] He was quoted as stating that "competent physicists,
] chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of
] thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not
] evolve from biological materials since the last quarter
] of the 19th century."

Hrm. This article is interesting in light of our discussions about energy. It makes two mistakes. First, it grossly overestimates how widely accepted this theory is. There are a lot of articles up on the net about this theory and its author. Largely, they seem to say that this is simply unproven. It might be true, but no one is sure, and there are reasons to be skeptical of it.

The second mistake is what this theory, if true, implies for oil as a resource. It does imply that we have a lot more oil then we think we do, but how much is totally unclear, as the actual theory is unproven. In order to measure the size of something you must first establish that it exists. Also, whether or not oil is "renewable" is debatable. Gold is talking about oil renewal in tens of thousands of year timeframes. Thats a far site more rapid then the millions of year timeframes the presently accepted theories promote. However, its not commerically "renewable" on human timescales.

WorldNetDaily: Sustainable oil?