[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')Who claimed that oil was not infinite on a local scale?

[rumspringa]

Elaine Supkis at Culture of Life News deals with Engdahl: Engdahl Can't Comprehend Hubbert Oil PEAK.

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'M')y position is that we have based almost all of our surveying and drilling efforts upon the idea that oil was formed from the remains of organic material long ago.

[Morpheus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Biological origin is central to Peak Oil theory, used to explain why oil is only found in certain parts of the world where it was geologically trapped millions of years ago. ...

An entirely alternative theory of oil formation has existed since the early 1950’s in Russia, almost unknown to the West. It claims conventional American biological origins theory is an unscientific absurdity that is un-provable. They point to the fact that western geologists have repeatedly predicted finite oil over the past century, only to then find more, lots more.[/

[TheDude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('meemoe_uk', 'O')K, who knows about this 'Dnieper-Donets Basin' Engdahl talks about as the fruit of abiotic theory? Is the oil in a place that defies conventional geological oil theory?

[genworb]

The theory could be construed as a large bowl of
" herring red primordial soup" , I wish.

[billybell88]

Time will prove that Peak Oil is real. By around 2010, everyone will be a "Peak Oiler".

[threadbear]

Morhpheus, You should give this book a read. I'm unmoved by people who stubbornly support any dominant theory and then criticize alternative theories, siting lack of sufficient evidence. Obviously, the data required to change minds and undermine the dominant theory is insufficient, until it is backed up by money and political power

The book is Alternative Science, Challenging the Myths of the Scientific Establishment. --Richard Milton

"With humor and an eye for the telling detail, the author describes many instances when the defenders of scientific orthodoxy acted with unscientific rigidity in the face of the evidence. Faraday, Roentgen, Edison, and even the Wright Brothers were thought to be charlatans by their contemporaries. Taking the broad view of the way science is done, Milton discusses the forces at work in the marginalization of unorthodox research, and makes the reader wonder if there is not something fundamentally wrong with the way that science is currently being practiced."

http://www.amazon.com/Alternative-Scien ... 0892816317

[threadbear]

Aaron is usually pretty subtle, Morpheus. My guess is he's had to deal with some idiot in a Bayliner at his marina. You have no idea how annoying that can be. Google plastic boats, sh**heads.

[muon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'I') have been looking around and have seen some interesting articles:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')stronomers have been able to find that hydrocarbons, as oil, gas and coal are called, occur on many other planetary bodies. They are a common substance in the universe. You find it in the kind of gas clouds that made systems like our solar system. You find large quantities of hydrocarbons in them. Is it reasonable to think that our little Earth, one of the planets, contains oil and gas for reasons that are all its own and that these other bodies have it because it was built into them when they were born? That question makes a lot of sense. After all, they didn’t have dinosaurs and ferns on Jupiter to produce oil and gas.
...
Human skull fossils have been found in anthracite coal in Pennsylvania. The official theory of the development of coal will not accept that reality, since human beings were not around when anthracite coal was formed. Coal was formed millions of years ago. However, you cannot mistake the fact that these are human fossils.
...
"The coal we dig is hard, brittle stuff. It was once a liquid, because we find embedded in the middle of a six-foot seam of coal such things as a delicate wing of some animal or a leaf of a plant. They are undestroyed, absolutely preserved; with every cell in that fossil filled with exactly the same coal as all the coal on the outside. A hard, brittle coal is not going to get into each cell of a delicate leaf without destroying it. So obviously that stuff was a thin liquid at one time which gradually hardened."
...
Gold claims that the only thing we find now on the Earth that would do that is petroleum, which gradually becomes stiffer and harder. That is the only logical explanation for the origin of coal. So the fact that coal contains fossils does not prove that it is a fossil fuel; it proves exactly the opposite. Those fossils found in coal prove that coal is not made from those fossils. Where then does the carbon base come from that produces all of this?

http://www.jcrows.com/hydrocarbons.html

[seldom_seen]

It is not a coincidence that the term "abiotic oil" entered the lexicon of some segment of literate folks at this time and place in history.

The term "abiotic oil" arrived right on schedule, in tandem with oil prices setting a trajectory for the moon. No one was writing articles, or books, or websites about abiotic oil in 1998 when oil was 10 dollars a barrel.

"abiotic oil" is a mental escape hatch for those would rather avoid the wear and tear on the brain cells that would occur by ruminating on the other more stark reality. That oil is finite, biological in origin, and we're using up what's left at a frightening pace.

No amount of intelligence, scholarship or accolades makes one immune to the soothing elixir of "abiotic oil." It's like having a gin and tonic when contemplating our energy predicament..."maybe there's still plenty of oil out there and it's being regenerated all the time? ...ahhhh. I like the sound of that."

The cry of the cargo cult. You will know things are bad when people start constructing mock gas stations out of cardboard boxes and plywood in the hopes that a gasoline truck will arrive.

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('meemoe_uk', 'I') know very little about abiotic oil theory, it's crazy to dismiss it because it won't stop a peak in oil production. Geologists are as dogmatic as the other speculative sciences. These guys refused to accept the theory of plate tectonics. Only when there was overwhelming practical evidence did they accept it. Could be the same with abiotic oil.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')It's the same argument with alternative energy from them, it's too expensive. What they always fail to comprehend is that expensive is a relative term.

Oil was once considered too expensive to drill. Good call!

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('billybell88', 'T')ime will prove that Peak Oil is real. By around 2010, everyone will be a "Peak Oiler".

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', '
')Get this: Your life is not going to turn out the way you want it to. You face a bleak future, as we all do.

[TonyPrep]

To all abiotic believers and biogenic doubters: please read rocdoc's posts and the various links posted about articles and previous discussions. This seems to be a subject that rears its head from time to time and, each time, never seems to address the rebuttals that are made.

It's amazing that we've found so much oil in the exact places one would expect to find it, given a biogenic origin.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') don't agree that finding fossils in coal rules out a fossil origin for them. If there was a liquid-like bed of earlier transformed organic residue there's no real reason I can see for a later untransformed plant leaf or insect to not fall in there and not be transformed but to stay intact, especially if there's a quick solidification after it falls in.

[threadbear]

People who "believe" the standard theory, can just as easily be pathologized as those who don't. In the end it comes down to a certain degree of uncertainty, for me. I don't know the truth as I'm not a geologist, but am always skeptical of those who claim to know for sure, based on an expert's point of view, or insider knowledge. When I cast a cursory glance at their proof, I can see how they COULD be deluded. This isn't saying they necessarily are. They may well be correct.