The controversy surrounding the hypothesis that oil and natural gas are produced naturally in planets, and are not the result of the decomposition of plants and animals (that just happened to die in a heap), has heated up again. Frankly, I tend toward accepting the hypothesis, because it never made much sense to me that all this oil came from the source alleged for the fossil fuel hypothesis. The hypothesis was, as most know, first comprehensively advanced by Russians, and used to locate new reserves of oil and gas.
What interests me, however, is, again, the political implications of the hypothesis. That it would be given credence by Russia in the wake of the collapse of Communism is interesting because it's another possible signal that Russia was and is trying to step away from the influence of the Anglo-American corporate-banking elite, who have, of course, pushed the hypothesis. It was, if memory serves me correctly, the Rockefellers (who else?) who had a hand in advancing the "fossil fuel" idea.
Inherent in that idea is the notion of the limited nature of the supply, its scarcity. What always bothered me about the fossil fuel idea was, as far as I know, no oil exploration geologist made it a part of the rationalization behind exploration, i.e., he didn't think "Now, where would a bunch of dinosaurs likely have died all together and formed a pool of oil?" Abiotic oil challenges the notions of scarcity, and the paradigm that serves the large petroleum companies.
But this is not my purpose in writing this blog... My purpose is rather to find out what you think about the hypothesis. Does it serve the goals and plans of the corporate elites? or does it hinder them? At the very least, it is a debate that needs to occur, and by asking, I hope to contribute in some small measure to that debate... so, let me hear from you in the comments section; I'd like to know how everyone views it.