• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Jennifer Marohasy

Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

  • Home
  • About
  • Publications
  • Speaker
  • Blog
  • Temperatures
  • Coral Reefs
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Energy & Nuclear

Abiotic Oil: A Note from Louis Hissink

November 5, 2006 By jennifer

“There is a widely held belief that coal and oil are the result of a conversion from organic matter, both vegetable and biotic, that accumulated in sedimentary basins over geological time to become fossil fuels. It is presumed that vast periods of geological time converted the raw buried organic material into petroleum at the base of the sedimentary piles in the earth’s crust. An alternative theory proposes that coal and oil are abiotic in origin and derived from upper mantle processes as suggested by the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abiotic oil, but also popularised by the late Tommy Gold in his controversial book, ‘The Deep Hot Biosphere’.*

In this guest blog post Louis Hissink explains the alternative theory, but begins by explaining how the current consensus came to be …

“Modern geological thinking remains wedded to its uniformitarian paradigm set up during the early nineteenth century when Charles Lyell, a Whig lawyer and amateur geologist, wrote his ‘Principles of Geology’ as a political work to refute the authority of the ruling Tories in England.

Rather than refute his critics facts with evidence, Lyell used his skills as a lawyer to convert his opponents by the art of persuasion, and his ‘Principles of Geology’ the main weapon.

Until then, geology was limited by the constraints of the Christian bible. There was a belief in one original catastrophe, the Noachian flood, which occurred during the recent geological past.

George Grinnell in his paper ‘The Origins of Modern Geological Theory’ describes the political circumstances that prompted the adoption of Lyellian doctrine or uniformitarianism that dominates modern geology thinking to this day.

Lyell’s Principles allowed the clerical geologists of his day to have their cake but also to eat it.

What Lyell did was to shift Biblical creation from its Ussherian date of 4004 BC to some more distant time by interposing an arbitrary period of geological time during which miracles could be invoked to explain geological observations under the principle that anything becomes possible if enough time is allocated. Lyell also dismissed the Old Testament as literature rather than a badly interpreted historical account of the Jewish Peoples and finally banished biblical catastrophism from the nascent science of geology.

When Lyell went to North America he visited the famous Horseshoe Falls (Niagara Falls) and asked a native at what rate the falls were receding. The native American answered that the rate was some 3 -4 feet per year. Lyell, however, assumed that as natives of a country tend to exaggerate their country’s facts then the quoted rate was too high and arbitrarily reduced it to 1 foot per year, subsequently establishing the date of the last ice-age at some 10,000 years past.

Is this relevant to abiotic oil? Yes because it demonstrates how the empirically obvious is changed by persuasive argument. Much of geology relies on the Lyellian system of persuasian and biogenic oil theory is no exception.

The paramount axiom in geology is that the key to the past is the present. Which means that what we observe, and have observed, of natural forces operating on the surface of the planet, in a geological sense, must explain the past. If the key to the past is indeed the present, then somewhere on the surface of the earth there must exist modern day precursors of the ancient coal seams and petroleum deposits — accumulations of vegetable and organic masses in sedimentary basins, pre-fossil deposits as it were — to produce tomorrow’s coal and oil.

It is generally assumed that the Pacific Ocean is of Jurassic age but no widespread accumulations of organic detritus have been found on the seafloor or in its thin sedimentary cover, and equally so for the other seas over the earth. Nor are there any enormous ever increasing accumulations of organic material on the land surfaces comprising dead animals or forests. Of course a minor amount of organic detritus does accumulate in the existing sediments today, but not at sufficient quantities to allow the interpretation that one day in the future oil will be produced from them. How could so much oil be produced from so few organisms?

But it is an irrefutable fact that the earth’s biosphere is continually recycling itself, whether via the plant or animal kingdoms and nowhere are deposits of organic material that could be the future coal and oil deposits forming. If petroleum is truly biotic, then enormous masses of organic material must be accumulating somewhere on the earth’s surface to form future oils. Why don’t we see them? Could the biogenic oil theory be wrong?

In the geological record the past mass extinctions of the biosphere of both plant an animal, are preserved with amazing fidelity in the sedimentary strata except that there are no coal and oil deposits associated with these fossils.

Strange, fossils that are not oil.

Of course coal has abundant plant remnants in it but as Tommy Gold pointed out, if coal is the result of compressing hundreds of meters of vegetation debris, then we certainly should not see undeformed tree trunks passing through the coal seams.

Unfortunately Christian fundamentalists have produced most of the scientific evidence for this, guaranteeing it will not be considered as “scientific” evidence. It is not so much the evidence as the interpretation of that evidence which is problematical.

This is a serious problem for the fossil fuel theory – just how are these enormous deposits of petroleum formed from organic material, given that we are not observing any modern day accumulation of organic material. (That minor plankton debris in sediments is capable of accumulation in the sedimentary basins requires a serious stretch of the imagination to produce the trillions of barrels of oil so far discovered). Does this then mean that it occurred in the geological past but not during the present? This is a violation of the key geological paradigm – that the present can explain the past.

Just how much oil do we have?

According to the US Geological Survey, “the earth currently has more than three trillion barrels of conventional, recoverable oil resources of which 1 trillion has already been produced” according to Mark Nolan, chairman of ExxonMobil addressing the Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference in Sydney during September 2006.

Now how much organic material has had to accumulate over geological time to yield these enormous oil reserves. It means living organisms being continuously created on the surface of the earth but then removed from their environment to form deposits of organic matter in ancient sediments where they can be preserved. We do not observe this occurring today so how could we assume that it happened in the past?

Furthermore, surely there must also be ancient deposits of organic material not yet converted to oil in the stratigraphical record too, but no, no such deposits have been discovered. And in any case how are fossils formed in the first place? Again we do not see them forming today. Animals die, decompose and are recycled into the biosphere.

However, in order to form a fossil, all biological processes have to cease to allow preservation. If putrefaction is allowed to proceed, the animal rots and disintegrates back into its environment. The quickest way to form a fossil from a living animal is to take it rapidly away from its normal environment and place it in an alien one so a snake in a tropical rainforest will be rapidly fossilised if quickly placed in the Antarctic.

So how does one accumulate tens of trillions of tonnes of organic matter in sediments without putrefaction or recycling in the biosphere to form the vast deposits that are then transformed into petroleum.

The only reason petroleum is called a fossil fuel is because it contains organic debris but it is quite obvious that if petroleum is abiotic and derived from the mantle, then as an excellent solvent of organic material, up-welling hydrocarbons will naturally incorporate the organic debris found in sedimentary rocks.

Another argument is that no oil has been found in the crystalline basement regions of the earth. Hardly surprising when the majority of petroleum geologists believe in biogenic oil and thus only look for it in sedimentary rocks. They have not found oil in granite simply because they have not drilled granite for oil on the basis of preconceived ideas that it is not possible. Unfortunately for the fossil fuelers petroleum is being found and commercially extracted in fractured granite basement off Vietnam.

According to this website: “ Since its foundation VIETSOVPETRO has drilled over 140 thousand meters of exploration and 800 thousand meters of production wells. As a result of this seven oil fields were discovered, the largest are White Tiger, Dragon and Dai Hung that are already operated by the Joint Venture. White Tiger is so far the largest oil field on the continental shelf of Vietnam. Main reserve of this oil field is concentrated in fractured granite basement that is unique in the world oil and gas production practice”.

Robert O. Russell, a wellsite geologist who drilled into crystalline basement granitic shield rocks for the express purpose of commercial hydrocarbon exploration at Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada, has pointed out that there are more than 400 wells and fields worldwide, both off-shore and on-shore that produce or have recently produced oil from igneous rocks.

This fact alone indicates that many aspects relating to the origin of petroleum need to be revised.

Thomas Gold, a distinguished proponent of the non-organic theory, has expanded the application of the non-organic theory to all hydrocarbons, including coal.

An international conference on ‘Oil in Granite’ was held recently in Kazan, Tatarstan, Russia. One of the papers by Kosachev et al. from the Institute of Organic Physics and Chemistry, Russian Academy of Sciences, Kazan, concluded that much evidence existed in favour of the non-organic theory, and that viable mechanisms for the creation of migration pathways existed.

Recently, C. Warren Hunt, a geologist of the Anhydride Oil Corporation, Calgary, Canada, has proposed a variant of the non-organic theory. Hunt sets forth the notion that up-welling deep non-organic methane is bacterially modified into petroleum at shallow depths.

There is one other difficulty with the fossil-fuel theory, the violation of the second law of thermodynamics. The only hydrocarbon that can be created at the pressures and depths of the sedimentary basins is methane. Yet by the use of vast amounts of geological time, modern geology asserts that somehow vast quantities of organic debris, not observed accumulating anywhere, is converted to high order hydrocarbons by undefined processes. Saudi Crude, for example, which is essentially grease.

In summary, petroleum, or rock-oil, is not derived from the burial of organic debris in sedimentary basins. It is continually produced from the earth’s mantle as described by the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abiotic oil. It is emphatically not a fossil fuel derived from dead dinosaurs and fish and no one has yet been able to generate petroleum (apart from methane) from organic matter at the temperatures and pressures at the base of sedimentary basins.“

————————–
* A full account of the Abiotic oil theory is presented at http://www.gasresources.net. C. Warren-Hunt has offered another origin for petroleum at http://www.polarpublishing.com/ .

Thanks Louis.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Energy & Nuclear

Weekend Reading: More on the Stern Report

November 4, 2006 By jennifer

It was my plan to get out into the garden a bit this weekend. We have had beautiful weather lately here in Brisbane – clear skies, warm days and cool nights. This morning it’s raining – just nicely.

But the official forecast is for a climate crisis.

Indeed, the Stern report with its finding that we risk a global recession because of global warming has dominated media headlines in Australia this last week. According to Sir Nicolas Stern ‘the future’ will be worse than the two world wars and the great depression combined.

But, there were a few lone voices of reason out there, and getting published, and suggesting, that the Stern warning will join Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb and the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth in “the pantheon of big banana scares that proved to be unfounded”.

Following are three published opinion pieces from three friends of mine:

1. Stern Review: The dodgy numbers behind the latest warming scare
By Bjorn Lomborg
Thursday, 2 November 2006

THE report on climate change by Nicholas Stern and the U.K. government has sparked publicity and scary headlines around the world. Much attention has been devoted to Mr. Stern’s core argument that the price of inaction would be extraordinary and the cost of action modest.

Unfortunately, this claim falls apart when one actually reads the 700-page tome. Despite using many good references, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is selective and its conclusion flawed. Its fear-mongering arguments have been sensationalized, which is ultimately only likely to make the world worse off. Read the full article here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182

2. British report the last hurrah of warmaholics
By Bob Carter
Friday, 3 November 2006

NICHOLAS Stern is a distinguished economist. Climate change is a complex, uncertain and contentious scientific issue. Have you spotted the problem with the Stern review yet?

An accomplished cost-benefit analysis of climate change would require two things: a clear, quantitative understanding of the natural climate system and a dispassionate, accurate consideration of all the costs and benefits of warming as well as cooling.

Unfortunately, the Stern review is not a cost-benefit but a risk analysis, and of warming only. Read the full article here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20690289-7583,00.html

3. The Alternatives Are Too Costly
By Alan Moran
Thursday, 2 November 2006

THE Stern report and its associated intensified diplomatic push for carbon restraints is already having an effect on policy. In Britain the Opposition Leader has announced that if he wins government he will place a windmill on the roof of Number 10 Downing Street. In anticipation of the report, additional subsidies were announced in Australia for exotic and very expensive renewable energy. Australian total taxes, subsidies and other regulatory measures aimed at combating emissions of carbon dioxide will approach $1 billion a year by 2010 even if no further measures are introduced. Read the full article here: http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/the-alternatives-are-too-costly/2006/11/01/1162339917976.html

But The Age left out the most important part of Alan’s piece, the graph. Here it is:

energy Alan costs with tax.JPG

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change, Energy & Nuclear

Sir Nicholas Stern’s Report: First Impressions

October 31, 2006 By jennifer

Some British economist puts out a report on the economics of climate change for her majesty the Queen and the Australian media and the Left go gag-gag. Fran Kelly from your ABC announced it as The Report the world has been waiting for.

Lying in bed this morning listening to Fran, I was wishing, yet again, that Australia was a republic.

I’ve since made it to my computer, opened the report and discovered the Executive Summary, at least, isn’t too bad.

Sir Nicholas Stern begins by repeating that the scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat, and it demands an urgent global response.

Sir Nicholas Stern then explains the methodology used to determine the global economic cost of climate: “a number of different techniques to assess costs and risks.”

I am impressed that the report acknowledges that climate change is a global issue and therefore stresses the need for an international response. Contrast this with Kyoto where the expectation is that only the developed world needs to actually do anything. The Executive Summary suggests a key element of any future international framework should be the expansion and linking of the growing number of emissions trading schemes to promote cost-effective reductions in emissions and bring forward action in developing countries.

The Executive Summary also acknowledges the importance of adapting to climate change with reference to the importance of building resilience because it is no longer possible to prevent climate change. Building on this theme the Executive Summary finishes with comment about the importance of research into new crop varieties that will be more resilient to drought and flood. On this point I assume Sir Nicholas Stern would support the lifting of the ban on GM food crops which limit the commercialization of new crop varieties in Australia.

Interestingly the Executive Summary states that coal will continue to be an important source of energy into the future and advocates carbon capture and storage to allow the continued use of fossil fuels without damage to the atmosphere. This could be interpreted as an endorsement of the Australian Government’s approach with money pledged just yesterday for a carbon capture project in central Queensland.

The report appears to be based on at least one very flawed assumption. The Executive Summary repeats and repeats the misconception that we can some how stabilize atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. If what Sir Stern is trying to say, is that we should endeavor to not add any more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere then he should be clearer in his language. Even Al Gore, in his movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, acknowledged that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have always fluctuated. Does anybody seriously think they could be stabilized in the future?

The Executive Summary is as misleading as Al Gore’s movie when it states that the cost of extreme weather, including floods, droughts and storms is already rising. Why yes, because there are more people building more expensive houses in places like Florida. But this does not mean that the number of extreme weather events has increased, a mistake both Gore and Sir Stern appear to make.

I haven’t yet read beyond the Executive Summary, but I note that according to today’s The Australian in a piece entitled ‘Bell tolls down under on warming’ in the detail of the report, it is claimed the east coast of Australia already has longer droughts and declining rainfall. Surely Sir Stern checked the charts at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology which don’t show any long term decline in rainfall. I hope he didn’t base his analysis on media headlines or modelled output?

I am also concerned that the economic analysis fails to mention any of the benefits of living in a warmer world. Then again the report does state up front that it is based on “costs and risks”. But, hang on, there will be some benefits. For example, there are significant potential benefits from the likely longer growing season for agriculture in Europe and North America.

It is also a bit annoying that the Executive Summary of such an evidently important report, apparently based on “costs and risks”, fails to explain what the biggest costs are going to be. According to the report, global warming is going to cost trillions, but I guess I am going to have to read 700 pages if I am to understand exactly why. Is the biggest cost the potential displacement of people now living in cities beside the sea?

The Queen of England’s House of Lords brought down a very large report on this same topic just last year and it came to a very different conclusion. Interestingly that report was pretty much ignored by the Australian media. What is it about Sir Nicholas Stern, that the Fran Kelly’s of this world so like? Does Sir Stern have a good publicist, or is it all in his name?

You can read the full stern report by clicking here.

You can read the House of Lords’ report by clicking here.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change, Economics, Energy & Nuclear

California – goes for broke on greenhouse – mad, bad or visionary ?

September 24, 2006 By jennifer

I received the following note from a reader of this blog:

“Last Wednesday the state of California, the world’s 12th largest emitter of greenhouse gases sued the country’s largest automobile manufacturers, seeking billions of dollars for environmental damage caused by automobile emissions.

It was the state’s latest effort to combat the effects of greenhouse gases. The lawsuit drew praise and criticism for Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, who filed it on behalf of the state.

“The complaint, which an auto industry trade group called a “nuisance” suit, names General Motors Corp, Ford Motor Co, Toyota Motor Corp, the US arm of Germany’s DaimlerChrysler AG and the North American units of Japan’s Honda Motor Co and Nissan Motor Co Ltd.

Mr Lockyer says he is seeking “tens or hundreds of millions of dollars” from the auto makers in the lawsuit, which has been filed in US District Court in northern California.

Environmental groups have praised the actions to the lawsuit, saying it represents another weapon for the state as it seeks to curb greenhouse gas emissions and spur the auto industry to build vehicles that pollute less.”

“Legal experts had mixed views about the lawsuit’s viability. Sean Hecht, a UCLA environmental law expert, called the approach “not unreasonable” under precedents that go back to English common law.

“It’s novel, but based on standard nuisance law, they certainly have a shot at convincing a judge that the burdens this industry imposes on society are too great,” Hecht said.

But USC tort law expert Greg Keating wondered whether Lockyer was trying to advance an untenable argument that automakers collectively are creating a nuisance by selling cars that emit carbon dioxide. “I doubt it has legs,” he said.

Industry are most concerned and say the suit opens the door to lawsuits targeting any activity that uses fossil fuel for energy.”

CNN has run a philosophical piece “Is this the end of the road for the car?”

The lawsuit comes less than a month after California law makers adopted the nation’s first global warming law, mandating a cut in greenhouse gas emissions.

“The bill would require a 25% cut in emissions of greenhouse gases between now and 2020 and is likely to use mandatory emissions caps on power plants, refineries and other heavy industry as well as energy efficiency measures and an emissions trading program.

To reach 1990 levels of greenhouse gases, as the law mandates, experts say California will need to eliminate 174 million metric tons. About one-third would come as a result of an earlier car tailpipe emissions law in California that has been challenged by automakers in court.

Although the economic effects of a mandatory cut in emissions could be sweeping, California has a lot at stake in the battle against global warming, perhaps more than any other state, climate experts say.

Its water supplies, its top industry — agriculture — and its most popular recreational activities all depend on a healthy climate, as do forests, deserts, ocean ecosystems and the species that inhabit them.

Amid concern about worldwide climate change, the Californian Assembly approved the bill by a 46-31 vote. It passed 23 to 14 in the Senate.

California is the world’s 12th-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, responsible for 10% of the carbon dioxide produced nationally and 2.5% globally”. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-warm1sep01,1,3291716.story

Some commentators have said the whole business will be ruinous for the Californian economy and drive investment out of the state. However others have foreshadowed a big opportunity for trading in emission credits and that the whole initiative will position California ahead of the game. The legislation has escape provisions for “emergency” circumstances. The Economist reports an increasing number of businesses getting “into” climate change.

The emissions cap bill now goes to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said that he would sign it. He is running for re-election in November and trailing in the polls. Arnie hypocritically has a collection of eight Hummers but hey – he’s a big guy. Anyway this makes one wonder how much greenhouse reality we all really want.

So are California legislators mad, bad or visionary?“

I wonder how a government that has built roads and freeways for cars to travel on, can now sue car manufacturers for environmental damage from emissions?

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change, Energy & Nuclear

GM Canola to Power New Biofuels Plant?

September 7, 2006 By jennifer

Yesterday I received a copy of a Nufarm media release* announcing that the company had paid Monsanto $10 million for their Roundup Ready® canola germ plasm and a licence to the Roundup Ready® canola trait.

The media release explained that “Roundup Ready® is a genetic trait that allows farmers to use Roundup herbicide over the top of their crops, offering broad spectrum and efficient weed control and simplifying production of those crops”. Further, “the Roundup Ready® canola trait was approved by the Australian Office of Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) in December 2003, but has not yet been commercialised in Australia following the imposition of State Government moratoriums in the major canola growing States”. And also that, “pending relevant State government authorisation, Nufarm’s Australian canola seed business platform is ideally placed to develop and bring to market Roundup Ready® canola varieties”.

So Nufarm is gearing up to supply Australian farmers with GM canola seed.

The media release finishes with comment that, “canola is also being sought to meet increasing demand from the emerging bio-fuels industry.”

In July the federal government announced a grant of $7.15 million to Riverina Biofuels Pty Ltd under its ‘Biofuels Capital Grants Program’.

Yesterday I received a copy of a media release from MPI Engineering** announcing that they will design and construct a new $16 million biodiesel factory for Riverina Biofuels Pty Ltd in the country town of Deniliquin in NSW. The media release explains that, “the facility will convert natural oils such as tallow and vegetable oil into biodiesel”.

I assume the tallow would be imported? Last year of the 2,535,000 tonnes of oilseed produced in Australia, 1,531,000 was from canola. This product is commonly referred to as vegetable oil.

So will GM canola power the new deniliquin biofuels plant?

———————————————–
* Nufarm acquires Australian licence for Roundup Ready® canola, Company Announcement, 6th September
** MPI Group Wins New Biofuels Plant Project, MPI Engineering Solutions Media Release, 6th September

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Biotechnology, Energy & Nuclear

Forget Ethanol, Let’s Make Environmentally Friendly Diesel & Petrol: Ray Wilson

August 15, 2006 By jennifer

Yesterday the Prime Minister John Howard announced a $1.576 billion funding package over eight-years to promote alternative fuels. The package included rebates for converting cars to LPG and $17 million over three years for petrol stations to install new pumps or convert existing pumps to E10 blends and to encourage sales of E10. E10 is an ethanol-blended fuel.

And yesterday I received an email from Ray Wilson with the comment:

“I read a lot about the production of ethanol by agriculture. Ethanol is not a good fuel because a standard petrol engine needs to be extensively modified to use 100% ethanol as it has only half the energy density of petrol.

However, just as one can produce petrol and diesel from coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process, one can use cellulosic (Wood, leaves, grass, grains, etc) matter too to make petrol and diesel by this method. This can be done profitably and the process is well-known.

So instead of setting up plants to make ethanol why not set them up to make diesel and petrol instead?

I would do this myself, but I lack the basic access to funds to do much. However, perhaps there are farmers or other industrialists who may be able to use the information, to the benefit of our country and the environment.

I would very much like to ensure too that anyone who is intending to produce ethanol is aware that the technology already exists to make environmentally-friendly diesel and petrol before they take the step to go ahead and make ethanol. I believe they would be making a mistake.”

I responded suggesting that it was presumably uneconomic, and Ray emailed back:

“Strangely enough, the Fischer-Tropsch process used to convert cellulosic matter into diesel and petrol has not been mentioned by anyone that I know about. I hear no debate about it at all.

I think the reason for this is simply that it has not occurred to anyone yet. I would like to at least ask the people who are thinking of making ethanol whether they have considered this process. But I do not know who they are or how to contact them.

The Fischer-Tropsch process is normally used to convert coal to fuels, but it works equally well with cellulosic matter as a feedstock.

So instead of just using the sugar cane juice to make ethanol and discarding the residue, one can convert the entire plant into diesel and petrol and discard very little. Any plant material will do too.

The subsides are available for anyone who wants to proceed with this R&D and the project itself, provided one has the collateral to cover 50% of the Federal loan. I do not have this, so it is very difficult for me to do anything myself. I actually looked into this in some detail recently.

Plant oils are suitable for use as a diesel fuel, but the rest of the plant is discarded as waste. For example, oil-palm nuts are crushed to yield their oil, but the pulp is discarded. Not very efficient.”

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Energy & Nuclear

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 24
  • Go to page 25
  • Go to page 26
  • Go to page 27
  • Go to page 28
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 32
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Ian Thomson on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Alex on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide
  • Wilhelm Grimm III on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide

Subscribe For News Updates

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

November 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
« Jan    

Archives

Footer

About Me

Jennifer Marohasy Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation. Read more

Subscribe For News Updates

Subscribe Me

Contact Me

To get in touch with Jennifer call 0418873222 or international call +61418873222.

Email: jennifermarohasy at gmail.com

Connect With Me

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2014 - 2018 Jennifer Marohasy. All rights reserved. | Legal

Website by 46digital