of us are turning to childish insults and IRRELEVANT debating on scant issues. Let’s know what there is to know. Cheers.

  40. Libertarian Prince (Moderator) on December 12th, 2009 9:26 am

    sywars, perhaps you should re-read what Clarity said.

    He said, “the demand for oil is increasing at a faster rate than we are currently able to supply it”

    That is not the same as you saying, “So long as our rate of consumption doesn’t exceed the rate at which the deposits accumulate, assuming that biotic or abiotic theories are correct, it doesn’t really matter,”

    He is saying it does not matter because the rate or new “supply” is not equal to or greater than our current rate of extraction and consumption.

Leave a Reply

  • American Conservative Daily is owned and operated by J.J. Jackson, President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc.