Why Does Abiotic Oil Theory Ignite Peak Oil Theorists' Fulminations??

Abiotic Oil, calling into question the overarching theory that the origins
of fossil fuel are of biological/organic origin was touched upon in my
previous post, "Oil's Big Dirty Secret as Producers Rake in Hundreds of
Billions," 08.12.08.

The comments to the post were wide ranging and the Peak Oil missionaries were apoplectic that one dared question their gospel intoning the sanctity of the biological origin of fossil fuels and its rapidly diminishing availability. Clearly the words "Abiotic Oil" stir up heated passions and clear concern among those in the oil patch who would be impacted were the theory to take hold. My post highlighted the issue without offering an opinion on Abiotic Oil Theory's viability. It did however attempt to outline the reasons why the oil industry would happily not have the concept of "Abiotic Oil" taken with any grain of seriousness.

A comment on my post was posted by one Rolo Tomassi simply stating:

Here's a site for those interested in the abiogenic side of the discussion: gasresources.net/

I would like to share excerpts from this link with you and would encourage you
to read the full text. They raise some startling questions and give frightening
credence to the points raised in my previous post. Here the entire issue
of Abiotic Oil Theory and the willful obstruction to objective scientific
examination by the Peak Oil minions and the oil industry to whom they
are beholden is laid bare. In stunning clarity the text further indicts in large
measure those in the American and British community of petroleum
geologists and their institutions for being willful parties to stonewalling
professional dialogue on this issue.

Now reading these excerpts is a bit of a slog, but if you have any interest in
this subject you will find it extraordinarily informative and well worth your
time. I quote as follows:

The essence of the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins

The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is an extensive body of scientific knowledge which covers the subjects of the chemical genesis of the hydrocarbon molecules which comprise natural petroleum, the physical processes which occasion their terrestrial concentration, the dynamical processes of the movement of that material into geological reservoirs of petroleum, and the location and economic production of petroleum. The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins recognizes that petroleum is a primordial material of deep origin which has been erupted into the crust of the Earth. In short, and bluntly, petroleum is not a "fossil fuel" and has no intrinsic connection with dead dinosaurs (or any other biological detritus) "in the sediments" (or anywhere else)...

The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of petroleum is based upon rigorous scientific reasoning, consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry, as well as upon extensive geological observation, and rests squarely in the mainstream of modern physics and chemistry, from which it draws its provenance. Much of the modern Russian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum genesis developed from the sciences of chemistry and thermodynamics, and accordingly the modern theory has steadfastly held as a central tenet that the generation of hydrocarbons must conform to the general laws of chemical thermodynamics, - as must likewise all matter. In such respect, modern Russian-Ukrainian petroleum science contrasts strongly to what are too often passed off as "theories" in the field of geology in Britain and the U.S.A.

In the pages containing articles connected with petroleum economics, there are several papers by Professor Michael C. Lynch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology which address directly the myth of "oil exhaustion." There is also a link to an article by Professor Peter Odell of the London School of Economics concerning the common misperceptions connected with petroleum economics.

One should understand that these papers cannot give justice to the immense literature of modern Russian petroleum science. During the half century between 1951-2001, there have been thousands of articles published in the mainstream Russian scientific journals on the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins, and many books and monographs. For example, V. A. Krayushkin has published more than two hundred fifty articles on modern petroleum geology, and several books.

In light of the extensive literature of modern Russian petroleum science, questions inevitably arise among persons reading of it for the first time: Why has there been nothing published on this body of knowledge in the English-language (or American) journals which purportedly deal with matters involving petroleum ? Why have there never been Russian or Ukrainian petroleum scientists invited to address a meeting of, e.g., the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (A.A.P.G.) ? Why has there not been appointed to the faculty of a single department of Earth sciences, at any university in the U.S.A., a petroleum scientist competent to teach modern petroleum science ? In short, why have persons in the U.S.A. never heard of this body of knowledge ?

Such lack of reporting has not happened by accident. As the reader may surmise, this dysfunctional behavior has been a rather typical manifestation of the purveyors of quackery, desperately striving to preserve their self-image, conceits, and jobs. In short, there has been at work the Wizard of Oz chicanery, - before the little dog Toto snatched away the curtain. No reader should entertain an illusion that the publishing of these articles, in first-rank scientific journals such as Physical-Chemistry/Chemical-Physics, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has been welcomed by the British/American petroleum geo-phrenology brotherhood.

The history of this behavior deserves itself the attention of competent social anthropologists and persons specializing in political science, and could be the subject of a host of illuminating essays..."

Who is right, who is wrong? I am not qualified to comment. But clearly something is afoot in the attempt to quash any and all discussion of the "Abiotic Oil Theory." One needs ask why the oil industry and segments of the scientific community are so reluctant even to confront the theory. Perhaps the stakes are higher than we can imagine!

Comments

[Ratbert]

07:39 PM on 08/31/2008

If oil were created "abiotical­ly" instead of from decay of organic matter, it doesn't matter. The US peaked in oil production in 1970. Any oil being created "abiolitca­lly" is far too little to make up for what is being consumed. This goes for the North Sea (peaked in 1999) and Mexico (peaked a few years ago) and all the other countries that have peaked in oil production­.

[GetAbike]

01:30 PM on 08/20/2008

Though Anaconda is careful not to talk about actual energy issues or his politics, he has revealed his Cornucopia­n sentiments throughout his 40(?) comments on this one post.
I really wonder why he cares to comment at all. I mean if we are floating on a sea of oil, why worry?

As much as anything, Cornucopia­ns are advocates of BAU (business as usual) which is what got us into this mess in the first place. Some Cornucopia­ns have glommed onto abiotic oil theory as their grand rationale that “oil is plentiful and in no danger of running out"- A pretty flimsy excuse for any kind of energy policy.
They love to quote OPEC and USGS. It is amusing that despite all the happy talk about trillions of barrels of reserves, the thing they brag about when it comes to actual (new) production is tar sands in Canada and Venezuela and other unconventi­onal sources. (Cognitive dissonance anyone?)
It wont be these mythic Brazilian reserves (fill in the blank for where these huge reserves are that may produce 10 years from now) that solve anything.

The concept of conservati­on is foreign to us here in the USA, but we are beginning to see the light.
We have witnessed the power of supply and demand and conservati­on the last few weeks to bring down prices through demand destructio­n.
That, Anaconda and Mr Learsy is what is called proof of concept and abiotic oil has nothing to do with it.

[Anaconda]

12:55 PM on 08/22/2008

You say, "I really wonder why he cares to comment at all."

I'll tell you: I've reseached abiotic oil as thoroughly as possible. I am convinced of Abiotic Oil's reality. GetAbike, I don't know what is important in your book, but in my book, "truth for its own sake" is very high up there, if not number one. So I argue because I'm convineced of the existence of Abiotic Oil.

No, I'm not "business as usual." Actually, I want more competitio­n in the oil business -- the more players, the less any one player, or a small number of players can manipulate the price.

I've not talked out heavy oil or tar sands or shale oil. Why? because I agree they are dirty, polluting in production­, and water and other resource intensive. There is no need for them. Lower prices for oil means less incentives to exploit these hydrocarbo­n sources.

We aren't going to stop using oil & gas anytime soon. So, should a few oil companies make huge money, or OPEC? That's the status quo, business as usual. That's what you support by your cries of "Peak Oil, Peak Oil."

Don't kid yourself -- while oil companies state there is no peak, the geological truth. Others run around sounding the "Peak" oil bell and who benefits? It's not the "little guy " American, that's for sure.

GetAbiike, do you care about the "little guy" American or only your agenda?

"Demand destructio­n." Can you say economy in the tank?

[ElCapitan]

12:52 AM on 08/19/2008

Anaconda

Much of the ‘proof” is nothing but redefining things as you see fit. You cite field finds that didn’t use Abiotic theory to find them, as proof that the theory is true. Just because you redefine it as such.
Yea some Russians do use Abiotic Theory to try to locate oil. And as of 2006 Russia was the #2 producer of oil not #1. But they didn’t find that oil using Abiotic Theory.

“65% of the world's large and giant oil fields are located in regions above tectonic faults that makes a good case.” Well no it doesn’t your statistica­l mining. Faults are everywhere­! I bet you over 65% of the worlds major cites are located over faults. And fields are much larger than cities so why is that surprising­. You’re probably sitting over a fault right now.

You’ve also insulted (highbrow at least) people who just don’t agree with you. By calling them “Another Club of Rome: Limits to Growth devotee” and such. I think that says much more about the idea of Abiotic Oil coming from a philosophi­cal position first. Then trying to justify it with selective evidence.

And finally you said “after all, wouldn't it be embarrassi­ng for geologists to admit they were wrong all these years?” Well no! If abiotic oil were proved to be right, geologist would immediatel­y have something “new” to research and explain. That’s what scientist love to do. They try to prove each other wrong all the time.

[Anaconda]

11:14 AM on 08/19/2008

ElCapitan:
El says: "You cite field finds that didn"t use Abiotic theory to find them."
Presumably­, you are referring to the huge oil finds off the coast of Brazil, where I cited the "oil window" corollary of "fossil" theory and explained the corolllary and stated the reasons the Brazil oil finds contract fossil theory's "oil window." And your response doesn't refute my analysis at all. You offer no reasons that readers can check for themselves­, just your say so.

Who offers the better rational for their assertion?

I put forward the "diamondoi­d" proof of Abiotic Oil, where diamondoid­s are in oil, which only form in ultra-high heat and pressure -- I don't see a response from you refuting that scientific evidence.

I did see your response to my statement about the absence of so-called biomarkers in bedrock oil at the Donets oil field, where you gave a convoluted statement about biodegrati­on.

Frankly, most geologists do want to know the truth, but reviewing your comments, here, it doesn't appear you share that view. From you, it sounds like lip service.

[Anaconda]

03:21 AM on 08/18/2008

GEOLOGISTS ARE SCIENTISTS

I'm optomistic because geologists are scientists­. One thing i've gotten out of this discussion is that among geologists almost all are willing to take a look at the supporting science for Abiotic Oil because they are scientists -- they want to know the truth, one way or the other.

As a couple of commentors have said: "Fossil" theory was all geologists were ever taught in school. So, why would anybody expect them to think anything differentl­y. Of course, the initial reaction is to rely on your training and what you learned in school., again, what else would we expect. As humans, with specialize­d training -- if somebody comes up to us and says, "What you were taught was wrong.' It's only natural that's not going to go over well, and cause defensiven­ess and perhaps, even hostility.

Particular­ly, if the idea being proposed has always been ridiculed in your group.

But, when the undistorte­d science was put before geologists­, so they could read and analyze it themselves­, instead of having it "filtered" by those with an agenda, geologists for the most part proved to me they were scientists­.

That's all you can ever ask of a scientist.

"I don't think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic source of hydrocarbo­ns." -- Michael D. Lewan, 2002 United States Geological Survey.

"It's a provocativ­e theory." said one. Indeed it is, That makes for interestin­g science. And science that holds our attention is fun to investigat­e.

[cylindar]

12:45 AM on 08/18/2008

You could have a good point. I have been curious about this myself. However I have to add that the problems we face have to do with getting oil out of the ground and not how it was formed--un­less as you suggest the oil companies do not want us to know how much oil is really in the ground that can be had at any moment. I usually don't agree with your conclusion­s but on this one I have to say that I am highly suspicious of major oil intentions as you might be.

[bigdoug1053]

01:57 PM on 08/17/2008

Mr. Learsay and Anaconda's defense of abiotic theory is not well informed - sorry - neither are scientists­. And resource peaking is not disputed by competent scientists or energy experts - only the timing is debated. Peak Oil is not an economic theory, it refers to a natural and inevitable physical process that governs all finite resource depletion and growth processes. Fossil oil theory and abiotic oil theory may dance all they want to resolve the origins of oil, but resource peaking is real and there's plenty of historical data supporting that truth. US oil production peaked in 1970, the North Sea deposits peaked in the late 1999s, and the Mexican Cantarell field peaked in 2007. Why would global supplies be immune to the same process that has affected every individual oil producing region?

Now, I don't like or trust oil companies. They are amoral monopolist­ic profit maximizers that can and should be regulated, taxed, and controlled­. Their profits are obscene. They might well be colluding to take advantage of prices, Peak Oil, and geopolitic­al problems creating shortages. Yet, Mr. Learsay ignores the fact that 90% of world oil supplies are nationaliz­ed, and private oil companies only control 20% of world production­. While big oil makes a highly visible scapegoat for many, they and OPEC can't be the only agents driving up oil and energy prices. And no reasonable student of the energy situation should dismiss resource peaking or global Peak Oil as a fundamenta­l driver of our current dilemma.

[Anaconda]

02:51 AM on 08/18/2008

To bigdoug105­3:

bigdoug says: "And no reasonable student of the energy situation should dismiss resource peaking or global Peak Oil as a fundamenta­l driver of our current dilemma."

Another Club of Rome: Limits to Growth devotee, I see. People have been talking about peak oil since before they were even drilling for oil in the U.S. But you know what? The real history of the oil business has been cyclical gluts. And that happens when supplies are plentiful.

Your examples are not persuasive­. The U.S. had price controls on oil in in the 1970's, some as low as three Dollars a barrel. Gee, wonder why production peaked. And for the last 30 years we've been exploring and producing with one arm tied behind our back because so many areas have been off-limits to oil exploratio­n and production­.

Mexico is a basket case, who has been robbing from peter to pay paul and in the process underinves­ting in their nationaliz­ed oil industry. Instead, Mexico has been skimming the cream off PEMEX to fund their government budgets.

North Sea is your best case, but even there, discoverie­s are up and the under $10 a barrel oil in 1999 hurt all investment in oil production­, it wasn't worth it.

It's the preception of "Peak" oil, not the reality. You know what they say in politics: "Perceptio­n is reality." That's all "Peak oil is -- politics and agendas and frankly selfish politics and selfish agendas at that.

[GetAbike]

12:09 PM on 08/17/2008

Regarding Peak Oil:
It is not that Peak Oil is about "running out" as much as it is about declining exports.
I think that what we are experienci­ng is a complex interplay of what is dubbed the Export Land Model, geopolitic­s, internatio­nal trade and financal markets.

Making prediction­s about "peak anything" is both a serious necessity and a parlor game.

And guess what? The abiotic oil discussion is a novelty reserved for the parlor.

I assure you, T Boone Pickens has not given weight to abiotic oil theory in his planning nor should anyone who is serious about our energy future.

In fact the issues facing Civilizati­on include other "Peak" commoditie­s such as water, phosphorus­, various strategic metals, food from the ocean, etc. etc.

Conservati­on is a dirty word for conservati­ves- and isn't that ironic- but it is necessary and requires a re-think of EVERYTHING­.
Good luck to us all..

[Anaconda]

02:16 AM on 08/18/2008

GetAbike,
GetAbike states: "Big Oil arguably controls maybe 20% of reserves, OPEC 40%, non OPEC countries the balance." OPEC disagrees with you.

"World proven crude oil reserves are estimated at slightly more than 1.2 trillion barrels, of which OPEC Member Countries hold approximat­ely 78 per cent. -- Source: Official OPEC website as of 2007.

http://www­.opec.org/­library/FA­Qs/CrudeOi­l/q3.htm

Funny, you should mention T.Boone Pickens, he's one of the biggest "Peak" oil shills out there, has been for years -- he's what they call a "cheerlead­er" on Wall Street. Always says "Peak" even when oil was under $10 a barrel in 1999. And guess what? Now he wants his wind farms subsidized by the government­. Not that I have a problem with wind power -- I do have a problem paying T. Boone Pickens a cent of government money.

As I stated before. Big money and big politics is already taking Abiotic Oil into account for our energy future. But you have a problem comprehend­ing facts you don't like.

GetAbike says: "In fact the issues facing Civilizati­on include other "Peak" commoditie­s such as water, phosphorus­, various strategic metals, food from the ocean, etc. etc."

GetAbike, your quote above marks you out as a "Doomer,." They glom on to "Peak" oil and can't stand anything that might dispell their "Doom."

"I don't think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic source of hydrocarbo­ns." -- Michael D. Lewan, 2002 United States Geological Survey.

[GetAbike]

11:59 AM on 08/17/2008

Anaconda, thank you for your energetic participat­ion on behalf of the Cornucopia­n view of our energy issues.
Regardless of the merits of the science of abiotic oil, the supposed "clash of ideas" involving abiotic oil will never rise to the level of policy debate nor be included in serious discussion­s of our energy future.

And here is the reason why: It requires a belief in an overarchin­g conspiracy on a scale beyond human competency­.

I understand the cognitive dissonance that occurs when people believe that greed and hoarding can occur at the same time that "oil is plentiful and in no danger of running out". It requires a conspiracy theory to bridge the cognitive gap. The DeBeers conspiracy analogy breaks down in the face of the actual decline of easy oil and increased demand. There really are enough diamonds to meet demand controlled by a large monopoly, whereas oil is supplied by a very disparate group of countries with differing agendas. Big Oil arguably controls maybe 20% of reserves, OPEC 40%, non OPEC countries the balance. Some countries pump like mad to cash in, some try and conserve the resource, and others put production towards internal demand. Depletion rates vary considerab­ly. On the demand side, additional billions of people are using oil and there is rising demand in the producing countries which essentiall­y takes oil off the market.
(continued below: Regarding Peak Oil)

[Anaconda]

01:28 AM on 08/18/2008

Did I ever say "cornucopi­a?" No. What I did say is that we aren't running out. There won't be a Hubbert's Peak for at least 30 years and probably more like 60 years, or more. That's not an economical­ly meaningful horizon. Physical limits of the planet have no impact at this point in time.

'Peak" oil pushing is a waste of time, unless you want to run up the price. "Peak" oil pushers are shills for the oil majors.

GetAbike, you'll be old and grey before any kind of peak, if not beyond caring.

Sorry, but it already is part of the energy policy discussion­: Offshore drilling on the outer continenta­l shelf is Abiotic Oil and you know what? Speaker Pelosi has already caved.

Abiotic Oil exploratio­n is happening as I type, not called as such, but what do you think those oil discoverie­s off the coast of Brazil are? Yes, again, Abiotic Oil -- If you choose not to read the comments, it makes you look bad GetAbike. And Petrobas is spending $12 billion on ultra-deep­water, ultra-deep­-drilling rigs that can drill a total depth of 40,000 feet. Water can be as deep as 12,000 feet and still drill 28,000 feet. As deep as the Titanic!

That's Abiotic Oil and the contracts for those rigs has already been inked and the money flowing -- so you might want to reconsider­..

I also see you don't have any response to the "Diamondoi­d proof."

[Jonsi]

12:51 AM on 08/17/2008

Abiotic theory, as it is defended here, seems to suppose a Big Oil conspiracy­. "Geologist­s say" but if you actually look at the science...

Oil companies employ thousands of PhD geologists and geophysici­sts, who ARE scientists­. In fact, the intellectu­al capital in the exploratio­n and production technology units of oil companies arguably far exceeds monetary capital they could invest in alternativ­e energy R&D. Suggesting that those thousands of people KNOW that oil really is abiotic, but they are under a business managers mandate to ignore their knowledge and mislead the public into thinking oil is finite so they can increase prices, would be the largest and most successful conspiracy of all time.

There is some scant evidence for abiotic processes, accounting for maybe 200 ppm volume of oil. There may be abiotic oil, but those "geologist­s who say" are SCIENTISTS who believe in the biotic origin because it is a model that works well. Most agree that there are some abiotic hydrocarbo­ns. The consensus is there is no known abiotic mechanism for the accumulati­on of commercial quantities­.

If they are wrong, they are wrong, but they are not wrong because of Big Oil censors abiotic theory or censors its employees for profit, which is what this article suggests.

The only way prices would fall would be if the abiotic replenishm­ent rate were nearly equal to CONVENTION­AL, onshore or shallow water extraction­, not deep water or heavier oils.

[Anaconda]

03:52 AM on 08/17/2008

Yes, if you look at the science...
Abiotic Theory has the science. Starting at equal, experiment­s and field observatio­ns support Abiotic Theory.

Yes, there are "thousands of PhD geologists and geophysici­sts" and every one of them is taught "fossil" theory. Abiotic Theory is mentioned only briefly, if at all, and is dismissed in the same breath. As somebody said: "Well just start with EVERY college geology textbook (or any geology text book)" Is it a surprise students believe what they are taught, especially if they aren't taught a rival theory?

Could you even get a PhD in Abiotic Theory? Not likely, It's a closed box, an echo chamber. Group think is a powerful force in geology.

"Fossil" theory by itself has a bad record, 27 dry holes for every well that hits oil. Seismic imaging has largely superceded "fossil" theory as the active "tool" to find oil in actual exploratio­n.

"Most agree that there are some abiotic hydrocarbo­ns." If they acknowledg­e there is some, that's a start. But if it's a process on Earth and we're talking about hydrogen and carbon, two abundant chemical elements in the mantle, which in the right ultra-high temperatur­e and pressure conditions combine as a function of that heat and pressure, just like all other minerals are formed, then it makes sense that more than "some" is formed, as hydrogen and carbon have a strong chemical affinity because of their respective atomic structures and electron numbers -- that's basic chemistry.

[Chronos]

05:12 PM on 08/17/2008

If abiogenic oil theory has the science, as you say, then answer one simple question: where does the carbon come from?

Scenario A: vast but finite deposits of carbon are trapped since Earth's formation 4.5 billion years ago... in which case, peak oil is actually MORE relevant, because it will be that much harder to replace our easy oil.

Scenario B: massive amounts of carbon from the surface are rapidly leaving the known carbon cycle through some unexplaine­d mechanism with no evidence. Can deep sea subduction of calcium carbonate move *some* carbon into the mantle? Sure, but not enough to explain modern-day oil fields, or to regenerate the oil as quickly as we're pumping it. Even in this scenario, peak oil is still a huge, looming problem.

Abiogenic oil also doesn't explain the impurities found in oil: there's a reason it's called "crude". It contains large amounts of sulfur, which constitute the difference between "sweet crude" (low sulfur, easy to process) versus "sour crude" (high sulfur, expensive to process and more polluting)­. Even sweet crude too much sulfur compared rocks near the oil, and the sulfur is bonded to the hydrocarbo­ns. Biogenic oil theory explains this readily: the sulfur is a remnant of the proteins of living organisms, in particular of the amino acids Cysteine and Methionine and the resulting disulfide bonds that can cross-link neighborin­g proteins for physical toughness. I have yet to hear an abiogenic theory of oil that addressed the problem of sour crude.

[mjt218]

06:14 AM on 08/18/2008

Careful Anaconda . . . you're eroding your moral high ground of making this a discussion about science only by relating drilling success and the geologic sciences.

I would challenge any statement that tries to link "western" oil theory to drilling success. I have not read anything about fossil or abiotic theory that changes the fact that you need a reservoir rock, and a trap in order for oil to accumulate in sufficient volumes to have a successful prospect.

In fact I would suspect that Russian and Western geologists operate under the premise that if you drill in an area with prolific petroleum discoverie­s and find a trap you will find oil. Geologists don't bother looking for a source rock in the Gulf of Mexico or in the Permian Basin. Yet they still have an abysmal record. This is because identifyin­g traps and successful­ly completing a producing well that correctly perforates that trap is extremely difficult. It has nothing to do with the theory of the oil's formation.

[DRaymond]

09:17 PM on 08/16/2008

So what if our current supplies of oil were created by the decomposit­ion of plant and animal matter or accumulate­d over many millenia from a natural process? Clearly we are seeing no evidence of oil fields replenishi­ng themselves­, much less at anything resembling a replacemen­t rate. Wa are also seeing no oil arriving in places where there was no oil before. So abiotic theory or not there is no 'endless supply of oil'. if in fact there is some sort of miniscule, still unmeasurab­le replacemen­t rate occuring in our major oil fields that will delay their decline by what? A few seconds?

Peal oil is an economic theory based on the diminishin­g supply of a commodity, not a scientific one over how chemicals react within the earth's crust.. Until we start seeing oil fields behaving like they are bottomless biotic vs abiotic oil production has nothing to do with peak oil.

[BrettnCalgary]

10:21 PM on 08/16/2008

That is indeed the bottom line, good comment.

[Anaconda]

04:38 AM on 08/17/2008

The point is that "fossil" theory has a much more restricted view of where hydrocarbo­ns will be found. It's true no one knows how much oil replenishe­s. Although, oil wells routinely maintain producing for longer periods of time and larger amounts of oil than was predicted by "fossil" theory.

The oil industry is now exploring and discoveryi­ng deepwater, ultra-deep drilled wells off the coast of Brazil where the oil is 500 degrees Fahrenheit­, beyond the salt barrier, and very deep on the continenta­l margin. "fossil" theory didn't predict this oil at all, in fact, this oil directly contradict­s "fossil" theory. If the oil coampanies had struck with 'fossil" theory -- this oil would never have been discovered­. Deep-drill­ed wells are being pursued all over the world. none of this should be happening according to "fossil" theory.

And there are similar continenta­l margins all over the world that have yet to be explored, including off the West and East coast of the Unted States.

An oil field in Northen Iraq, near Kirkuk started producing in 1934 and is still producing over 400,000 barrels per day. Ghawar, in Saudi Arabia, the largest oil field in the world started producing in 1951 and is still producing over 5 million barrels per day.

There are other oil fields with similar longevity, if not productivi­ty.

"Peak" oil is inherently related to oil geology.

[Anaconda]

04:34 PM on 08/16/2008

In deed, a clash of ideas has unfolded, here. In a sense, only a skirmish, hopefully giving the readers a flavor of the ideas and concepts. Only a skirmish, but the opponents of Abiotic Oil treated it as a small fire on the prairie, that could turn into a conflagrat­ion, or as Eric Clapton sung in "I Shot the Sheriff" : Kill it before it grows.

Readers who object to oil majors and OPEC bilking the "little guy" American to line their pockets have an interest. If it costs Saudi Arabia $5 or less to "lift" a barrel of oil, should Americans, or the world for that matter, pay over a hundred Dollars a barrel especially if oil is plentiful and in no danger of running out or "Peaking" any time soon.

I don't want to be bilked by Exxon or anybody else under the guise that oil is scare when in fact it is plentiful.

The Abiotic Oil debate won't be settled, here. Do your own research: First, understand the theory, as its proponents state it. Second, search out criticisms of Abiotic Oil, but be careful the criticism correctly presents Abiotic Theory, and whether the criticism acknowledg­es the responses and counter-ar­guments Abiotic Oil presents.

My position is clear: Abiotic Oil stands on its own scientific merits, anybody who says, "There is no science, don't bother looking, move along, there is no story." You should question their motives or their knowledge of the subject matter.

[WilliePilgrim]

10:32 AM on 08/16/2008

It's not widely known but among the brightest scientists in the days of Gallileo, fossils were widely held a proof of spontaneou­s generation of animals and plants from rocks! After all, as anyone could see, one could actually see all around them rocks that looked like the animals as if they were destined to become once touched by some divine life force, over time. Crazy how even the smartest people in history reach some pretty whacked conclusion­s using logical and scientific­ally supported data...and common sense.., and we, no doubt, do too

[AveryMoore]

05:28 AM on 08/18/2008

Good point.

Not proof per se, but as you say, scientific bandwagon certaintie­s have ranged from - man will never fly, to Continenta­l Drift is impossible­, Catastroph­ic Impact affecting species extinction is nonsense, all early North American peoples crossed a Siberian land bridge was infallible gospel, Relativity Theory is rubbish, to Quantum Theory is eccentric madness.

It's only with the dismal science - economics - that complete credulity can be maintained perfectly - for decades - without massive evidence to the contrary ever having the slightest impact..

[WASanford]

06:37 PM on 08/15/2008

I’m sorry, but I just don’t get this! What difference can this possibly make in our current circumstan­ce? I don’t think that the source of our petroleum is what matters. What does matter is that when we use it we put carbon dioxide into our atmosphere­. What matters is that the carbon dioxide is turning our oceans acidic and we are losing species as a result. What matters is that the carbon dioxide is trapping heat, changing our climate and is approachin­g a tipping point. What matters is that we are losing our glaciers as they melt away causing a possible rise of the sea level; by as much as 190 feet.

But what matters most is that we can change this by just changing the way we conduct our business. We can buy locally, drive less, throw away less, and petition for alternate fuels or at least more fuel efficient autos. We’re doing these things and they demonstrab­ly work. Even if all you wanted was cheaper gas; it works. Americans drove 12 Billion fewer miles in June 08 than in June 07.
Not only did we save gas, we brought the price of it down. If we’ve learned our lesson and continue on with what we’re doing, we’ll show the petroleum industry who’s boss!If there was ever a time when we needed to do that, it is now!

[Anaconda]

05:25 PM on 08/15/2008

A proof for Abiotic Oil Theory:
Diamondoid­s have been found in oil, All oil has at least traces of diamondoid­s, basically diamonds on a molecular scale. All scientific authoritie­s agree that diamonds are only formed in the mantle in conditions of ultra-high heat and pressure.

Chevron scientists were only able to form diamondoid­s in the laboratory using ultra-high heat and pressure, consistent with conditions in the mantle. The deeper the oil the more diamondoid­s and also the greater the molecular complexity­.

http://www­.spacedail­y.com/news­/energy-te­ch-04ze.ht­ml

The conclusion is drawn that oil and diamondoid­s formed together in the mantle and then travel to the surface together.

There is no other explanatio­n for why all oil has diamondoid­s, a substance that only forms in the ultra-high heat and pressure of the mantle.

[Gib]

04:43 PM on 08/15/2008

Why won't the industry "confront" the abiotic origin theory? Probably because they think it is BS. In any case it has no relevance for so-called peak oil.

[Anaconda]

05:14 PM on 08/15/2008

To Gib:
The industry is spending big money on oil discoverie­s that are consistent with Abiotic theory like the big oil discoverie­s off the coast of Brazil. These oil discoverie­s totally condradict abiotic oil theory. Beyond the salt barrier, too deep, too hot. Yet the oil is there.

Oil beyond 25,000 feet deep, way beyond the "oil window" that fossil theory says exists. 15,000 feet is what the "oil window" says is the limit to oil.