Oct 24, 2007

from VideoGoogle Website



Lindsey Williams talks about his first hand knowledge of Alaskan oil reserves larger than any on earth. And he talks about how the oil companies and U.S. government won't send it through the pipeline for U.S. citizens to use.





Read "The Energy Non-Crisis" by Lindsey Williams.






Raining Hydrocarbons In The Gulf
by Lisa M. Pinsker
Geotimes - Petroleum Geology
June 2003

from GeoTimes Website

Below the Gulf of Mexico, hydrocarbons flow upward through an intricate network of conduits and reservoirs. They start in thin layers of source rock and, from there, buoyantly rise to the surface. On their way up, the hydrocarbons collect in little rivulets, and create temporary pockets like rain filling a pond. Eventually most escape to the ocean.


And, this is all happening now, not millions and millions of years ago, says Larry Cathles, a chemical geologist at Cornell University.

"We're dealing with this giant flow-through system where the hydrocarbons are generating now, moving through the overlying strata now, building the reservoirs now and spilling out into the ocean now," Cathles says.

He's bringing this new view of an active hydrocarbon cycle to industry, hoping it will lead to larger oil and gas discoveries.


By matching the chemical signatures of the oil and gas with geologic models for the structures below the seafloor, petroleum geologists could tap into reserves larger than the North Sea, says Cathles, who presented his findings at the meeting of the American Chemical Society in New Orleans on March 27, 2003.



This canvas image of the study area shows the top of salt surface (salt domes are spikes) in the Gas Research Institute study area and four areas of detailed study (stratigraphic layers).


The oil fields seen here are Tiger Shoals, South Marsh Island 9 (SMI 9), the South Eugene Island Block 330 area (SEI 330), and Green Canyon 184 area (Jolliet reservoirs).


In this area, 125 kilometers by 200 kilometers, Larry Cathles of Cornell University and his team estimate hydrocarbon reserves larger than those of the North Sea.

Image by Larry Cathles

Cathles and his team estimate that in a study area of about 9,600 square miles off the coast of Louisiana, source rocks a dozen kilometers down have generated as much as 184 billion tons of oil and gas - about 1,000 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalent.

"That's 30 percent more than we humans have consumed over the entire petroleum era," Cathles says. "And that's just this one little postage stamp area; if this is going on worldwide, then there's a lot of hydrocarbons venting out."

According to a 2000 assessment from the Minerals Management Service (MMS), the mean undiscovered, conventionally recoverable resources in the Gulf of Mexico offshore continental shelf are 71 billion barrels of oil equivalent.


But, says Richie Baud of MMS, not all those resources are economically recoverable and they cannot be directly compared to Cathles' numbers, because,

"our assessment only includes those hydrocarbon resources that are conventionally recoverable whereas their study includes unconventionally recoverable resources."

Future MMS assessments, Baud says, may include unconventionally recoverable resources, such as gas hydrates.

Of that huge resource of naturally generated hydrocarbons, Cathles says, more than 70 percent have made their way upward through the vast network of streams and ponds, venting into the ocean, at a rate of about 0.1 ton per year. The escaped hydrocarbons then become food for bacteria, helping to fuel the oceanic food web.


Another 10 percent of the Gulf's total hydrocarbons are hidden in the subsurface, representing about 60 billion barrels of oil and 374 trillion cubic feet of gas that could be extracted. The remaining hydrocarbons, about 20 percent, stay trapped in the source strata.

Driving the venting process is the replacement of deep, carbonate-sourced Jurassic hydrocarbons by shale-sourced, Eocene hydrocarbons.


Determining the ratio between the younger and older hydrocarbons, based on their chemical signatures, is key to understanding the migration paths of the oil and gas and the potential volume waiting to be tapped.

"If the Eocene source matures and its chemical signature is going to be seen near the surface, it's got to displace all that earlier generated hydrocarbon - that's the secret of getting a handle on this number," Cathles says.

Another important key to understanding hydrocarbon migration is "gas washing," Cathles adds. A relatively new process his research team discovered in the Gulf work, gas washing refers to the regular interaction of oil with large amounts of natural gas.


In the northern area of Cathles' study area, he estimates that gas carries off 90 percent of the oil.

Ed Colling, senior staff geologist at ChevronTexaco, says that identifying the depth at which gas washing occurs could be extremely useful in locating deeper oil reserves.

"If you make a discovery, by back tracking the chemistry and seeing where the gas washing occurred, you have the opportunity to find deeper oil," he says.

Using such information in combination with the active hydrocarbon flow model Cathles' team produced and already existing 3-D seismic analyses could substantially improve accuracy in drilling for oil and gas, Colling says.


ChevronTexaco, which funds Cathles' work through the Global Basins Research Network, has been working to integrate the technologies. (Additional funding comes from the Gas Research Institute.)

"All the players are looking for bigger reserves than what's on shore," Colling says.

And deep water changes the business plan. With each well a multibillion dollar investment, the discovery must amount to at least several hundred million barrels of oil and gas for the drilling to be economic.


Chemical signatures and detailed basin models are just more tools to help them decide where to drill, he says.

"A big part of the future of exploration is being able to effectively use chemical information," Cathles says.

Working in an area with more oil by at least a factor of two than the North Sea, he says he hopes that his models will help companies better allocate their resources.


But equally important, Cathles says, is that his work is shifting the way people think about natural hydrocarbon vent systems - from the past to the present.








More Evidence For Sustainable Oil
by Donnie Marlo Otto

from Rense Website

After reading the article posted today on your website "Sustainable Oil", I smell a conspiracy here! An oil industry conspiracy to drive oil prices through the roof by floating the lie that oil is created from organic processes and is in limited supply. (Fossils)

I did a search on Google on the subject using the term "Origins of Petroleum" and found a wealth of info backing up the authors claims..... see below.

The Origins of Oil and Petroleum

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 17:54:57 PDT
From: "Daniel E. Reynolds"

On June 20th, 1996 Col. Prouty stated...

"Oil is often called a 'fossil' fuel; the idea being that it comes from formerly living organisms. This may have been plausible back when oil wells were drilled into the fossil layers of the earth's crust; but today, great quantities of oil are found in deeper wells that are found below the level of any fossils. How could then oil have come from fossils, or decomposed former living matter, if it exists in rock formations far below layers of fossils - the evidence of formerly living organisms? It must not come from living matter at all!"

Two days after I read his statement I encountered the following statement in a newspaper I deeply respect:

"Any geologist will tell you, well, most geologists will tell you that OIL IS CREATED BY THE MAGMA OF THE EARTH. The oil wells in Pennsylvania that were pumped out dry at the turn of the century and capped are now filled with oil again."

(Say what?)

I would be honored if Col Prouty could provide me with just a few additional leads to MORE DOCUMENTATION BACKING UP HIS ASSERTION. A search of the US libraries (via computer) has turned up the name of Professor Thomas Gold who wrote a book entitled: "Power from the Earth".

I tried to contact Marc J. Defant, a Volcanologist who teaches at the University of Southern Florida, but he is in Russia - probably drilling for OIL PRODUCED BY MAGMA!!!

Professor Gold's book has been requested via interlibrary loan.

I certainly believe Col Prouty is telling the truth - as he knows it - personally! Well, I seek the TRUTH - and when I find it - I teach it to all who desire to hear it - as best I can.

Thank you for taking time to read my request. If, Col Prouty can find the time to read it too - and he chooses to share additional information with me - I shall be most grateful.

Daniel E. Reynolds

July 29, 1996

Here is Col. Prouty's response.


Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 21:16:04 -0400

From: Col. L. Fletcher Prouty

To: len_osanic@mindlink.bc.ca

Subject: RE: Reynolds letter

This response is for Daniel E. Reynolds, 29 July 1996 on the subject of "Oil - A renewable and abiotic Fuel?"

Dan, your use of the word "abiotic" is good. As a non-fossil fuel, petroleum has no living antecedent. It contains chemical elements found in living matter; but it is not "formerly living matter." There has not been enough true "formerly living matter" through all of creation to account for the volume of petroleum that has been consumed to date.

My background in this subject goes back to 1943. I was the pilot who flew a U.S. Geological Survey Team from Casablanca to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. We met the Cal. Standard Oil team holding down that lease. Then we went back to Cairo to meet President Roosevelt during the Nov. 1943 "Cairo Conference" with Churchill and Chiang Kai Shek. FDR ordered the immediate construction of an oil refinery there for WW II use. This led to ARAMCO.

During the "Energy Crisis" of the 1970's I was detailed to represent the U.S. Railroad industry as a member of the "Federal Staff Energy Seminar" program started by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, sponsored by Georgetown University. That began in Jan 1974 and continued for four years. It was designed to discuss "the working of the United States national energy system, and new horizons of energy research."


Among the regular attendees were such men as Henry Kissinger and James Schlesinger... most valuable meetings.

During one meeting we took a "Buffet Break" and I was seated with Arthur Kantrowitz of the AVCO Company... "Kantrowitz Labs" near Boston. At the table with us were four young geologists busily talking about Petroleum. At one point one of them made reference to "Petroleum as organic matter, and a fossil fuel." Right out of the Rockefeller bible.

Kantrowitz turned to the geologist beside him and asked,

"Do you really believe that petroleum is a fossil fuel?" The man said, "Certainly" and all four of them joined in.

Kantrowitz listened quietly and then said,

"The deepest fossil ever found has been at about 16,000 feet below sea level; yet we are getting oil from wells drilled to 30,000 and more. How could fossil fuel get down there? If it was once living matter, it had to be on the surface. If it did turn into petroleum, at or near the surface, how could it ever get to such depths? What is heavier Oil or Water?"


Water: so it would go down, not oil. Oil would be on top, if it were "organic" and "lighter."


"Oil is neither."

They all agreed water was heavier, and therefore if there was some crack or other open area for this "Organic matter" to go deep into the magma of Earth, water would have to go first and oil would be left nearer the surface. This is reasonable. Even if we do agree that "magma" is a "crude mixture of minerals or organic matters, in a thin pasty state" this does not make it petroleum, and if it were petroleum it would have stayed near the surface as heavier items, i.e. water seeped below.

My D. Van Nostrand "Scientific Encyclopedia" says,

"Magma is the term for molten material. A natural, complex, liquid, high temperature, silicate solution ancestral to all igneous rocks, both intrusive and effusive. The origin of Magma is not known."

My "Oxford English Dictionary" does not even have the word "Magma."

Some years ago I wrote two or three pages that appeared in the McGraw Hill Yearbook of Science and Technology, i.e. "Railroad Engineering."


Even that source is a bit uncertain about the "origin of petroleum" to wit:

"Less than 1% of the organic matter that originates in or is transported to the marine environment is eventually incorporated into ocean sediment," and,

"Most petroleum is formed during catagenesis (undefined anywhere). If sufficient organic matter is present oceanic sediments that undergo this process are potential petroleum sources. Deeply buried marine organic matter yields mainly oil, whereas land plant material yields mainly gas." (Their idea of "deeply buried" is the "out.")

All this leaves us no where. I still go with Kantrowitz. Since oil is lighter than water, everywhere on Earth, there is no way that petroleum could be an organic, fossil fuel that is created on or near the surface, and penetrate Earth ahead of water. Oil must originate far below and gradually work its way up into well-depth areas accessible to surface drilling. It comes from far below. Therefore, petroleum is not a "Fossil" fuel with a surface or near surface origin.

It was made to be thought a "Fossil" fuel by the Nineteenth oil producers to create the concept that it was of limited supply and therefore extremely valuable. This fits with the "Depletion" allowance philosophical scam.

During one of our C.S.I.S. "International Nights" (1978) the Common Market Energy boss, M. Montibrial of France, told us that while petroleum was being marketed then for $20.00 per barrel or more, it cost no more than 25 cents per barrel at the well-head.


There is our petroleum problem!


We were paying more than $1.50-$1.60 per gallon, one 42nd of a barrel, at that time. Interested folks need to learn more about the Chartered Institute of Transport, and not waste their time with OPEC, the "Cover" story.

Those who pumped the Pennsylvania wells "dry" during the late eighteen hundreds saved what they had for those better days.

L. Fletcher Prouty





To: Col Prouty

Priority: Normal

Dear Len (and Col Prouty),
Stimulated by Col Prouty's assertion that OIL IS A NON-FOSSIL FUEL - I put my roadster in high gear - and went prospecting for some SOLID support! Well, I'm hear to tell you both, I DO BELIEVE I've FOUND IT - in spades!


TITLE: Power from the Earth Deep Earth Gas - Energy for the Future by Thomas Gold

[J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd, London, 1987] ISBN 0-460-04462-1

May I quote a few lines from from the front cover of the book ... a few words ... on, JUST WHO THIS GUY THOMAS GOLD AND WHAT HE HAS TO SAY ON THIS SUBJECT!

"Professor Thomas Gold is one of the great scientific thinkers of our time and in Power from the Earth he puts forward a highly revolutionary and controversial theory.

According to Gold, there are within the Earth virtually limitless stores of energy in the form of gas and oil as yet untapped. This energy is of non-biological origin and there is far more of it in the Earth than geologists have ever imagined - and IT IS ACCESSIBLE!

 - - Score 1 for Col Prouty!

At a time when the future supply of traditional fossil fuels is said to be seriously limited and nuclear energy is becoming ever more suspect, Gold's theory has vast implications for the future of the Earth's energy supplies and is crucial to our understanding of the deep processes that cause earthquakes and volcanoes. His view also clearly has far reaching consequences for the economic and political shape of the world.

 - - Score 2 for Col Prouty!

In the past Professor Gold has explained the nature of pulsars and solar flares, proved that the Earth's poles change position over time, made new discoveries about the workings of the human inner ear, and was the only scientist to predict that Moon's surface consists of dust. His new theory has already been grabbing the attention of the international press and a drilling operation has been started in Sweden on the basis of his idea.

In Power from the Earth Professor Gold puts forward one of the most important scientific ideas of our age."

Well, having read the book, I can say I certainly concur with THAT OPINION. And guess what - Dr. Gold is a friend of Arthur K. of AVCO LABS, etc....!  BULLSEYE!

 - - Score 3 for Col Prouty!

WHO IS THIS MAN....well listen up...

"Professor Thomas Gold, FRS, was born in Austria and educated in Switzerland and England, where he became famous as an astronomer at Cambridge in the post-war years. In 1956 he moved to the United States to become a professor at Harvard. He later became Professor of Astronomy at Cornell University, where he founded and directed the world-famous Center for Radiophysics and Space Research. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and of the United States National Academy of Sciences, and in 1985 was awarded the Gold Medal by the Royal Astronomical Society. He now lives in Cambridge, England and is an Honorary Fellow of Trinity College."

Not bad. Not bad at all.

In fact, I'm honored to have made his acquaintance.

 -  -  Score 4 for Col Prouty


They say, he coined the term magnetosphere in '59! I wonder what HE THINKS is causing those black outs out West??? Falling tree limbs? Now THAT's an interesting hypothesis!


Maybe a bird took out the TWA?


Hey, it's just a theory, just a theory...

Ok... now... I hear some one murmuring

..."Well, if his Ideas are so good, so right, so profound - SURELY THEY'VE MADE THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE... REFEREED JOURNAL ARTICLES... you know... and all that. I mean... if it's REEEEEEAL SCIENCE surely it's been recognized around the world!"

As a matter of fact, it has!

My I introduce you both (if you have not been so introduced prior to this letter) to the work and writings of P.N. Kropotkin...

Ref: Kropotkin, P. N. (1985)

Degassing of the Earth and the Origin of Hydrocarbons,

published in the International Geology Review, 27, 1261-1275


P.N. Kroptkin - who is with the Geological Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow, it says in the header,

"has long been a leading proponent of the INORGANIC ORIGIN OF PETROLEUM, a THEORY which has had a continuous tradition of support in Russia and the Soviet Union and a recent revival in the United States and Western Europe."

Oh, well, better late than never!





Anyone who thinks that Col Prouty or Dr. Gold are spinning some kind of yarn... HAD BEST READ IT - ASAP. WE ARE BEING OFFERED AN IMMORTAL SYMPHONY BY THESE MEN - and I for one LOVE the Sound of THIS MUSIC!

May I share just one quote from the work of P.N. Kroptkin... from page 1265 ... just one of many many AWESOME FACTS IN THIS SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENT...

"Commercial oil pools in the basement rocks have been recorded in 267 oil and gas deposits on different continents. In some, oil is present at a depth of several hundred meters from its surface; in the USSR, such pools are known in a number of areas. A detailed analysis of the geological environment suggests that in some of these deposits, OIL COULD NOT HAVE ENTERED THE POOLS FROM THE OIL-BEARING STRATA OF THE SEDIMENTARY COVER AND, CONSEQUENTLY, PENETRATED FROM BELOW ALONG FAULTS.

Such is the Borolla deposit with pools in the Precambrian granites of the Shillong plateau (eastern India), the Peace River deposit in Western Canada associated with faults in the basin of the Athabasca River which border the zone of the pericratonic tough of the Canadian Shied, and the gigantic deposits of the Hugoton-Panhandle region of the USA and the Augila-Nafoora-Amal deposit in Libya.


In the Hugoton-Panhandle deposit, the upper Paleozoic sediments and the basement rocks contain, in addition to oil, 2000 billion m3 of fuel gases and 10 billion m3 of helium and its concentration in such vast amounts over a small area may be explained, as earlier noted by V. I. Vernadskiy, solely by the migration of gas from a great depth, where faults drain huge volumes of rocks of the lithosphere."



by Toldedo Blade
Petroleum Discussion Update for March 1997

SEATTLE - The public's most widely known piece of geological knowledge - how petroleum and natural-gas deposits formed on Earth - is false, a noted scientist says. Surprisingly, his campaign to rewrite school textbooks and encyclopedias is getting grudging support from some geologists, who acknowledge that petroleum's origins may be dramatically different than what people believe.

Millions of Americans learned in grade school that oil deposits originated in the age of dinosaurs, when vegetation in lush forests was buried and subjected to high heat and pressure.


Those extreme conditions supposedly transformed the hydrocarbons in vegetation into the hydrocarbons of petroleum.

"That's nonsense," snapped Thomas Gold, a scientist at Cornell University. "There's not a shred of evidence from chemistry, geology, or any other science to support it. It has no place in textbooks and school classrooms."

In appearances at the annual meeting of The American Association for the Advancement of Science in Seattle here that ended Thursday, Gold repeatedly challenged geologists to reconsider and reject the conventional theory.

Gold also presented evidence that oil and gas deposits on Earth are primordial. That means they came with the planet. They were part of the original raw material that formed the sun and planets, and deposited deep below Earth's surface when the planet formed 4.5 billion years ago.

Some of the oil gradually oozes upward from these original deposits 100 to 200 miles below the surface and collects where oil drillers can reach it.

In one presentation, Gold described shafts that he and associates drilled in an ancient meteorite impact crater in Sweden. They drilled into a kind of rock that was not sedimentary, not associated with the sediments believed to produce oil deposits.

At a depth of about 4 miles, they encountered a hydrocarbon oil similar to light petroleum that Gold believes was primordial oil. He noted a variety of evidence to support the belief. Gold estimated that this single site contained "more petroleum than all of Saudi Arabia."


With current technology, however, pumping it out would be impossible, he added. Gold contended that many other planets and planetary bodies in the solar system have similar deep deposits of hydrocarbons, which are the stuff of oil and natural gas. Gold argues that a primordial origin for petroleum is the only way to explain its chemical composition.

Petroleum originating from plant matter decayed by bacteria, similar to bacteria that decay backyard garden-compost piles, would resemble a microbial product. Instead, petroleum is chemically similar to a pure hydrocarbon that has been contaminated with microbial material. That contamination, he argues, occurred as petroleum seeped upward through rock now known to contain enormous amounts of bacterial life.


In moving upward, petroleum also collected helium, explaining why oil wells are such a rich source of helium.

"This is the only possible explanation," Gold said. "The association of helium with petroleum has not been accounted for in any other way."

How do geologists respond?

They're beginning to listen, according to Michael Carr, who appeared on a panel where Gold presented his theory. Carr is a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Reston, Va.

"Dr. Gold has some very, very good evidence, especially that involving helium," Carr said. "He certainly is challenging the geological community. There is a debate within the geological community."

Carr said geologists plan to reconsider the conventional theory about petroleum formation at a major meting later in the year.