$cientism and Hydrocarbon reality. Hydrocarbons are NOT ‘Fossil Fuels’. Rocks don't make fuels (they do make fools of those who believe they do).

More junk science from the cult of $cience and its corporate partners. Oil is abiotic, made at the core and mantle. It is renewable. It is cheap. It is Gaia friendly.

(https://politicallyincorrecthumor.com/meme-galleries/climate-change-meme-gallery/)

The Non-Renewable Myth

Hydrocarbons are another example of $cientism and the distortion of reality which emanates from the complex of corporations, governments, regulators, and various interest groups who benefit from the paradigm of convincing the peasants that plentiful hydrocarbon energy and fuel ‘evolves over time’ from dead animals and plants and is scarce and ‘toxic’.  For 120 years we have been mis-educated on this issue by ‘experts’ and ‘the science’.  Believing that plentiful energy is non-renewable is an essential propaganda claim in the war on reality and to eliminate hydrocarbon energy to save Gaia. 

In the Darwinian-Big Bangian-dogma of endless time and uniformitarian deposition, we are taught from childhood that petrol, coal and natural gas are created by fossils and the remains of animals and plants.  Softly and slowly over hundreds of millions of years, this grinding magical process has existed.  No cataclysms, no changes, with the ‘climate’ set at 21C with a slight breeze from the West.  Uniformity and the unnatural law of ‘stuff happens’.  From these never-observed, never proven long-age processes, hydrocarbon abundance is somehow generated.

Where did the term ‘Fossil Fuel’ come from?

In 1892 there was a purported meeting held in Geneva by a group of scientists to define what an organic substance meant.  The outcome was that an organic substance was defined to be a composition of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon. If the substance was alive it was ‘biotic’ or with life. A-biotic (or ‘without life’) is the opposite in which the subtance may be include hydrogen, oxygen, or carbon, but does not display life or biotic existence.

A theory has been forwarded that the Rockefeller’s, who owned the oil behemoth Standard Oil, funded an entourage of ‘scientists’ who attended this meeting and persuaded the convention to accept oil as an organic substance, or material from once-living and now dead organic creatures.  From this deception, so the claim goes, the Rockefeller energy cartel could present oil as a scarce resource to inflate and control the price of oil. 

It is unlikely that this story is true, and it might be one of the few cases where the fake gestapo ‘Fact Checkers’ are right.  ‘Fossil fuels’ as a term of ignorance and usage may have existed as far back as the 18^th century, created by Caspar Neumann in 1759 in his book, ‘The Chemical Works’.  ‘Fossils’ as a body of analytical work and investigation was only developed in the 18^th century so this is plausible. 

However, the important point is about the term ‘fossil fuels’ itself and not who invented it.  Here is yet another example, where we have modern metaphysics and ‘scientific’ gospel based on 18^th century dogma with no querulous or curious update to the original.  A 250-year-old term is just taken for granted as ‘scientific’.  So much for the ‘evolution’ of intelligence.

Fossil Fuel Defined by $cientism

The official definition of ‘Fossil Fuels’ is the following:

any of a class of hydrocarbon-containing materials of biological origin occurring within Earth’s crust that can be used as a source of energy.

Fossil fuels include coal, petroleum, natural gas, oil shales, bitumens, tar sands, and heavy oils. All contain carbon and were formed as a result of geologic processes acting on the remains of organic matter produced by photosynthesis, a process that began in the Archean Eon (4.0 billion to 2.5 billion years ago)

This definition is not even testable and thus is not scientific.  Witness the following obfuscation:  ‘Geological processes ‘acting’ on the ‘remains’ of dead animals, trees, plants and flora? 

What processes are we discussing here?  Why and how would a decomposing plant or tree turn into coal or natural gas?  Compost does not create hydrocarbon energy.  We are told that peat fields and swamps, over long periods of time, under great pressure and due to enzymic reactions, decompose the compost into coal and oil.  This is utter nonsense and sophistry.  Not a single experiment, observation or replicable process exists or has existed, to support this official narrative of how hydrocarbon energy is generated.  Many of us have had compost heaps and dumps and never once, was oil, coal or gas created.  Instead, a type of humus or rich soil is produced.  The defenders of the corrupt narrative will of course invoke one of their Trinitarian Gods – Time – to explain the creation of hydrocarbon energy from a compost. 

From Algae to Diesel?

From the definition above, the observant individual notices the complete absence of fossils.  An elaboration is required from the sophists who call themselves ‘the science’: 

“Most of the fossil fuel material we use today comes from algae, bacteria, and plants—some of which date back even before the Devonian Period, 419.2 million to 358.9 million years ago.”

When you see such specific numbers from people whose C14 dating can give a future age (ie negative C14), we can emit a chuckle.  As if these people know anything beyond a few thousand years.  They do however admit that fossils are not involved.

Although these carbon compounds are very old, they are not fossils. Although fossils can be the actual remains and traces of ancient plants and animals, they also might be mere impressions made in the rock.

Thanks ‘Science’.  The huge brains admit that our hydrocarbon fuel has nothing to do with fossils.  Apparently 400-million-year-old decomposed algae is filling your vehicles’ tank, calibrated by the ‘science’ to be 419.2 (not 419.1, not 418.67) million years ago.  Of course, we must believe that energy systems, complex convection systems, and equilibrium’s last millions and billions of years.  Teacher say.  Science say. 

A question the curious might ask would be: 

‘Where does the plentiful, self-replenishing, omnipresent seams, strands, lakes, and deposits of oil, gas, and coal, saturating the planet in almost every location, really come from? 

Are we to believe that the endless sources of hydrocarbon energy come from ‘Devonian Era’ algae?  Is that even sensible? 

Consider coal.  All over the world we can see vertical coal shafts running at strange angles, for hundreds of feet or more, in many cases full of detritus, petrified trees, and even human artefacts.  Such formations are deposited and detailed and we have probably uncovered only a small fraction of such formations.  These can only be created by catastrophic events.  Uniformity cannot explain coal creation, and neither can it explain hydrocarbon fuels, which like coal, exist in such vast quantities that it defies uniformitarian creation myths. 

Complexity

Petroleum, composed of hydrocarbons and heteroatomic molecules (not carbon, not hydrogen), is the most complex mixture occurring in nature.  Apparently, this complexity is arrived at by uniformitarian-stuff happens and chance.  For mainstream ‘Science’ the creation of Petroleum must include the following miracles:

(1)  The magical formation of organic-rich sediments (they name this as a source ‘rock’ though this formation is just a layer)

a.     (why, how, where would they form?)

(2)  These sediments are buried to a sufficient depth (how, why?) by overburden rock (what?) so that petroleum is generated and expelled

a.     (how is organic matter turned into petroleum, what is the process?),

(3)  Some ‘pathways’ (permeable strata and faults) allow the petroleum to ‘migrate’,

a.     (how does a crushed liquid ‘migrate’ what propels it, is it gravity alone and where does it migrate to?)

(4)  Reservoir rocks which are sufficiently porous and permeable allow an accumulation of this material,

a.     (where do these magically appear from, how are they formed, why are they in the same area at the same time?)

(5)  Somehow there is apparently a ‘seal rock’ (low permeability) or other ‘structures’ which contain and retain the petroleum

a.     (created how, when, and why does it close over a ‘reservoir’?)

All of these miracles apparently arrive in a uniformitarian, unchanging, never-cataclysmic Earth history.  Gentle, slow, and regal. 

In the official fantasy-narrative how many Gods of the Gaps are there?  The above is declared the ‘Science’ but looks more like a gospel of faith.  How would the many assumptions in the above 5 steps comport with reality?  What is the chance that any of the steps would occur naturally?  What are the chances that all the steps occurred all over the world at the same time in a uniformitarian model?  Next to zero.  Do we see any evidence of these processes in our observational reality today?  No.  Can any of this be replicated in an experiment.  No. 

The 2 Theories

There are 2 main theories to explain the formation of hydrocarbon energy based on the miraculous steps above.  The mainstream ‘science’-view looks only at:  1-biogenic (animal life) and 2-abiogenic (chemical).  There is a third theory, much derided but which satisfies Occam’s razor and that is abiotic. 

Biogenic: is where oil is generated by the thermal conversion of sedimentary organic matter derived from living organisms.  Most geochemists support this theory.  An example is oil creation from sediments of dead algae on the ocean or sea floors (see objections above).

Abiogenic: where oil is formed from minerals, in a catalysed reaction of nonbiological carbon, deep within the Earth.  Most geochemists reject this theory. 

Theory 3:  Abiotic formation

There is a third theory developed over 100 years by Russian scientists in the energy sector.  Western audiences have for the most part never heard of these endeavours.  Some of these insights and proofs are however making headway in the ‘West’.  The abiotic theory of hydrocarbon manufacture as a natural process is supported by what is observed and conforms to Occam’s razor around explanatory models and common sense.  This theory is far more likely to explain why hydrocarbon energy is so plentiful.

Abiotic energy

The abiotic theory argues that hydrocarbons are naturally produced on a continual basis throughout the solar system, including within the mantle of the earth. Hydrocarbon energy is thus a-biotic, or unrelated to carbon life forms. The theory posits that hydrocarbon energy ‘seeps up’ through bedrock cracks to be deposited in sedimentary rock.  This model makes more sense than the standard model of many Gods and miracles outlined above.  Traditional petrogeologists have confused the layers of rocks as the creator of energy and the depository of hydrocarbons.  Rocks cannot manufacture anything. 

Some proofs

In 2005 it was reported that a scientific submarine descended some 2100 feet below sea level along the mid-Atlantic ridge in the centre of the Atlantic Ocean.  The team in the submarine collected liquid bubbling up from sea vents on the ocean floor. They found hydrocarbons containing carbon-13 isotopes that appeared to be formed from the mantle of the Earth, rather than from biological material settled on the ocean floor.  This single observation completely disproves the official narrative around fossil fuels.  It was not widely reported for obvious reasons.  It did however confirm some 80 years of Russian research on abiotic energy generation. 

In (2009) Researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm proved that fossils from animals and plants were unnecessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated.

The findings are revolutionary since this means, on the one hand, that it will be much easier to find these sources of energy and, on the other hand, that they can be found all over the globe “Using our research we can even say where oil could be found in Sweden,” says Vladimir Kutcherov, a professor at the Division of Energy Technology at KTH.

In 2008 from its ‘Cassini’ mission, NASA discovered that the Saturn moon ‘Titan’ is saturated with hydrocarbon liquid. More energy fuel exists on Titan than within the Earth (based on estimates, which may well be grossly inaccurate given we don’t really know how much hydrocarbon fuel exists on Earth). In any event, how did such quantities of hydrocarbon energy form on a moon, 1.3 billion kilometers from the Earth; with an immature, life killing atmosphere of nitrogen and methane, devoid of peat moss, algae or swamps, which pace ‘the science’, are slowly swallowed up by soil formation and crushed by rock layers to produce fuel?

"Titan is just covered in carbon-bearing material—it’s a giant factory of organic chemicals," said Lorenz. “This vast carbon inventory is an important window into the geology and climate history of Titan.”

At a balmy minus 179º C , Titan is a far cry from Earth. Instead of water, liquid hydrocarbons in the form of methane and ethane are present on the moon's surface, and tholins probably make up its dunes. The term ‘tholins’ was coined by Carl Sagan in 1979 to describe the complex organic molecules at the heart of prebiotic chemistry.”

Such observations support the idea that abiotic energy production occurs throughout the universe. They do not and cannot support an endless uniformitarian world view on energy creation. On Earth, hydrocarbon liquid is the 2nd most plentiful substance after water. On Titan it constitutes the primary liquid matter. How?

Abiotic formation can thus be explained, observed and demonstrated.  The KTH study and many other related observations and reports make it clear that the process to generate hydrocarbons, must involve high pressure and deep heat which will only occur continuously and naturally in the inner layers of the earth.  These ‘smelting furnaces’ create hydrocarbon, the primary component in oil and natural gas.  This also means that these naturally occurring liquids are not toxic, not a polluting chemical and given the carbon cycle and creation of Co2 from natural processes, are a fundamental part of our complex climate and eco-system. 

Chemically these studies show:

(1)  The synthesis of complex organic molecules with C-C (carbon) bonds is possible under conditions of reduced activity of oxygen (earth’s crust, mantle)

(2)  Simulations of the C-O-H-Fe system (carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron) exists at the core-mantle boundary or CMB

(3)  H2O and CO2 delivered to the CMB by subducting slabs (tectonic shifts downwards), provide a source for hydrogen and carbon

(4)  The mixture of H2O and CO2 subjected to high pressure (130 GPa) and temperature (4000 to 4500 K) does not lead to synthesis of complex hydrocarbons, however,

(5)  When Fe is added to the system, C-C bonds emerge (the mantle and core abounds in Iron)

This means that the formation of a hydrocarbon mixture is highly probable under reducing conditions at the core-mantle boundary.  Such a formation supports the explanation of abiotic oil formation and the abundance of oil and gas.  It is a much better and more rationale approach than the narrative’s God-of-many-Gaps explanation, outlined above.  It also means that oil and gas are self-generating and are in no danger of running out.  Hydrocarbon based energy is therefore naturally renewable to the point of being unlimited in quantity and spatial coverage.

We also know that many hydrocarbon deposits lie 10 or more kilometres below the surface.  There is no way that ‘gravity’ can pull down decomposed algae or peat swamps such a distance.  There is no uniformitarian process to account for the rich and deep deposits of hydrocarbon energy all over the world, many kilometres deep in Mother Gaia.  

Bottom Line

Fossils are formed by a catastrophic and immediate flood, as water and sand mix together to form concrete encasing animal and flora caught in the violence and destruction.  Fossils are never formed from uniformitarian processes.  Fossils are concretised rocks and by definition do not contain energy.  Scientifically, we know that the term ‘Fossils Fuels’ is a nonsense and cannot explain hydrocarbon energy.

We are left with 2 theories to explain oil and gas.  One is the uniformitarian biogenic, non-renewable, swamp-peat bog-Devonian-algae model.  A second is the abiotic manufacture from within the Earth’s mantle boundary which floods the layers of sedimentary and overhang rock with fluid.  There is only one theory that has been proven and which makes scientific and common sense. 

The reason the abiotic theory is suppressed by $cientism is the implicit refutation and contradiction of much of geological theory, renewable energy dogma and Klimat Khange-cults.  It would also neuter the never-ending series of wars over energy, which will only escalate as the non-green policies of the Net Zero and Green Fascists fail and modern societies finally come to their senses that only hydrocarbon energy and technology can power a modern economy. 

If more people knew the reality of hydrocarbon generation, it would upend many belief systems and have a great impact on society and politics. 

Few online resources deal with this topic honestly.  Hydrocarbon energy is self-generating, certainly abundant and definitely non-toxic.  The bottom line is that ‘Fossil Fuels’ with all the attendant propaganda used for various objectives, is false and another example of $cientism. 

Alternative Sources

Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and The Politics of Oil (2006)

by Jerome R. Corsi, Craig R. Smith

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.

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.

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.