text:
Paul Avis, Natalie Summerson and Bill Eddolls on improving customer experience with underwriting technology - MAF182
This week, I'm welcoming back Paul Avis to the show for the fifth time along with his colleagues Natalie Summerson and Bill Eddolls.
We talk about how technology has transformed the once lengthy and complex underwriting process into something more customer friendly.
It's a deep dive into the world of financial services and protection insurance.
Welcome to episode 182 of the Marketing and Finance Podcast.
We chat about:
Who are Paul, Natalie and Bill?
Paul Avis is Marketing Director at Canada Life Group Insurance. A keen sportsman, Paul notes his interests as Bath Rugby, Somerset Cricket, Swindon Town Football, Diving, and Skiing.
Natalie Summerson is National Sales Manager for Canada Life Individual Protection. As well as being passionate about protection insurance, Natalie enjoys keeping fit and entertaining her friends and family.
Bill Eddolls is a Development Underwriter at Canada Life Individual Protection. A father of three, Bill's hobbies include walking the dog and supporting his children's sporting interests: hockey, kickboxing and playing football for Bristol City Academy.
Links and Show Notes.
For links to the books and apps mentioned, please visit http://rogeredwards.co.uk/MAF for the show notes.
What is the Marketing and Finance (MAF) Podcast?
The podcast for ideas and inspiration on marketing your business and growing your business, and for discussing topics on all things finance.
I'm Roger Edwards, a marketing guy and keynote speaker from Edinburgh. Talk to me if you want to cut the BS and complexity from your marketing strategy.
The MAF Podcast is a 30-minute radio show you download from http://rogeredwards.co.uk/MAF, iTunes or Spotify.
Each week you'll hear interviews with business experts, marketers, entrepreneurs and journalists. Interviews to listen to in the car, on the train or on the treadmill. Or even in the bath!
We talk about:
You'll take away one or two big ideas that you can apply to your business. So, you can keep marketing your business to keep growing your business.
Please subscribe to the Podcast on iTunes and I'd be grateful if you would leave a review. http://rogeredwards.co.uk/itunes
Fancy Appearing on the Show?
Would you be interested in appearing on the MAF Podcast? Have you an exciting marketing or finance story to tell? Do you fancy drawing out some inspirational ideas that MAF listeners can take away to use in their own businesses? Do please contact me if you want to get involved. http://rogeredwards.co.uk


text:
Hotel Baia del Capitano is a charming four-star property with a Mediterranean style throughout and a laid back atmosphere. It's located in the Bay of Mazzoforno, just 4 kilometres away from the historical centre of Cefalu and its elevated position means you can enjoy lovely views over the sea towards the picturesque town.
The guest rooms have been decorated in a typical Sicilian style and offer plenty of comfort and modern amenities - most enjoy views over the hotel's Mediterranean gardens but upgrades to a sea view are available for a supplement. Your time at the hotel can be as relaxing or active as you wish, with plenty on offer for everyone. Choose to relax by the pool, where you can enjoy refreshing drinks from the pool bar or lay back in the whirlpool, or head to the nearby private sandy beach where there are plenty of loungers (normally open mid June to mid September). There's a host of activities available, too including tennis, cycling and scuba diving (some activities are payable locally).
The centre of Cefalu is around a 15 minute drive away and local buses stop directly outside the hotel. This charming seaside town has a lovely historical centre that's filled with stunning architecture, restaurants and bars, ensuring visitors will have plenty to do and see. If you prefer to dine in the hotel, the Kefale Restaurant serves traditional Sicilian cuisine in a charming setting among the gardens, and the lobby bar provides the perfect excuse for a pre-dinner drink.
Transfer time: approx. 1 hour 10 mins by private car from Palermo Airport

subset: commoncrawl


text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2140721014134558960.post612630828146984539..comments2020-07-11T12:10:46.482-04:00Comments on Cleveland Area History: The Edwards Family ObeliskChristopher Busta-Peckhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2140721014134558960.post-53278158858514225152012-12-05T07:36:31.522-05:002012-12-05T07:36:31.522-05:00There are unfortunately a lot of unmarked graves a...There are unfortunately a lot of unmarked graves and missing files (from the fire that damaged the gatehouse). I was lucky enough to find that even though my great-great uncle does not have a stone (not sure he ever did), his cemetery file card survived. It's a lovely place to spend an afternoon, and the Foundation has put a lot of effort into preserving email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2140721014134558960.post-47837742502464744082012-12-05T07:34:04.429-05:002012-12-05T07:34:04.429-05:00Late to the party, but I just realized last night ...Late to the party, but I just realized last night that they "moved" again, or at least their memorial did. The four members of the Edwards family listed on this monument also are included on a newer family monument in Woodland Cemetery. I haven't done any research yet to establish if they were moved again or if the family just wanted to include their names on the marker at the newer family plot. I've scheduled the post with photos of the two markers for this Friday. firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2140721014134558960.post-501992186524949382012-06-15T15:05:09.071-04:002012-06-15T15:05:09.071-04:00In the process of genealogy research, I found that...In the process of genealogy research, I found that I have approximately 4 ancestors buried there. There are no markers and for one of them they have no card on file. I was very surprised to discover that Black families are buried there! Mine! I spent some time there one afternoon and shared the cemetery with a firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2140721014134558960.post-47898785247758020192012-04-01T20:00:35.981-04:002012-04-01T20:00:35.981-04:00The very first clue this monument is not original ...The very first clue this monument is not original to the cemetery is the material, which is sandstone. If you notice the other sandstone markers in that general vacinity all pre-date the opening of the cemetery. There aren't too many cemeteries in Cleveland that were closed and had the markers and remains moved, but it's interesting to note the population patterns of the old and new burial sites and what was developed on the land once it was decommissioned as a burial ground.Katie firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2140721014134558960.post-76972017846472090852012-03-27T11:29:26.698-04:002012-03-27T11:29:26.698-04:00Blake, It's October 18, 1839.Blake,

It's October 18, 1839.Christopher Busta-Peckhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2140721014134558960.post-58729992267117458522012-03-27T11:13:40.167-04:002012-03-27T11:13:40.167-04:00Christopher, what is the DOD of Sarah Currier? Cu...Christopher, what is the DOD of Sarah Currier? Curious to find out if she's related to my Susan Currier (Amsden) 1790-1859.Blake7134https://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2140721014134558960.post-13785475104834816902012-03-14T15:24:04.436-04:002012-03-14T15:24:04.436-04:00Swell article.Swell article.Beverlyhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2140721014134558960.post-45475012097250361872012-03-14T14:21:14.798-04:002012-03-14T14:21:14.798-04:00I never knew that! I wonder if that's the same...I never knew that! I wonder if that's the same Hayden family for whom Hayden Avenue, nearby, is named.Christopher Busta-Peckhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2140721014134558960.post-7500125344919988942012-03-14T14:15:43.373-04:002012-03-14T14:15:43.373-04:00This is the same cemetery where Amos Sutton Hayden...This is the same cemetery where Amos Sutton Hayden, the first principal of the Western Reserve Eclectic Institute (since 1867 Hiram College), is buried. I was taken there by friends on a misty autumn evening last year; one of the most atmospheric experiences in my life!cascadehttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2140721014134558960.post-63403894564925797282012-03-14T11:15:22.739-04:002012-03-14T11:15:22.739-04:00Wow for connecting the obelisk to the stone house ...Wow for connecting the obelisk to the stone house on email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2140721014134558960.post-12701901821934630882012-03-14T10:23:41.613-04:002012-03-14T10:23:41.613-04:00Christopher--I was probably out on the same day yo...Christopher--I was probably out on the same day you shot these photos--great work. Folks may not know where to find the cemetery--it's off E.118th St:
http://realneo.us/system/files/Springtime_014.jpg
http://realneo.us/system/files/Springtime_015.jpg
http://realneo.us/system/files/Springtime_016.jpg
Trustees have really worked hard to improve this amazing cultural resource:
http://www.ectcf.org/
I lived in University Circle in the eighties and it was sad to see the condition of the cemetery then. I was appalled to attend a CIA show at one time--where one of the students had pillaged bones and skulls from the cemetery...we have a long way to go in terms of respect for history and the past...BBChttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2140721014134558960.post-82358595169576915782012-03-14T10:14:12.770-04:002012-03-14T10:14:12.770-04:00Lin, The fourth side is blank. You can see it in ...Lin,

The fourth side is blank. You can see it in this photograph:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cbustapeck/6539499559/Christopher Busta-Peckhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2140721014134558960.post-76820220398528545322012-03-14T09:55:12.948-04:002012-03-14T09:55:12.948-04:00The design of the mystery grave marker is very fam...The design of the mystery grave marker is very familiar to me. See the headstone of Martha L McIlrath (http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=9096564) who died in 1822 and is also buried at First Presby. There are obvious differences - the style of the tree of life and the inscription itself are quite different - but the shape and proportions of the stone seem nearly identical.

Did you get a shot of the fourth side of the obelisk?Linhttps://email@example.com


text:
Antwerp Philosophy Café
zaterdag, 2 maart, 2019 - 14:00
To participate in this philosophy café, you don't need any theoretical knowledge, diploma's, or studies. This is not an academic lecture. Far from it.
Everybody with a set of ears, tongue and brains is welcome.
We start by choosing a (philosophical) question together and then have a moderated conversation to explore that question. A good question is not too long or abstract.
Keep it short and concrete, this facilitates the exploration. The goal is not to find answers but to refine the question, explore the topic, and practice the art of conversation.
Notice: this event is in English!


text:
A Nigerian woman has left many people in serious shock after showing off a handgun her father bought her to celebrate her birthday.
The woman by name Mhiz Princess Ella, caused commotion on Facebook after she revealed the gun was specifically to ward off Nigerian men disturbing her life.
She wrote: "Birth day gift from my father. Lol, I am not a criminal just for protection. Got a license. Atleast for those Nigerian f**king ni**ers."


text:
Farage thinks the Northern Ireland border issue is an 'EU trap'
PUBLISHED: 15:53 15 October 2018 | UPDATED: 15:58 15 October 2018
Nigel Farage has returned to spouting nonsense from a bus - this time claiming that the Northern Ireland issue was designed to "trap Theresa May".
Become a Supporter
Almost four years after its creation The New European goes from strength to strength across print and online, offering a pro-European perspective on Brexit and reporting on the political response to the coronavirus outbreak, climate change and international politics. But we can only continue to grow with your support.
Farage arrived at the latest Leave Means Leave rally in another open top bus, using the platform to claim that the "establishment" had been attempting to water down Brexit, and claiming that the EU is trying to stop Britain becoming "competitive".
He told the audience: "I want Brexit. If you think there should be a border, a hard border (in Ireland), let's work it out, shall we?
"There's a different currency between the north and the south, different income tax rates, different excise rates, different corporation tax rates - if you need to have a hard border because of differences, there should be one there today.
MORE: Bridgen: 'Everyone in England is entitled to an Irish passport'
"If we have a simple free trade deal with the European Union that would be a non-issue because there would be no excise duties to collect.
"On the argument of different specifications of products, hey, at the moment we have exactly the same specs as Northern Ireland.
"You could say in five or 10 years' time, there might be one or two industries where we have some differences, but if you buy a washing machine now you can track on your mobile phone exactly where it is.
"We are not at the days... Southampton is just down the road, every day there are tens of thousands of containers that come in from China, we do not open them and check them, they are logged and registered and the excise duty is paid.
"The truth of the Northern Ireland border, the real truth is, it is being used very cleverly by Monsieur Barnier to trap Theresa May in a position.
"You see, the one thing Europe don't want is us to leave the single market rules and become competitive."
When asked if he still considered a "hard Brexit" as the best way forward, he said: "What is hard Brexit? Would you explain what it is?
"I had never heard of it until we won the referendum and then it was invented by the other side. Hard Brexit bad, soft Brexit lovely and cuddly.
"What they meant by soft Brexit was not leaving, it was Brexit in name only.
"That's the path the prime minister has been determined to pursue but I think she is beginning to realise out in the country and increasingly on her own back benches, they won't put up with it."
MORE: 'That might be more of a problem' – Clueless Brexiteer left stumped during interview
When asked if he was concerned about the legal and administrative consequences of a hard Brexit, such as planes not being allowed to fly from the UK to the EU, Farage said: "How does any of the world exist outside of the European Union? It's a miracle to me really.
"There are of course neighbourly issues that have to be sorted out, of course that is right.
"In terms of a deal, it's quite simple actually. The European Union has been saying to me for 20 years, if you want a free trade arrangement, what we now call a Canada-style deal, it's there, it's an offer on the table, it's what the British Government should have gone for from day one.
"Failing that, if they really want - and goodness me, how many German motor cars have I seen on the roads this morning? And no doubt French wines sold in bars down this street? - failing that, we will leave and have a WTO (World Trade Organisation) deal as most of the world does, and there is nothing to fear from that, either."
During his visit to the Dorset town market, Farage was presented with a cat collar and leash by a pet accessories stall-holder, who joked it was for prime minister Theresa May.
"Brilliant, this is for Mrs May," he said adding, "these guys on the market have a great sense of humour."
MORE: All you need to know about the People's Vote March
Become a Supporter
Almost four years after its creation The New European goes from strength to strength across print and online, offering a pro-European perspective on Brexit and reporting on the political response to the coronavirus outbreak, climate change and international politics. But we can only rebalance the right wing extremes of much of the UK national press with your support. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism.Become a supporter


text:
Status: Finished
Genre: Erotica
© Copyright 2020 Spirit Of Freedom. All rights reserved.
Very well written... Makes the mind wander...
I wandered for awhile, but I can't help wandering back over here... I can't believe that no-one else has commented on this most beautiful piece of literature although you haven't responded to my last comment either, so maybe they just don't want to be ignored...
Poem / Erotica
Poem / Erotica
Miscellaneous / Erotica


text:
India Snubs OIC'S kashmir Resolution
NEW DELHI – India has rebuffed OIC resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir passed by 36th session of the Council of Ministers in Damascus, Syria recently.
The 57-member grouping has made a direct reference to the last year Amarnath land row in Jammu and Kashmir.
A statement issued by the Ministry of External Affairs said: "We note with regret that the OIC has chosen to comment on India's internal affairs during the 36th Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers held in Syria on 23rd – 25th May 2009. The OIC has no locus standi on India's internal affairs".
The OIC in its resolution expressed concern over use of force against the economic blockade during the Amarnath land row agitation and have also regretted that following the Mumbai incident Indian government have put a pause on the composite dialogue.
The Islamic conglomerate also urged India to resume composite dialogue.
India also took umbrage over OIC calling catastrophic 26/11 Mumbai attack as merely an incident.
The MEA statement said: "We also note with dismay that in the resolution adopted, the terrorist attack on Mumbai in November, 2008, has been referred to as a mere "incident."
For almost two decades, the OIC has been has been advocating the issue of self-determination and resolution of Kashmir in accordance with the UN resolutions of 1948 and 1949, but this time it went a step further by directly referring to the Amarnath Land row in its resolutions.
Pakistan, which is a member of this group, has vociferously raised issues pertaining to Kashmir at this forum. By Naveen Kapoor (ANI)


text:
TAE50216 Diploma of Training Design and Development - Cluster 2
Did you know that you will need to have a Diploma of higher level qualification in education if you intend to teach Certificate IV in Training and Assessment? The Diploma of Training Design and Development TAE50216 is a pathway from the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment TAE40110 or later version for training developers and instructional designers who are responsible for analysing training needs and designing training solutions and products to meet workplace capacity requirements and evaluating the effectiveness of training programs. This qualification is suitable for those wishing to develop their training and assessment career.
You will need to have vocational experience in competency based training and assessment within an RTO or similar organisation and have computer skills and English language and literacy skills sufficient to undertake the training. RPL is available. On successful completion of assessments the qualification Diploma of Training Design and Development TAE50216 will be awarded.
Course structure
Cluster 2 consists of 5 units of competency:
TAERES501 Apply research to training and assessment practices [E]
TAEASS502 Design and develop assessment tools [C]
TAEASS504 Develop and implement recognition strategies [E]
TAEASS503 Lead assessment validation processes ]E]
TAEDES505 Evaluate a training program [C]
For a broader selection of elective units, please click here and see Packaging Rules.
Learning strategies
This course is delivered on flexible basis led by a qualified industry experienced trainer. We will provide you with all the learning and assessment materials. Whilst the nature of study for this course is flexible, you will still need to meet the trainer on negotiated date to discuss your progress. An initial meeting of approximately one hour is required with the trainer to discuss the learning process when the trainer will provide you with the first lot of resources.
Assessment strategies
Assessments for this qualification include both formative and summative assessments and include questions and answers, portfolio of evidence, project assignments and third party report. Please note that access to a real life training environment is essential for this course. If you do not have access to a real life training environment, please let the trainer know.
Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL)
If you believe you have relevant skills and experience satisfying the competency requirement of this qualifcation, please consult with your trainer for the possibility of recognition. The trainer will provide you with a clear guideline on the RPL assessments and evidence requirements.
Final outcome
To receive the qualification, you will need to successfully complete all the required assessments in both Cluter 1 and 2. The assessor may ask you to provide further evidence if the first submission is found to be insufficient or non satisfactory. A Statement of Attainment will be issued if you have successfully completed one or more than one unit but not all the units of the qualification.
Have more questions to ask?
Please feel free to contact our enrolment officers on 02 9687 2072 to discuss more about the course or send an email to email@example.com.
<p>Did you know that you will need to have a Diploma of higher level qualification in education if you intend to teach Certificate IV in Training and Assessment? The Diploma of Training Design and...
Approximately 150 hours
180 maximum days to complete
If there isn't a class to suit you, please the waiting list.


text:
Loading Clock Preview...
"Odd Pebbles" Clock
Type : SevenSegmentWithColorGridBg
Description :
The clock's display is low and wide. The clock has a nice amount of padding at the edges. There is a good amount of space between the digits of the clock's display, so the digits have plenty of breathing room. The clock has an edge glow effect. The edge glow is so transparent that it is very subtle and barely noticeable. The color of the edge glow is white. It extends all the way to the center, but still allows a hint of what's behind it to show through. The clock has a color grid effect as a background. The color at the top left corner is close to gold, with a hint of yellow and orange. The color at the top right corner is close to fire brick, with a hint of brown and crimson. The color at the bottom left corner is close to olive drab, with a hint of yellow green and lime green. The color at the bottom right corner is close to peru, with a hint of chocolate and goldenrod. The digits of the clock's display are made up of several segments. The digits are quite opaque, but it should be quite possible see what is beneath them. Their color is close to saddle brown, with a hint of brown and dark red. There is no gap between the digit segments. The digit segments have a drop shadow. The direction of the shadow is between north-northeast and northeast. The shadow is offset by a modest amount. The shadow is quite blurred, and its outline is not so clear. The shadow has a small amount of spread, adding a bit of strength. The color of the shadow is black. The shadow is almost completely opaque, and should feel rather strong
The SevenSegmentWithColorGridBg clock combines a traditional seven segment display for the digits, a four corner color smooth gradient background, and an edge glow with themeable color, thickness, and opacity. The individual segments of the digits support theming by color, opacity, segment gap, and a drop shadow. Additionally, digit spacing, overall clock aspect ratio, and edge padding can also be themed.


text:
Russians & NASA Discredit 'Fossil Fuel' Theory: Demise of Junk CO2 Science
Written by
Last week new NASA photographs proved methane lakes exist on Saturn's moon, Titan, showing that such hydrocarbons (or so-called 'fossil fuels') are seemingly plentiful in our solar system. This startling discovery turns on its head the long-held western belief that petroleum is a limited resource, because it is primarily derived (we had been told) from the fossilized remains of dead dinosaurs and rotted carbon-based vegetation.
But with that notion now exploded in the article 'NASA Finds Lakes of Hydrocarbons on Saturn's Moon, Titan' thanks to NASA's Cassini spacecraft, energy scientists are now compelled to admit that petroleum oil is, in fact, substantially mineral in origin and occuring all through the galaxies.
Two Years ago it was reported that the Max Planck Institute, Germany have discovered that the Horse Head Nebula galaxy in the Orion constellation contains a vast field of hydrocarbon (see 'Top German Scientists Discover 'Fossil Fuel' in the Stars').
As such, long-held fears about Earth's shrinking 'fossil fuel' reserves may be bogus. These important new cosmological discoveries come coincidentally at a time when huge succeses in American oil drilling technology ('frakking') are bringing a glut of oil onto the energy markets, causing a slide in global oil prices. Fresh oil reserves are being struck all over – some miles beneath the oceans, where Dino the dinosaur never roamed.
As we reported (November 08, 2014) NASA's new evidence supports previously controversial Russian claims that 'fossil' fuel theory is junk science. No wonder skepticism of the wide-ranging Green Agenda grows and serious doubts are rising as to whether humans need to divest themselves of the supposedly fast-diminishing energy source after all.
Bodies of credible, independent western scientists, collaborating and collating their findings via the internet through fledgling organisations such as Principia Scientific International are calling for a re-assessment of over 2,000 eastern European peer-reviewed science papers on the issue, previously ignored by western governments, state-funded universities and the mainstream media.
For decades Russian scientists have known that the fossil fuel theory is bogus and have compellingly demonstrated that petroleum is derived from highly compressed mineral deposits deep beneath the surface. But the most startling consequence to these findings is that oil is a constant renewable regenerating in nature.
Since the Middle East oil crisis of the 1970's gasoline suppliers have stoked media fears that our planet's reserves are fast in decline. The term 'peak oil' was coined and we were told 'fossil fuels' would have to become increasingly more expensive as our insatiable appetite drank this 'finite' liquid energy source dry. Are we talking conspiracy theory or well-intentioned, but misguided group think that limits to our industrial expansion were essential if we were to tackle 'peak oil' and fears over man-made global warming (which has been stalled for a generation).
Let's be in no doubt, the emergence of group think about our 'carbon footprint' (dare we call it, propaganda) suited the long-term interests of the oil industry and western governments. 'Big Oil' has benefited from being told by academics that their resource was precious and limited (putting upward pressure on prices). Tax-raising governments are being increasingly taken to task for encouraging (through generous research grants) sympathetic academics to get on board to build a consensus on these inter-related but evidentially weak scientific theories.
Repositioning Theory as Fact
For decades the terms 'peak oil' and 'fossil fuels' have been synonymous. They imply we are inexorably faced with diminishing natural resources and the days of cheap carbon-based energy are gone. Supplanted in the public consciousness as real we grew to accept the inevitable coming of ever-higher energy prices as a consequence of our energy-reliant, consumer lifestyle.
Journalists gleaned their own 'evidence' for such an apocalyptic narrative from bleak books such as James Howard Kunstler's 'The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century' and Richard Heinberg's 'The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies' among others and the public were sold on the fears.
Constantly fed a diet of this garbage our collective unconsciousness unwittingly allowed the repositioning of Hubbert's Theory of Peak Oil into fossil fuel fact.
As a consequence, in 2005, Congressional Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett, Republican of Maryland, and Senator Tom Udall, a New Mexico Democrat created the Congressional Peak Oil Caucus and at a stroke turned attention to debunking such 'limits to growth' fallacies.
Scientists who dissented from the (peer-reviewed) groupspeak were vilified or ignored. In the 1980's distinguished British scientist, Sir Fred Hoyle FRS was one who tried and failed to expose the chicanery of proponents of the fossil fuel theory and diminishing world oil reserves. Hoyle, without the benefit of the worldwide web tried repeatedly to expose this flimflam,
"The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time."
The English professor valiantly argued that oil is abiogenic (i.e. from mineral deposition) and cannot be a biotic (from fossils). Yet despite his eminent stature Hoyle's sage insight gained him no media platform.
Along with Hoyle other western scientists refused to toe the politically correct line as evidenced in an increasing number of articles to redress the balance about petroleum economics. While several papers by Professor Michael C. Lynch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also exposed the myth of "oil exhaustion" and demonstrating the high-pressure genesis of petroleum. No media voice for them either.
Russia Becomes World Energy Superpower
Only in Russia, a nation that since the 1990's and fall of the Berlin Wall, has eschewed military supremacy to become a global economic superpower, did Hoyle's and Lynch's words find a welcome community of likeminded scientists. Indeed, outside of the English-speaking world there is no controversy and its common parlance that oil is a mineral, not a biological product and as such our planet has endless untapped reserves.
As a consequence of applying this knowledge Russia has gone from strength to strength astutely capitalising on its 'liquid gold' reserves. "I would describe the mindset right now among the Russian political elite as infused with 'petroconfidence'," So says Cliff Kupchan of the Eurasia Group, in an interview with the BBC.
Indeed, between 1951-2001, thousands of articles and many books and monographs were published mainly in the mainstream Russian scientific journals proving abiotic petroleum origins – all ignored by western governments and media. For example, leading expert V. A. Krayushkin has alone published more than two hundred fifty articles on modern petroleum geology, and several books.
Russian mineralogists, oil explorers and each successive government since the dark days of the former Soviet Union have been unalterably upbeat that they've ousted the 'peak oil, fossil fuels' nonsense. And who are we to argue – they've got the money in the bank to prove it.
As a result Russia is firmly ensconced as the world's second-largest oil exporter and is becoming so preeminent in the field of oil and gas exploration and innovation that the nation is set to usurp the U.S. not as a military force, but as the world's energy superpower for the 21st century.
Oil – Our Greatest Natural Renewable Energy Source
Exploiting their cutting-edge technology Russia has successfully discovered numerous petroleum fields, a number of which produce either partly or entirely from a crystalline basement and which appears distinctly self-replenishing. Yes, you read that right – Russia enjoys the best naturally renewable energy source – petroleum! No billions wasted on wind farms, solar or wave white elephants here.
Indeed, to our former soviet cousins, the idea of 'peak oil' is laughable because, if they're calculations are right, oil is the most bountiful, most efficient and cheapest renewable fuel and will last at least for many hundreds of years to come.
Disgruntled that the Russians have been allowed to take such a big lead the brightest and the best in the west are now using the blogosphere in helping to forge resurgence against the fossil fuel, peak oil myth. So says Daniel Yergin, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power" and chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a company that advises governments and industry.
Yergin like others cites the compelling evidence that the MSM won't show you; these anti-fossil fuel theorists cite alkanes, kerogens and many other petroleum related chemicals that have been found on meteorites – which we know can support no organic life and thus proving the lie of the fossil fuel theory.
Why are We Still Being Lied to?
Indeed, so lame has the fossil fuel theory become that even its most strident supporters are unable to muster the flimsiest of evidence for their position. In "The Abiotic Oil Controversy" key proponent of the abiotic (fossil) origin, Richard Heinberg admits his case is exposed as threadbare lamenting,
"Perhaps one day there will be general agreement that at least some oil is indeed abiotic. Maybe there are indeed deep methane belts twenty miles below the Earth's surface."
So scant is the evidence to support Heinberg and other western pro-fossil fuel theorists that in researching his article 'The Evidence for Limitless Oil and Gas' (Digital Journal), Bill Jencks reveals,
"I searched the internet including Google Scholar and there seems to be no 'absolute proof' or support from direct modern research for the Biogenic Theory of oil and gas formation. This theory — for want of a better word — seems to be greatly 'assumed' by geologists throughout geological research."
Like me, Jencks found a mountain of evidence backing Russian claims. From the Joint Institute of the Physics of the Earth Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow we find incredible sources as revealed by A Dissertation by J.F. Kenney which condemns the outmoded 18th century "anarchaic hypothesis" that petroleum somehow (miraculously) evolved from biological detritus, and is accordingly limited in abundance.
Instead, the fossil fuels hypothesis has been replaced during the past forty years by the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins which has established that petroleum is a primordial material erupted from great depth. Kenney states,
"Therefore, petroleum abundances are limited by little more than the quantities of its constituents as were incorporated into the Earth at the time of its formation; and its availability depends upon technological development and exploration competence."
In a straight scientific shootout Peak Oil Theory vs Russian-Ukraine Modern Theory the Russians win hands down. But it remains a peculiar anachronism that there is no body of American or other English language peer review to verify or disprove the Russian science.
But why are we still being lied to? With such unwillingness to correct these intellectual failings it is little wonder that there is growing dissatisfaction among voters and thinkers in English-speaking nations and the EU. Those who study carefully the facts now reasonably conclude that beyond the media hard sell there is no energy crisis; the world has a plentiful supply of cheap renewable petroleum and another enviro-myth needs to be mercilessly culled.
Kudryavtsev N.A., 1959. Geological proof of the deep origin of Petroleum. Trudy Vsesoyuz. Neftyan. Nauch. Issledovatel Geologoraz Vedoch. Inst.No.132, pp. 242-262 (In Russian)
Kudryavtsev N.A., 1951. Against the organic hypothesis of oil origin. Oil Economy Jour. [Neftyanoe khoziaystvo], no. 9. – pp. 17-29 (in Russian)
Related news:
Tags: Abiogenic oil, abiotic theory, fossil fuel, peak oil
Comments (57)
Here are some interesting facts…
The largest known oil reserve in the world is the Alaskan Gull Island oil find of 1976 off the oil rich Prudhoe Bay, whose own oil analysis is as follows;
Sulphur content – 0.9%
Flash point of the oil – 35 degrees F
Wax content – 6%
Asphalt content – 2%
Crude oil freeze temperature (pour point) – 15 degrees F
Here is a comparison between just three of the known oil fields in Alaska, on the North Slope:
Prudhoe Bay could produce 2 million barrels of oil every 24 hours for up to 40 years at artesian pressure. Its average depth of oil is 600 feet of pay zone, in an area 100 square miles.
The Kuparuk oil field's average depth of oil pool is 300 feet of pay zone, with an area of field twice the size of Prudhoe.
The Gull Island oil field average depth of oil pool is 1,200 feet of pay zone, with an area of field at least four times the size of Prudhoe, and estimated to be the richest oil field on the face of the earth.
America will never run out of oil with such immense known oil reserves as Gull Island that the government insisted at the time be capped and classified.
The world will never run out of oil.
sadly neither my knowledge nor my english is good enough to say something of value,
but there is one really interessting thing:
If fossil fuels are really fossil,there would be no clean groundwater.
Groundwater has existed hundreds of millions of years before fossil fuel dids.
As fossil fuels are "oil" based and therefore hydrophob, they could never ever pass the groundwater barrier.
Fossil fuel would either stay on top of groundwater or emulate /pollute groundwater forever.
+water is more fluid than oil=water should get deeper into the earth than oil.
A factor against "non organic oil" is-in saudi arabia oil is very close to the surface.It usually cannot be "produced " in deepest region of earth core+
If oil is produced inside the earth,oil would have started
to reach the surface in many regions of the planet.Just like volcanos "oil" volcanos would appear all over the world in regions where pressure of "non organic oil" became to high.
James Cummins
Why are our terrestrial sources of hydrocarbon in sedimentary rocks? Why do we not find oil reserves in basement rocks. Why are oil and gas deposits related to current and "fossil" river deltas? The gas giant planets and their moons are not proxies for terrestrial geological processes.
Describe your terminology. Explain your argument, please. Why can we find water in sedimentary rocks? What is your point?
"Why do we not find oil reserves in basement rocks?"
Basement rocks are igneous, or metamorphic in origin. I can't imagine that it would be easy to drill into basement rock; wouldn't an oil company be foolish to try when it's so much easier to drill into sedimentary rock?
"Why are oil and gas deposits related to current and 'fossil' river deltas?"
A 'fossil' river delta appears to be an area where a significant amount of coal and other types of carbon compounds are plentiful.
Where did the carbon originally come from? If we are to believe the astrophysicists, then all of atoms on the periodic table originate from star nucleosynthesis, this includes carbon. When stars explode or nova; chunks of their body get thrown into space. Some of these chunks containing all sorts of different matter formed into planets. When the matter formed into planets, where did the carbon go? When there was no life; where did the carbon go? Presumably there were layers of the carbon that precipitated near the crust. Could these be the 'fossil' river deltas?
"The gas giant planets and their moons are not proxies for terrestrial geological processes".
Are you suggesting that the laws of chemistry don't work the same way on different planets? It's not about 'terrestrial' geological processes; it's about 'planetary' geological processes.
The concept is simple. Lower carbon chains, like methane (CH4) can interact with other low carbon chains under high enough temperature and pressure to form higher carbon chains, like ethane (C2H4). These reactions continue up the reaction chains until higher carbon chains are produced, like octane, like nonane, like decane.
Why wouldn't these reactions work at a depth of 5-10 km below the surface of the Earth?
1. I fully agreed that majority commercial oils has been expelled from sedimentary source rocks ,oil widow,biomarkers etc .
2. Infect current biotic theory has suggested a well tested method to find new locations of oils and i fully agreed with and there is no need to change it however new signature can be added to reduce the cost of exploration of new oils .
3. on the other hand there are very strong evidences of abiotic theory that indicate us that these same hydrocarbons were once huge present at mantle level conditions also .
and i have no hesitation to respect the strong evidences of both . i want to do a minor change in current fossil fuel theory that majority commercial oils has been expelled from sedimentary source rocks but only from those which has been formed with the involvement of pre generated abiotic hydrocarbons bearing sludge ( sticky .waxy and heavy in molecular weight) . sedimentary rocks that has been formed without any involvement of these abiotic hydrocarbons are not suitable to form commercial interesting oils . so abiotic sources are the major contributor in commercial interesting hydrocarbons also . these abiotic hydrocarbons were once huge present on the surface of the earth like currently huge present on the surface of the Titan . http://www.universetoday.com/12800/titan-has-hundreds-of-times-more-liquid-hydrocarbons-than-earth
infect both the theories has strong evidences as well as strong critiques also ,so we required a new balanced hypothesis that can respect the strong evidences of both and i have done a minor change in biotic theory so that we may respect the strong evidences of both .
4. please note that hydrocarbons we are using in our daily life or commercia viable are actually not biogenic in origin but these abiotic hydrocarbons has obtained the biotic characteristics in the burial history of the mixture of abiotic hydrocarbons sludge +deceased organic matter to confuse us .
Here is an interesting article on the subject:
The folks at Lawrence Livermore are some of the best and the brightest scientists in the business. Is the claim that oil can be formed from the Fischer Tropsch process starting with methane really so foolish?
I found a fantastic explanation for how the biogenic theory for oil works:
– Thank you Ryan Carlyle.
I will summarize Carlyle's explanation, there are three main components that geologists look for when they drill for oil: source rock, reservoir rock, and trap rock.
The source rock is pregnant with Kerogen. What is kerogen? Kerogen is a mixture of organic material. Under the biogenic definition; it was ancient 'plant matter or plankton'; under the abiogenic definition, it was 'carbon rich' minerals.
Reservoir rock is a spongy kind of rock with enough pores to allow liquid to easily move through it. This is where the oil will settle.
Then trap rock; which is not permeable to oil.
Presence of source rock, with trap rock at the base, and reservoir rock above the trap rock, an oil basin may form in these conditions.
With this simple model, someone can take seismic measurements of the ground and ascertain whether or not oil is likely to collect in a particular place.
Ryan Carlyle makes the statement:
"We drill through the trap-like shapes and see if there's oil in the upside-down bowl underneath. Historically, this only worked about 10% of the time, but with modern techniques, a 50% success rate for a high-profile drilling campaign is achievable. That's a spectacular success rate, and it's based on the paradigm of biological oil. "
When he says that the theory is based on the paradigm of biological oil; this is where I stop and disagree with Carlyle's conclusion that this model is more indicative of the validity of biogenic oil than abiogenic oil.
If source rock, or kerogenic rock is interpreted as primordial carbon-pregnant rock, left over from when the planet was formed rather than existing from dead plantlife and plankton; then you can see that the simple model with source rock, reservoir rock, and trap rock can be just as validly interpreted under an abiogenic paradigm as a biogenic paradigm.
In other words, the theory works, it stands on it's own and it is agnostic with respect to the biogenic or abiogenic origin of oil.
Let us spend some time discussing Kerogen; or 'source rock'.
I will use a special notation to describe the type of carbon chain.
nC – n, the number, C, of carbon
1C – CH4, H:C ratio – 4
2C – C2H6, H:C ratio – 3
3C – C3H8, H:C ratio – 2.67
4C – C4H10, H:C ratio – 2.5
5C – C5H12, H:C ratio – 2.4
6C – C6H14, H:C ratio – 2.33
7C – C7H16, H:C ratio – 2.29
8C – C8H18, H:C ratio – 2.25
H:C ratio formula – (2n+2)/n
A note:
limit(H:C ratio formula) as n approaches infinity: 2
For regular hydrocarbon chains that we care about for refining energy as fuel; the hydrogen to carbon ratio is greater than two.
Something else to note:
Proteins are composed of hydrocarbons; but these tend to have very large concentrations of Carbon, and very complex connections between the carbon atoms. Of course, proteins are found in living creatures.
Kerogen types:
Type I: This is where the majority of the oil comes from. At a Hydrogen:Carbon ratio of greater than 1.25; this describes long thin carbon chains where the hydrogen content exceeds the carbon content. Under abiogenic theory; this class of hydrocarbons would come directly from the Fischer-Tropsch process.
The wikipedia article describes this type of kerogen as being originally from algae.
Type II: This leads to less oil than Type I. This has a Hydrogen:Carbon ratio of less than 1.25; so it describes molecules with larger interconnected networks of carbon chains than Type I.
The wikipedia article describes this type of kerogen as being originally from plankton or marine life.
Type III: This form of kerogen is even less productive than Type II in producing oil. This has a Hydrogen:Carbon ratio of less than 1. It describes even more complex molecules with even larger interconnected networks of carbon chains than Type II.
The wikipedia article describes this type of kerogen as being originally from plant life.
Type IV: This form of kerogen is composed of Residue and has virtually no capability of forming hydrocarbons. This is more complex even than Type III.
As we can see, the higher the kerogen type, the more complex the kind of hydrocarbon molecule that one describes. The proteins necessary for complex life like people, would most closely correspond to Type IV.
Also the lower the kerogen type, the better it is at generating petroleum.
The primordial carbon-rich minerals left over from when the Earth was first formed would have corresponded with Type I. Types II-IV would have formed later.
Type I is better at generating oil. Therefore, could one conclude that the abiogenic theory is a better explanation for where oil comes from than the biogenic theory?
My friend, Mr. Cummins; let's dance. 🙂
"Type IV: This form of kerogen is composed of Residue and has virtually no capability of forming hydrocarbons. This is more complex even than Type III. "
I made a mistake here. Type IV kerogen has virtually no ability to form crude oil within a short timeframe. Obviously sugar is converted to fats in the body all the time; and these could be argued to be a form of hydrocarbon (albeit not the kind of 'hydrocarbon' that most people discuss).
According to the Wikipedia kerogen is organic in origin and i fully agreed but organic is not a guarantee of biogenic also . please show me a paper proving the biogenic origin of kerogen
Suresh, I am sure that there is a multitude of papers that claim to demonstrate the biogenic origin of kerogen.
What I am advocating is that Type II, III, and IV kerogens are more likely to be biotic in origin; and that type I is more likely to be abiotic in origin.
Furthermore, it is a common theme in our culture to describe the first creatures as having crawled from the 'primordial ooze'; I would advocate that if you want to know what the primordial ooze was, all that you have to do is look at a crude oil pit and there it is! That is, it was, and it will continue to be the primordial ooze where life first came from!!!
And in the beginning, the primordial ooze was abiotic in nature.
Gilian, Even the Wikipedia of kerogen is not sure about that the whole material has been formed by deceased biological material . Wikipedia of kerogen includes ;
* [[Carbonaceous chondrite]] [[meteorite]]s contain kerogen-like components.Nakamura, T. (2005) "Post-hydration thermal metamorphism of carbonaceous chondrites", "Journal of Mineralogical and Petrological Sciences", volume 100, page 268,[http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jmps/100/6/260/_pdf] (PDF) Retrieved 1 September 2007 Such material is thought to have formed the [[terrestrial planet]]s.
* Kerogen materials have been detected in [[Interstellar medium|interstellar clouds and dust]] around [[star]]s.Papoular, R. (2001) "The use of kerogen data in understanding the properties and evolution of interstellar carbonaceous dust", "Astronomy and Astrophysics", volume 378, pages 597-607, [http://cds.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/pdf/2001/41/aah2968.pdf] (PDF) Retrieved 1 September 2007
please send me a more papers that can prove that the whole material has been formed from deceased biological material only .
Suresh; interesting evidence, very interesting. Under the biogenic theory for the origin of oil, the existence of kerogen in the interstellar medium would suggest that life produced those kerogens… meaning, there is life elsewhere in the universe.
Under the abiogenic theory for the existence of kerogen, the kerogen is simply leftover products from stellar novae. This suggests that there could be life developing elsewhere in the universe under the same laws and limitations that life has developed here.
[quote name="Gilianin"]Suresh, I am sure that there is a multitude of papers that claim to demonstrate the biogenic origin of kerogen.
What I am advocating is that Type II, III, and IV kerogens are more likely to be biotic in origin; and that type I is more likely to be abiotic in origin.
Furthermore, it is a common theme in our culture to describe the first creatures as having crawled from the 'primordial ooze'; I would advocate that if you want to know what the primordial ooze was, all that you have to do is look at a crude oil pit and there it is! That is, it was, and it will continue to be the primordial ooze where life first came from!!!
And in the beginning, the primordial ooze was abiotic in nature.
More on this soon…[/quote]how will you reconcile this paper for commercial interesting hydrocarbons in current fossil fuel theory and there are tons of papers that indicate that hydrocarbons we are using in our daily life are once also present at mantle level conditions and can be formed at these conditions also . According to the author of the paper ,they have analyzed 68 Brazilian oil and nine foreign oils and determined 24 metal traces in the oils showed fine correlation of the oils with CI chondrite and mantle peridotites, and worse correlation with oceanic and continental crust, and none with seawater
Suresh, when I say, "I am sure that there are a multitude of papers that claim to demonstrate the biogenic origin of oil." — there is an implication in my statement that you were missing.
'Claiming' to have evidence which demonstrates the biogenic origin of oil is not the same as proving the biogenic origin of oil.
If one looks at a physical phenomenon with the wrong model in mind, then the lens through which you are looking at the evidence will lead you to the wrong conclusions regarding the evidence.
The paper that you have here seems to demonstrate that it is unlikely that most of the Brazilian oils come from an oceanic seawater environment.
Suresh, you do understand that I find the idea of biogenic sources as the origin of all oil unconvincing, don't you?
[quote name="Gilian"]Suresh, when I say, "I am sure that there are a multitude of papers that claim to demonstrate the biogenic origin of oil." — there is an implication in my statement that you were missing.
'Claiming' to have evidence which demonstrates the biogenic origin of oil is not the same as proving the biogenic origin of oil.
If one looks at a physical phenomenon with the wrong model in mind, then the lens through which you are looking at the evidence will lead you to the wrong conclusions regarding the evidence.
The paper that you have here seems to demonstrate that it is unlikely that most of the Brazilian oils come from an oceanic seawater environment.
Suresh, you do understand that I find the idea of biogenic sources as the origin of all oil unconvincing, don't you?[/quote]
Yes, pre mind set up is a big problem . take example of Galileo .
2. Actually Earlier I was discussing this matter at AAPG discussion board . This discussion has been started by mr Umair under the heading of " DISCUSS THE ORIGIN PF PETROLEUM….. IS IT ORGANIC OR INORGANIC IN ORIGIN ???. this discussion has been started at last of 2012 and was live till feb 2015 . I was the main and almost only opponent in this discussion while majority people were in favor of biogenic theory only . This was the longest discussion in the history of that AAPG blog . when I put them in serious problem than they suddenly closed the discussion without any prior notice . I am almost sure that match was diverting in my side . there are many discussion that can not fetch even ten twenty comments and are still alive from last three years but this discussion that has fetched more than 3250 comments they have closed it .
Take, for instance, the chemical 'estrogen', or actually, it's a group of chemicals. There is E1 – Estrone, E2 – Estradiol, E3 – Estriol.
What is estrogen chemically? Let's look at Estradiol…
Just look at it. See how simple it really is. It looks like a bunch of benzene rings that have just been strung together. C18H24O2.
This is the kind of chemical that could easily and readily form in a soup of random hydrocarbons.
And this is the hormone that we associate with females; not just 'human' females, females for most species!
For respiration we need:
Oxygen + Glucose –> 'Carbon dioxide' + Water
Unbalanced chemical form of same equation:
This is why we need to breath; the cells in our bodies use glucose to power themselves, it is with this equation above that our cells extract energy. Look at how simple glucose as a molecule really is!
It also looks similar to benzene; but the OH molecules sticking out of it are different.
In crude oil you have hydrogen, carbon, oxygen; all of the components that one would need for life to form.
You see, it's not that the crude oil came from life (it can, but not on a large scale); the life came from the crude oil!
Here is the (possible) story for where life came from:
In the beginning, when the universe was new, the universe was expanding and accelerating in it's expansion following the big bang. Not much existed, in the universe at this time period except for electromagnetic radiation (photons, or light), alas, it was still too hot for anything but light to exist.
As the universe expanded and cooled, the light began to condense into subatomic particles; electrons, quarks, anti-quarks, muons, all sorts of subatomic particles. As the universe continued to cool, the quarks would combine to form neutrons and protons. The protons would attract the electrons that happened to be about; and hydrogen along with perhaps some helium was formed.
Hydrogen, lots of hydrogen, great clouds of it! Clouds much bigger than the galaxies that we know today!
Hydrogen has mass. So the clouds of this stuff would be gravitationally attracted to the rest of the same cloud. They were drawn inward to form stars.
Great balls of gas would contract in on themselves; and the first proto-stars were formed. The center of these stars would be hot from all of the pressure of all of the other hydrogen that was pushing on them. Enough hydrogen would lead to the centers of these proto-stars becoming hot enough that the barriers of the electron clouds around the hydrogen atoms could be broken; penetrated by other hydrogen. A proton could combine with another proton, one proton could convert itself to a neutron; and so deuterium is formed.
Enough deuterium would eventually be produced in this process that, in the center of the star; it would not be an uncommon thing for the deuterium to combine with more deuterium to form helium.
Helium would eventually combine to form lithium; then beryllium would form; and onwards through the periodic table, all of the different types of atoms would form until a special kind of atom with 26 protons came into being. Iron.
Iron is special, in that it is one of the most stable elements on the periodic table in the nuclear sense. It takes a great deal of pressure and heat to cause iron to fuse. When Iron forms in the star, and when it becomes common enough that it begins to 'choke' the regular fusion process within the star. The heat from fusion would cease to generate enough dynamic outward pressure to keep the rest of the mass of the star from collapsing in on itself.
When the mass of the star collapse in on itself, the pressure and the heat in the center of the star would spike up. A great shockwave would reverberate through the mass of the star and all of the rest of the elements on the periodic table would be formed; the shockwave would blow chunks of the star out into space; along with many of the atoms which had been formed in the plasma. This includes carbon, an atom with 6 protons.
Eventually these chunks of plasma would form planets.
More to come…
Many of the planets might have begin as great arcs of residual plasma from the nova. The plasma would be a random soup of all sorts of atoms. Eventually the plasma would form into a ball… well, under the influence of it's own gravitational pull.
There is an interesting aspect of liquids and this goes for neutral plasmas too; denser materials tend to move towards the bottom of the container. Or, when the container is a ball in space; the denser materials would settle closer to the center of the ball, and the less dense materials would tend to diffuse towards the outer edge of the ball.
The Earth may have formed in this way.
Eventually the plasma would cool; although the center of the planet in this process would remain quite warm. Perhaps much of the heat from the original plasma would remain in the center. Or perhaps, if the denser atoms had drifted towards the center of the planet, perhaps many of the atoms with 89-92 protons would have drifted towards the center of the planet and would keep the center of the planet hot with a furnace of fission. This would serve to keep the center of the planet hot and continuously supplying energy to allow for the convection of magma that would create the Earth's magnetic field.
Or perhaps it was primarily a nickel-iron core that remained hot enough to supply a magnetic field for several billion years; actually, to be frank; geophysicists are a bit divided on this particular point.
Of course, there was a great deal of carbon that had existed in the original plasma; some of it would remain within the magma, as a nice *hot* liquid. The exterior of the planet would radiate enough heat into space that it would cool and begin to condense into the first tectonic plates.
Some of the carbon, evidently, ended up condensing within the tectonic plates as well. Much of it would have condensed into a globular mass of mineral carbon, it would be coal. Much of the carbon would exist in other forms.
Carbon has this unique ability to bond with as many as 4 other atoms. This makes carbon able to form some very large and extraordinarily complex structures. Hydrogen, the very first of the atoms that existed in our universe can bond to only one other atom.
One of the very simplest carbon molecules that can exist is CH4. It would not be unheard of for coal (solid carbon) to bond with any available hydrogen in it's surroundings to form CH4. We know that there is a great deal of CH4 in the ground.
Higher carbon chains could have been formed from the Bergius process.
nC + (n+1)H2 –> CnH(2n+2)
Although the Bergius process was an 'artificial' process used to liquify coal into higher carbon chain compounds; all that the reaction needs is high temperatures, high pressures, and a metal catalyst. There very likely exists natural conditions underneath the ground that lead to this reaction.
More on this to come…
I have outlined that the Bergius process may have been one way for the primitive hydrocarbons: CnH(2n+2) to have formed. There likely exists a host of other reactions that exist that lead to the generation of the primitive hydrocarbons and many variations on the primitive hydrocarbons.
Assuming all of these processes to be ongoing, continuous; we can see a way for a great mixture a hydrocarbon soup to come into existence:
methane – 1n –> You will know this gas if you eat too much cabbage.
ethane – 2n
propane – 3n
butane – 4n
pentane – 5n
hexane – 6n
septane – 7n
octane – 8n –> This is what we burn in our cars. This is gasoline.
nonane – 9n
And the rest of the higher alkanes could be produced.
See this link:
From the Bergius process, and a whole host of other reaction processes, there would exist a great soup of hydrocarbons from 1C to nC. This soup *is* crude oil.
At this stage, from this story; perhaps it is clear where most of our crude oil probably came from.
This is the point where we can begin to discuss where life may have come from. Among the reactions that process the hydrocarbons underneath the ground, are the processes that lead to the creation of benzene… a nicely combustible, yet highly carcinogenic substance (why is it highly carcinogenic?).
If, in those great pits of kerogens, there exists oxygen, and oxygen related compounds (this shouldn't be a great leap of the imagination); then there exists the possibility for reactions to exist that lead to the creation of organic alcohols, and ethers.
The presence of oxygen in the kerogen pits should allow for the ready generation of ethers.
The ethers could be easily dissociated by inorganic and organic acids to create alcohols.
I have already made the observation that a chemical of estrogen, estridiol, looks like four benzene rings all concatenated together. But one can also extrapolate that in this soup of hydrocarbons exists the conditions necessary to create the nucleotides that we find in DNA and RNA.
Nucleotides like Guanine, Cytosine, Thymine, and Adenine make up the chains that form our DNA.
Let us look at Guanine, very quickly:
It can be formed from a very simple and readily available group of chemicals:
10NH3 + 2CH4 + 4C2H6 + 2H2O → 2C5H8N5O (guanine) + 25H2
If there exists ammonia in the environment, then there exists the ability of the hydrocarbon pit to generate the nucleic acids.
These, along with carbohydrates, and proteins are all the building blocks of life.
This is why I posit that it was not life that gave rise to the existence of crude oil; but that it was crude oil that gave rise to the existence of life.
Mark Luhman
James, People have found oil in granite, no enough to be useful but it was there, It was granite shattered by a meteor. The reason we find oil in sedimentary rock is because it is porous were most igneous rock are not. We also most always find oil near fault lines where the continental rock is fractured and allow for the oil to percolate up.
David Smith
What should also be mentioned is how the Russians exploited "Kudryavtsev's Rule" – aka the presence of surface hydrocarbons is a strong indicator of deeper hydrocarobn deposits nearby. That's one reason we see many of these new oilfields being developed in areas where surface deposits of coal were historically present.
James Cummins
First you have to eliminate the biogenic sources. If the hydrocarbons are simply percolating up through porous sediments why aren't the oceans (and most freshwater lakes) topped with a layer of hydrocarbons?
If I were to be snarky…
At the moment, large swathes of the gulf of Mexico is topped with a layer of hydrocarbons. 😛
We have sufficient evidences that majority of commercially interesting hydrocarbons have been expelled from organic rich source rock and are trapped in the reservoir rocks. We also have the evidences showing presence of biological molecules in all commercial oils.
We have observed the abundance of similar hydrocarbons on many other planetary bodies viz. comets and moons (eg. Titan) etc. which are thought to have been formed without any involvement of any biological material . The common association of hydrocarbons with the inert gas helium is also not explainable in current theory of biotic origin of petroleum. We have observed presence of some traces element like V, Ni, Cu, Co, Zn.. etc in hydrocarbons which also do not clearly explain the biotic origin of petroleum ( szatmari et al,2005). According to the author of the paper ,they have analyzed 68 Brazilian oil and nine foreign oils and determined 24 metal traces in the oils showed fine correlation of the oils with CI chondrite and mantle peridotites, and worse correlation with oceanic and continental crust, and none with seawater. No doubt, the biotic theory has some important evidences but on the other hand the followers of abiotic theory also have strong evidences which cannot be denied. So we require a new theory that can reconcile the strong evidences of both the current theories. Taking strong evidences of both the theories we can easily conclude it.
Majority of commercially interesting hydrocarbons accumulations have been formed from the organic rich sedimentary source rocks but essentially from those which has been formed with the involvement of abiotic hydrocarbons. And these abiotic hydrocarbons were once hugely present on the surface of the earth in past geological time. Sedimentary rocks that have been formed without any involvement of these abiotic hydrocarbons are not suitable to form commercial hydrocarbons deposits. So abiotic sources are the major contributor in the commercial accumulations of hydrocarbons. Hence a well balanced theory is today's major requirement which will help future hydrocarbon exploration efficiently.
We have sufficient evidences that majority of commercially interesting hydrocarbons have been expelled from organic rich source rock and are trapped in the reservoir rocks. We also have the evidences showing presence of biological molecules in all commercial oils.
We have observed the abundance of similar hydrocarbons on many other planetary bodies viz. comets and moons (eg. Titan) etc. which are thought to have been formed without any involvement of any biological material . The common association of hydrocarbons with the inert gas helium is also not explainable in current theory of biotic origin of petroleum. We have observed presence of some traces element like V, Ni, Cu, Co, Zn.. etc in hydrocarbons which also do not clearly explain the biotic origin of petroleum ( szatmari et al,2005). According to the author of the paper ,they have analyzed 68 Brazilian oil and nine foreign oils and determined 24 metal traces in the oils showed fine correlation of the oils with CI chondrite and mantle peridotites, and worse correlation with oceanic and continental crust, and none with seawater. No doubt, the biotic theory has some important evidences but on the other hand the followers of abiotic theory also have strong evidences which cannot be denied. So we require a new theory that can reconcile the strong evidences of both the current theories. Taking strong evidences of both the theories we can easily conclude it.
Majority of commercially interesting hydrocarbons accumulations have been formed from the organic rich sedimentary source rocks but essentially from those which has been formed with the involvement of abiotic hydrocarbons. And these abiotic hydrocarbons were once hugely present on the surface of the earth in past geological time. Sedimentary rocks that have been formed without any involvement of these abiotic hydrocarbons are not suitable to form commercial hydrocarbons deposits. So abiotic sources are the major contributor in the commercial accumulations of hydrocarbons. Hence a well balanced theory is today's major requirement which will help future hydrocarbon exploration efficiently.
Dave C
This article, and the accompanying comments, are so full of mis-information and dis-information that it strains credulity. The article's author obviously has little knowledge of modern petroleum geology and geochemistry, but does have a large political axe. A few examples: 1) the oil industry didn't support "Peak Oil". The arc of the industry has been that as oil reserves tighten, new technology generally leads to increased exploitation of previously unknown or unproducible supplies. 2) Far from being an "Economic Superpower" with "cutting edge technology:, Russia is an increasingly militarized and authoritarian petro-state that is extremely dependendent on western exploration and production technology. As for the technical reasons, suffice it to say that a lot of people have studied this problem for over 100 years, and the evidence, dispassionately evaluated, is that petroleum, especially oil, is derived from biological precursors (both algae and higher plants, but not dinosaurs). The Russian literature has been reviewed and evaluated, and found, for the most part to be lacking, not the least because during the Soviet era it was heavily politicized. Think Lysenko and biology. The best argument for the validity of the biological origin is that oil companies (including Russian oil companies) use it (successfully) to explore for oil. These companies are in the business to make money, not perpetrate frauds, so they use the best techniques to explore and produce petroleum, not those that fit a particular view.
The author of this text does seem to have a rather 'optimistic' view of Russia as a State; I suppose that he is entitled to his opinion.
"The best argument for the validity of the biological origin is that oil companies (including Russian oil companies) use it (successfully) to explore for oil."
Among the advocates of abiogenic oil and those of fossil oil there doesn't appear to be disagreement over the fact that you have a higher chance of finding oil near carbon-rich areas. This leaves me confused regarding your point… how do oil companies use the 'biological origin theory of oil' to explore for oil?
Is their technique not to find, 'fossil' river deltas, or 'carbon rich areas'; use sonic emitter arrays to identify an area that has the density profile that you would expect to see from oil, then punch a hole in the ground to see if they were right?
The techniques are more complex than my description above; and if you are more familiar with them than I then please… enlighten us all, tell us about them. 🙂
Hi Gilian,
I have read with much interest your comments on PSI's article on this issue. Would you have the time and inclination to put together an article for us presenting your findings? It would be most helpful to have your contribution published so that the discussion can be better informed and help us progress towards a more rigorous assessment of these competing theories.
Many thanks,
John O'Sullivan
CEO: Principia Scientific International https://principia-scientific.org/
When I was young I wondered where oil came from. Reading the resources that were available at my elementary school library, I learned that the prevailing idea was that oil came from ancient life that had collected at the bottom of the ocean over time, it had formed over a period of millions of years of sedimentation. At the time I thought the idea that we might be burning the leftover residue of dinosaurs was pretty interesting. But there were pieces of it that never really made much sense to me.
For instance, how did the detritus reach a depth of several miles beneath the Earth in large quantities; and as it was reaching those depths, how did it decompose? There is such a thing as catagenesis; but does that accurately account for the amount of oil that we have been using?
I heard Thomas Gold's theory (although he was not the first to think of it), and as a chemical description for the origin of oil, it seemed to make more sense than what I had been taught as a child. From my understanding of the physical processes, both the Fischer Tropsch process, and catagenesis would lead to crude oil, given the requisite time. I have no doubts that there is a degree of both biotic and abiotic crude oil. Although at the commercial scales that we use gasoline; the abiotic concept appears more likely from my interpretation of the theories.
I wish that I had more training in geology than I have. At $35+/article, it would be very expensive for me to review even a small piece of the literature on the subject and to synthesize a more clear concept. Even if I could, most of the readers wouldn't be able to review the literature in the same way that I did, under the current publication system. Under the current publication model; intelligent discourse on these subjects is unfortunately confined to the 'prestigious' journals that these discussions tend to be published in.
The public, and our politicians necessarily cannot really have a clear concept of what is discussed in those journals because they are effectively blocked by the paywalls.
Oh well, the politicians and the public can always rely on lobbying institutions like the IPCC and the Heartland Institute to synthesize the discussions in those journals into an accurate, unbiased framework. 😛
If the dispute between biotic v/s abiotic is, weather the majority commercial interesting hydrocarbons has been expelled from sedimentary source rocks or not ,than i am in favor of followers of biotic theory .
If the dispute is weather the expelled hydrocarbons from sedimentary source rocks are biotic or abiotic in origin than i am in favor of followers of abiotic theory on the basis of evidences .
current biotic theory is scientific but starts from 10 not from 1 . from 1 to 10 it is "EMPTY" .
There are tons of evidences that oils we are using in our daily life were once present at mantle level conditions also and current biotic theory has zero respect for ALL these strong evidences . to prove any theory we required tons of evidences but single against it can disprove it . So i am in favor of balanced hypothesis that can reconcile the both . please google the abiotic origin of hydrocarbons and learn how to reconcile these in biotic theory . sorry i can not help you at biotic theory as it is .
James Cummins
If the hydrocarbons on earth are of abiotic origin why don't the pre-cambrian sedimentary rocks host oil,gas or coal deposits? I can't find evidence of oil or gas being produced from the Belt or Purcell super groups here in W. N. America. Very few fossils too.
"If the hydrocarbons on earth are of abiotic origin why don't the pre-cambrian sedimentary rocks host oil,gas or coal deposits?"
What about the Nonesuch formation in the Precambrian rift beneath the mid-continent of the US?
Observe this statement:
"Now, there is also some evidence of Precambrian oil from Precambrian source
rocks. Beneath the sediments of the mid-continent of the US, there is a huge
graben, the Precambrian rift. In it is the Nonesuch formation."
From this source:
And here are a few highlights from that document:
"The Nonesuch is composed of thin black,
evenly laminated shales and siltstones. Thin sections show
that it is organically rich…" Carol Kindle Lee S. Duff Kerr,
"Mid-continent Rift- a
Frontier Oil Province", Oil and Gas Journal, (August 13,
1984), p. 144-150, p. 148.
"The Nonesuch shale drips oil when it is encountered in mines, such as the
White Pine Copper Mine in Michigan." Hunt, Petroleum Geochemistry and
Geology, W. H. Freeman, 1996, p. 16-17
These statements would appear to contradict your first sentence. There *does* exist some evidence for oil in the pre-cambrian era.
You make the statement:
"I can't find evidence of oil or gas being produced from the Belt or Purcell super groups here in W. N. America."
The Belt and Purcell super groups are in a National Park, which is a protected region. It would surprise me to learn that drilling had been attempted in that region. Has surveying for oil even been attempted in that region?
This description of the model used to prospect for oil reflects what Ryan Carlyle said:
This article mentions that precambrian geology is poorly understood. The precambrian rock from the Archaen era is generally composed of igneous, metamorphic, and some sedimentary rock.
Since precambrian rocks tend to form the base upon which more modern sedimentary rock settles, we don't have that many examples of it to draw evidence from.
If most of the precambrian rocks are buried deep in the ground; the temperature and pressure profiles of the ground beneath the precambrian ground would have increased over time as the precambrian ground had more sediment accumulating on top of it. We find today that most of the commercially interesting oil is found between 2000-5500 meters below the ground. One could posit that in the precambrian systems, the bulk of the oil would have existed at whatever depth produced the necessary temperatures and pressures that one would find today at 2000-5500 meters below the ground.
My guess is that the most simple life would have begun in the hydrocarbon pits; it would have percolated up through the ground into the ocean; and it would eventually evolve into all of the biodiversity that the fossil record indicates.
However, starting from a chemical beginning; it would mean that the first organisms would have started at the very smallest imaginable scales, smaller than bacteria. The first life was likely the size of a small virus.
"I can't find evidence of oil or gas being produced from the Belt or Purcell super groups here in W. N. America. Very few fossils too."
You know, actually, I'm not seeing any drilling operations on the map of Wisconsin, at all.
It is very difficult to produce oil or gas when you don't even drill.
Actually, what am I doing looking up Wisconsin? It's Wyoming that we care about.
There are drilling operations there. Lots of them.
In this document exists this statement:
"Seismic reflection images that were acquired by Duncan
Energy of Denver, during exploration for oil and gas in the
Purcell anticlinorium and southern Rocky Mountain trench,
show that there are large tectonic overlaps across the trans-
verse, northeast-trending segments of Moyie-Dibble Creek
fault and the St. Mary-Lussier River fault (Cook and Van der
Velden, 1995)."
There has been surveying that has been attempted in that region. Hmm… I need to consider this.
James Cummins
Well, I have to concede that hydrocarbons have been found in pre cambrian seds. I was unaware of the Nonesuch fm. Oil has also been found in pre cambrian formations in areas of overthrusting. So never say never! Having said that, I would note that the Nonesuch fm. is estimated at 1.1 billion years old. Fossils of bacteria have been found in rocks that are estimated at 3.45 billion years old. That leaves lots of time for bacterial and algal metabolism to produce hydrocarbons.
So then, now I have to ask; where did any of that algae come from in the first place? How did it come to be? What did it evolve from?
James Cummins
The origin of life on earth is about the most profound question that science can attempt to answer. I personally think that a myriad of conditions had to be met for something like a proto-bacteria to develop. Furthermore I think that setting strict boundaries for live/not live may be a mistake. Air bubbles in water and water itself can organize and separate charge. I guess that puts me in league with Goldilocks in thinking that this planet is and was just right!
If one had a soup of different RNA enzymes that would self-replicate; in a mixture with other RNA enzymes that can also self replicate; interactions between those two sets of enzymes will lead to mutations, and the fastest replicating species will begin to dominate the mixture.
All it would take is one. Just one formation of an RNA 'word' that is self-replicating and you have the precursor for life as-we-know-it that will move on to generate more members like itself. Given enough time and you will have complex life.
I think that the idea of mixing the concepts of abiogenic oil with abiogenesis makes a great deal of sense. It assumes an origin for oil, and it explains the development and the existence of life in one go.
Now that I have discussed that, I should mention that I am on the 'pessimistic' end of the the abiogenic oil issue. I am not sure how quickly crude oil is generated, even if I don't believe it to be generated on geological time-scales; all that it takes for us to run ourselves out of the stuff is for us to use it at a rate that is greater than the 'easily'-accessible reserves in the ground can replenish themselves.
As a matter of being better prepared and 'hedging' our bets, just so that we don't find ourselves needing gasoline, in the future, and not having enough; developing a diverse plethora of methods for generating energy would seem to be a wise course of action.
Wind, solar, nuclear-fission, nuclear-fusion (if it's reality isn't perpetually 20 years from being realized), biogenic, whatever… we need them. And ideally a set of energy sources that are energy dense and not too 'wimpy' (I'm looking at you; wind and solar).
Energy sources that multiply our electricity bills by a factor of 2 or more should not be favored. Such sources used on a universal scale would make 'everything' more expensive; clothing, food, shelter, you know… only everything we need.
James Cummins,
I appreciate your patience with my comments and questions. I realize that my approach to this issue has been like an 'over-exuberant puppy'. Your knowledge of geology is clearly greater than my own; physics is more my strong suit.
It has been really nice not to see one of these comment threads devolve into a bunch of ad-hominem (as seems to be happening in one of the global warming articles, at the moment).
You seem a decent fellow; I wish you well.
James Cummins
Thanks Gillian,
I appreciate a discussion where I learn something.
I'm convinced that the hydrocarbons we are currently extracting have been processed by photosynthesis and/or bacteria. Every carbon atom in my body was once in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Now, because of this discussion, I'm not so sure about the original source(s) of the carbon.
how will you reconcile this paper for even economical oils in the current fossil fuel theory . ). According to the author of the paper ,they have analyzed 68 Brazilian oil and nine foreign oils and determined 24 metal traces in the oils showed fine correlation of the oils with CI chondrite and mantle peridotites, and worse correlation with oceanic and continental crust, and none with seawater
Current Biogenic theory is a nothing but a big cartel only ,who have grown up by reading this theory from school time .
2. There is hard need for the followers of abiotic theory to unite at one international stage and i am making efforts to unite them . any follower of abiotic theory can send me mail so that i may add him/her in my mailing list .
The Professor
YOU ARE ALL WRONG !!! oil including deep and surface oils came from earth passing through the tails of comets … another "mythological science" is that comets are dirty snowballs … they are actually the plasma discharge of the solar capacitor and hydrocarbons are formed (and seen regularly) in the tails of comets … spectrometers cannot tell the difference between short and long chain HC molecules but the long chains have been directly measured on comet nuclei (baked on by the high temperatures associated with the plasma discharge process) … this is a complex process in fact the formation of the earth all at one time is also a myth … unfortunately the abiatic oil concept is based on many myths including the "earth formed all at one time" myth … before you start discussing things like the origin of oil you have to get your "where and when did earth's surface come from" story straight … the reality is that earth's surface has formed and reformed many times at the hands or LARGE comets (not tiny Halley's comet sized comets) … the deep pools were laid by comet passage encounters (some lasting months at a time) after which earth layered and layered to bury them deep in the rock structure … the one thing we agree on is THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF OIL and IT DID NOT COME FROM DINOSAUR BONES (how the scientific community got away with that joke is more than i can imagine but then again the majority of all modern science is a joke) … is it possible that deep oil is concurrent with abiatic AND comet pollution oil sources … of course … but the surface oil is certainly from comet sources … the ancients even talk about the rain of burning naptha which formed the surface pools that were first used and refined around 1200 AD in "arabia" … for more details see the web page http://www.jmccanneyscience.com
Regardless whether oil is organic or not… We Should be more worried about the destruction being caused by the abuse of these fuels.
It is mid-September, not the grape growing season in Western Australia. Yet I bought some today. The shop knew they were from the US but not from which part. An example of the beauty of air-freight,refrigeration, and trade. Oil, whether organic or not, in service to human welfare.
Is there a downside? Not the non-existent human induced climate change which is a rent-seekers scam.
Can fuels be abused? Yes indeed, by the thousands of parasites and destroyers who flit around the globe to attend climate change conferences in luxury resorts trying to add to our tax burden, slow our economies, and promote their sense of do-goodism while in fact doing much harm.
D. Andrew White
Biomarker hydrocarbons and C13:C12 ratios clearly mark the majority of petroleum as being biotic, i.e. derived from ancient cyanobacteria & algae. Likewise most methane has C13:C12 ration indicative of biotic origins.
The existence of some abiotic methane is interesting, and potentially a source of energy. But it is already known that natural gas is abundant. Abiotic methane could postpone Peak Natural gas.
Liquid petroleum is another matter. There are indications of traces of abiotic oil. They are thinly dispersed, and generally extremely deep. The EROEI of such oils must be extremely low (Energy Skeptic). This putative abiotic petroleum therefore is almost certainly not going to help postpone Peak Oil.
Dreams of perpetual abiotic oil generation are simply wishful thinking.
[quote name="D. Andrew White"]Biomarker hydrocarbons and C13:C12 ratios clearly mark the majority of petroleum as being biotic, i.e. derived from ancient cyanobacteria & algae. Likewise most methane has C13:C12 ration indicative of biotic origins.
The existence of some abiotic methane is interesting, and potentially a source of energy. But it is already known that natural gas is abundant. Abiotic methane could postpone Peak Natural gas.
Liquid petroleum is another matter. There are indications of traces of abiotic oil. They are thinly dispersed, and generally extremely deep. The EROEI of such oils must be extremely low (Energy Skeptic). This putative abiotic petroleum therefore is almost certainly not going to help postpone Peak Oil.
Dreams of perpetual abiotic oil generation are simply wishful thinking.[/quote]https://cbfool.wordpress.com/2015/08/07/dismissal-of-the-claims-of-a-biological-connection-for-natural-petroleum/
Oregon Schools to Ban Anti-AGW Curriculum Content - Page 10 - Homesteading Today
[…] to be lacking? Here is some reading. Always good to read, no matter your feelings on the subject. https://principia-scientific.org/russ…k-co2-science/ This one has pictures. Check out the those coal seams. That is a lot of peat. […]


text:
The Colorado Avalanche begin their 2018-19 season at home Thursday night against the Minnesota Wild. Coming off a surprise playoff appearance last season, the Avalanche have some burning questions that need to be answered this year. Our Mile High Sports team takes a look at some of those burning questions and do their best to answer them.
Semyon Varlamov is set to start the year as the Avs' No. 1 goaltender. With Philipp Grubauer waiting in the wings, how do you anticipate the Avalanche handling the situation in net throughout the year?
J.J. Jerez: I believe coach Jared Bednar is a numbers guy, and he's not going to let emotion control his decisions. He has a luxury many coaches would love – having two capable goalies – and he's going to simply play whoever is making the big saves and winning games. What do they do when both are playing well? Let's cross that bridge when we get to it, because the Avalanche face a challenging start to the year; nine of their first 14 games are on the road.
Evan Rawal: Coach Bednar has already indicated they will have plans one-to-two weeks in advance, but those will always be subject to change based on who is playing well. My personal belief is that Grubauer will ultimately become the starting goaltender, but I do think Varlamov will have a good year, as he will be playing for a new contract, whether that's with the Avalanche or another team.
J.J. Seaward: I personally see Varlamov and Grubauer roughly evenly splitting the season with each other. However, the play of Varlamov will definitely be watched as Grubauer will be hungry to possibly take over that No. 1 spot. If the Avs lose Varlamov due to injury once again, then I definitely can see Grubauer turning into "the man" for the Avs.
Shawn Drotar: Grubauer will be the Avs' main man… next season. In this season, I expect the two to roughly split time, especially making sure that Varlamov doesn't have to play in back-to-back games. If the Avalanche feel that Grubauer gives them the best chance to win now, however, look for general manager Joe Sakic to dangle Varlamov in a trade back East.
The Avs are a team that will, once again, rely heavily on their youth to carry them. What young player do you think will take the biggest step forward this coming season?
Evan Rawal: Samuel Girard. The coaching staff is wasting no time putting him on the top pair to start the year, as they saw what he was capable last year as a teenager. While he's a joy to watch with the puck, his play in the defensive zone is what continues to impress me. By the time the calendar rolls into 2019, I think he will be seen as the best defenseman on the team.
J.J. Seaward: Following his continued development and his play during the preseason, I believe Alexander Kerfoot will continue to bring his game to the next level. In preseason, he indicated that he'll shoot the puck more, and if that's true, this will help with the Avs' lack of secondary scoring.
Shawn Drotar: Girard. He's a shockingly heady player for his age, and his relative lack of size hasn't been a detriment yet. He quickly became a key part of the Avalanche's young core; by the All-Star break, he might just become invaluable.
J.J. Jerez: Tyson Jost. As a freshman in the NCAA, he scored over a point per game and those are the expectations he has for himself. With 22 points in 65 games last year, Jost feels like he underachieved, but at only 20 years of age, he still has plenty of room to grow. As he continues to get in tune with the NHL game and all that comes with it, he will make strides towards being the offensive weapon Avs fans hoped he'd become.
The top line for the Avs is set. Beyond that, there are question marks up front. As it stands now, do the Avs have the secondary scoring in place to continue their ascent, or will it be something that holds the team back?
J.J. Jerez: It seems as though they are relying on the young guns to take a monstrous leap forward. If those young guys (Tyson Jost, Alex Kerfoot, JT Compher) fail to do so, there are going to be major issues, mainly because the Soderberg, Nieto and, as of now, Gabriel Bourque line is primarily used for defensive purposes, so the offensive support will need to come from somewhere. Aside from Sven Andrighetto, who's currently on the IR, there isn't too much of an offensive threat outside of the top line.
Shawn Drotar: They have the ability to a be good-scoring team through their top two lines… but turning potential into production is the trick. The young line that J.J. just mentioned is critical; play well, and the pressure will continue to lift from the goal-scoring machine that the MacKinnon line has become. Fail to score with regularity, however, and the Avalanche will drop more than a few games that they should have won over the course of the season – because even Nathan MacKinnon has off-nights.
J.J. Seaward: Although it does need a little bit more work before the Avs touch an elite level, I do feel that the Avs have addressed some of their secondary scoring issues. Going hand-in-hand with the previous question, Kerfoot is a bright light who should give Avs fans hope for some secondary scoring — and I feel the other young guns will follow suit.
Evan Rawal: While both Jost and Kerfoot, the most important pieces to the secondary scoring up front, looked very good in the preseason, I'm still a little bit skeptical. If anything, I believe the additional secondary scoring may come from the defense, with Johnson, Barrie, Girard, and Zadorov helping the most. The bottom six looks like a real problem in terms of ability to create offense, particularly if they continue to flank Carl Soderberg with less-talented wingers.
Ultimately, the Avalanche play in the toughest division in the NHL. If you had to guess right now, do you see the Avs making or missing the postseason in 2018-19?
Shawn Drotar: The Central is so good that the Avs could make another leap forward… and still finish third. And I think that's exactly what they'll do.
J.J. Seaward: With much of the other Central division teams making improvements to their rosters, I feel like it could possibly once again all come down to the final game(s) of the regular season for the Avalanche playoff hopes. With this said, I can imagine the Avs squeezing in with a wild-card spot for the second consecutive year to qualify for the playoffs.
Evan Rawal: I do believe the Avalanche will make the playoffs again, and I think they'll do it on the backs of their defense and goaltending. While there is a lot of hype around teams like St. Louis and Dallas in the Central to steal a playoff spot, I'm not buying either of those teams due to their inconsistent goaltending. The top line will provide enough offense for the team to get by, while the defense really will make a name for themselves this year.
J.J. Jerez: Missing the playoffs. The combination of internal pressure to improve upon last season and an unfavorable schedule to start the year is going to be an obstacle this young team isn't fully ready to overcome. There is potential to squeak in as a wild-card team again, but they will have a tough time against division foes the Jets, Predators and Stars, who all are better teams on paper. However, this team has embraced the underdog role before.


text:
Rescue Your Home From The Pesky Pests
If pests have invaded your house, you might start feeling hopeless. It may feel like no matter what you do, they multiply. If this has happened to you, this article has useful advice you should follow.
Vacuuming the rugs and carpets within the home is a great secret for reducing the pest problems. Any stray insects will be sucked up in the vacuum. Put the vacuum bag in a plastic bag and set it in the sun for a day. Then throw it away.
Do fruit flies start coming back after you get rid of them? They may be living in your sink drains. Make sure that you wrap your drain to the best of your ability with plastic. If they do, pour some boiling water down your drain and give it a good scrub. This should prevent fruit flies from making a nest in your drain.
Try using hairspray to get rid of bees, hornets, or wasps. The spray contains chemicals that will kill bugs and scents that prevent their return.
Make certain to check local ordinances and codes to find out which types of pest control are allowed in your area. Applying banned chemicals may pose problems down the road when you go to sell the house. While this is pretty rare in occurrence, it does give you motivation to research what pest control methods are approved and successful in your community.
Never buy a house without having it inspected for bugs first. There are some signs of pests that are easy to see. Others do not become apparent until you spend some uninterrupted time at home.
If you need to make doubly sure that no termites remain in your home, use a termite-sniffing dog to check for the presence of termites. A termite inspector can just confirm that one-third of your house is safe. A dog that is properly trained can sniff out 100 percent of your property. They will notice methane gas, which can come from termites consuming the wood in your home.
Do you find that you are battling ants in your home? Combat it with a mixture of borax and sugar. They will be attracted to the sugar, but the borax will be deadly. All you need is a cup of both sugar and borax and a jar. Poke holes in the top, and sprinkle it around baseboards and inside cabinets.
If you have a water leak, fix it. Pests of all kinds need water to live and thrive. You would be surprised how far away they can be yet they know of your water drip. Don't let your neglect be the reason you have pests. Use a little elbow grease to stop the leak, or call in a professional plumber who can do the job for you.
Throwing pests out of a home is not any fun. Some people take years to fully eradicate them. You can use this advice to chase off those annoying pests, permanently. You will be able to relax in your pest-free house.