See the links I pasted in a comment elsewhere and get back to us. Not YouTube, one of them is from an petroleum engineering textbook.
Also, "adiabatic" is a thermodynamic term meaning something else entirely, so while I normally am on record as against grammarfagging, since you've chosen to have such an uninformed take on things, getting this this wrong throughout your comment hardly bolsters your case.
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.
Edit: "We still have no choice but to move away from oil as an energy source" - that's the same doomsday bullshit they've been spouting for decades.
Also, now that I think about it, are you aware that the dead-dinosaur theory of oil was actually hotly contested early on, many thought it was bunk, but it was pushed as THE TRUTH by people like Rockefeller to make it seem scarce and keep the price high?
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.
See the links I pasted in a comment elsewhere and get back to us. Not YouTube, one of them is from an petroleum engineering textbook.
Also, "adiabatic" is a thermodynamic term meaning something else entirely, so while I normally am on record as against grammarfagging, since you've chosen to have such an uninformed take on things, getting this this wrong throughout your comment hardly bolsters your case.
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.
The Russians have, read the links.
Edit: "We still have no choice but to move away from oil as an energy source" - that's the same doomsday bullshit they've been spouting for decades.
Also, now that I think about it, are you aware that the dead-dinosaur theory of oil was actually hotly contested early on, many thought it was bunk, but it was pushed as THE TRUTH by people like Rockefeller to make it seem scarce and keep the price high?
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.
I'm done arguing with your ignorant ass.