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.