Abionic Origin of Natural Gas and Oil/Petroleum

[Vesko]

I learned this first from an article about James Churchward by Joan Griffith, and then from a book by David Childress, again in connection with Churchward. Childress explicitly mentioned the researcher's name, Thomas Gold, who has conducted extensive research in very recent times regarding the origin of gas and oil. Childress mentions that James Churchward should be given credit about the idea, and I wholly agree with him.

Thomas Gold's page is at
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21

Quotes from his paper "Natural Gas and Oil":
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/Natgas.html

"Natural gas and oil are widely considered to originate on Earth from the chemical evolution of biological debris. A view, widespread in earlier times and entertained by Mendeleev among others, was instead that these substances originated in materials laid down in the formation process of the Earth, and later percolated towards the surface."
...
"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."

How many of you actually thought that natural gas and oil resources can be depleted through our 150 year-long usage of them (perhaps I'm wrong here?)?
If Churchward (and Gold) are right, there is an unlimited planetary supply. This can be both good and bad, of course. In any case, there are no excuses for using dirty coal -- coal has strictly biological origin.

[Vesko]

This following is pretty recent!
It is from http://www.mail-archive.com/iagi-net@ia ... 04367.html. I could not locate the original source.
Note: AAPG stands for American Association of Petroleum Geologists (http://www.aapg.org),
USGS stands for US Geological Survey (http://www.usgs.gov).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perth, June 2004: Rudy S.K. PHOA

Is the origin of petroleum "Biogenic" and/or "Abiogenic" ?

The Issue:
Being a member of the Western School, most Geochemists and Petroleum
Geologists in Indonesia (including me) remain convinced that crude oil and
natural gas have organic origins. Are we correct with our view? Have we
ignored or neglected something? What is the impact if we have left out the
abiotic theory and what should we do?

The debate about the biogenic or abiotic origin of the hydrocarbons has
heavily intensified in recent years. In 2003, the AAPG Research Committee
took an informal limited "Hedberg Conference" (80 to 100 participants).
The debate keeps getting hotter. On June 9 " 12, 2004, a formal Hedberg
AAPG Conference will be held at the Institute of Petroleum in London with
the topic "Origin of Petroleum " Biogenic and/or Abiogenic and its
significance in Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production. The Organizers are
Brian Abbott of the Institute, Michel T. Halbouty, Peter Odell of Erasmus
University, Barry Katz of Chevron Texaco and E.A. Mancini of Alabama
University. Day 1 will deal with the origin questions and case studies,
day 2 on the exploration strategies using both models and day 3 with the
migration issues under both scenarios. This is essentially the big issue
between the Western and the Eastern (Russian) school of thoughts. In the
past, we hardly give a room to see what the Russian have on their table.
Language problems? No, majority of the Russian Papers are translated in
English.

Those in favor of the Biogenic Origin have advanced the following
observations:
1. Petroleum contains groups of molecules, which are clearly identified
as
breakdown products of organic molecules that occur in plants. Michael
Lewan, the famous research Geochemist for the USGS in Denver feels that
his research has done a very good job of stimulating production of
Petroleum in the Lab. The Lab and fieldwork have put together a very good
picture.

Comments:
J.F. Kenney et al of Gas Resources Corp. in Houston (2002) concluded that
there is no real debate about the origin of petroleum. Natural petroleum
does NOT evolve from biological material.

2. Petroleum frequently shows rotation of the plane of polarization.
This
is normally a characteristic of biological matter and absent in fluid of
non- biological origin.
This optical activity is sometimes totally absent and it would be
difficult to suppose that thorough destruction of the biological molecules
had occurred.

3. Some Petroleum shows a clear preference for molecule with an odd
number
of carbon atoms over those with an even number. Such are from breakdown of
a class of molecules that are common in biological substances.

As for the optical activity, the odd and even carbon number are sometimes
totally absent. Thomas Gold (USGS, 1993) theorizes that biology is not a
nuclear reactor. It can"t make carbon-13 or "12.

4. Petroleum is mostly found in sedimentary deposits.
Oil and Gas Exploration is focused in sedimentary basins.


Debate about the origin of Petroleum:
Dimitri Mendeleev (1877): Petroleum was born in the depths of the Earth
and it is only there that we seek its origin. Mendeleev is the Great
Russian Father of Chemistry that created the "Periodic System" that every
student in this world learn in high school during the beginning of his
Chemistry lessons. It is not fair just to ignore the thought of this great
man, just because we come from a different school?

Kudryavtsev (1959), the most prominent and strongest advocate of the
abionic theory argued that no petroleum resembling the chemical
composition of natural crudes has ever been made from genuine plant
material in the laboratory and in conditions resembling those in nature.
This statement has since become known as "Kudryavtsev"s Rule" and many
examples have been noted in different parts of the world.

Most notable voices outside Russia was Sir Robert Robinson, President of
the Royal Society (1963, 1966): He studied the chemical make-up of natural
Petroleum in great detail and concluded that they were mostly far too
hydrogen-rich to be a likely product of the decay of plant debris. It
cannot be emphasized that Petroleum does not present the composition
picture expected from modified biogenic products.

H.D. Hedberg (ex. President of the Geological Society of America, 1964)
indicates that it is remarkable that in spite of its widespread
occurrences, its great economic importance and the immense amount of the
research devoted to it, there perhaps still remain more uncertainties
concerning the origin of petroleum that of any other commonly occurring
natural substance.

Methane is found in great ocean rifts in the absence of any substantial
sediments; in fissures in igneous and metamorphic rocks, even at great
depths; in active volcanic regions (flames have been seen during the
eruption of Merapi in 1932. Kravtsov et. al. (1975) reveals that the
amount of methane emitted over the time-span of a volcanic activity could
far exceed the reserve of a gas field; and massive amount of methane
hydrates (methane-water ice combination) in permanent frozen ocean
deposits, where adequate quantity of biological source material is
doubtful.

Based on the isotopic features, the general area of petroleum origin could
be identified. Crude oil from the Middle East can be distinguished from
South American or any crude from somewhere else.

From the hydrocarbon content in meteorites, Sokoloff (1889) discussed the
"Cosmic Origin of Bitumina". Now we know that major planets and their
satellites like Jupiter, Saturn and its satellite Titan, Uranus and
Neptune and its satellite Triton have large amount of methane and other
hydrocarbon gasses in their atmospheres. The surface of the Comet Halley
core, recently observed by spacecraft, is most reasonably interpreted as
one of tar, complex polycyclic hydrocarbon molecules (Clemett, 1993).

This discussion could be continued and at the end, this paper would be too
long to be distributed by the Oilgasprof-group and becomes a publication.


What is the impact?
An Explorationist might dismiss the entire conversation, except for these
points;
- If the origin of petroleum is abiotic, hydrocarbon will be abundant
with
no possibility of constrained supply. Alternative energy would be history.
- Petroleum generated by abionic processes could occur anywhere.
Exploration is NOT limited to sedimentary basins and depths.
- This might change our status back to a "Net Oil Exporter".


What should we do?
- We have the most volcanoes in the world. Major part of Indonesia is
still virgin, as exploration for oil is focused in sedimentary basins.
- If not yet initiated, at least we should seek the approval and
guidance
from BPMigas, Migas and Pertamina to form a group to follow up the abiotic
theory. I think that Prof. Dr. Soejono Martodjojo, my good old friend and
an excellent explorationist that I always respect and admire, could be
nominated as one of the potential candidate to lead this group.
- It might be too late to attend the convention. I would suggest
contacting Michel Halbouty, who is an Indonesian friend or Barry Katz of
Chevron Texaco for the available papers and handouts of the upcoming
convention. Contact USGS and AAPG (Explorer) for the available published
past reports.


References:
J.F. Kenny et. al.
1. Peak Oil, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 2002
2. Fossil Fuel without Fossils, Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (USA), 2002.
Dimitri Mendeleev: L"origine du petrol. Revue Scientifique, 2e Ser.
VIII, 1877
N.A. Kudryavtsev: Geological proof of the deep origin of Petroleum,
Issledovatel Geologoraz Vedoch. Inst. No.132, 1959
Robert Robinson:
1. Duplex origin of Petroleum, Nature 199. 1963
2. The origins of Petroleum, Nature 212. 1966
A.I. Kravtsov et al:
1. Inorganic generation of oil and criteria for exploration for oil and
gas, Naukova Dumka, Kiev, 1975
2. Distribution of gas-oil-bitumen shows in the Yakutian diamond
province.
International Geological Review 23, 1981.
3. Gases and bitumens in rocks of the Udachnaya pipe, Earth Sci. Sect.
228, 1976.
W. Sokoloff: Kosmisher Ursprung der Bitumina. Bull. Soc. Imp. Natural
Moscau, 1889
S.J. Clemet et. al.: Measurement of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
in
interplanetary dust particles. Lunar Planetary Science XXIV, 1993.
Thomas Gold; The Origin of Methane (and Oil) in the Crust of the
Earth,
USGS Professional Paper 1570, 1993.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Some more good links I have found. So far I have read only little of the information:


"Sustainable oil?", http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645.
"Gas Origin Theories to Be Studied", http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm.
"The Mystery of Eugene Island", http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf124/sf124p10.htm.
"Odd Reservoir Off Louisiana Prods Oil", http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm.
This is an interview with Thomas Gold:
"Fuel's Paradise", http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/gold_pr.html.

Additionally, see the page on abiotic oil debate on http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html.

[Vesko]

You may not know / noticed that Thomas Gold is basically a supporter of the abionic theory that was originally developed by the Russians in the '50s and is actually now becoming more and more plausible.

UPDATE: Here is what Wikipedia has to say currently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin):

The theory of abiogenic petroleum origin states that petroleum is produced by non-biological processes deep in the Earth. This stands in contrast to the more widely held view that it is created from the fossilization of ancient organic matter. According to this theory, petroleum is formed by non-biological reactions deep in the Earth's crust. The constituent precursors of petroleum (mainly methane) are commonplace and it is possible that appropriate conditions exist for oil to be formed deep within the Earth.

Although this theory has support by a large minority of geologists in Russia, where it was intensively developed in the 1950s and 1960s, it has only recently begun to receive attention in the West, where the biogenic theory is still believed by the vast majority of petroleum geologists. Although it was originally denied that abiogenic hydrocarbons exist at all on earth, this is now admitted by Western geologists. The orthodox position now is that while abiogenic hydrocarbons exist, they are not produced in commercially significant quantities, so that essentially all hydrocarbons that are extracted for use as fuel or raw materials are biogenic.

A variation of the abiogenic theory includes alteration by microbes similar to those which form the basis of the ecology around deep hydrothermal vents.

One prediction of this theory is that other planets of the Solar system or their moons have large petroleum oceans, either from hydrocarbons present at the formation of the Solar system, or subsequent chemical reactions.

That this theory is receiving increasing attention from Western geologists is indicated by the fact that the American Association of Petroleum Geologists scheduled a conference (http://www.mail-archive.com/fogri@iagi. ... 00802.html) to meet in Vienna in July 2004 entitled "Origin of Petroleum—Biogenic and/or Abiogenic and Its Significance in Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production". The conference had to be canceled, however, due to financial considerations. Instead, AAPG will be holding a one-day session on the topic at the June 2005 annual meeting in Calgary, Alberta.

Natural petroleum oceans... and when we consider the natural planetary gas belts (of what gas?) described by Churchward as part of the planet's design and formed during the early formation of the planet itself, and as I think, confirmed in the "Thiaoouba Prophecy" by Thao's words, we can at least start considering that there could be some big truth in all this.

[Gost]

Vasko , that whas a very usefull piece of informaiontion. I was just reading the book of Childress . I was wondering if Thomas Gold (Churchward , the russion scientists of course ) theory was true, about the natural gas in Switzerland. Well prof.Gold coud not proof it's true.And his theory was to find natural gas in Switzerland, right ? So, at year 2001 Swtzerland is producing : 0 cu m (2001 est.) petroleum . So I gues he could not proof the theory. But after I've read youre post, I still believe that it might be true.
There is something else that I was thinking of. It's more an asumption. Lets accept the theory of the Abionic Origun of natural Gas/Oil , and say it is possible. Than this might have caused the Earth movemen ( earthquake ) recently in Indonesia . Because it can move the gas belts under the earths layer . So ...... what if thats true ?

P.S. The following is only for Vasko : Mnogo ti blagodarja za informaciata pi4 zlaten si . Izwinjawam se ama ne sum mnogo dobre s angliiskia.
То като гледам тук май не пишат много хора, та затова ти казвам едно голямо МЕРСИ . За много години !

[Vesko]

Vasko , that whas a very usefull piece of informaiontion. I was just reading the book of Childress . I was wondering if Thomas Gold (Churchward , the russion scientists of course ) theory was true, about the natural gas in Switzerland. Well prof.Gold coud not proof it's true.And his theory was to find natural gas in Switzerland, right ? So, at year 2001 Swtzerland is producing : 0 cu m (2001 est.) petroleum . So I gues he could not proof the theory. But after I've read youre post, I still believe that it might be true.

Yeah, still can be true!

There is something else that I was thinking of. It's more an asumption. Lets accept the theory of the Abionic Origun of natural Gas/Oil , and say it is possible. Than this might have caused the Earth movemen ( earthquake ) recently in Indonesia . Because it can move the gas belts under the earths layer . So ...... what if thats true ?

That's exactly what I think, too, although that doesn't necessarily mean that every earthquake, including that in Indonesia, is caused by this. In my previous post, I wrote:

Natural petroleum oceans... and when we consider the natural planetary gas belts (of what gas?) described by Churchward as part of the planet's design and formed during the early formation of the planet itself, and as I think, confirmed in the "Thiaoouba Prophecy" by Thao's words, we can at least start considering that there could be some big truth in all this.

So effectively I think that those petroleum oceans more or less theorized by the Russians and Thomas Gold, and the Churchward's gasses, are one and the same. Of course, that is not to say that all gases have to be petroleum, but only some of them, after all, the planet is huge, there is room for all kinds of gases. And since Churchward says that they were the cause for the destruction of Mu and that those gas belts continue existing, it follows that they can be a big cause of earthquakes.

P.S. The following is only for Vasko : Mnogo ti blagodarja za informaciata pi4 zlaten si . Izwinjawam se ama ne sum mnogo dobre s angliiskia.

Оценявам комплимента Все пак се разбира английския ти Между другото, аз съм Веско, не Васко. И моля те, регистрирай се, ако искаш разбира се, за да можем да не си пишем на странни езици (за другите) по форумите

То като гледам тук май не пишат много хора, та затова ти казвам едно голямо МЕРСИ . За много години !

За много години! Радвам се, че имаш полза. Да бе, не пишат щото и аз не знам -- може би направо ги шашка, понеже повечето хора сме учили в училище, че нефтът се образува от фосили. Само да не си помислиш, че се опитвам да се доказвам изкуствено или да се фукам пред някого. Аз тук имам едни спорове с едни членове за това, че няма как да се докаже с логика и обикновени наблюдения, както Том Халко неуспешно се опитва да го прави в книгата си "Свободата на избор", че Господ същестува и че Вселената е създадена от интелигентен създател, ама нейсе... не щат да разберат някои, че за това са нужни познания и заключения на базата на квантова физика, доказване и усъвършенстване на теориите за Големия взрив, сингулярността на пространството, и т.н... много ще се радвам, ако се навърташ от време на време, а аз пък ще гледам да не пиша много, щото мисля, че достатъчно теми се обхванаха за момента, и трябва и други да вземат да участват сериозно.

P.S. To others: Sorry for the Bulgarian text, we'll not discuss like that in the future, but since he was guest, I couldn't contact him.

[Kestrel]

What are those hideious chicken scratches ! Never again vesko

Just kidding, that was actually pretty intresting to me.

[Vesko]

Kestrel, install cyrillics support for your operating system and you'll not see them as hideous chicken scratches .

[Leo]

P.S. To others: Sorry for the Bulgarian text, we'll not discuss like that in the future, but since he was guest, I couldn't contact him.

It's ok Vesko first time I have ever seen the Bulgarian language in all it's glory. I thought Swedish was bad enough (I have to learn this language to be able to converse with my Father-in-law).

I recon, since this is a multicultural planet, and T.P. is written in a multitude of languages, and this forum is an English based forum, that all languages can be used as long as there is an English translation printed as well

Hmmm I wonder... does that mean if us Aussies talk in our native tongue (eg. bewdy norm... bob's yer uncle... strewth) does that mean we also have to translate?

[Alisima]

Ik kan toch ook niet zomaar in het nederlands gaan praten?

[Ceco]

Hello , now I was the guest with the strange language above . Have read the policy for this forum and after the registration will post only in english .
I only want to appologise in advance for my poor english because its not my native language.

P.S. I told Vesko that I really appreciated his posts here , because while I was readying the Childress book looked for infromation on thise Gas/Oil theory and found This forum . So I gave my thanks to him and whished a happy NY .... well same to You . See "ya" .

[Ceco]

Except that under earth gasses moving and 'maybe' causing earthquakes around the world , there is something else . You may have heard about the Mayan and Atztec Caleneder , they contain valid information about the end of their (our ) world by the end of year 2012.
There say there are 4 Suns (periods), the hindis have the same calendar they call them 4 Yuga (perioods ) . So each period consist of some 5200 years ?! And now by the end of each 4th period something catastrophic happens . Тhe Earth poles move ! And that is how Mu, later the Atlaнtis desapeared . What I mean is that not only the gas belts under the earth cаuse the poles position change , and that is more importend . I don't know how exactly it is happening, but there is a theory of great magnetic storm coming from the Sun eruptions. This can turn earth poles, because its like a dinamo . The core consists of a lequid iron and other metals ball, that is under extreme presure squized into itself . While the other layers move, a magnetic field is created.The earths magnetis field. You might also know that there are 2 magnetic poles they don't match the earth polar poles. And when this 2 magnetic fields , from the sun eruption and the one of planet earth collide the stronger one can change ofcorse the weeker wich is our planets . Thus the poles change direction .
Many scientiests say , this is imposible because there is no such eruption ( sun storm ), that can be so strong to change our planet magnetic field . But that is something that happens again and again . Just like youre clock waking you up every time in the morning . The catastrofic theory myght be true . Well that is what the Mayan , Aztecian , Hindi , Egyptians and many more have coded for us.
You may ask youreself then why is nobody doing something about that for Christ sake ? Well the answer is : those who are responsible to act , know the trueth and keep working on saving their ***, since some centuries at liest . But that is something I wont talk about here

Well recently there appeared a new very importat crop circle take a look and read this : http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2004 ... 2004b.html

For more information I do recommend reading : Orion Prophecy by Patrick Geryl , Sicrets In The Field - Freddy Silva

[Leo]

Except that under earth gasses moving and 'maybe' causing earthquakes around the world , there is something else . You may have heard about the Mayan and Atztec Caleneder , they contain valid information about the end of their (our ) world by the end of year 2012.

The Mayans had many calendars, all derived from different reference points. They were brilliant astronomers and studied the heavens and their Earth well beyond our current societies understanding. But, how could they predict 1000's of years into the future using a calendar? Especially since the Thiaooubians, who are so much more advanced then us mere Earthlings can only predict events 100 years in advance?

Logic suggests that in Dec 2012 (Mayan calendar date 13 0 0 0 0), the end of the world will not arrive, but a long cycle will come to an end and a new cycle will begin.

Maybe at this point our Solar System will finish it's revolution around it's centre point in out galaxy? Only the Mayans who created this calendar knows, but I highly doubt that the world will come to an end.

I'm sure come 2012 a big deal will be made by some people about the date as they made a big deal about the year 2000 and Y2K, but did anything significant REALLY happen then? Other than Earth finished another cycle around our Sun and started a new cycle?

[Vesko]

Here's a new ABC News article, "Does Deep Earth Host Untapped Fuel", mentioning new discoveries that may support the abionic origin theory.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHar ... 532&page=1
Source: Flipcode

BTW, this is an American article, and it never mentions that the Russians have similar ideas, only had them initially much earlier. Mendeleev had his so-called Inorganic Theory of Petroleum that he developed in the early 1800's. It is not disproved today. I have missed the chance to ask Gold about any sources that he had used for his theory (Mendeleev, even Churchward, etc.) -- I first learned of Gold in May last year (you can see the date of my first post on this topic), and he passed away a month later, in June.