Abiotic Oil  

I use to work for Halliburton,in the wireline division(Welex).And then worked for a company that put oil well fires out,and serviced the wells,with coil tubing units(Cudd Pressure Control).And the last company I worked for,in the oil fields,also was a service company(ABC Nitrogen)
The oil field companys,have come a long ways,since I first got in to ruff necking.The end of the business I was in(I was a diesel mechanic),I prety much had free reign.So when I had time,I would pick the brains,of the guys who actually worked on the wells.One of the brains I picked,was a what they call a mud engineer in the industry.And what this guy told me,I will never forget.This guy worked for Chevron,and had worked for them for quite a few years.He was a older man(about 60),and was getting ready to retire.You have to remember now,that when a service company is out working on a well,it could take a couple of hours to a month if not longer.So I had been out on this well for about a week,kinda kicking the rocks around,and got to know this guy,he was what they call "The Company Man".When the coil tubing operator would have problems,he would give me a nod,and I would take the guy out to breakfast dinner whatever,to get him away from the well.And this was another way to talk to him,this went on for about three weeks,and got to know the guy prety good.Good enough to get Dallas Cowboys tickets for the whole crew.Any way this guy("The Company Man"),told me that our generation and fifty generations after would never see the end of oil.He never said anything about abiotic oil,but the way he told me about how oil is made,it sounds to me it's abiotic.He told me,the way oil is made,it is constantly being made by the mantle.And not by dinasours and vegitation(fossil fuels).He said,that if you drill deep enough you will find it.
When this guy told me this,was back in 1981,two years after I got out of high school.And since then,after being on litterly about a thousand well sites,I believe what he told me.About every well head I have been on,that was low on production,has always been brought back to original rates.Another thing I saw allot was,the capping of wells,and this was done to hoard it.I don't know how many I have been on,working all day long(working what they call "Towers" which is 12 on and 12 off)for weeks at a time,and get the well to produce just to cap it off.This procedure is done all the time.
I have worked in the (what they call) oilfields,off and on for about 15 years,and prety much have seen everything.I can remember when,throwing the chains,was common.Now,instead of throwing chains,they have power tongs.And one of the biggest advances,in my opinion,was the introduction of the coil tubing unit.This machine,can prety much do everything,even drill.And this machine is still in it's infancy.
Hopefully what I have said,will get people talking about Abiotic oil.I truely believe,oil is being made in the mantle and migrates up with pressure.This is why one use to see gushers.Nowa days gushers are fround upon,because of the ecological mess.Now everything is plumbed in to a Fraq Tank.This is why you never see gushers anymore.
Well I put my two cents in,happy motoring.
About three weeks ago,I bought a motor scooter.This thing has a 150cc motor in it,it gets about 80 miles to the gallon,it does like 60 miles per hour with a tail wind,it was $997.00.I havn't driven my 2000 Z-71 chevrolet pickup,since I bought the scooter.In three weeks,I have used three gallons of gas.I can get $40 bucks worth of groceries in it.And the thing is a blast to drive.I should have got one of these things years ago.

The first comment is a strong testimonial. It has the ring of truth.

Interestiing, from the mouth of a company man, no less.

Here, is some more from the top.

John Hofmeister is president of Shell Oil Co. He finished a 50 city tour in February '08, and appeared on C-Span.

First he said running out of oil was a "myth," and that plenty of "unconventional" oil was out there to be found.

Mr. Hofmeister said that technological advancement would eventually supplant oil usage. He did give lipservice to someday running out of oil, but the context suggested oil would be around for generations.

From the "company man" at the well head to the head of the company, big oil is acting like oil will be around for a long time.

Mr. Hofmeister sounded like a man who had heard about abiotic oil theory, if not having already accepting it as fact.

Nice one - I always love a good bit of tinfoil.

I agree that unconventional oil is available in quite large quantities.

However the environmental cost of extracting this is enormous - global warming will be greatly accelerated as we develop more tar sands / heavy oil / shale oil deposits.

The economic cost of developing these is also enormous, and the flow rate will likely not be able to replace the declining production of conventional.

So I think the only conclusion that can be reached is that oil is a sunset energy source, and we should focus on alternatives.

Thankfully the amount of energy available from clean, renewable sources vastly outweighs dirty unconventional fuels, so the future is bright in that respect.

I think we're at the start of an enormous clean technology boom, which will sweep away the oil and coal industries, much like the IT boom replaced typewriters...

The only tinfoil around , here, is on all those crooked teeth of yours, Big Gav.

"Oil is a sunset industry."

1.2 TRILLION barrels in proven reserves available and growing, plus upward towards 4 TRILLION (conventional) in potential recoverable reserves.

What are they feeding you at that crock farm?

Better Google J.F. Kenney, Gas Resouces Corp., Houston, TX. The science is there. Not the voodo witch doctor stuff, put out by the peakers.

There two kind of folks, and they aint steers and queers. They're folks who want to keep up the price of oil to make money, and those that are fixated on oil as a symbol of a rapacious society, which must be brought to heel.

Which one are you?

Meanwhile this "fossil" fuel hypothesis has to be exposed for the junk-science it really is.

Real science uses mathematics, conforming to the physical and chemical laws to describe what is going on in nature.

"Fossil"...No mathematics there.

And no wonder too. A hypothesis put out in 1757 -- 1757, you gotta be kidding me. You want to stand with a hypothesis first put out in the dark ages?

They were still eating oil back then...for their health.

There's lots of tinfoil about here - and not just on my teeth.

I'm always happy to consider fringe ideas.

When I started this blog, peak oil was definitely on the fringes - now it is a lot more widely accepted.

Abiotic oil theory is currently a very fringe one (more so than peak oil was) - maybe it will become more widely accepted, maybe not. When I see Rex Tillerson or Jeroen Van Der Veer standing up at a conference and saying that oil is abiotic and that they want to re-estimate their reserves on this basis, then I might pay more attention to it.

Either way, you haven't addressed my global warming concern.

And I think clean energy will win out over shale oil in the medium term, no matter how much of the stuff might theoretically be in the ground...

As for your false dichotomoy, I'm not making any money out of the oil price, and I'm not attempting to bring a rapacious society to heel - I'd just like to see us bring industrial society onto a sustainable footing. And to avoid future recurrences of our Iraq adventure where we kill hundreds of thousands of people so we can steal their oil..

I appreciate your response.

"Peak Oil" theory has been around for along time. It and commodity scarcity theory in general. In the early '80's, my college political science and economics courses were chalk full with ideas of imminent scarcity of many basic commodities, i.e., Club of Rome report.

None of that happened, of course.

Specifically, in regards to oil, there have been calls of imminent scarcity since the early 20th century.

So, "Peak Oil" theory is regrettably not new or even fringe.
Just the date of "Peak" gets repeatedly pushed back a few more years.

What is new and unique is the present current circumstances, where "Global Warming" fears have made more people aware and willing to believe, the "END" is near.

The desire to stave off "Global Warming" has pushed many to justify radical economic retrenchment (cutting CO2 emissions). "Peak Oil" is complimentary because it makes it easier to justify the retrenchment because oil is running out anyway.

"Do what 'needs' to be done because it 'will' happen anyway."

I sense many, if not most, peakers latch onto "Peak Oil" because it rationalizes their determination to swear off using CO2 emitting use of petroleum.

Does that summarize your position?

I haven't come to a conclusion on "Climate Change" (what us sceptics call it) yet, but do have an open mind. The science is not complete, yet.

But I am of the firm belief that Climate Change and "Peak Oil" are two seperate issues and should be considered on their own individual merits, rather than be conflated together.

I realize "Global Warming" fears give tremendous power to the leaders of the "Peak Oil" movement.

Abiotic oil theory is also not "fringe" either, just not well known in the West. In Russia, their scientists have been developing abiotic oil theory for over 50 years, and have a large body of scientific work, investigation, and analysis.

Russia (formerly USSR), has moved from an oil poor country shortly after WWII to to the largest oil producer in the world using abiotic oil priciples in their exploration and discovery of oil.

That record hardly qualifies as "fringe."

It's no surprise that Mr. Tillerson and Mr. Van Der haven't come forth with confessions that the "scarce" commodity they sell isn't near as scarce, as they and their industry, have been saying for years, if not generations, to justify the high price.

Too much money and too many professional reputations rest on the belief oil is a "fossil" fuel.

But, when push comes to shove, Western oil geologists are as much charlatons, as the alchemists of the Middle Ages. And much like the Roman Cathlic church of the Middle Ages, they will do anything to quash this knowledge, that threatens their "golden egg."

Galileo said, "The language of Nature is mathematics."

Like the church, Western oil geologists ignore the complete lack of mathematics supporting their 250 year old theory, while simultaniously ignoring the undisputed mathematics supporting abiotic oil theory.

Western oil geologists have a big problem:

You can't violate the second law of thermodynamics (diminishing entropy): Their theory does.

As to Iraq, the opposite is true: Ideas of "Peak Oil" give justification (to political leaders) for "getting" control of as much of this "finite" resource, critical to economic viability, as possible.

The knowlegde that oil is widely available outside the Middle East and that it is not a scarce commodity will reduce the need or ability to gain political support for wars or military control in that region of the world.

Does that address your concerns?

I think you misunderstood the Club of Rome report (like pretty much everyone else - have you read Limits To Growth ?).

I explain what the book said in this post - it certainly wasn't "wrong" / discredited, as it simply examined a range of scenarios over a 100 year period - it isn't possible for it to be wrong (unless you can point to the scenario which most closely tracked reality and show where the model was significantly off the mark).

http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/02/limits-to-scenario-planning.html

I'll continue thinking of abiotic oil as fringe until it becomes reasonably widely accepted in Western scientific circles. Maybe the Russians are right - but they also embraced Lysenkoism, so the record of Soviet science is pretty patchy.

I'm willing to believe that the oil majors suppress information about large oil supplies (that has certainly been the case historically in Iraq and Libya), but the basic fact of depleting oil reservoirs seems hard to challenge.

WHile some people argue that depleting oil supplies, combined with global warming, is a double whammy argument in favour of shifting to other energy sources (often advocates of nuclear power argu this), I think this is mistaken.

Peak oil often implies a rush to tar sands, coal to liquids, heavy oil and shale oil - all of which are very bad from a global warming point of view. So I don't think you can make the linkage between the two that you have claimed.

As to Iraq, the opposite is true: Ideas of "Peak Oil" give justification (to political leaders) for "getting" control of as much of this "finite" resource, critical to economic viability, as possible. The knowlegde that oil is widely available outside the Middle East and that it is not a scarce commodity will reduce the need or ability to gain political support for wars or military control in that region of the world. Does that address your concerns?

That is an interesting argument.

If you can show that there really is an enormous amount of (reasonably economical) oil outside the middle east then it would address the 'resource war" concern.

But I'd still be left with global warming.

In any case - if the oil barons are behaving this badly, isn't switching to a clean energy economy a fitting punishment for them ?

I appreciate your thoughtful response. Science is an outlet for man's reason, while ignorance is the enemy of reason. You are on the side of reason, and that's to be highly commended.

Yes, I have read Limits To Growth, as well as the 29th Lilly and others of a similar nature. Although, it has been many years -- I read both in college.

I disagree with you on my "misunderstanding" of The Club of Rome Report. Of course, they couldn't put an exact date on it, but when you put it together with Limits To Growth and all the others, the theme was clear.

I grant you it delt with exponential growth (which didn't happen) of demand, which was unsustainable. And, the import was clear: By the turn of the century (2000), or there abouts (different dates for different commodities), limits and carrying capacities would be reached.

That's why authors of "Peak Oil" blogs cite this series of literature, becuase it dovetails with their contentions in regards to oil.

(A side note: What do you make of the first comment on this blog? Do you think it is true or false?)

Lysenkoism (plenty of false trails in biology)? Hey, the Russians were dead wrong about Communism, too, so I take your point (think of all those Russians wearing tinfoil hats, ha, ha).

But then again, Edison was wrong on the utility of A.C. electrical current. My point is that people and groups of people make mistakes.

And, the more invested, emotionally, politically, and financially (geologists and oil companies) the harder it is to admit the mistake.

Galileo was right about the Earth rotating around the sun and the Church...well, was wrong.

You didn't address the science, or lack thereof, of Western petroleum geologists. I'll keep coming back to that because really, when you think about it, that's where the rubber meets the road.

Nobody has successfully proved something that violates the laws of thermodynamics (they are iron clad in physics and chemistry) -- yet, that's exactly what you have to do and believe, in order to buy "fossil" fuel theory.

Yes, if "Peak Oil" was true, it would mean a rush to oil shale, coal to liquids, and tar sands. All expensive because of the secondary "cracking" required.

But by the very fact that the major oil companies have been slow to move in that direction (even with an oil price that makes commercialization economically feasible), should tell you something, the oil companies, themselves, believe there is plenty of conventional oil that will be available for a long time.

Do they know something we don't?

Obviously, Western oil companies with their own supplies of low cost, at the well head, oil, are happy to see high prices.

"The basic fact of depleting oil reservoirs seems hard to challenge."

No, that's the point of abiotic oil theory: If true, supplies are certainly much larger than thought (as big as that is, remember 1.2 TRILLION barrels and growing, but possibly "exponentially" larger, and in the extreme, which even I doubt even if the theory is true, unlimited).

That is why abiotic oil theory is so hated by those who have an interest in seeing the current paradigm of limited supplies, maintained.

Remember how much resistence there is to a paradigm shift.

(Of course, this last statement can be used against me and my position, but I offer it as a token, that I will follow the science wherever it takes me -- even if it ends up proving me wrong -- for I'm after the truth.)

"So I don't think you can make the linkage between ["Peak Oil" and Global Warming] you have claimed."

Just read the "Peak Oil" blogs, read the blogs, my man. The posts and comments are full of that type of sentiment.

There are numerous areas outside the Middle East, yet to be explored, mostly on continental shelfs, including within the U.S.

Global Warming (notice no quotes) is still up for debate. At the very least, it's beyound the scope of this debate about abiotic oil theory. And, as I stated in my earlier comment, is a seperate and distinct matter (there you go, conflating the two issues -- proving my point).

No, switching to clean energy would not be just punishment for the oil barons because the world's economy does depend on oil.

And all the "clean" energy in the world would not change that except at the cost of drastic economic shocks.

Who would pay the price for those drastic economic shocks?

It would be the little people who would pay the price.

The rich hardly, if ever do.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but because it is the basis of my argument, Russian science has held up pretty well over time.

Lysenko was the leader in collectivization of farms in the '20's and early '30's. That was a political directive wrapped in the dictates of Communism.

Politically, the Russians have been wrong more times than you can shake a stick at.

But where politics were not involved, such as the hard sciences, mathematics, chemistry, and physics, their record has been excellent.

Russian chemist, Dmitri Mendeleev, is credited with the creation of the periodic table of elements. And possibly, not co-incidentally, also argued against the "fossil" fuel theory, because it did violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Yes, Mendeleev argued for the abiotic oil theory.

The Russians lead the world in chess playing to boot.

In short, Russian science can't be called fringe.

I would like to add something to the issue of oil barons.

"Peak Oil" theory only makes them richer. Question: How much is added to the price of oil because of this perception oil is a limited resource and running out?

Is it 20%, 30%, or even more?

And the more "Peak Oil" is believed the more likely price will go up.

Simmons and Cambell are two promoters of "Peak Oil." Simmons is an oil broker based in Houston, TX. Cambell is an ex-oil company geologist. Truth is that a sizable portion of the "Peak Oil" movement is being driven by oil company shills. And some "Peak Oil" groups are supported, back door, by the petroleum industry.

Sure, off-shore continental shelf deep-drilling is expensive. But you and I know, the need for reinvestment to get more oil isn't driving the price to over $100 a barrel.

So to the extent, you push "Peak Oil," you are helping to drive up the price, therefore, helping the oil barons get rich.

And unless a fascist dictate is made preventing the use of tar sands, oil shale, and coal to liquid, higher prices will actually make them more likely to be used.

This contradicts your stated goal of not using them. Only a political directive would prevent that.

It would be drastic, fascist, and damaging to individual liberty.

So I ask you, deep down, what are your goals? Because right now you are playing into the hands of oil barons, warmongers, and people wanting heavy handed government action.

Are you comfortable with that summary of the consequences of "Peak Oil." I hope not.

Down Under, I know you value your individual liberty.

Promoting "Peak Oil" is not the way to individual liberty.

It's the way to an overbearing State and a loss of individual liberty.

Knowledge is power. Knowledge is power to the individual. You get that, don't you mate?

Thanks for the comments - I'm a bit strapped for time this week so I'll just pause this conversation for a while - but I'm keen to explore some of what you said further.

How about we reconvene Thursday next week ?

I'm glad we agree on individual liberty at least.

I will try and demonstrate to you that there are responses to peak oil and global warming that don't lead to reductions in individual liberty (well - you won't burn as much oil or coal, but its useful, cheap energy via a free market we want - who cares how we get it - right ?).

I agree many proposed responses to these issues go entirely in the opposite direction - but by refusing to engage the topics - or rejecting them outright - you risk getting marginalised as either an anti-science nut or a conspiracy theorist.

Even if you believe these problems are imaginary, perhaps there are solutions which you can nevertheless find attractive (or at least not worth objecting to) ?

One request - please read my link I posted earlier about Limits To Growth - I still get the impression you have misunderstood it.

Okay.

I honored your request and read the post on the Club of Rome report, Limits to Growth.

I now understand your position.

You see the report as a menu of scenarios. It doesn't dictate which scenario will come to fruition. Okay.

But the report is also a bit of a Rorschach test. People reading it, tend to take away confirmation of what their positions were already.

For me, as I indicated before, the classes I took were concerned with scarcity. Other books delt with the impending collaspe of various resources. Timing is important too. In the early '70's when the report came out, there was the first highly publicized threat of limited supplies of crude oil.

So, while I understand your take on the Club of Rome report, I also understand why others draw different conclusions.

I respect your take on the report and applaud your optimistic stance.

Obviously, there are different camps in regards to "Peak Oil."

Although, after reviewing more "Peak Oil" blogs, I'm surprised you disputed my analysis for why people are inclined to believe "Peak Oil." It would have been easier to simply say, "Yes, there is a 'doom' camp, but I'm an optimist, and favor disseminating choices, options, and ideas that will reduce petroleum dependence.

You reflect the Australian National Character (one of the better National Characters on Earth).

Aussies are generally optimists, and have a "live and let live" philosophy: "If you want to be rich, fine, if you want to lay on the beach, fine." (Both have something to be said for down under in Australia.)

As I said before, your approach is to be applauded, because an optimistic appoach with many possibilites is more likely to be constructive, than the "gloom and doom" moping and incessent predicting of the "END" in the other camp.

Your long comment was instructive and illuminating. In the broader philosophical field, your many ideas are to the good.

My inquiry is decidedly narrower: Seeking scientific evidence of the origins of petroleum, and weighing the evidence.

And to that end, testing ideas supporting abiotic oil theory by subjecting them to rigorous debate with those that oppose them.

Certainly, there are arguments for both sides. In my opinion, refusing to debate, is a tacit admission of the inherent weakness of a case.

So far, I have seen little willingness by "Peak Oil" people to debate.

Although, I have read comprehensive rebuttals which make a strong case for "fossil" fuel theory.

But the ultimate test for any theory is verifiable laboratory testing and field observations, followed by an opportunity for debate with people who hold a rival theory.

Generally, simple cataloging of supporting evidence is not satifactory in proving a theory.

Why?

Because others, opposed to your view, will ask the hard questions, which need to be answered, in order to prove the theory and persuade neutral parties that haven't, yet, made up their minds.

In this case, since most people already accept "fossil" oil theory, the practical (if not theoretical) reality is that abiotic oil supporters need to be very convincing.

After reviewing the evidence, I accept that burden.

Thanks for reading my post on "Limits" and for your comments.

You are right - there are several schools of peak oil thought - the "doomer" one is the loudest and most commonly thought of when the subject of peak oil is raised, but it isn't the only one.

As my blog is among the more optimistic, I was assuming you were criticising my take on peak oil, rather than the LATOC style "end of the world is nigh" stuff.

As for abiotic oil theory, I'm happy to consider a detailed description of why you think oil is abiotic rather than the currently accepted version of it being a fossil fuel.

At the end of the day, I don't "know" oil is produced by geological forces acting on decaying plant matter - I just know this is the accepted scientific theory and if it turns out this can be disproven then fine - I don't have an emotional attachment to the idea (I haven't seen a rational description of this concept - the first pro-abiotic oil "article" I came across was at a very anti-semitic conspiracy theory site, and I mostly see references to abiotic oil on fringe right wing political sites, which hasn't done much to persuade me to take the idea seriously).

A few data points which back up the idea :

- large amounts of hydrocarbons on Titan
- Russia being the largest oil producer in the world
- the deepest oil well in the world being in Russia

(none of these "prove" anything, but they do lend some support to the concept)

I'll answer some of your other points later in the week when I get some free time.

By the way - I like your line about - "If you want to be rich, fine, if you want to lay on the beach, fine." - that sums up my attitude pretty well.

I appreciate your response.

I also encourage your endeavors to keep promoting good ideas, because whatever the origin of oil, the price is at record highs ($104, March 4th) and alternatives to its use are one way to put downward pressure on the price.

Also, your way, i.e., proposing interesting alternatives, regardless of my opinion, realistically is more likely to put downward pressure on the price of oil.

There isn't absolute proof for the origin of oil. There most likely never will be, there will always be a window of doubt.
Writing is a linear thought process that does tend to make one "absolutist." I try to avoid that trap, but sometimes pitfalls are unavoidable.

"I accept that burden." In hind sight was presumptuous.

I appreciate your humoring me.

Not that I've given up the notion, just that I'm realistic about such a widely accepted idea, such as the fossil origin of petroleum.

If you have time, Google J.F. Kenney, Gas Resouces Corporation, Houston, Texas. As this has the most science regarding abiotic oil, although I understand life is busy.

What do you make of the cold winter, here, in the Northern hemiphere, and I understand it was cold last "Winter" down under (I put quotes around Winter because it never gets super cold as I understand it).

There has been lots of cold rain here in Oregon (a state on the Northwest coast of the U.S.) and 180% of average snow fall in the Oregon Cascade mountains.

Some are saying that sunspot (radiation) activity is down, causing a cooling effect. What stock if any, do you put in that?

Good day.

Google this blog: Oil is Mastery for an abundant and resourceful review of abiotic oil.

Scientists have discovered crude oil has a diamond fingerprint, or diamond signature, if you will.

More properly called diamondoids, diamonds on a molecular level.

All crude oil has at least traces of diamondoids, although deep oil has a higher concentration, and with diamondoids of increasingly complex molecular structure.

Diamondoids have the same physical properties and characteristics as their larger brethren diamonds. Diamondoids can only be created in the laboratory with ultra high temperature and ultra high pressure.

All authorities agree that diamonds can only be created in nature by the ultra high temperature and ultra high pressure present, some 100 miles deep in the earth's mantel, or created in the laboratroy by mimicking those same conditions.

In a similar vein, laboratory experiments using ultra high temperature and pressure, consistent with conditions in the mantel, have created the alkane series of hydrocarbons from marble, ironoxide, and distilled water, in distribution characteristic of natural petroleum: methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, hexane, and n-alkanes through C10H22.

Together, these facts suggest that these microscopic, diamond fragments, diamondoids, are the non-biogenic fingerprints that show oil originates in the mantel where both petroleum and diamondoids are created in tandum, and then migrate up to the crustal, sedimentary, oil trapping structures and accumulate.

For that claim to be meaningful you'd need to show that the diamondoids (assuming this is real science and not science fiction) don't crop up everywhere else in the crust at the same depths that oil is found...

I can assure you, diamondoids are not science fiction.

References:

San Francisco Chronicle, December 3, 2002, also reported in the journal Science,
Miniture Diamonds Found in Oil,
Abstract: Scientists of ChevronTexico Corp. report finding potentially useful microscopic diamonds in crude oil.

Diamondoids
G. Ali Mansoori, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
Abstract: Scientific paper discussing diamondoid structure, and physical and chemical properties.

Chevron
Molecular Diamond Technologies
Abstract: Website promoting diamondoids for nanotechnology and other commercial applications.

The Evolution of Multicomponent Systems at High Pressures:VI
National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A.) 2002
Abstract: Paper presenting results of ultra high pressure and temperature lab experiment creating hydrocarbon alkane series.

Space Daily, May 7, 2004
Diamondoids can be Refined from Crude Oil
Charles Choi(UPI)
Abstract: Further reportage on Chevron's discovery of diamondoids and application to nanotechnology and other applications; reportage on discovery of increased concentration and increasingly complex molecular structure of diamondoids from deep oil well in Gulf of Mexico.
(All can be Googled, apology for not being able to directly link.)

Your objection is reasonable. I can not report that there has been a search for diamondoids at "everywhere else in the crust at the same depths that oil is found."

But your objection would have to assume some unknown process for diamondoid creation, which scientists were not able to discover (with much determination and resources), while these same scientists were able to create diamondoids by mimicking the deep mantel environment.

And, you have to assign no value to the scientific fact that diamondoids share the same properties, such as molecular structure, stabiltiy, and hardness, as diamonds, because they are diamonds just reduced in size to a molecular level, and that diamonds are only created in the mantel.

It's a scientific improbability for diamondoids to "look like a duck, act like a duck, be a duck," but not be formed in the same way in the same environment as a duck.

With the above in mind, the scientific burden would be on you to demonstrate how diamondoids would form where you postulate their presence in the crust, or to find them in the crust in the absence of crude oil.

I just read a book about abiotic oil and the indoctrination of the fossil fuel myth to students. It's called, "Oil, The 4th Renewable Resource" By Shawn Alli.

It talks about the origin of both the biogenic and abiotic theory and Hubbert as a Shell scientist with a vested interested in advocating peak oil.

It gives a chapter to the global warming deception as well, even mentioning HAARP. Some of it is a little too far out there for me but it gives me reason to doubt what I was taught in school.

My name is Bill Hash. As someone who spent a lot of time researching this matter I would point out the theory of Thomas Gold (deceased). His book the amazingdeep hot biosphere presents many proofs for abiotic oil Also a Russian scientist named Vladimir Kutcherov at the Royal Institute Of Tech in Stockholm Sweden is a current proponent for the theory and in fact has developed a chart based on fault lines where oil will collect.
In preperation for writing my novel ABIOTIC The End Of Oil available on Amazon I spoke with both of them. Dr. Gold died a couple of years later and Dr. Kutcherov was extremely helpful.
I think my novel was right on target (a conspiracy to hide ths secret) when I read anonymous'comment.