Saturday, June 12, 2010

BP Oil Disaster Could Hit Europe Via the Powerful Gulf Stream Current

BP Oil Disaster Could Hit Europe Via the Powerful Gulf Stream Current

Politics / Environmental Issues

Jun 10, 2010 - 01:26 PM
By: F William Engdahl

The Obama Administration and senior BP officials are frantically working, not to stop the world’s worst oil disaster, but to hide the true extent of the actual ecological catastrophe. Senior researchers tell us that the BP drilling hit one of the oil migration channels and that the leakage could continue for years unless decisive steps are undertaken, something that seems far from the present strategy.

In a recent discussion, Vladimir Kutcherov, Professor at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden and the Russian State University of Oil and Gas, predicted that the present oil spill flooding the Gulf Coast shores of the United States “could go on for years and years … many years.”

According to Kutcherov, a leading specialist in the theory of abiogenic deep origin of petroleum, “What BP drilled into was what we call a ‘migration channel,’ a deep fault on which hydrocarbons generated in the depth of our planet migrate to the crust and are accumulated in rocks, something like Ghawar in Saudi Arabia.” Ghawar, the world’s most prolific oilfield has been producing millions of barrels daily for almost 70 years with no end in sight. According to the abiotic science, Ghawar like all elephant and giant oil and gas deposits all over the world, is located on a migration channel similar to that in the oil-rich Gulf of Mexico.

As I wrote at the time of the January 2010 Haiti earthquake disaster, Haiti had been identified as having potentially huge hydrocasrbon reserves, as has neighboring Cuba. Kutcherov estimates that the entire Gulf of Mexico is one of the planet’s most abundant accessible locations to extract oil and gas, at least before the Deepwater Horizon event this April.

“In my view the heads of BP reacted with panic at the scale of the oil spewing out of the well,” Kutcherov adds. “What is inexplicable at this point is why they are trying one thing, failing, then trying a second, failing, then a third. Given the scale of the disaster they should try every conceivable option, even if it is ten, all at once in hope one works. Otherwise, this oil source could spew oil for years given the volumes coming to the surface already.”

He stresses, “It is difficult to estimate how big this leakage is. There is no objective information available.” But taking into consideration information about the last BP ‘giant’ discovery in the Gulf of Mexico, the Tiber field, some six miles deep, Kutcherov agrees with Ira Leifer a researcher in the Marine Science Institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara who says the oil may be gushing out at a rate of more than 100,000 barrels a day.


Silence from Eco groups?... Follow the money

Without doubt at this point we are in the midst of what could be the greatest ecological catastrophe in history. The oil platform explosion took place almost within the current loop where the Gulf Stream originates. This has huge ecological and climatological consequences.

A cursory look at a map of the Gulf Stream shows that the oil is not just going to cover the beaches in the Gulf, it will spread to the Atlantic coasts up through North Carolina then on to the North Sea and Iceland. And beyond the damage to the beaches, sea life and water supplies, the Gulf stream has a very distinct chemistry, composition (marine organisms), density, temperature. What happens if the oil and the dispersants and all the toxic compounds they create actually change the nature of the Gulf Stream? No one can rule out potential changes including changes in the path of the Gulf Stream, and even small changes could have huge impacts. Europe, including England, is not an icy wasteland due to the warming from the Gulf Stream.

Yet there is a deafening silence from the very environmental organizations which ought to be at the barricades demanding that BP, the US Government and others act decisively.

That deafening silence of leading green or ecology organizations such as Greenpeace, Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club and others may well be tied to a money trail that leads right back to the oil industry, notably to BP. Leading environmental organizations have gotten significant financial payoffs in recent years from BP in order that the oil company could remake itself with an “environment-friendly face,” as in “beyond petroleum” the company’s new branding.

The Nature Conservancy, described as “the world’s most powerful environmental group,” has awarded BP a seat on its International Leadership Council after the oil company gave the organization more than $10 million in recent years.


  1. "Abiotic Oil"
    I find that highly questionable. Otherwise a great article.

  2. Abiotic Oil. Perhaps there are those that might have different theories. Just because the current paradigm says that oil comes from decaying biota doesn't mean that it's whole story, or even correct.

    It's not so far fetched really. What are comets made from? Hydrocarbons mostly. Early on the Earth was heavily bombarded. All those hydrocarbons didn't just disappear.

    Take a look at that map of the Gulf again, and change your perspective; it's a rather round shape, isn't it, kind of like the remnants of an impact crater, just like the Hudson Bay above it, which is most likely a crater remnant as well. It has been well known for years that there is a massive geopressure dome under the Gulf that contains a massive amount of natural gas, but we didn't possess the technology to drill for it. What if it was a comet strike?

    Have read about the findings on Titan? It snows there, methane snow, and has lakes of hydrocarbons. None of these were biotic. No dead dinosaurs roaming around there, I can assure you.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. Interesting thanks. I knew the Gulf was a crater. The article implies that because there's a huge pool of oil under the Gulf and a huge pool at Ghawar, that Abiotic oil is obviously a given. And the article states that Ghawar is obviously inexaustible and not in decline, some very large leaps of "logic" without getting into whether oil is abiotic or not.

  5. simple methane is ubiquitous, so while its certainly possible that some geologic activity could produce complex hydrocarbons, there's still no evidence that any of the oil we are currently extracting is of abiotic origin; none of the people who work in the field buy into that old soviet era theory; & even when petrogeologists talk of "old oil", they are still speaking of oil with origins in the early carboniferous era...