Abiotic Oil, calling into question the overarching theory that the origins
of fossil fuel are of biological/organic origin was touched upon in my
previous post, "Oil's Big Dirty Secret as Producers Rake in Hundreds of
Billions," 08.12.08.
The comments to the post were wide ranging and the Peak Oil missionaries were apoplectic that one dared question their gospel intoning the sanctity of the biological origin of fossil fuels and its rapidly diminishing availability. Clearly the words "Abiotic Oil" stir up heated passions and clear concern among those in the oil patch who would be impacted were the theory to take hold. My post highlighted the issue without offering an opinion on Abiotic Oil Theory's viability. It did however attempt to outline the reasons why the oil industry would happily not have the concept of "Abiotic Oil" taken with any grain of seriousness.
A comment on my post was posted by one Rolo Tomassi simply stating:
Here's a site for those interested in the abiogenic side of the discussion: gasresources.net/
I would like to share excerpts from this link with you and would encourage you
to read the full text. They raise some startling questions and give frightening
credence to the points raised in my previous post. Here the entire issue
of Abiotic Oil Theory and the willful obstruction to objective scientific
examination by the Peak Oil minions and the oil industry to whom they
are beholden is laid bare. In stunning clarity the text further indicts in large
measure those in the American and British community of petroleum
geologists and their institutions for being willful parties to stonewalling
professional dialogue on this issue.
Now reading these excerpts is a bit of a slog, but if you have any interest in
this subject you will find it extraordinarily informative and well worth your
time. I quote as follows:
The essence of the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins
The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is an extensive body of scientific knowledge which covers the subjects of the chemical genesis of the hydrocarbon molecules which comprise natural petroleum, the physical processes which occasion their terrestrial concentration, the dynamical processes of the movement of that material into geological reservoirs of petroleum, and the location and economic production of petroleum. The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins recognizes that petroleum is a primordial material of deep origin which has been erupted into the crust of the Earth. In short, and bluntly, petroleum is not a "fossil fuel" and has no intrinsic connection with dead dinosaurs (or any other biological detritus) "in the sediments" (or anywhere else)...
The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of petroleum is based upon rigorous scientific reasoning, consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry, as well as upon extensive geological observation, and rests squarely in the mainstream of modern physics and chemistry, from which it draws its provenance. Much of the modern Russian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum genesis developed from the sciences of chemistry and thermodynamics, and accordingly the modern theory has steadfastly held as a central tenet that the generation of hydrocarbons must conform to the general laws of chemical thermodynamics, - as must likewise all matter. In such respect, modern Russian-Ukrainian petroleum science contrasts strongly to what are too often passed off as "theories" in the field of geology in Britain and the U.S.A.
In the pages containing articles connected with petroleum economics, there are several papers by Professor Michael C. Lynch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology which address directly the myth of "oil exhaustion." There is also a link to an article by Professor Peter Odell of the London School of Economics concerning the common misperceptions connected with petroleum economics.
One should understand that these papers cannot give justice to the immense literature of modern Russian petroleum science. During the half century between 1951-2001, there have been thousands of articles published in the mainstream Russian scientific journals on the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins, and many books and monographs. For example, V. A. Krayushkin has published more than two hundred fifty articles on modern petroleum geology, and several books.
In light of the extensive literature of modern Russian petroleum science, questions inevitably arise among persons reading of it for the first time: Why has there been nothing published on this body of knowledge in the English-language (or American) journals which purportedly deal with matters involving petroleum ? Why have there never been Russian or Ukrainian petroleum scientists invited to address a meeting of, e.g., the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (A.A.P.G.) ? Why has there not been appointed to the faculty of a single department of Earth sciences, at any university in the U.S.A., a petroleum scientist competent to teach modern petroleum science ? In short, why have persons in the U.S.A. never heard of this body of knowledge ?
Such lack of reporting has not happened by accident. As the reader may surmise, this dysfunctional behavior has been a rather typical manifestation of the purveyors of quackery, desperately striving to preserve their self-image, conceits, and jobs. In short, there has been at work the Wizard of Oz chicanery, - before the little dog Toto snatched away the curtain. No reader should entertain an illusion that the publishing of these articles, in first-rank scientific journals such as Physical-Chemistry/Chemical-Physics, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has been welcomed by the British/American petroleum geo-phrenology brotherhood.
The history of this behavior deserves itself the attention of competent social anthropologists and persons specializing in political science, and could be the subject of a host of illuminating essays..."
Who is right, who is wrong? I am not qualified to comment. But clearly something is afoot in the attempt to quash any and all discussion of the "Abiotic Oil Theory." One needs ask why the oil industry and segments of the scientific community are so reluctant even to confront the theory. Perhaps the stakes are higher than we can imagine!