Do you think liberals know that crude is as natural as whale shit?

[HereWeGoAgain]

The question we are trying to answer here is, “how are oil seeps different from oil spills?” Oil seeps occur constantly, throughout the Gulf. Although they do release a lot of oil together over time, their individual spill rates are far, far lower than the Deepwater Horizon gusher. What’s more, these much smaller seeps are dispersed around the Gulf, so each seep’s oil can be degraded quickly.

That is not what happens in an oil spill. It is true that the amount of oil that has spilled from this gusher so far is less than the ANNUAL AGGREGATE of all 600+ seeps in the Gulf. But it’s all coming out at the same time, in the same place. The water in one location can only degrade so much oil at one time; an oil spill goes far beyond overwhelming the ocean’s natural oil-coping mechanisms.

Natural Oil Seeps vs. Oil Spills The Political Climate

Furthermore the seeps are mostly from near surface reserves. The deeper the reserve the more compounds are found in the crude oil as well.

Oh, so there were never any oil slicks prior to republicans and whites converting oil into energy?

Holy shit liberals are fucked up.

I suppose the tar balls found on every beach in the world also came from the right wingers.


******* morons.

The indians on the gulf coast used to chew the shit like gum.
Damn those asshole indian republicans and their tar balls!!!

 

[ClosedCaption]

When you have to become pro-oil spill to defend your ideology,

maybe your ideology needs its head examined.

I never thought I'd see spin so bad that now an oil spill is being spun as a positive

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Here we go again. 100,000 gallons of oil on a beautiful beach, and the 'Conservatives' are just giddy with happiness. It's all natural, you see! I just wish we could transport that 100,000 gallons in each one of their houses and property so they could truly appreciate how 'natural' that truly is.

I'm not giddy,

I'm a Conservative and oil spills are all my fault .. I'm the one to blame..

After-all, there's no Democrats, working in, profiting in or using oil products.

Conservatives are the ones who close ranks around the oil companies when they **** up. Remember the congressman who apologized to the BP guy when he was summoned before congress to answer some questions? Shit like that is why conservatives are wedded to the many downsides of fossil fuel production.

Maybe it's because we understand that accidents happen and the importance of oil to our economy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The natural seepage of crude that happens in ocean is anywhere from 10 to 100 times more than what even the Gulf disaster put out, let alone one tanker.

Natural Oil Spills Surprising Amount Seeps into the Sea
There is effectively an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara where 20 to 25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years. The oil from natural seeps and from man-made spills are both formed from the decay of buried fossil remains that are transformed over millions of years through exposure to heat and pressure.

"One of the natural questions is: What happens to all of this oil?" said study co-author Dave Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara. "So much oil seeps up and floats on the sea surface. It's something we've long wondered. We know some of it will come ashore as tar balls, but it doesn't stick around. And then there are the massive slicks. You can see them, sometimes extending 20 miles [32 kilometers] from the seeps. But what really is the ultimate fate?"

Based on their previous research, Valentine and his co-authors surmised that the oil was sinking "because this oil is heavy to begin with," Valentine said. "It's a good bet that it ends up in the sediments because it's not ending up on land. It's not dissolving in ocean water, so it's almost certain that it is ending up in the sediments."

The team sampled locations around the seeps to see how much oil was leftover after "weathering" — dissolving into the water, evaporating into the air, or being degraded by microbes.

Microbes consume most, but not all, of the compounds in the oil. The next step of the research is to figure out just why that is.

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

Holy shit liberals are ******* stupid asses. BTW, predictably BSNBC is not covering the murder of the white family by the THUG (yeah you know what I mean) and instead they are relentlessly talking about the oil spill.

I wonder why they are relentlessly covering the oil spill. I wonder why they have stopped covering the horrendous murders of the white family, including a child and an Hispanic maid.

******* liberals. Brainwashed away.

Do you how much shit went into one tin of Shinola?

 

[NYcarbineer]

When you have to become pro-oil spill to defend your ideology,

maybe your ideology needs its head examined.

I never thought I'd see spin so bad that now an oil spill is being spun as a positive

These people are out of the same crowd that used to say American casualties in Iraq were no big deal because some days there were more Americans killed in our inner cities.

Dementia.

 

[Theowl32]

As liberals like the moron occupied enjoy all of the amenities and products derived from petroleum based products.

Hell, he calls himself occupied as the president funnels loot into stock exchange through his Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP).

There is not one thing a ******* demented cocksucking liberal stands for. Nothing.

 

[SwimExpert]

Uranium's natural too. Doesn't mean you wanna make jewelry out of it.

Uranium Jewelry RadioactiveThings.com

That jewelry is made for quack medical benefits. I'd recommend white gold and a diet high in whole grains.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Here we go again. 100,000 gallons of oil....

Lie. 21,000 gallons.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The natural seepage of crude that happens in ocean is anywhere from 10 to 100 times more than what even the Gulf disaster put out, let alone one tanker.

Natural Oil Spills Surprising Amount Seeps into the Sea
There is effectively an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara where 20 to 25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years. The oil from natural seeps and from man-made spills are both formed from the decay of buried fossil remains that are transformed over millions of years through exposure to heat and pressure.

"One of the natural questions is: What happens to all of this oil?" said study co-author Dave Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara. "So much oil seeps up and floats on the sea surface. It's something we've long wondered. We know some of it will come ashore as tar balls, but it doesn't stick around. And then there are the massive slicks. You can see them, sometimes extending 20 miles [32 kilometers] from the seeps. But what really is the ultimate fate?"

Based on their previous research, Valentine and his co-authors surmised that the oil was sinking "because this oil is heavy to begin with," Valentine said. "It's a good bet that it ends up in the sediments because it's not ending up on land. It's not dissolving in ocean water, so it's almost certain that it is ending up in the sediments."

The team sampled locations around the seeps to see how much oil was leftover after "weathering" — dissolving into the water, evaporating into the air, or being degraded by microbes.

Microbes consume most, but not all, of the compounds in the oil. The next step of the research is to figure out just why that is.

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

Holy shit liberals are ******* stupid asses. BTW, predictably BSNBC is not covering the murder of the white family by the THUG (yeah you know what I mean) and instead they are relentlessly talking about the oil spill.

I wonder why they are relentlessly covering the oil spill. I wonder why they have stopped covering the horrendous murders of the white family, including a child and an Hispanic maid.

******* liberals. Brainwashed away.

Do you how much shit went into one tin of Shinola?

lol, as expected, no answer. He doesn't know.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ironically, if there were enough whales around, conservatives would want to bring back whale oil as a fuel.

 

[MisterBeale]

The natural seepage of crude that happens in ocean is anywhere from 10 to 100 times more than what even the Gulf disaster put out, let alone one tanker.

Natural Oil Spills Surprising Amount Seeps into the Sea
There is effectively an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara where 20 to 25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years. The oil from natural seeps and from man-made spills are both formed from the decay of buried fossil remains that are transformed over millions of years through exposure to heat and pressure.

"One of the natural questions is: What happens to all of this oil?" said study co-author Dave Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara. "So much oil seeps up and floats on the sea surface. It's something we've long wondered. We know some of it will come ashore as tar balls, but it doesn't stick around. And then there are the massive slicks. You can see them, sometimes extending 20 miles [32 kilometers] from the seeps. But what really is the ultimate fate?"

Based on their previous research, Valentine and his co-authors surmised that the oil was sinking "because this oil is heavy to begin with," Valentine said. "It's a good bet that it ends up in the sediments because it's not ending up on land. It's not dissolving in ocean water, so it's almost certain that it is ending up in the sediments."

The team sampled locations around the seeps to see how much oil was leftover after "weathering" — dissolving into the water, evaporating into the air, or being degraded by microbes.

Microbes consume most, but not all, of the compounds in the oil. The next step of the research is to figure out just why that is.

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

Holy shit liberals are ******* stupid asses. BTW, predictably BSNBC is not covering the murder of the white family by the THUG (yeah you know what I mean) and instead they are relentlessly talking about the oil spill.

I wonder why they are relentlessly covering the oil spill. I wonder why they have stopped covering the horrendous murders of the white family, including a child and an Hispanic maid.

******* liberals. Brainwashed away.

Liberals are brainwashed?

Try all Americans are brainwashed.

You actually believe in the term, "fossil fuel." That term was created to make people in the west believe that hydro-carbons come from "fossils."

Tell me, do you think hydro-carbons on other planets are "fossil fuels?" You know, in the past, the Russians used to be one of the world's least producers of petroleum, now they excel at it. Why? Because they understand it like nobody's business. I saw through the western propaganda years ago. Peak oil? What a crock.

Russians & NASA Discredit 'Fossil Fuel' Theory: Demise of Junk CO2 Science
Russians NASA Discredit Fossil Fuel Theory Demise of Junk CO2 Science Principia Scientific Intl

Last week new NASA photographs proved methane lakes exist on Saturn's moon, Titan, showing that such hydrocarbons (or so-called 'fossil fuels') are seemingly plentiful in our solar system. This startling discovery turns on its head the long-held western belief that petroleum is a limited resource, because it is primarily derived (we had been told) from the fossilized remains of dead dinosaurs and rotted carbon-based vegetation.

But with that notion now exploded in the article 'NASA Finds Lakes of Hydrocarbons on Saturn's Moon, Titan' thanks to NASA’s Cassini spacecraft, energy scientists are now compelled to admit that petroleum oil is, in fact, substantially mineral in origin and occurring all through the galaxies. . . .

and

. . . As we reported (November 08, 2014) NASA's new evidence supports previously controversial Russian claims that ‘fossil’ fuel theory is junk science. No wonder skepticism of the wide-ranging Green Agenda grows and serious doubts are rising as to whether humans need to divest themselves of the supposedly fast-diminishing energy source after all.

Bodies of credible, independent western scientists, collaborating and collating their findings via the internet through fledgling organisations such as Principia Scientific International are calling for a re-assessment of over 2,000 eastern European peer-reviewed science papers on the issue, previously ignored by western governments, state-funded universities and the mainstream media.

For decades Russian scientists have known that the fossil fuel theory is bogus and have compellingly demonstrated that petroleum is derived from highly compressed mineral deposits deep beneath the surface. But the most startling consequence to these findings is that oil is a constant renewable regenerating in nature.

How many producing oil reserves has the abiogenic theory of the formation of petroleum ever found?

Zero.

Wrong.


Kudryavtsev conducted regional geological studies that resulted in discoveries of commercial oil and gas in the Grozny district (Chechnya Autonomy), Central Asia, Timan-Pechora, and other regions of the Soviet Union. He led reconnaissance exploration research in Georgia, and compiled the program of key exploration wells in the West Siberia in 1947 that paved the way to the new era of oil and gas production in Russia that started with first gas gusher near Berezovo in 1953.

Kudryavtsev's Rule
In support of his abiotic theory, Kudryavtsev stated in 1973 (Genesis of Gas and Oil) that any region in which hydrocarbons are found at one level will also have hydrocarbons in large or small quantities at all levels down to and into the basement rock. Thus, where oil and gas deposits are found, there will often be coal seams above them. Gas is usually the deepest in the pattern, and can alternate with oil. All petroleum deposits have a capstone, which is generally impermeable to the upward migration of hydrocarbons. This capstone leads to the accumulation of the hydrocarbon.

Nikolai Kudryavtsev - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Plus you can go to the Gas Resource page. Lots of info there if you care. I doubt you wish to disabuse yourself of western propaganda and preconceived notions. A lifetime of conditioning is a lot to throw off.

Petroleum Geology and Applications of Modern Petroleum Science Gas Resources

1. The Exploration and Development of the Twelve Major and one Giant Oil and Gas Fields on the Northern Flank of the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin.
V. A. Krayushkin, T. I. Tchebanenko, V. P. Klochko, Ye. S. Dvoryanin, J. F. Kenney, (2001), Energia, 22/3, 44-47.
2.
Hydrocarbon Potential of the Crystalline Basement of the Dnieper-Donetsk Aulacogen (Ukraine).
I. I. Chebanenko, E. M. Dovskok, V. P. Klochko, A. V. Krayushkin, E. S. Dvoryanin, V. V. Krot, B. I. Malyuk, V. S. Tokovenko, (1995), Geological Journal, 4, 15-17.

3.
Recent Applications of the Modern Theory of Abiotic Hydrocarbon Origins: The Drilling & Development of Oil & Gas Fields in the Dnieper-Donets Basin.
V. A. Krayushkin, T. I. Tchebanenko, V. P. Klochko, Ye. S. Dvoryanin, J. F. Kenney, (1994), Proceedings of the VIIth International Symposium on the Observation of the Continental Crust through Drilling.

4. Principle Results of the Major Scientific Investigations for Hydrocarbons in the Swedish Deep Gas Exploration Project.
J. F. Kenney, (1994), Proceedings of the VIIth International Symposium on the Observation of the Continental Crust through Drilling.
5.
The Search for Mantle Markers: Examination of the Gravberg 1 “black gunk.”
J. F. Kenney, (1990), Geologisches Jahrbuch Reihe D, Heft 107, (1999), 165-174.

6. Comment on “Mantle hydrocarbons: Abiotic or biotic?” by R. Sugisaki and K. Mimura.
J. F. Kenney, (1995), Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, 59/18, 3857-3858.
7. Inorganic origin in upper mantle seen likely for solid hydrocarbons in Syria plateau basalt.
R. F. Mahfoud, J. M. Beck, (1991), Oil & Gas Journal, 89/43, 88-92.
8. Structural Features of the Earth’s Crust and Petroleum Potential: First Results of CMP Deep Seismic Survey along the Geotraverse across the Volga-Ural Petroliferous Province.
V. A. Trofimov (2006), Doklady Earth Sciences, 411/8, 1178-1183.

 

[BlindBoo]

The natural seepage of crude that happens in ocean is anywhere from 10 to 100 times more than what even the Gulf disaster put out, let alone one tanker.

Natural Oil Spills Surprising Amount Seeps into the Sea
There is effectively an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara where 20 to 25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years. The oil from natural seeps and from man-made spills are both formed from the decay of buried fossil remains that are transformed over millions of years through exposure to heat and pressure.

"One of the natural questions is: What happens to all of this oil?" said study co-author Dave Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara. "So much oil seeps up and floats on the sea surface. It's something we've long wondered. We know some of it will come ashore as tar balls, but it doesn't stick around. And then there are the massive slicks. You can see them, sometimes extending 20 miles [32 kilometers] from the seeps. But what really is the ultimate fate?"

Based on their previous research, Valentine and his co-authors surmised that the oil was sinking "because this oil is heavy to begin with," Valentine said. "It's a good bet that it ends up in the sediments because it's not ending up on land. It's not dissolving in ocean water, so it's almost certain that it is ending up in the sediments."

The team sampled locations around the seeps to see how much oil was leftover after "weathering" — dissolving into the water, evaporating into the air, or being degraded by microbes.

Microbes consume most, but not all, of the compounds in the oil. The next step of the research is to figure out just why that is.

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

Holy shit liberals are ******* stupid asses. BTW, predictably BSNBC is not covering the murder of the white family by the THUG (yeah you know what I mean) and instead they are relentlessly talking about the oil spill.

I wonder why they are relentlessly covering the oil spill. I wonder why they have stopped covering the horrendous murders of the white family, including a child and an Hispanic maid.

******* liberals. Brainwashed away.

Liberals are brainwashed?

Try all Americans are brainwashed.

You actually believe in the term, "fossil fuel." That term was created to make people in the west believe that hydro-carbons come from "fossils."

Tell me, do you think hydro-carbons on other planets are "fossil fuels?" You know, in the past, the Russians used to be one of the world's least producers of petroleum, now they excel at it. Why? Because they understand it like nobody's business. I saw through the western propaganda years ago. Peak oil? What a crock.

Russians & NASA Discredit 'Fossil Fuel' Theory: Demise of Junk CO2 Science
Russians NASA Discredit Fossil Fuel Theory Demise of Junk CO2 Science Principia Scientific Intl

Last week new NASA photographs proved methane lakes exist on Saturn's moon, Titan, showing that such hydrocarbons (or so-called 'fossil fuels') are seemingly plentiful in our solar system. This startling discovery turns on its head the long-held western belief that petroleum is a limited resource, because it is primarily derived (we had been told) from the fossilized remains of dead dinosaurs and rotted carbon-based vegetation.

But with that notion now exploded in the article 'NASA Finds Lakes of Hydrocarbons on Saturn's Moon, Titan' thanks to NASA’s Cassini spacecraft, energy scientists are now compelled to admit that petroleum oil is, in fact, substantially mineral in origin and occurring all through the galaxies. . . .

and

. . . As we reported (November 08, 2014) NASA's new evidence supports previously controversial Russian claims that ‘fossil’ fuel theory is junk science. No wonder skepticism of the wide-ranging Green Agenda grows and serious doubts are rising as to whether humans need to divest themselves of the supposedly fast-diminishing energy source after all.

Bodies of credible, independent western scientists, collaborating and collating their findings via the internet through fledgling organisations such as Principia Scientific International are calling for a re-assessment of over 2,000 eastern European peer-reviewed science papers on the issue, previously ignored by western governments, state-funded universities and the mainstream media.

For decades Russian scientists have known that the fossil fuel theory is bogus and have compellingly demonstrated that petroleum is derived from highly compressed mineral deposits deep beneath the surface. But the most startling consequence to these findings is that oil is a constant renewable regenerating in nature.

How many producing oil reserves has the abiogenic theory of the formation of petroleum ever found?

Zero.

Wrong.


Kudryavtsev conducted regional geological studies that resulted in discoveries of commercial oil and gas in the Grozny district (Chechnya Autonomy), Central Asia, Timan-Pechora, and other regions of the Soviet Union. He led reconnaissance exploration research in Georgia, and compiled the program of key exploration wells in the West Siberia in 1947 that paved the way to the new era of oil and gas production in Russia that started with first gas gusher near Berezovo in 1953.

Kudryavtsev's Rule
In support of his abiotic theory, Kudryavtsev stated in 1973 (Genesis of Gas and Oil) that any region in which hydrocarbons are found at one level will also have hydrocarbons in large or small quantities at all levels down to and into the basement rock. Thus, where oil and gas deposits are found, there will often be coal seams above them. Gas is usually the deepest in the pattern, and can alternate with oil. All petroleum deposits have a capstone, which is generally impermeable to the upward migration of hydrocarbons. This capstone leads to the accumulation of the hydrocarbon.

Nikolai Kudryavtsev - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Plus you can go to the Gas Resource page. Lots of info there if you care. I doubt you wish to disabuse yourself of western propaganda and preconceived notions. A lifetime of conditioning is a lot to throw off.

Petroleum Geology and Applications of Modern Petroleum Science Gas Resources

1. The Exploration and Development of the Twelve Major and one Giant Oil and Gas Fields on the Northern Flank of the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin.
V. A. Krayushkin, T. I. Tchebanenko, V. P. Klochko, Ye. S. Dvoryanin, J. F. Kenney, (2001), Energia, 22/3, 44-47.
2.
Hydrocarbon Potential of the Crystalline Basement of the Dnieper-Donetsk Aulacogen (Ukraine).
I. I. Chebanenko, E. M. Dovskok, V. P. Klochko, A. V. Krayushkin, E. S. Dvoryanin, V. V. Krot, B. I. Malyuk, V. S. Tokovenko, (1995), Geological Journal, 4, 15-17.

3.
Recent Applications of the Modern Theory of Abiotic Hydrocarbon Origins: The Drilling & Development of Oil & Gas Fields in the Dnieper-Donets Basin.
V. A. Krayushkin, T. I. Tchebanenko, V. P. Klochko, Ye. S. Dvoryanin, J. F. Kenney, (1994), Proceedings of the VIIth International Symposium on the Observation of the Continental Crust through Drilling.

4. Principle Results of the Major Scientific Investigations for Hydrocarbons in the Swedish Deep Gas Exploration Project.
J. F. Kenney, (1994), Proceedings of the VIIth International Symposium on the Observation of the Continental Crust through Drilling.
5.
The Search for Mantle Markers: Examination of the Gravberg 1 “black gunk.”
J. F. Kenney, (1990), Geologisches Jahrbuch Reihe D, Heft 107, (1999), 165-174.

6. Comment on “Mantle hydrocarbons: Abiotic or biotic?” by R. Sugisaki and K. Mimura.
J. F. Kenney, (1995), Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, 59/18, 3857-3858.
7. Inorganic origin in upper mantle seen likely for solid hydrocarbons in Syria plateau basalt.
R. F. Mahfoud, J. M. Beck, (1991), Oil & Gas Journal, 89/43, 88-92.
8. Structural Features of the Earth’s Crust and Petroleum Potential: First Results of CMP Deep Seismic Survey along the Geotraverse across the Volga-Ural Petroliferous Province.
V. A. Trofimov (2006), Doklady Earth Sciences, 411/8, 1178-1183.

Right.

Petroleum - Formation - Abiotic Oil Formation

Most scientists believe the evidence comes down decidedly on the side of oil forming from deceased organic matter. They point to very strong chemical evidence (so called “biomarkers”) that show hydrocarbons have an organic origin and not an inorganic origin. They also point out that various stages of hydrocarbon development have been uncovered, showing the progression from say peat all the way to anthracite coal or from algae to oil. They also argue that small quantities of hydrocarbon can be produced in laboratories, thus strong supporting their stance.

Proponents of the abiotic theory are not without their evidence, however. These scientists point to the fact that oil reservoirs have been shown to refill when left alone for periods of time, something that does not fit with the biotic theory. They also point to the presence of oil on meteors and other bodies that do not and never have supported life. They also suggest that claims about the chemical nature of oil are spurious because we do not know what processes occur deep in the Earth that may cause oil to look as though it came from an organic source when it did not. It is also true that oil can be produced from inorganic material, lending support to this theory.

Consensus
Most scientists support the biotic theory of oil production for a number of reasons. In response to the evidence for the abiotic theory, they say the following.

First, refilling of wells can be explained by two phenomena. One, our ability to extract oil from more difficult environments is constantly increasing. As a result, wells that were once “tapped out” can now be reopened and produce again using new technology. Two, because oil moves and is of different densities, it is true that pumping oil from a well may relieve pressure, which then allows oil trapped in cracks, faults, and other pockets to enter the well over time.

The second reason many scientists doubt the abiotic theory is that its basic tenets don’t seem to be viable. Namely, the idea that rocks at great depth are porous is the opposite of what research shows. Of course, proponents of the theory point to the fact that magma manages to escape, so why not petroleum.

The third and most substantial reason for discounting the abiotic theory is that the chemistry doesn’t add up. First, there doesn’t seem to be enough CO2 below the surface of the Earth to make the formation of oil possible. In scientific terms, the mass balance of the equation is errant. More importantly, however, is the distinct isotopic and biochemical structure of oil, which strongly support and organic origin. For example, helium that is trapped with hydrocarbon deposits (and is an inert gas so it does not react with anything), is of a specific character that means it almost certainly came from the surface of the Earth and not anywhere else.

 

[MisterBeale]

The natural seepage of crude that happens in ocean is anywhere from 10 to 100 times more than what even the Gulf disaster put out, let alone one tanker.

Natural Oil Spills Surprising Amount Seeps into the Sea
There is effectively an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara where 20 to 25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years. The oil from natural seeps and from man-made spills are both formed from the decay of buried fossil remains that are transformed over millions of years through exposure to heat and pressure.

"One of the natural questions is: What happens to all of this oil?" said study co-author Dave Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara. "So much oil seeps up and floats on the sea surface. It's something we've long wondered. We know some of it will come ashore as tar balls, but it doesn't stick around. And then there are the massive slicks. You can see them, sometimes extending 20 miles [32 kilometers] from the seeps. But what really is the ultimate fate?"

Based on their previous research, Valentine and his co-authors surmised that the oil was sinking "because this oil is heavy to begin with," Valentine said. "It's a good bet that it ends up in the sediments because it's not ending up on land. It's not dissolving in ocean water, so it's almost certain that it is ending up in the sediments."

The team sampled locations around the seeps to see how much oil was leftover after "weathering" — dissolving into the water, evaporating into the air, or being degraded by microbes.

Microbes consume most, but not all, of the compounds in the oil. The next step of the research is to figure out just why that is.

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

Holy shit liberals are ******* stupid asses. BTW, predictably BSNBC is not covering the murder of the white family by the THUG (yeah you know what I mean) and instead they are relentlessly talking about the oil spill.

I wonder why they are relentlessly covering the oil spill. I wonder why they have stopped covering the horrendous murders of the white family, including a child and an Hispanic maid.

******* liberals. Brainwashed away.

Liberals are brainwashed?

Try all Americans are brainwashed.

You actually believe in the term, "fossil fuel." That term was created to make people in the west believe that hydro-carbons come from "fossils."

Tell me, do you think hydro-carbons on other planets are "fossil fuels?" You know, in the past, the Russians used to be one of the world's least producers of petroleum, now they excel at it. Why? Because they understand it like nobody's business. I saw through the western propaganda years ago. Peak oil? What a crock.

Russians & NASA Discredit 'Fossil Fuel' Theory: Demise of Junk CO2 Science
Russians NASA Discredit Fossil Fuel Theory Demise of Junk CO2 Science Principia Scientific Intl

Last week new NASA photographs proved methane lakes exist on Saturn's moon, Titan, showing that such hydrocarbons (or so-called 'fossil fuels') are seemingly plentiful in our solar system. This startling discovery turns on its head the long-held western belief that petroleum is a limited resource, because it is primarily derived (we had been told) from the fossilized remains of dead dinosaurs and rotted carbon-based vegetation.

But with that notion now exploded in the article 'NASA Finds Lakes of Hydrocarbons on Saturn's Moon, Titan' thanks to NASA’s Cassini spacecraft, energy scientists are now compelled to admit that petroleum oil is, in fact, substantially mineral in origin and occurring all through the galaxies. . . .

and

. . . As we reported (November 08, 2014) NASA's new evidence supports previously controversial Russian claims that ‘fossil’ fuel theory is junk science. No wonder skepticism of the wide-ranging Green Agenda grows and serious doubts are rising as to whether humans need to divest themselves of the supposedly fast-diminishing energy source after all.

Bodies of credible, independent western scientists, collaborating and collating their findings via the internet through fledgling organisations such as Principia Scientific International are calling for a re-assessment of over 2,000 eastern European peer-reviewed science papers on the issue, previously ignored by western governments, state-funded universities and the mainstream media.

For decades Russian scientists have known that the fossil fuel theory is bogus and have compellingly demonstrated that petroleum is derived from highly compressed mineral deposits deep beneath the surface. But the most startling consequence to these findings is that oil is a constant renewable regenerating in nature.

How many producing oil reserves has the abiogenic theory of the formation of petroleum ever found?

Zero.

Wrong.


Kudryavtsev conducted regional geological studies that resulted in discoveries of commercial oil and gas in the Grozny district (Chechnya Autonomy), Central Asia, Timan-Pechora, and other regions of the Soviet Union. He led reconnaissance exploration research in Georgia, and compiled the program of key exploration wells in the West Siberia in 1947 that paved the way to the new era of oil and gas production in Russia that started with first gas gusher near Berezovo in 1953.

Kudryavtsev's Rule
In support of his abiotic theory, Kudryavtsev stated in 1973 (Genesis of Gas and Oil) that any region in which hydrocarbons are found at one level will also have hydrocarbons in large or small quantities at all levels down to and into the basement rock. Thus, where oil and gas deposits are found, there will often be coal seams above them. Gas is usually the deepest in the pattern, and can alternate with oil. All petroleum deposits have a capstone, which is generally impermeable to the upward migration of hydrocarbons. This capstone leads to the accumulation of the hydrocarbon.

Nikolai Kudryavtsev - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Plus you can go to the Gas Resource page. Lots of info there if you care. I doubt you wish to disabuse yourself of western propaganda and preconceived notions. A lifetime of conditioning is a lot to throw off.

Petroleum Geology and Applications of Modern Petroleum Science Gas Resources

1. The Exploration and Development of the Twelve Major and one Giant Oil and Gas Fields on the Northern Flank of the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin.
V. A. Krayushkin, T. I. Tchebanenko, V. P. Klochko, Ye. S. Dvoryanin, J. F. Kenney, (2001), Energia, 22/3, 44-47.
2.
Hydrocarbon Potential of the Crystalline Basement of the Dnieper-Donetsk Aulacogen (Ukraine).
I. I. Chebanenko, E. M. Dovskok, V. P. Klochko, A. V. Krayushkin, E. S. Dvoryanin, V. V. Krot, B. I. Malyuk, V. S. Tokovenko, (1995), Geological Journal, 4, 15-17.

3.
Recent Applications of the Modern Theory of Abiotic Hydrocarbon Origins: The Drilling & Development of Oil & Gas Fields in the Dnieper-Donets Basin.
V. A. Krayushkin, T. I. Tchebanenko, V. P. Klochko, Ye. S. Dvoryanin, J. F. Kenney, (1994), Proceedings of the VIIth International Symposium on the Observation of the Continental Crust through Drilling.

4. Principle Results of the Major Scientific Investigations for Hydrocarbons in the Swedish Deep Gas Exploration Project.
J. F. Kenney, (1994), Proceedings of the VIIth International Symposium on the Observation of the Continental Crust through Drilling.
5.
The Search for Mantle Markers: Examination of the Gravberg 1 “black gunk.”
J. F. Kenney, (1990), Geologisches Jahrbuch Reihe D, Heft 107, (1999), 165-174.

6. Comment on “Mantle hydrocarbons: Abiotic or biotic?” by R. Sugisaki and K. Mimura.
J. F. Kenney, (1995), Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, 59/18, 3857-3858.
7. Inorganic origin in upper mantle seen likely for solid hydrocarbons in Syria plateau basalt.
R. F. Mahfoud, J. M. Beck, (1991), Oil & Gas Journal, 89/43, 88-92.
8. Structural Features of the Earth’s Crust and Petroleum Potential: First Results of CMP Deep Seismic Survey along the Geotraverse across the Volga-Ural Petroliferous Province.
V. A. Trofimov (2006), Doklady Earth Sciences, 411/8, 1178-1183.

Right.

Petroleum - Formation - Abiotic Oil Formation

Most scientists believe the evidence comes down decidedly on the side of oil forming from deceased organic matter. They point to very strong chemical evidence (so called “biomarkers”) that show hydrocarbons have an organic origin and not an inorganic origin. They also point out that various stages of hydrocarbon development have been uncovered, showing the progression from say peat all the way to anthracite coal or from algae to oil. They also argue that small quantities of hydrocarbon can be produced in laboratories, thus strong supporting their stance.

Proponents of the abiotic theory are not without their evidence, however. These scientists point to the fact that oil reservoirs have been shown to refill when left alone for periods of time, something that does not fit with the biotic theory. They also point to the presence of oil on meteors and other bodies that do not and never have supported life. They also suggest that claims about the chemical nature of oil are spurious because we do not know what processes occur deep in the Earth that may cause oil to look as though it came from an organic source when it did not. It is also true that oil can be produced from inorganic material, lending support to this theory.

Consensus
Most scientists support the biotic theory of oil production for a number of reasons. In response to the evidence for the abiotic theory, they say the following.

First, refilling of wells can be explained by two phenomena. One, our ability to extract oil from more difficult environments is constantly increasing. As a result, wells that were once “tapped out” can now be reopened and produce again using new technology. Two, because oil moves and is of different densities, it is true that pumping oil from a well may relieve pressure, which then allows oil trapped in cracks, faults, and other pockets to enter the well over time.

The second reason many scientists doubt the abiotic theory is that its basic tenets don’t seem to be viable. Namely, the idea that rocks at great depth are porous is the opposite of what research shows. Of course, proponents of the theory point to the fact that magma manages to escape, so why not petroleum.

The third and most substantial reason for discounting the abiotic theory is that the chemistry doesn’t add up. First, there doesn’t seem to be enough CO2 below the surface of the Earth to make the formation of oil possible. In scientific terms, the mass balance of the equation is errant. More importantly, however, is the distinct isotopic and biochemical structure of oil, which strongly support and organic origin. For example, helium that is trapped with hydrocarbon deposits (and is an inert gas so it does not react with anything), is of a specific character that means it almost certainly came from the surface of the Earth and not anywhere else.

Sigh. Live in denial all you like. I proved you that you were wrong. You asked if any wells have been found using this theory, I gave them to you. Boy are you stubborn.

NASA and scientists around the world are now starting to agree that the old science is wrong. If you want to use some old dated resource to back up your bullshit POV, go ahead. Science is not done by consensus, and there are no and probably never were any dinosaurs or masses of organic matter on Titan.
Titan's Surface Organics Surpass Oil Reserves on Earth
NASA - Titan s Surface Organics Surpass Oil Reserves on Earth


OMG. Don't tell me. You're one of those, aren't you? You don't know how to think for yourself, right? You probably believe in AGW?

You don't know how to read scientific studies or engage in critical thinking?

Tell me, do you know what the oil window is?

Tell me why oil has been found so far below that window smarty pants.

Do you really think Science is done by, "consensus?" Do you think the there is a "consensus" of scientists in eastern Europe and Russia believe this balderdash you just posted?

Take a look at this "Peak Oil" chart that was in Wikipedia. It gives us a history of oil production, plus what "Western" oil scientists perceive will happen in the future based on their lame understanding of oil science. What do you notice?

Petroleum - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Hell, we already know this chart is bogus, Russia is producing MORE OIL NOW than it did in the past. This chart has production declining sharply between 2010 and 2020. That's the prediction according to your "consensus" modeling of western oil science and "peak" oil, which I am quite sure you subscribe to, yes?
But we already know it's crap. REALITY doesn't conform to Oil company, government, foundation, and University propaganda by the elites.

World crude production 2013 without shale oil is back to 2005 levels

Russia, producing now at 10 mb/d, is still growing at around 100 kb/d but this growth rate is down from 2010 and 2012 years.

The IEA WEO 2013 writes: “Oil production in Russiais approaching the record levels of the Soviet era, but maintaining this trend will be difficult, given the need to combat declines at the giant western Siberian fields that currently produce the bulk of the country’s oil.”

That from a western source. And what about the results from your "consensus" oil science? Pathetic.

Fig 8: The North Sea is in full decline


Yeah, the US and the West getting their "consensus" asses kicked by Russia's Oil science. If we don't wise up and learn how our planet works, they will be holding all the cards. But then, I think the western energy companies already KNOW how and where oil comes from. If people in the west think oil is a finite resource, and not a renewable resource, what can these oil companies do? Yeah, charge more. If the government gets you believe that the CO2 emitted from using it is warming the Earth more than natural mechanisms, what can it do? Yeah, tax you for using it.

If our companies REALLY didn't believe in, or weren't convinced that there wasn't anything at all to the abiotic oil theory, why on earth would they be looking for oil at 18,360 feet (5,600 m) below sea level? You can post all the propaganda you want to convince the ignorant rubes that don't know any better, but I have read a little bit about the theory of oil formation, and where our petroleum companies are drilling. . . things don't add up. They are getting desperate. Have you ever read Hubbert's work?

The planned well was to be drilled to 18,360 feet (5,600 m) below sea level, and was to be plugged and suspended for subsequent completion as a subsea producer.[13] Production casing was being run and cemented at the time of the accident. Once the cementing was complete, it was due to be tested for integrity and a cement plug set to temporarily abandon the well.[15]

Deepwater Horizon explosion - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

According to Western Petroleum Oil theory, the Deep Water Horizon should have produced nothing but natural gas. It was drilled beyond the oil window.
Folks that don't have an inquisitive bone in their body and don't read at all irritate me, they really do. You just go on believing what the media and the "experts" tell you with out doing any serious research, mmmmkay?

 

[Borillar]

The natural seepage of crude that happens in ocean is anywhere from 10 to 100 times more than what even the Gulf disaster put out, let alone one tanker.

Natural Oil Spills Surprising Amount Seeps into the Sea
There is effectively an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara where 20 to 25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years. The oil from natural seeps and from man-made spills are both formed from the decay of buried fossil remains that are transformed over millions of years through exposure to heat and pressure.

"One of the natural questions is: What happens to all of this oil?" said study co-author Dave Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara. "So much oil seeps up and floats on the sea surface. It's something we've long wondered. We know some of it will come ashore as tar balls, but it doesn't stick around. And then there are the massive slicks. You can see them, sometimes extending 20 miles [32 kilometers] from the seeps. But what really is the ultimate fate?"

Based on their previous research, Valentine and his co-authors surmised that the oil was sinking "because this oil is heavy to begin with," Valentine said. "It's a good bet that it ends up in the sediments because it's not ending up on land. It's not dissolving in ocean water, so it's almost certain that it is ending up in the sediments."

The team sampled locations around the seeps to see how much oil was leftover after "weathering" — dissolving into the water, evaporating into the air, or being degraded by microbes.

Microbes consume most, but not all, of the compounds in the oil. The next step of the research is to figure out just why that is.

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

Holy shit liberals are ******* stupid asses. BTW, predictably BSNBC is not covering the murder of the white family by the THUG (yeah you know what I mean) and instead they are relentlessly talking about the oil spill.

I wonder why they are relentlessly covering the oil spill. I wonder why they have stopped covering the horrendous murders of the white family, including a child and an Hispanic maid.

******* liberals. Brainwashed away.

So it's natural... Why don't you have a nice tall glass of it then?

 

[BlindBoo]

The natural seepage of crude that happens in ocean is anywhere from 10 to 100 times more than what even the Gulf disaster put out, let alone one tanker.

Natural Oil Spills Surprising Amount Seeps into the Sea
There is effectively an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara where 20 to 25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years. The oil from natural seeps and from man-made spills are both formed from the decay of buried fossil remains that are transformed over millions of years through exposure to heat and pressure.

"One of the natural questions is: What happens to all of this oil?" said study co-author Dave Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara. "So much oil seeps up and floats on the sea surface. It's something we've long wondered. We know some of it will come ashore as tar balls, but it doesn't stick around. And then there are the massive slicks. You can see them, sometimes extending 20 miles [32 kilometers] from the seeps. But what really is the ultimate fate?"

Based on their previous research, Valentine and his co-authors surmised that the oil was sinking "because this oil is heavy to begin with," Valentine said. "It's a good bet that it ends up in the sediments because it's not ending up on land. It's not dissolving in ocean water, so it's almost certain that it is ending up in the sediments."

The team sampled locations around the seeps to see how much oil was leftover after "weathering" — dissolving into the water, evaporating into the air, or being degraded by microbes.

Microbes consume most, but not all, of the compounds in the oil. The next step of the research is to figure out just why that is.

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

Holy shit liberals are ******* stupid asses. BTW, predictably BSNBC is not covering the murder of the white family by the THUG (yeah you know what I mean) and instead they are relentlessly talking about the oil spill.

I wonder why they are relentlessly covering the oil spill. I wonder why they have stopped covering the horrendous murders of the white family, including a child and an Hispanic maid.

******* liberals. Brainwashed away.

Liberals are brainwashed?

Try all Americans are brainwashed.

You actually believe in the term, "fossil fuel." That term was created to make people in the west believe that hydro-carbons come from "fossils."

Tell me, do you think hydro-carbons on other planets are "fossil fuels?" You know, in the past, the Russians used to be one of the world's least producers of petroleum, now they excel at it. Why? Because they understand it like nobody's business. I saw through the western propaganda years ago. Peak oil? What a crock.

Russians & NASA Discredit 'Fossil Fuel' Theory: Demise of Junk CO2 Science
Russians NASA Discredit Fossil Fuel Theory Demise of Junk CO2 Science Principia Scientific Intl

Last week new NASA photographs proved methane lakes exist on Saturn's moon, Titan, showing that such hydrocarbons (or so-called 'fossil fuels') are seemingly plentiful in our solar system. This startling discovery turns on its head the long-held western belief that petroleum is a limited resource, because it is primarily derived (we had been told) from the fossilized remains of dead dinosaurs and rotted carbon-based vegetation.

But with that notion now exploded in the article 'NASA Finds Lakes of Hydrocarbons on Saturn's Moon, Titan' thanks to NASA’s Cassini spacecraft, energy scientists are now compelled to admit that petroleum oil is, in fact, substantially mineral in origin and occurring all through the galaxies. . . .

and

. . . As we reported (November 08, 2014) NASA's new evidence supports previously controversial Russian claims that ‘fossil’ fuel theory is junk science. No wonder skepticism of the wide-ranging Green Agenda grows and serious doubts are rising as to whether humans need to divest themselves of the supposedly fast-diminishing energy source after all.

Bodies of credible, independent western scientists, collaborating and collating their findings via the internet through fledgling organisations such as Principia Scientific International are calling for a re-assessment of over 2,000 eastern European peer-reviewed science papers on the issue, previously ignored by western governments, state-funded universities and the mainstream media.

For decades Russian scientists have known that the fossil fuel theory is bogus and have compellingly demonstrated that petroleum is derived from highly compressed mineral deposits deep beneath the surface. But the most startling consequence to these findings is that oil is a constant renewable regenerating in nature.

How many producing oil reserves has the abiogenic theory of the formation of petroleum ever found?

Zero.

Wrong.


Kudryavtsev conducted regional geological studies that resulted in discoveries of commercial oil and gas in the Grozny district (Chechnya Autonomy), Central Asia, Timan-Pechora, and other regions of the Soviet Union. He led reconnaissance exploration research in Georgia, and compiled the program of key exploration wells in the West Siberia in 1947 that paved the way to the new era of oil and gas production in Russia that started with first gas gusher near Berezovo in 1953.

Kudryavtsev's Rule
In support of his abiotic theory, Kudryavtsev stated in 1973 (Genesis of Gas and Oil) that any region in which hydrocarbons are found at one level will also have hydrocarbons in large or small quantities at all levels down to and into the basement rock. Thus, where oil and gas deposits are found, there will often be coal seams above them. Gas is usually the deepest in the pattern, and can alternate with oil. All petroleum deposits have a capstone, which is generally impermeable to the upward migration of hydrocarbons. This capstone leads to the accumulation of the hydrocarbon.

Nikolai Kudryavtsev - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Plus you can go to the Gas Resource page. Lots of info there if you care. I doubt you wish to disabuse yourself of western propaganda and preconceived notions. A lifetime of conditioning is a lot to throw off.

Petroleum Geology and Applications of Modern Petroleum Science Gas Resources

1. The Exploration and Development of the Twelve Major and one Giant Oil and Gas Fields on the Northern Flank of the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin.
V. A. Krayushkin, T. I. Tchebanenko, V. P. Klochko, Ye. S. Dvoryanin, J. F. Kenney, (2001), Energia, 22/3, 44-47.
2.
Hydrocarbon Potential of the Crystalline Basement of the Dnieper-Donetsk Aulacogen (Ukraine).
I. I. Chebanenko, E. M. Dovskok, V. P. Klochko, A. V. Krayushkin, E. S. Dvoryanin, V. V. Krot, B. I. Malyuk, V. S. Tokovenko, (1995), Geological Journal, 4, 15-17.

3.
Recent Applications of the Modern Theory of Abiotic Hydrocarbon Origins: The Drilling & Development of Oil & Gas Fields in the Dnieper-Donets Basin.
V. A. Krayushkin, T. I. Tchebanenko, V. P. Klochko, Ye. S. Dvoryanin, J. F. Kenney, (1994), Proceedings of the VIIth International Symposium on the Observation of the Continental Crust through Drilling.

4. Principle Results of the Major Scientific Investigations for Hydrocarbons in the Swedish Deep Gas Exploration Project.
J. F. Kenney, (1994), Proceedings of the VIIth International Symposium on the Observation of the Continental Crust through Drilling.
5.
The Search for Mantle Markers: Examination of the Gravberg 1 “black gunk.”
J. F. Kenney, (1990), Geologisches Jahrbuch Reihe D, Heft 107, (1999), 165-174.

6. Comment on “Mantle hydrocarbons: Abiotic or biotic?” by R. Sugisaki and K. Mimura.
J. F. Kenney, (1995), Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, 59/18, 3857-3858.
7. Inorganic origin in upper mantle seen likely for solid hydrocarbons in Syria plateau basalt.
R. F. Mahfoud, J. M. Beck, (1991), Oil & Gas Journal, 89/43, 88-92.
8. Structural Features of the Earth’s Crust and Petroleum Potential: First Results of CMP Deep Seismic Survey along the Geotraverse across the Volga-Ural Petroliferous Province.
V. A. Trofimov (2006), Doklady Earth Sciences, 411/8, 1178-1183.

Right.

Petroleum - Formation - Abiotic Oil Formation

Most scientists believe the evidence comes down decidedly on the side of oil forming from deceased organic matter. They point to very strong chemical evidence (so called “biomarkers”) that show hydrocarbons have an organic origin and not an inorganic origin. They also point out that various stages of hydrocarbon development have been uncovered, showing the progression from say peat all the way to anthracite coal or from algae to oil. They also argue that small quantities of hydrocarbon can be produced in laboratories, thus strong supporting their stance.

Proponents of the abiotic theory are not without their evidence, however. These scientists point to the fact that oil reservoirs have been shown to refill when left alone for periods of time, something that does not fit with the biotic theory. They also point to the presence of oil on meteors and other bodies that do not and never have supported life. They also suggest that claims about the chemical nature of oil are spurious because we do not know what processes occur deep in the Earth that may cause oil to look as though it came from an organic source when it did not. It is also true that oil can be produced from inorganic material, lending support to this theory.

Consensus
Most scientists support the biotic theory of oil production for a number of reasons. In response to the evidence for the abiotic theory, they say the following.

First, refilling of wells can be explained by two phenomena. One, our ability to extract oil from more difficult environments is constantly increasing. As a result, wells that were once “tapped out” can now be reopened and produce again using new technology. Two, because oil moves and is of different densities, it is true that pumping oil from a well may relieve pressure, which then allows oil trapped in cracks, faults, and other pockets to enter the well over time.

The second reason many scientists doubt the abiotic theory is that its basic tenets don’t seem to be viable. Namely, the idea that rocks at great depth are porous is the opposite of what research shows. Of course, proponents of the theory point to the fact that magma manages to escape, so why not petroleum.

The third and most substantial reason for discounting the abiotic theory is that the chemistry doesn’t add up. First, there doesn’t seem to be enough CO2 below the surface of the Earth to make the formation of oil possible. In scientific terms, the mass balance of the equation is errant. More importantly, however, is the distinct isotopic and biochemical structure of oil, which strongly support and organic origin. For example, helium that is trapped with hydrocarbon deposits (and is an inert gas so it does not react with anything), is of a specific character that means it almost certainly came from the surface of the Earth and not anywhere else.

Sigh. Live in denial all you like. I proved you that you were wrong. You asked if any wells have been found using this theory, I gave them to you. Boy are you stubborn.

NASA and scientists around the world are now starting to agree that the old science is wrong. If you want to use some old dated resource to back up your bullshit POV, go ahead. Science is not done by consensus, and there are no and probably never were any dinosaurs or masses of organic matter on Titan.
Titan's Surface Organics Surpass Oil Reserves on Earth
NASA - Titan s Surface Organics Surpass Oil Reserves on Earth


OMG. Don't tell me. You're one of those, aren't you? You don't know how to think for yourself, right? You probably believe in AGW?

You don't know how to read scientific studies or engage in critical thinking?

Tell me, do you know what the oil window is?

Tell me why oil has been found so far below that window smarty pants.

Do you really think Science is done by, "consensus?" Do you think the there is a "consensus" of scientists in eastern Europe and Russia believe this balderdash you just posted?

Take a look at this "Peak Oil" chart that was in Wikipedia. It gives us a history of oil production, plus what "Western" oil scientists perceive will happen in the future based on their lame understanding of oil science. What do you notice?

Petroleum - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Hell, we already know this chart is bogus, Russia is producing MORE OIL NOW than it did in the past. This chart has production declining sharply between 2010 and 2020. That's the prediction according to your "consensus" modeling of western oil science and "peak" oil, which I am quite sure you subscribe to, yes?
But we already know it's crap. REALITY doesn't conform to Oil company, government, foundation, and University propaganda by the elites.

World crude production 2013 without shale oil is back to 2005 levels

Russia, producing now at 10 mb/d, is still growing at around 100 kb/d but this growth rate is down from 2010 and 2012 years.

The IEA WEO 2013 writes: “Oil production in Russiais approaching the record levels of the Soviet era, but maintaining this trend will be difficult, given the need to combat declines at the giant western Siberian fields that currently produce the bulk of the country’s oil.”

That from a western source. And what about the results from your "consensus" oil science? Pathetic.

Fig 8: The North Sea is in full decline


Yeah, the US and the West getting their "consensus" asses kicked by Russia's Oil science. If we don't wise up and learn how our planet works, they will be holding all the cards. But then, I think the western energy companies already KNOW how and where oil comes from. If people in the west think oil is a finite resource, and not a renewable resource, what can these oil companies do? Yeah, charge more. If the government gets you believe that the CO2 emitted from using it is warming the Earth more than natural mechanisms, what can it do? Yeah, tax you for using it.

If our companies REALLY didn't believe in, or weren't convinced that there wasn't anything at all to the abiotic oil theory, why on earth would they be looking for oil at 18,360 feet (5,600 m) below sea level? You can post all the propaganda you want to convince the ignorant rubes that don't know any better, but I have read a little bit about the theory of oil formation, and where our petroleum companies are drilling. . . things don't add up. They are getting desperate. Have you ever read Hubbert's work?

The planned well was to be drilled to 18,360 feet (5,600 m) below sea level, and was to be plugged and suspended for subsequent completion as a subsea producer.[13] Production casing was being run and cemented at the time of the accident. Once the cementing was complete, it was due to be tested for integrity and a cement plug set to temporarily abandon the well.[15]

Deepwater Horizon explosion - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

According to Western Petroleum Oil theory, the Deep Water Horizon should have produced nothing but natural gas. It was drilled beyond the oil window.
Folks that don't have an inquisitive bone in their body and don't read at all irritate me, they really do. You just go on believing what the media and the "experts" tell you with out doing any serious research, mmmmkay?

Let us remember, that in order to prove the hypothesis of abiotic oil, it is not enough simply to point at sites and say "Here we are producing oil from bedrock" or "Here the reserve is refilling mysteriously." When proving a scientific hypothesis, you must be very careful to disprove any alternative explanations. This is the onus of the abiogenic oil hypothesis.

While everyone is free to form his or her own opinion, when people start talking about a conspiracy of scientists to cover up the supposed abiotic origin of oil, then all an honest scientist can do is to shrug her or his shoulders and say that he or she is not aware of any such conspiracy. In fact, such a contention makes numerous logical errors; based on the logical fallacies listed atFallacies, I can count at least 17 errors of logic frequently made by those who argue that the biological origin of oil is a conspiracy. Such errors of logic are the province of a politician, not a scientist.

No Free Lunch Part 2 If abiotic oil exists where is it

 

[Rexx Taylor]

Here we go again. 100,000 gallons of oil on a beautiful beach, and the 'Conservatives' are just giddy with happiness. It's all natural, you see! I just wish we could transport that 100,000 gallons in each one of their houses and property so they could truly appreciate how 'natural' that truly is.

how about when Al Shartpon takes a shit, I can't smell the difference.

 

[Political Junky]

The natural seepage of crude that happens in ocean is anywhere from 10 to 100 times more than what even the Gulf disaster put out, let alone one tanker.

Natural Oil Spills Surprising Amount Seeps into the Sea
There is effectively an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara where 20 to 25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years. The oil from natural seeps and from man-made spills are both formed from the decay of buried fossil remains that are transformed over millions of years through exposure to heat and pressure.

"One of the natural questions is: What happens to all of this oil?" said study co-author Dave Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara. "So much oil seeps up and floats on the sea surface. It's something we've long wondered. We know some of it will come ashore as tar balls, but it doesn't stick around. And then there are the massive slicks. You can see them, sometimes extending 20 miles [32 kilometers] from the seeps. But what really is the ultimate fate?"

Based on their previous research, Valentine and his co-authors surmised that the oil was sinking "because this oil is heavy to begin with," Valentine said. "It's a good bet that it ends up in the sediments because it's not ending up on land. It's not dissolving in ocean water, so it's almost certain that it is ending up in the sediments."

The team sampled locations around the seeps to see how much oil was leftover after "weathering" — dissolving into the water, evaporating into the air, or being degraded by microbes.

Microbes consume most, but not all, of the compounds in the oil. The next step of the research is to figure out just why that is.

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

Holy shit liberals are ******* stupid asses. BTW, predictably BSNBC is not covering the murder of the white family by the THUG (yeah you know what I mean) and instead they are relentlessly talking about the oil spill.

I wonder why they are relentlessly covering the oil spill. I wonder why they have stopped covering the horrendous murders of the white family, including a child and an Hispanic maid.

******* liberals. Brainwashed away.

The Right can always find someone who agrees with them.

 

[occupied]

The natural seepage of crude that happens in ocean is anywhere from 10 to 100 times more than what even the Gulf disaster put out, let alone one tanker.

Natural Oil Spills Surprising Amount Seeps into the Sea
There is effectively an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara where 20 to 25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years. The oil from natural seeps and from man-made spills are both formed from the decay of buried fossil remains that are transformed over millions of years through exposure to heat and pressure.

"One of the natural questions is: What happens to all of this oil?" said study co-author Dave Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara. "So much oil seeps up and floats on the sea surface. It's something we've long wondered. We know some of it will come ashore as tar balls, but it doesn't stick around. And then there are the massive slicks. You can see them, sometimes extending 20 miles [32 kilometers] from the seeps. But what really is the ultimate fate?"

Based on their previous research, Valentine and his co-authors surmised that the oil was sinking "because this oil is heavy to begin with," Valentine said. "It's a good bet that it ends up in the sediments because it's not ending up on land. It's not dissolving in ocean water, so it's almost certain that it is ending up in the sediments."

The team sampled locations around the seeps to see how much oil was leftover after "weathering" — dissolving into the water, evaporating into the air, or being degraded by microbes.

Microbes consume most, but not all, of the compounds in the oil. The next step of the research is to figure out just why that is.

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

Holy shit liberals are ******* stupid asses. BTW, predictably BSNBC is not covering the murder of the white family by the THUG (yeah you know what I mean) and instead they are relentlessly talking about the oil spill.

I wonder why they are relentlessly covering the oil spill. I wonder why they have stopped covering the horrendous murders of the white family, including a child and an Hispanic maid.

******* liberals. Brainwashed away.

So it's natural... Why don't you have a nice tall glass of it then?

We actually consume quite a bit of petroleum in our food (if you eat processed crap) but it is not even close to being in it's natural form.

 

[Wildman]

Which one? Cruz?

Cruz is one of your candidates ?

 

[World Savior]

This argument is incredibly silly and stupid to begin with. It's like saying, millions of people die of starvation every year, so why worry about gun violence where only 200 people die in a given city in a given year? Any natural oil spill that may occur in the ocean happens away from the shores. Tanker spills and gulf oil pills affects us right here close to our homes. God, when will stupid cons understand basic facts of life?