Abiotic Oil Vs "Oil From Dead Organisms"

[EmperorNero]

@LogisticEarth

• Although my main argument was that the very question of how great overall oil reserves are and what share of them we have ‘used up’ is meaningless. How much overall oil there is depends on what we count as oil. A technology that allows us to convert tar sands or turkey innards into oil can grow what we consider oil reserves. By definition, a set without a limit is not finite. Therefore the prevailing “finite-earther” paradigm, that resources exist as a finite stock that is used up and then gone, is fallacious. Resources are not finite, they are produced by people.

It’s not really meaningless. “Natural” oil succeeded because it was cheap to obtain, was extremely energy-dense, and easy to transport and handle. This is precisely why oil is really useful for vehicle transporation, and 2/3 of US demand is for use as fuel in vehicles. While thermal deploymerization can certainly provide some capacity, it will never really replace natural reserves. Transporting the raw materials and generating the energy needed to run the process will likely keep oil expensive enough so that it ceases to be competetive with other methods. Not to mention all the capital reorganization costs. I will be surprised if in 40 years most cars and trains use petroleum for fuel. Oil will continue to be used where oil is essential (ie in some industrial processes), but it will probably never be as cheap as it used to be. Like I said, I’m no Peak Oil proponent predicting the collapse of society, but that doesn’t mean the peak of natural production won’t change the way things are done.

When I point out that resources aren’t finite, people (the kind that is a peak oil alarmist) tends to respond something like “yeah, but it’s really expensive to create more resources”. Well, that is a completely different argument than saying that resources are finite. Finiteness implies a specific limit, not a vague difficulty to produce more. At that point they really admitted that resources aren’t finite, yet somehow they maintain that belief because resources are expensive to produce.

I agree with what you said about the difficulty of synthesizing oil, but oil is not finite. The theory that resources exist as a finite stock that gets ‘used up’ is meaningless and wrong. To understand resource economics we have to use proper theoretical models, and finite-earth theory is not accurate. In fact, it’s always wrong. I’m not saying that there is no problem with resources, but the problem is scarcity, not finiteness. Obviously resources will always be difficult to produce, that’s in the definition. Technology improves precisely because it keeps chasing scarcity. But lack of resources is not due to the overall stash on earth running out, but because supply can’t keep up with demand. I think we will get off oil, but not because we don’t have enough of it but because we find more efficient technologies. And keep in mind that oil reserves are growing, there is no immanent end of natural oil.