[ExI] Cost of synfuel was Air-powered cars

[Lee Corbin]

Keith writes

>>What I read was that no one has ever succeeded in
>>producing one drop of oil by any process that nature
>>could have used to produce the vast amounts of
>>"fossil fuels" we have found.
>
> You are misinformed.

Judging from what you write below, you may have
mistaken my meaning.

>>Do you have some explanation of how nature would
>>have gone about using the above equation, or whether
>>it's true that so far no one has produced oil in a way
>>that is thought to be how nature did it?
>
> You are probably aware of shale oil.  We produce oil from it the same way nature did other oil deposits, heat it.

But did shale oil come from "dinosaurs"  :-)   or from living
matter? It's customary for everyone to call these "fossil fuels"
isn't it?

What is at stake here is the abiotic theory of oil.  Hmm, now I see
http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html
which appears to present both sides of the debate.

< Dave McGowan argues for the abiotic theory, which holds that oil is generated by natural processes in the earth's magma, and he 
also argues pointedly that the "fossil" theory has never been proven. The following is long and detailed, but a must-read: >

Lee

P.S. Here is McGowan's take (Yes, Damien, I *am* biased)
  The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not controversial nor presently a matter of academic 
debate. The period of debate about this extensive body of knowledge has been over for approximately two decades (Simakov 1986). The 
modern theory is presently applied extensively throughout the former U.S.S.R. as the guiding perspective for petroleum exploration 
and development projects. There are presently more than 80 oil and gas fields in the Caspian district alone which were explored and 
developed by applying the perspective of the modern theory and which produce from the crystalline basement rock. (Krayushkin, 
Chebanenko et al. 1994) Similarly, such exploration in the western Siberia cratonic-rift sedimentary basin has developed 90 
petroleum fields of which 80 produce either partly or entirely from the crystalline basement. The exploration and discoveries of the 
11 major and 1 giant fields on the northern flank of the Dneiper-Donets basin have already been noted. There are presently deep 
drilling exploration projects under way in Azerbaijan, Tatarstan, and Asian Siberia directed to testing potential oil and gas 
reservoirs in the crystalline basement. (http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm)

  It appears that, unbeknownst to Westerners, there have actually been, for quite some time now, two competing theories concerning 
the origins of petroleum. One theory claims that oil is an organic 'fossil fuel' deposited in finite quantities near the planet's 
surface. The other theory claims that oil is continuously generated by natural processes in the Earth's magma. One theory is backed 
by a massive body of research representing fifty years of intense scientific inquiry. The other theory is an unproven relic of the 
eighteenth century. One theory anticipates deep oil reserves, refillable oil fields, migratory oil systems, deep sources of 
generation, and the spontaneous venting of gas and oil. The other theory has a difficult time explaining any such documented 
phenomena.

  So which theory have we in the West, in our infinite wisdom, chosen to embrace? Why, the fundamentally absurd 'Fossil Fuel' 
theory, of course -- the same theory that the 'Peak Oil' doomsday warnings are based on.

  I am sorry to report here, by the way, that in doing my homework, I never did come across any of that "hard science" documenting 
'Peak Oil' that Mr. Strahl referred to. All the 'Peak Oil' literature that I found, on Ruppert's site and elsewhere, took for 
granted that petroleum is a non-renewable 'fossil fuel.' That theory is never questioned, nor is any effort made to validate it. It 
is simply taken to be an established scientific fact, which it quite obviously is not.

  So what do Ruppert and his resident experts have to say about all of this? Dale Allen Pfeiffer, identified as the "FTW 
Contributing Editor for Energy," has written: "There is some speculation that oil is abiotic in origin -- generally asserting that 
oil is formed from magma instead of an organic origin. These ideas are really groundless." 
(http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/04_04_02_oil_recession.html)

  Here is a question that I have for both Mr. Ruppert and Mr. Pfeiffer: Do you consider it honest, responsible journalism to dismiss 
a fifty year body of multi-disciplinary scientific research, conducted by hundreds of the world's most gifted scientists, as "some 
speculation"?

The following is a response by McGowan to a generally hostile email from a Ruppert supporter...