This is what I like about the Russians -- they think outside the box. For centuries it was just a given that oil was produced in the same way as coal. But the Russian theory is very compelling, and I'm inclined to accept it. However, I don't know if it means that there is more oil available than was formerly supposed. Even if it is produced deep in the earth, it may be produced very slowly, and it may be hard to extract. But I'm wondering why the process needs to be abiotic. We know micro-organisms can live miles under the ground, so why not suspect that some of them are producing oil as a byproduct of life?
It is interesting that you say that. I have the same question. I also know of a company that is supposedly using high pressure systems to turn algae into crude oil. My guess is that any carbonaceous substrate might do to supply the basic substrate. Whether it's organic matter from the surface, or from deeper strata or some kind of natural carbon deposit that has been there since roughly the beginning doesn't appear to matter. The paper does make a claim that there are no biological factors in oil production, but I have to wonder why the mainstream theory says that the carbon isotopes in crude oil favor a biological source.
I think the important practical takeaway is that the supply is larger than expected, and abandoning relying on only the current biotic theories will cause us to miss drilling in good candidate zones for oil. Combined with what are likely to be much larger overall oil supplies, the true reason I don't believe we will ever 'run out' of oil is because we'll see improvements in our ability to chemically alter other petro substances, like natural gas for example.
I agree about the Russians.
(post is archived)