It’s been quite a while since I said anything about abiotic oil, the theory that oil can be formed from non-biological sources. It wasn’t anywhere near the top of my to-do list, but I felt that Raymond Learsy’s latest entry at Huffington Post, Why Does Abiotic Oil Theory Ignite Peak Oil Theorists’ Fulminations??, should be addressed:

Abiotic Oil, calling into question the overarching theory that the origins of fossil fuel are of biological/organic origin was touched upon in my previous post, “Oil’s Big Dirty Secret as Producers Rake in Hundreds of Billions”04.12.08.

The comments to the post were wide ranging and the Peak Oil missionaries were apoplectic that one dared question their gospel intoning the sanctity of the biological origin of fossil fuels and its rapidly diminishing availability. Clearly the words “Abiotic Oil” stir up heated passions and clear concern among those in the oil patch who would be impacted were the theory to take hold. My post highlighted the issue without offering an opinion on Abiotic Oil Theory’s viability. It did however attempt to outline the reasons why the oil industry would happily not have the concept of “Abiotic Oil” taken with any grain of seriousness. .

A comment on my post was posted by one Rolo Tomassi simply stating:

“Here’s a site for those interested in the abiogenic side of the discussion:

http://www.gasresources.net/ ”

I would like to share excerpts from this link with you and would encourage to read the full text. They raise some startling questions and give frightening credence to the points raised in my previous post. Here the entire issue of Abiotic Oil Theory and the willful obstruction to objective scientific examination by the Peak Oil minions and the oil industry to whom they are beholden is laid bare. In stunning clarity the text further indicts in large measure those in the American and British community of petroleum geologists and their institutions for being willful parties to stonewalling professional dialogue on this issue .

As you can probably divine from the tone in Learsy’s writing, he’s not exactly a card-carrying member of the peak oil club. (”Peak Oil minions and the oil industry to whom they are beholden”? Really?) Check some of his prior HuffPosts, and you’ll get the full effect.

But back to this argument and abiotic oil.

First, do I really have to point out that out of the very tiny percentage of the general public that knows what peak oil is, those who are the militants doomers, the Apocalypticons, are an even smaller segment and a vanishingly small part of society. You could probably fit most of them into two or three Greyhound buses, hopefully without wireless Internet access so they could be slowed down in their relentless idiocy.[1] But in general the peakers tend to be very heavily influenced by geology (even if many of them are also dumb as a sack of rocks when it comes to economics), so they’re hesitant to believe in something like abiotic oil theory that has one gigantic problem. Yes, they often get carried away with their rhetoric, and they can be astoundingly short-tempered with outsiders as well as their own.[2] But despite these very serious and counterproductive shortcomings in their communication skills, at least they’re focused on the right core issue.

Second, is abiotic oil theory’s gigantic problem:

[TomCruiseCubaGooding]Show me the oil![/TomCruiseCubaGooding]

In more serious terms: If some portion of the world’s oil reserves have come from abiotic sources, then where is the oil? Does anyone here think that if abiotic processes produced economically recoverable oil that no one, including both the national and international oil companies, would be going after it? Or do you think it’s there and these companies are in some immense conspiracy to not tap those reserves? Or perhaps it’s there, we’re tapping those reserves, and we’re just not telling anyone where the oil came from? And do you think any of these scenarios could be true without at least one whistle blower going on 60 Minutes to do an interview in silhouette with an electronically altered voice?

Or is does it make much more sense to assume that the quantity (possibly zero) and economic value of abiotic oil reserves render them meaningless?

If I had to bet $1, I’d say that there probably is some abiotic oil in the ground somewhere on the planet. But until we see not just oil wells extracting it, but a sustained production rate of usable oil high enough to make a difference in the peak scenarios put forth by people I trust (e.g. Simmons, Skrebowski), then it makes no difference whatsoever. In fact, until abiotic oil’s contribution reaches that level of significance it’s nothing more than an academic curiosity, a fine enough topic for dorm room or blog discussions, but little else.

[1] Every time I say something like this about the Apocalypticons, I get hate mail from those with little or no critical thinking skills who leap to the easy and wrong assumption that I either don’t believe in peak oil or think it’s not a big deal. If you’re about to make such a comment in e-mail or on this site, please do us all a favor and read the “Assessment of our situation” section on the About page. If you still think I’m a Cornucopian after reading that, then please feel free to leave a comment here and say so.

[2] The only large online “community” I’ve seen with more of an anger management issue than peakers is the Linux advocates. I could tell you stories about my time writing in that field that would make your hair stand on end.