Obviously the source of oil is abiogenic.
What about peak oil? This refers to the "conventional" oil production.
To reach the abiotic oil would require hundreds of billions/trillion of dollars of investment. Rigs would have to be created to reach at depths of 30-40 km. There is a huge problem of retrieval.
The main problem with peak oil/"conventional" oil production is the ENERGY RETURNS ON ENERGY INVESTED (EROEI) and deliverability (a term invented by Dr. Tim Morgan).
Another way to look at the
deliverability issue is that reserves
need to be quality-weighted. We may
have used up much less than half
of the world’s originally-recoverable
reserves of oil, but we have, necessarily,
resorted first to those reserves which
are most readily and cheaply recovered.
The reserves that remain are certain to
be more difficult and costlier to extract.
https://ftalphaville-cdn.ft.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdfAn absolute decline in available energy
volumes, serious though that would
be, is not the immediate concern. The
truly critical issue is the relationship
between energy extracted and the
amount of energy consumed in the
extraction process. Known as the
Energy Return on Energy Invested
(EROEI), this is the ‘killer equation’
where the viability of the economy is
concerned. Put very simply, there is
no point whatsoever in producing
100 barrels of oil (or its equivalent in
other forms of energy) if 100 barrels
(or more) are consumed in the
extraction process.
Believers in peak oil have seen this
progression as an indication of evergrowing reserves stress, which indeed
it is. But the real economic significance
of this progression lies in a rapid
deterioration in EROEIs rather than in
an exhaustion of absolute reserves. The
overall EROEI of the North Sea today
may be no higher than about 5:1, a
far cry from ratios in excess of 100:1
yielded by the pioneering discoveries
in the sands of Arabia.