Hi. It seems you are talking about the abiogenic theory of oil. See message #530 below. I was excited about it and am into it as much as you seem to be.
I would love it if your comment about a lot of scientists being behind it were true. I haven't yet found anything but scorn at the theory, at least in U.S. circles. Whatever you have found, point me to it.
BTW, this is for the most part an off-topic post, as was my own for the most part. I was rsponding to a comment by Rick about oil being UNDER domes. If you want to carry this discussion via email, my address is shown. (I assume others won't want this cluttering up the forum.)
In the meantime, I can recommend Thomas Gold's The Deep, Hot Biosphere
--- In email@example.com, Chris Patenaude <yacrispyubetcha@...> wrote:
> Rick, im inna rush, gotta scoot.
> But Google THIS!! ah ah!
> Petroleum oil is NOT a fossil substance. Russian and
> many American geologists are beginning to stand up
> against a brick wall of American scientific dogma
> (same as diffusionists battle against collegiate
> Historians) but with proof that oil is a mineral,
> earth-derived, geo-created substance, not an organic
> residue. It is not endless, but not nearly so 'finite'
> as a 'non-renewable' resource, as once thought. The
> earth is busy, somewhere, making more right now as we
> speak. I'm not clear at all about the details,
> Now COAL is organic. But not Petrol, according to
> cutting edge technology (American POV) but having well
> established acceptance in Russian science circles.
> Can anyone surf for that?
> Whizzin out the door...