>>17030259
How come people pushing the whole
>muh infinite oil because abiotic
stuff never mention what the replenishment rate is? Like what would it even matter if it takes 100 million years to replenish?

File: pepe-apu.gif (26 KB, 460x640)

26 KB GIF

>>17030294
>what the replenishment rate is?
well, that has to be considered a hypothesis before it can be tested doesn't it?

if abiogenic petroleum gets proven, then people have the incentive to measure replenishment rates

it might be true but i dont know how it can replenish fast enough for our consumption. its a lot of matter to be converted which probably breaks the laws of physics

it's effectively a centrifugal force x surface area of required resource distribution, if true.
i think the larger problem is we dont have the materials science to effectively drill down deeper.

>>17030296
> then people have the incentive to measure replenishment rates
You already have the "incentive". If you believe in it invest into an empty oil well yourself. No one does this of course because oil wells do not magically fill up which itself reveals the actual motives. No shill advocating for this ever buys up empty oil wells because they aren't "believers". Instead it's just a rhetoric cudgel. Oil may or may not be abiogenic (we will strongly imply that it is without evidence), thus we will strongly imply and let the reader come to the conclusion that oil is infinite (it wouldn't be even if it was abiogenic) and thus climate change isn't real and you need to give more money to ExxonMobil (which also makes no sense even if oil was abiogenic and infinite). The payday for the shill is not in putting the stuff they peddle to use by investing in empty oil fields with the hope that they magically refill, it's in oil companies paying to spread this nonsense.

>>17030384
You took an insane leap of logic when going from abiogenesis to anti climate change corporate conspiracies
Abio theory is from a couple of russians and has been laughed about at for 55 years.