There's plenty of oil (read some Gold stuff)
Question:
>Come on Rolf, if these big amount of Hydrocarbons were >present at you alleged creation of the Earth, they would >have been blowed to Hell and the Earth with it !!!
No, they *were* present, and have caused no "bang" either, as you’re saying they must. Only if conditions had been *quite hot* and *oxygen* were present, together with those hydro- carbons, would there have been a "bang", I presume. Even so, there would not by far be one big enough to blow up the whole planet. Btw, I apologize to you and others for one error in my last posting. I wrote that "already at school" long ago, I had "learned" that the atmosphere of Jupiter consisted "mainly of methane, CH4". I got that wrong somehow. Checking it up now, I’ve seen that it actually consists mainly of *hydrogen*, H2, plus some helium, with only a smaller percentage of methane. The same with Saturn etc. That’s "fuel" anyway, chemical such, I mean. And as I calcu- lated concerning Neptune, it would be no use for us to try to collect it *for burning*, since more energy is needed to tear it loose from such a big planet than you’ll get from it in that way. As "fuel" for *nuclear fusion*, rather far in the future, it could come in handy, though. I mean, when mankind’s annual energy use is thousands of times that of today, and interstellar travel, for instance, not just "a fantasy". >Do you have a idea about the temp. of sublimation of >Silicates to form geodes ? How could your oil still be >there then !
Actually, I don’t. But astronomer (etc) Gold says hydro- carbons will not even get dissociated, let alone "explode", even at those high temperatures which there are some hundreds of km down. This is because of the pressure there, as far as I understand. See: http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/. And sorry, it isn’t *my* oil, nor yours (today). All such stuff still is really owned/controlled by a small number of very rich people, who won’t even tell us it’s there but are keeping this a VERY BIG SECRET, and who have no intention of pumping up those lots and lots of it that could be pumped up and then sold to people "dirt cheap", which is what could be done and should be done with such things, in any reasonably well-functioning society at the present stage of development! >However your approach re the inorganic origin of Oil is quite >correct and I have other leads in this direction indeed ! >Reg’s >– >Jean-Paul Turcaud >Hydro & Mining Prospector
On that we agree, then. This is important too. People every- where need to know that oil is *not* "biological" in origin and thus "probably scarce", but *inorganic* and plentiful. Rolf M.
Response:
hi jean-paul. I am wondering if the different pressure environment may change the behavior. After all diamonds form as nice crystals(biger is better in this case). these crystals formed in a space that is the same size as the crystal. so there are holes at great depth. also methane is a liquid at these pressures ( i think) we wouldn’t blow up due to the low level of O2 and the high pressure. also oil will dissolve in sulfur liquids .. if sulfur was the transport liquid then we could explain how millions of tons of metals are located in concentrated form , i.e. pine point mine in canada that is in a early devonian reef. On the other side of the fault (to the south ) they are full of oil. many oil deposits are contaminated with sulfur in such levels that are not found in any organic source. mmm i seem to be rambling on.. I would like to ready your theories as to many of the subjects you have talked about . regards tim – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Come on Rolf , if these big amount of Hydrocarbons were present at you > alleged creation of the Earth, they would have been blowed to Hell and the > Earth with it !!! > Do you have a idea about the temp. of sublimation of Silicates to form > geodes ? How could your oil still be there then ! > However your approach re the inorganic origin of Oil is quite correct and I > have other leads in this direction indeed ! > Reg’s > — > Jean-Paul Turcaud > Hydro & Mining Prospector > Pioneer Of Australian Mining > Founder Of The New Geology > Web Sites: > The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of The 20th Century > http://www.rune-inc.com/welleda/ > Refutation Of The Horrid Geological Myths > http://www.rune-inc.com/horus/ > ~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~ > >hi rolf. > >im not sure if its so much of a big scandal or lack of > >experimental proof. > Hello again Tim, > A long one from me this time – on BIG scandal, BIG proof! > Some of the stuff below I’d like some specialists in > geology, chemistry etc to make some suggestions on. > You mean, the politicians’ and the medias’ always saying > "oil has biological origins and thus is scacre", though > this since long is a refuted theory and in reality, oil > and natural gas come from enormous amounts of hydrocar- > bons at great depths, which were there when the earth > was formed and which are continually seeping upwards. > It *is* a big scandal. Experimental proof of oil’s being > *abiotic* there is since long, lots of it. Those two deep > wells here in Sweden around 1990, which I mentioned, and > many deep wells today in Russia, China and Vietnam for > instance (I think, *some* in the USA too), which are > producing lots of oil. > >deep wells cost a lot, and the conventional view says > >that they shouldn’t waste the money ..so they dont..its > >a simple self propagating theory. > A really *extremely mendacious* "conventional view"! > It *doesn’t matter* that a 7 km well in granite costs some > US$ 10 million! Say you need to drill 20 of them before > you hit one of the big deep fields. The outlay in that > case of US$ 200 million is *peanuts* compared to those > *hundreds of billions worth* of oil which you can then > pump up (or which in many cases will just gush up) for > practically nothing. > Take *off-shore* prospective drilling and oil/gas extraction, > which today is going on in many parts of the world. Those big > platforms etc which need to be built for doing this, out > there in the oceans, of course are *very* "expensive". In > the sense that big investements are needed for building them. > But this is being done on a large scale anyway. It’s obviously > *very profitable* And why? Because the *returns* on those > investments are so enormous. Once you’ve found the actual > oil/gas "pocket" – in the case of the enormous Ekofisk field > owned by Norway this took 34 exploratory wells – and have > started pumping the stuff up, having invested those few tens > or hundreds of millions of US$, it then is "money for no- > thing", more or less ("you" – the capitalists, today – will > have to pay the oil workers, but those are very few), to the > tune of tens or hundreds of *billions’* worth of oil and gas. > I don’t know precisely *how* "expensive" is off-shore oil > extraction, in various locations, compared to deep onshore > extraction. My guess is it’s at least as "expensive". But > obviously, it’s *very* profitable indeed. > Today, the *political* (criminal) international campaign > for causing all energy to be as scarce and expensive as only > possible of course also entails that much less of off-shore > drilling too is being undertaken than what could be done. > >even if deep oil were found it would still be expensive > >due to the development cost. > See above. Deep oil not only since long *has* been found. > (I myself had one week of a welder’s wages invested into > it!) It also is being pumped up, in large amounts, today. > Only because of those extremely scandalous conditions of > *willed strangulation* and media *lies* and *withholding > of the most elementary information* is it that *we never > hear a word* about this. We have to dig very deep indeed > into all possible sources of information (or " ") in order > to know some things which are taking place daily, for in- > stance (that pumping in Russia etc etc). > And once again: *Not* expensive at all. That too is just > one more silly propaganda lie. > >but at least we wouldn’t have the constant worry of > >cut off in supply etc. > >tim > Well, the price of extraction of course does matter. If it > does get relatively high, such as it would be, given today’s > technology, for oil extraxcted out of (most) oil shales, for > instance, then such oil would not be all that useful. > says… > (an earlier posting): > >.. and i do know that some day someone will stop coming > >up with theories that violate fundamental pressure gradient > >boundaries.. > You mean, other theories than that silly "biological-origin" > one. And yes, as you and I know, Mendeleev in 1877 and Gold > and others today already have got it basically right. > By "violating fundamental pressure gradient boundaries" you > mean the fact that oil, which has a quite low density, of > course could never have "migrated down" to those depths where > it’s often found and where the pressure is so much bigger, as > the "biological-orgin" propagandists are saying. > Concerning this, I recently found some statements with some > good pieces of reasoning in it, at a "Mystery page". Excerpts, > [QUOTE:] > This response is for Daniel E. Reynolds, 29 July 1996 on the > subject of "Oil – A renewable and abiotic Fuel?" > Dan, your use of the word "abiotic" is good. As a non-fossil > fuel, petroleum has no living antecedent. It contains chemical > elements found in living matter; but it is not "formerly > living matter." There has not been enough true "formerly > living matter" through all of creation to account for the > volume of petroleumthat has been consumed to date. > My background in this subject goes back to 1943. I was the > pilot who flew a US Geological Survey Team from Casablanca to > Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. > … > During the "Energy Crisis" of the 1970s I was detailed to > represent the US Railroad industry as a member of the "Federal > Staff Energy Seminar" program started by the Center for > Strategic and International Studies, sponsored by Georgetown > University. > … > During one meeting we took a "Buffet Break" and I was seated > with Arthur Kantrowitz of the AVCO Company…"Kantrowitz Labs" > near Boston. At the table with us were four young geologists > busily talking about Petroleum. At one point one of them made > reference to "Petroleum as organic matter, and a fossil fuel." > Right out of the Rockefeller bible. > Kantrowitz turned to the geologist beside him and asked, "Do > you really believe that petroleum is a fossil fuel?" The man > said, "Certainly" and all four of them joined in. Kantrowitz > listened quietly and then said, "The deepest fossil ever > found has been at about 16,000 feet [5000+ m - RM] below sea > level; yet we are getting oil from wells drilled to 30,000 > [9,000 m - RM] and more. How could fossil fuel get down there? > If it was once living matter, it had to be on the surface. If > it did turn into petroleum, at or near the surface, how could > it ever get to such depths? What is heavier Oil or Water?" > Water: so it would go down, not oil. Oil would be on top, if > it were "organic" and "lighter." > "Oil is neither." > They all agreed water was heavier, and therefore if there was > some crack or other open area for this "Organic matter" to go > deep into the magma of Earth, water would have to go first > and oil would be left nearer the surface. This is reasonable. > … > [END OF QUOTE] > So this "biological-origin" theory which has been prevalent > during most of the 20th century and which still today is the > one that *all* the politicians and media are saying is "cor- > rect", even "proven", actually *defies some very simple > facts*. And people who had some knowledge in the field *could > easily see this*, even
… read more »
Response:
Come on Rolf , if these big amount of Hydrocarbons were present at you alleged creation of the Earth, they would have been blowed to Hell and the Earth with it !!! Do you have a idea about the temp. of sublimation of Silicates to form geodes ? How could your oil still be there then ! However your approach re the inorganic origin of Oil is quite correct and I have other leads in this direction indeed ! Reg’s — Jean-Paul Turcaud Hydro & Mining Prospector Pioneer Of Australian Mining Founder Of The New Geology Web Sites: The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of The 20th Century http://www.rune-inc.com/welleda/ Refutation Of The Horrid Geological Myths http://www.rune-inc.com/horus/ ~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->hi rolf. >im not sure if its so much of a big scandal or lack of >experimental proof. > Hello again Tim, > A long one from me this time – on BIG scandal, BIG proof! > Some of the stuff below I’d like some specialists in > geology, chemistry etc to make some suggestions on. > You mean, the politicians’ and the medias’ always saying > "oil has biological origins and thus is scacre", though > this since long is a refuted theory and in reality, oil > and natural gas come from enormous amounts of hydrocar- > bons at great depths, which were there when the earth > was formed and which are continually seeping upwards. > It *is* a big scandal. Experimental proof of oil’s being > *abiotic* there is since long, lots of it. Those two deep > wells here in Sweden around 1990, which I mentioned, and > many deep wells today in Russia, China and Vietnam for > instance (I think, *some* in the USA too), which are > producing lots of oil. >deep wells cost a lot, and the conventional view says >that they shouldn’t waste the money ..so they dont..its >a simple self propagating theory. > A really *extremely mendacious* "conventional view"! > It *doesn’t matter* that a 7 km well in granite costs some > US$ 10 million! Say you need to drill 20 of them before > you hit one of the big deep fields. The outlay in that > case of US$ 200 million is *peanuts* compared to those > *hundreds of billions worth* of oil which you can then > pump up (or which in many cases will just gush up) for > practically nothing. > Take *off-shore* prospective drilling and oil/gas extraction, > which today is going on in many parts of the world. Those big > platforms etc which need to be built for doing this, out > there in the oceans, of course are *very* "expensive". In > the sense that big investements are needed for building them. > But this is being done on a large scale anyway. It’s obviously > *very profitable* And why? Because the *returns* on those > investments are so enormous. Once you’ve found the actual > oil/gas "pocket" – in the case of the enormous Ekofisk field > owned by Norway this took 34 exploratory wells – and have > started pumping the stuff up, having invested those few tens > or hundreds of millions of US$, it then is "money for no- > thing", more or less ("you" – the capitalists, today – will > have to pay the oil workers, but those are very few), to the > tune of tens or hundreds of *billions’* worth of oil and gas. > I don’t know precisely *how* "expensive" is off-shore oil > extraction, in various locations, compared to deep onshore > extraction. My guess is it’s at least as "expensive". But > obviously, it’s *very* profitable indeed. > Today, the *political* (criminal) international campaign > for causing all energy to be as scarce and expensive as only > possible of course also entails that much less of off-shore > drilling too is being undertaken than what could be done. >even if deep oil were found it would still be expensive >due to the development cost. > See above. Deep oil not only since long *has* been found. > (I myself had one week of a welder’s wages invested into > it!) It also is being pumped up, in large amounts, today. > Only because of those extremely scandalous conditions of > *willed strangulation* and media *lies* and *withholding > of the most elementary information* is it that *we never > hear a word* about this. We have to dig very deep indeed > into all possible sources of information (or " ") in order > to know some things which are taking place daily, for in- > stance (that pumping in Russia etc etc). > And once again: *Not* expensive at all. That too is just > one more silly propaganda lie. >but at least we wouldn’t have the constant worry of >cut off in supply etc. >tim > Well, the price of extraction of course does matter. If it > does get relatively high, such as it would be, given today’s > technology, for oil extraxcted out of (most) oil shales, for > instance, then such oil would not be all that useful. > says… > (an earlier posting): >.. and i do know that some day someone will stop coming >up with theories that violate fundamental pressure gradient >boundaries.. > You mean, other theories than that silly "biological-origin" > one. And yes, as you and I know, Mendeleev in 1877 and Gold > and others today already have got it basically right. > By "violating fundamental pressure gradient boundaries" you > mean the fact that oil, which has a quite low density, of > course could never have "migrated down" to those depths where > it’s often found and where the pressure is so much bigger, as > the "biological-orgin" propagandists are saying. > Concerning this, I recently found some statements with some > good pieces of reasoning in it, at a "Mystery page". Excerpts, > [QUOTE:] > This response is for Daniel E. Reynolds, 29 July 1996 on the > subject of "Oil – A renewable and abiotic Fuel?" > Dan, your use of the word "abiotic" is good. As a non-fossil > fuel, petroleum has no living antecedent. It contains chemical > elements found in living matter; but it is not "formerly > living matter." There has not been enough true "formerly > living matter" through all of creation to account for the > volume of petroleumthat has been consumed to date. > My background in this subject goes back to 1943. I was the > pilot who flew a US Geological Survey Team from Casablanca to > Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. > … > During the "Energy Crisis" of the 1970s I was detailed to > represent the US Railroad industry as a member of the "Federal > Staff Energy Seminar" program started by the Center for > Strategic and International Studies, sponsored by Georgetown > University. > … > During one meeting we took a "Buffet Break" and I was seated > with Arthur Kantrowitz of the AVCO Company…"Kantrowitz Labs" > near Boston. At the table with us were four young geologists > busily talking about Petroleum. At one point one of them made > reference to "Petroleum as organic matter, and a fossil fuel." > Right out of the Rockefeller bible. > Kantrowitz turned to the geologist beside him and asked, "Do > you really believe that petroleum is a fossil fuel?" The man > said, "Certainly" and all four of them joined in. Kantrowitz > listened quietly and then said, "The deepest fossil ever > found has been at about 16,000 feet [5000+ m - RM] below sea > level; yet we are getting oil from wells drilled to 30,000 > [9,000 m - RM] and more. How could fossil fuel get down there? > If it was once living matter, it had to be on the surface. If > it did turn into petroleum, at or near the surface, how could > it ever get to such depths? What is heavier Oil or Water?" > Water: so it would go down, not oil. Oil would be on top, if > it were "organic" and "lighter." > "Oil is neither." > They all agreed water was heavier, and therefore if there was > some crack or other open area for this "Organic matter" to go > deep into the magma of Earth, water would have to go first > and oil would be left nearer the surface. This is reasonable. > … > [END OF QUOTE] > So this "biological-origin" theory which has been prevalent > during most of the 20th century and which still today is the > one that *all* the politicians and media are saying is "cor- > rect", even "proven", actually *defies some very simple > facts*. And people who had some knowledge in the field *could > easily see this*, even *several decades ago*. > Another thing you wrote in that earlier post, Tim, was: >Have you ever been in a coal mine and found what they call >dead heads, there trees going through the formation.. there >coal where in the coal seam and fossilized wood on either >end > I on my part have never seen this. But I’ve read about similar > things, long ago. > Now we’re talking about *coal*. Which consists more or less > entirely (to over 90%) of pure carbon, C, and which the > present-day *propaganda* says has "biological orgins" too. > This obviously is likewise *false*. > On that site of Gold’s I mentioned, http://www.people.cornell. > edu/pages/tg21/, there’s nothing about coal or its origins. > But there’s a discussion on it in one book in Swedish from > 1985 which I translated as part of a posting of mine in 1996: > Jan Bergstroem: "Oil and Gas – Biological or Cosmic Origins?". > That author could not tell *how* the coal layers (and grahpite > layers, which are pure carbon, C, too) were formed. But he > noted some facts which certainly strongly contradict the > "biological-origin" theory. And I’ve recently seen some infor- > mation on other facts which do that. > As far as I can tell today – as absolutely an amateur on > these things – the coal and graphite layers must have been > formed, too, by *enormous amounts of hydrocarbons*, that is,
… read more »
Response:
>hi rolf. >im not sure if its so much of a big scandal or lack of >experimental proof.
Hello again Tim, A long one from me this time – on BIG scandal, BIG proof! Some of the stuff below I’d like some specialists in geology, chemistry etc to make some suggestions on. You mean, the politicians’ and the medias’ always saying "oil has biological origins and thus is scacre", though this since long is a refuted theory and in reality, oil and natural gas come from enormous amounts of hydrocar- bons at great depths, which were there when the earth was formed and which are continually seeping upwards. It *is* a big scandal. Experimental proof of oil’s being *abiotic* there is since long, lots of it. Those two deep wells here in Sweden around 1990, which I mentioned, and many deep wells today in Russia, China and Vietnam for instance (I think, *some* in the USA too), which are producing lots of oil. >deep wells cost a lot, and the conventional view says >that they shouldn’t waste the money ..so they dont..its >a simple self propagating theory.
A really *extremely mendacious* "conventional view"! It *doesn’t matter* that a 7 km well in granite costs some US$ 10 million! Say you need to drill 20 of them before you hit one of the big deep fields. The outlay in that case of US$ 200 million is *peanuts* compared to those *hundreds of billions worth* of oil which you can then pump up (or which in many cases will just gush up) for practically nothing. Take *off-shore* prospective drilling and oil/gas extraction, which today is going on in many parts of the world. Those big platforms etc which need to be built for doing this, out there in the oceans, of course are *very* "expensive". In the sense that big investements are needed for building them. But this is being done on a large scale anyway. It’s obviously *very profitable* And why? Because the *returns* on those investments are so enormous. Once you’ve found the actual oil/gas "pocket" – in the case of the enormous Ekofisk field owned by Norway this took 34 exploratory wells – and have started pumping the stuff up, having invested those few tens or hundreds of millions of US$, it then is "money for no- thing", more or less ("you" – the capitalists, today – will have to pay the oil workers, but those are very few), to the tune of tens or hundreds of *billions’* worth of oil and gas. I don’t know precisely *how* "expensive" is off-shore oil extraction, in various locations, compared to deep onshore extraction. My guess is it’s at least as "expensive". But obviously, it’s *very* profitable indeed. Today, the *political* (criminal) international campaign for causing all energy to be as scarce and expensive as only possible of course also entails that much less of off-shore drilling too is being undertaken than what could be done. >even if deep oil were found it would still be expensive >due to the development cost.
See above. Deep oil not only since long *has* been found. (I myself had one week of a welder’s wages invested into it!) It also is being pumped up, in large amounts, today. Only because of those extremely scandalous conditions of *willed strangulation* and media *lies* and *withholding of the most elementary information* is it that *we never hear a word* about this. We have to dig very deep indeed into all possible sources of information (or " ") in order to know some things which are taking place daily, for in- stance (that pumping in Russia etc etc). And once again: *Not* expensive at all. That too is just one more silly propaganda lie. >but at least we wouldn’t have the constant worry of >cut off in supply etc. >tim
Well, the price of extraction of course does matter. If it does get relatively high, such as it would be, given today’s technology, for oil extraxcted out of (most) oil shales, for instance, then such oil would not be all that useful. says… (an earlier posting): >.. and i do know that some day someone will stop coming >up with theories that violate fundamental pressure gradient >boundaries..
You mean, other theories than that silly "biological-origin" one. And yes, as you and I know, Mendeleev in 1877 and Gold and others today already have got it basically right. By "violating fundamental pressure gradient boundaries" you mean the fact that oil, which has a quite low density, of course could never have "migrated down" to those depths where it’s often found and where the pressure is so much bigger, as the "biological-orgin" propagandists are saying. Concerning this, I recently found some statements with some good pieces of reasoning in it, at a "Mystery page". Excerpts, [QUOTE:] This response is for Daniel E. Reynolds, 29 July 1996 on the subject of "Oil – A renewable and abiotic Fuel?" Dan, your use of the word "abiotic" is good. As a non-fossil fuel, petroleum has no living antecedent. It contains chemical elements found in living matter; but it is not "formerly living matter." There has not been enough true "formerly living matter" through all of creation to account for the volume of petroleumthat has been consumed to date. My background in this subject goes back to 1943. I was the pilot who flew a US Geological Survey Team from Casablanca to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. … During the "Energy Crisis" of the 1970s I was detailed to represent the US Railroad industry as a member of the "Federal Staff Energy Seminar" program started by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, sponsored by Georgetown University. … During one meeting we took a "Buffet Break" and I was seated with Arthur Kantrowitz of the AVCO Company…"Kantrowitz Labs" near Boston. At the table with us were four young geologists busily talking about Petroleum. At one point one of them made reference to "Petroleum as organic matter, and a fossil fuel." Right out of the Rockefeller bible. Kantrowitz turned to the geologist beside him and asked, "Do you really believe that petroleum is a fossil fuel?" The man said, "Certainly" and all four of them joined in. Kantrowitz listened quietly and then said, "The deepest fossil ever found has been at about 16,000 feet [5000+ m - RM] below sea level; yet we are getting oil from wells drilled to 30,000 [9,000 m - RM] and more. How could fossil fuel get down there? If it was once living matter, it had to be on the surface. If it did turn into petroleum, at or near the surface, how could it ever get to such depths? What is heavier Oil or Water?" Water: so it would go down, not oil. Oil would be on top, if it were "organic" and "lighter." "Oil is neither." They all agreed water was heavier, and therefore if there was some crack or other open area for this "Organic matter" to go deep into the magma of Earth, water would have to go first and oil would be left nearer the surface. This is reasonable. … [END OF QUOTE] So this "biological-origin" theory which has been prevalent during most of the 20th century and which still today is the one that *all* the politicians and media are saying is "cor- rect", even "proven", actually *defies some very simple facts*. And people who had some knowledge in the field *could easily see this*, even *several decades ago*. Another thing you wrote in that earlier post, Tim, was: >Have you ever been in a coal mine and found what they call >dead heads, there trees going through the formation.. there >coal where in the coal seam and fossilized wood on either >end
I on my part have never seen this. But I’ve read about similar things, long ago. Now we’re talking about *coal*. Which consists more or less entirely (to over 90%) of pure carbon, C, and which the present-day *propaganda* says has "biological orgins" too. This obviously is likewise *false*. On that site of Gold’s I mentioned, http://www.people.cornell. edu/pages/tg21/, there’s nothing about coal or its origins. But there’s a discussion on it in one book in Swedish from 1985 which I translated as part of a posting of mine in 1996: Jan Bergstroem: "Oil and Gas – Biological or Cosmic Origins?". That author could not tell *how* the coal layers (and grahpite layers, which are pure carbon, C, too) were formed. But he noted some facts which certainly strongly contradict the "biological-origin" theory. And I’ve recently seen some infor- mation on other facts which do that. As far as I can tell today – as absolutely an amateur on these things – the coal and graphite layers must have been formed, too, by *enormous amounts of hydrocarbons*, that is, methane (CH4, the simplest and most common one) and other compounds of carbon and hydrogen (C and H), which have *seeped up from deep down in the earth* (in the mantle, below the crust, at depths of some hundreds of km). At some point, those C and H compounds have *lost their hydrogen components* – how? This I don’t know. Such stuff as CH4 (etc) of course is energy-rich. When you burn it, both the C atoms and the H atoms are oxidized, combined with oxy- gen O (actually, O2) so as to give the result: CH4 + 3 O2 turns into CO2 (carbon dioxide) + 2 H2O (water) + energy. Now I don’t know (I confess) whether such a process (of dis- sociation, then) as turning CH4 into C + 2 H2 in itself re- leases energy or consumes it. This starts out with energy-rich CH4 and ends with other energy-rich substances, coal/graphite (carbon) and free hydrogen (which is rocket fuel, of course, and possible car fuel too). Probably CH4 can be dissociated into C and H2 by heating it up and preventing it from being oxidized, at the same time – that is, adding energy to it. But conditions on or near the earth’s surface cannot have been such, I presume, as to make this occur and create coal and graphite layers. There … read more »
Response:
hi rolf. im not sure if its so much of a big scandal or lack of experimental proof. deep wells cost a lot, and the conventional view says that they shouldn’t waste the money ..so they dont..its a simple self propagating theory. even if deep oil were found it would still be expensive due to the development cost. but at least we wouldn’t have the constant worry of cut off in supply etc. tim – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->hi rolf. >yes i only used the serpetrol site to confirm to others that there is >oil production from the basement rock. I really doubt that it was pushed >down into the rock especially since all the texts promote the upward >migration of oil. I am equally interested to learn how water overcomes >huge reverse pressure and makes it into the mantle and comes back out of >the deep sea vents ( with methane etc.). >I seem to remember that when you oxidize methane you get carbon dioxide >and water.. isn’t that what comes out of volcanos ( with a fair bit of >methane and sulfur. >Gold may not have the whole story , but i do believe that it is more >reasonable to assume that earth behaves like the rest of the known >universe in that it is made of hydrocarbons in the first place ( in >relative abundance and created without having a source rock in sight) >tim > Hello Tim, > Yes! We both can see, at least, that Gold is obviously > right. Meaning, that what all the politicians and media > are telling people on this subject is wrong. A big > scandal (mildly speaking) which needs to be done > something about. > And, we need to know much more too. > Rolf M.
Response:
im never sure of to much .. drilled to may dry holes .. but i am sure that the knowledge needed to make informed guesses at the truth will come as soon as we get some decent hyper spectral scans of the surface, and are able to sample the planet in more detail, all be it remotely. Who knows about the moon.. were are not to likely to evaluate it. i do know that methane comes out of volcanos in the geologically active planets (earth included) and that the magma chamber is deep. I do know the carbon isotope ratios would point to original carbon as opposed to recycled oragnics etc.. and i do know that some day someone will stop coming up with theories that violate fundamental pressure gradient boundaries. Have you ever been in a coal mine and found what they call dead heads, there trees going through the formation.. there coal where in the coal seam and fossilized wood on either end.. things like this just point to possible alternate theories. the production from granite is a no brainier .. to think that oil migrated down against a pressure gradient and through solid granite has a funny ring to it.. tim – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hi graham: > Im not sure that there is no evidence to show that any volcanic > activity on mars does not vent methane?. > Not sure, no evidence, not vent … > what are you sure of? > Is there oil on (inside) Mars or is there not? > Is there oil on (inside) the Moon or is there not. > [snip] > — Graham Cowan > Let the baby play with matches in the fuel storage room. > http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
Response:
> Hi graham: > Im not sure that there is no evidence to show that any volcanic > activity on mars does not vent methane?.
Not sure, no evidence, not vent … what are you sure of? Is there oil on (inside) Mars or is there not? Is there oil on (inside) the Moon or is there not. > [snip]
— Graham Cowan Let the baby play with matches in the fuel storage room. http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->hi rolf. >yes i only used the serpetrol site to confirm to others that there is >oil production from the basement rock. I really doubt that it was pushed >down into the rock especially since all the texts promote the upward >migration of oil. I am equally interested to learn how water overcomes >huge reverse pressure and makes it into the mantle and comes back out of >the deep sea vents ( with methane etc.). >I seem to remember that when you oxidize methane you get carbon dioxide >and water.. isn’t that what comes out of volcanos ( with a fair bit of >methane and sulfur. >Gold may not have the whole story , but i do believe that it is more >reasonable to assume that earth behaves like the rest of the known >universe in that it is made of hydrocarbons in the first place ( in >relative abundance and created without having a source rock in sight) >tim
Hello Tim, Yes! We both can see, at least, that Gold is obviously right. Meaning, that what all the politicians and media are telling people on this subject is wrong. A big scandal (mildly speaking) which needs to be done something about. And, we need to know much more too. Rolf M.
Response:
>So do you expect evidence to turn up of oil on the Moon >and Mars?
On that, see below. (Irony misplaced, Graham!) >One of the first ideas to draw attention to the late Sir >Fred Hoyle was his proposal of a possible inter stellar >origin for Oil known in the 50s as Hoyle’s oil. >I dont subscribe to the idea but its originator should get >some credit.
I read Fred Hoyle too, long ago, though I don’t remember that thing about oil, so early. But clearly he was basically right. I’ve read elsewhere that there’s plenty of *methane* in space (which makes up most of what is called "natural gas", and from which oil can be formed too, by polymeriza- tion). This is natural too. As Gold points out, carbon is the fourth most common basic element, and hydrogen of course is the most common of all. Thus it’s logical that lots of CH4 (methane) exists in the universe. You’re right, Doug. Holye should get some credit for this theory of his, as basically correct. >I would have thought that the isotopic ratios of the carbon >atoms could have provided evidence of its source.
I believe they do, further demonstrating the fact that the origin of hydrocarbons on earth (oil, natural gas, the enormous fuel resources) *is* cosmic, *not* biological. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hi graham: > Im not sure that there is no evidence to show that any > volcanic activity on mars does not vent methane?. >Not sure, no evidence, not vent … >what are you sure of? >Is there oil on (inside) Mars or is there not? >Is there oil on (inside) the Moon or is there not. > [snip] >— Graham Cowan >Let the baby play with matches in the fuel storage room. >http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
Not nice, Graham! You should direct your irony *against the politicians and media* in the USA, in Sweden, etc, etc instead! It’s they who’re *not telling people anything even close to the truth* on these matters. You cannot, under such circumstances, expect mere amateurs such as Tim and I to know all that much about these things! How is it now, concerning existence or absence of oil, or rather, *hydrocarbons*, of which the most important is methane, and which (on earth at least) can be polymerized (with the help of some nice bacteria, of which there are enormous amounts, deep down in the ground on "our" panet) into oil? I happen to know some basic facts about this. They’re quite easy to explain. There are no, or practically no, hydrocarbons on the Moon or on Mars, it seems. But *enormous* amounts of them on the outer planets (except, probably, Pluto). That is, on Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Methane (i.e., natural gas!) even makes up the main part of the enormous atmoshpere of that giant planet Jupiter. This we even learned at school, back in the good old 50s. It seems that today, even this somple fact is being largely *censored out of* the school textbooks, by the way. A simple textbook of astronomy will show you that the density of those four outer planets is much lower than that of the four innermost ones, Mars, Earth, Venus and Mercury. Why this? It’s because those outer ones have much more of such gases and also liquids as the hydrocarbons – and other stuff too, I believe. And why this again? I don’t know whether there was such a tendency already in the beginning, when the planets were formed. But one important factor causing this at least is the fact that those four outer planets are *much bigger* than the inner rones. Jupiter’s mass is 318 times that of Earth, and Neptune’s some 17 earth masses. This means that their much stronger gravity fields have been able to *hold on to* such lighter substances as (free) hydrogen and also methane etc, which would otherwise *dissipate into space* in the course of millions / billions of years. (This depending also of course on whether or not such substances are being trapped in the solid part, if any, of the respective planet.) What has happened – is still happening – on earth is that the methane and the other hydrocarbons which there are, quite deep down (some hundreds of km), are seeping upwards towards the surface. Conversely, iron and nickel has sunk down, to form the well-known present "NiFe core" in the earth’s centre. The moon and Mars have much lower gravity than those four big outer planets. Therfore, it’s reasonable to expect that those amounts of methane etc which there were from the beginning have now (in the main) dissipated out into space, *vanished* from those planets. No mystery at all that the moon and Mars have (probably) very little methane, while Jupiter etc have the most enormous amounts of it. From the beginning, all planets had lots of metane in them, it’s to be expected, since that stuff, CH4, is made up of two of the most common basic elements of all, in the universe (all of them except hydrogen being "manufac- tured", as is known, in supernovae and then spurted out into big regions of space). Earth and Venus are about equally big, have "medium" gravity fields, have been able to hold on to relatively big amounts of methane etc. Venus as is known has a rather thick atmosphere consisting largely of carbon dioxide, CO2, and an enormous "greenhouse effect", causingt its surface to be "abnormally" hot. This CO2 rather clearly comes from that earlier metane etc wich was there originally on Venus and has now oxidized. Would it be "profitable" to collect some of those giant amounts of natural gas (methane) which there are on Jupiter etc? No. I even read somewhere that in the atmosphere of Neptune, there are even large amounts of free hydrogen (H2), an even better (chemical) fuel than CH4. But for it to be used (burned), this stuff (too) nedds to be combined with oxygen, of course. Meaning, it would need to be transported away – say, to earth or to some power station on the moon. And to tear a H2 molecule away from the big gravity of Nep- tune (17 times the mass of earth) would require *more* energy than you’d later get from it by burning, I’ve ascertained (I think) with a rough calculation, some time ago. Even less of any use, then, would it be to try to collect CH4 (metane) from Jupiter. (I mean, for chemical-reaction purposes.) Clearly, at that level of development where space travel becomes a common thing, the only energy sources that will be sufficiently modern are nuclear fission and fusion. Per kg of "fuel", those energy sources give so very much more energy than do oil, natural gas etc. For nuclear fusion purposes, the enormous amounts of H2 on Neptune may well turn out to be useful. Anyway, some rather simple facts concerning "our" planetary system, Graham, shows how *right* Tim is concerning the basic matter which we’re discussing here, and how very misplaced was your irony. Concerning the question of whether "deep gas", oil and natural gas deep down in the earth’s crust (or rather, mantle) is likely or not, you should look, not at Mars, the moon etc, but at *Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune* (with a side glance also at Venus). Mars is OK in one respect, as *wargod*, symbolizing what needs to be done against/with those who, at present, are ruling this planet, if we’re to get that energy which we need in the future. Rolf M.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Hi graham: >> Im not sure that there is no evidence to show that any volcanic >> activity on mars does not vent methane?. >Not sure, no evidence, not vent … >what are you sure of? >Is there oil on (inside) Mars or is there not? >Is there oil on (inside) the Moon or is there not. >> [snip] >— Graham Cowan >Let the baby play with matches in the fuel storage room. >http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html >What are you babbling about? Do you discuss the tasteful art of fried >chickens? It’s more comfortable to buy cooking oil in your local store. >And cheaper. >– >/Greetings, Bo
Actually, Bo, we *are* haveing a serious discussion on this subject, which you’d have seen if you had read the previous posts on ths thread. (It seems you haven’t.) Now Graham was arguing a certain point in it, with an irony, though, which I’ve just recently said was out of place – see my latest on this thread. Your comment on this, Bo, was rather out of place. Could it be that you’ve got to be copying, in a small way, the mannerisms of some of those utter fools who’re opposing your sensible arguments on other matters, on one of the NGs here, ’swnet.politik’? I was hoping this thread could interest you and some other people on that NG too, which is why I "broadened" it to include that one. What do you think of the *factual* matter under discussion? It’s actually a quite important one, in the struggle in society today. Rolf M.
Response:
Hi graham: Im not sure that there is no evidence to show that any volcanic activity on mars does not vent methane?. " stony and lifeless" maybe.. but what about jupiter.. wet/gassious full of hydrocarbons ..and lifeless.. or any of the frozen methane moons. also the sun is .5 percent methane and there is evidence of interstellar diamond dust.. Im not saying that life did not contribute to the alteration of the migrating oil in some chemical sense. The point is that the rest of the universe gets along just fine without there having to be a "source rock" and hundreds of billions of tons of little dead beasties. Tim – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> writes > >> [snip] > >> Gold may not have the whole story , but i do believe that > >> it is more reasonable to assume that earth behaves like the > >> rest of the known universe in that it is made of hydrocarbons in the first place ( in > >> relative abundance and created without having a source rock in sight) > >So do you expect evidence to turn up of oil on the Moon > >and Mars? > One of the first ideas to draw attention to the late > Sir Fred Hoyle was his proposal of a possible inter > stellar origin for Oil … > All the more reason for persons afflicted with this idea > to make a prediction. If oil is not a product of Earthly > life, surely we should expect soon to find evidence that > it exists under the Moon’s surface, and Mars’? > Or will Rolf Martens or Tim Davies explain why > a nonbiological origin for oil does not imply > stony, but apparently lifeless worlds like the ones I mention > have it? > — Graham Cowan > Let the baby play with matches in the fuel storage room. > http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > writes >> [snip] >> Gold may not have the whole story , but i do believe that >> it is more reasonable to assume that earth behaves like the >> rest of the known universe in that it is made of hydrocarbons in the first place ( in >> relative abundance and created without having a source rock in sight) >So do you expect evidence to turn up of oil on the Moon >and Mars? > One of the first ideas to draw attention to the late > Sir Fred Hoyle was his proposal of a possible inter > stellar origin for Oil …
All the more reason for persons afflicted with this idea to make a prediction. If oil is not a product of Earthly life, surely we should expect soon to find evidence that it exists under the Moon’s surface, and Mars’? Or will Rolf Martens or Tim Davies explain why a nonbiological origin for oil does not imply stony, but apparently lifeless worlds like the ones I mention have it? — Graham Cowan Let the baby play with matches in the fuel storage room. http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > hi rolf. > yes i only used the serpetrol site to confirm to others that there is > oil production from the basement rock. I really doubt that it was pushed > down into the rock especially since all the texts promote the upward > migration of oil. I am equally interested to learn how water overcomes > huge reverse pressure and makes it into the mantle and comes back out of > the deep sea vents ( with methane etc.). > I seem to remember that when you oxidize methane you get carbon dioxide > and water.. isn’t that what comes out of volcanos ( with a fair bit of > methane and sulfur. > Gold may not have the whole story , but i do believe that it is more > reasonable to assume that earth behaves like the rest of the known > universe in that it is made of hydrocarbons in the first place ( in > relative abundance and created without having a source rock in sight)
So do you expect evidence to turn up of oil on the Moon and Mars? — Graham Cowan Let the baby play with matches in the fuel storage room. http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
Response:
One of the first ideas to draw attention to the late Sir Fred Hoyle was his proposal of a possible inter stellar origin for Oil known in the 50s as Hoyle’s oil. I dont subscribe to the idea but its originator should get some credit. I would have thought that the isotopic ratios of the carbon atoms could have provided evidence of its source. writes – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> hi rolf. > yes i only used the serpetrol site to confirm to others that there is > oil production from the basement rock. I really doubt that it was pushed > down into the rock especially since all the texts promote the upward > migration of oil. I am equally interested to learn how water overcomes > huge reverse pressure and makes it into the mantle and comes back out of > the deep sea vents ( with methane etc.). > I seem to remember that when you oxidize methane you get carbon dioxide > and water.. isn’t that what comes out of volcanos ( with a fair bit of > methane and sulfur. > Gold may not have the whole story , but i do believe that it is more > reasonable to assume that earth behaves like the rest of the known > universe in that it is made of hydrocarbons in the first place ( in > relative abundance and created without having a source rock in sight) >So do you expect evidence to turn up of oil on the Moon >and Mars? >— Graham Cowan >Let the baby play with matches in the fuel storage room. >http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
– Doug Dwyer
Response:
hi rolf. yes i only used the serpetrol site to confirm to others that there is oil production from the basement rock. I really doubt that it was pushed down into the rock especially since all the texts promote the upward migration of oil. I am equally interested to learn how water overcomes huge reverse pressure and makes it into the mantle and comes back out of the deep sea vents ( with methane etc.). I seem to remember that when you oxidize methane you get carbon dioxide and water.. isn’t that what comes out of volcanos ( with a fair bit of methane and sulfur. Gold may not have the whole story , but i do believe that it is more reasonable to assume that earth behaves like the rest of the known universe in that it is made of hydrocarbons in the first place ( in relative abundance and created without having a source rock in sight) tim – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> hi >> There was a professor who recently posted his fracture >> course at this location >> http://www.servipetrol.com/ >> at this is the you will see history of production from the granite >> fields around the world. The author of the site does not agree with the >> source of the oil being the same on earth as it is for the rest of the >> known universe but the evidence is there to see. Production from the >> basement!! > Thanks, Tim! I shall check that site out. > [dq:] >What *evidence* is there to see? >Actually, this is what he says: > But Tim wrote too how the *facts* that were reported > *contradicted* what that author said. >Hydrocarbon Production from Naturally Fractured Granite >By: Dr. Roberto Aguilera >"Oil production from granite rock is not common but it does exist in various >countries as shown below. Any time I have studied commercial hydrocarbon >production from granite rock, in particular, or basement reservoirs, in >general, two important requirements have been met: (1) the granite is >contiguous to a source rock, or oil/gas reservoirs, and (2) the basement is >naturally fractured. > In my opinion the origin of oil is organic. Oil production from a >fractured granite does not mean that the origin of oil is igneous. It simply >means that hydrocarbons migrated into the fractured granite from a source >rock or an oil/gas reservoir contiguous to the granite." > They "migrated", this idiot or swindler says, down into > solid granite at some 7 km depth! > (snip) >He is saying that the oil has migrated into the granite, and basement rocks, >from the source rocks. There is no evidence to suggest that he is incorrect >in his assertions. > On the contrary! >In fact my understanding is that the trace geochemistry >of the oil from the *basement* rocks in those areas match the trace >geochemistry of the oil in the source beds, and that data indicates >organic/biogenetic sources. >DQ > The actual data *rule such sources out*. Much earlier, in one > article in Sc. Am. in 1980, for instance, Gold and co-author > Steven Soter did not rule out the possibility of a dual source, > both "bio" and "cosmic" (deep gas). In one of the articles on > his site however, Gold now shows that the source is *only* > cosmic, deep gas. > See http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/, article "Can There > Be Two Independent Sources of Commercial Hydrocarbon Deposits, > One Derived from Biological Materials, the Other from Primordial > Carbon and Hydrogen, Incorporated into the Earth at its > Formation?", Thomas Gold, November 1996. > Rolf M.
Response:
>> hi > There was a professor who recently posted his fracture > course at this location > http://www.servipetrol.com/ > at this is the you will see history of production from the granite > fields around the world. The author of the site does not agree with the > source of the oil being the same on earth as it is for the rest of the > known universe but the evidence is there to see. Production from the > basement!!
Thanks, Tim! I shall check that site out. [dq:] >What *evidence* is there to see? >Actually, this is what he says:
But Tim wrote too how the *facts* that were reported *contradicted* what that author said. >Hydrocarbon Production from Naturally Fractured Granite >By: Dr. Roberto Aguilera >"Oil production from granite rock is not common but it does exist in various >countries as shown below. Any time I have studied commercial hydrocarbon >production from granite rock, in particular, or basement reservoirs, in >general, two important requirements have been met: (1) the granite is >contiguous to a source rock, or oil/gas reservoirs, and (2) the basement is >naturally fractured. > In my opinion the origin of oil is organic. Oil production from a >fractured granite does not mean that the origin of oil is igneous. It simply >means that hydrocarbons migrated into the fractured granite from a source >rock or an oil/gas reservoir contiguous to the granite."
They "migrated", this idiot or swindler says, down into solid granite at some 7 km depth! (snip) >He is saying that the oil has migrated into the granite, and basement rocks, >from the source rocks. There is no evidence to suggest that he is incorrect >in his assertions.
On the contrary! >In fact my understanding is that the trace geochemistry >of the oil from the *basement* rocks in those areas match the trace >geochemistry of the oil in the source beds, and that data indicates >organic/biogenetic sources. >DQ
The actual data *rule such sources out*. Much earlier, in one article in Sc. Am. in 1980, for instance, Gold and co-author Steven Soter did not rule out the possibility of a dual source, both "bio" and "cosmic" (deep gas). In one of the articles on his site however, Gold now shows that the source is *only* cosmic, deep gas. See http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/, article "Can There Be Two Independent Sources of Commercial Hydrocarbon Deposits, One Derived from Biological Materials, the Other from Primordial Carbon and Hydrogen, Incorporated into the Earth at its Formation?", Thomas Gold, November 1996. Rolf M.
Response:
> hi > There was a professor who recently posted his fracture course at this > location > http://www.servipetrol.com/ > at this is the you will see history of production from the granite > fields around the world. The author of the site does not agree with the > source of the oil being the same on earth as it is for the rest of the > known universe but the evidence is there to see. Production from the > basement!!
What *evidence* is there to see? Actually, this is what he says: Hydrocarbon Production from Naturally Fractured Granite By: Dr. Roberto Aguilera "Oil production from granite rock is not common but it does exist in various countries as shown below. Any time I have studied commercial hydrocarbon production from granite rock, in particular, or basement reservoirs, in general, two important requirements have been met: (1) the granite is contiguous to a source rock, or oil/gas reservoirs, and (2) the basement is naturally fractured. In my opinion the origin of oil is organic. Oil production from a fractured granite does not mean that the origin of oil is igneous. It simply means that hydrocarbons migrated into the fractured granite from a source rock or an oil/gas reservoir contiguous to the granite." (snip) He is saying that the oil has migrated into the granite, and basement rocks, from the source rocks. There is no evidence to suggest that he is incorrect in his assertions. In fact my understanding is that the trace geochemistry of the oil from the *basement* rocks in those areas match the trace geochemistry of the oil in the source beds, and that data indicates organic/biogenetic sources. DQ
Response:
There’ve only been a few explorationists who’ve tested Gold’s theory. The results have not been spectacular enough to encourage lots of drilling. I don’t buy the sour grapes claim that politics or big oil is quashing it. If there is a new way to make money- people will go after it. The early 20th century is littered with unexpected geologic plays that made and lost millions. What about the growing number of "scientific deep continental drilling" outside of conventional sedimentary basins? (Kola, German, Cajon, etc.) They aren’t finding hydrocarbons. Gold is a very creative thinker. He has had hits and lemons.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> No, *you’re* completely erronous, Jean-Paul. Tim Davis, > quoted below, is right in recommending the works of astro- > nomer Thomas Gold concerning (i.a.) the origins of oil and > natural gas. The theory on this that he supports is the > correct, "cosmic" or "deep gas" one, first advanced by > Mendeleev in 1877 but later "forgotten" for many decades > for some economic, and later even more, political reasons, > the wrong, "biological" theory being the one always > pressed on people today by all the politicians and media. > The deep gas theory was proven to be the correct one, as > it happens, here in Sweden from where I’m posting this, > around the year 1990. I was a shareholder in that small > company that did it, "in on" its second probing hole to > some 6.7 km depth. For political reasons, that company > was soon killed and drilling discontinued. But the results > from here (and from elsewhere too) have been used in > Russia, China and Vietnam, for instance, countries in > which large amounts of oil and gas are being extracted > today from such somewhat larger depths, in granite etc. > Why there’s plenty of oil, and even more of natural gas, > is shown by many articles on Thomas Gold’s home page, at > http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/. > Please try to refute what’s being said there, Jean-Paul. > You won’t be able to. > I’ve checked out your site. Even though I don’t know > much about geology, I wasn’t impressed. > As I said, Tim has got it right: >Did either of the wells drilled in Sweden produce economic >quantities of oil or gas? >I’ve heard that the drilling results were very non-conclusive. >Danny
What you’ve heard about this is part of the usual media lies on the question, Danny. The results were *very* conclusive. Neither of the two wells did produce economic quantities. But, as I got to know only when reading up on things in this context then, arround 1990, even if a large reservoir of oil (or gas) has been located approximately, it may take many probing wells to hit it precisely. One example I read about was the big Ekofisk oil field in the Norwegian economic zone in the North Sea, only after 34 wells were economically revcoverable amounts found – then very big ons. In the Siljan Ring in Sweden, the first well – very sur- prisingly to some – actually yielded some hundreds of litres of crude oil, from some 6.5 km down in granite. This *proved* the theory of Mendeleev, Gold etc. Biologi- cal-origin oil could never have been there. In advance, several geologists (" ") had written to the big paper DN saying it was a total waste of money even to probe drill, since "of course" "no oil could be found". When it was, a story was put out in many media that "it was probably just such oil, diesel oil, as had been part of the drilling fluid". Which it was proven *not* to be, with spectral analysis etc. In the second well, the one I was in on, some gas was found at 6.7 km. And we shareholders of that small company that was drilling were asked to put in some extra money so the findings could be evaluated properly. The funds raised were insufficient, it seems, and in this context, the company was taken over by another, which discontinued drilling and sold the drilling rig. A *political* killing of that venture. But it had proved oil and gas were there, in such rock, at that depth. Had the government here (always very much of an underling to that of the USA, even more, actually, than that of some other small European states) really wanted to ex- ploit that oil and gas which many indications had already pointed to was there, some of which had now even been found, it could have let some big oil company in, which would not have had any difficulty financing further deep drilling at some US$ 10 million per well. Say it would have taken 20 probing wells, US $200 million, to get to economically recoverable amounts. These rather clearly are of the order of hundreds of billions of US$s, and once found, would cost very little to extract. Economi- cally, enormously profitable ventures, are such. It was politics that killed the one here. And as I said, exctraction from such depths, and from such rock, is going on today, at a large scale, in Russia, China and Vietnam, for instance – "White Tiger", is one oil field in Vietnam called. I also read about rather deep drilling in China over 25 years ago (when that country was still socialist and its oil procuction grew by *over 20% per year* – today hardly growing at all.) From those countries, though, it’s hard to get any technical information. I at least haven’t seen any yet. And I earlier wrote that there was *no* extraction from such larger depths in the USA. It seems there is *some*, though. But we "ordinary" people never get to hear about it. Once more: If somebody knows of a source of information on this whole theme, other than Gold’s site, please write me. This really is an important subject. Rolf M.
Response:
hi There was a professor who recently posted his fracture course at this location http://www.servipetrol.com/ at this is the you will see history of production from the granite fields around the world. The author of the site does not agree with the source of the oil being the same on earth as it is for the rest of the known universe but the evidence is there to see. Production from the basement!! Regards Tim Davies – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> how much oil exists, precisely"… > >Thomas Gold is completely eroneous since it does take into > >account basic facts and further brings back as premises all > >the present idiotic Gogological Theories in which he does > >indeed beuuuuuulieve !!! > …. > >Jean-Paul Turcaud > >Hydro & Mining Prospector > >Pioneer Of Australian Mining > >Web Sites: > >The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of > >The 20th Century > >http://www.rune-inc.com/welleda/ > >Refutation Of The Horrid Geological Myths > >http://www.rune-inc.com/horus/ > No, *you’re* completely erronous, Jean-Paul. Tim Davis, > quoted below, is right in recommending the works of astro- > nomer Thomas Gold concerning (i.a.) the origins of oil and > natural gas. The theory on this that he supports is the > correct, "cosmic" or "deep gas" one, first advanced by > Mendeleev in 1877 but later "forgotten" for many decades > for some economic, and later even more, political reasons, > the wrong, "biological" theory being the one always > pressed on people today by all the politicians and media. > The deep gas theory was proven to be the correct one, as > it happens, here in Sweden from where I’m posting this, > around the year 1990. I was a shareholder in that small > company that did it, "in on" its second probing hole to > some 6.7 km depth. For political reasons, that company > was soon killed and drilling discontinued. But the results > from here (and from elsewhere too) have been used in > Russia, China and Vietnam, for instance, countries in > which large amounts of oil and gas are being extracted > today from such somewhat larger depths, in granite etc. > Why there’s plenty of oil, and even more of natural gas, > is shown by many articles on Thomas Gold’s home page, at > http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/. > Please try to refute what’s being said there, Jean-Paul. > You won’t be able to. > I’ve checked out your site. Even though I don’t know > much about geology, I wasn’t impressed. > As I said, Tim has got it right: > Did either of the wells drilled in Sweden produce economic > quantities of oil or gas? > I’ve heard that the drilling results were very non-conclusive. > Danny
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > how much oil exists, precisely"… >Thomas Gold is completely eroneous since it does take into >account basic facts and further brings back as premises all >the present idiotic Gogological Theories in which he does >indeed beuuuuuulieve !!! > …. >Jean-Paul Turcaud >Hydro & Mining Prospector >Pioneer Of Australian Mining >Web Sites: >The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of >The 20th Century >http://www.rune-inc.com/welleda/ >Refutation Of The Horrid Geological Myths >http://www.rune-inc.com/horus/ > No, *you’re* completely erronous, Jean-Paul. Tim Davis, > quoted below, is right in recommending the works of astro- > nomer Thomas Gold concerning (i.a.) the origins of oil and > natural gas. The theory on this that he supports is the > correct, "cosmic" or "deep gas" one, first advanced by > Mendeleev in 1877 but later "forgotten" for many decades > for some economic, and later even more, political reasons, > the wrong, "biological" theory being the one always > pressed on people today by all the politicians and media. > The deep gas theory was proven to be the correct one, as > it happens, here in Sweden from where I’m posting this, > around the year 1990. I was a shareholder in that small > company that did it, "in on" its second probing hole to > some 6.7 km depth. For political reasons, that company > was soon killed and drilling discontinued. But the results > from here (and from elsewhere too) have been used in > Russia, China and Vietnam, for instance, countries in > which large amounts of oil and gas are being extracted > today from such somewhat larger depths, in granite etc. > Why there’s plenty of oil, and even more of natural gas, > is shown by many articles on Thomas Gold’s home page, at > http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/. > Please try to refute what’s being said there, Jean-Paul. > You won’t be able to. > I’ve checked out your site. Even though I don’t know > much about geology, I wasn’t impressed. > As I said, Tim has got it right:
Did either of the wells drilled in Sweden produce economic quantities of oil or gas? I’ve heard that the drilling results were very non-conclusive. Danny
Response:
how much oil exists, precisely"… >Thomas Gold is completely eroneous since it does take into >account basic facts and further brings back as premises all >the present idiotic Gogological Theories in which he does >indeed beuuuuuulieve !!! …. >Jean-Paul Turcaud >Hydro & Mining Prospector >Pioneer Of Australian Mining >Web Sites: >The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of >The 20th Century >http://www.rune-inc.com/welleda/ >Refutation Of The Horrid Geological Myths >http://www.rune-inc.com/horus/
No, *you’re* completely erronous, Jean-Paul. Tim Davis, quoted below, is right in recommending the works of astro- nomer Thomas Gold concerning (i.a.) the origins of oil and natural gas. The theory on this that he supports is the correct, "cosmic" or "deep gas" one, first advanced by Mendeleev in 1877 but later "forgotten" for many decades for some economic, and later even more, political reasons, the wrong, "biological" theory being the one always pressed on people today by all the politicians and media. The deep gas theory was proven to be the correct one, as it happens, here in Sweden from where I’m posting this, around the year 1990. I was a shareholder in that small company that did it, "in on" its second probing hole to some 6.7 km depth. For political reasons, that company was soon killed and drilling discontinued. But the results from here (and from elsewhere too) have been used in Russia, China and Vietnam, for instance, countries in which large amounts of oil and gas are being extracted today from such somewhat larger depths, in granite etc. Why there’s plenty of oil, and even more of natural gas, is shown by many articles on Thomas Gold’s home page, at http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/. Please try to refute what’s being said there, Jean-Paul. You won’t be able to. I’ve checked out your site. Even though I don’t know much about geology, I wasn’t impressed. As I said, Tim has got it right: > please read the works of thomas gold "the deep hot > biosphere". its very very good and does show the > possible source that also satisfies the inclusion of > organic material. I get a kick out of asking the folks, > drilling deep gas that sits in formations above the pc > unconformity, where was the source.. why is the pool > filling as fast as your draining and please tell me > what was the source rock on some of the frozen methane > moons in our solar system etc. Deep porosity is real or > there would be no diamonds > Tim
Precisely. It seems that today, not very many know about these things, which is a big scandal – mildly speaking. If you or somebody else know some other good source of information about this, other than Gold’s page, please write me! Archimedes Plutonium is right too about the need for much more knowledge on these matters. Rolf M. (who missed getting to wear a 10-gallon hat or being invited to the Oil Barons’ Ball, but I’ll get over it; those certainly very large amounts of oil and gas deep under the surface of the Siljan region here in Sweden – for instance – still are there)
Response:
Related Posts