Your post is probably what made that article catch my eye.
And who's can say it isn't happening at all?
No one can - only because that's not how the academic and scientific communities work. Evidence is the burden of the person/group making a claim. In any case - and as I said earlier and in the other thread. It's a mainly western theory versus a Russian (et. al.) theory. Up until circa 2000, most oil was found using the biogenic theory (certain regions have a certain geological record conducive to oil production). Around 2000, Russia started finding oil in areas that were unlikely to contain oil, following the bio theory. But because we all but laughed at them and their theory (and not willing to share our info) - they're not willing to give up their now proprietary (perhaps not the correct adjective) data.
And "sustainable" arguments may just be quibbling.
Sustainable and renewable are very very different things. Sustainability is dependent on consumption (among other things). Fishing is a perfect example. Fish are a renewable food resource, but with overfishing etc. - it's not sustainable. I believe that relatively recently we put one specie of dolphin on the extinct list - while it wasn't a resource, it's another example of our ability to wipe out other species. Technically, the bio theory (fossil fuel) oil is a renewable resource - it just takes millions of years, after the correct conditions, to produce. But I highly doubt anyone is going to claim oil as a sustainable resource simply because of that
Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately it kills all its students.
Trebuchet - Assuming it's real and happening, its renewing. Thus could be called renewable, even if not strictly how people think of that word today. Perhaps a change to the old word or a new word would be in order. Not my call.
I understand the difference between sustainable and renewable. Since abiotic oil is still not widely proven or explored, one couldn't say whether it is or isn't sustainable at any given rate. But since it hasn't been widely explored, it may be more renewable, thus more sustainable, than some might think.
Fish are a renewable food resource, but with overfishing etc. - it's not sustainable.
One of my professors has done leading research in this feild. It is predicted that if we continue to fish the oceans the way we currently do as of 2006 that by 2048 the oceans will have no sea life, only small organisms and plancton.
It seems the main thing against the abiogenetic petroleum production is the fact that biogenetic petroleum production has been scientifically proven.
That means nothing.
To be scientifically proven merely means that no evidence has been found YET that contradicts a theory. And it seems the evidence for abiogenetic petroleum production contradicts the previously proven biogenetic petroleum production.
I don't believe it has to be one way or the other. I think there are great quantities of both, it's just that we've been looking for one type forever and haven't hardly begun searching where the other is found.
Crude Oil - Bubblin' Crude
Crude Oil Two - Abiogenic, Who Knew?
I can't wait for the next sequel.