Well for starters.
1, I believe there are substantially more conventional reserves that have not been tapped at all. This is contrary to the peak oil folks.
It’s not an either/or question. You don’t have to choose between an abiogenic origin or peak oil. There are more fossil fuel theories than just ‘peak oil’, which has consistantly been proven wrong.
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=2482838%2C15
The claim is that there is enough oil for 2041 years.
I’m not worried about oil or fuel, but I am worried about this radical socialist administration.
“There are more fossil fuel theories than just ‘peak oil’, which has consistantly been proven wrong.”
The theory of ‘peak oil’ as I understand it refers to the peak of oil production of a given field, and is based on geology. It was originally proposed by Marion Hubbert based on his work as the chief geologist for Shell Oil and was originally known as ‘Hubbert’s peak’ theory. From what I have read it has been proven correct over and over again by the production rates of many field of differing sizes. Even the Ghawar field is showing the same predicted production behavior.
What ‘peak oil’ theory are you referring to that has been consistently proven wrong.
I agree. The ones who believe we can drain the earth of oil over 150 years are also the ones that believe they can point to anthropogenic global warming by looking at 100 years of temperature records.
2.) I have also read that the Ukranians drilled deeper than anyone had ever drilled guided by the abiotic theory and they found oil.
3.) It makes pretty good sense that the immense amount of heat/energy trapped deep down in the earth could convert the two most abundant elements on earth, carbon and hydrogen into chains of liquid hydrocarbons which would then work their way up towards the surface due to pressure and density differences.
4.) There are clearly powerful forces at work who stand to lose a great deal of money if the abiotic theory is true.