Renewable Coal, Oil and Gas - Hydrocarbons of Geological Origin
Could oil and other hydrocarbons be a continuously produced natural geological resource that is - contrary to what we are being told - not running out any time soon?
Screen capture of a Powerpoint slide of projected oil production. Note that everything to the right of 2005, that's the peak you see in this graph, is purely hypothetical. The graph wants to make us believe that its makers have a crystal ball that allows them to look into the future. If you care to dig up older graphs of this kind, you will notice that the "peak" is always at the point in time the graph was made, with the future looking bleak. Only, the real world is not like that. Every time so far, the real production has kept ging up, despite the predictions of the doomsayers. - Image credit: EV World
The question - whether hydrocarbons are geological reality instead of the remains of huge quantities of once living matter compressed to become goo - is not as far fetched as it might seem. One of the world's leading advocates for the theory that hydrocarbons are renewable is Dr. Thomas Gold. He contends that oil is not a limited resource, and that oil, natural gas and coal, are not so-called "fossil fuels."
In his book, The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels, he explains that dinosaurs and plants and the fossils from those living beings are not the origin of oil and natural gas, but rather generated from a chemical substance in the crust of the Earth. Gold says:
"Astronomers have been able to find that hydrocarbons, as oil, gas and coal are called, occur on many other planetary bodies. They are a common substance in the universe. You find it in the kind of gas clouds that made systems like our solar system. You find large quantities of hydrocarbons in them. Is it reasonable to think that our little Earth, one of the planets, contains oil and gas for reasons that are all its own and that these other bodies have it because it was built into them when they were born?" That question makes a lot of sense. After all, they didn't have dinosaurs and ferns on Jupiter to produce oil and gas?
The quote is from an article by Joel Bainerman who asks: If hydrocarbons are renewable- then is "Peak Oil" a fraud?
Alexander Alan Scarborough has formulated an Energy Fuels Theory, which makes a very similar argument. Scarborough explains:
The theory that fuels (gas, oil and coal) were made from fossils has gone unchallenged for almost 150 years. This fossil fuels theory (FFT) was formulated in the 1830's on the basis of three observations common to 100 coal mines. During the 1920's, the theory was enhanced by the concept of petroleum being created from marine organisms. Over the years, a significant amount of subtle, yet substantial evidence that argues against the validity of the FFT has accumulated in the literature.
These arguments have been condensed into six critical points that simultaneously render strong support to the new theory of fuels formation by natural laws of physics and chemistry. The new energy fuels theory (EFT) explains the formation of fuels (and all known matter) by the logical progression of the transformation of energy particles into atoms, into gaseous molecules, then into liquid and solids via molecular chain-building processes. The intimate relationships of gas, oil and coal, are illustrated by five facts that render additional strong support to the EFT. The immense ramifications of the new concept that appears destined to replace the FFT are briefly discussed.
Considering that the "peak oil" alarm was first sounded by a petroleum geologist working for one of the major oil producers, there is a good probability that indeed, as Bainerman suggests, the "peak oil" scare could be a scam designed to justify stratospheric profits of the major petrochemical companies, which we have indeed seen in these last few years.
Peak oil, also sometimes called Hubbert's peak, goes back to a prediction, first made in 1949 by M. King Hubbert, a geophysicist and Chief Consultant for the Exploration and Production Research Division of Shell, that oil production would continue to increase but would "peak" in about 1970 and decline thereafter.
US oil production has indeed peaked at the predicted time. But some say that this was due to a systematic program of shutting down and sealing many oil and gas producing wells. Not surprisingly however, world production seems reluctant to follow suit. You can shut oil wells in one country, but it is difficult to do so all over the world. Some say the wars in the Middle East were about protecting oil supplies. Wake up, people - those wars did the exact same thing that was done previously on the US mainland. They effectively shut down production. Remember the burning oil fields in Irak after the first oil war there, or the fall in Irak's oil output since the more recent US "shock and awe" campaign?
Since there is demand for hydrocarbons and since indeed oil seems to be a renewable and constantly growing resource, as suggested by Gold, Scarborough and others, it is hardly surprising that international oil production has not been hitting its peak just yet.
- - -
Just days ago I came across an article that says a certain type of fungus can produce hydrocarbons and argues that this might throw the whole theory of hydrocarbons being fossilized energy into disarray:
Oil Creation Theory Challenged by Fuel-Making Fungus
A newfound fungus living in rainforest trees makes biofuel more efficiently than any other known method, researchers say. In fact, it's so good at turning plant matter into fuel that researchers say their discovery calls into question the whole theory of how crude oil was made by nature in the first place. ... "The accepted theory is that crude oil, which is used to make diesel, is formed from the remains of dead plants and animals that have been exposed to heat and pressure for millions of years," Strobel said. "If fungi like this are producing myco-diesel all over the rainforest, they may have contributed to the formation of fossil fuels."
After bringing the article to the attention of others, one of them replied with specifics, outlining why hydrocarbons probably aren't fossil fuels. New Energy Congress member, Paul Noel explains it as follows:
The origin of oil is probably not from this source [the fungi] because the agent lives in the wrong place. However; no doubt exists that microbial processes do and have been long known to make oil components. The processes are going to be most useful for synthetic fuel generation.
The actual process for making oil is pretty simple and pretty well established. It works like this.
(1) Methane from either inorganic or organic process sources percolates upward through geologic formations until it reaches a Shale Layer.
(2) In the Shale Layer, there are a series of Trans-Uranium elements including Uranium and also a pretty fair amount of Iron etc. This mixture of metallic elements which is used in Oil drilling to detect deposits, catalytically recombines the methane and links it into various long chain hydrocarbons and a series of Benzene and similar compounds. Occasionally it will link to form Graphite. This process is not the process of ages. It is very fast and the outcome is equilibrium driven to a fairly exact outcome in a geologic instant. (Literally in days or less) Now anybody questioning the process better wise up to the fact that the process known as Catalytic Cracking of Oil was developed from knowing the Shale process. It was discovered to be working underground in the 1930's.
Sourcing for the Methane has been much of a question for a long time. The association of Coal deposits and similar was assumed for a long time to be the source of the methane for this process. This is the source of the Biologic theory of Oil Formation that is assumed by many to be fact.
Recent Research in Alabama Coal Field Gas deposits has given complete lie to this theory. It was assumed in the late 1970's when Alabama Coal Gas deposits were first drilled that the natural gas in them was from the coal itself interacting with the water in the area. The process was assumed to have sourced the carbon from the coal. Upon drilling the fields the carbon content of the fields was a measured quantity and it was assumed that the coal deposits would have their gas content depleted by 1990. Alabama Coal field deposits saw their productivity rise and rise and there has been no decline in the gas production through 2008.
By mid 1990's a serious question developed over the sourcing of Natural Gas. It was assumed that the developments would have run the fields out already. Their production was climbing. The production curves indicated a rise might include 100 times more production than previously estimated. The problem with this estimate was that neither depletion of the coal nor even evidence of any reduction of gas saturation became evident. If the coal was being converted into Natural Gas, it should have begun to have noticeable reductions in coal deposits in the area and none was observed. They had lowered mountains by up to 60 feet by the process and the coal veins were not thinned. The process removes a lot of water. This was the reduction in Mountain elevation. No effect was found on the coal deposits or the saturation of Natural Gas in the Coal. Water was actually depleted in the coal. So where was the natural gas coming from?
Research accumulated by the State of Alabama at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa found that all evidence pointed to the Shale as a cap preventing the escape of natural gas that was actually sourced far below the site. It was merely a cover. They also found a fair amount of oil developed in the shale boundary. The Coal Field Gas in the USA is not Biologic in Origin. The location of it in Coal fields is an accident of the fact that coal geology includes Shale above it. It is just that a coal field is a good catcher of the gas.
The cracking process for natural gas into other compounds is an equilibrium process. It is simply a kinetic energy measure. *combination of heat and pressure as one factor* The higher the pressure the more it tends to Natural Gas. The lower the pressure the more it tends to Oil up to about 10,000 feet down in the ground, then as the pressure lowers it again cracks towards Natural Gas. This is why US Oil, typically a shallow oil, is very heavy fraction crude oil. Middle eastern Oil a bit deeper typically is more light fraction oil. In the South Alabama Gas fields which are very deep (up to 7 miles) the fraction is nearly 99% Natural Gas.
These facts point aggressively to a theory that the Russians have of "Magma Oil". There is a very real possibility that Oil as we know it and Natural Gas have no biologic origin at all.
One curious factor that is not well known is the radiological data on the age of the oil. It would be assumed, if you believe in the "generally accepted" oil theory of biologic origins, that the radiologic age of the Oil would be about 220 million years. Actually the radiological age of nearly the entire inventory of coal and oil and Natural Gas is about 44,000 years. This is inconsistent with any of the accepted theories for either the age of the earth, evolutionary age or the supposed processes for their formation.
One process that was discovered in Alabama in Coal fields is quite interesting. The Carbon in Coal is known to be transient in the Coal. Carbon moving in from lower depths displaces the carbon at an elevation and the upper carbon moves upwards. The structure of the coal remains essentially the same during this process. This migration is not particularly slow. The entire inventory of a coal vein can be exchanged in a matter of a few thousand years. This brings up many questions on Geology and pretty much smashes all of the accepted theories. It is obvious that a great deal of migration of materials happens in the earth's crust and it is fairly rapid. It is obvious that the layers and content of the layers is always dynamically in flux. For example the Iridium layer known as the KT boundary is probably nothing but a chromatological layer. That is a collection filtration that happens as things move geologically. I know this will torque the brain of a lot of people. It says that the earth is a much more dynamic place with much more going on than we thought we knew.
So when you hear about "peak oil" next time, take pause. Question what is being said and form your own opinion.
This is not to say that we should not develop energy technology that makes us independent from hydrocarbons. We should. Some nasty pollution results from burning those types of fuel and the air is getting more and more heavy to breathe. I agree that we must change over to solar, wind, tides, waves and even more exotic technologies to make our energy. Look at the New Energy Congress Top 100 new energy technologies to get an idea of what is under development.
But ultimately the change to better energy technology isn't dictated by our running out of oil or even by being "over the hump" in oil extraction. It is simply the intelligent choice to make at this time. Let's keep the oil in the ground. There may be far better uses for this resource than simply burning it.
Some related stuff to check out:
Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find
Researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have managed to prove that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated. The findings are revolutionary since this means, on the one hand, that it will be much easier to find these sources of energy and, on the other hand, that they can be found all over the globe.
"Using our research we can even say where oil could be found in Sweden," says Vladimir Kutcherov, a professor at the Division of Energy Technology at KTH.