Thanks! I thought the second paragraph was worth being read, even with the invective that preceeded it.
I still don’t know what Washington’s blog is, though.
[quote=jturbo68][quote=The Albatross]
The problem with this is that;
1. Are we to believe that old growth forests – dinosaurs included – were buried under over 7 miles of rocks etc, and then “turned” into oil - as this 2007 news release explains?
Here we go again with the abiotic oil …Hopefully we start finding a bunch more of it soon.
There are Mountains and Canyons on the earth that are miles in height and depth. It is certainly possible for surface features to be lifted or sunk by 7 miles. Those formations are created via plate tectonics, similarly to the folding of the continental plates that buries the organic matter which created Fossil Fuels.
John
[/quote]
John – you are completely writing off the current science - including the Cassini findings and Swedish research.
Why would you fiercely defend a position that Oil = Fossil fuels?? It was only 400 years ago that people implaccably believed that the Earth was flat.
Look behind the hypothesis - who benefits if everyone rolls over for the Fossil Fuel Line — the oil companies!
How do they justify raising prices?? Pedal the myth that fossil fuels are harder to find and more expensive to extract!!
How do they coerce citizens into a state of fear?? Keep releasing media interviews that the west my find its economic lifelines shut down because of political tensions in the Middle East.
Why do this?? Because it prepares people for a possible conflict with any threat to supplies.! Just another conflict that costs lives, money, resources for heartbreak in the homelands.
I have provided sources for both sides of the argument – where are yours?
Remember Patton’s analysis — it is never the “masses” who provide the leadership or blaze new trails – it is always those who think for themselves…
cheers
[/quote]
Albatross,
I propose that it’s not necessary to argue about how oil is generated. Sure, let’s say that oil has an abiotic origin. Maybe oil is generated by the breakdown of organic matter. Maybe both. Maybe neither.
However oil gets there, we’re using it up faster than it’s being made.
The world oil supply is nothing but a giant collection of individual oil fields. And every oil field that has been tapped long enough has eventually dried up. The oil country in Pennsylvania, where the first oil was discovered . . . we’ve pumped it dry. Most of the fields in Texas have become unproductive. All of these thousands of individual fields are in the hands of private owners who can tell you what happens to old fields.
The entire point of the 3E’s is that modern economy requires an exponential increase in energy inputs. A steady (even abiotic) supply isn’t good enough.
So even if we assume that oil has a steady source of repleneshment (like trees, or fish, or topsoil), that’s not good enough. Our use of energy is exponentially increasing, and must continue increasing if we are to avoid economic convulsions. If there is an abiotic source to oil, it’s not exponentially increasing along with our consumption. That spells trouble.
[quote=green_achers]I still don’t know what Washington’s blog is, though.
[/quote]
There is a Washington’s Blog here: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/
This is a person who contributes to ZH under the avatar George Washington. But if that’s the same one you’re thinking of, I cannot say.
Excellent points jfr29 – my reason for posting was not to add another E [ Excuse ] to the thread, ie Oil = Abiotic – therefore – we can Exponentially Extract more.My point – If Robert McFarlane tells us that Oil = Fossil Fuel, and this is not true – then all analysis that follows is also not true.
Enter the USSR – Further confirmation of the science behind Abiotic Oil;
In the 1950’s the Soviet Union faced ‘Iron Curtain’ isolation from the West. The Cold War was in high gear. Russia had little oil to fuel its economy. Finding sufficient oil indigenously was a national security priority of the highest order. Scientists at the Institute of the Physics of the Earth of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Geological Sciences of the Ukraine Academy of Sciences began a fundamental inquiry in the late 1940’s: where does oil come from? In 1956, Prof. Vladimir Porfir’yev announced their conclusions: ‘Crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths.’ The Soviet geologists had turned Western orthodox geology on its head. They called their theory of oil origin the ‘a-biotic’ theory—non-biological—to distinguish from the Western biological theory of origins.
They argued that oil is formed deep in the earth, formed in conditions of very high temperature and very high pressure, like that required for diamonds to form. ‘Oil is a primordial material of deep origin which is transported at high pressure via ‘cold’ eruptive processes into the crust of the earth,’ Porfir’yev stated. His team dismissed the idea that oil is was biological residue of plant and animal fossil remains, as a hoax designed to perpetuate the myth of limited supply.Source: http://oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Peak_Oil___Russia/peak_oil___russia.html
Following their a-biotic or non-fossil theory of the deep origins of petroleum, the Russian and Ukrainian petroleum geophysicists and chemists began with a detailed analysis of the tectonic history and geological structure of the crystalline basement of the Dnieper-Donets Basin. After a tectonic and deep structural analysis of the area, they made geophysical and geochemical investigations. A total of sixty one wells were drilled, of which thirty seven were commercially productive, an extremely impressive exploration success rate of almost sixty percent. The size of the field discovered compared with the North Slope of Alaska. By contrast, US wildcat drilling was considered successful with a ten percent success rate. Nine of ten wells are typically “dry holes.”
Not only has this alternative explanation of the origins of oil and gas existed in theory. The emergence of Russia and prior of the USSR as the world’s largest oil producer and natural gas producer has been based on the application of the theory in practice. This has geopolitical consequences of staggering magnitude.Threat Assessment -- If it is determined that closure of the Straits of Hormuz is an extreme-level threat, then we need to prepare for such eventualities. We must follow the Russian Science that put them into First Place and remove/reduce the implied threat of oil choke points to the west. Bottom Line: Robert McFarlane - in his former role with access to highly classified Intelligence --- must know about these Soviet efforts. Why?? Because when the USSR turned from Oil-Poor to Oil-Rich, you can bet that this had massive strategic implications and that Western Intelligence services wanted to know why!. So -- why would Robert not act in a transparent manner and tell Chris and the team about this??? After all, it is not a state secret anymore, is it?? Answer: Because he is pushing another agenda.!! Back to your comments jfr29 --- I also agree with your further analysis, we cannot continue along the path of wanton use/abuse of Earths resources. Where does this leave us?? We must put much more research & effort into responsible, sustainable, innovative and continuing development into systems & technologies that enable us to thrive and survive. However, we will never move forward if we blindly follow everyone who rigidly directs us toward absolutes such as Oil Must Come from Fossil Fuels.! The Russians have been onto this for years - time to drop the subterfuge!!!!
Albatross,
If this were true, you’d think that the first thing that would happen is a reasoned rationing of the resource. The 3R’s.
Russia, and it’s oil conglomerants (Yukos, et al) have not done anything of this sort. In fact, they’ve acted in a way that would seem “counter-intuitive” to a revelation of this magnitude when they invaded Georgia some years back to secure the oil and natural gas pipelines in that nation.
Further, the composition of Petrol (http://www.petroleum.co.uk/composition/) is largely carbon with trace elements of nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen. This would give unrefined petrol a significant bouyancy when compared to other silicate and metallic composites - even under pressure and mass - as the elements are significantly lower in atomic mass than Si, Mg, Fe, et cetra. (http://quake.mit.edu/hilstgroup/CoreMantle/EarthCompo.pdf)
I’m extrapolating to a large degree here - because my field I generally apply these principles ot the atmosphere, but geology has some similar principles… at least from the chemical perspective.
Another thing to consider is the K/T event displaced megatons of mass - laying carbon underneath other, more dense elements - those mentioned above and others, of course. This paints a very plausible picture of carbon being ‘tilled under’ and continous layers of strata being deposited and redeposited via floods, eruptions, earthquakes and other natural processes. It seems plausible that oil could be abiotic, but the thesis is just not as scientifically palatable as plain 'ole fossil-carbon based oil - which to me makes a good deal more sense, since the chemical conditions to create oil as we know it exist autonomous of the abundance of carbon.
When you introduce the K/T event, it makes perfect sense.
Cheers,
Aaron
(not an expert)
We’re going to be deep in the olduvai gorge of future history and some dead-enders are still going to be asserting that it’s all a hoax. Better not to get caught up in arguments with people who base their beliefs on fantasy, and to get on with the preps.
I do notice these things always pop up when there’s a serious discussion under way that might cause some to question the power structure, though. Maybe I’m just being paranoid…
Green Achers,
I agree for the most part with JRF above - it doesn’t really matter, because either way, we’re using it faster than it’s “growing back”.
As you said, onward with preparations.
Cheers,
Aaron
Greetings. This is my first comment here. I have watched the Crash Course. Robert McFarlane is high on alcohol. Let me clarify. He touts open fuel standards that would allow us to make a choice about what we put in the fuel tanks of our vehicles. A couple of those things being ethanol and methanol. However, the Crash Course points out that the generation of alcohol based fuels is break even at best, and some say the energy return is negative. So I am left feeling that McFarlane doesn’t “get it”. Does anyone else see this disconnect?
For general interest, here’s a commentary on Bruce Robinson’s (Convenor of ASPO Australia) talk yesterday, at the prestigious 6th Annual Excellence in OIl & Gas Conference.
The conference was attended my many of the well-known Australian oil & gas industry identities, and some senior government officials. Between each of the major keynote speakers (of which Bruce was one), an opportunity was given to CEO’s of junior and emerging Australian public exploration companies to present their wares. Their not-so-hidden agenda was to “talk up” their share price and attract more potential investors.
Myself and Ian McPherson of ASPO were honoured to accept complimentary registrations that Bruce made available. Considering that the cost was $1,795 per attendee, this was a generous gift. It included the opportunity to meet new & old contacts, to enjoy a fine lunch, and to participate in the 6PM “networking drinks” in the grand hallway of the Sydney Exhibition & Conference Centre, Darling Harbour.
Bruce’s talk started at 3:30PM in the large auditorium. His style of delivery - with regulation dark suit & tie - was appropriate for the corporate culture that pervaded the conference. Bruce had a lot to cover and did not waste any time, as he warmed up to a rapid point by point synopsis of the current peak oil world view. There were plenty of good “sound bites” and interesting new ways of seeing things (some drawn from ASPO’s Prof. Aleklett, I suspect). I believe the oil & gas professionals would each take away several “new angles” or insights, implanted into their consciousness, or if not, in their sub-conscious.
Bruce started with what he called his “oil radar”. The topical reference to WikiLeaks seemed to grab people’s attention. He moved on to make a point about the disparity in government messages in relation to peak oil and climate change. Lines were thrown in on Katrina and the GFC. The message that preparedness should be mandatory, and good policy for governments, given the information available, came through clearly. Contrasted to that was a graph showing how ABARE has consistently - and one wonders whether wilfully - put on its rose couloured glasses when preparing oil price forecasts. I would not be supprised if Bruce was now that organisation’s bête noire.
There were flashes on the screen showing leading media headlines from the Financial Review, and opinion makers such as Richard Branson, Bakhtiari and the US Joint Forces Command. These reinforced the view (no doubt shared by many of the attendees) that peak oil thinking was now well and truly mainstream. The Noah story was a simple and persuasive analogy that communicated Bruce’s long standing public advocacy of preparedness. The political risk of high petrol prices was mentioned, and the flashing on the big screen of media headlines “Peak oil: petrol to hit $8 a litre” (the CSIRO study) was a good reminder. Reputable demand/supply charts were depicted behind the speaker, such as the Macquarie Bank publication, to show that peak oil was now far removed from fringe group thinking. The downslide of the world’s big fields was presented - North Sea, Canterell, Prudhoe Bay, and OECD, US, Norway. Politically brave were his comments that quoted sources indicating that the IEA was a cartel to counter OPEC and strongly influenced by the US, to shore up Western economic confidence.
That takes us to only half way through the talk. I have found you can download the entire presentation from http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/Bruce/Robinson-Syd-Mar-2011-EOG.ppt. It is worth taking a look at it and passing it on to others.
To summarise the last slide, I wrote down “FEE”. Acronym for Frugality, Efficiency and Equity. That seems to sum up what I understand Bruce has been advocating to government for a long time, in response to ASPO thinking. I feel intuitively that the problems of peak oil (and peak everything) must be addressed, sooner or later, by more austerity, or living happily with less consumption, like we used to in the 1950s. Ironically, that value-laden message was not really consistent with the values that came through from the junior CEOs, whose purpose and direction was most certainly to win favour from shareholders by finding more of the black gold.
Towards the end of the conference, during a wait for the next speaker, the conference chairman decided to fill in the time by asking for a show of hands about peak oil. I cannot remember the exact distribution between those who believed the big rollover was starting to happen now, and those who believed the downturn would happen sometime in the next decade. But it was clear to me that the majority in the room would not have disputed much of what Bruce was presenting.
This show of hands on peak oil probably emulated the famous 2005 APPEA conference where over half of the ~1200 assembled oil industry execs - in a show of hands - believed peak oil was real and on the horizon. When the chairman asked finally whether anyone in the room believed world oil production would continue to grow forever, one brave exec put up his hand. This created (maybe intentionally) some amusement for the audience. My feeling, having spent 40 years in the oil and gas industry, is that most intelligent executives are aware of the charts that peak oil activists have read. After all, the world’s leading industry periodical - the Oil & Gas Journal - had a major article by Kenneth Deffeyes in 2002, Colin Campbell in 2003, and Samsam Bakhtiari in 2004. The difference, though, may be one of attitude, not knowledge. To generalise, the oil company CEOs are busy having fun with the thrill of the chase, making money and serving the market god. Coupled to this is the corporate culture that seems to discourage political controversy. Therefore they may be happy to leave it to others like Bruce to make political waves about a complex problem. That is why I thought Bruce’s lecture was significant and chosen wisely by the conference organisers. His talk was more than just about reinforcing the common knowledge. It was about changing attitudes.
Written by a member of my Running on Empty Oz Yahoo group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/roeoz/
look_at_it_this_way,
Yes, I see the disconnect but it goes further than that. Why is Chris talking to someone who thinks there is a solution? And why do so many comment here mention that word, “solution”? Chris is clear, in his crash course, that what we face is a predicament and predicaments have no solutions, they only have responses. So this whole subject is badly conceived. We even have abiotic oil proponents here. I would have thought regular visitors here would have realised that the next 20 years will be nothing like the last 20 years. It’s not just a matter of finding an alternative energy source or even just conserving a bit more. Our whole civilisation is teetering on the brink and cannot be saved; we need to think about new ways of living. This is absolutely critical. So, everyone, stop believing that there is a solution; there isn’t!
I finally listened to the podcast and am a little dismayed. Robert McFarlane clearly (to my mind) believes that if only all cars and trucks could run on a variety of fuels, the predicament becomes a problem and can be solved, then we’ll all continue with our lives as normal. Chris did point out that we have a predicament, not a problem, but didn’t drive the point. McFarlane believes we have a problem, not a predicament.
Why didn’t Chris pull McFarlane up on his optimistic 17 years to change the fleet to flex-fuel? If it takes 17 years to change the fleet, it will take a lot longer than that to get all cars and trucks able to run on flex-fuels, unless that is the only type of new vehicle you can buy from tomorrow. And how does he know that all of these technologies can scale up? When the US uses twice the energy than the total production of plant biomass of that nation each year, then it’s clear that anything based on biomass isn’t going to work and definitely won’t work unless economic growth is halted. McFarlane talked about that guy using no gasoline, but ignores the fact that enough oil is used int the construction of the car and truck to power the vehicles for up to several years.
Why is Chris even talking about energy in isolation? Yes, nothing happens without energy but this is a predicament. We need to change everything, not just energy, to move to a sustainable society. Discussions about our future should not be confined but wide ranging.
The fact(?) that Robert McFarlane doesn’t get it… (or pretends not to) is still quite useful information.
Is it just me… or was it eerily like
Buck Turgidson…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZV_lIwmz5E&feature=related
I was disappointed with his responses, as I’m sure many of you were… but… hey no harm in tryin’ … ™
LR et al , the Alex Jones fanbois,… get ye to infowars.com.
If you think less of Chris for giving him a chance… meh…
Honi soit qui mal y pense… ™ -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honi_soit_qui_mal_y_pense
The way I look at this is to not to take Robert McFarlane’s proposal as “the answer”, but rather see what nuggets of value I can find from it. In this case, I don’t buy the idea of multi-fuel vehicles as something that will be any permanent solution, but rather as something that might aid in a smoother transition from our current way of life to a more sustainable one.
While I like the idea of multi-fuel vehicles, the open fuel standard I don’t care for much. I can understand the good intention behind it as he describes it, but I see the spectre of “unintended consequences” hovering over such a bill. I cringe when I think of lawyers in Congress playing engineer and setting specific technical targets, getting their only advice from either auto industry lobbyists or lobbyists with unrealistic expectations and little technical background. Here’s my proposal… how about we set up a competition similar to the Ansari X-Prize for developing multi-fuel vehicles? The idea would be to offer cash rewards for any company that can successfully develop a multi-fuel vehicle that can meet a predetermined group of requirements. If the car companies don’t think it can be done and don’t bite, the taxpayers don’t lose a dime. If the car companies try and fail, the companies accept the loss and the taxpayers don’t lose a dime. The only time the taxpayer would pay for it is when a proven product that meets the requirements is developed. Robert Zubrin in one of his books (Entering Space) proposed the same thing for further space exploration goals and technologies to boost private-sector involvement and accelerate the development of a space-based infrastructure. I don’t see any reason why it can’t be applied for multi-fuel cars too.
The one potential drawback I see is if a bailed-out car company is involved… the taxpayer could end up on the hook for failed attempts by a Too-Big-To-Fail automaker. Still, I would like to see the idea explored further.
- Nickbert
There is another potential drawback: that it gives people “hope” that we aren’t in a predicament (as Chris keeps trying to point out and keps failing) and simply have problems to solve, perhaps by having competitions for the solutions.
[quote=sofistek]There is another potential drawback: that it gives people “hope” that we aren’t in a predicament (as Chris keeps trying to point out and keps failing) and simply have problems to solve, perhaps by having competitions for the solutions.
[/quote]
I think in a crisis we’re going to see unrealistic hope attached to a number of ‘miracle solutions’ no matter what we do; if they do so here, at least this one gives some manner of increased resiliency while society is forced to adapt. It wouldn’t solve the liquid fuels shortage, but it could alleviate the harsher effects by allowing substitutes for limited transportation. The idea wouldn’t be (in my mind anyway) to ‘replace’ gasoline, but to allow for a gentler transition and limited personal transportation. The majority would still feel the pinch of higher prices and/or shortages, and driving multi-fuel vehicles (or even just knowing it’s an option) forces us to think deeper as individuals and communities on where and how we get our energy. Without some short-to-mid-term resiliency in our current transportation options, the probability of a systemic infrastructure collapse increases, crippling the ability to expand mass transportation infrastructure or even maintain the limited one we have here in the U.S. I too favor putting most of our effort in rail and other lower-energy mass transportation options, but I can see how this would be a worthwhile secondary effort. And if some amazing breakthrough happens to come about and revolutionize low-energy personal transportation, great! I’m not counting on it, but if such a thing can exist this might help bring it about.
Of course now I thought of another (potential) drawback myself… there’s the possibility that the corn ethanol lobbyists hijack the process and make it part of some grand corn ethanol program. Not a super high probability IMO given the increasingly negative reputation of corn ethanol, but I’m not going to underestimate the cowardice, greed, or stupidity of those elected and non-elected officials making the decisions.
- Nickbert
Well, yes, if this was part of a wider plan to change our living arrangements then there might be some merit in it but I didn’t get the impression, at all, that McFarlane was thinking in those terms. And now you are even imagining a revolution in personal transport though I hope you wouldn’t see such a revolution as allowing business as usual to continue.Actually, I doubt flex fuel vehicles would do much, as most would simply fill up (or the equivalent) with whatever is the cheapest. Provided no fuel is subsidised in any way and all external costs are internalised, I’m not sure McFarlane’s idea would have the intended effect.
green_archers — interesting comments – rather than put forward any explanation, rational rebuttal, or contrarian proof – you resort to the ancient strategy of simplistically labelling anyone who does not fall into lock-step with your pre-conceived ideas, as deadenders.Perhaps you should put more effort into research, rather than dish up fawning accolades… here…let me help you…
September 26, 2009 PROOF! Oil is not dinosaur soup By Dr. Jerome R. Corsi Scientists create hydrocarbons in lab, supports abiotic oil theoryMore bad news for those who believe oil is dinosaur soup or the residue ofancient decaying forests was produced when a team of internationalscientists published earlier this month in an international scientificjournal that fossils of animals and plants are not necessary to generatecrude oil or natural gas.In a paper published in Nature GeoScience titled, "Methane-derivedhydrocarbons produced under upper-mantle conditions," three scientists fromthe Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C.,the Lomonosov Moscow State Academy of Fine Chemical Technology and the RoyalInstitute of Technology in Stockholm produced ethane, propane and butanefrom synthetic chemicals in the laboratory setting.Using laboratory conditions designed to replicate the heat and pressureconditions of the earth's upper-mantle, the scientists demonstrated "thatthe synthesis of hydrocarbons heavier than methane can be produced byabiotic processes in the upper mantle."
This new research adds to the mounting scientific evidence that theprevailing biological theory of the generation of oil is and always has beennonsense.Source: http://coralvillecourier.typepad.com/community/2009/09/proof-oil-is-not-dinosaur-soup.html Let me help you with a little more research ..............
As a result, seven production oilfields were discovered, the largest of which is known as White Tiger, which is on the continental shelf of Vietnam. The main reserve of the White Tiger oilfield is "concentrated in fractured granite basement that is unique in the world oil and gas production practice." Western oil companies typically expect to find oil only in sedimentary rock. Generally, Western oil companies refuse to drill unless they find "source rock" – sedimentary rock that contains oil the petro-geologists believe derived from decaying ancient biological debris, dead dinosaurs and pre-historic forests. That the Soviets and the Vietnamese have found oil in granite structures is revolutionary, unless, of course, you think from the perspective of the deep, abiotic theory. From the granite basement offshore Vietnam, the White Tiger oilfield produces almost 280,000 barrels of oil a day. A second oilfield, known as Black Lion, currently produces 80,000 barrels of oil per day, but within three years PetroVietnam expects to increase that output to 200,000 barrels per day. The White Tiger oilfield is at a depth of 5,000 meters (approximately 3 miles), of which 4,000 meters (about 2.5 miles) is fractured granite basement. How can the "Fossil-Fuel" theory possibly explain finding oil at these deep levels in granite rock? A survey of worldwide oil exploration in fractured basement formations is maintained on the website of GeoScience, a U.K. consulting firm specializing in ultra-deep oil and natural gas exploration and production. The GeoScience compilation further documents that the oil found offshore from Vietnam is being found in bedrock structures that are volcanic in nature:And this is where you come in green_archers...............Granites constitute the basement in the central part of White Tiger and predominate in the basement of the Dragon field. They also occur in the basement of the White Tiger northern block, together with microcline, hornblende-biotite and biotite-granodiorites. Microcline, hornblende-biotite and biotite-granodiorites also occur in the basement of the Bavi and Big Bear structures. The basement rocks of the southern Vietnam shelf contain very large oil accumulations.Read more: Oil in bedrock granite<BR>off Vietnam's shores http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47673#ixzz1FgeVJGUc
Craig Smith and I, in writing "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil," have found that anyone advocating the abiotic, "Deep-Earth" theory of the origin of oil is going to invite nearly hysterical attacks from diehard supporters of the "Fossil-Fuel" theory. Read more: Oil in bedrock granite<BR>off Vietnam's shores http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47673#ixzz1FgfFUP40Source: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47673 As I stated in my earlier posts --- McFarlane has omitted telling you anything about abiotic oil -- he definitely had security clearance to access such vital intelligence, yet he has chosen to throw his weight behind western oil oligarchs -- who in turn -- only want higher prices...... So next time you are happily filling your car up with increasing higher priced fuel -- and paying huge amounts in food prices [ + increased transport costs ] keep telling yourself that abiotic oil is just a fantasy.... Happy motoring........
Well, anyone who uses that kind of headline is not worth reading. Most oil was formed from unimaginable amounts of tiny sea creatures, not dinosaurs. No one denies that oil may be formed by other means but that’s not what most of the oil we use originated from. Part of the evidence is where the oil is found, in or near geological formations that would be expected, given it’s origins. As someone else said, even if there is some abiotic oil, it clearly isn’t being formed at a prodigious rate, otherwise reservoir after reservoir would not be reaching peak and declining. Indeed, we’d probably have oceans of oil, if abiotic formation had been going on for billions of years.Please get real. There is no point telling us about abiotic oil - it won’t save the planet, in any way whatsoever.
Hey, albatross, do you think you’re the first person to bring that theory around here? That no one around here has investigated those claims? No, I’m not going to get into a long-winded debate every time some breathless advocate of a theory that is not supported by any credible evidence, and which wouldn’t make any difference if it were. I’ve also given up on arguing with people who 'think climate change is a massive conspiracy of almost every climate scientist on earth, that evolution is a trick of the devil, or that the earth is flat. I’ve got better things to do with my information seeking and processing time.