« Open Thread 22 July 2015 | Main | Afghan Buzkashi (FB Ali) »

23 July 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Dr. JF Kenney accused Thomas Gold, who spoke Russian, of committing plagiarism with the Russian abiotic discoveries. Somewhere on this thread I link to Kenney's Introduction site. You can read further from there.


You need to watch Joe Bastardi's meteorological report every Saturday on the homepage of weatherbell.com. I literally--for real--wake up every Saturday morning anticipating it. Its my Saturday morning high. I don't understand meteorological lingo but after 18 months I am getting the hang of it. You will discover why the west coast is experiencing the weather it has. Some weeks better than others. It's a homespun job, but highly recommended.


Az. has been in SU since 20s. The oil there was developed by the Nobels and others in 19th century. It was the objective of Operation Blue in WW2. So it is not clear what you mean by they didn't know it in 1945?

Babak Makkinejad

No, that is not right. Those oil wells wee being exploited by the Noble family earlier in the 19-th century.



different clue


Just because you never thought of that one before doesn't mean that no one else ever thought of that one before. Millions of people down the millenia have thought of that one and have refined versions of it over and over again.

Given the fact that you never thought of that one before, here is an article by a strictly private-sector solar energy engineer-bussinessman named Steve Baer which could help you think of that one for the first time. Here is the link, if you think you can handle it.

different clue

Colonel Lang,

When the Shawnee ruled that land, did they practice periodic burning and other buffalo/deer habitat maintainance methods? Are there any records of that? (I had read sketchily about periodic burning by other Indian Nations in other parts of the continent. I have also wondered whether the huge extent of the Chestnut Forest at the time of exploration might also have been due to burning. The Chestnut is apparently a fire-tolerant species which could grow back from the roots if burned down in fires which burned down everything else too. And not everything else could grow back . . . )


Babak and rjj, I was wrong about the USSR "zero" supply, and you are right.

From JF Kenney's Intro to the abiotic oil theory. More at http://www.gasresources.net/introduction.htm

"The impetus for development of modern petroleum science came shortly after the end of World War II, and was impelled by recognition by the government of the (then) U.S.S.R. of the crucial necessity of petroleum in modern warfare. In 1947, the U.S.S.R. had (as its petroleum “experts” then estimated) very limited petroleum reserves, of which the largest were the oil fields in the region of the Abseron peninsula, near the Caspian city Baku in the present country of Azerbaijan. At that time, the oil fields near Baku were considered to be “depleting” and “nearing exhaustion.” During World War II, the Soviets had occupied the two northern provinces of Iran; in 1946, the British government had forced them out. By 1947, the Soviets realized that the American, British, and French were not going to allow them to operate in the middle east, nor in the petroleum producing areas of Africa, nor Indonesia, nor Burma, nor Malaysia, nor anywhere in the far east, nor in Latin America. The government of the Soviet Union recognized then that new petroleum reserves would have to be discovered and developed within the U.S.S.R.

The government of the Soviet Union initiated a “Manhattan Project” type program, which was given the highest priority to study every aspect of petroleum, to determine its origins and how petroleum reserves are generated, and to ascertain what might be the most effective strategies for petroleum exploration. At that time, Russia benefited from the excellent educational system which had been introduced after the 1917 revolution. The Russian petroleum community had then almost two generations of highly educated, scientifically competent men and women, ready to take up the problem of petroleum origins. Modern Russian petroleum science followed within five years.

In 1951, the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins was first enunciated by Nikolai A. Kudryavtsev at the All-Union petroleum geology congress. Kudryavtsev analyzed the hypothesis of a biological origin of petroleum, and pointed out the failures of the claims then commonly put forth to support that hypothesis. Kudryavtsev was soon joined by numerous other Russian and Ukrainian geologists, among the first of whom were P. N. Kropotkin, K. A. Shakhvarstova, G. N. Dolenko, V. F. Linetskii, V. B. Porfir’yev, and K. A. Anikiev."


Once again, I do not have a problem with you source, however, it does not change the fact that Laharrere is considerdered very good in estimating the reserves, even when we may face an general issue with "fawlty" methodology. Who has better numbers? :-)

The elephant in the room IMHO: We have a number (reserves) that depends on price and we have some external factors like carrying capacity of economies on one hand and high costs of unconventional production on the other, these both affect the maximum affordable price and the minimum costs of prodcution of crude and therefore influenec the reserves. :-)

For me reserves without clear definition of prive level are not very useful numbers. If the oil becomes to expensive and is replaced by efficiency or other forms of energy we may have huge reserves which are not produced.


If you actually read a littel bit about the situation in Europe, here Skandinavia is the interesting region, you would know that the physical limits and options are very clear.

As long as REs plus net integration is cheaper than alternatives like new NPPs (plus net integration) or BAU the economic picture is quite obvious, you only have to follow the money.

Whether people in Iran like NPPS or not does not change the reality and is quite irrelvant for Europe. :-)


I read "energy" papers and I understand that some of the stuff is nonsense. :-)

I have hard data on Germany, which if we look at the natural resources insolation and avarage wind speed must be considered sub avarage.

Hence, if something physically works in Germany it could work much easier in other countries. :-)

Do you really deny that only a few percent of the sun light that reaches land masses on earth is sufficient to cover our energy demand?


Abiotic oil is as explanation for the currently produced oil nonsense.

1) The distribution of stable isotopes in non-active parts of hydrocarbons is similar to what we find in plants, i.e. id affected by an isotope effect.

2) The product and chain length distribution is in very good agreement with degradation of biological materials, not with an abiotic reaction.

3) The observation of many pure enatiomeric compounds in crude contradicts abiotic model.


The low interest in the abiotic theory is IMHO quite understandable, the theory was developed by people who do not know much about biochemistry and natural product chemistry and are as result ignored because some of the issues are known for decades.

It would be the job of the proponents of abiotic theory to present a comprehensive discussion of the biochemical data which clearly contradict the abiotic model.

Sorry, only because there are many papers in Russian non-chemical journals it does not mean there is proof of something. If there were good data, it would be easy to sell them in righ rank international chemical journals.


You would have a point if chemists supported the theory.

Only a bunch of geologists without the essential chemicla knowledge and lab equipment do not survive a good scientific discussion. :-)



When the Indians were in charge of the Shenandoah Valley they burned off new growth every year to keep it in grass for the ungulates. pl


Isn't that also how Plains Indians sustained peak bison?



I believe that the Great Plains are naturally in grass. The Shenandoah Valley is naturally in trees. pl

Babak Makkinejad

Go ahead, make my day.

I do not like NPP.

I prefer higher temperature reactors.


Sorry for the delay in replying.
"You are guessing" Am I?
Is it a guess if the currently accepted theory on oil formation is that the bulk was formed 50 to 250 million years ago and proven reserves will last about 50. I have no doubt more reserves will be found but that they will become increasingly scarce and costly to extract and their total volume is finite. There are no obviously scalable alternatives. Fusion might be a long term solution but even if ITER announced a breakthrough tomorrow I assume role-out of power stations to the point of taking over the key role in energy production would not be achieved before oil supplies become problematic.
"What do you suggest?" I don't have a solution nor have I seen anyone offer one that looked look like it might work which is what worries me. To stop denying that the oil that came with the planet is an inexhaustible supply we are not extracting at an unsustainable rate would be a good start though.


Not entirely "natural," Some anthropogenic input needed to maintain grasslands. Was appreciating the differences among woodlands driving up Shenandoah Valley to Maine. Have chosen as home one of the microclimate pockets that feels like home with lots of very old hardwoods - including fat, fat oaks. Decided it has something to do with "phantom roots" (akin to phantom limb).


The parent material of most prairie soil was distributed during the last glacial advance that began about 110,000 years ago. The glaciers expanding southward scraped the landscape, picking up geologic material and leveling the terrain. As the glaciers retreated about 10,000 years ago, it deposited this material in the form of till. Wind based loess deposits also form an important parent material for prairie soils.[2]
Tallgrass Prairie evolved over tens of thousands of years with the disturbances of grazing and fire. Native ungulates such as bison, elk, and white-tailed deer, roamed the expansive, diverse, plentiful grassland before European colonization of the Americas.[3] For 10,000-20,000 years native people used fire annually as a tool to assist in hunting, transportation and safety.[4] Evidence of ignition sources of fire in the tallgrass prairie are overwhelmingly human as opposed to lightning.[5] Humans, and grazing animals, were active participants in the process of prairie formation and the establishment of the diversity of graminoid and forbs species. Fire has the effect on prairies of removing trees, clearing dead plant matter, and changing the availability of certain nutrients in the soil from the ash produced. Fire kills the vascular tissue of trees, but not prairie, as up to 75% (depending on the species) of the total plant biomass is below the soil surface and will re-grow from its deep (up to 6 feet) roots. Without disturbance, trees will encroach on a grassland, cast shade, which suppresses the understory. Prairie and widely spaced oak trees evolved to coexist in the oak savanna ecosystem.[6]


Any data after Stalin's death?

Remember Lysenkoism.


The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad