Abiotic oil theory--not "fossil fuel." It's created by heat and great pressure underground. I remember reading about a well in Louisiana, I think it was. Drained and capped it. Went back to check a few years later and it was full again.

Whether or not there is any merit to this (and notice they conveniently left out any analysis of the energy input/output ratio...it does no good to make 1 barrel of oil by using the energy equivalent of 2 barrels of oil), the simple fact remains this process does not occur in nature.

If it did, the earth would be a literal ocean of oil. We would be swimming in a pool of the stuff everywhere. You wouldn't be able to walk without oil pressure from below the surface cracking the surface of the planet like an eggshell whenever you put your weight upon it.

For thousands of years while we weren't using the stuff, this would have created an oil mass so large as to start displacing oceans.

No, in nature at least, oil formation is extremely slow. All the data is consistent with natural oil formed in geological time. That does not mean there is no way to make carbon liquids using modern industrial processes. Of course there is. But for that, you need an different type of analysis....a net energy and efficiency analysis. And given how old these studies are, it is quire clear that they have never been commercially viable. At least not at the prices oil currently sells for. And if the energy balance is negative, they will never be viable at all.

Everyone is free to believe whatever they want. But there is an actual, logical reason why papers like this are acknowledged, rejected and sent to the graveyard. And it has absolutely zero to do with any kind of conspiracy. They are incomplete and illogical.

There absolutely IS a peak oil. Conventional oil peaked in the USA in 1970, and conventional oil peaked globally in 2005. That doesn't mean shale oil and other manufactured oils and liquids can not continue to be produced and make up the energy gap. But all of these solutions are lower efficiency products. Conventional oil, when first extracted on an industrial scale back in the 1800's, produced nearly 100 barrels of oil for every 1 barrel of oil expended. Today, because all the cheap oil is gone, that ratio is closer to 10. There is no conspiracy here. Use up a resource faster than it is produced, and it begins to run out. It's basic logic.

Looking beyond, for any industrial process to be commercially viable, it would need to have a ratio of at least 3. And that would only be practical with appropriate technologies to control the waste streams, which are substantial..and often overlooked in the kinds of naive analysis presented in papers like this.

https://energyskeptic.com/2020/giant-oil-field-decline-rates-and-their-influence-on-world-oil-production/

Preface. Of the roughly 47,500 oil fields in the world, 507 of them, about 1%, are giant oil fields holding nearly two-thirds of all the oil that has ever been, or ever will be produced, with the largest 100 giants, the “elephants,” providing nearly half of all oil today. Since the 1960s, the world has consumed more oil than what has been discovered, and the average size of new oil fields has declined, leaving us heavily dependent on the original giant oil fields discovered over 50 years ago(Aleklett et al. 2012).

From the Conclusion section:

These findings have large implications for the future, since the most important world oil production base – giant oilfields – will decline more rapidly. In the extreme, a potential 10% annual decline in Ghawar would be very challenging to compensate and would create severe problems for Saudi-Arabia and the world. The future behaviour of the remaining giants, especially in OPEC, will be a key factor in future oil supply. Based on the decline behaviour of giants, decline rate estimates for world oil production are possible because of the large influence of the giants. Many studies have shown that smaller fields, condensate, and NGL will decline at least as fast or faster than giant oilfields, once the onset of decline is reached (CERA, 2007; Höök and Aleklett, 2008; IEA, 2008). Consequently, we believe that there is a strong basis for believing that giant oilfields can be used to set a floor for future decline rate assumptions. In conclusion, this analysis shows that the average decline rate of the giant oil fields have been increasing with time, reflecting the fact that more and more fields enter the decline phase and fewer and fewer new giant fields are being found. The increase is in part due to new technologies that have been able to temporarily maintain production at the expense of subsequent more rapid decline. Growing average decline rates have also been noted by IEA (2008). The difference between using a constant decline in existing production and an increasing decline rate is significant and could mean as much of a difference of 7 Mb/d by 2030 (Figure 13). By 2030 the production from fields currently on stream could have decreased by over 50% in agreement with IEA (2008). The struggle to maintain production and compensate for the decline in existing production will become harder and harder. Our conclusion is that the world will face an increasing oil supply challenge, as the decline in existing production is not only high but also increasing. [Bold added, throughout]

Comment by Narg: It is possible to create oil from precursors just as it is possible to create gold from lesser metals. The Nazis made oil from coal for their war machine. Why aren't we doing this now (in any real volume)? For the same reason we don't use particle accelerators or reactors to create gold: the cost is prohibitive.

It is possible that new tech will be developed to create oil economically, but the methods discussed in the 32-year-old answersingenesus.org article have yet to bear fruit so far as I know.

Natural creation of oil may happen much faster than traditionally thought but even if so, oil fields DO decline and eventually the cost to produce a barrel from the field exceeds the market value of the barrel . . . and production stops. (And when the ENERGY cost to produce a barrel exceeds the energy IN the barrel, then only market distortions can make it seem worthwhile to continue pumping the oil).

New, more cost-effective extraction tech can make a depleted field economically productive again, but I haven't seen anything solid that shows depleted fields "filling back up." Natural generation (abiotic or otherwise) of oil seems to happen on longer timeframes than will be useful in this or the next several generations.

The US has a LOT of oil remaining to be exploited, but the picture world-wide looks less positive. On the other hand, a massive drop in global population (which we seem in the early stages of) would lead to serious demand destruction, potentially extending the period of adequate oil production.

Just my opinion from what I've seen.

The earth is a chemistry lab. Pressure, heat, time and the materials. Oil and water both made within the earth.

I think people not in the commodity space are just misunderstanding the term "peak oil".

It is simply a term describing a part of the commodity cycle.

High oil prices lead to more capex on exploration.

As more wells get discovered and come into production, oil prices fall to a low level due to oversupply.

Low oil prices causes less profitable oil companies/oilfields to go bankrupt/shut down and supplies start drying up as existing wells get depleted. This is what the term "peak oil" production is referring to.

As supplies dry up, we reach the "peak" of oil production until prices get high enough to incentivize companies to start investing more in oil exploration for profits, and from here on, the cycle repeats itself.