Sunday, September 30, 2007

The Peak Oil Hoax And My Conversion

It wasn't too long ago I actually thought the peak oil theory had merit. Now I realize it is a hoax just like biogenic petroleum origin, "fossil" fuels, and man-made carbon dioxide causing global warming are all hoaxes.


static66 said...

where's your back-up?

Anaconda said...

Why do I believe in the abiotic oil theory?

First a little history. I grew up believing the standard stock, that petroleum was a fossil fuel and saw the oil company commercials featuring cuddly animated dinosaurs being laid down to form fossil fuel. There wasn't much to question -- oil was plentiful, up until the oil shocks of the 1970's. But that was political and not the result of physical shortage.

College at a Liberal Arts school, introduced me to the concept of scarcity, but since no scarcity came, this mostly went to the attic of my mind, although, as any driver, I was aware of the ups and downs at the gas pump, mostly up.

I had an interest in geo-sciences and was aware of successful off-shore drilling for oil. I had a consciousness of the concept of Peak oil, from my college days, and that sedimentary deposits were where oil came from.

I wanted to know the prospects of oil: Simple, I picked up a globe which showed the continental shelfs of the world.

My assumption: This was an "oil planet" for millions of years with vast expanses of swamp like organic goo growing on top of the seas and oceans. There are lots of continental shelf areas in the world and most of these have sedimentary deposts incorporated in them, even more around the deltas of large rivers.

So, my conclusion: Peak is unlikely, there is lots of unexplored continental shelf to drill -- the question was, in how deep of water would we be able to drill? I assumed technology would advance, so the oil industry would eventually be able to reach all continental shelfs.

This seemed to end the question for me and oil would be available for many years, certainly until I was in my rocking car.

Vaguely, I had heard of abiotic oil -- too fantastic, right, to give it much thought. My conventional thinking, plus an expanded concept of continental shelf oil formation on an "oil planet" safely informed me not to worry.

I was living my life with other things to think about.

Damned, if these Peak oil folks weren't starting to get traction in the main stream media, and gas prices were going up at the pump.

But my sense of continental shelf oil allowed me to brush-off Peak concerns. Then I read an article on World Net Daily, by Jerome Corsi about abiotic oil, this was a couple of months ago. I think it was mid-ocean ridge vents spewing hydrocarbons that weren't biogenic, based on carbon-isotope ratio.

Yep, I was like most Americans: Out of the loop, and had missed the entire controversy back in 2005 when Corsi was pushing his book and slugging out articles on WND left and right.

But the concept of abiotic oil struck me as interesting and plausible. Yet, also fantastic and against anything I had ever heard about oil's origins (if not my expansive notions of the possiblity of huge deposits of continental shelf oil).

This caused me to first read up Corsi's past articles from WND, which fed my interest and yes, my imagination. Could it be, that the earth is an "oil planet," but in a totally different way from the one I previously imagined?

I exhausted the Corsi articles and wanted more, so I went to the internet. I wanted to be, as objective as possible, and weigh the evidence. I wanted to treat it as a scientific inquiry.

What struck me right off the bat was the name calling that fossil theory advocates employed. Not a sign of a strong argument based on facts and evidence. The fossil advocates did not respond well to reasoned arguments of the other side, and avoided the strongest arguments altogether. It was clear to me that it was more political than science based. I had seen that before on political blogs.

People write the most outlandish arguments without any thought to logical reasoning on political blogs.

There also was a circular reasoning quality to fossil proponents "proofs". Too many assumptions without ever proving the assumption. A tautology, needlessly repeating an argument without ever proving the first assertion.

And, almost always present: Giving the benefit of the doubt to their theory, and never giving the benefit of the doubt to abiotic theory. Actually, many times, it seemed, they were straining hard to be as biased as possible against abiotic theory.

Some "fossil" theory proponents try to appear unbiased. And, yes, there are some folks trying to reason in goodfaith to get to the truth as they believe it, being open minded to solid scientific evidence to the contrary.

And, finally, abiotic oil theory is elegant. Every challenge is met: Theoretical, mathematical, chemical, physical, geological.

Galileo said the language of NATURE is mathematics: Abiotic theory meets that challenge.

"Fossil" theory doesn't even come close.

I think that's why a lot of the time they simply hide out. They know their belief won't stand up to scrutiny against a knowledgable opponent.

The truth is, these "fossil" theory proponents need to be cornered and confronted with the evidence. For the benefit of science and the benefit of the American economy and the Western petroleum industry itself. Yes, that's right, it's to the benefit of the West's petroleum industry, that the truth be known about oil's origins.

Some might not think so, but for continued long term capital investment and the health of the industry, it's important that the public knows that oil is not about to run out.

Abiotic oil theory has more than the weight of the evidence on its side, while "fossil" theory twists on a 250 year old hypothesis -- it's as if people still believed the sun rotated around a flat earth.

That belief simply isn't healthful for an informed society.

Anaconda said...


In this quarter, it is believed being unafraid of the truth, and searching for the truth will promote scientific advancement and enlightenment. Yet, in other quarters, some see fit to decide ignorance and fear are best for mankind because, it's felt, darkness and fear will further their agenda.

Man makes the wisest decisions and choices when he is fully informed of the facts. In matters of science and technology, man makes the best decisions when he has the best scientific understanding currently available.

Abiotic oil theory is the best science currently availble on the origins of petroleum.

Abiotic oil theory answers scrutiny in all the ways demanded by reasonable scientific scepticism. It's confirmed by theoretical modeling conforming to chemical and physical laws as expressed in mathemetical equations.

Galileo famously stated the language of Nature is mathematics.

Those models have been confirmed in the laboratory and those properties observed in the laboratory are consistent with observations in the field of crude oil's properties and the geologic structures where crude oil is found and believed to originate from.

There has even been astronomical confirmation with the discovery of large quanities of methane on Saturn's moon Titan (literally oceans of methane). And clues, that methane existed on the surface of Mars.

Most of the comments on this blog are meant to be illustrations of the scientific elegance displayed by abiotic oil theory.

Two illustrations I find persuasive are the diamondoid argument (Please see post, Scientists Prove Hydrocarbons are abiogenic, February 2, 2008, comments # 2-5), and the fact that oil has been located far deeper, past 30,000 feet deep, than the 15,000 foot "oil window," and that, in turn, is a pillar of the deepwater, deep-drilling sector of the oil industry.

The hottest play in the oil game.

Anaconda said...


It has been said that the three hardest things to do is, "include a person in a social circle that has already been excluded, turn the other cheek, and admit a mistake."

"Mistakes were made." is the well known passive construction that people employ when confronted with unrefutable error.

This is pointed out in the humble offer that this writer also makes mistakes. Argument can had that perspective is everything in determining truth or fallacy. "Where you sit, depends on where you stand."

All that can be done is lay out the evidence, arguments, inferences, and circumstantial evidence for propositions, and the reasoning and logic supporting those propositions, and let the chips fall where they may.

True science does not "hide the ball." To find truth, one must employ truth. You can not find truth by using lies, distortion, or "spin."

To that lofty standard, man's efforts are compared and found wanting. But does that mean we dare not make the attempt?

No. Man must make the attempt, but be conscious of our limitations, and be humble in that realization.