Endless oil–Russian research has shown that the Earth doesn’t need dinosaurs to produce oil.

Endless oilCreated 09/14/2009 – 13:13

Lawrence Solomon
12 Sep 2009
Financial Post

Russian research has shown that the Earth doesn’t need dinosaurs to produce oil.

Do dead dinosaurs fuel our cars? The assumption that they do, along with other dead matter thought to have formed what are known as fossil fuels, has been an article of faith for centuries. Our geologists are taught fossil fuel theory in our schools; our energy companies search for fossil fuels by divining where the dinosaurs lay down and died. Sooner or later, we will run out of liquefied dinosaurs and be forced to turn to either nuclear or renewable fuels, virtually everyone believes.

Except in Russia and Ukraine. What is to us a matter of scientific certainty is by no means accepted there. Many Russians and Ukrainians — no slouches in the hard sciences — have since the 1950s held that oil does not come exclusively, or even partly, from dinosaurs but is formed below the Earth’s 25-mile deep crust. This theory — first espoused in 1877 by Dmitri Mendeleev, who also developed the periodic table — was rejected by geologists of the day because he postulated that the Earth’s crust had deep faults, an idea then considered absurd. Mendeleev wouldn’t be vindicated by his countrymen until after the Second World War when the then-Soviet Union, shut out of the Middle East and with scant petroleum reserves of its own, embarked on a crash program to develop a petroleum industry that would allow it to fend off the military and economic challenges posed by the West.

Today, Russians laugh at our peak oil theories as they explore, and find, the bounty in the bowels of the Earth. Russia’s reserves have been climbing steadily — according to BP’s annual survey, they stood at 45 billion barrels in 2001, 69 billion barrels in 2004, and 80 billion barrels of late, making Russia an oil superpower that this year produced more oil than Saudi Arabia. Some oil auditing firms estimate Russia’s reserves at up to 200 billion barrels. Despite Russia’s success in exploration, most of those in the west who have known about the Russian-Ukrainian theories have dismissed them as beyond the Pale. This week, the Russian Pale can be found awfully close to home.

In a study published in Nature Geoscience, researchers from the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Sweden and the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington joined colleagues at the Lomonosov Moscow State Academy of Fine Chemical Technology in publishing evidence that hydrocarbons can be produced 40 to 95 miles beneath the surface of the Earth. At these depths — in what’s known as Earth’s Upper Mantle — high temperatures and intense pressures combine to generate hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbons then migrate toward the surface of the Earth through fissures in the Earth’s crust, sometimes feeding existing pools of oil, sometimes creating entirely new ones. According to Sweden’s Royal Institute, “fossils of animals and plants are not necessary to generate raw oil and natural gas. This result is extremely radical as it means that it will be much easier to find these energy sources and that they may be located all over the world.”

The Institute’s lead author, Vladimir Kutcherov, Professor at the KTH Department of Energy Technology, is even more brash at the implications of his findings: “With the help of our research we even know where oil could be found in Sweden!” he delights. Kutcherov’s technique involves dividing the world into a fine-meshed grid that maps cracks (or migration channels) under the Earth’s crust, through which the hydrocarbons can bubble up to the surface. His advice: Drill where the cracks meet. Doing this, he predicts, will dramatically reduce the likelihood of dry wells. Kutcherov expects the success rate of drillers to more than triple, from 20% to 70%, saving billions in exploration costs while opening up vast new areas of the planet — most of which has never been deemed to have promise — to exploration.

The Nature study follows Kutcherov’s previous work, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that created hydrocarbons out of water, calcium carbonate and iron — products in the Earth’s mantle. By superheating his ingredients in a pressure chamber at 30,000 times atmospheric pressure, simulating the conditions in the Earth’s mantle, Kutcherov’s alchemy converted 1.5% of his concoction into hydrocarbons — gases such as methane as well as components of heavier oils. The implication of this research, which suggests that hydrocarbons are continuously generated through natural processes? Petroleum is a sustainable resource that will last as long as Planet Earth.


Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming [1] hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.

Read the sources for this column.  [2]

Is there an endless supply of oil?

Is there an endless supply of oil?

Russ Vaughn

In doing some research on my modest energy investments, I came across a link that led me to a website called Energy Probe where I discovered a very interesting article entitled Endless Oil by Canadian environmentalist, Lawrence Solomon, which if true, could cause anti-fossil fuel Greens to turn hotly red.

According to Solomon, there is new evidence to support Russian and Ukranian geological scientists who are convinced that the time-honored and universally-taught belief that petroleum deposits are derived exclusively from long-dead plants and dinosaurs is about as scientifically sound as the concept of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Rather, they say, hydrocarbons may be developed in an abiotic process by the high temperatures and huge pressures existing far below the earth’s 25 mile deep mantle, some 40 to 95 miles beneath our feet. This theory, first proposed in 1877 by Mendeleev, inventor of the periodic table (which should vouch for his scientific credentials) has been widely accepted by Russian/Ukranian earth scientists since the early 1950’s. According to this abiogenic theory, existing pools of petroleum are being continually replenished and new ones being created as newly-formed hydrocarbons migrate upward through cracks in the mantle.

While the concept has had little past support in the West, an article published in the July issue of Nature Geoscience, co-authored by the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution in Washington, the  Lomonosov State Academy of Fine Chemical Technology in Moscow and the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, reports research that indicates this process is scientifically viable.

In other words, the world itself may be the world’s largest oil producer in an ongoing natural process. If these scientists are right, rather than running out of oil as the doomsayers loudly proclaim, we may have an endless supply.

Russ Vaughn

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/is_there_an_endless_supply_of.html at December 02, 2009 – 10:39:05 AM EST

Who’s afraid of conservative American women?

Who’s afraid of conservative American women?

By Michelle Malkin  •  November 16, 2009 11:17 AM

Female Conservative Derangement Syndrome has spread across the pond. The Observer of London spotlights the “extreme” women in American politics that give them the willies.


She is a striking brunette with a decidedly outspoken attitude. She lambasts President Barack Obama as a socialist and has become the darling of America’s right-wing activists who flock to her appearances. She is hated by liberals and loved by conservatives.

Sarah Palin? Not quite. Meet Michele Bachmann, a Republican congresswoman from Minnesota who is being hailed as a new and increasingly powerful voice in American politics.

Bachmann, at 53, is a darling of the so-called Tea Party movement, which has campaigned vociferously against healthcare reform, the economic stimulus package and legislation to combat climate change. Her followers have been behind mass rallies in Washington and smaller ones all over the country. She has emerged as one of the most visible politicians in America, frequently appearing on the conservative Fox News channel, whose hosts often champion her causes.

She is part of an increasingly visible “female brand” of conservatism that is rising in America in the wake of the election of Obama. They include notable syndicated commentators such as Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter, whose dislike for liberals has grown ever more shrill in recent months. And, of course, Palin herself. She is still a giant of the political and media landscape and next week embarks on a book tour to sell her autobiography. It has already sparked a media frenzy, with a heavily hyped appearance on Oprah Winfrey’s show, and become a huge bestseller on pre-orders alone.

All these women express a mood of conservative discontent that is becoming increasingly vocal and, some experts warn, extreme.

Yes, we’re “extreme.”

No apologies here for being extremely outraged at Washington’s ongoing generational theft, extremely mortified at our imperiled national security, extremely aggravated at the globe-trotting groveler-in-chief, and extremely disgusted with business-as-usual cronyism, pay-for-play thuggery in the Obama White House.

This is no time for mealy-mouthed moderation.

The only thing kowtowing will get you is rug burn.

The Palin brand

The Palin brand

By Ted Belman

Could British politics teach us something about Sarah Palin’s political future? David Frum, not my favorite conservative, recently published What the Tories Have to Teach Us in Commentary Magazine.   In it, he notes that the Conservative Party in the UK, after suffering a massive defeat twelve years ago, turned its fortunes around and is now expected to return to power next year.
The turning point for Britain’s Conservative party may have been a single slide in a PowerPoint presentation delivered at the party conference after the 2005 election defeat. Party chairman Francis Maude showed attendees the results of an opinion survey on immigration. When the Conservative position on immigration was described to a sample group, almost two-thirds approved. But when that same position was presented to a new sample group as the position of the Conservative party, support dropped by half. Perfectly good policy ideas were fatally tainted by association with a despised political organization. So British Conservatives set out to “detoxify” themselves-to put a more appealing face on their ideas and message. [….]
As one architect of the detoxification put it to me: “What you talk about matters perhaps as much as what you say.”…. While upholding your principles, align your priorities with the priorities of the country at large. (emphasis added) [….]
Politicians who substitute their own priorities for voter priorities leave voters wondering: Whom do these guys really work for?
In one important case in point, Frum notes how forever the Tories have been anti the National Health Care System but never did anything about. So why attack it when the public supports it? The Tories switched gears and embraced it and declared themselves “the party of the NHS.”. So successful were they, that the electorate now looks to them, not Labour, to protect the NHS.
Thus, “Labour’s most decisive advantage had been snatched away — and the way was fully cleared for Tories to return to government”.
The lessons according to Frum: “Volunteer to do what you will be forced by political necessity to do anyway.”
Next it is important to pick a new leader: “The leader you want is someone who appeals to the voters you need to gain, not the voters you already have.”
So what can the GOP learn from this?  It must  rebrand itself by lowering the priority for issues such as abortion, guns and gay marriage and by emphasizing values that most people care about without sacrificing its principles. Then pick a leader a leader the Independents will vote for.  Since no such leader will be formerly selected until the primaries in 2012, the GOP should be emulating Palin in the meantime.
There is always resistance to change within a Party. It is viewed as abandoning your principles for expediency. But why shoot yourself in the foot.
After resigning as Governor of Alaska, Palin announced her intention to campaign “on behalf of candidates who believe in the right things, regardless of their party label or affiliation.” No surprise there. In Alaska she had a reputation of being issue oriented. She often made alliances with Democrats.  She also took on the Republican “old boys network”.
The GOP has been trying to decide whether to be more moderate (liberal) or more conservative. This debate took real form in the Congressional election in a district in upstate New York.  The GOP selected as its candidate a very liberal Scozzafava over conservative Hoffman.  Hoffman entered the race as an Independent. True to her words, Sarah Palin came out in support of the conservative rather than the Republican and she was joined by conservatives from all over the country. As a result he almost got elected.
Chris Stirewall, political editor for the Washington Examiner in Conservative revolt good news for Republicans, Hoffman “offered an authentic, passionate vision of his party’s core principles and did it in a way that didn’t make moderates uncomfortable.”
The good news, according to him, was that the conservatives are likely to take over the party.
Sarah Palin represents common sense values that Independents can rally to. She eschews the Party and its brand and embraces the people and their values.
So what are these values?
1. Energy; “Drill, baby, drill”, “Exploit all the above”
2. Economy; “Stop digging the hole deeper.” and unleash the private sector.
3. Healthcare;  She favors competition, tort reform and waste reduction.
4. Environment; Rejects Cap and Trade. Favors environmentally sensitive development.
5. Security; Support the armed services and let them do their job. Don’t lower your guard. Specifically, stand by your allies, win in Afghanistan and treat terrorists as terrorists, not citizens.
6.  Israel; Build, baby, build.  She supports the right of Jews to build in Judea and Samaria. She rejects Obama’s racist policy of telling the Jews where they cannot live. She is a harsh critic of Ahmedinejad and his government and faults Obama for not supporting the opposition.
7.  Patriotism; Patriotism is good, not bad.  America is good, not bad. The Constitution must be protected and upheld.
8.  Social; She supports life not “death panels”, the weak including challenged children and the elderly, hard work and not entitlement, private sector charity rather then government handouts..
9.  Ethics; Accountability over cronyism
Not only do these values appeal to her base, they appeal to Middle America, to Independents and Democrats. On all these issues, Obama and the Democrats have set themselves up for a fall. Palin is on the right side of these issues and everyone knows it.
The Left in America doesn’t so much reject these values as it does her.  In fact they ignore her message and set up straw man values for her that they can attack. The Left is struggling to brand her as a Christian fundamentalist, God forbid, an idiot, a know-nothing, a racist and anything else that has a negative connotation.
Palin is effectively galvanizing and rebranding the Conservative movement and making it her own. Who better to lead it then she. The GOP will ultimately adopt her brand and her as leader.

Ted Belman edits Israpundit.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/the_palin_brand.html at December 02, 2009 – 10:14:32 AM EST

President’s speech muddles nation building and national defense

President’s speech muddles nation building and national defense

By Lee Cary

President Obama’s speech at West Point aimed to walk the line between nation building and national defense. But he muddled the two concepts.
Americans look to their wartime leaders for clarity, not ambivalence. The President began his Afghanistan war speech by implicitly promising to say what it will take “to bring this war to a successful conclusion.”  Not victory, but a “conclusion”…a “successful” one at that.  But he didn’t do it.
It will, though, take 18 months of continued U.S. military action, soon to be escalated by 30,000 troops. Plus, a responsible President Hamid Karzai government that oversees the building of an Afghan nation that can take over the fight, along with the continued and increased involved of a Pakistan that should know that it, too, is threatened by the Taliban and al Qaeda.
All this is to happen in the context of defending the national security interests of the United States.  Yet, the President stated, “I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”  Seems we’re eventually out-sourcing our national security.
Plainly stated, he said we’ll give the war 18 more months of our military action, after which our national security there will become the responsibility of the Afghan government and Pakistan. It’s up to you guys to protect us.
You can make the case that such was the motive for our aid to Western Europe after World War II.  A free and economically vital Europe was a buttress against an expansionist USSR.  But World War II in Europe didn’t begin with an attack on America. We helped rebuild, and for decades defend, Western Europe in order to also keep it from incorporation into the Soviet sphere.

Did you get that feeling about his interest in the freedom of the people of Afghanistan from the President’s speech?

In the President’s clumsy balancing act between nation building and national defense, it’s to become the responsibility of a rehabilitated Karzai government and a Pakistan, grateful for US financial aid to be the front-line protection for America. And, what if Pakistan doesn’t deliver? He said, “We cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear.” Is that a threat to Pakistan? Again?
By the President’s own admission, this isn’t about nation building. He said, “Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort — one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests.” 
So, national defense must be purchased for a “reasonable cost.”  Anyone remember the scene in the movie “The Best Years of Our Lives” where Fredric March gives the satirical bank speech about the role of collateral on the battle field?
Nor did the President wholeheartedly commit our nation to its own defense. “Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.”  Eighteen months and we’re out of here. And before the next general election, coincidently.
With the always vague codicil of “taking into account conditions on the ground,” we will, the President said, withdraw our combat forces from Afghanistan in a year-and-a-half.  So, there’s a shelf-life date stamp on the President’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan.  After that, it’ll cost too much to stay.  National defense has assumed a price limit.
The threshold for departure is the same as what he attaches to our eventual withdrawal from Iraq — a “responsible end.”  But wait, he said, the goal in Afghanistan “remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.”
If one party suffers “defeat” then the other must necessarily accomplish relative victory, yes?  But the President has already said that “victory” reminds him of the Japanese surrender on the USS Missouri.  Surrender is too humiliating, perhaps. So, we’re leaving when it’s reasonable.  Of all collective human endeavors, war is the most unreasonable and those who fight it reasonably, lose.
In his post-speech analysis, FOX News’ Bill O’Reilly said, “If the Afghans don’t fight for their freedom we ought to get out. If Karzai is hopeless, we should acknowledge it.”  Is that a national defense mindset, or a nation building mindset?  With regard to the omnipresent comparisons to Vietnam, once upon a time I saw enough dead South Vietnamese soldiers to be persuaded that they did, indeed, fight.
The close of the President’s speech transitioned into a rehash of recent themes associated with his continuous campaigning mode.  We heard for the umpteenth time that “we have at times made mistakes.” I’m feeling so guilty, I’m contemplating therapy.
And, yet again, we heard the President say, “I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America’s authority.”
It would have been totally out-of-character and unacceptable for a West Point Cadet to stand up, like Rep. Joe Wilson, and say, “Oh, sure, and that’s why it took so long for you to be critical of the Iranian tyrants for shooting their own people who were protesting for their freedom, justice, and dignity!”
At the close of his speech, one delivered in a place steeped in the historical culture of comradeship, shared suffering, and fidelity to duty, honor and country, the President said that we cannot allow ourselves to be “split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has [sic] in recent times poisoned our national discourse.”  Who’s “we”?
The Cadets in his audience know better than the President that rancor, cynicism and partisanship do not wear the uniform. Only once in our history has this been untrue: those broken bonds between West Point-trained Army officers whose friendships were torn asunder by the politicians who paved the bloody road to the American Civil War,  

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/presidents_speech_muddles_nati.html at December 02, 2009 – 10:10:25 AM EST

Searching in Vain for the Obama Magic–Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan

Searching in Vain for the Obama Magic

By Gabor Steingart

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric — and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama’s speech would be well-received.

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond “enthusiastically” to the speech. But it didn’t help: The soldiers’ reception was cool.

One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan — and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war — and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.

Just in Time for the Campaign

For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama’s re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.

The speech continued in that vein. It was as though Obama had taken one of his old campaign speeches and merged it with a text from the library of ex-President George W. Bush. Extremists kill in the name of Islam, he said, before adding that it is one of the “world’s great religions.” He promised that responsibility for the country’s security would soon be transferred to the government of President Hamid Karzai — a government which he said was “corrupt.” The Taliban is dangerous and growing stronger. But “America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars,” he added.

It was a dizzying combination of surge and withdrawal, of marching to and fro. The fast pace was reminiscent of plays about the French revolution: Troops enter from the right to loud cannon fire and then they exit to the left. And at the end, the dead are left on stage.

Obama’s Magic No Longer Works

But in this case, the public was more disturbed than entertained. Indeed, one could see the phenomenon in a number of places in recent weeks: Obama’s magic no longer works. The allure of his words has grown weaker.

It is not he himself who has changed, but rather the benchmark used to evaluate him. For a president, the unit of measurement is real life. A leader is seen by citizens through the prism of their lives — their job, their household budget, where they live and suffer. And, in the case of the war on terror, where they sometimes die.

Political dreams and yearnings for the future belong elsewhere. That was where the political charmer Obama was able to successfully capture the imaginations of millions of voters. It is a place where campaigners — particularly those with a talent for oration — are fond of taking refuge. It is also where Obama set up his campaign headquarters, in an enormous tent called “Hope.”

In his speech on America’s new Afghanistan strategy, Obama tried to speak to both places. It was two speeches in one. That is why it felt so false. Both dreamers and realists were left feeling distraught.

The American president doesn’t need any opponents at the moment. He’s already got himself.