See the following for a good dose of misinformation on the topic...
The abiotic origin of oil, is a theory that has yet to see conclusive evidence. It's known better for it's lack of evidence against, than evidence for. In fact Thomas Gold admits that abiogenic oil is more likely than not, to be contaminated by biogenic oil, where ever we may find it. As a result, every pool of oil that we find that might be abiogenic, is completely contaminated with biogenic markers.
A similar situation occurs in my home. I have a bad habit of leaving my shoes in the living room. Pixies then carry my shoes into the bedroom closet on a regular basis. There is no proof they do so, but often, after leaving my shoes out where they aren't supposed to be, I find them moved to the closet. I do admit, that on occasion my wife picks them up an moves them, but this in no way disproves the pixie theory. If I could convince my wife to never move them, then the pixie theory would surely be bolstered. I still have two dogs that could be named as culprits on occasion, but for the sake of argument we'll ignore them..
Michael Lynch, an economist that I've butted heads with on occasion, argues on the behalf of abiogenic oil in the article. I have gone in circles with him in the past on this topic, and he seems to find important information in the fine margins of science. For instance the following:
In a new paper, Mr. Lynch debunks a common theory called the Hubbert Curve, which postulates that the yield of oil fields is inherently limited. The problem, as Mr. Lynch points out, is that actual experience in many instances contradicts the Hubbert theory.
This shows a misreprentation of the Hubbert Theory in the broadest sense. In past correspondence with him, he has demonstrated that he understands the theory well. In this article, he suggests that the Hubbert theory argues about how much oil is recoverable in a field. Well it doesn't, and Mr. Lynch knows it. The theory attempts to describe the shape of the production curve. The quantity of recoverable oil is determined by geologists using a variety of tools. The Hubbert Curve is only useful, after the estimates are made. Shame on Michael for this misrepresentation.
He also seems to argue that if oil comes from abiogenic sources, then it's infinite in quantity. Even Thomas Gold doesn't argue that. Clearly an infinite oil supply would fill the universe with oil. So even abiogenic oil must be finite, meaning the Hubbert Curve can be applied to it as well. The stuff is still made over millions of years, just like biogenic oil. Even if abiogenic oil exists, it's quantities must be incredibly small, as it isn't detectable as a diluting factor in biogenic oil.
Abiogenic oil is an interesting theory and notion, but without any evidence it's hardly even a theory. It's just a notion. What the proponents need to do is find one single field of oil, unpolluted by biogenic agents, and they'll have their proof. But even when they proof it, the same reserve measurement techniques will still be used and the Hubbert Curve will still be applicable.
Sorry Mr. Lynch, you failed once again to make your case.
What do you think? Leave a comment below.
Sign up for regular Resilience bulletins direct to your email.
This is a community site and the discussion is moderated. The rules in brief: no personal abuse and no climate denial. Complete Guidelines.