Recently I presented here an article on filmmaker Marijn Poels’s new documentary that featured former Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson, who stated that the theories of climate science are “very confused” and that “the models are wrong”.
But perhaps the most fascinating point the film brings up was presented at the very end: A Russian scientist believes and supports how the Earth’s supply of fossil fuels is in fact virtually endless.
The part of interest begins at 1:18:50.
The notion of fossil fuels being scarce, and thus worthy of high prices, was first initiated by the business savvy John D. Rockefeller way back in 1892, where he paid a group of scientists to push hydrocarbon fuel as a limited resource, and so making it more expensive.
Fossil fuels come from below earth’s crust!
However, the Dutch filmmaker Poels meets with Russian scientist Prof. Dr. Vladimir Kutcherov who presents (1:21:00) his “controversial point of view”, that hydrocarbons are generated at the depths of the earth, 100 to 200 km below the surface, “and then migrate into the earth’s crust and form oil and gas deposits”, and thus virtually infinite – should the theory be true.
They are not the remnants of of old fossilized plant life as we are often told.
Kutcherov explains that carbon and hydrogen elements are under high pressure and temperature just beneath the earth’s crust and form into hydro-carbons that seep to the surface of the earth. Image cropped from: The Uncertainty Has Settled (1:22:13).
Kutcherov says his hypothesis is backed by high pressure experiments, and he believes “there are no doubts that hydrocarbons and natural gas particles could be generated at the sphere of our planet at depths of 100 to 200 kilometers.”
Old oil fields come back
And when asked by Poels if that means the supply is inifinite, Kutcherov answers: “Yes, indeed.”
And when asked about wells and oil fields running out, Kutcherov comments:
People take oil very quickly, and if we will come back to this oil field in 50 – 60 years, we could see that new oil came to this oil field.”
The Russian professor adds that this has all been confirmed by samples taken from oil fields in Russia: “After certain time, new oil came in old oil fields and this oil could be only from the depth.”
Prof. Kutcherov and others have published a set of papers in PNAS, Nature Geoscience, Review of Geophysics, where “the possibility of abiogenic synthesis of complex hydrocarbon systems was convincingly demonstrated”.
Kept silent by media
He then says that calculation estimate that man only uses 15% of this and that “we don’t need to find new oil fields or gas fields”. All that is needed is to improve the efficiency with how we use the energy.
According to Prof. Kutcherov, this is all being kept silent by the media.
38 responses to “Wow! Profound If True: Russian Expert Believes Supply Of Hydrocarbon Fossil Fuels Virtually “Infinite””
Nobody can say we do not advance in science.
This is neither new nor is he the only one saying this.
Making oil from magma
D. K. MUIRHEAD, M. DUFFY, N. SCHOFIELD, N. MARK & M. D. ROWE
seen here: http://sp.lyellcollection.org/
One can also check out some other avenues:
Organic synthesis on Mars by electrochemical reduction of CO2
A. Steele, L. G. Benning, R. Wirth, S. Siljeström, M. D. Fries, E. Hauri†, P. G. Conrad,K. Rogers, J. Eigenbrode, A. Schreiber, A. Needham, J. H. Wang, F. M. McCubbin,D. Kilcoyne, Juan Diego Rodriguez Blanco
found here: http://advances.sciencemag.org/
Abiogenic methane is possible under rare circumstances, with iron as catalyst. The methane clathrates on the floor of the Fram Strait are largely abiogenic.
There is NO abiogenic oil, and this is provable several ways. The Swedish goof was drilling mud contamination. The Ukraine ‘discovery’ by Russians was bad overthrust geology.
The Russian professor is simply wrong.
So methane can be produced with iron as catalyst, where iron is abundant in the Earth crust, but it is a rare occurrence?
Because water and carbon isn’t available in abundance either?
How about methane is largely abiogenic and oil then is made out of this methane by bacteria or other living creatures that we have not held in our hands yet?
The Russian professor maybe just has not given us the full picture!
Your outright dismissal of what he says is wrong and has no basis!
Above I have referenced two papers in favour of what the above post is about.
You came with empty hands. Sorry this will not be enough!
“Hydrocarbons are reported to occur in all strata of the Earth’s crust and are supposed to occur in the cosmic space, too. … Oil-and-gas accumulations are traced in all types of rocks and at all stratigraphic levels both onshore and offshore. In fact, we live in a hydrocarbon civilization. Our planet is actually a large overall petroleum polygon. New evidence and facts refuted the myth of “Peak Oil”. Oilfields can be discovered in most unexpected places and conditions. The oil recovery rates depend on various natural, technogenic, and market fluctuations including human factor. A great variety of hydrocarbon sources, both conventional and unconventional, have been discovered and are still being discovered; innovative methods and technologies for hydrocarbon production and utilization are being created; on the whole it shows that Peak Oil is dead. The era of hydrocarbon civilization will never end!“
“Two schools of thought exist about the origin of petroleum: a Western school suggesting that its origin is biogenic resulting from the decay of organic biological matter and stored in sedimentary basins near the Earth’s surface, and a Ukrainian-Russian school proposing that it is abiogenic with an inorganic origin deep within the Earth’s crust dating back to the time of the formation of the Earth. The first suggestion implies a finite resource, whereas the second implies an almost unlimited one. Each school dismisses the other one, leading to interesting discussions and discourses. … An argument for the existence of abiogenic petroleum is that the deepest fossil ever found has been about 16,000 feet below sea level, yet petroleum can be extracted from wells drilled down to 30,000 feet and more. The argument is advanced that if a fossil was once living matter, it had to be on the surface. If it did turn into petroleum, at or near the surface, and since petroleum has a lower density than water it would be expected to rise on top of water not go under it. The counter-argument is that these deep deposits may have resulted from crustal movements or were buried by bolide impacts.”
“Consensus on the creation and origin of petroleum currently held by western science points to ancient microorganisms, plant matter and their subsequent burial over millions of years after which immense pressure and temperature caused by the material collecting on top of them resulted in transformation of solid, liquid and gas formations known as coal, oil and natural gas. This type of theory is referred to as biogenic or Western theory on the creation and origin of oil (Summers, 2015). However, there is a growing number of scientists and researchers challenging such a theory, indicating that organic compounds are extremely common in space rock and atmospheres of other planets in our solar system (Bansal, 2015), suggesting that these compounds must be abiogenic in origin rather than biogenic.”
“The opposing group of abiogenic theory supporters, also called Russian-Ukrainian group explain inorganic origin of oil because of chemical reactions of minerals rather than by decay of organic matter, further deducting that oil is a renewable resource found in immense quantities in presently unreachable depths (Ragheb, 2018). Hydrocarbons are a chemical compound consisting of a combination of hydrogen and carbon atoms, together in great quantities making up the composition of oil (EIA, 2017b).”
“Popularity of biogenic theory can be attributed to the 17th and 18th century scientific understanding of carbon-based compounds and importance of life in their creation (Summers, 2015). Additionally, different types of organic matter and residue was found in various depths and layers of rock formations deep underground, which combinedwith extreme pressure, temperature and other factors could have resulted in huge concentrated stores of oil, as extraction of oil from fossilised organic matter is proved true (Heinberg, 2018).”
“Although it is widely supported fact that oil can be retrieved from fossilised organisms (Penner, 2018) and is conjointly backed by decades of data and technological development, some newer research has proven that part of the chemistry suggested by the abiogenic theory supporters to be surprisingly valid and worth investigating.”
A long time ago, there was an interesting video…..
Fletcher Pouty is a man to listen to.
You gotta love the nonsensical fables put forward by those that never found a barrel of oil in their lives. Pure nonsense based on the occurrence of hydrocarbons in nature from nonorganic sources. Please read even a little bit about source rocks before swallowing bullshit like this piece.
Re Rockefeller pushing the scarcity of oil … he was correct in 1892 when they had no seismic, no understanding of oil migration and source rocks & reservoir rocks, rotary drill rigs were yet to be invented and drilling depths were therefore severely limited etc etc
What is next for this site …. a piece on witches controlling the weather?
Vehemence, mockery, irritation, and personal attack are not arguments and have no place in science.
I have noticed that these tactics are pulled out, disproportionately, whenever the topic is one which especially threatens the power structure and the “scarcity of everything” which fuels their push for the NWO. Coincidence?
We find ores all the time and yet we do not know how most of the deposits came to exist. The claim that finding oil is synonym with, we know where it came from, is wrong and as far as I know the source rock is somewhere down in the crust. There is still something further down from there and all ingredients are there.
Your call on the authority of Rockefeller is by no standards a valid argument in this discussion. If you have nothing more than 1892 science standard or shall I say personal opinion, then what is next on this side is that you will look bad and lets not talk about witches controlling the weather, we are being told mankind can control the climate.
John – what ore deposits are found without knowing the provenance of the ore? Please name a few & educate me.
How about Gold? Can you find a compelling descriptions how nuggets are formed or how veins come to exist?
How about Magnesite?
How about hydrothermal-mineral-deposit of any kind?
I’d say the genesis of these deposits leaves more questions than it answers. Would you not agree?
There’s some pretty amazing stuff under the earth.
I’ll bet even Jules Verne would be surprised.
What is next for this site …. a piece on witches controlling the weather?
We leave that to the warmist agenda scientists and the NGO’s
If this was correct it would make oil the number one renewable energy source.
This comments doesn’t have to be approved, it is for Kenneth’s to see.
Waaay off topic here, but posted this to let Kenneth Richards know that Nick Stokes wrote this today at WUWT:
Nick Stokes November 20, 2018 at 7:16 am Edit
“half a dozen out of hundreds?”
How many have you affirmed? I can’t see that anyone else has looked at a single classification. All we have here is a list of Angus’ opinions – no justification or argument of each case. Every single case I have looked at where he disputes PCF08 is wrong. Even the one or two cases that he features here, and does give an argument for, make no sense.
This is the Kenneth Richard technique, a blizzard of nonsense. You demonstrate a few – O, but there are so many more!
He is trying hard to dispute that there were a lot of people talking about the Cooling of the 1960’s-1970’s.
Many are angered by Nicks insistence that it wasn’t that way.
I’m convinced they really were pushing global cooling in the 70s. See comment here, as well as article it references.
I for one am not “angered” by Stokes’ claims. I’ve come to expect it from hard core warmists.
…a note on the credibility of Nick Stokes.
…and on his integrity.
Tony Heller has a lot about this on his blog. Lots of newspaper articles and official reports. He probably has a Youtube video presentation of the 1970s cooling.
Don’t forget that both James Hansen in his 1982 Science paper and Phil Jones in his 1981 paper accepted that the Northern Hemisphere had cooled by about 0.4 to 0.5 degC between 1940 and early 1970s, and both accepted that there were issues with the quality of data from the Southern Hemisphere.
I frequent Tony’s blog and appreciate it. But as far as the Ice Age scare I really don’t need to be told about it because I was alive and aware and a student at Indiana University at that time and know the claims there never was serious discussion of a coming ice age in the 70’s are revisionist lies.
I was living in Anderson, IN during the Blizzard of 1978. My cousin and I ran around in his jacked up Toyota Land Cruiser rescuing dogs and delivering prescriptions to the snow bound. The phone system for the entire state was restricted to only emergency calls. For only time in the history of Indiana the state police shut down all roads to all be emergency traffic. The entire state was declared a Federal disaster area. The National Guard was called out with their tanks and heavy equipment to dig out trains and heavy trucks on the freeways.
To this day the weather that brought that blizzard holds the record for the lowest non tropical system barometric pressure ever recorded in the continental US.
If something like that happened today the roaches would be out in droves claiming that man caused it.
I taught my first uni courses in meteorology and climatology in 1967. All during the 70’s I made my students read the stories/media and listen to the interviews of “all the experts” about the coming ice age. There was no shortage of materials. I’m guessing that most of my students would now be sceptics of “global warming”. Students were most interested in synoptic approaches and written climate history.
The theory of abiotic oil has not yet evolved into science, not even to the point where credible estimates of the rate of abiotic oil generation have been made. It is a far cry from enabling anyone to estimate whether the rate of creation of abiotic oil permits a rate of exploration that will keep up with the demand for oil.
Yes. As good as it would be to have an unlimited supply of oil, I think we need more proof that it’s even possible than we have to date.
While I do post on it occasionally, I’m basically fishing to see if any respondents have more info than I do on it. Hasn’t happened yet.
That would partially be economic science.
The theory of abiotoc oil genesis is science.
Its admittedly a theory, but if Mars can produce hydro carbons why cant Earth?
That is the crux.
Even if the abiotoc oil theory is correct, if the rate of our extraction means that we are depleting oil reserves at a rate greater than oil reserves are being created, we will eventually run out, and will have to wait a lengthy and inconvenient period of time before extraction of oil can once again be resumed.
What do we do for energy needs in the meantime?
There are other Russian papers as listed in this old (2209) article …
and a 2024 article here …
I’m sure many others can be found if one wishes to look.
This is hardly a new claim and to my knowledge no one has exploited an abiogenic “play” to take advantage of this supposedly inexhaustible resource.
My brother is a petroleum geologist and gets as annoyed with claims of abiogenic petroleum (abiogenic methane is okay) as I do with chemtrails. Some of the purported reservoirs are close to conventional fields that have conventional fossil evidence.
Ah, and what might be this “conventional fossil evidence”?
My experience at a very American petroleum consultancy firm, is that Aramco reservoirs were refilling. Whispered, hushed tones, before Iraq War I, never mind Kuwait diverted drilling.
I believe it is the big secret.
A nice byproduct of oil is Helium, with no biogenic metabolic pathway.
It is “organic” “sustainable” horse apples to claim all biogenic sources.
Or rather a Rockefeller scam.
Even when petroleum is unlimited, remember the stone age did not end for lack of stone. Onward to nuclear, these reservoirs are a feedstuff, a shame to burn it all.
in any case, with “current” technology, only a few percent of the total oil is economically recoverable. so, how much will technology change in the future?
Joe Chang, you say “only a few percent of the total oil is economically recoverable.”
Do you have some evidence for that?
I wd say the Russians have demonstrated the validity of abionic hydrocarbons, by finding oil w this alternate method of searching for it.
The reason that so much oil & gas are found by drilling in the oceans is that drilling is started at an already-deep level on the ocean-floor. Is it so believable that dead dinosaurs and plants ended up so deep?
If you’ve never heard of primary water & have long believed that all water is in the hydrologic cycle, it requires energy to entertain an idea outside your present knowledge. Ditto w abiotic hydrocarbons.
If you fail to entertain oppositional data, how do you expect your knowledge to grow? Rabid disavowal of the unknown isn’t science. It’s mere dogmatism, its antithesis.
William Engdahl, a stunning historian who specializes in oil.
The continents and sea floors are not in the same places as they were in the days of the dinosaurs. So they could have been shallow then and deep now.
Look up “Continental Drift”
( this is a topic of interest to all of us living in places where one plate is diving under or riding over another.. viz California, New Zealand to name but two.)
I have long been open to the idea of oil being abiotic in origin. The idea that oil is all originating from formerly living plants and organisms, that somehow don’t just decay on death as we observe regularly, and somehow the appropriate components of this formerly living mass can migrate way down deep and form oil, really?
But then there are plenty who suggest it takes millions of years to form a fossil. Fossilization is nescecarilly a rapid process, otherwise one does not get a fossil, only decayed matter.
I never use the term “fossil fuel”.
Certainly it is obvious there are many interests for whom the concept of a limited resource is a huge advantage.
There are many subjects worthy of our scepticism, and the oil subject is certainly one for me.
The Gulf of Mexico is always oozing natural gas at the bottom.
There is natural gas naturally forming in the water well, it’s just there. I could dig down a thousand feet, maybe less than that, and probably have natural gas for many years. You will deplete a natural sink, a source, it will happen, but it does take years.
There are two oil fields near here, both keep being developed, old wells are plugged, new wells are drilled and completed. It is what happens. The oil is there, you have to drill for it and pump it out, that is what is done, all of the time. Been happening for a lifetime and more. For sure it will continue to produce oil for many more years. Anybody’s guess.
Oil wells do go dry, pump very little oil after fifty years of pumping the oil from the ground at that one spot. It does happen. There is an oil well in Pennsylvania that has been pumping oil since the day it began to produce oil, about five barrels each year now. Been a good 158 years, just for the novelty of it nowadays.
You need kerogen to create oil. Heat, pressure, and most of all, hydrogen. You have a depth in the lithosphere that has lithofacies that contain organic content, that is where the oil is formed, in the presence of carbon in the organic content, hydrogen, heat and pressure, an oil formation can happen. The oil is forming at depths of 3500 meters, it gets and is hot down there, hot springs become a phenomena too. What was once a sea all of a sudden is covered with more layers of lithosphere, buried. I have seen stumps of petrified trees at probably twenty feet deep, an entire forest covered for miles around, eventually buried by Mother Nature, erosion reveals the what was at one time a forest for miles around, I am positive.
Old kelp, layers, will become old enough by millions of years, buried deep enough, will be the parent material to generate oil.
Down at those depths will be organic material millions of years old. It will form oil under the right conditions. Total organic content, heat, pressure, voila, petroleum.
If it weren’t for the heat from the molten core, humans probably wouldn’t be inhabiting a lot of the earth, it’d be a frozen wasteland. Probably what it would be.
There has to be plant and animal life that existed during geologic timelines, the geologic time scale.
Eventually, the oil will be there, immature systems to mature systems, depending on the age of the oil formation.
Not really going to happen any other way.
How it happened. I tried to explain it the best I can, woefully short, I know. Just rambling, what I see.
Some abiogenic natural gas, probably.
For more information and explained in full, follow the link.
Bakken Petroleum System
What is the evidence for the biogenic origin of oil?
Regardless of origin, the presently discovered but not developed oil & gas would suffice for a century at current usage:
Oslo-based Rystad Energy consulting calculates that the United States has 264 billion barrels of technologically and economically recoverable oil: 8 billion more than Russia and 52 billion more than Saudi Arabia. current consumption rates, IER and EIA (Energy Information Administration) data show that US “proven reserves” (recoverable at today’s prices) total 5 years of oil, 13 years of natural gas and 319 years of coal. As prices rise and technologies improve, “technically recoverable” figures soar to 206 years for oil, 83 years for gas and 597 years for coal. “In-place total resource” estimates send these calculations to an astronomical 536, 510 and 12,849 years respectively!
**3/6/12 http://www.voltairenet.org/article173018.html Maps & facts. Engdahl. The discovery in late 2010 of the huge natural gas bonanza off Israel’s Mediterranean shores triggered other neighboring countries to look more closely at their own waters. The results revealed that the entire eastern Mediterranean is swimming in huge untapped oil and gas reserves. Preliminary exploration has confirmed similarly impressive reserves of gas and oil in the waters off Greece, Turkey, Cyprus and potentially, Syria. Greece: Major geological surveys were made. Preliminary estimates now are that total offshore oil in Greek waters exceeds 22 billion barrels in the Ionian Sea off western Greece and some 4 billion barrels in the northern Aegean Sea.  Greek analyst, Aristotle Vassilakis, “surveys already done that have measured the amount of natural gas estimate it to reach some nine trillion dollars.”Southern Aegean Sea and Cretan Sea are yet to be explored, so the numbers could be significantly higher. Map of conflicting claims, esp Turkey.
Cyprus: Aegean Sea: December 2011 Noble announced a successful well offshore Cyprus in a field estimated to hold at least 7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
Cyprus and Israel governments have mutually agreed on delimitation of their respective economic zones, leaving Turkey in the cold.
2/20/12 http://www.voltairenet.org/article172827.html Engdahl. Mediterranean Sea between Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Israel, Syria and Lebanon suggest that the region could become literally a “new Persian Gulf”
Israel: Leviathan field 16 trillion cubic feet of gas—making it the world’s biggest deep-water gas find in a decade. Tamar field 8.3 trillion. map.
USGS total Eastern Mediterranean alone 345 trillion cu ft gas & 3.4 B barrels oil.
N. Africa Rub Al Khali Basin 426 trillion cu ft gas
Russia West Siberian Basin alone: 643 tcf of gas
2/3/10 http://www.voltairenet.org/article163808.html Engdahl. Haiti & Cuba. Cuba deepwater: 10/2008 Western oil consortium finds Supergiant 20 B barrels– the 12th Supergiant field since 1996. One month later Russia signs Cuban agreement to develop it.
Colin Campbell, geologist spokesman for peak oil claims there’s been no Supergiant since 1976 & all the finds were tiny. He’s a fibber.
Haiti: Haiti & Hispaniola sit atop convergence of 3 tectonic plates. A promising location for hydrocarbons being pushed up from below, according to abiotic theory, which is covered here. 1976 explorations showed oil, but the big oil companies succeeded in blocking exploration. US twice deposed Aristide. They’ve mapped the whole Caribbean for
There were public statements a few years ago by oil giants that they wd not develop any more new finds– due to their concern for AGW. I don’t know if that’s affected behavior or not. However, they’re unlikely — even absent the AGW hoax– to voluntarily create a glut on the market. It’s like the diamond market.
“Today, 20 years have passed since the publication of the ground-breaking Scientific American report . The expected world peak has not arrived, at least in terms of a reduction of the global supply of liquid fuels  and, in general, the concept of peak oil has faded from the mainstream discussion as well as from the scientific literature. ASPO international seems to have disappeared as an active association around 2012–2013, although some national branches of the association still exist. The generally accepted explanation for the fading interest in the concept attributes it to the ‘wrong predictions’ of the date of the peak and, from there, most mainstream reports tend to define the whole concept as wrong and misleading “
If we have a century’s worth of oil & gas, does it matter if it’s “unlimited” or not? Surely in a century, nuclear bugaboos will have been straightened out, or the hidden Tesla inventions reinvented.
Kenneth, I’m delighted to hear that Peak Oil has bitten the dust. Unfortunately I still see Green propagandees writing about how we have to cut back our use anyway due to Peak Oil.
Like AGW it has to be stabbed in the heart several times.
They have been fretting about “peak oil” and the time when that finite resource would be used up longer than any of us have been alive. Even before the first automobiles. The first oil well in the United States was established in 1859 in Pennsylvania. In 1879 what is now known as the United States Geological Survey (USGS) was legislated into existence. The search for oil and determination of the actual reserves of oil and mineral natural resources was the reason for it’s founding. Everything else it does now like hydrology was added later.
Take the time to check out this timeline of predictions of peak oil and the time when the world would use all it’s oil up.
It’s been obvious for a very long time that oil is not from fossils.