Is it time to change how we think of fossil fuels?

[Aurora]

Laboratory News - October 2009

A group of researchers say they have proved that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated.

This would be revolutionary - not only does it go against scientific consensus but it would also mean that new sources of oil could be found all over the globe.

“There is no doubt that our research proves that crude oil and natural gas are generated without the involvement of fossils. All types of bedrock can serve as reservoirs of oil,” said research leader Vladimir Kutcherov, professor of the Division of Energy Technology at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden.

Together with two colleagues, Kutcherov simulated the process occuring naturally in the inner layers of the earth that generates hydrocarbon - the primary component in oil and natural gas. Publishing his findings in Nature Geoscience – he says he is convinced that the process doesn’t require organic matter in the form of fossils.

As well as the evidence from these simulations, he thinks that oil reserves in Texas – 10.5km deep in some wells – are too deep for fossil remnants to have played a part in there formation. As Kutcherov sees it, this is further proof that the genesis of these energy sources can be created in ways that don’t rely on fossils.

“There is no way that fossil oil, with the help of gravity or other forces could have seeped down to a depth of 10.5km in the state of Texas, for example, which is rich in oil deposits,” he said.

As well as the revelation that the earth could be richer in oil and gas reserves than many have speculated and that they are not formed from fossils – he says his discovery has benefits for the location of fuel reserves. The team have used their research to develop a new location method to find these extra reserves. It involves dividing the globe into a finely meshed grid corresponding to fissures - so-called ‘migration channels’ - through underlying layers under the surface of the earth. Wherever these fissures meet, he says, it is suitable to drill.

This may sound too simple to be true, but Kutcherov says using this method could increase the degree of accuracy dramatically – from 20 to 70%. Since drilling for oil and natural gas is a very expensive process, the cost will be radically reduced for petroleum companies - and in the end, probably for consumers as well.

“The savings will be in the many billions,” said Kutcherov.

Original Article

[adam2]

And to where do we send our cheques, to be "in at the beggining of this wonderfull investment. invest NOW"

And as for the depth at which oil is found, the accepted idea is that it was formed near the surface from large accumalations of decaying organic matter.
Natural geological proceses then covered it with increasing depths of sedimentary rock, the very slow movements of landmasses also results in some areas sinking and others rising.
Similar movements, known as plate tectonics also accounts for seashells on mountain tops, at a height of many KM.
(Except of course in the Southern states of the USA, where it is believed that the earth is only a few thousand years old. This brief interval would not give time enough for either plate tectonics or oil formation. The earth, and oil in it were created by God, for our use. Sea shells on mountain tops, and dinosaur bones are either fakes by godless scientists, or put there by god to test the faith of the people)

[mobbsey]

A group of researchers say they have proved that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated.

OK then, where do the pollen grains/microfossils in crude oil come from?
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... -crude-oil

[jo]

Just like "Intelligent Design" is a re-formulation of "Creationism", this new theory, "Kutcherov Theory" could just be a re-formulation of the so-called "abiotic" theory of the formation of petroleum oil.

Look !

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci ... 00156.html

http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/Sess_182.html

http://www.kth.se/aktuellt/1.43372?l=en_UK

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/top ... id=1987711

http://www.aapg.org/europe/newsletters/ ... Petrol.cfm

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:Gc ... clnk&gl=uk

"Krayushkin, V. A. (1984)"

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/11/4/15537/8056

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 084259.htm
Vladimir Kutcherov, Anton Kolesnikov, and Alexander Goncharov

Are they all Russians ?

[jo]

As soon as I see the name Lawrence Solomon, I know I've hit a scam :-

http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/205471

Russian OIL is going to drive the World economy FOREVER
By: Bulov on: 13.09.2009 [01:04 ] (308 reads)


(4995 bytes) [nc] Print
Lawrence Solomon: Endless oil

Posted: September 12, 2009, 1:50 AM by NP Editor

Lawrence Solomon, Russia, peak oil, oil production, oil exploration
Russian research has shown that the Earth doesn’t need dinosaurs to produce oil

By Lawrence Solomon

Do dead dinosaurs fuel our cars? The assumption that they do, along with other dead matter thought to have formed what are known as fossil fuels, has been an article of faith for centuries. Our geologists are taught fossil fuel theory in our schools; our energy companies search for fossil fuels by divining where the dinosaurs lay down and died. Sooner or later, we will run out of liquefied dinosaurs and be forced to turn to either nuclear or renewable fuels, virtually everyone believes.

Except in Russia and Ukraine. What is to us a matter of scientific certainty is by no means accepted there. Many Russians and Ukrainians — no slouches in the hard sciences — have since the 1950s held that oil does not come exclusively, or even partly, from dinosaurs but is formed below the Earth’s 25-mile deep crust. This theory — first espoused in 1877 by Dmitri Mendeleev, who also developed the periodic table — was rejected by geologists of the day because he postulated that the Earth’s crust had deep faults, an idea then considered absurd. Mendeleev wouldn’t be vindicated by his countrymen until after the Second World War when the then-Soviet Union, shut out of the Middle East and with scant petroleum reserves of its own, embarked on a crash program to develop a petroleum industry that would allow it to fend off the military and economic challenges posed by the West.

Today, Russians laugh at our peak oil theories as they explore, and find, the bounty in the bowels of the Earth. Russia’s reserves have been climbing steadily — according to BP’s annual survey, they stood at 45 billion barrels in 2001, 69 billion barrels in 2004, and 80 billion barrels of late, making Russia an oil superpower that this year produced more oil than Saudi Arabia. Some oil auditing firms estimate Russia’s reserves at up to 200 billion barrels. Despite Russia’s success in exploration, most of those in the west who have known about the Russian-Ukrainian theories have dismissed them as beyond the Pale. This week, the Russian Pale can be found awfully close to home.

In a study published in Nature Geoscience, researchers from the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Sweden and the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington joined colleagues at the Lomonosov Moscow State Academy of Fine Chemical Technology in publishing evidence that hydrocarbons can be produced 40 to 95 miles beneath the surface of the Earth. At these depths — in what’s known as Earth’s Upper Mantle — high temperatures and intense pressures combine to generate hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbons then migrate toward the surface of the Earth through fissures in the Earth’s crust, sometimes feeding existing pools of oil, sometimes creating entirely new ones. According to Sweden’s Royal Institute, “fossils of animals and plants are not necessary to generate raw oil and natural gas. This result is extremely radical as it means that it will be much easier to find these energy sources and that they may be located all over the world.”

The Institute’s lead author, Vladimir Kutcherov, Professor at the KTH Department of Energy Technology, is even more brash at the implications of his findings: “With the help of our research we even know where oil could be found in Sweden!” he delights. Kutcherov’s technique involves dividing the world into a fine-meshed grid that maps cracks (or migration channels) under the Earth’s crust, through which the hydrocarbons can bubble up to the surface. His advice: Drill where the cracks meet. Doing this, he predicts, will dramatically reduce the likelihood of dry wells. Kutcherov expects the success rate of drillers to more than triple, from 20% to 70%, saving billions in exploration costs while opening up vast new areas of the planet — most of which has never been deemed to have promise — to exploration.

The Nature study follows Kutcherov’s previous work, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that created hydrocarbons out of water, calcium carbonate and iron — products in the Earth’s mantle. By superheating his ingredients in a pressure chamber at 30,000 times atmospheric pressure, simulating the conditions in the Earth’s mantle, Kutcherov’s alchemy converted 1.5% of his concoction into hydrocarbons — gases such as methane as well as components of heavier oils. The implication of this research, which suggests that hydrocarbons are continuously generated through natural processes? Petroleum is a sustainable resource that will last as long as Planet Earth.

Financial Post
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... s-oil.aspx


=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/09/ ... s-forever/

Bob Cousins:
September 14th, 2009 at 4:56 am

The abiogenic theory of oil generation (aka abiotic oil) is junk science, and Kutcherov is one of those publicity loving jerks who gets a snippet of fact from one experiment and then unjustifiably extraplates it to the whole world. Note how the language in the abstract is quite different to the press release. It goes from saying “some” hydrocarbons “could” be created in the mantle to saying that we will never run out of oil, which is BS. We could have 1000 barrels per year of abiotic oil for ever, but what about 30 billion barrels/year, which is what we use currently?

The fact is that all commercial oil production is from oil that can be traced to natural origin, and absolutely no oil has been found in significant quantities based on where abiotic theories say it should be.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

[Quintus]

I'm deeply sceptical. As I understand it the abiotic hypothesis has been around since the 1950s, yet no one has found a way to make commercial sense of it.

“There is no doubt that our research proves that crude oil and natural gas are generated without the involvement of fossils. All types of bedrock can serve as reservoirs of oil,” says Vladimir Kutcherov, who adds that this is true of land areas that have not yet been prospected for these energy sources.

But the discovery has more benefits. The degree of accuracy in finding oil is enhanced dramatically – from 20 to 70 percent. Since drilling for oil and natural gas is a very expensive process, the cost picture will be radically altered for petroleum companies, and in the end probably for consumers as well. “The savings will be in the many billions,” says Vladimir Kutcherov.

To identify where it is worthwhile to drill for natural gas and oil, Vladimir Kutcherov has used his research to arrive at a new method. It involves dividing the globe into a finely meshed grid. The grid corresponds to fissures, so-called ‘migration channels,’ through underlying layers under the surface of the earth. Wherever these fissures meet, it is suitable to drill.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 084259.htm

[2 As and a B]

By Lawrence Solomon

Do dead dinosaurs fuel our cars? The assumption that they do, along with other dead matter thought to have formed what are known as fossil fuels, has been an article of faith for centuries. Our geologists are taught fossil fuel theory in our schools; our energy companies search for fossil fuels by divining where the dinosaurs lay down and died. Sooner or later, we will run out of liquefied dinosaurs and be forced to turn to either nuclear or renewable fuels, virtually everyone believes.

What a remarkably uneducated fellow.

[fifthcolumn]

A group of researchers say they have proved that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated.

OK then, where do the pollen grains/microfossils in crude oil come from?
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... -crude-oil

Isn't it possible that there's TWO methods of forming hydrocarbons mobbsey?
After all, there are ocean of methane on titan (useless though it is to have it there out of reach).

The point is moot, though, since even if it is formed abiotically, it's flow rate that counts.

As others have pointed out, the several billion barrels of hard to get oil recently discovered in deep water are going to take five to ten years to come on stream and we're going to hit hard depletion in 2015.

[mobbsey]

Isn't it possible that there's TWO methods of forming hydrocarbons mobbsey?

Absolutely.

The difficult issue for abiotic oil is that the temperature at the mantle/crust boundary would break the carbon bonds of any hydrocarbon chains trying to cross it. It might be possible for methane to cross the boundary, but unlikely since the temperature and pressure would break it down too, and you still need a process to enable recombination of methane/hydrocarbon fragments on the other side of that boundary.

It's not impossible, it just has a low order of probability -- which in turn means that if it did take place the volumes involved would be low.

There are many instances in which Occam's Law should override the human ability for self-deception when existing models clearly fit to the observed data -- and I think this is one.

[fifthcolumn]

The difficult issue for abiotic oil is that the temperature at the mantle/crust boundary would break the carbon bonds of any hydrocarbon chains trying to cross it. It might be possible for methane to cross the boundary, but unlikely since the temperature and pressure would break it down too, and you still need a process to enable recombination of methane/hydrocarbon fragments on the other side of that boundary.

It's not impossible, it just has a low order of probability -- which in turn means that if it did take place the volumes involved would be low.

I agree it's a waste of time in the sense of "well we're saved then because abiotic hydrocarbons exist" but I'm interested in the discussion purely out of scientific curiosity.

My position is that since clearly abiotic METHANE exists in the universe, then it's possible that methane is being formed somewhere deep down in the Earth. (That's it's being formed in any meaningful amounts, I agree, is unlikely).

In terms of it's actual creation, however, I find it interesting to speculate.

If I understand you correctly you're saying that the hydrocarbons would be formed in the mantle and that there is a temperature/pressure gradient which increases at the juncture of the mantle and the crust and therefore it's unlikely that any hydrocarbons could cross that boundary.

What if, however, parts of the mantle swirl up through the crust and in the centre of the "big glob" of mantle there's a whole bunch of hydrocarbons.

I'm guessing that might be plausible.

If it sounds ridiculous, feel free to laugh at me. I'm a big boy and can take it.

[mobbsey]

What if, however, parts of the mantle swirl up through the crust and in the centre of the "big glob" of mantle there's a whole bunch of hydrocarbons.

That could only happen with a heat plume coming out of the core -- the sort of thing that gives rise to island chains (e.g. Hawaii) etc. -- so again we're back to the heat degradation of the hydrocarbons problem.

[fifthcolumn]

What if, however, parts of the mantle swirl up through the crust and in the centre of the "big glob" of mantle there's a whole bunch of hydrocarbons.

That could only happen with a heat plume coming out of the core -- the sort of thing that gives rise to island chains (e.g. Hawaii) etc. -- so again we're back to the heat degradation of the hydrocarbons problem.

OK fair do's.

We don't even have to ask the question about what happened to all the original abiotic methane, because we already know where it is:
Methane Hydrates