Debate: The origin of oil is irrelevant

Not open for further replies.


As a mother, I am telling you
Valued Senior Member
This is the debate thread, only the agreed contestants (oil and Syzygys) can paticipate here.

For other people wishing to discuss this thread please go to the discussion thread
The Proposal thread is now closed but can be viewed here

OK, I will take that OIM has agreed to the debate and instead of having James deleting all debate material from the proposal thread, why don't we just start here? If BR eventually grows balls, he can join in anytime on OIM's side.

Let's make it clear what we are debating here. For the sake of this debate I joined the abiotic oil believers side and will say that oil has abiotic origins. I will also say though, that unless one can prove that this abiotic origins can create oil fast enough for humans to use with the current rate of consumption, it is IRRELEVANT what the origins of oil are.

So let's say it slowly one more time: The debate isn't about oil being abiotic, but the speed of creation or if you wish the replenishment rate.

Since I am on the abiotic side, I picked for creaton speed 300 years. The reason for that because next year will be the 150th anniversary of Colonel's Drake oildrill in Titusville, Pennsylvania, from where I date modern, industrial oilusage with good data. So we have reliable data on oilwell behaviour for the past 150 years.

Now I will show it later that it is pretty obvious that those 40K oilwells drilled all over the world in the last 150 years aren't refilling in any meaningful manner, thus the creation time of the abiotic oil must be signifficantly more, let's say at least twice, thus I have the 300 years.

Mind you 300 years is nothing in geological time, so we could look at it as just a moment.
By the way my goal with this debate is not really winning, but to educate those who have some kind of NAIVE belief that backing the abiotic oil theory could save us from our current energy problems.

As a start of OIM's rebutal, I will quote him:

"Kennicutt, a faculty member at Texas A&M University, said it is now clear that gas and oil are coming into the known reservoirs very rapidly in terms of geologic time. The inflow of new gas, and some oil, has been detectable in as little as three to 10 years."

Well, first it could be a logical fallacy called applying to authority, when the person in question is not authority on the topic at all. Being a university faculty member isn't exactly a high degree of authority in my book. Second, the rate of refilling must be VERY, VERY slow if he says "detectable" quantity.

Detectable isn't enough I am sorry to say. We need huge gushers coming out of the once already depleted reservoirs. So it seems to me that the good ol' professor would probably agree with my timeline of 300 or more years.

I think for starter it is enough. I will spare my favorite dodo analogy for the next post. From OIM I would like to see scientic evidence for quick oil creation, at least much quicker than my 300 years. Anything less than 50 years is unfortunatelly irrelevant as humans keep sucking up this precious commodity like Keith Richard cocaine...
Last edited by a moderator:
3 to 10 years. Read it and weep.

You have offered no scientific evidence for your ridiculous claim of 300 years.

I declare victory.
3 to 10 years.

So if 3 years makes only detectable quantity, how many years need to make a gallon, shall we ask? Saying detectable quantity is not specific. A drop of oil is detectable quantity, but it needs to be multiplied by a few thousand to make a gallon. I did ask you to be SPECIFIC. Also 3 to 10 years is rather vogue, it is a 300+% difference.

Anyway, I wasn't expecting much more from you, but this thread is for future references, for those who actually interested in having an open mind.

So little dodo analogy, here we go:

In the island of Mauritius dodos had been living happily for thousands of years. One day the first human put his feet on the ground, and things were never been the same. He killed a dodo, ate it, he saw that it was good, and pretty much the future of dodo was sealed.

For argument's sake, let's say that the dodo population of Mauritius was 100K birds on the average. Some year more, some year less, not having natural enemies, the population was in balance by the aviable food. Once humans started to hunt dodos, this balance changed.

When humans killed the first 10K dodos, since there was more food aviable for the rest, more baby dodos survived thus as long as the hunting didn't surpass the natural birth rate (replenishment rate) of the dodos, the population still stayed in balance. But dodos were easy to hunt, they were also tasty, so this balance was very fragile. When dodohunting increased, the natural birth rate couldn't keep up with it, and the population got into a decline. Stopping hunting could have saved the bird, but nobody did anything like that thus dodos become extinct by the mid-17th century.

And this my dear ol' friend is a perfect analogy (although you won't get it) for abiotic oil. Humans currently are using oil with such a high consumption rate, that creating only "detectable" quantity in 3 years is irrelevant.

I could crunch the numbers, but it is a waste of effort on my behalf, so let's say, I am still waiting for the timeframe of creating 1 gallon of oil by 1 cubic acre in mother Earth...
Moderator notice:

This debate is ended, according to the terms of the [thread=76020]Standard Rules[/thread], Rule number 4.

OilisMastery has forfeited.
Not open for further replies.