The adiabatic oil hoax has been going on since the 70's. A little bit of logic will tell you that even if it is true, it will make no difference. Think.
We've only been pumping oil for about 100 years. And we're pulling about 100 million barrels a day out of the Earth's crust. If the Earth were capable of replenishing that at anywhere close to that rate, even 1% of that rate, then it would have been doing so for thousands upon thousands of years before we started using it. The Earth would literally be an ocean of oil. The entire surface would be hundreds of feet deep in the gooey crude. So the strong adiabatic oil theory is clearly wrong.
So 1 of 2 things must be true:
the adiabatic oil hypothesis is simply wrong
adiabatic oil doesn't produce oil any faster than the organic theory (the weak adiabatic oil theory)
Either way, it is not something that changes anything.
And another point for thought, a lot of geological engineers have made a lot of money drilling for oil at the same depths and locations where organisms lived millions of years ago. Correlation is not causation, but how many coincidences does it take?
Don't believe every piece of nonsense people spout on Youtube.
I'll cop to the vocabulary brain fart. I meant abiogenic, not adiabatic. That's what happens when you get old.
However, the rest of the argument is solid. After having been around for more than 50 years, nobody has proven it to be a profitable method of finding oil. Nobody. And many people had a big incentive to do so. And even if correct, the strong abiogenic theory is impossible, and the weak theory doesn't change anything. We still have no choice but to move away from oil as an energy source.
Nobody has found those, despite 50+ years of trying. This isn't some new theory. People were touting it back during the oil crisis in the 70's. Sans proof of a commercially viable field, I don't believe it.
Technology such as slant drilling and fracking developed since the 70's has helped America to increase flow after the US peaked. And no, it is not the immediate crisis they say it is if we use the remaining fuel wisely. But if you think there is no concern at all...that is where you and I part ways.
We're obviously using oil way quicker than it can be renewed, but that whole idea that we'd be swimming in oil is bullshit.
Obviously the process can only happen under very specific conditions. It's not the continental shelf sweating it out.
Think about a hot spring. You can pump out the smelly sulfurous water, make a pool or drink of it or whatever, and it will come back and rather quickly. But not all water everywhere is smelly sulfur hot spring water.
And fwiw, places like Saudi Arabia were practically swimming in oil, with pools of it found on the surface
The adiabatic oil hoax has been going on since the 70's. A little bit of logic will tell you that even if it is true, it will make no difference. Think.
We've only been pumping oil for about 100 years. And we're pulling about 100 million barrels a day out of the Earth's crust. If the Earth were capable of replenishing that at anywhere close to that rate, even 1% of that rate, then it would have been doing so for thousands upon thousands of years before we started using it. The Earth would literally be an ocean of oil. The entire surface would be hundreds of feet deep in the gooey crude. So the strong adiabatic oil theory is clearly wrong.
So 1 of 2 things must be true:
Either way, it is not something that changes anything.
And another point for thought, a lot of geological engineers have made a lot of money drilling for oil at the same depths and locations where organisms lived millions of years ago. Correlation is not causation, but how many coincidences does it take?
Don't believe every piece of nonsense people spout on Youtube.
I'll cop to the vocabulary brain fart. I meant abiogenic, not adiabatic. That's what happens when you get old.
However, the rest of the argument is solid. After having been around for more than 50 years, nobody has proven it to be a profitable method of finding oil. Nobody. And many people had a big incentive to do so. And even if correct, the strong abiogenic theory is impossible, and the weak theory doesn't change anything. We still have no choice but to move away from oil as an energy source.
Let me be more specific:
"economically meaningful" abiogenic oil deposits.
Nobody has found those, despite 50+ years of trying. This isn't some new theory. People were touting it back during the oil crisis in the 70's. Sans proof of a commercially viable field, I don't believe it.
Technology such as slant drilling and fracking developed since the 70's has helped America to increase flow after the US peaked. And no, it is not the immediate crisis they say it is if we use the remaining fuel wisely. But if you think there is no concern at all...that is where you and I part ways.
We're obviously using oil way quicker than it can be renewed, but that whole idea that we'd be swimming in oil is bullshit.
Obviously the process can only happen under very specific conditions. It's not the continental shelf sweating it out.
Think about a hot spring. You can pump out the smelly sulfurous water, make a pool or drink of it or whatever, and it will come back and rather quickly. But not all water everywhere is smelly sulfur hot spring water.
And fwiw, places like Saudi Arabia were practically swimming in oil, with pools of it found on the surface