“Big Brother” may end up being very, very small

[Tracy Riddle]

Well, if you're looking for the mainstream scientific viewpoint, you can read the Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

"Although the abiogenic hypothesis was accepted by many geologists in the former Soviet Union, it fell out of favor at the end of the 20th century because it never made any useful prediction for the discovery of oil deposits.[SUP][1][/SUP]"

Tracy,

Do not be so arrogant, please. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal and does not speak for the scientific community or for any part of it. In fact, it's not even a very good encyclopedia which it tries to pretend to be.
The US National Academy of Science is the most prestigious scientific organization in this country. It does not publish garbage or 'popular mainstream science' by its members. The internet is a good source for
valid imformation AND for idiotic opinions. Please be aware of that.

In science the only thing that really counts is evidence. This not a joking matter.

You should read the article authored by Dr. J.F. Kenney again and try to understand it.

Adele

Adele, I didn't intend to sound arrogant and I'm sorry if I did. I studied this subject for several years during the last decade, and I've heard the arguments in favor of abiotic oil. As a scientist, you must realize that if the old giant oil fields around the world (Texas, Pennsylvania, Mexico, etc) are not refilling with oil, then that is a serious blow against the theory. Occasionally earthquakes or other geological shifts can cause an undiscovered oil field to leak into an existing field nearby. This can make it appear that the field is filling back up.

Again I ask, why are they turning to expensive, energy-intensive, polluting alternatives like tar sands, shale oil and shale gas, poisoning the earth's groundwater (and oil executives rely on drinking water too) if abiotic oil is true?