Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 12:15:28 +0100 (MET)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: M-G: UNITE! Info #28en: 1/8 Chemical fuels, not "fossil", I


UNITE! Info #28en: 1/8 Chemical fuels, not "fossil", I.
[Posted: 23.02.97]

Note / Anmerkung / Note / Nota / Anm=E4rkning:
On the UNITE! / VEREINIGT EUCH! / UNISSEZ-VOUS! /
=A1UNIOS! /  F=D6RENA ER! Info en/de/fr/es/se series:
See information on the last page / Siehe Information auf der
letzten Seite / Verrez information =E0 la derni=E8re page / Ver
informaci=F3n en la =FAltima p=E1gina / Se information p=E5 sista sidan.


INFO INTRO NOTE:

In this Info, I'm sending again the first, and so far only, 8
postings of a particular series which I started on in August, 1996:

'Why the chemical fuels are NOT "fossil"'.

This thus constitutes a Chapter I., which is intended later to be
followed up by further chapters, in one or more later Infos. The
first paragraphs (below) of the original first posting informs the
reader about my intention with this series. Here I shall briefly
state what it is about and what are the contents of those 8
postings which constitute the first chapter.

There is a particular reason why I'm bringing these 8 postings
again (in this new form) precisely now. In connection with the
present rabid attempt by governmental and other reactionary
forces here in Sweden to close down and destroy the perfecly
well functioning nuclear power plant at Barseb=E4ck, some 40 km
>from Malmoe in the south where I'm writing, starting only a year
or so from now, I in some of my postings attacking this mentioned
the fact that the likewise rather modern chemical fuels are not
"fossil", which - not unsurprisingly - was quite new to some other
writers. They asked, what was my proof of this.

In fact, some important parts of that proof which exists - though
this first chapter contains only part of it - stem precisely from
Sweden too, from the experience gained, in the late 1980:s and
early 1990:s, in the course of the later so scandalously killed
so-called Dala Deep Gas project, when - only! - two deep wells
were drilled in the province of Dalarna. One of my main sources
for these postings in fact is in Swedish - see below. In the
Siljan Ring in Dalarna, there in all probability is a very large
deposit of oil and/or natural gas. Only some political factors, due
to the degeneration and in fact putrefaction of the present ruling
class in the world, the bourgeoisie, prevent its exploitation.

What is this Info about?

In the mass media today, oil, natural gas and coal are always
referred to as "fossil" fuels. This implies that a certain theory
about their origins would be correct: That they stem from broken-
down remains of plants and/or animals which lived on earth long
ago. This also would mean that they are relatively scarce, or at
east, that the amounts of oil and natural gas, which are important
and comparatively modern energy sources today, are not all that
large - there would be a certain risk of their being exhausted,
perhaps even within decades.

But this theory is erroneous. Findings in particular in the latest
two decades have clearly shown this.

In reality, the main reserves on earth at least of natural gas and
of oil, and most probably the main reserves of coal too, stem
>from an enormous reservoir of methane, CH4, which exists in
the earth's mantle, i.e. at depths larger than some 10-50 km.
This methane is continuously seeping upwards. Natural gas
mainly consists of methane, the simplest of the hydrocarbons.
Oil consists of several more complicated hydrocarbons and is
formed out of methane by polymerization (chaining together),
through the interaction (above all) of bacteria, of which there
are very large amounts in the earth's crust, its upper layer.

This means that there can be, and in fact are, very large reserves
indeed on this planet not only of coal but of natural gas and oil
too. They exist mainly at relatively great depths, some km:s down
- precisely what you would *not* expect, if they were "fossil" -
and there is not the slightest risk that they will be exhausted,
before they since long have become outmoded anyway in comparison
to the fuels for nuclear fission and fusion.

Proof of these facts are ten findings which I'm enumerating last
in this posting, as Point =A41 - Point =A410. I originally planned to
go into the details of these points in turn, but the first parts
of my series, when posted last August, already caused some debate
and some questions, which I then answered in the last parts so
far. So the intended proof of what I've stated about the (main)
origins of the chemical fuels cannot be said to be completed
with this first chapter of 8 postings. But I think the reader will
find at least some very strong arguments indeed here why the
"fossil" theory is *not* correct and the "deep-gas" or "cosmic"
theory *is*. And as I wrote above, further chapters will follow.

The postings I'm bringing again now as parts 1-8 contain:

Part 1/8: Introduction, sources, enumerating main points of proof
Part 2/8: How the chemical fuels were formed (ctd. in part 3/8)
Part 3/8: How the chemical fuels were formed (ctd. from 2/8)
Part 4/8: Replies to Lisa R. & Barkley R. on oil, gas, coal (ctd: 5/8)
Part 5/8: Replies to Lisa R. & Barkley R. on oil, gas, coal (ctd.)
Part 6/8: The particular case of China (also ctd. replies)
Part 7/8: "Mission: IMPOSSIBLE": Reply to Bruce H. (ctd. in 8/8)
Part 8/8: "Mission: IMPOSSIBLE": Reply to Bruce H. (ctd. fr. 7/8)

[Note: Bruce H., who apparently is something of an "oil expert",
>from Sweden's antipode New Zealand, and who at least has a
Gasoline FAQ on the Net, has *not* so far replied to my parts 7-8.]

Here follows the first part of the series as originally posted:



(1) Why the chemical fuels are NOT "fossil"  [Posted: 14.08.96]


INTRO NOTE:

In an earlier posting, "UNITE! Info #4en" on 21.03.96, I promised
later i.a. to go into the details of this subject. Though I'm by no
means an expert on such matters, I hold that I have sufficient
information on them to warrant the subject line I've chosen. In
connection with a debate wich recently started out between me
and Louis N. Proyect, writing to the Jefferson Village Virginia
Marxism list, this theme has been discussed a little and in
particular Lisa Rogers has asked, what is really my argument.
So here I'm starting a little series on it, which will have I don't
know how many instalments. I'm hoping it will cause some new
information to surface, too.


A "STRANGE" CASE OF "EVERYBODY":S CLINGING ON TO
A REFUTED THEORY

In all the media today, oil, natural gas and coal are always being
called "fossil" fuels, indicating that their main or only origin is
biological. But this isn't so. Facts which have emerged in the last
two decades, and even earlier, clearly show that their at least
main origin is cosmic, meaning, that those hydrocarbons of
which they consist, respectively, from which they have arisen,
were present in the planet from its formation on.

Then why is the "fossil" theory still being presented to the
general public as the correct one, and even as one about which
there are no doubts?

Because the main rulers in the world today, for certain reactionary
political reasons, want to make it appear to people in general
that energy is scarce and must be expensive. They actually are
trying to prevent some of those enormous natural resources
which are available to mankind today, because of the scientific/
technological progress, from being used. The "fossil" theory
suits them in that it would imply, if correct, that the chemical
fuels are rather scarce.

It's a theory which runs parallell to the one that nuclear energy
is "a bad thing" which absolutely "should be abandoned" and the
one that, "because of a danger of man-made global warming",
the use of chemical fuels, which are the second most effective
after the nuclear ones and a mainstay - seen from the technical
side - of present-day modern civilization, should be curtailed.

A watchword of the day on the part of these rulers is "sustainable
development" - by which they in reality mean: curtailment of the
development of industry. And since the chemical fuels "are fossil",
they're implying, these "cannot" be part of that "sound, long-term"
policy they want people to believe they're advocating. The real,
(mainly) cosmic origin of these fuels however contain the
possibility that in reality they're very plentiful, which I'll also
venture to show is the case.


POLITICAL AIMS OF THE PRESENT SERIES ON CERTAIN
TECHNICAL/SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS

In writing this series, I have two political objects: Firstly, by
showing that the most powerful governments in the world today (with
their media etc) are lying about the origins of the chemical fuels
and preventing the development of their use - which however is most
necessary -, I intend to present one more argument why, as I and
a number of other people hold today, these governments need to be
overthrown and replaced by governments which really represent the
interests of the great majority of people.

Secondly, by bringing this matter to the attention to as many as
possible, also among those who hold that on the whole, the
most powerful governments in the world today are acceptable
or are the comparatively best ones that people in general can
hope for, I'm trying to contribute towards pressure being brought
to bear against this policy today of curtailing the exploitation
and the use of the chemical fuels.

On the last point I need to specify a little. The abandoning of coal
use, for instance, in favour of nuclear energy, by a country that
has the technological possibilities for this, of course is a good
thing and something which I advocate. I'm also in favour of the
quickest possible replacement, internationally, of all other energy
sources by nuclear fission and fusion, which obviously are the
quite superior ones - not least for *genuinely* environmental
reasons - among those that are known today.

But what is taking place on a large scale today is a "development"
in the opposite direction, away from the chemical fuels *and* from
the nuclear ones, towards in reality inferior and more primitive
energy sources, which the propaganda deceitfully is portraying as
"promising" etc, and even towards the deliberate curtailment of
all energy production, an arch-reactionary policy which today
is being deceitfully presented to people as "energy-saving",
"economization" etc, etc.

This to the great majority of people in the world, not least to the
particularly oppressed and exploited peoples of the third world, is
an extremely harmful policy indeed, and absolutely needs to be
massively countered, which remains a fact regardless of the
question of what is the best social system that can be achieved.

There earlier has been talk of "war over oil" on the part of certain
powers. But what is taking place today is a seemingly strange
war *against* oil. It's a continuation of the offensive against
uranium and thorium, an offensive which unfortunately in so far
has been successful as that today only some 400 reactors
exist in the world out of the 2000 envisaged 25 years ago for
the year 2000 and that most industrialized countries have
accepted the present-day Inquisition's placing the peaceful use
of nuclear energy under the ban for the future. The blackcoats
now are coming after oil and natural gas too.

It all has to do with a fear of conditions' ripening for proletarian
revolution. Largely not visible but under the surface, the
contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie in the world
has become very acute. The present posting series is intended
to fire a few shots in that "war for oil" which today has become
one of the necessary struggles for the great majority of people
to wage.

Needless to say, policies based on "optimistic" but false
theories are most undesirable. Things which aren't there will
not be found, however much you look. In this case, they're there.


SOURCES:

One main source I have on the subject is a small book in Swedish
published in 1985 by geologist Jan Bergstroem: "Gas och olja -
kosmiskt eller biologiskt ursprung?". This book was published in
connection with the starting of a venture in Sweden of exploring
the possibility of there being a large gas and oil deposit at a
depth of some 7 km in the province of Dalarna, the "Dala Deep
Gas Project".

After only two exploratory wells had been drilled and after much
delay, this project was finally and scandalously killed a few years
ago by means of some political machinations the details of which
are in part unknown to me. But both these wells established the
existence of oil and gas at such a depth and in a crystalline rock
formation, which in itself was sufficient to refute the ("exclusive")
"fossil" theory and establish the correctness of the cosmic one, or
the "deep gas" theory, as it has also been called.

The abovementioned author, Jan Bergstroem, for a period was
on the board of directors of the small company which was
formed to explore and, if possible, exploit the presumed
deposit, the Dala Deep Gas Company, and so was astronomy
professor Thomas Gold, who has been one of the internationally
best-known advocates of the correct, cosmic theory. (See also
below.)

On 4 August 1989, Bergstroem, who in his 1985 book had presented
the case for the cosmic theory rather cautiously, at a press
conference in Stockholm together with Gold and others on results
of the first exploratory well, stated that "the fossil theory is
now wholly a thing of the past". Small amounts of crude oil had
been found in granite 7 km down at Gravberg, Dalarna. "Drill
another well!", wrote Thomas Gold then in a Swedish daily.

I and some equally non-expert friends of mine were "in on" that
second well. We bought a few shares in Dala Deep Gas, i.a. for political
reasons, and another part of that information on the
subject which I have today stems, except for also some
information from newspapers, from reports on the venture's
progress which I received as a (very minor) shareholder. Of the
theroetical writings on the subject by the scientists mentioned
below I've so far read very little, but preparing for this postings
series I rediscovered one article I have, see below.


BRIEF HISTORY:

On the history of the cosmic or "deep gas" theory, I'll repeat
what I've already written in another posting in reply to Doug
Henwood, who asked if there were any reputable scientists
who believed in it. My reply consisted of the following
translated quotes from pages 19-20 of Bergstroem's book:

"Just like the theory of continental drift, the deep gas hypothesis
has a long history in obscurity. Its year of birth seems to be 1889,
and its spiritual father a Russian named W. Sokoloff. The ideas
have later received support from a number of countrymen of his,
among them P. N. Kropotkin, G. Rudakov, N. A. Kudryavtsev and
V. B. Porfiryev. A survey available (understandable) to Western readers was
written in 1974 by Porfiryev. Otherwise, the Western
world has not heard much about what has been happening in the
Soviet Union - the language and cultural barrier is rather effective."
......................

"That both gas and crude oil may have a common non-biological
origin is, however, believed by some American scientists, namely,
the geologist A. A. Giardini, the chemist Charles E. Melton and
the astronomers Thomas Gold and Steven Soter, who have written several
treatises on the subject in the 1970:s and the 1980:s"

[For instance, an article "The Deep-Earth-Gas Hypothesis" on
pp. 130-137 in Scientific American, June 1980, which I've just now
discovered I have and from which I'll bring some quotes too.]

"The British chemist Sir Robert Robinson as early as in the
beinning of the 1960:s argued that crude oil must have double
origins, biological and non-biological. Of the same opinion
are, for instance, John M. Saul and Thomas Gold. The general
resistance to these ideas however is still very strong."

"Their presentation in the Western world has met considerable
criticism and has sometimes been ridiculed, but the critics
have not cared to point at any errors in the argumentation.
Instead, they have sometimes pointed to 'the forceful arguments
for a biological origin of oil being well-known' (translation from
MacDonald, 1983), and thus have either not understood the weaknesses which
there in fact are in their attempts at proving
their case, or have pretended that they are not there. By making
it appear that the biological origin of *all* oil is something about
which there can be no doubts, they are presenting things as if
further speculations are unnecessary."


MAIN POINTS OF PROOF

Here I'll briefly present those points I know of which show that
oil, natural gas and coal, at least in the main, have a cosmic
origin. This will conclude the present posting. In the next, I
shall begin by recounting how, as the sources I've mentioned
explain, the chemical fuels were formed. And then in
that next and in ensuing ones (I don't know how many will be
needed yet), I'll go into the details of these main points of
argument:

Point =A41.	Oil and gas in many places in the world have
		been found at, and have been exploited from,
		such depths and in/from such rock formations
		that these deposits cannot possibly be fossil.

Point =A42.	Carbon, too, in the form of either graphite or
		coal, has been found at such depths and in
		such rock formations which exclude its being
		fossil, and has been exploited in such places.

Point =A43.	Despite points 1 and 2 above, which by
		themselves already strongly contradict these
		substances' being exclusively fossil, which so-
		called 	"established" theory however has long
		maintained they are, there has been no public
		debate among experts on the question of their
		actual origins. (Which points to a fear that the
		"established" theory might be refuted, and thus
		i.a. to that theory's being "too" difficult to defend.)

Point =A44.	Such enormous, though in many cases not
		economically recoverable, amounts of oil, gas
		and carbon (coal) have already been ascertained
		to exist on earth that this strongly speaks against
		the possibility of a fossil origin of most of them.

Point =A45.	The "fossil" theory has in practice not functioned
		well at all for finding new chemical-fuel deposits.

Point =A46.	Hydrocarbons, which make up or are the basis
		for oil and gas and which may under certain
		circumstances be transformed into carbon, i.e.
		coal or graphite (plus hydrogen), exist in large
		quantities not only on earth but on other planets
		and in space.

Point =A47.	There is a geographical correspondence between
		oil and gas fields on the one hand and volcanic and
		seismic activity on the other, but no particularly
		significant such correspondence between such
		fields and the occurrence of sedimentary rocks,
		in which the oil and the gas would have been
		expected to be found if their origins were fossil.

Point =A48.	Certain constant relations between the amounts of
		various chemical elements, and of various
		isotopes, in oil and gas fields are very difficult to
		fit together with their having a biological origin.

Point =A49.	The objections that have been raised against the
		cosmic theory, for instance, the occurrence of
		certain obviuosly bio-origin substances in some
		oil and coal deposits, can in fact be satisfactorily
		answered by that theory.

Point =A410.	(Gold & Soter, 1980:) "Seismologists have long
		recognized a difficulty in accounting for deep
		earthquakes."..."The presence of deep-earth gas
		could resolve this contradiction."

[Continued in posting (2) - part 2/8]


	=09
	=09





     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---