This fascinating article describes two ideas about oil production that were new to me: 1. It is made by microbes a long way down inside the Earth. 2. It is made by nuclear reactions going on in the middle of the earth.
The first idea came from a Cornell geologist named Thomas Gold. According to the article, “some geologists were so incensed by Gold’s ideas they petitioned to have the government remove all mention of it from the nation’s libraries.” That is so strange (and no source cited) you might think the whole article is made-up but Gold explained his ideas here (short) and here (long).
Thanks to Carl Willat.
See something wrong. Present the arguments that show it’s wrong, or get angry and censorious?
All true scientists know which to pick.
More seriously, even if oil is generated continuously, by geology or biology, there’s still a limited supply. We’ll still effectively run out if it is generated slower than some threshold – say 10% of demand at current prices, just for the sake of argument. Above that the economy can adjust with higher prices, below that cars, loud lawnmowers and so on effectively disappear.
There are a few theories about oil treated like heretic science. Most famous:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
Communist science is a fascinating study area, most of their discoveries are not accepted by mainstream science unless they have clear and practical applications. It is crazy a theory about oil is quite reasonable in Russia’s eyes and completely dismissed by USA & Europe scientific society.
I have a friend who studied in psychology in communist Romania and told me their studies are not accepted in western Europe because they learn “the Russian psychology” who is somehow not accepted as valid.
Abiotic oil is fairly well documented. However, it is not the primary source of oil — the vast majority of oil discovered and extracted comes from shallow basins that were filled in, sunk, and pressurized. Your post title assumes that oil has one unique source of origin. This is beginning from unproven premises. Oil can have more than one source.
It does not seem so far that abiotic oil is going to help us go on heating up the planet, either — not enough of it.
There is also the “Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins” – I wonder if Gold was aware of that ?
I would have thought it relatively easy to test the fossil-origin hypothesis, by measuring the levels of life elements such as as K, P, N in crude oil, and comparing with levels in vegetation, and between oil samples from different locations.
It is also worth remembering that when astronomers find evidence of methane on Titan, for example, they don’t conclude that Titan used to covered with forests. So why could not methane deposits on Earth have the same origin as those on Titan ?
Why would the geologists be so angry about it?
I imagine that geologists get angry for much the same reason that psychiatrists get livid if you start to question the usefulness of psychiatric drugs — it challenges their worldview and throws doubt on many of the important decisions they’ve made in their professional life.