Alternative Information Directory
Coronavirus information & resources
Vaccines - What You Need To Know

We've been lied to about everything else, oil too?

It appears that, unbeknownst to Westerners, there have actually been, for quite some time now, two competing theories concerning the origins of petroleum. One theory claims that oil is an organic 'fossil fuel' deposited in finite quantities near the planet's surface. The other theory claims that oil is continuously generated by natural processes in the Earth's magma. One theory is backed by a massive body of research representing fifty years of intense scientific inquiry. The other theory is an unproven relic of the eighteenth century.

introduction

Some years ago i heard about abiotic petroleum, the theory that oil is not, as we've been led to believe, a finite "fossil fuel" formed near the earths surface as a result of biological material having been compressed for millions of years. The problem with this theory is that there exists a readily available body of evidence which authoritatively contradicts it, suggesting instead that oil is constantly being produced at a much deeper level in or near the Earths magma. In other words, oil is essentially a renewable resource and all the talk about "peak oil" and scarcity may be junk science.

abiotic oil formation and deposits

Scarcity is of course translates to increased profits and if the public at large can be convinced that a resource is finite and in short supply, then those developing it will naturally demand a higher price. This is the case with diamonds for example, the supply of which was strictly controlled almost exclusively by De Beers for several decades. Here a case shall be made, backed by science, which strongly suggests that essentially the same is true in the oil industry. It should be understood that i am absolutely not suggesting that the world should continue running on petroleum, the mining, processing and burning of which has resulted in a great deal of environmental damage. There are alternative sources of energy which are clean, infinite, cheap and far easier to utilize.

suppressed alternative energy technologies

Before we get into the question of how and where oil is formed, let's first briefly address the subject of energy from a wider perspective. We have very likely not needed to rely upon petroleum for powering machinery for the past 70 years, perhaps longer. Clean and infinite sources of energy are all around us and have been developed and suppressed countless times, but the public is told that the inventors are frauds or that the technology violates the laws of thermodynamics and is therefore an impossibility. The developers of these sustainable, alternative energies are often viciously persecuted, or have their work destroyed, or confiscated due to "national security", or are prosecuted for various alleged crimes. At the extreme they are murdered, but some simply sell out to corporations who then shelve the technology. The reader might surmise that greed is the motivation for suppressing clean, alternative energy technologies and while greed is certainly a key factor, the larger answer is much more complex. I would highly suggest viewing the How & Why Big Oil Conquered The World documentary series by James Corbett if you're interested in the bigger picture.

Imagine going to your local hardware store and buying a battery for your flashlight only to discover it has just one terminal. The energy is in the battery, but how do you extract it? This is essentially how Tom Bearden described the problem of utilizing the energy in the "empty" space all around us. The vacuum is in fact saturated with energy and mainstream science acknowledges this, but by and large they fail to understand how to utilize it. According to some knowledgeable inventors, Bearden included, electrical engineers don't even understand what electricity really is. Bearden, who was an admirer of Tesla, Ohm, Bendini and other heavy-hitters in the field of electrical energy, figured out how to tap into this inexhaustible source of radiant energy using his Motionless Electromagnetic Generator (MEG) which produced more energy then it consumed, a phenomena known as 'over-unity'. Whether the MEG violated one or more laws of thermodynamics is perhaps debatable, but in the end it couldn't be any less relevant. All that matters is whether or not the device worked. Bearden died in February of 2022.

Here i've used Thomas Bearden as an example but indeed there have been many inventors who have produced over-unity energy devices. There are also many who have developed cars which run exclusively on hydrogen extracted from water and which are in use today. There are also many variations of simple hydrogen generators available which anyone can construct from plans or purchase in kit form for use with virtually any internal combustion engine. Meanwhile, western mainstream scientists tell us that extracting hydrogen from water, which is 2 parts hydrogen, is not economically viable. This same genre of western scientists tell us that oil is a finite resource and that we have reached, or are rapidly approaching, "peak oil", meaning that oil production has, or will soon reach its maximum level of output and therefore production can only decline from this point onward while demand continues to rise (virtually everything we manufacture today depends on vast quantities of oil). The theory of peak oil, as well as the untenable nonsense that human produced Co2 is causing climate warming, are two reasons why "sustainable", "green energy" programs are pushed incessantly today despite the fact that such programs are often neither green, nor sustainable, though they are certainly lucrative. Indeed the human impact upon the Earth beginning with the industrial revolution has been devastating, but human produced pollution and Co2 levels are two entirely different subjects, though mainstream "scientists", governments, and their media puppets have convinced the gullible public that they are one and the same.

evidence supporting abiotic petroleum

It seems that the key to understanding how and where oil is formed lies largely with Russian and Ukrainian scientists who have worked the problem for decades.

The overwhelming preponderance of geological evidence compels the conclusion that crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the Earth

Throughout the history of the petroleum industry, there have been written numerous articles or reports predicting an imminent demise of that industry all predicated upon assumptions that the supply of producible crude oil in the world was (supposedly) being rapidly depleted and would soon (therefore) be exhausted.(Campbell 1991; Fuller 1993; Campbell 1994; Campbell 1995) In short, the world was (if such were believed), "running out of oil." Happily, all such predictions have, without a single exception, been proven wrong.

Contrarily, the statistics of the international petroleum industry establish that, far from diminishing, the net known recoverable reserves of petroleum have been growing steadily for the past fifty years. Those statistics show that, for every year since about 1946, the international petroleum industry has discovered at least five new tons of recoverable oil for every three which have been consumed. As Professor P. Odell has put the circumstance succinctly, instead of "running out of oil," the human race by every measure seems to be "running into oil".(Odell 1984; Odell 1991; Odell 1994)

The paper continues:

The errors concerning the abundances of petroleum on Earth all obtain from a common, but fundamental, misunderstanding about petroleum itself. All the predictions about expected shortages of petroleum hang by a single, weak thread on a remnant, eighteenth-century notion which has been thoroughly discredited in this century: the hypothesis that petroleum might somehow originate from biological detritus in sediments near the surface of the Earth. That "biological hypothesis" was first published by the famous Russian scientist Mikhailo Vasilyevich Lomonosov in the year 1757 and is quoted above. That notion of an origin of petroleum from biological material has occasioned numerous misnomers concerning petroleum as, for example, "fossil" fuel, and associated, misleading phrases like "vanishing resource." Because the volume of biological matter on Earth is itself limited, the misunderstanding that petroleum might originate from such has given rise consequentially to a notion that petroleum should be similarly limited, and somehow in connection with the quantity of biogenic material observed in sediments.

The hypothesis that petroleum might somehow originate from biological detritus in sediments near the surface of the Earth is utterly wrong. It deserves note that Lomonosov himself never meant for that hypothesis to be taken as more than a reasonable suggestion, to be tested against further observation and laboratory experiment. The "biological hypothesis" of petroleum origins has been rejected in this century by scientific petroleum geologists because it is formidably inconsistent with the existing geological records "on the ground." That hypothesis has been rejected also by physicists, chemists, and engineers because it violates fundamental physical law.

Lomonosov's eighteenth-century hypothesis of a biogenic origin of petroleum has been replaced during the past forty years by the modern theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins, an extensive and formidable body of scientific knowledge which has been developed in the former U.S.S.R., particularly in the countries Russia and Ukraine. The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of petroleum has established that petroleum is a primordial material of deep origin which has been erupted into the crust of the Earth.

With the elimination of the error that petroleum might be some manifestation of transformed, but limited, biological matter originating on the surface of the Earth, the consequential errors connected with its supposed limits both of quantity and habitat vanish. Thus the errors of all the "doomsday" predictions of petroleum shortages, which have never subsequently occurred, are explained, - or, more simply, eliminated.

Because the explanation of the errors connected with the predictions about petroleum shortages obtains simply from the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins, and because that theory is little known outside the former U.S.S.R., its subject deserves at least short mention.

The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins is an extensive body of scientific knowledge covering the subjects of the chemical genesis of hydrocarbon molecules, the physical processes which occasion the terrestrial concentration, the dynamical processes of the movement of that material into geological reservoirs of petroleum, and the location and economic production of petroleum. As stated, the modern theory has determined that petroleum is a primordial material of deep origin which is transported at high pressure via "cold" eruptive processes into the crust of the Earth. The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory is almost unique among what too often pass[es] as "theories" in the field of geology (especially in the U.S.A.) in that it is based not only upon extensive geological observation but also upon rigorous, analytical, physical reasoning.

The paper continues:

The modern Russian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins is no longer an item of academic debate among persons in university faculties in the former Soviet Union. This body of knowledge is now approximately a half century old and has moved considerably beyond the stages of academic research and scientific testing. Today the modern theory is applied as a useful tool and the guiding perspective in petroleum exploration throughout the former Soviet Union. Such was exactly one of the primary points brought out in a paper delivered at an international conference held in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in May 1994, concerning the discovery of the eleven major and one giant oil and gas fields in the Dnieper-Donets Basin.(Krayushkin, Tchebanenko et al. 1994)

Because of the general lack of familiarity outside the former U.S.S.R. with the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins, several immediate facts about that body of knowledge deserve to be set forth.

  • The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins is not new or recent. This theory was first enunciated by Professor Nikolai Kudryavtsev in 1951, almost a half century ago,(Kudryavtsev 1951) and has undergone extensive development, refinement, and application since its introduction. There have been more than four thousand articles published in the Soviet scientific journals, and many books, dealing with the modern theory. This writer is presently co-authoring a book upon the subject of the development and applications of the modern theory of petroleum for which the bibliography requires more than thirty pages.
  • The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins is not the work of any one single man, - nor of a few men. The modern theory was developed by hundreds of scientists in the (now former ) U.S.S.R., including many of the finest geologists, geochemists, geophysicists, and thermodynamicists of that country. There have now been more than two generations of geologists, geophysicists, chemists, and other scientists in the U.S.S.R. who have worked upon and contributed to the development of the modern theory.(Kropotkin 1956; Anisimov, Vasilyev et al. 1959; Kudryavtsev 1959; Porfir'yev 1959; Kudryavtsev 1963; Raznitsyn 1963; Krayushkin 1965; Markevich 1966; Dolenko 1968; Dolenko 1971; Linetskii 1974; Letnikov, Karpov et al. 1977; Porfir'yev and Klochko 1981; Krayushkin 1984)
  • The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins is not untested or speculative. On the contrary, the modern theory was severely challenged by many traditionally-minded geologists at t he time of its introduction; and during the first decade thenafter, the modern theory was thoroughly examined, extensively reviewed, powerfully debated, and rigorously tested. Every year following 1951, there were important scientific conferences organized in the U.S.S.R. to debate and evaluate the modern theory, its development, and its predictions. The All-Union conferences in petroleum and petroleum geology in the years 1952-1964/5 dealt particularly with this subject. (During the period when the modern theory was being subjected to extensive critical challenge and testing, a number of the men pointed out that there had never been any similar critical review or testing of the traditional hypothesis that petroleum might somehow have evolved spontaneously from biological detritus.)
  • The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins is not a vague, qualitative hypothesis, but stands as a rigorous analytic theory within the mainstream of the modern physical sciences. In this respect, the modern theory differs fundamentally not only from the previous hypothesis of a biological origin of petroleum but also from all traditional geological hypotheses. Since the nineteenth century, knowledgeable physicists, chemists, the rmodynamicists, and chemical engineers have regarded with grave reservations (if not outright disdain) the suggestion that highly reduced hydrocarbon molecules of high free enthalpy (the constituents of crude oil) might somehow evolve spontaneously from highly oxidized biogenic molecules of low free enthalpy. Beginning in 1964, Soviet scientists carried out extensive theoretical statistical thermodynamic analysis which established explicitly that the hypothesis of evolution of hydrocarbon molecules (except methane) from biogenic ones in the temperature and pressure regime of the Earth's near-surface crust was glaringly in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. They also determined that the evolution of reduced hydrocarbon molecules requires pressures of magnitudes encountered at depths equal to such of the mantle of the Earth. During the second phase of its development, the modern theory of petroleum was entirely recast from a qualitative argument based upon a synthesis of many qualitative fact s into a quantitative argument based upon the analytical arguments of quantum statistical mechanics and thermodynamic stability theory.(Chekaliuk 1967; Boiko 1968; Chekaliuk 1971; Chekaliuk and Kenney 1991; Kenney 1995) With the transformation of the modern theory from a synthetic geology theory arguing by persuasion into an analytical physical theory arguing by compulsion, petroleum geology entered the mainstream of modern science.
  • The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins is not controversial nor presently a matter of academic debate. The period of debate about this extensive body of knowledge has been over for approximately two decades(Simakov 1986). The modern theory is presently applied extensively throughout the former U.S.S.R. as the guiding perspective for petroleum exploration and development projects. There are presently more than 80 oil and gas fields in the Caspian district alone which were explored and developed by applying the perspective of the modern theory and which produce from the crystalline basement rock.(Krayushkin, Chebanenko et al. 1994) Similarly, such exploration in the western Siberia cratonic-rift sedimentary basin has developed 90 petroleum fields of which 80 produce either partly or entirely from the crystalline basement. The exploration and discoveries of the 11 major and 1 giant fields on the northern flank of the Dneiper-Donets basin have already been noted. There are presently deep drilling exploration projects under way in Azerbaijan, Tatarstan, and Asian Siberia directed to testing potential oil and gas reservoirs in the crystalline basement.

A 2013 paper, Microbial Techniques for Hydrocarbon Exploration by Mohammed Abdul Rasheed and Am Dayal, opens with the following:

The theory of the abiogenic deep origin of hydrocarbons recognizes that the petroleum is a primordial material of deep origin [Kutcherov, Krayushkin 2010]. This theory explains that hydrocarbon compounds generate in the asthenosphere of the Earth and migrate through the deep faults into the crust of the Earth. There they form oil and gas deposits in any kind of rock in any kind of the structural position (Fig. 1). Thus the accumulation of oil and gas is considered as a part of the natural process of the Earth’s outgrassing, which was in turn responsible for creation of its hydrosphere, atmosphere and biosphere. Until recently the obstacles to accept the theory of the abyssal abiogenic origin of hydrocarbons was the lack of the reliable and reproducible experimental results confirming the possibility of the synthesis of complex hydrocarbon systems under the conditions of the asthenosphere of the Earth.

The paper continues:

The conclusion from the presented data is the following.

On the depth of 100 km temperature is about 1250 K and pressure is 3 GPa. On the depth of 150 km temperature is about 1500-1700 K and pressure is 5 GPa.

Both donors of carbon (carbon itself, carbonates, CO2 ) and hydrogen (water, hydroxyl group of minerals) are present in the asphenosphere in sufficient amounts. Thermodynamically favorable reaction environment (reducing conditions) could be created by a presence of FeO. The presence of several present of FeO in basic and ultra-basic rocks of asthenosphere is documented.

Thus, abiogenic synthesis of hydrocarbons can take place in the basic and ultra-basic rocks of the asthenosphere in the presence of FeO, donors/sources of carbon and hydrogen.

The article The West Siberian Super Basin: The largest and most prolific hydrocarbon basin in the world contains interesting information about the West Siberian Super Basin. It was authored by Sergey Khafizov, Ph.D., head of the E&A Department at Gubkin University, Moscow, Pavel Syngaevsky, is a senior petrophysicist, and John C. Dolson, director of DSP Geosciences and Associates, LLC.,:

The West Siberian Basin is the largest physical hydrocarbon basin in the world and one of its most prolific. It has proven reserves of 146 billion bbl of oil and more than 1600 TCF of gas. It contains 107 giant fields, 1 mega giant, 10 super giants, and 9 new giants discovered since 2019.

The article continues:

In 2003, the US Geological Survey cited reserves of 144 billion bbl of oil and more than 1300 TCF of gas (Ulmishek, 2003). Recent updates show the current reserve estimates are very similar to Ulmishek’s, with a modest oil reserve growth of 2 billion bbl since the 2003 paper. In contrast, gas volumes have increased by 20% and now exceed 1600 TCF (Kiselev, 2020).

The most recent geological assessment in western literature gives a "yet-to-find" for this basin as 4.1 billion bbl of oil equivalent, 662 TCF, and 20.66 billion bbl of natural gas liquids (Schenk, 2018). These numbers are substantially higher than earlier assessments (Energy Information Administration, 1997) and may be revised upward again in the future

The article Origin of organic compounds in fluids from ultramafic-hosted hydrothermal vents of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge from the Department of Geology and Geochemistry, Stockholm University, largely supports the biogenic (fossil) theory of oil formation, however some key admissions are finally made which cannot be supported by the biogenesis theory:

7.3 Oil a renewable energy?

Today, the biogenic origin of oil theory prevails and states that all petroleum found in our planet is derived from biological precursors (e.g. Forsman and Hunt, 1958; Eglington and Calvin, 1967; Albrecht and Ourisson, 1971; Moldowan and Seifert, 1979, Tissot, 1984; Summons and Janhke, 1992). The theory is well proved and supported by laboratory experiments, in which petroleum composition and distribution pattern (i.e. the relative proportions of the different hydrocarbons composing oil) are shown to reflect that of oil generated from kerogene pyrolysis (i.e. organic matter decay). Moreover, oil samples related to sedimentary rocks of a certain depositional environment and geologic age show biomarkers derived from organisms that are known to have derived from biological precursor that evolved by that time. Such proofs are considered irrefutable by the pro-biogenic origin. However, although the theory seems to be solid and well correlates field observations, it does not account for some observed natural phenomenon.

  • Oil has been discovered in the Earth's most ancient rocks, which were formed before any plants or animals existed on earth (Archeozoic rock formation) (Penner, 2006; Krayushkin, 1994).
  • Professor Thomas Gold states in his book The Deep Hot Biosphere (Gold, 1992): "We have seen oil and gas fields refilling themselves, sometimes as fast as they were being drained, and many fields have already produced several times as much as earlier estimates predicted...". The best example of this is Green Island in the Gulf of Mexico. When all the oil that could profitably be mined had been pumped out, the wells were closed. Twenty years later, those wells were found to contain more oil than before any had been removed (Penner, 2006).
  • More and more oil is discovered and the predicted peak oil at first expected in the 1990s has still not been reached (Kenney, 2006).
  • The recently discovered Tupi (The New York times, 2007) and Jupiter (BBC news, 2008) oil fields, offshore the coasts of Brazil, which comprise of unusual light oil, lay at surprisingly great depth (∼5000 m below seafloor) and under an extremely thick layer of salt (up to 2000 m). Notably, these fields are the worlds biggest oil find since 2000.
  • In terms of natural gas, thermal decomposition of organic matter does not generate products at equilibrium and thermal stress should not bring them to equilibrium over geologic time. Similarly, microbial production of methane represents a disequilibrium process. However, CH 4 , CO and CO2 have been observed in chemical and isotopic equilibrium in natural occurrences (Fiebig et al., 2007; 2009; Mango et al., 2009).

Whilst the Soviet Union faced ‘Iron Curtain’ isolation from the West during the Cold War in the 1950s, finding sufficient oil indigenously was a national security priority of the highest order for Russia that had little oil to fuel its economy. Scientists began a fundamental inquiry in the late 1940’s: where does oil come from? In 1956, Pr. Vladimir B. Porfir’yev stated that oil was abiogenic: “The overwhelming preponderance of geological evidence compels the conclusion that crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the Earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths” (Porfir’yev, 1956). Similar conclusions were obtained later on (e.g. Chekaliuk 1971; Mogarovskiy et al., 1980; Chekaliuk and Kenney, 1991) and for half a century now scientists from the former Soviet Union have recognised that the petroleum is produced abiotically in the FSU fields (AAPG conference, 2004). That radically different Russian and Ukrainian scientific approach to the discovery of oil was used in the early 1990s, well after the dissolution of the USSR, to drill for oil and gas in a region believed for more than forty-five years to be geologically barren: the Dnieper-Donets Basin located between Russia and Ukraine (Krayushkin et al., 1994). A total of sixty one wells were drilled, of which thirty seven were commercially productive, an extremely impressive exploration success rate of almost sixty percent; and these Middle East fields could well produce oil forever (Mahfoud and Beck, 1995).

As for the association of biomarkers with oil, the presence of microbial communities in the subsurface could account for the presence of these large organic molecules (Gold, 1992; Takai, 2004). Moreover, Kenney (1995) proposed that some of these biomarkers (e.g. pristane, phytane, porphyrin) are not necessarily of biogenic origin.

Since then the theory has reached other countries and is growing importance (e.g. Szatmari, 1989; Sugisaki and Mimura, 1995; Mahfoud, 1991; AAPG conference, 2004; Glasby, 2006).

The Eugene Island Block 330 oil field off the shore of Louisiana has been the subject of controversy. The following excerpt from a 1999 article in the Wall Street Journal, Odd Reservoir Off Louisiana Prods Oil Experts to Seek a Deeper Meaning, provides some insight:

Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, 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 -- some say almost inexplicably -- Eugene Island's fortunes reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., 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.

Fill 'er Up

All of which has led some scientists to a radical theory: Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some continuous source miles below the Earth's surface. That, they say, raises the tantalizing possibility that oil may not be the limited resource it is assumed to be.

"It kind of blew me away," says Jean Whelan, a geochemist and senior researcher from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. Connected to Woods Hole since 1973, Dr. Whelan says she considered herself a traditional thinker until she encountered the phenomenon in the Gulf of Mexico. Now, she says, "I believe there is a huge system of oil just migrating" deep underground.

Conventional wisdom says the world's supply of oil is finite, and that it was deposited in horizontal reservoirs near the surface in a process that took millions of years. Since the economies of entire countries ride on the fundamental notion that oil reserves are exhaustible, any contrary evidence "would change the way people see the game, turn the world view upside down," says Daniel Yergin, a petroleum futurist and industry consultant in Cambridge, Mass. "Oil and renewable resource are not words that often appear in the same sentence."

Mideast Mystery

Doomsayers to the contrary, the world contains far more recoverable oil than was believed even 20 years ago. Between 1976 and 1996, estimated global oil reserves grew 72%, to 1.04 trillion barrels. Much of that growth came in the past 10 years, with the introduction of computers to the oil patch, which made drilling for oil more predictable.

Still, most geologists are hard-pressed to explain why the world's greatest oil pool, the Middle East, has more than doubled its reserves in the past 20 years, despite half a century of intense exploitation and relatively few new discoveries. It would take a pretty big pile of dead dinosaurs and prehistoric plants to account for the estimated 660 billion barrels of oil in the region, notes Norman Hyne, a professor at the University of Tulsa in Oklahoma. "Off-the-wall theories often turn out to be right," he says.

Even some of the most staid U.S. oil companies find the Eugene Island discoveries intriguing. "These reservoirs are refilling with oil," acknowledges David Sibley, a Chevron Corp. geologist who has monitored the work at Eugene Island.

Following is an interesting excerpt from a 1999 Search and Discovery Article article, Eugene Island Block 330 Field--U.S.A. Offshore Louisiana by David S. Holland, John B. Leedy and David R. Lammlein:

The Eugene Island Block 330 oils show abundant evidence of long-distance vertical migration. Based on a variety of biomarker and gasoline-range maturity indicators, these oils are estimated to have been generated at depths of 4572 to 4877 m (15,000 to 16,000 ft) at vitrinite reflectance maturities of 0.08 to 1.0% and temperatures of 150 to 170°C (300 to 340°F). Their presence in shallow, thermally immature reservoirs requires significant vertical migration. This is illustrated on Figure 36, which represents a burial and maturation history for the field at the time of petroleum migration, that is, at the end of Trimosina "A" time approximately 500,000 years ago. A plot of the present measured maturity values versus depth is superimposed on the calculated maturity profile for Trimosina "A" time to illustrate the close agreement between measured and predicted maturity profiles. The clear discrepancy between reservoir maturity and oil maturity is striking and suggests that the oil migrated more than 3650 m (12,000 ft) from a deep, possibly upper Miocene, source facies. Petroleum migration along faults is indicated based on the observed temperature and hydrocarbon anomalies at the surface and the distribution of pay in the subsurface. These results are consistent with those of Young et al. (1977), who concluded that most Gulf of Mexico oils originated 2438 to 3350 m (8000 to 11,000 ft) deeper than their reservoirs, from source beds 5 to 9 million years older than the reservoirs.

Though i may add more resources for study in the future (there are plenty available), for now i'll close with a 1996 interview given by Fletcher Prouty, former Colonel in the USAF and Chief of Special Operations for the JCS under President John F. Kennedy:

The Abiotic Oil Conspiracy

sources

The hilarious ego-laden pseudoscience of virology

I've not been keeping an eye on the news for nearly four months, the primary reason for which is because 95+% of it bad news and reading all that bad news every day can take a toll on ones demeanor and outlook.

One area of 'bad news' i haven't kept up with is the (non-existent) SARS-CoV-2 "virus" sewage still being pumped out by the lame-stream media, governments and stupid doctors and scientists who have an ego to protect. I've read enough books and listened to quite enough educated doctors and scientists in order to form a strong, scientifically sound opinion which dictates that no one has ever isolated SARS-CoV-2, nor any other alleged "virus", ever, using the scientific method.

To any reasonable adult, the word 'isolate' means to separate one thing from all other things, yet virologists literally do precisely the opposite when they claim to have "isolated" a "virus". They create conditions never found in nature which cannot support life then, when the cells die, as they are destined to do, they claim that the debris/exosomes emitted by the cells are "the virus". Never mind that exactly none of these indoctrinated fools have ever isolated anything according Koch's postulates, much less proven that these alleged "viruses" can be transmitted among anything, human or otherwise.

There's plenty of books and other resources readily available for those who want to learn about the sordid history of virology and germ theory. Two books i would recommend as primers on the subject are The Contagion Myth - Why Viruses (including "Coronavirus") Are Not the Cause of Disease and Virus Mania, 3rd edition: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense. There's also plenty of testimony, interviews and talks by many doctors and scientists on alternative social media and video hosting platforms such as BitChute and Odysee. One of those doctors, Dr. Samantha Bailey, has produced many videos on the subject of "viruses", germ theory, terrain theory and other aspects of health and disease. She and her husband, Dr. Mark Bailey, are both extremely well educated on the subject of virology and germ theory verses terrain theory. Following is Dr. Sam's latest video. Many more can be found on her Odysee channel.

SETTLING THE VIRUS DEBATE

The "Settling The Virus Debate" Statement - Dr Sam Bailey

Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.

Signatories,

Thomas Cowan, MD Mark Bailey, MD Samantha Bailey, MD, Jitendra Banjara, MSc Kelly Brogan, MD Kevin Corbett, PhD, Mufassil Dingankar, BHMS Michael Donio, MS Jordan Grant, MD, Andrew Kaufman, MD Valentina Kiseleva, MD Christine Massey, MSc, Paul McSheehy, PhD Prof. Timothy Noakes, MD Sachin Pethkar, BAMS, Saeed Qureshi, PhD Stefano Scoglio, PhD Mike Stone, BEXSc, Amandha Vollmer, NDoc Michael Yeadon, PhD

more...