Well I think the other respondents have covered the "space oil" bit well enough.
It's interesting to look back on the history of technology / industry on earth, though,
and try to estimate what would have been different or what could have been easily accomplished without oil's prevalence.
If you'll recall, oil wasn't used as an essential fuel for the most of the initial parts of the industrial revolution. Though the steam engine was known since antiquity, its practical development in the 1800s and early 1900s was mainly fueled by boilers fired by coal and wood. I've not checked the statistics, but I daresay even today more power plants are perhaps operated coal-fired than oil-fired, and respectable minority of them rely on natural gas (methane) fuels.
Certainly chemistry involving oil was relevant to discoveries of and industrial manufacturing processes relating to dyes, polymers / plastics, and to a much lesser extent aspects of organic chemistry in general.
That being said, however, I'll make a gross simplification and suggest that oil and its direct derivatives like gasoline are/were probably most industrially relevant historically (convenient) due to them being liquid fuels for vehicular uses rather than them being particularly essential for other definitive industrial uses (for which electricity, steam, coal, wind, water, et. al. might otherwise have been used ).
It's also speculatively arguable that the delay of industrialization by a few generations beyond its actual point of incipience might've benefitted mankind since one might hypothesize that a continued strong argarian society coupled with another century of small scale technological / industrial research & development might've yielded a better wisdom and maturity concerning the evolution of society as it sought new balances of agrarian, rural, industrial, population, health, environmental, social, military, technological developments.
The first couple of centuries of industrialization and european argarian to urban shifts were certainly marked by a lot of disease, famine, strife, unsustainable social / industrial constructs, exploitation, poverty, instability, et. al. due in large part to unsustainable industrial exploits, greed, short-sightedness about social / technological evolution, et. al.
There are old sayings about "if your only tool is a hammer, every problem in the world starts to look like a nail", and "be careful what you ask for, you might just get it". So if everything that's combustible (oil, coal, wood) is your preconception of a resource to be fed wholesale into your primitive boilers / engines to achieve 'progress' one might easily find in retrospect that one has been overzealous (and very technologically inefficient) about doing so with such great haste / waste.
It's hard to say if conceivable differing geology and natural history could have well led to a planet rich in coal, but poor in accessable oil, however.
Keep in mind that today (especially in the '3rd world'), and moreso during the industrial revolution wood or manufactured charcoal also played a significant role in fuel for heating, forging, cooking, and other industrial processes. So conceivably that would have been available even lacking plentiful accessable resources of coal and oil.
Also keep in mind that even in preindustrual times metallurgy, inorganic chemistry, math, printing, architecture (pyramids, cathedrals, universities,...), geography, et. al. were quite well developed technologies just using non fossil fuel resources.
It's an interesting question to ask "how would industry have evolved and sustained" without the use of fossil fuels because that's indeed the situation that we face today; a growing scarcity and cost of the non-replenishable and very polluting resources of fossil fuels, and a growing awareness of sustainable and more ecologically suitable alternative energy sources -- photovoltaic, solar thermal, wind, hydrological / tidal, biomass, photosynthetic, et. al.
With respect to the alternative evolution and space-fuels questions, it's worth pointing out that Hydrogen (whether used in simple chemical combustion with oxygen to form water, or whether used as a nuclear fusion fuel as the stars operate) is the most plentiful element in the universe, so it's an ideal fuel for both a civilization with space industries as well as one that's advanced and operates on fuels found soley within its own ecosystem.
It is also worth pointing out that methane (CH3) is quite a common constituent of comets, gas-giant planets, et. al. so that's another possible combustible fuel source; it is found (on earth anyway) in significant amounts freely available in nature; and it's easily produced by a biomass bacterial decay type of process (that's why it's called 'swamp gas') as well.
Given all the factors, it's not very hard for me to see how the technological understanding and capacity of a society might well evolve far beyond the scope of its industrial mass prduction processes in breadth. A good example is spaceflight itself -- though it's been fairly well understood for 70 years in basic technological / industrial ways how one could travel from the earth to the moon, it has seldom been chosen to be done other than as a one-off sort of intellectual / academic / political exercise. Other examples common to what has been considered 'futuristic' since the early 1900s are the "flying car" and the "video phone". Though our industrial / technological capacity has existed to make those 'futuristic' things mass realities for many decades, there's been no significantly compelling interest in manifesting those opportunities into mass produced realities. I suppose nuclear power technology is another similar example, the laboratories / scientists have long known more or less how to harness such power (if somewhat crudely), but it's really quite a rarity that it has been chosen to be deployed whereas still today 160 years after we began the industrial habit of burning coal to power steam engines, we're most often still doing the exact same thing on a wide scale.
One might suggest that we've been (in some respects) well served by (mostly) skipping the mass utilization first 3 generations of nuclear power technology and to have pursued (somewhat) earnest the better / cleaner / safer technologies of fusion instead rushing to put Chernobyl type plants in every town. One might also argue that society might've been better served skipping the widespread use of the first couple generations of steam/coal/oil heat engines as well; it didn't really take MUCH further research to come up with models that were VASTLY more efficient and less polluting / wasteful of fuels than the original sorts of "feed a whole forest into the boiler each month" designs.
Thus though a society might have a paucity of available resources of things like coal, oil, even metals, it's certainly possible that they'd develop technologically to become quite advanced, though the scarcity of widespread primitive fossil fuels might well serve to delay the *proliferation* of the use of those resources on a widespread scale, though they might long be understood / utilized on small scientific / research scales. It's conceivable that evolutionary path would just cause a somewhat slower advancement of science, a skipping of the mainstream uses of the most primitive sorts of combustion based industry, and ergo a more direct "quantum jump" to the widespread use of more advanced sorts of technologies / fuels as eventually their science / limited industry achieved those more advanced capacities.
Facebook
Twitter