[voerioc]

Another scam from the jews is the official theory of oil creation. According to it, oil has been created from plants or dinosaurs corpses during millions years at the depth of 2 km. And there is a very limited quantity of it, which will be exhausted in 20 or 30 years.

It's false. Oil is made at 100 km under the surface of the earth, by a chemical reaction involving only abiotic compounds, and not any biological material. And there is plenty of it: enough for 1000, 10.000, 100.000 years of consumption, maybe more. And you can find oil or gas in much more places than stated by the official theory.

So why did the jews lie about the origin of oil ? Of course, to maintain high prices of oil, in order to take the money of goyims.

But there is another reason, a political one. This lie is crucial to allow jews to create the future greater Israel.

With the official theory of oil, they can say that there are geographical areas which have much more oil than other, and thus are politically much more important than the other ones. What a hazard, in the official theory, this is the middle-east which is considered to have the biggest oil reserves. Just where Israel is located.

So, it is clear that the official oil theory was also made to justify political and military interventions from the USA in the middle-east. Political and military interventions which will lead in the long term to the creation of the greater Israel.

With the abiotic oil theory, they couldn't say that the Middle-East has the biggest reserves of oil. Thus, it would be a geographical region without much economical and then political importance. So, it would be clear in people's eyes that the USA goes there only for Israel. With the official theory, they can say that the USA makes war there for oil and not for Israel.

In this vision of things, the peak oil theory is another jewish scam. It was also created to give a reason to the military interventions of the USA in Irak. By making people believe that there will be a shortage of oil very soon, they strengthen the idea that the USA goes there only for oil (to steal the last drops of oil), whereas they go there only for Israel.

[Notes by Rerevisionist 9 Apr 2016:--
1. I remember an atlas from about 1970, which showed a huge oildrop to the west of China showing vast 'unknown reserves'. It occurs to me this may have been part of a plan to develop Birobidjan—or, rather, get others to develop it.
2. Voerioc attributes the fraud (if it is one) to the desire for 'Greater Israel', not for mass depopulation.]

[rerevisionist]

Interesting piece; and I follow your logic. But 100 km down appears, still, to be difficult to get to. (E.g. 'deepest hole' drilled is said to be about 12 km). So how can you be sure there's a lot of oil down there?

[voerioc]

We can be quite sure because

1) Oil is coming from under. Seas of oil are connected to the reserves near the surface by canals. So, those reserves near the surface are refilling. Or course, not every field is connected to the seas of oil, but probably many. So, those fields are refilling, which means there will be much more oil than initially supposed

2) The deeper you dig, the bigger the reserves of the field will be. And the quicker it will refill. So, with deep drilling (between 5 and 12 km), there will be much more important reserves than just below the surface.

3) Jews already lie to us about the actual amounts of oil in the present reserves. So, we can think that even with the present fields, there is much more oil than officially said (of course, oil companies, which are owned by jews lie to us about their reserves). They say there is oil for only 30/40 years. There are very probably reserves for at least 300 years, maybe more.

4) There are much more areas with oil than said by the official theory. This means that already, with conventional drilling, there is plenty more oil than officially said. Probably at least between 20 and 100 times more. So, with a basis of 300 years, there is probably oil for between 6000 and 30.000 years. If those other areas with oil are not exploited, this is because jews want the Middle-East to remain the area with the biggest reserves (for political reasons as stated before).

They are certainly underestimating the reserves in many other areas for the same reason. For example, we can think that the USA is still self-sufficient, but jews are lying to us about that in order to justify the military interventions in Iraq.

If presently there is enough oil for between 6000 and 30.000 years (with conventional drilling), with deep drilling, there will be oil for a much longer time than that.

If there is a total amount of oil of 1 billion years of consumption, and if we are able to get 1/10.000 of it, it means we have oil for 100.000 years.

[rerevisionist]

Hm.

[1] Is this based on Thomas Gold's theory, itself based on the idea that planets when forming largely contained hydrocarbons?
[2] Presumably the earth contains oil along with, or in between, rocks, as earthquakes are stated to travel right through the earth. I.e. not a huge reservoir with the earth's crust 'floating' on top.
[3] If there are huge reserves, is there a danger some of the earth's surface might subside or collapse?
[4] Could there be a problem with CO2 and H2O given off by burning such huge amounts?

[voerioc]

I know about Thomas Gold. But this theory is much older than him. In the 18th and 19th century, Louis Joseph Gay-Lussac, Alexander Von Humbolt and Marcellin Berthelot were convinced that oil was from abiotic origin.

About Gold, maybe he was one of those jewish sayanims put in place to discredit a theory (or other times, to reinforce it, like Vanunu about Israel's atomic bomb).

Alex Jones (so a sayanim), is also trying to discredit this theory by supporting it. As everybody now knows he is a sayanim, the fact that he is supporting the abiotic oil theory discredits it in the mind of well informed people.

But, in fact, coming back to Berthelot and the other ones, we don't need them to understand that the official theory is false.

The fact that oil has been found 5 km below the ground (far below the sedimentary layer, in the crystalline rock) shows that the official theory is false.

The idea of such enormous amount of plants in the same area shows us that the official theory is absurd.

The hypothesis that all those dead plants have been accumulated without being decomposed by insects and bacteria is ridiculous.

The idea that plants in lakes could have been buried under 2km of sediments is also ridiculous. All those lakes should have been at least 2km deep.

Coal, which is only dried oil, shows us that the official theory is false. If it was made from trees and plants, you should see forms of trees and plants everywhere in coal mines. However, you just see sometimes petrified leaves or branches or animals in a soup of coal. This last fact shows us clearly that coal is just solidified oil. The leaves have fallen into the oil before it being solidified.

Some areas in carboniferous were under the ice. However, coal is supposed to have been created during this era in those places.

Etc, etc… So, for me, it is quite obvious that oil (and coal) is from abiotic origin and that there is plenty of it.

If there are so much coal and oil between 0 and 2 km under the ground, and since it is created at around 100 km, there must be seas of oil at this depth.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Coal, which is only dried oil, shows us that the official theory is false. If it was made from trees and plants, you should see forms of trees and plants everywhere in coal mines. However, you just see sometimes petrified leaves or branches or animals in a soup of coal. This last fact shows us clearly that coal is just solidified oil. The leaves have fallen into the oil before it being solidified.

You do find trees and plants everywhere in coal mines.

As well as the "Black Mine", a second seam of coal was mined, the Dukinfield Marine Band. This coal seam consisted of coal rich in fossils, Cephalopods (Aviculopecten papyraceous, A. fibrillosus, A. Cairnsii & Turitella sp.), species of shellfish. This coal burned fiercely giving a high temperature which was perfect for powering the steam engines, mills and trains of the time.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astley_Deep_Pit_Disaster

True, most fossils are in the roof of the mine, and not actually in the coal seam itself.

https://www.google.com/search?client=ope ... 24&bih=621

This research found mammal’s first appearance on Earth should be at least 95 million years earlier than previously known, as a piece of Pennsylvanian anthracite coal of at least 290 mya is discovered to contain red blood cell remains of a mammal. The present record indicates the earliest fossil of mammal ( Hadrocodium ) appeared on Earth approximately 195 mya. However, this research discovered plentiful remains of round, concave and anucleate red blood cells of a mammal in a piece of anthracite coal excavated from the coal mine of Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, USA. The coal mine lies in a stratum dated at least 290 mya. The red blood cell remains found in the anthracite coal should have belonged to a mammal, for only mammals have ever been found to possess such round, concave and anucleate red blood cells.

https://wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... ed_04.html

[rerevisionist]

Brilliant and pretty convincing.
_________________________________________________________________________

In the 18th and 19th century, Mikhailo V. Lomonosov, Louis Joseph Gay-Lussac, Alexander Von Humbolt and Marcellin Berthelot were convinced that oil was from abiotic origin.

Yes; a lot of revisionist types look back and find better work than today.
1. Harold Hillman says Helmholtz' ideas of brain structure are better than modern ones
2. Phil Holland says Dalton's view of the atom, and Herschel's on the sun (among others) are better than modern views
3. Many people think 19th century physics is better than e.g. relativity ideas
_________________________________________________________________________

Alex Jones (also a sayanim [i.e. maybe like Gold]), is also trying to discredit this theory by supporting it.

OK. I didn't know this (and if you're right it seems risky to me!)
_________________________________________________________________________

The fact that oil has been found 5 km below the ground (far below the sedimentary layer, in the crystalline rock) shows that the official theory is false. The idea of such enormous amount of plants in the same area shows us that the official theory is absurd.

Now you mention it--
1. Oil at the time of Rockefeller must have been extracted by technology which could not have drilled very deeply. I hadn't really thought about it; those 'nodding donkeys' must have been on fairly short pipes. Is modern oil never produced from depths more than 2 km? In fact, maybe the drilling down to the 'Moho' was intended to search for oil? Or to test deep drilling?
2. If you accept plate tectonics, the various strata have been mixed up quite a bit, so it's possible some sediments are now buried far deeper than when they were formed, isn't it? You might be accused of having too static a view of geology. As when you say there's coal under the poles - you're assuming the coal, or the poles, didn't move.
3. I see your point about plants. And, because they need light to grow, there can never be a great depth of plant material. Quite apart from the problem of how the oxygen was removed.
_________________________________________________________________________

Coal, which is only dried oil, shows us that the official theory is false. If it was made from trees and plants, you should see forms of trees and plants everywhere in coal mines. However, you just see sometimes petrified leaves or branches or animals in a soup of coal. This last fact shows us clearly that coal is just solidified oil. The leaves have fallen into the oil before it being solidified.

I think [like FirstClassSkeptic] this is wrong. I'm told that coal miners often found fossil specimens of trees and leaves in lumps of coal which have split. Maybe it's the other way round - the plausibility of coal being fossilised wood (a theory that must have existed before oil was commercially produced), gave rise to the idea that oil was a product of fossilised leaves?

[voerioc]

You do find trees and plants everywhere in coal mines.

Yes, you can find plants in coal mines. But, as I said, you find some leaves or branches in a magma of coal. While the entire mine should be made of trees, branches and leaves.

In your first example, they just suppose that there was an entire forest in this coal mine. They suppose it from the presences of some branches and leaves which are present on a large area. But the entire mine is not made of trees, branches and leaves. They just find some of them in many places of this area. And on the photo of the article, we only see one leaf, nothing more.

[voerioc]

OK. I didn't know this (and if you're right it seems risky to me!)

It isn't so risky. Jones and other sayanims don't give the whole picture. They just give little information. And they stop talking about this subject very quickly. So, people stop thinking about it quite soon. So, all this will be vague in their mind.

Those sayanims will also let some opponents defend the idea that even if oil is abiotic, we cannot access to those big reserves. Thus, the fact that oil is from abiotic origin doesn't change anything. They will also try to mix up the official theory and the abiotic one and say that conventional (and cheap) oil is biotic, while the deep (presented as very expensive and maybe inaccessible) oil is abiotic. And the sayanims promoting the abiotic oil theory won't give any answer to those arguments. So goyim discovering the abiotic oil theory from people like Jones won't have the arguments to go further and will stay with the idea that, indeed, the abiotic oil theory doesn't change anything to our present situation.

So no, it's not very risky. And you have to keep in mind that the most advanced people know that Jones is a sayanim. So, they will automatically reject this theory without paying too much attention to it. And if someone comes and defends the abiotic theory, they will say that the guy has been fooled by Jones, or is a jewish sayanim himself. And this is those advanced people who are able to convinced less advanced people that the abiotic oil theory is true (like we are doing on this board about the non-existence of atomic bombs).

[voerioc]

2. If you accept plate tectonics, the various strata have been mixed up quite a bit, so it's possible some sediments are now buried far deeper than when they were formed, isn't it? You might be accused of having too static a view of geology. As when you say there's coal under the poles - you're assuming the coal, or the poles, didn't move.

I don't believe anymore to the plate tectonics theory. But even in the frame of this theory, in most places with oil fields or coal mines, there no reason to have mixed up strata. The plate tectonics theory just says that on subduction lines, one of the strata slips down the other one. They also say that on some points, one of the plates goes up and forms mountains. Is doesn’t say that strata mix up in plains (where oil is found).

About coal in the poles, sorry, it seems that I wasn't precise enough. I didn't talk about poles. I talked about South America and Africa. There is coal in those places (even if the reserves are limited). The problem is, those areas were under the ice during the carboniferous era.

[rerevisionist]

Rerevisionist---
Maybe it's the other way round - the plausibility of coal being fossilised wood (a theory that must have existed before oil was commercially produced), gave rise to the idea that oil was a product of fossilised leaves?

I think you might do well to consider coal as something completely different from oil. Bacause---

[1] Decayed vegetation, as peat, definitely burns. Irish bogs were (and are) cut into, and they definitely consist of vegetation which is more or less compressed and decayed and wet, and this is used as a model for how coal may have formed, over, of course, very long time periods, via lignite.

[2] I had thought that some coal deposits were very thick - 20 metres or so - in e.g. Pennsylvania. And that coal in Britain was in thinner strata. Maybe I've got this wrong, as all the diagrams show thinnish layers separated by rock layers, which are presumed to help compress the vegetation. I presume geologists have checked that the layers on top are consistent with being laid down originally as smallish separated particles.

[3] There's of course online material on coal under microscopes, though often they're more concerned with ash and slag and poisonous material (i.e. melted clay and ash and other mineral rocks) - there's a lot of this because coal is typically a maximum only 90% carbon, if you can believe the typical figures. Here's a technical piece (including electron microscopy) but their main interest is identifying non-burning minerals
https://bdigital.ufp.pt/dspace/bitstream/10284/273/1/artigo2.pdf

[4] There are online pictures by light microscopy, though one can't be sure they aren't selected because they fit the paradigm - everyone states coal is plant-derived, and it's simply excluded by mineralogists, so maybe coal could be mostly oil mixed with minerals with occasional plant material, which is solidified in some way.

Typical picture (NB they get amorphous carbon, presumed to be charcoal, the result of fires)

But here's a typical bit of coal, showing bands, from geology.com--


[5] They don't seem to state what happened to the water given off when cellulose - Cn (H2O)m - turns to carbon. I suppose given highish pressure over time, and temperature higher than the earth's surface, it would come out as hot liquid or maybe vapour.
____________________________________________
So my best guess is that peat burning (and wood burning for that matter), and the use of coal, pointed the way to the idea that oil, too, may be vegetable in origin.

But I see your point about oil, and the point seems to be reinforced by tar pits, which look like leakage of underground liquid 'mineral' - it's hard to see how carbonised plant remains could turn to hydrocarbon - where would the oxygen have gone?

Looks as though you're on strong ground.

Note on Jews, tax and money: It's another economic thing which is not discussed very seriously. In Britain, as far as I can establish, fuel tax is now something like 80%, and there's VAT too. If the price of petrol/ gas is £1.30 a litre, the cost of the product delived from refineries must be about 20 pence/litre or so. But crude costs (say) $100/ barrel of about 160 (or 200?) litres = 60 (or 50) cents/litre, which seems quite a bit too high. Come to think of it, refineries make, not just petrol/gas, but other, denser, hydrocarbons, including oils and waxes, and I suppose lighter things like ethylene for polythylene. Maybe these products subsidise the refining of petrol/gas? ANYWAY! the point here is that although oil is valuable, tax revenues far outweight its raw cost; and refinery costs and transport costs must be significant, too. Looks like another case of Jewish owners doing deals with Jewish-influenced governments.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

If oil is abiotic, that doesn't make it infinite. It doesn't even mean that it is necessarily abundant. Gold is abiotic, Is there an infinite supply of gold on earth?

That oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico that was in the news several months ago. The well is a mile down from the surface of the water. They they drill another 18 thousand feet or so after that. It's very costly, very risky, very difficult. Why are they doing this if the earth is 'awash in oil', as Alex Jones puts it? Why don't they drill in some easier place? The abiotic theory says that oil is everywhere, if you just drill deep enough. So why not just drill anywhere? Why do any exploring at all?

Oil is a liquid, and is under the influence of gravity, so I am not surprised that it might be found deep in the earth, even though it may have been formed at the surface.

I am not saying that abiotic formation of oil is incorrect. I don't really know, and maybe don't care. What I find difficult is the leap to the conclusion that because it's abiotic that it is necessarily infinite, or abundant.