JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
It is found at that depth on nearly every such drilling. It's a geothermal produced material produced from natural gasses, heat and pressure

But it is made entirely from organic matter - hydrocarbons and other organic material. It's called a "fossil fuel." I can't find any other reference to its composition. ??
 
But it is made entirely from organic matter - hydrocarbons and other organic material. It's called a "fossil fuel." I can't find any other reference to its composition. ??

No it is not and it is NOT a "fossil fuel" that is very childlike. Thinking that has IMO been discredited

One day not that long ago most people thought the earth was flat
 
No it is not and it is NOT a "fossil fuel" that is very childlike thinking that has IMO been discredited

One day not that long ago most people thought the earth was flat

Well, you can lay off the "childlike" crap if you please. I can't find a reference to what you are claiming. Would you please give me some links so I can become edumacated?
 


So the proof is one published peer reviewed article and no hard evidence ever recorded?

There are tons of theories in physics and the earth sciences, this is one of the many that has very little supporting evidence. It does not mean its true, but you can't just believe everything you read as fact.

The previous video linked used the Kola Borehole as evidence to the theory, but there was never oil found in this site and the entire project has since been abandoned.
 
So the proof is one published peer reviewed article and no hard evidence ever recorded?

There are tons of theories in physics and the earth sciences, this is one of the many that has very little supporting evidence. It does not mean its true, but you can't just believe everything you read as fact.

The previous video linked used the Kola Borehole as evidence to the theory, but there was never oil found in this site and the entire project has since been abandoned.

Abandnonable as many less profitable finds have been
 
I already did, back in this thread

So the proof is one published peer reviewed article and no hard evidence ever recorded?

There are tons of theories in physics and the earth sciences, this is one of the many that has very little supporting evidence. It does not mean its true, but you can't just believe everything you read as fact.

The previous video linked used the Kola Borehole as evidence to the theory, but there was never oil found in this site and the entire project has since been abandoned.

Thank you. I just spent an hour reading which makes me no expert. All I can glean is that there is no proof, none has been verified, and that it's a "theory."
 
Thank you. I just spent an hour reading which makes me no expert. All I can glean is that there is no proof, none has been verified, and that it's a "theory."

Facts don't matter Its the new truth look at the experimental theory we all have been participating in on our economy for the last 3.5 yrs feels like 10 end sarcasm.
 
So the proof is one published peer reviewed article and no hard evidence ever recorded?

There are tons of theories in physics and the earth sciences, this is one of the many that has very little supporting evidence. It does not mean its true, but you can't just believe everything you read as fact.

The previous video linked used the Kola Borehole as evidence to the theory, but there was never oil found in this site and the entire project has since been abandoned.

What part of scientists proved is so hard to understand? Google abiotic oil if you want more reading material
 
Thank you. I just spent an hour reading which makes me no expert. All I can glean is that there is no proof, none has been verified, and that it's a "theory."

The wells have been refilling.. that is proof alone IMO but we also have the study i linked plus the fact that the Russians have known it's abiotic for at least 50 years now
 
What part of scientists proved is so hard to understand? Google abiotic oil if you want more reading material

I see three scientists claiming that it exists in one study, and there are a few other studies out there with hypotheses pertaining to the subject. I see some that show possibilities of producing longer hydrocarbon chains with high temps and pressures, but none that have found "massive oil fields" deep underground.

Also wells "refilling" is a misnomer, and is not evidence of oil production.
 
I see three scientists claiming that it exists in one study, and there are a few other studies out there with hypotheses pertaining to the subject. I see some that show possibilities of producing longer hydrocarbon chains with high temps and pressures, but none that have found "massive oil fields" deep underground.

Also wells "refilling" is a misnomer, and is not evidence of oil production.

I get it, you think dinosaurs made jillions of barrels of crude oil and it can be found past 60,000 feet down. It is however as childish scientifically as believing Eve was seduced by a literal snake and then ate an apple
 
I get it, you think dinosaurs made jillions of barrels of crude oil and it can be found past 60,000 feet down. It is however as childish scientifically as believing Eve was seduced by a literal snake and then ate an apple

No, and there has been no discover of oil (in the sense that is found in current reserves) at deep depths.

Oil is made primarily from algae and zooplankton (and in anoxic conditions) and terrestrial plants tend form coal deposits. Abiogenic processes not explain many of the factors regulating where and how oil reserves are formed, yet biogenic theory explains every one of them. Yes it is possible to produce hydrocarbons in abiogenic processes, this has been proven in labs. However the fact that oil reserves are found in sedimentary deposits, the existence of biological compounds in oils, the presence of kerogen deposits, and the lack of any explanation of how oil deep within the earth could possibly be transported to shallower depths all disprove the abiogenic theory of oil production.
 
The deepest finds are the richest. Yes, I know, the earth is still flat

<broken link removed>

Richest? Read the article again; estimates are at 4-6 billion barrels. That puts it near the estimates of the Bakken formation, which is found at about 10,000 feet deep, Alaskan deposits are nearly twice that figure and found around 10,000 feet as well. Yes it contains a lot of oil and its deep but in no way shows that the richest reserves are found deep.

Oh and then there is the estimated 1.4 trillion barrels estimated to be held within US oil shale formations (also which abiogenic theory has no explanation for), at about 5,000 feet depths. Then there are reserves in shallow oil sands....

Yes they have to drill deeper to find new sources since most of the shallower sources have been located.
 

Upcoming Events

Redmond Gun Show
Redmond, OR
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top