Um, "peak oil" has always meant the capacity of the suppliers to band together to limit the supply of reserves. I never lived during a time when they claimed we wouldn't have enough... I've lived during the time where we know that if we burn a fraction more of the reserves we ruin the possibility of ecosystem survival. Un-extracted reserve volume is not affected by price. Though the value of those reserves is certainly affected by the price and difficulty of extraction. Sure oil may be "abiotic" as you call it. Though organic matter or atleast carbon and hydrogen being subverted towards the earths mantle whereby it is then redistributed into said reserves over millenia seems to be the case. Nobody is still claiming we are running out of oil... certainly the most easily accessible reseviors are being moderately extracted so as to not oversupply the market.... Of course opec and russia and others collude to set a higher per barrel price by limiting supply. Just as in the US we heavily subsidize oil companies and gas prices so as to not diminish its demand at the pump. Artificially propping up the market and preventing shifts towards renewables because oil companies pay more in bribes to politicians and give them cushy jobs afterwards. It's no surpise we barely increased fuel efficiency in the past 40 years, some argue its been decreased. I don't understand how you call peak oil a con of collusion and yet somehow claim climate change to be a con when they are the same corporations and individuals working together to ensure continued demand in spite of the clear global ramifications. I'd hope you are getting paid for your service to their cause....Perhaps you can get me such a job? Beep-boop.