Reviewed by: BigAl
Genre: Pop Science/Politics/Current Events
Approximate word count: 55-60,000 words
Availability
Kindle US: YES UK: YES Nook:
NO Smashwords:
NO Paper:
NO
Click
on a YES above to go to appropriate page in Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or
Smashwords store
Author:
“Shawn is a
philosophical researcher educated at York University in Toronto. He's also
worked with Aboriginal youth in two communities in the Northwest Territories of
Canada.” For more, visit his website.
Description:
“The first
and last book you'll ever need to understand oil and the myth of fossil fuels.
The myth of
fossil fuels and peak oil has been a part of the North American lifestyle for
almost 100 years. Beginning first in the schools, children are anxious for an
education but get caught in the middle of this deception. As a student grows up
they hear the same message propagated through governments, media and various
interest groups. But the truth is now within your grasp in finding this book.
In Oil, The 4th Renewable Resource, you’ll learn:
o How the myth of fossil fuels begin.
[sic]
o How oil corporations have taken
advantage of this myth.
o The beginning of the abiotic oil theory
in 1877.
o How the myth of global warming and oil
corporations go hand in hand.
o Which renewable resource is the best.
o And what actions you can take to affect
change in the schools and government policy.”
Appraisal:
Scientific
knowledge is a funny thing. Sometimes what most scientists believe to be true,
turns out to be false. The scientific community recognizes this by using the
term theory to describe a concept that could be shaky, with a minimal amount of
research indicating it is true, to something that is accepted as absolute truth
based on a preponderance of evidence, the “theory of gravity” being one that is
unlikely to be disproven.
Sometimes
the preponderance of evidence isn’t that strong, but the scientific community
still believes a theory to be as close to absolute as possible. More than four
hundred years ago Copernicus and Galileo argued that the scientific theory of
the time saying that the planets revolved around the earth was wrong, that the
planets, including the earth really revolved around the sun. They weren’t the
first to propose this theory which went against the “evidence” (largely
scriptural rather than true science), but they were the first to finally make
inroads within the scientific community and generally receive credit for
bringing the scientific community around. But they were also laughed at,
scorned, and got in a lot of trouble with the establishment first.
The
“abiotic oil theory” is one that, if it eventually proves to be true, is bound
to follow this same path. Alli is not a scientist, instead calling himself a “philosophical
researcher,” but he uses the works of scientists who have previously proposed
this theory in making his case with plenty of footnotes to his sources for
those who want to dig deeper. This theory, boiled down to its essence, is that
hydrocarbons, such as oil, coal, and natural gas, weren’t formed by animal and
vegetable matter decomposing under the earth’s surface over a long period of
time, as current scientific thought would say. Instead they’re formed by
processes that are constantly happening much deeper within the earth, with oil
and natural gas continually bubbling towards the surface, replenishing what was
previously harvested through drilling. Under this theory we’re in no danger of
running out of oil, natural gas, or other hydrocarbons in the foreseeable
future.
I was (and
still am) willing to consider that this theory could be correct, although I’m
far from convinced. This was despite the apparent need to believe a conspiracy
theory or two in order to understand why only a handful of scientists are
proponents of the theory and the reasons why no oil company chooses to break
ranks to grab a larger market share instead of pretending there is a scarcity
to maintain and increase prices.
After
finishing the first part of the book explaining this theory of oil creation, my
reaction was, even if it is true, we’ve still got issues. Does it really matter
if the continuing use of fossil fuels (or hydrocarbons, since under this theory
fossil fuels is an incorrect term) are causing problems such as global warming
and pollution? Enter more conspiracy theories, related to global warming or
climate change. The deeper into the book, the more unbelievable the
explanations and the less logical the arguments became. He uses a lot of
numbers, guesses, or unrelated facts to draw conclusions that have no logical
basis I could see from the facts given. Sometimes he even admits it, as when he
prefaces his explanation for the reason most scientists agree that our use of
hydrocarbons is causing global warming with the statement that, “it should be
noted this is my own theory and while I don’t have facts to back it up, it’s
the best possible explanation.”
After
attempting to make the case that oil is renewable and climate change is a non-issue,
I was thrown when the author compares the major sources of renewable energy. He
ranks six energy sources he considers renewable (solar, wind, water,
hydrocarbons, geothermal, and biomass), and oil (or hydrocarbons) ended up
ranked five of the six. Environmental issues (such as the pollution problems I
mentioned above) are part of the reason for this low ranking.
So let’s
review. We have the claim or theory that hydrocarbons are “renewable” and
aren’t going to run out any time soon. Climate change or global warming is a
hoax. Even if we believe these claims, hydrocarbons are still among the worse
sources of renewable energy by the author’s reckoning, although, to be fair, a
portion of the reason for the low ranking is due to the current structure of
the oil and coal industry. Which makes me wonder what the point of the book
even is.
At the end
of a book like this I’d expect a clear identification of the problem, the
solution (if any), and an unambiguous call to action. I don’t think the book
delivers on any of these. First, what is the problem? It isn’t a problem with
current energy policy in North America; although he seems to have made a case
for less dependence on oil in the comparison section, he doesn’t make that
argument. Instead, he seems to make the contention that if the science he claims is right then what is being taught in
schools is wrong. Fair enough, I suppose, but I would argue that his only call
to action, to put pressure on schools to teach this alternative theory of the
origins of oil, is putting the cart before the horse. Until a critical mass of
reputable scientists are backing this theory, teaching it in schools seems
negligent to me, much like teaching creationism as though it is science seems
unjustified. If this theory can’t gain traction in the scientific community, it
isn’t ready for prime time.
He also
makes a short argument for nationalization of the oil industry in the US, which
would upset the current incentives of the oil company to keep this theory of
oil being renewable out of the public eye. However, the author cuts this
argument short with the acknowledgment that it isn’t practical, leaving me
wondering why the subject was even raised.
In the end,
I found the introduction to the “abiotic oil theory” of interest. However, the
rest of the book lacked a cohesive theme or the minimal credibility for me to
do anything beyond filing this theory in the back of my mind in case the subject
comes up in the future. The book also suffered from an abundance of grammar
issues, which made it harder to read and understand.
Format/Typo Issues:
This book
has extensive copyediting issues. Although there are many different issues, the
most common is verb tense errors, especially for the verb “to be,” using the
present tense of ‘is’ when the past tense of ‘was’ should have been used. For
example “Natural science in the 18th century is very different from the modern
scientific method” and “The average nominal retail price of gasoline at the
pumps in 2004 in the US is $1.85/gallon.” These issues were constant and
pervasive, making reading the book very difficult for me. You may also spot
other issues with these example sentences. (Even the book’s description on
Amazon has a problem with verb tense in the first bullet point as quoted
above.)
Note: After
this review was prepared the author contacted us and indicated that he
discovered many grammar errors and had them corrected. I reviewed the updated
book and found that while many of the errors I had spotted had been corrected,
the issue with verb tense had not been addressed.
There are a
limited number of tables in the book. These are formatted in such a way that
they are displayed perfectly if using the default Kindle font size, but become
hard to read if the font size is set larger.
Rating: * One star
