They didn’t tell us, the term “fossil fuels” might be wrong too
Dr Willie Soon unleashes on the failures of climate change and modern science for 40 minutes with Tucker Carlson (see below). As an opening he explained how one of Saturn’s moons has more liquid fuel than than all the oil and gas deposits of Earth, which rather pokes a hole in the idea that fossil fuels are only ever made from fossils.
Essentially a frozen, lifeless moon with no dinosaurs, forests or peat bogs, somehow has lakes of methane. Not only does Titan have liquid seas of hydrocarbon fuel — but we’ve known this for years. In fact even in 2005 a NASA scientist quietly admitted that Titan had methane that wasn’t made from fossils. But where was NASA in the 18 years since?
Soon explains that Titan proves that abiotic oil and gas formation is true. In 2009 an experiment showed that when methane is put under great pressure like the kind we find 50-100 miles underground, it can form more complex hydrocarbons. (Kolesnikov). Several papers in the last dozen years find more exotic kinds of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons all over the place, like in Titan’s atmosphere and even forming in deep cold interstellar space. (Zhao, Parker, Freissinet) They also found benzene on Mars.
On his CERES sites, Willie Soon explains that in practical terms, we don’t know how much of the oil and gas on earth is made without fossils (in an abiogenic process). It could be forming 50 to 100 miles down, but we’re only drilling 6 to 8 miles deep. I seems we have little idea. Even if abiotic oil exists on Earth, it may form too slowly to be useful. Though there have been these odd claims out there for years that some oil fields are refilling.
What we do know, says Jo, is that they’re not trying to understand this, and they’re not trying to tell us the whole truth either. We’ve taught two generations of children that there is one simple narrative, and if you questioned it you were an idiot. Isn’t it time a civilization dependent on these fuels had an honest discussion about where they came from?
There’s a lot more in the interview about his experience at Harvard, and climate science and the sun.
Ep. 62 If fossil fuels come from fossils, why have scientists found them on one of Saturn’s moons? A lot of what you’ve heard about energy is false. Dr. Willie Soon explains.
TIMESTAMPS
(01:49) Fossil Fuels in Space
(14:27) Global Warming Throughout History
(25:31) Outside… pic.twitter.com/GMaDkDl8z9— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) January 9, 2024
Willie Soon worked at Harvard in astrophysics for 31 years but prefers the freedom to say what he thinks and to research what he wants. He co-founded CERES-Science where you can find his other latest papers.
REFERENCES
Kolesnikov, A., Kutcherov, V. & Goncharov, A. Methane-derived hydrocarbons produced under upper-mantle conditions. Nature Geosci 2, 566–570 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo591
Mastrogiuseppe, M., Poggiali, V., Hayes, A.G. et al. Deep and methane-rich lakes on Titan. Nat Astron 3, 535–542 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-019-0714-2
Hayes, Alexander (2016) The Lakes and Seas of Titan, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 44:57-83 (Volume publication date June 2016)
Zhao, L., Kaiser, R.I., Xu, B. et al. Low-temperature formation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Titan’s atmosphere. Nat Astron 2, 973–979 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-018-0585-y
C. Freissinet, et al (2015) Organic molecules in the Sheepbed Mudstone, Gale Crater, Mars, JGR Planets, AGU, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JE004737
Dorian S. N. Parker and colleagues (2011), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.11138271. [Link down, it may refer to this paper “Low temperature formation of naphthalene and its role in the synthesis of PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) in the interstellar medium”, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1113827108]
Titan, by Imsofinite
Theories of the abiogenic origin of oil have been around since Georgious Agricola in the 1500’s and from many authors since.
As with all science the answer isn’t determined by what a “consensus” of scientists supposedly think but by careful examination of the evidence such as the geology of where the oil is found and any isotopic signatures or biomarkers suggestive of a biological origin or not.
The answer could be a combination of both abiogenic and biogenic origin.
Regardless of its origin, hydrocarbon fuels, especially liquid ones, are excellent energy sources and we need to keep finding and using them.
630
480
We all know that fossil fuels are the work of Satan and that by self-flagulation we can appease the Climate Gods who will reward us with nice weather.
Who is the Greek god of weather?
Zeus, in ancient Greek religion, chief deity of the pantheon, a sky and weather god who was identical with the Roman god Jupiter.
Huari, Pre-Incan god of water, rain, lightning, agriculture and war.
Huari is silliar to Horus the Egyptian god of rainstorms, the weather, the sky and war. Associated with the sun, kingship, and retribution
This makes more sense that anything you will hear from Chrissy Bowen.
130
Actually abiotic oil and the seas of CH4 is enough to turn a man towards religion. Just imagine, (the) maker has set up a replenishing, that is endless, supply of fossil fuel, the use of which sends CO2 into the atmosphere for the plants to use and grow bountifully.
Looked at in those terms alarmism is blasphemy of the lowest order, which also makes sense since one of the dominant motivations of the alarmists is misanthropy and a desire to rid the world of humanity.
300
🙂
20
🙂 Cornucopia.
20
Aka, Horn of Plenty!
10
Cohenite commented….“Just imagine, (the) maker has set up a replenishing, that is endless, supply of fossil fuel, the use of which sends CO2 into the atmosphere for the plants to use and grow bountifully.”
Actually…this is exactly what our Creator has provided! It is all by design…and not some chaotic, random event!
51
Interesting story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSff0pwc1Xc
10
Wasn’t the ‘fossil’ nomenclature always just a marketing label?
Harder to sell fear over hydrocarbons.
To sciency for general consumption.
It is my humble impression that the entire scheme has been a political marketing scheme from the get go.
A good one.
Topped only in intensity, but perhaps not longevity, by ‘Pandemic’.
(I think I contracted COVID from a fossil.)
Beau coup money will be extracted from citizens coming AND going.
440
Yes. Definitely a marketing label, but from 1892 and to emphasise scarcity and therefore justify high cost. See my comment and video link below at #8.
270
The three great scams, in order of occurrence are:
1. The Hole in the Ozone Layer,
2. CAGW, and
3. The COVID Vax.
All founded in public ignorance of science.
210
But yet, there it is, in black and white, for all the non-science Wikipedia aficionados to read (or not) at their leisure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane
10
Indeed, and I believe these scams themselves are rooted in several even-greater ones:
1. Fiat currency (the illusion of money)
2. Admiralty law (the illusion of law)
3. The Rockefeller allopathic medical system (the illusion of health care)
4. The illusion of politics as arbiter and caretaker (veil) of the first 3 illusions
Did I miss any?
50
The term originally used to mean fuels “as old as fossils” but has been distorted over time to mean “fuel from fossils”.
I now accept the abiotic theory but once didn’t.
270
Concerned people know, if fossil fuel isn’t fossil but abiotic in uncountable quantities, there is no reason anymore for high prices selling it, as usual when offer is greater than demand. So a “consensus” had to be created, as in “climnate science”.
In my eyes, Thomas Gold is absolutely right. A lot of Russsian scientists wrote about abiotic oil and gas.
380
Yes, see my video link at #8.
70
Q. If fossil fuel is just a name for keeping prices high, why don’t you just sell bucketloads of abiotic oil or gas into the market and crash the price.
A. The market doesn’t give a toss about how the oil formed, only about supply and demand. If anyone had the means to access and produce abiotic oil or gas economically, then there is a huge financial incentive to do it and the market would lap it up. IOW if there are large accessible sources of abiotic oil or gas then they are probably being produced and are in the market already.
Please take careful note: I am not saying that there isn’t abiotic oil or gas. I’m saying that if there is then it’s probably in the market already. It’s also pretty obvious, isn’t it, that there can theoretically be both abiotic and biogenic oil and gas – let’s face it, hydrocarbon chains must surely have formed naturally before the first DNA, and that process would surely still be in place after DNA-based organisms themselves started generating hydrocarbon chains.
120
Whatever the origin of oil (and natural gas), its exploration and exploitation is prohibited throughout much of Australia, as well as its use being restricted or banned (such as new homes in Sicktoria not being allowed to be connected to natural gas) as part of the Government’s war against Australia’s energy supply.
Also, in a bizarre move that is so ridiculous it could only happen in modern Australia, fracking is actually banned in Victoria’s constitution.
So we have Liberals outlawing nuclear power with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 under pretend conservative Weasel Howard and Labor outlawing fracking. What a wonderful Uniparty we have.
400
‘Sicktoria’ – I like that.
Maori called Queen Victoria ‘Kwini Wikitoria’ (or that’s how a missionary wrote down what he heard them say). How’s about:
Wickedtoria.
Seems fitting and appropriate after Chairman Dan’s reign of (t)error.
270
I don’t see how Andrews’ change to the constitution of Victoria, done without the approval of a majority of the electorate, can stand ‘forever’. Surely a future premier can, likewise, remove it again?
170
In Australia, State constitutions do not meaningfully limit the power of State parliaments. Each of Australia’s State parliaments are understood to have been vested with plenary power; additionally, their constitutions are able to be altered by simple acts of the State legislature. In this respect, they may be understood as sovereign legislatures exclusively at the State level. They are not truly sovereign legislatures however, as laws passed by Australia’s state parliaments are subject to the federal constitution. (see for example Section 92 and 109)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_constitutions_in_Australia
We the people have no say in state constitutions.
30
Trouble is Annie, the LNP also have the policy of fracking bans. That’s why it’s been so easy for the ALP to implement all types of policies- the Libs and National party also support them. They went to the last election with a CO2 emissions reduction target greater than the ALP. They’re hopeless.
150
Ross agree the the liberals in all states and the LNP in Qld are hopeless because the wets (or labor lite) factions are at the top (look at Kean in NSW).
However, fracking has long been carried out in central Australia (Qld & SA) and in WA. It is called extraction enhancing. NSW, Qld & SA would be in real trouble without it.
50
Forever? Or a day?
00
Obviously this is an interesting topic but is there coal on Saturn’s moon as well.
Or is coal , as often described, still a fossil fuel?
180
Coal is definitely a fossil fuel and frequently contains excellent quality fossils.
223
NO, it is not.
It is comprised of various plant remains and it’s cellular structure is obvious in thin section under a microscope – but these remains are not fossilised, unlike tree segments (petrified wood) where the internal cellular contents have been replaced by (say) silica while preserving the outer structure, so forming actual silicate rock.
As for the canard about coals containing “excellent” fossils … so do black shales, and quartzose sandstone, and fissile mudstones/slates, and … We call them sedimentary rocks.
273
Definition of fossil:
The original organic remains do not have to replaced by silicates to qualify as a fossil according to that definition.
Petrifcation seems not to be required and recognisable organic remains in coal are generally referred to as “fossils”.
Coal too, is a sedimentary rock. And who said excellent fossils can’t be found elsewhere?
211
If you have fossils like that:
https://www.steinkern.de/images/berichte/bilder_sven/SvL___EM___1.jpg
I ask, why these trace giving animals or plants aren’t fossilesed with the coal ?
The pasty material coming from below came into contact with these plants or animals and they where stamped in the pasty pre-coal.
62
The photo is not of coal.
?
10
Following the abiotic theory, coal is not sedimentary as far as we are not talking about browncoal, that is.
22
Isn’t it more correct to call coal a “metamorphic rock?
Sedimentary rocks are formed from layers of sand, silt, dead plants, and animal skeletons. Metamorphic rocks formed from other rocks that are changed by heat and pressure underground.
What is the different between peat and coal? Black Coal and Lignite?
30
Coal layers here in NovoCastria are no more metamorphosed than the enclosing layers of sandstone and fine silt.
10
Rubbishhh.
30
Not so sure about that description of coal. I have personally seen tree roots in peat bogs, I have personally seen tree roots and partly carbonised stumps in brown coal deposits, I seen carbonised tree roots in sub-bituminous coal at Leigh Creek SA and Collie in WA. I have been underground in Fingal Tasmania where I saw a whole carbonised tree in the roof of the entrance drive (note the Fingal deposit is overlayed by granite and can not readily be drilled from the surface).
Just a quick note of classification and age of coal.
Coal starts in bogs in wet areas (tropics, sub-tropical rain forest, and rain forest like the west of Tasmania. I have seen a peat bog in the NSW central highlands near Bowral. Large young peat deposits with 90% air dried moisture are used in Ireland for power generation. Brown coal which are young deposits and have 66% air dried (AD) moisture are in the Loy Yang power stations. Slightly older Brown coal with 50% AD was used at Angelsea Vic by Alcoa. Lignite which is used in Germany and Poland is old again and has 30-40% AD moisture. The Leigh Creek and Collie coals are sub-bituminous coals with about 25% AD moisture. Indonesian coals and Blair Athol in Qld have 10-15% AD and are low rank bituminous coal (no fossils in these) The coals in the Southern District of Qld (eg Acland in past Ipswich) with 5-8% AD moisture are high volatile low rank bituminous coal (ie thermal coals). Lithgow and Newcastle coals have AD moisture 2-5% are older again high volatile bituminous coals can be used as semi-coking if low ash and make excellent thermal coals. Higher ranking medium volatile bituminous coals have AD Moisture of 1.0-2.0% and are the bottom seams of the Sydney coal basin such as the Bulli and Wongwilli seams at Wollongong and the Central districts in Qld (eg Blackwater). Athracite coal has noramally been affected by volcanic intrusion to heat the coal and drive off the volatiles. AD moisture is about 0.5%. There was some around Mt Alexardra near Berrima NSW. Vietnam has lots of anthracite.
90
Hydrocarbons can be created from protons using a water splitting process. Just add carbon. Its all about the cost. As we gain complete understanding of the mechanisms for a covalent and hydrogen bond the cost will dramatically fall.
Hydrocarbons will then be manufactured. No more exploration and drilling. The resistance to this outcome is huge. OPEC would cease to be relevant. Dictatorships would fail. The gravy train of corruption would have to find a new source of money.
270
I have seen them.
50
Meant for 5.1
60
Geoff:
The simplest way might be using brown coal. Using it to generate hydrogen and carbon monoxide & dioxide. These can be converted into chemicals (Fischer-Tropf process) that was used for years by Germany (and Sth. Africa).
Now were can we find brown coal? There is lots of it in Victoria and quite a lot in Sth. Australia but using that has been banned by their State Government.
190
You need
a source of carbon. Victoria is “sitting on” one of the world’s largest supplies.
a suitable site with engineering buildings already built.
a raw oil/gas processing/separation facility.
access to the eastern seaboard gas grid.
access to a HVDC switchyard connected to the grid.
access to RO water.
suitable trades personnel.
A perfect location exists. A reasonable government does not.
120
What a wonderful idea!
If only we can make it a reality.
20
Of the fuel used to this point on Earth, can someone find a percentage that has been abiotic oil and gas?
Asking for a friend.
90
Mr. Hultquist: I can. The percentage is…….42. Please tell your friend.
100
Thanks, Paul.
The sequence chosen converges very slowly, now stopped. 42 is the answer.
10
Best check with the dolphins.
20
That is the more relevant point, isn’t it.
When you’ve found propane and octanol and hydrocarbon chains longer than 9 beyond the asteroid belt, then you’ve got a real story. The reason cracking towers are needed by earthbound oil refineries is because our fossil fuels are mainly not in the form of such simple chemicals as methane. Another good reason to expect nearly all below-ground hydrocarbon fuels that have ever been found were from decomposed surface lifeforms, not of deep abiotic origin.
48
Would the person who downvoted my comment during the last 20 minutes please kindly reply with a comment to educate me on the matter of abiotic hydrocarbons.
28
No idea who gave you red thumbs, you may have a look some comments further, I linked some sources. They may give you some hints.
20
You’ve shown you can google search and copy and paste some results, but not shown you can think critically about them or address the actual issue in contention, which is: Is it fair as a generalization to refer to the hydrocarbon fuels we’ve used over the last 200 years as being “fossil fuels”?
What is not contended is that abiotic processes can create hydrocarbons. That’s not the issue in question. What’s in question is how such processes could have originated a substantial fraction of the fuels that have been extracted commercially so far.
36
Mr. McRae: I didn’t downvote, but I see the problem- you have reframed the article to suit your argument. The article says abiotics exist on Titan, how’d they get there? You say they don’t exist on this planet, which misses the point. If you have a thought on the methane in outer space, try that as a comment.
P.S.: Your attack of Gans not warranted.
10
In the following quote, by ‘they’ you meant any abiotic hydrocarbons and by ‘planet’ you meant Titan.
That’s a lie. I said nothing of the sort. You won’t be able to quote me saying anything like that.
The mere existence of carbonaceous meteorites proves hydrocarbon can be made in lifeless outer space. That’s not new to me. Finding octanol or higher length chains as we do in earth-based oil is what I said you wouldn’t find ‘beyond the asteroid belt’.
If anyone has evidence to disprove that, great, but nobody here has given an argument to explain where that has been observed.
00
Mr. McRea: Wrong, grasshopper. Titan is not a planet, so you misread my comment. “This planet” could only mean the one we’re on (well, me at least). Since your reading comprehension is lacking, why would I write any more? Oh, why not. Is there abiotic oil on earth?
If you’re as big a fool as I think, you’ll answer. If you read Curious George below, you may have a flash of insight and say, “I don’t know.” I’m not holding my breath.
20
Someone said above that benzene had been found on Mars. I haven’t the time to go back and read (OK maybe I will) to ask them for a reference. If indeed it is true I think that would be a real story.
I don’t disagree with you on the subject, though I do find it logical that complex carbon chains could be forged by heat, pressure and time and it might explain a lot – or not. I remain skeptical about everything 🙂
AHA! https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-finds-ancient-organic-material-mysterious-methane-on-mars/
Proves nothing, but it’s a foot in the door to my mind, keeping it open…
30
Tim,
Willie Soon mentioned it. I listed his reference in the list: See C. Freissinet, et al (2015)
Abstract
The Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) instrument on board the Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity rover is designed to conduct inorganic and organic chemical analyses of the atmosphere and the surface regolith and rocks to help evaluate the past and present habitability potential of Mars at Gale Crater. Central to this task is the development of an inventory of any organic molecules present to elucidate processes associated with their origin, diagenesis, concentration, and long-term preservation. This will guide the future search for biosignatures. Here we report the definitive identification of chlorobenzene (150–300 parts per billion by weight (ppbw)) and C2 to C4 dichloroalkanes (up to 70 ppbw) with the SAM gas chromatograph mass spectrometer (GCMS) and detection of chlorobenzene in the direct evolved gas analysis (EGA) mode, in multiple portions of the fines from the Cumberland drill hole in the Sheepbed mudstone at Yellowknife Bay. When combined with GCMS and EGA data from multiple scooped and drilled samples, blank runs, and supporting laboratory analog studies, the elevated levels of chlorobenzene and the dichloroalkanes cannot be solely explained by instrument background sources known to be present in SAM. We conclude that these chlorinated hydrocarbons are the reaction products of Martian chlorine and organic carbon derived from Martian sources (e.g., igneous, hydrothermal, atmospheric, or biological) or exogenous sources such as meteorites, comets, or interplanetary dust particles.
00
“nearly all below-ground hydrocarbon fuels that have ever been found were from decomposed surface lifeforms.” What lifeforms? Do you believe that when coal are petrified plants, so must be oil and natural gas? That’s not a strong argument. Do you believe that extraterrestrial hydrocarbon are decomposed lifeforms?
Why can’t we just say that we don’t know for sure – yet?
10
Mr. George: Agreed. What catches my eye is any comment that expresses absolute certainty where uncertainty is evident.
00
No that’s not a strong argument but that’s your argument, not one I ever put forward.
The evidence of the co-mingling of coal and oil, the presence of ancient ocean life fossils in oil, and the presence of oil caught in the process of coalification suggests, at least for coal and oil, yes they are both made mainly by lifeforms.
I’m flexible on gas, because if the gas is very simple (eg methane) there’s no life required for that. That’s not new, nothing I’ve said on this page is contrary to that. But if someone wants to make an argument that commercial natural gas was not formed from life then they are welcome to try.
Still what’s the mix by mass? Do you know of d13C ratios differing between hydrocarbon from the surface versus deep abiotic origin, and does natural show up as one ratio versus the other?
These are the sorts of arguments that may convince, but nobody on this page is making them, at least not in any replies I’ve read.
00
Here is a fascinating old video (about 8 mins) with Fletcher Prouty (passed away 2001) explaining the origin of the term “fossil fuel” as applied to petroleum and how it has its origins at a Geneva meeting in 1892 and John Rockefeller.
It seems a remarkably similar scenario to “consensus science”, Elite subsidy harvesters and the Paris Agreement to establish the Official Narrative that shall not be questioned.
https://youtu.be/zSff0pwc1Xc
220
Well the disinformation scam worked in my case. Was never enthused about science at school (1960s) probably because the “teachers” were incapable of making it even remotely interesting. Had one teacher who walked around the lab classroom with his cane in hand and would swot pupils with it whenever the fancy took him ie inattention or not doing the experiment quick enough.
The video therefore explains a lot given that I first heard the term “fossil fuels” during the 70s “oil crisis” when I was working and had my first car. It immediately struck me as odd given that the term “fossil” was already in use with regard to the ongoing discovery of dinosaur fossils and other prehistoric stuff. My non-scientific brain waves started flowing down the track of, OK so all those dinosaurs standing around minding their own business who were made extinct when that asteroid hit the earth and got buried under all the earth thrown up by the explosion decayed into oil – makes some sense. But then logic kicked in and my thought path became, but millions of barrels of oil are extracted everyday and dead things decay (get smaller) so just how many dinosaurs had to be standing in the one place to create such huge reserves but only in certain areas of the globe. It must have been wall to wall dinosaurs, but if that was the case how come the environment was able to sustain such huge numbers until the asteroid arrived.
At this point my brain started to hurt so I contented myself with the simple fact that oil came from a pump just down the road from home and finding the cash to get it in my car to drive to my girlfriend’s place was all that really mattered. I’m starting to think the quote that if you tell the same lie often enough people will believe it is itself a lie because in actual fact everything we have been and are being told, as far as our collective future is concerned, is a lie.
200
Yes indeed. And the oil crisis of the 70’s was a fake and unnecessary.
Something we all know today because they are still finding untapped oil . .
111
Is it not amazing that the body can take lipids (hydrocarbon), carbohydrates and proteins and metabolise these to produce CO2 and water and energy (ATP) in fact our weight in ATP EACH DAY. The reversal of these reactions is indeed what gives LIFE. I notice the “Scientists” want to threaten the existence of life by extinguishing the energy sources and processes that create life to “Save the Planet”- Coition for Virginity as HonkR would quip!
The so called “Scientists” that are given attention are in fact front men- not particularly bright. The true scientist can EASILY and READILY debunk these Charlatans. Some mistakenly think they need many letters after their name to refute the charlatan’s- which is a major fallacy. Foe example the “COVID” vaccine has at most ZERO efficacy (and actually negative efficacy as it kills the immune system) which is OVERT and as simple as understanding the aphorism “There is no cure for the common cold” – the coronaviridae cause about a third of the common colds. I can not pull myself up by pulling on my bootstraps. The burden of proof lies with the “Scientists” who KNOW they are lying- it is not a mistake but a strategy.
290
Well said Simon.
I think that the corruption of science can be correlated with three significant events.
1) The shift of science funding from private to public sources. This was warned about by President Eisenhower in his farewell address:
2) The introduction by anthropogenic global warming fraudsters the false idea that scientific fact is established by “consensus”.
3) The general dumbing-down by the Left of the education system.
290
The term, “the science is settled” comes to mind.
110
Just watched the Willie Soon video and was surprised that he knew Mann before the HS nonsense and now Mann won’t talk to him.
But he’s certainly a very passionate scientist and I think he’s fair dinkum and I now understand why he left Harvard Uni after 31 years.
But I’m sure it has cost him some skin in the game and a lot of money since then and will also cost him more into the future.
190
The term fossil fuels is just as annoying as wind and solar farms. Also equal to greenhouse effect for its utter inaccuracy. Plus renewable energy, that’s one of the worst.
150
I saw an ad recently from one of the gas companies, bio-methane was mentioned, as if bio-methane was any different to other methane.
50
Finally!!!!!!!!!
I have been saying this for years, the Russians figured this out a long time ago there is no “oil shortage” we have so much of it in Australia even “our ABC” reported on it
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-24/major-oil-discovery-in-outback-sa/4481982
Just like the climate garbage we are being sold a lie, wake up people.
130
I had relatives who were pioneer pastoralists in Western Queensland, Sheep and Wheat, and I was told about the many capped oil wells there drilled by Commonwealth Oil Refineries and capped because Middle Eastern oil at that time was cheaper to access and transport.
10
Titan is larger than the planet Mercury and is the second largest moon in our solar system. Jupiter’s moon Ganymede is just a little bit larger (by about 2 percent). Titan’s atmosphere is made mostly of nitrogen, like Earth’s, but with a surface pressure 50 percent higher than Earth’s. Titan has clouds, rain, rivers, lakes and seas of liquid hydrocarbons like methane and ethane. The largest seas are hundreds of feet deep and hundreds of miles wide. Beneath Titan’s thick crust of water ice is more liquid—an ocean primarily of water rather than methane. Titan’s subsurface water could be a place to harbor life as we know it, while its surface lakes and seas of liquid hydrocarbons could conceivably harbor life that uses different chemistry than we’re used to—that is, life as we don’t yet know it. Titan could also be a lifeless world.
https://science.nasa.gov/saturn/moons/titan/
80
The idea that coal, oil and gas may not necessarily be described as fossil fuels is indeed intriguing. They may indeed have more fundamental origins having perhaps formed on the planet without the aid of early life forms of plants and vegetation etc.
If such a scenario is possible who knows how much more ‘fossil fuel is down there’.
Such an idea would of course be an anathema to our green friends but for the rest of us it would be extraordinarily good news . .
50
From my bookmarks:
The deep, hot biosphere: Twenty-five years of retrospection
Generation of methane in the Earth’s mantle: In situ high pressure–temperature measurements of carbonate reduction
80
Easier to find oil
71
Serpentinization, abiogenic organic compounds, and deep life
40
As John Laws kept saying on that TV Advert – “Oils ain’t Oils”.
10
Rewriting the textbook on fossil fuels: New technologies help unravel nature’s methane recipes
60
just some useless trivia…
The longest wells drilled for oil and gas start vertical, but end up horizontal for most of their length, and are indeed 6-8 miles long, just not that deep.
As far as I know, the longest well is in the UAE. The hole itself is 15240metres (50000ft) long, but is only about 2700-2800m deep (around 9200ft). It was drilled from an artificial island.
Sinopec have been drilling wells in China, each targeting reservoirs about 8000m deep. This is about the deepest commercial (it is China, so who knows if it really is commercially viable…) reservoir that I’m aware of
A deep-water well, like one planned by BP in the Great Australia Bight, was going to be drilled in a water depth of about 2200m, drilling vertically to about 5300m below sea-level, which seems like a lot, but it is only about 3100m of rock.
70
Equally useless trivia. the depth of the well is not determined by how hard rock is to drill…but, how much drill stem the derrick can hold off the drill head.
30
Yes…organic chemistry…plastics and polymers!
20
The abiogenic origin view of hydrocarbons is not new, it is just underpublicised. The scientific polymath Tommy Gold was publicising it in the 1980s. Mendeleev is the modern founder of the idea, in 1887.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
60
Anton. Yes, I recall discussing this with a geologist colleague in 1985 so I was aware of the abiogenic hypothesis then. I also remember reading material translated from Russian scientists from much earlier, about the twenties. It was Thomas Gold who took up the idea with enthusiasm, as you say. I have not seen the suggestion before that Mendeleev was the creator/inventor, that would explain the early material.
The abiogenic hypothesis remains after all this time as a fascinating proposition, no proof and little evidence exists for yea or nay.
(Ok I have only read down to item 20)
10
Please don’t go down the abiogenisis of fossil fuels blind alley.
Methane doesn’t count. Nobody serious ever argued that it needed a biological step to occur in large concentrations throughout the universe, although it almost certainly is mode of creation for the great bulk of it in exploitable deposits on Earth.
There is no other viable model for significant concentrations of longer chained hydrocarbons.
You do such good work on the CAGW rubbish, please don’t give them (CAGW zealots) a free kick on this one.
45
Jim, you need to read some scientific papers on how Carbon and hydrogen combine using an iron precursor catalyst. In nature all you need then is heat and pressure. Heat and pressure is a function of depth within the crust.
80
Also, having said that. The question then becomes…How did the carbon and hydrogen and iron come to be in the same place for that heat and pressure to act on it?
50
Well done, you made it all the way down here without reading a thing.
70
Life on Earth is the result of evolution and that evolution has been intimately tied to to the transformation of rocks that accredited to form Earth by thermal, mechanical, chemical and biological processes. The water and carbon content of those accreting rocks is relatively high. Atmospheric methane was much higher in Earth’s early atmosphere than present. Table 1 in the linked paper puts it above 5,000ppmv during the Archean eon.
https://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Catling2020_and_Zahnle_Archean_Atmosphere_Review.pdf
There are known abiotic paths to produce methane from carbon and hydrogen contained in the asteroids that accreted to form Earth. The recent sample that NASA took from an asteroid is typical of what is found in the rocks that have made it through Earth’s atmosphere:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/its-official-iowas-winter-storm-dropped-a-record-breaking-amount-of-snow/ar-AA1mIFOs
Methane on Titan is a liquid at about half the density of Earth’s oceans. Methane that now gets into Earth’s atmosphere is degraded through oxidation so is short lived.
Earth has survived and evolved over an estimated 4.5Gyr. Once plant life evolved on land, it exploded and pulled down the CO2 levels in the atmosphere to self-extinction level and oxygenated the atmosphere. The risk with humans restoring the CO2 above extinction level is that humans will find it hard to outcompete the plant life. They will push oxygen levels back up. The wild fires will be more intense. Plants will overtake suburbia first then the cities. Humans will be displaced. Biomass in humans is a piddling 60Mt. The biomass in plants is already 450Gt. The plants already have a head start and they are coming from near extinction.
BEWARE THE PLANTS!!! Imagine if trees developed senses and just dropped branches when humans passed underneath. That already happens by accident (At least I hope it is accidental).
130
Beware the plants! – Triffids!
70
The news about Titan is colossal,
Lakes of methane without any fossil,
And that abiotic oil,
Must make warmists recoil,
When confronted by a skeptic apostle.
100
Are you a sucker for tucker? https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/william-ramsey-investigates/id1388815042?i=1000640768345
plastics formed from hydrocarbons deep underground – leaching into oceans, water table. Willie Soon interviews on Tom Nelson podcast. The watermelons are coming after our water.
https://www.hunterwater.com.au/documents/assets/src/uploads/documents/Fact-Sheets/Water-Quality/ALUM-IN-DRINKING-WATER_MAR2011.pdf
JJCouey exposes Bret Weinstein v Sucker Carlson: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2027081042
“… I don’t think the US has an enemy called China. I think there are elements within the US that are partnered with elements within the Chinese Communist Party for practical reasons.
[00:51:23]
The notion that these two parties are Competing with each other just distracts us from what’s actually taking place. But let’s just put it this way. We have a large global population. Most people have no useful role through no fault of their own. They have not been given an opportunity in life to find a useful way to contribute. I wonder if the rent-seeking elites that have hoarded so much power are not unhooking our rights because effectively, they’re afraid of some global French Revolution moment as people realize that they’ve been betrayed and left without good options. Is that what we’re seeing? It certainly feels like we’re facing an end game where important properties that would once have been preserved by all parties because they might need them one day are now being dispensed with. We’re watching our governmental structures and every one of our institutions captured, hollowed out, turned into a paradoxical inversion of what it was designed to do. That’s not an accident. The thing that worries me most, actually, is that whatever is driving this is not composed of diabolical geniuses who at least have some plan for the future, but it’s being driven by people who actually do not know what hell they are inviting.”
Tucker, Malone, Bret and Heifer etc, are gate keepers, self appointed hero/dissidents.
Love your work Jo. Sorry to see smart people thumping for TC.
31
Or maybe Tucker etc are so useful that someone wants you to think they are “Gatekeepers”. Have you considered that?
70
Apparently, if it is black and burns, it must be a “fossil fuel” ( apart from deep-drilled natural gas, which is generally transparent.
Russian geophysics types have been working on a different “model”‘ for over forty years.
Coal? We all get that it is most likely cpmpressed swamp beds.
OIL is a totally different substance . Some times found in the same “region” but NEVER in the same “formations”. Pennsylvania is the classic example.
The term for the process of oil “formation” is “abiogenesis’ (NOT formed from “biomass”; certainly not directly. “Squashed dinosaurs”, it ain’t.
I am NOT a rock doctor,nor have i ever played one on TV, however, several of my close acquaintances ARE those sorts of people: Geo-Chemists, coal-mine lab chemists, and so forth.
It is HIGHLY likely that the underground “pools” of oil were “distilled out”, in two possible “phases”.
WAY back during the coalescing of teh planet from cosmic detritus; a process akin to a gigantic retort.
Two; as an ONGOING process intimately linked to continental drift and plate tectonics. Consider an ocean floor rich with “organic” detritus and dissolved gases. During a plate “collision”, said plates have several options: Slide past each other, Fault and fold op, or down, or one will subduct beneath the other. as oceanic plates are “denser” than continental plates, an oceanic plate will “slide” under a continental plate. The US Pacific North West is the text-book example. All of that organic plate detritus and dissolved gases dive UNDER the “lighter” continental plate. There, it gets seriously heated as it intrudes into the mantle. Hence “geological activity”, like volcanoes. If a LOT of water has been dragged down and super-heated, things will get lively when a weaker bit of crust passes over that area.
One example is Vesuvius. Quietly smoking away one day, as a part of a huge geo-thermal “complex”, then after a short round of puffs and associated earth tremors, blows its stack and obliterates two entire cities and most of their populations. Then goes back to “sleep’ for a while. This is not to be confused with general continental plate perversity, like the ROTATIONAL movement that has been operating under places like Yellowstone, ( the spectacularly active world’s first National Park, not the TV series) There is ab arc of “extinct volcano” features arrayed to the west / west-north wast of the current operation. The “Hot-Spot” is enormous and STATIC. The continental plate is rotating above it.
70
We haven’t had an energy crisis on this planet in the last few decades we’ve had a propaganda trashmedia crisis which has accelerated with the return of the Marxist/Fascists Schwab and Soros!
The real fight for the education of youth, rather than brainwashing, doesn’t just include continually quoting the facts, because the propaganda is five steps ahead with their ‘debunking, fact checking, misinformation, disinformation’.
The real fight in the next five years must be on the trashmedia complicity on blanket acceptance of verifiable lies and omission. Ridicule furthering into lawsuits without non disclosure are the possible tools for breaking the spell of the propaganda machine.
Sanctimonious junk degree talking heads like those on the project, while they have a non rating propped up fta slot, are actually shared by social media as gospel, indoctrinating young audiences by soundbite with ‘cool celebrities and influencer useful idiots’ spouting doom, replacing fact based good news which provides better head spaces for teenagers who are hormonal catastrophists at the best of times!
Fight the real villain now and the education will fall into place. Deprogram the cult and give the next generation a chance at creativity like Afrika Brooks and Zion Lights are advocating.
40
For those that might be interested I wrote an article on horizontal drilling of oil in July 2016.
https://www.siliconchip.com.au/Issue/2016/July/Directional+Drilling%3A+How+It+Works
50
In that article I had the following section:
50
Reserves have an extremely specific meaning for mining and oil professionals.
To explain it takes only a little while, but that is beyond soundbite periods.
10
You mean oil companies have been doing it wrong all these years?
I don’t think so!
From a geoscientist and a (sedimentary) basin analyst.
50
Yep, you’d think that point should carry some weight.
And if not, you’d think they might at least ask themselves why no company ever made a fortune harvesting all that abiotic oil which should exist in areas where they wouldn’t even need to compete for the leases.
20
MIDDLE EAST GEOLOGY Why the Middle East fields may produce oil forever
April 1, 1995
All you need is a source of carbon (organic or inorganic) and a source of Hydrogen (water) and the right geological conditions and you have oil!
Inexhaustible reserves: Why are yearly oil reserves increasing steadily despite the 10-20 million bbl of oil that have been pumped daily for decades from the Gulf area?
This question was asked in 1995. Still plenty of oil being extracted in the Gulf Region nearly 30 years latter.
https://www.offshore-mag.com/home/article/16762472/middle-east-geology-why-the-middle-east-fields-may-produce-oil-forever
40
Oil and gas reserves don’t work like that. A reserve is not the amount of oil or gas that is still in the ground.
Reserves
Those quantities of petroleum anticipated to be commercially recoverable by application of development projects to known accumulations from a given date forward under defined conditions. Reserves must satisfy four criteria: they must be discovered, recoverable, commercial, and remaining (as of a given date) based on the development project(s) applied. Glossary of Petroleum Resources Management System – June 2018 (revised version)
From PetroWiki
Basically, a reserve is the amount in the ground that is not far off ready for production, while a resource is closer to being the full amount in the ground. It is perfectly normal for a country (or company) to keep exploring and preparing so that reserves keep increasing in line with production. One way in which they report reserve is in years, ie, as a multiple of one year’s production. The major countries (and companies) typically target to keep reserve at a particular number of years.
40
Apart from the symantics is the “resource” a finite amount that was produced a long time ago – or is crude oil being continually produced at a yet unknown rate?
41
If I understand you correctly, you ask whether the resource oil or gas in the ground was created a long time ago, or whether it is continually being added to.
All the resource estimates I’m aware of are the former, ie. assumed to have been fixed down there a long time ago. I’ve never heard of a resource having increased naturally. Mind you, resource is continually re-estimated, and it’s not a super-accurate nethod, so if there was a small natural increase going on then they would probably just think their estimates were getting better.
Most oil and gas reservour theory is based on biomass getting covered by successive new rock layers over many eons, which end up trapping it.In most cases the layers form but don’t trap, so the oil and gas just escapes – and the driller then finds only traces. Exxon in particular have become very good at identifying this in advance, so when they do drill they usually do find.
20
Resources are estimated by a competent geologist. They must have some potential to be economically recovered in the future.
eg for coal, geos will typically apply a cutoff thickness of 30cm. Below that they will not classify it as part of the resource estimate, unless it is very close to a number of other plies which can be mined together. A quality cutoff is also usually applied based on the ash content.
Reserves and Resources don’t assume that anything is being continually formed. Because of the reporting Code requirements and personal liability the Competent Person signing off on the Estimates must satisfy and take on, no-one in their right mind would assume that it was being added to.
Geology is an applied science where you are held accountable for your theory’s accuracy. If you get things wrong (ie predictions based on your theory are not supported by drilling results) then you are held to account. If you are Reporting under most acceptable codes, investors who lose money can come after your personal assets.
Same for Mining Engineering. Try the crap which goes on with renewables and you would never work again.
20
What about the great artesian basin, commonly described as being fossil water?
30
oooo Yuk! what does it taste like?
But seriously, all those fossils being found, … do they have any dark goo-ey fluids around them? where’s the fossilised plant material that may have lain around them? and as for fossilised trees and other plants …. Coming to think about it all Big Questions.
40
Love Willie Soon. What a wonderful soul. He would have suffered some awful times from the Climate Change maniacs. On retirement, Climate Change became a big part of my life and Willie Soon has always been up there with the other brave science warriors.
90
In 2012 Russia claimed to have drilled 300 oil and gas wells through granite and basalt circa 40,000 feet deep, a level that precludes any biological remains.
CO2 gas that leaks out of volcanoes and vents is abiotic. So why not hydrocarbons? Nobody knows what chemistry is occurring inside the bowels of the Earth. For sure there’s a lot of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen being mashed together under very high pressures and temperatures.
One other thing: Methane, natural gas, is approx 80% hydrogen (CH4). Trying to produce pure hydrogen is costly and impractical and most probably has a larger carbon footprint than extracting, transporting and burning CH4. The only reason why the globalists are waging a war against methane is obvious. they want to control us.
70
Research by Graham Readfearn by any chance?”
“The @Guardian blames the Gaza war for global warming. Really! Let’s look at the numbers.”
https://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-guardian-blames-gaza-war-for-global.html
10
Why, Ian? I know it’s just more rubbish and better things to do than follow all that Guardian rubbish … jings even the Farmers Guardian isn’t much better. And as they say in Germanski this now … more Anti the Ampel ( traffic Lights ) Government ( ie Red Amber Green) than being Left or Right (Ok then, Right or Left, if you will,) Wing in politics. Just too much introvert radical thinking by politicians.
30
Hmmm… clear as mud! Probably makes perfect sense in Gaelic, but there’s definitely something lost in translation to the Aussie Lingo we know and understand here in the far-flung antipodes.
10
Graham Readfearn, a fully qualified pub worker turned science writer. How does the Guardian find these prodigies? He was probably quite a reasonable pub worker, but that’s probably the best thing I can say about his science writing.
20
Hmm Talk about new Horizons, eh? the UK Post Office saga and the Horizon software… aye what can you trust nowadays. Piers Morgan conversation with Jordan Peterson: https://youtu.be/S9nCMWy4NKc?t=350 (or the entire prog.)
This does drive home the nonsense of swallowing propaganda and “just in news” as being fact. Learn to listen and think for yourselves. Education,,, anyone?
40
Pitch / tar has been in use for millennia. The ancient Egyptians and Babylonians, among others, used the stuff for water-proofing, medicinal poultices, mummification, etc.. Thus, “seepage’ of serious heavy hydrocarbons has been going on for a while.
The La Brea Tar-pits in California indicate considerable age, especially given the array of ‘preserved / trapped Ice Age / pre 13000 BCE critters found intermingled in the oozing tar. The tar had to be there before Dire-Wolves, etc, started falling into it. Ice age; cold times. The Kilometers-thick Laurentide Ice Sheet reached well south of the modern Canadian border. Life on the chilly prairies and snowy forests would have been “tough”. How many species traversed the inland mountain range in search of food and warmth?. The “hot spas” of La Brea may have been a “fatal attraction”. How deeply have these pits been explored. Given the activity and affect of the San Andreas Fault, (and others) what is the deep-time geological story?
I may have misread teh issue, so, let’s hear from the paleontologists.
20
I believe in abiotic oil. I read Thomas Gold’s book a long time ago. But, if oil is also of biological origin, why not from humans, too? Why just dinosaurs and plankton? Does anyone know if adipose tissue can be used as fuel? I’d like to think I might light up a light after I die. If not before. 🙂
It would make a great sales pitch for more natural burials.
Does anyone know if there’s anything resembling oil leaking out of mass graves? Not to be gross or distasteful, but humans usually have gigantic blindspots, regarding themselves and the human race.
30
It is completely up to you what to believe, but does anyone serious in the field say the source is dinosaurs?
You need the source of carbon, favourable rock, favourable temperature and pressure conditions, and tens of millions of years.
You also need another set of favourable rocks and structural conditions overlying the source to keep it there.
You also then need it to be concentrated into large enough deposits to be worth extracting. Based on samples of sea water, there is maybe 1.5 million tonnes of gold sitting there. Is that worth anything?
There may be an abiotic oil pathway which shows how you can get oil from a non-biological source. But then having that work in the real world to form something useable is pretty much the same thing as much of the climate science taking CO2 being a GHG in the lab and then showing how it warms the earth in practise.
10
It’s pretty simple.
“Fossil Fuels” was a catchy name that had bugger all to do with science.
00
[…] If fossil fuels come from fossils, why have scientists found them on one of Saturn’s moons? […]
10