Abiotic Oil: Is “Fossil Fuel” a Misnomer?

Wikipedia defines “fossil fuels” as “fuels formed by natural processes such as anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms. The age of the organisms and their resulting fossil fuels is typically millions of years, and sometimes exceeds 650 million years.” If this is true, fossil fuels are not being made anymore. This would mean then that oil is a fixed-quantity, non-renewable resource that we are using to depletion. When it’s gone, it’s gone.

But wait. The strangest thing is happening in various oil fields all over the world: they’re filling up again. What? How could that be? Perhaps there is a world of dinosaurs living at the center of the earth and their corpses are floating up through the magma, fossilizing on the way in a dimensionally-compressed time crease and then decomposing into oil. Perhaps Jules Verne was right after all.

Or, perhaps there is another option: abiotic oil production. It could be that oil, coal, and natural gas are incorrectly named “fossil fuels.” There are pockets of people who are beginning to be open to the idea that perhaps oil is not the product of biological decomposition and fossilization over a bajillion years:

In 2008 [Forbes] reported a group of Russian and Ukrainian scientists say that oil and gas don’t come from fossils; they’re synthesized deep within the earth’s mantle by heat, pressure, and other purely chemical means, before gradually rising to the surface. Under the so-called abiotic theory of oil, finding all the energy we need is just a matter of looking beyond the traditional basins where fossils might have accumulated. ((U.S. News & World Report, Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring))

A little research indicates that more than a few thinkers disagree with the scientific consensus on how oil is formed. Consensus scientists will of course reject these “quacks” as “snake oil salesmen.” (Get it?) You can find out what I think about “consensus science” here. The short version: It is fallacious to appeal to authority or the majority opinion. It doesn’t matter who says or thinks something. It could be right or it could be wrong. Consensus science automatically jumps down your throat if you question “climate change” or “macro-evolution.” And this is one of the main blind spots of the fossil fuel bandwagoners. All alternative theories to oil formation are rejected by the majority opinion in order to protect some of modern man’s more sacred cows. Not for scientific reasons, of course. But because of ideological prejudices.

The majority opinion on fossil fuels is intimately linked to anthropogenic climate change and macro-evolution:

Environmentalists want to believe in the biogenic production of oil because it gives legitimacy to their apocalyptic urgency. If oils are running out, and we can’t get any more, well, we better start investing in green energy. But if abiotic oil theory is correct, then oil is a renewable resource. Uh oh. That means crazy conservative earth-killers can keep polluting poor Mother Earth indefinitely.

And macro-evolutionists just don’t want to give up on their “millions and millions of years.” Indicating, even with facts or data, that oil or other geological formations can be produced over a relatively short span of time totally contradicts their paradigm and they will decry you until they are blue in the face. Never mind the fact that the linear uniformitarian model for geological development doesn’t fit any of the facts, past or present. They will cling to it by faith in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Truth is truth, and I want to get at it. I’m not saying abiotic oil theory is right. Perhaps the biogenic fuel theory is basically right, but the time frame is way off. It definitely does not take millions of years to fossilize something. It just takes enormous heat and pressure (which the earth’s core has lots of if I remember correctly). I just want the question to be discussed openly. If the “millions of years” fossil fuel theory is correct, just how are these oil fields filling back up? Is really old oil formed tens of millions of years ago seeping up from even deeper in the earth’s core? That doesn’t fit the evidence very well. For one, the new oil, even using their dating methods, is considerably younger. And why is it showing up now? Hasn’t it been around for tens of millions of years? Oh well. Who needs evidence when you’ve got a consensus, right? At least, that’s the song all the geocentrists were singing back in the day while they were dancing around in little epicycles trying to retrofit their failed paradigm to the facts.

Thus, as is often the case, a majority prejudice is parading as proof in order to silence dissent. The “Church” has been condemned by modern “skeptics” ((To my taste, they are not skeptical at all. It amazes me what they’re willing to believe.)) for its superstitious hamstringing of the progress of scientific inquiry. Now those same so-called skeptics resort to the same tactics when they hold the reins of the majority opinion. And the Church is full of hypocrites?

[js-disqus]