Oil and the lies that are told to us

Lets preface this with an article from Fortune Magazine, a fairly respected magazine in the Industry (BrainStorm-Oil Without End? 2/04/2003):

"In the quiet waters off the coast of Vietnam lies an area known as Bach Ho, or White Tiger Field. There, and in the nearby Black Bear and Black Lion fields, exploration companies are drilling more than a mile into solid granite--so-called basement rock--for oil. That's a puzzle: Oil isn't supposed to be found in basement rock, which never rose near the surface of the earth where ancient plants grew and dinosaurs walked. Yet oil is there. Last year the White Tiger Field and nearby areas produced 338,000 barrels per day, and they are estimated to hold about 600 million barrels more.

Oil and natural gas are being found in places no one..."
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/brai...,419014,00.html

It is funny how oil is often found at depths way below any possible fossil deposits, and how there is never any evidence of strata processes that are found at the surface. Not to say that some oil isn't found near the surface, but there are some really vast deposits very deep within the earth.

A group of scientists recently got together, and calculated all the vegitation/animals that has existed over millions of years on the earths surface, and just what we pumped out so far, we would have ran out in the 1960's. There is a huge biomass gap, from what we have pumped out just so far, compared to all the biomass on earth, that there ever was.

It is all pretty interesting, once you start looking at the subject.


The theory underlying how oil is formed at such enormous depths in the mantle of the earth is not central to this report, because the Russians have already proved its point of origin in absolute drilling terms more than 300 times. Those interested in the exact process should research the archives, where there are more than two hundred Russian papers on the subject.

http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html


What the researchers found when they analyzed the oil field with time lapse 3-D seismic imaging is that there was an unexplained deep fault in the bottom corner of the computer scan, which showed oil gushing in from a previously unknown deep source and migrating up through the rock to replenish the existing supply.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/peak_oil/index.htm


Production ... was supposed to have declined years ago. And for a while, it behaved like any normal field: Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330's output peaked at about 15,000 barrels a day. By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels a day.

Then suddenly... The field, is now producing 13,000 barrels a day, and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million. Stranger still, scientists studying the field say the crude coming out of the pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed 10 years ago.

http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm


RIYADH, 7 April 2005 — Saudi Arabia might manage to increase its crude reserves by 200 billion barrels to its existing 261 billion barrels, Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Ali Al-Naimi was quoted by the Saudi Press Agency as saying.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=61713&d=7&m=4&y=2005


... the increasingly greater proven oil reserves being reported by petroleum majors operating in Russia; .... Russia's proven oil supply is likely to end up tripling to about 180 billion barrels, making it the second largest source of petroleum in the world. One quoted analyst believes that Russia's hydrocarbon (oil and natural gas) deposits may eventually prove to be 50% greater than those of Saudi Arabia.
http://www.powerpolitics.org/archives/000004.html


Largely unexplored, and almost completely unexploited...No one knows how much hydrocarbon wealth lies beneath central Asia's deserts, but most of the world's major oil companies are already prospecting there. "The deposits are huge," said a diplomat from the region. Kazakhstan alone may have more oil than Saudi Arabia.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/warring_nation_holds_key_to_oil.html


A great interview of a couple of fellas that have been trying to speak out and let folks know of the "fossil lies":
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2005/10/12.html

About 25 years ago, when I was at New Mexico Tech (probably the second best earth science university in the country, although not well known) the Petroleum department there was discovering that lots of old, abandoned oil fields all over the world were filling up again, and they were working on the whys and hows.

Last I heard (I haven't followed it closely) they were pretty sure that it wasn't existing oil that was just migrating and concentrating into the old strata, but new oil that was being formed by some, at the time, unknown process.

So, for a long time I have been aware that the amount of oil resources we have on earth isn't quite as finite as many (on both sides of the debate) would have us believe

Jump forward to just a couple of weeks ago: I skimmed an article from NASA that theorized that oil was being formed on or near the surface on one of Jupiter's??? moons Titania???? due to some sort of volcanic emissions of methane.

My guess is that there isn't quite as much "new oil" as NewBie's articles promise, but a lot more than most people believe.

Now, there are a whole bunch of disparate groups that have financial and/or political reasons to tell us we are running out of oil.

And I'm not sure that it is a bad idea to go on as if we are.

Don't get me wrong, I love the concept of oil and gasoline, and while I'm not into profiteering based on erroneous "data" and on peoples fears; But if we turn around to the idea that petroleum is going to be an endless supply; then research into and adaptation of alternative energy sources is going to lag. Then, down the road, we may find ourselves actually in the situation many erroneously believe us to be in now.

And the more alternatives we have the better off we are. Cheap energy, easily available is at the root of economic success everywhere... And that wonderful energy source that MIGHT be just around the corner in some physics lab, the one that will propel us to the stars and an easy life of leisure and plenty for the entire world, might not be found, or found too late.

Even if this is true, the time frame during which old wells fill up might well be hundreds are even thousands of years. If we deplete the existing fields, we'll be left high and dry for a long, long time. That's a gamble we dare not take.

There is also another problem. It's not like oil is an ideal energy source. Far from it. The byproducts include pollutants which do anything from poison the environment to deteriorate structures, dirty the air, and cause cancers. You have the infernal noise from internal combustion engines, with turbines and diesels being the worst offenders. You have the potential for fires and explosions from oil. And finally, compared to nuclear power, any form of power generation involving combustion requires the movements of billions of tons of fuel at current energy consumption rates. Long term, I'm not sure burning anything is really a good idea. At best, it's an inelegant solution compared to fission and hopefully fusion. At worst, it could well render the planet uninhabitable.

Anyway, I tend to think a lot of this is wishful thinking on the part of oil companies. They know very well that once we went to alternatives which were better than oil and cost no more, or perhaps less, there would be no going back to oil, ever. It might be in 100 years oil oozing out of the ground is more a worthless nuisance than anything.

You really should read the articles jtr1962.

One of the examples is of a Gulf Coast well, that was drying up, and now it is pumping just like when it was new. This isn't at all an unusual occurance for wells operated over a period of time.

Of great note is the fact that the oil was actually from another geological age, when compared to the original...


Their are many papers by the russians, drilling and finding oil at incredible depths, six miles under the surface, way, way below where any fossils are found. There was a link above to one of the articles, covering just one, of like 300 massive deposits they have found.

That and they have used their theory to study for very deep oil sources, and have been successful 300 times now.

Here is a recent MSNBC article...

Mystery Still Surrounds Earth's Oil Supply:

…Alternative sourceThe idea that petroleum formed from dead organic matter is known as the "biogenic theory" of petroleum formation, and was first proposed by a Russian scientist almost 250 years ago.

In the 1950s, however, a few Russian scientists began questioning this traditional view and proposed instead that petroleum could form naturally deep inside the Earth.

This so-called "abiogenic" petroleum might seep upward through cracks formed by asteroid impacts to form underground pools, according to one hypothesis. Some geologists have suggested probing ancient impact craters in the search for oil.

Abiogenic sources of oil have been found, but never in commercially profitable amounts. The controversy isn't over whether naturally forming oil reserves exist, said Larry Nation of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. It's over how much they contribute to Earth's overall reserves and how much time and effort geologists should devote to seeking them out.

Click to expand...

Russian's are great theoretical scientists... But, like any group of people that depend on government funding--They are, to a degree, reflecting their' government's tendencies towards funding "interesting research" with sometimes irreproducible results.

I am a bit skeptical of all of their claims. Some of this is probably more wishful thinking than useful information that will help us tomorrow... I do think that it is very possible that much of our hydrocarbons are not from "dinosaurs"... But, whatever the source, we are certainly accessing the easily recovered sources right now. And it will become more difficult and more expensive to recover the huge amounts of "fossil" energy we use in the future--whether it is ten years from now or ten thousand.

-Bill

just read first article, wow what a different point of view!

Woo Hoo!

We can keep on mining hydrocarbons virtually forever and keep on adding CO2 to our atmosphere year after year!

No worries, mate!

Although... if this research IS true, why the heck are we importing 60% of our oil from outside of the U.S.? We used to be an oil exporter. Shoot! We've been supporting all of those repressive regimes of the middle east now for decades for no necessary reason at all. I mean, we've already got lots of wells drilled in existing fields, man we can just keep on pumping those!

I don't know... I read that first article and I am still sceptical...

Just for grins, I ran a reverse Google on the link for that article. The web sites that quote that article are not too ligit looking.

A couple other Goolge searches on his name and address produce WEB and New Groups.

I am not going to post any of the results beause; 1) I don't agree with hardly anything of what he is saying, and 2) it would get my but kicked out of CPF faster that I can type "good bye"...

Whether this guy believes what he is posting; or is posting dis-information; or is just trying to get money--I don't want to touch any more of it...

-Bill

NewBie said:

You really should read the articles jtr1962.

Click to expand...

I did read them. I came away with the impression that this is either an anomoly happening in only a few wells and/or something which may take a very long time to renew a well. Either way, once we drain current wells dry it'll take them a while to replenish, if indeed they do. And this isn't even getting into what I said about oil being a problematic energy source. It could be bubbling up to the ground everywhere for the taking and I would still support switching to alternatives. That's how many problems I see with using oil right now.

Speaking of which, one big hole in this theory is if oil continually replenishes itself from somewhere deep in the mantle why don't we have oil lakes anywhere? You would think in a few places at least the oil would have broken ground and accumulated on the surface if this process is ongoing. The fact that this hasn't happened tells me one of two things. Either it's a very rare phenomenom which only happens in a few very deep wells or someone else (not homo sapiens) has taken the oil out already on a recent geologic time scale. If the former, that still means oil will get increasing scarce while alternatives get cheaper. If the latter, perhaps the last intelligent species on Earth drained the planet dry and paid the price by causing their own extinction. Perhaps we should heed the warning. You may doubt global warming. I'm not 100% sold on it either, but should we have renewable oil sources and consume them at ever increasing rates I can assure you that global warming (among other things) will occur. This isn't even getting into the wholesale poisoning of the planet from the pollution from trillions of barrels of oil emissions. Suddenly even "dangerous" fission power seems like a bargain by comparison.

I'll add another thing. Let's say this is correct and peak oil is a myth created by the oil companies to drive up prices as one of the articles says. No better way to stick it to these greedy oil companies than to develop alternatives and put them completely out of business. This isn't even getting into how much more liveable our cities will be without the pollution from fossil fuels.

I assume you have never heard of the many tar pits around the world. Some of them are so old, that up in Canada, they have even pulled Wooley Mammoths out of them.

So, yes it does bubble to the surface.

The problem is, if it is all from fossils, or any "free flowing pockets under the surface" from fossils, how do you explain the extremely large deposits the Russians have found as far as EIGHT miles under the surface? Thats way below the fossil layers...

Also consider, that once on the surface, that natural things, like forest fires and lightning, and men may have burned or depleted alot of it already.

The meat and potatoes of what the Russians have been doing, and have been successful with, over 300 times now, is to find layers where the oil cannot penetrate, a natural dome that would trap it, basically a place where it might accumulate.

This picture illustrates the concept very well:
http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/images/0_oilwar4.jpg

OK, so then it seems these phenomenom, if they exist at all, are mostly applicable to deep wells. Shallower wells may refill also, but it seems the time scale for that is much longer (millenia?). Deep drilling is less economic obviously. My only conclusion then is that the "renewable" oil will not be worth extracting until the price of oil continues to rise, perhaps past the point where alternatives cost less. New drilling techniques may change that, but then again alternatives are getting cheaper every year as well. The entire earth's core could be loaded with oil or other minerals worth even more. It's like gold in sea water-it just doesn't make economic sense to extract it, and probably never will. If this deep oil ends up costing $10 per gallon by the time all is said and done any alternative will be cheaper. Right now mass produced EVs could compete with <$0.50 per gallon gasoline even at high NYC kW-hr rates. I don't see that oil will ever be that low again since most of this "new" oil is in places where it's hard to extract.

Here's a wikipedia article on Joe Vialls.

Most of your referenced websites are sensationalist conspiracy-oriented publications. Do you have a link to the actual whitepapers?

Why does it have to be a conspiracy? Lets assume for a moment that this is 100% correct. Accepted science from 75 years ago is that it's fossilized vegetation. If you want to change accepted science you need to actually prove it and then wait while other folks decide that it's interesting enough to try to duplicate your results. No conspiracy is needed to make the oil companies reluctant to setup tests to drill 6 mile deep wells! Thats expensive, and there is no real science yet to prove that they will find anything when they can still tap regular spaces much closer to the surface.

It doesn't matter how much oil is available if we can't readily get to it by drilling hundreds of 6 mile deep wells to replace the shallow wells that we have now it will not reduce the price of oil.

No invoking of conspiracy to account for this is necessary, simple invoking of the reluctance of scientists to change long accepted beliefs and the reluctance of companies to invest billions in projects that are pipe dreams.

Dont worry though, reputable people in this country will investigate it, and no oil company desire to keep charging mega bucks for peak oil will be able to stop it. Indeed they wont want to as they are the only people out there that will be able to someday drill 6 mile deep wells, so they get to hold onto their pseudo monopoly and will pass the cost of that additional drilling expense onto us.

Nobody is suppressing the info, they just dont accept major changes in basic tenets of science overnight. But if it's real, they WILL figure it out.

Never invoke conspiracy when economics and stupidity are enough to completely explain the phenomenon that you are witnessing.

After all the work of the Russians, Western geologists now actually accept the abiogenic hydrocarbon facts. The pioneering work was done by:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

"The capital fact to note is that petroleum was born in the depths of the earth, and it is only there that we must seek its origin." (Dmitri Mendeleev, 1877)[1]
Russian geologist Nikolai Alexandrovitch Kudryavtsev was the first to propose the modern abiotic theory of petroleum in 1951. He studied the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta, Canada and concluded that no "source rocks" could form the enormous volume of hydrocarbons, and that therefore the most plausible explanation is abiotic deep petroleum.

The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of petroleum, based on thermodynamic calculations made for the first time by Ukrainian scientist, Prof. Emmanuil B. Chekaliuk (1967), contends that petroleum is formed at high pressure and temperature in the earth's mantle, out of carbon that has never been part of a living thing. This theory is said to be supported by experimental studies conducted by Dr J.F. Kenney and his Russian colleagues. Their conclusions about petroleum origin are also said to vindicate the theories propounded by the geologist Nikolai Kudryavtsev.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiotic_oil



.

I agree that hydrocarbons do not need to have been formed from previously living organic matter... Just do google search on hydrocarbons in space and you will see that they have been detected in places other than earth.

I am even ready to believe that it is very possible that oil/hydrocarbons that we are currently pumping may be left over from when the earth was first formed and/or that there is a continuing process that creates oil based on methane hydrates (deep ocean methane deposits) and the earth's internal heat.

I will even believe that oil companies/countries/people who own oil wells will do a cost comparison between the current price of oil vs. the costs of rehabbing a well or even drilling new wells deeper and with new extraction technologies.

I am even willing to believe that Saudi Arabia, and others, will manipulate the market to the degree that they can to avoid what happened back in the 1970's and 1980's where the price of oil skyrocketed (to inflation adjusted levels that are equal to or even higher than today's prices) so that they can avoid the oil price crash that we have been enjoying the last decade or so (excluding those folks in Europe and Asia that have very high government taxes on fuels).

I am not willing to believe that drilling thousands of 8 mile deep wells are going to be a magic solution to our energy problems. The single Russian Kola borehole took ~24 years to drill.

In quickly reviewing the web for results of the many deep bore projects... I did not find any that mentioned significant oil finds... Salt water and micro-fossils miles deep--yes, but no oil.

Even if this link is true:

Russia Proves 'Peak Oil' is a Misleading (enter your favorite group to hate name here) Scam

And they were able to even fund 310 deep wells like the Kola project above... A modern oil platform is capable of drilling 40 wells (slant and horizontal). 310 deep wells will not have much more production capabilities than 8 oil platforms (and possibly even much less if the oil needs to be pumped to the surface from those great depths).

Our friends in the oil industry are not dumber or more crooked than the rest of us. They make money if they pump oil. And right now, European (and others) governments make more money from oil than the oil industry themselves. It would not be in a government's best interest to see folk switching from an easily controlled and taxed energy source like fossil fuels and see people convert to Solar and increase conservation.

-Bill

Even should it be true, can anyone think that the developement of EV, corn based gas substitutes and biodiesel not be GOOD things?

<edited out>

Oh dear!

well, scientists on both sides sometimes even poke fun at each other, even considering the fossil oil idea to be utterly ludicrous:

The public Paper:
Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum.


The Authors:

J. F. Kenney
Joint Institute of The Physics of the Earth - Russian Academy of Sciences
Gas Resources Corporation, 11811 North Freeway, Houston, TX 77060, U.S.A.

Ac. Ye. F. Shnyukov
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Vladimirskaya Street 56, 252.601 Kiev, Ukraine

V. A. Krayushkin
Institute of Geological Sciences
O. Gonchara Street 55-B, 01054 Kiev, Ukraine

I. K. Karpov
Institute of Geochemistry - Russian Academy of Sciences
Favorskii Street 1a, 664.033 Irkutsk, RUSSIA

V. G. Kutcherov
Russian State University of Oil and Gas
Leninskii Prospect 65, 117.917 Moscow, Russia

I. N. Plotnikova
National Petroleum Company of Tatarstan (TatNeft S.A.)
Butlerov Street 45-54, 423.020 Kazan, Tatarstan, RUSSIA

Extract:
The "look-like/come-from" claims apply a line of unreason exactly as designated: Such argue that, because certain molecules found in natural petroleum "look like" certain other molecules found in biological systems, then the former must "come-from" the latter. Such notion is, of course, equivalent to asserting that elephant tusks evolve because those animals must eat piano keys.

In some instances, the "look-like/come-from" claims assert that certain molecules found in natural petroleum actually are biological molecules, and evolve only in biological systems. These molecules have often been given the spurious name "biomarkers."

The scientific correction must be stated unequivocally: There have never been observed any specifically biological molecules in natural petroleum, except as contaminants. Petroleum is an excellent solvent for carbon compounds; and, in the sedimentary strata from which petroleum is often produced, natural petroleum takes into solution much carbon material, including biological detritus. However, such contaminants are unrelated to the petroleum solvent.

http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm

The paper goes into great detail and is a good read.

Again,

This is all self referencing science... Something to talk about, but the conclusions and any positive results we may receive by following their train of thought has yet to be proven...

Google Home Page Reverse Search: 4 "independent" links

Google Report Reverse Search: 68 some "odd" links

One of the sites that consistently links to Viallas and these types of reports and authors is www.the7thfire.com -- which does not appear to be a "hard" science site.

While it is possible that Google is part of the vast conspiracy to keep this information quiet... However, it just does not seem to be offering much in the way of solving our current energy or pollution problems. And many of the folks associated with it seem not to be gaining much traction.

Russia has tremendous natural resources available, but they are still having difficult times politically and financially. They are trying to get funding and implementation approval—but they have a tuff roe to hoe.


-Bill

James S said:

Why does it have to be a conspiracy? Lets assume for a moment that this is 100% correct. Accepted science from 75 years ago is that it's fossilized vegetation. If you want to change accepted science you need to actually prove it and then wait while other folks decide that it's interesting enough to try to duplicate your results. No conspiracy is needed to make the oil companies reluctant to setup tests to drill 6 mile deep wells! Thats expensive, and there is no real science yet to prove that they will find anything when they can still tap regular spaces much closer to the surface.

Click to expand...

Dr. Thomas Gold

- is an enormously respected physicist who put forth in 1950, distant radio souces from the stars are galaxies, later proven
- he said that the pulsing stars were neutron stars, it is now a fact (called pulsars)
- before we landed on the moon, he said the moon was covered with fine dust, everyone said it was all volcanic and hard, he was right
- In his Swedish experiment, they drilled through deep granite and found crude oil.
- He ran the Cornell Center for Radiophysics and Space Research for 20 years
- an Austrian astrophysicist, a professor of astronomy at Cornell University, and a member of the US National Academy of Sciences.
- He had the unusual ability to cross academic and scientific boundaries, into biophysics, astrophysics, space engineering, or geophysics, to challenge longstanding dogma with his profound insights.
- He was educated at Zuoz College in Switzerland and Trinity College, Cambridge.
- He worked with Bondi and Fred Hoyle (near Dunsfold in Surrey) on RADAR a partnership which would extend into astrophysics. His RADAR development work, was for British Admiralty during World War II
- He worked at the Royal Greenwich Observatory, in Herstmonceaux, Sussex, England, and at Harvard University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
- He won the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1985.
- Fellow, American Geophysical Union
- For 7 years a member of the President's Space Science Panel (US)
-Honorary M.A. Harvard University

Obituary- The Guardian

Controversy followed him everywhere. Possessing profound scientific intuition and open-minded rigour, he usually ended up challenging the cherished assumptions of others and, to the discomfiture of the scientific establishment, often found them wanting. His stature and influence were international.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,1245819,00.html



Wired Magazine
Author Oliver Morton
Speaking to Dr. Tommy Gold

"What's the evidence for that?

Many fields have produced several times as much as the initial testing of their magnitude would have indicated. Some geologists frankly agree that fields are refilling themselves - Robert Mahfoud and James Beck, who say fields in the Middle East are refilling, and Jean Whelan, who has observed a site refilling in the Gulf of Mexico - though they won't concede my theory is correct.

In Sweden I produced oil by the ton from 6 kilometers down. Eighty barrels we pumped, perfectly ordinary crude oil, entirely in nonsedimentary rock, in granite. It looked like perfectly good stuff. "

...

"The Russians have drilled 300 holes in Tatarstan since the Swedish experiments. They give me the credit for making the final determination between the biogenic and abiogenic theory by finding petroleum in the bedrock of Sweden. "


Physics World
"If he is right, the consequences could be dramatic ... This book serves to set the record straight."

Donald B. Siano-
- a physicist at the corporate research labs of a major oil company
"This morning's New York Times featured an article "Methane in Deep Earth: A Possible New Source of Energy" reporting on new research that partly confirms the claim in this book-- that the methane deep in the earth's mantle is primordial (not due to decayed buried vegetation) and is the source of petroleum. The article showed how methane can be generated from water and carbonate rock when the applied pressure is equal to that found in the mantle.

Gold's book describes research done largely by Russians and Ukrainians on the origin of oil, which has been shamefully discounted and ignored in the West. The Western dogma, he claims, is just another one of those things that nearly everyone believes, but is wrong. "

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0387985468/?tag=cpf0b6-20


Gold later altered his hypothesis to propose a "deep, hot biosphere" of methane-producing organisms and has been proved resoundingly right.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,1245819,00.html

One of his papers:
There are strong indications that microbial life is widespread at depth in the crust of the Earth, just as such life has been identified in numerous ocean vents. This life is not dependent on solar energy and photosynthesis for its primary energy supply, and it is essentially independent of the surface circumstances. Its energy supply comes from chemical sources, due to fluids that migrate upward from deeper levels in the Earth.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=49434
(click on the links there to read the full paper)


Russian petroleum geologists followed this operation closely. Dr. P.N. Kropotkin reported at a meeting in Moscow that the discovery of oil deep in the Baltic Shield may be considered a decisive factor in the hundred year old debate about the biogenic or abiogenic origin of oil. This discovery was made in deep wells that were drilled in the central part of the crystalline Baltic Shield, on the initiative of T. Gold.

Drilling into crystalline bedrock is now underway in Russia on a large scale. More than 300 wells have been drilled to a depth of more than 5 km and are productive, as also is the giant White Tiger field offshore Vietnam, mostly producing also from basement rock.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021004123112/www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/index.html

His page on the oil wells that keep refilling themselves:
There have been numerous reports in recent times, of oil and gas fields not running out at the expected time, but instead showing a higher content of hydrocarbons after they had already produced more than the initially estimated amount. This has been seen in the Middle East, in the deep gas wells of Oklahoma, on the Gulf of Mexico coast, and in other places. It is this apparent refilling during production that has been responsible for the series of gross underestimate of reserves that have been published time and again...
http://web.archive.org/web/20021002042705/www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/recharging/


The many molecules of unquestionably biological origin in petroleum - hopanes, pristine, phytane, steranes, certain porphyrins - can all be produced by bacteria, and such microbial life at depth is indeed now seen to be widespread. The presence of these molecules can no longer be taken to be indicative of a biological origin of petroleum, but merely of the widespread presence of a microflora at depth. The presence of helium and of numerous trace metals, often in far higher concentrations in petroleum than in its present host rock, has then an explanation in the scavenging action of hydrocarbon fluids on their long way up. Many mineral deposits may be due to the formation and transportation of organo-metallic compounds in such streams, often interacting with microbial life in the outer crust.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021003051905/www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/Natgas.html

Sir Robert Robinson, who investigated the chemistry of natural petroleum in some detail, noted that the deeper one goes, the fewer are the signs of anything biological in the oil. This is clearly a case in point, but there are several others.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021003051951/www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/depth.html


The regional and local association of terrestrial natural petroleum with helium has been clearly verified in thousands of locations.
...
An origin of petroleum from sedimentary biological materials could not account for the helium association, as no chemical interaction exists that would cause biological materials to concentrate the noble gas. But equally, the association of petroleum with biological molecules ("biomarkers") cannot be doubted, and has been explained as arising from the origin of hydrocarbons from biological deposits. This creates a paradox.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021003051651/www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/assoc.html

Earthquakes following large discharges of gas from deep in the earth:
One city has been successfully evacuated two hours before a massive earthquake, and thereby probably many thousands of lives were saved. This was the city of Haicheng in China, in February of 1975. That prediction was based almost entirely on gas-related phenomena.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020612075117/www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/Earthq.html
Eyewitness accounts:
http://web.archive.org/web/20021015201536/www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/eyewit.html

The close association of gold with carbon is well recorded in the literature. Conventional wisdom gives no hint of an explanation either for the association with carbon, or even for the occurrence of metallic gold altogether. It seems that carbon is an essential component in the laying down of gold. The gold miners of olden days knew this very well, and followed the "black leader", a trail of carbon black that led frequently to a gold deposit.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021003052323/www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/metal.html

idleprocess said:

Here's a wikipedia article on Joe Vialls.

Most of your referenced websites are sensationalist conspiracy-oriented publications. Do you have a link to the actual whitepapers?

Click to expand...

from that wiki entry;

Other titles include Russia Ready to Vaporize the Jewish State, Australian Government Agents Bomb Sydney, and Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer.

Joe Vialls passed away on July 17, 2005, after a long illness.

Click to expand...

Dang. That's gonna slow down his future publishing schedule.