portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

corporate dominance | human & civil rights | sustainability

Hey Folks, it's a Coercive Hoax. stOp. (S)HriLL (O)iL (S)hiLLs.

Deceit UNveiled: -'Peak' is PreText ' PiLL' Forcing the
'UNavoidable' ? die-off Plan/Scam

~One theory is backed by a massive body of research representing
fifty years of intense scientific inquiry. The other theory is an
unproven relic of the eighteenth century.

~So which theory have we in the West, in our infinite wisdom,
chosen to embrace? Why, the fundamentally absurd 'Fossil Fuel'
theory, of course -- the same theory that the 'Peak Oil' doomsday
warnings are based on.

~The notion that oil is a 'fossil fuel' was first proposed by
Russian scholar Mikhailo Lomonosov in 1757.

~Two and a half centuries later, Lomonosov's theory remains as it
was in 1757 -- an unproved, and almost entirely speculative,
hypothesis. Returning once again to the Wall Street Journal, we
find that, "Although the world has been drilling for oil for
generations, little is known about the nature of the resource or
the underground activities that led to its creation." A paragraph
in the Encyclopedia Britannica concerning the origins of oil ends
thusly: "In spite of the great amount of scientific research ...
there remain many unresolved questions regarding its origins."

~Does that not seem a little odd? We are talking here, after all,
about a resource that, by all accounts, plays a crucial role in a
vast array of human endeavors (by one published account, petroleum
is a raw ingredient in some 70,000 manufactured products, including
medicines, synthetic fabrics, fertilizers, paints and varnishes,
acrylics, plastics, and cosmetics). By many accounts, the very
survival of the human race is entirely dependent on the
availability of petroleum. And yet we know almost nothing about
this most life-sustaining of the earth's resources. And even
though, by some shrill accounts, the well is about to run dry,....
www.gasbuddy.com
www.gasbuddy.com
Put the Kibbosh On It
Put the Kibbosh On It
CorPirate ProfiTEARing Hostages
CorPirate ProfiTEARing Hostages
NewDay OldDreams
NewDay OldDreams
....no
one seems to be overly concerned with understanding the nature and
origins of so-called 'fossil fuels.' We are, rather, content with
continuing to embrace an unproved 18th century theory that, if
subjected to any sort of logical analysis, seems ludicrous....



~ great quantities of oil are found in deeper wells that are found
below the level of any fossils. How could then oil have come from
fossils, or decomposed former living matter, if it exists in rock
formations far below layers of fossils - the evidence of formerly
living organisms? It must not come from living matter at all!

~ There has not been enough true "formerly living matter" through
all of creation to account for the volume of petroleum that has
been consumed to date.


~It was made to be thought a "Fossil" fuel by the Nineteenth [sic]
oil producers to create the concept that it was of limited supply
and therefore extremely valuable. This fits with the "Depletion"
allowance philosophical scam.

~The people that the 'Peak Oil' pitchmen are fronting for are
deadly serious about selling 'Peak Oil' to the masses -- and not
just in theoretical terms, as a cynical ploy to raise prices and
increase profits. No, it has become clear that the real goal is to
actually cut off most of the world's oil supplies under the ruse
that the oil simply no longer exists. The desired result is massive
social unrest, widespread famine, and endless war. The majority of
the world's people will not survive. Those that do will find
themselves living under the overtly authoritarian form of rule that
will quickly be deemed necessary to restore order.

~The truth is that such a future awaits us only if the claims of
the 'Peakers' are true, or, more importantly, if we allow ourselves
to be convinced that the claims are true when they most certainly
are not. It is vitally important, therefore, that the people of the
world be given the opportunity to thoroughly review all sides of
this issue. After all, if the Peakers are right, then all of our
lives are very much on the line.

~But the Peakers also claim that these military ventures have been
motivated by America's desire to seize what will soon be the last
drops of the world's precious reserves of oil -- and that is
entirely untrue.

~But the Peakers also claim that this global "die off" will be a
regrettable, but quite natural, and entirely unavoidable,
consequence of the world's oil taps running dry. And that is the
really big lie.

~One of Ruppert's "unimpeachable sources," Colin Campbell,
describes an apocalyptic future, just around the corner, that will
be characterized by "war, starvation, economic recession, possibly
even the extinction of homo sapiens."

~The message there seems pretty clear: once the people understand
what is at stake, they will support whatever is deemed necessary to
secure the world's oil supplies. And what is it that Ruppert is
accomplishing with his persistent 'Peak Oil' postings? He is
helping his readers to understand what is allegedly at stake.

~It seems to me that, in the final analysis, what the 'Peak Oil'
crowd is selling looks very much like what the Bush administration
is selling: control of popular opinion through fear. The
methodology and the goals (justifying endless war and openly
fascistic domestic policies) appear to be the same. The only
difference that I can see is that Team Bush sells the agenda
through fear of phantom terrorists, while Team 'Peak Oil' sells it
through fear of a phantom apocalypse just over the horizon.

~I think the deception speaks directly to the issue of whether
'Peak Oil' is real. Why all the deception about the true origins of
oil, and about who is behind the concept [of Peak Oil], and about
the viability of alternative energy sources? There has to be a
reason why the idea is being sold with so much deception.
*****
PROGRAMMING FAILING DUE TO IGNOMINIOUS SATURATION, in a free-thinking Nation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
shiLLs ToiL in scam for RoyaLs
'Peak OiL'
Mind SoiLed
Atmosphere BoiLs
KundaLini CoiLs
FOIL Peak OiL by Being Peace LoyaL
'all cards on the tabLe'
According to HoyLe.
*****

CliffNotes, HighLights by CuLtureJamCLeveLand

~For the last couple of decades, the theory has been accepted as
established fact by virtually the entire scientific community of
the (former) Soviet Union. It is backed up by literally thousands
of published studies in prestigious, peer-reviewed scientific
journals.

~The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum
origins is not controversial nor presently a matter of academic
debate. The period of debate about this extensive body of knowledge
has been over for approximately two decades (Simakov 1986).

~Hasn't the conventional wisdom been, for many decades, that oil is
a 'fossil fuel,' and therefore a finite, non-renewable resource?
Since when has it been an intelligence community secret that a
finite resource will someday run out?

~Could it be that many of the world's oil fields are refilling
themselves at nearly the same rate they are being drained by an
energy hungry world?

~"there new data and interpretations strongly suggest that the oil
and gas in the Eugene Island field could be treated as a
steady-state rather than a fixed resource."

~ And how does the fossil fuel theory explain the continuous,
spontaneous venting of gas and oil?

~Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some
continuous source miles below the Earth's surface. That, they say,
raises the tantalizing possibility that oil may not be the limited
resource it is assumed to be.

~Dry oil wells spontaneously refilling? Oil generation and
migration systems? Massive oil reserves miles beneath the earth's
surface? Spontaneous venting of enormous volumes of gas and oil?

~Why do we insist on retaining an antiquated theory that is so
obviously contradicted by readily observable phenomena? Is the
advancement of the sciences not based on formulating a hypothesis,
and then testing that hypothesis? And if the hypothesis fails to
account for the available data, is it not customary to either
modify that hypothesis or formulate a new hypothesis -- rather
than, say, clinging to the same discredited hypothesis for 250 years

~I mention that because of something else I read on Ruppert's site.
Listed as #5 of "Nine Critical Questions to Ask About Alternative
Energy" is: "Most of the other questions in this list can be tied
up into this one question: does the invention defy the Laws of
Thermodynamics? If the answer is yes, then something is wrong."
 http://www.fromthewilderness.com

Well then, Mr. Ruppert, I have some very bad news for you, because
something definitely is wrong -- with your 'Peak Oil' theory.
Because here we have a published study, subjected to peer review
(thus assuring the "validity" of the study), that demonstrates,
with mathematical certainty, that it is actually the 'fossil fuel'
theory that defies the laws of thermodynamics. It appears then that
if we follow Ruppert's Laws, we have to rule out fossil fuels as a
viable alternative to petroleum.

~But is there really any doubt that those who own and control the
oil industry are well aware of the true origins of oil? How could
they not be?

Surely there must be a reason why there appears to be so little
interest in understanding the nature and origins of such a
valuable, and allegedly vanishing, resource. And that reason can
only be that the answers are already known. The objective, of
course, is to ensure that the rest of us don't find those answers.
Why else would we be encouraged, for decades, to cling tenaciously
to a scientific theory that can't begin to explain the available
scientific evidence?

~Maintaining the myth of scarcity, you see, is all important.
Without it, the house of cards comes tumbling down. And yet, even
while striving to preserve that myth, the petroleum industry will
continue to provide the oil and gas needed to maintain a modern
industrial infrastructure, long past the time when we should have
run out of oil. And needless to say, the petroleum industry will
also continue to reap the enormous profits that come with the myth
of scarcity.

~Because, you see, we first have to go through the charade of
pretending that the world has just about run out of 'conventional'
oil reserves, thus justifying massive price hikes, which will
further pad the already obscenely high profits of the oil industry.
Only then will it be fully acknowledged that there is, you know,
that 'other' oil.

~ I have been struggling to come up with an explanation on my own
and the only one that I've got so far is that the corporation might
be involved in some kind of conspiracy to manufacture an artificial
shortage of a crucial commodity.

~Saudi officials announced on April 28 that the Kingdom's estimate
of recoverable reserves had nearly quintupled !

~Note that the oil reserves claimed by Saudi Arabia alone (1.2
trillion barrels) exceed what the Peakers claim are the total
recoverable oil reserves for the entire planet. Let's pause here
for a minute and think about the significance of that: one tiny
patch of land, accounting for less than than 1/2 of 1% of the
earth's total surface area, potentially contains more oil that the
'Peak' pitchmen claim the entire planet has to offer!
Is there not something clearly wrong with this picture?
And make no mistake about it: the future that has been scripted by
the architects of 'Peak Oil' is not going to be pretty. Massive
population reduction has always been a key component of the 'Peak
Oil' agenda. Ruppert first acknowledged that fact in an e-mail to
this website in March of this year. This is what he wrote at that
time:

"I advocate an immediate convening of political, economic,
spiritual and scientific leaders from all nations to address the
issue of Peak Oil (and Gas) and its immediate implications for
economic collapse, massive famine and climate destruction
(partially as a result of reversion to coal plants which accelerate
global warming). This would, scientifically speaking, include
immediate steps to arrive at a crash program - agreed to by all
nations and in accordance with the highest spiritual and ethical
principles - to stop global population growth and to arrive at the
best possible and most ethical program of population reduction as a
painful choice made by all of humanity."

~Now the question is: do we want to do it nice or do we want to do
it nasty? The world has chosen to embark on a path that is the
worst Nazi nightmare ever seen. It will be bloody, it will be
violent, it will involve population reduction by the most brutal,
venal, underhanded methods. So ultimately what I have to say to you
is that, as I look at this, and as I've studied this, and as I've
worked for 26 years to unravel this -- this covert mechanism that
governs our lives, I'm firmly convinced that what we are now faced
with is a choice offered to us by our creator: either evolve or
perish. Thank you. Thank you.

~So what is Ruppert telling us here ... other than that "our
creator" is now apparently now demanding that we evolve?
What exactly is this "world" of which he speaks -- this "world
[that] has chosen to embark on a path that is the worst Nazi
nightmare ever seen"? I don't think that it is the people of planet
Earth that have collectively chosen to take this path. And I doubt
that it is the planet itself that has chosen this path. Isn't it
really the case that this path was forced upon the world by the
global elite and their paid stooges?

Is Ruppert telling us that we are all facing a violent, bloody
death, so we might as well start taking care of the job ourselves
-- in a less "nasty" and more, uhmm, "nice" manner? Are those the
only two options available? Why is a "bloody," "brutal," "violent"
and "venal" future taken as a given? To be sure, we are certainly
heading in that direction, but we needn't necessarily continue to
do so, unless we blindly accept the manufactured reality as an
objective, and inevitable, reality. Of course, Ruppert and his
fellow 'Peakers' seem to be working very hard to guarantee the
arrival of that "Nazi nightmare" future.

~But of course they are. That, you see, is precisely the point.
What I was trying to say is that the notion of 'Peak Oil' is being
specifically marketed to the anti-war crowd -- because, as we all
know, the pro-war crowd doesn't need to be fed any additional
justifications for going to war; any of the old lies will do just
fine. And I never said that the necessity of war was being overtly
sold. What I said, if I remember correctly, is that it is being
sold with a wink and a nudge.

~The point that I was trying to make is that it would be difficult
to imagine a better way to implicitly sell the necessity of war,
even while appearing to stake out a position against war, than
through the promotion of the concept of 'Peak Oil.' After September
11, 2001, someone famously said that if Osama bin Laden didn't
exist, the US would have had to invent him. I think the same could
be said for 'Peak Oil.'

I also need to mention here that those who are selling 'Peak Oil'
hysteria aren't offering much in the way of alternatives, or
solutions. Ruppert, for example, has stated flatly that "there is
no effective replacement for what hydrocarbon energy provides
today."

~Another telling sign of 'Peak Oil,' according to Ruppert and Co.,
is sudden price hikes on gas and oil. Of course, that would be a
somewhat more compelling argument if the oil cartels did not have a
decades-long history of constantly feigning shortages to foist
sudden price increases on consumers (usually just before peak
travel periods). Contrary to the argument that appears on Ruppert's
site, it is not need that is driving the oil industry, it is greed.

~Hasn't the conventional wisdom been, for many decades, that oil is
a 'fossil fuel,' and therefore a finite, non-renewable resource?
Since when has it been an intelligence community secret that a
finite resource will someday run out?

~My favorite figure is the one labeled, in one posting,
"Yet-to-Find." That figure, 150 billion barrels (a relative
pittance), is supposed to represent the precise volume of
conventional oil in all the unknown number of oil fields of unknown
size that haven't been discovered yet. Ruppert himself has written,
with a cocksure swagger, that "there are no more significant
quantities of oil to be discovered anywhere ..."
( http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/013004_in_your_face.html) A rather
bold statement, to say the least, considering that it would seem to
be impossible for a mere mortal to know such a thing.

~The wholesale promotion of 'Peak Oil' seems to have taken off
immediately after the September 11, 2001 'terrorist' attacks,
*****
*****
~DECEPTION,DISDAIN & DISREGARD FOP SOUND ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE
PROTOCOLS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED IN THIS EXCHANGE, really blow their
own cover
 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr53.html
*****
~I was a little worried that those in the Ruppert camp would be
smart enough to not respond to my last newsletter. Those worries
were quickly put to rest, however, as it took less than 24 hours
for me to receive an ill considered, vitriolic response

~I learned that, although underground coal fires are a common
phenomenon, most people are completely unaware that they occur. How
common are they? At any given time, thousands of coal veins are
ablaze around the world. In China's northwestern province of
Xinjiang alone, there are currently about 2,000 underground coal
fires burning. Indonesia currently hosts as many as 1,000.

~ In other words, the world's leading coal exporter loses more coal
to underground fires than it produces for export.

~This raises, in my mind at least, one very obvious question: how
is it possible that nature has been taking an extremely heavy toll
on the globe's 'fossil fuels' for hundreds of thousands of years
(at the very least), without depleting the reserves that were
supposedly created long, long ago; and yet man, who has been
extracting and burning 'fossil fuels' for the mere blink of an eye,
geologically speaking, has managed to nearly strip the planet clean?
Is it not perfectly clear that that is a proposition that is absurd
on its face -- so much so that it is remarkable that the 'fossil
fuel' myth has passed muster for as long as it has? Nevertheless,
that entirely illogical myth is the cornerstone on which an even
bigger lie - the myth of 'Peak Oil' - is built. Go figure.

~More generally, it is argued, "all giant fields are most logically
explained by inorganic theory because simple calculations of
potential hydrocarbon contents in sediments shows that organic
materials are too few to supply the volumes of petroleum involved."

~Recently, numerous publications have appeared warning that oil
production is near an unavoidable, geologically-determined peak
that could have consequences up to and including "war, starvation,
economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens"
(Campbell in Ruppert). The current series of alarmist articles
could be said to be merely reincarnations of earlier work which
proved fallacious,

~Hubbert himself published no equations for deriving the curve, and
it appears that he only used a rough estimation initially. In his
1956 paper, in fact, he noted that production often did not follow
a bell curve.

~most nations' production does not follow a Hubbert curve. In fact,
Campbell (2003) shows production curves (historical and forecast)
for 51 non-OPEC countries, and only 8 of them could be said to
resemble a Hubbert curve even approximately.
The authors initially responded to this weakness by arguing the
Hubbert curve could have multiple peaks, which of course means it
would not follow a bell curve at all, and destroys the explanatory
value of the bell curve.

~Opaque Work, Unproven Assertions

The lack of rigor in many of the Hubbert modelers' arguments makes
them hard to refute. The huge amount of writing, along with
undocumented quotes and vague remarks, necessitates exhaustive
review and response ...

Perhaps because they are not academics, the primary authors have a
tendency to publish results but not research. In fact, by relying
heavily on a proprietary database, Campbell and Leherrere have
generated a strong shield against criticism of their work, making
it nearly impossible to reproduce or check. Similarly, there is
little or no research published, merely the assertion that the
results are good.
[much more at:  http://www.energyseer.com/NewPessimism.pdf]

~But consumer groups are charging that big oil companies are
largely responsible for the current upward spiral in gasoline
costs, saying they have deliberately withheld supplies and reduced
storage capacity.

~Public Citizen, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog organization, is
preparing to release a report later this week charging that the oil
industry deliberately consolidated in the 1990s so that it could
withhold supplies and reduce storage capacity.

~"The problem is not crude oil," Cooper said. "It's inadequate
refinery capacity and inadequate stockpiles, all of which are the
result of decisions made by the oil companies to tighten the
market."

~The United States has allowed multiple large, vertically
integrated oil companies to merge over the last five years, placing
control of the market in too few hands. The result: uncompetitive
domestic gasoline markets. Large oil companies can more easily
control domestic gasoline prices by exploiting their ever-greater
market share, keeping prices artificially high long enough to rake
in easy profits but not so long that consumers reduce their
dependence on oil ...

~The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concluded in March 2001
that oil companies had intentionally withheld supplies of gasoline
from the market as a tactic to drive up prices -- all as a
"profit-maximizing strategy." These actions, while costing
consumers billions of dollars in overcharges, have not been
investigated by the U.S. government.

~"I think you should know about 'Resource Denial Theory.' It's a
sub-section of Geopolitical Theory, so beloved of the Bushite and
Zbigniew Brzezinski crowds, and states you must take control of
areas where strategic resources are located - like oil - and
prevent rivals from entering. Your power derives from the control
of these resources."

~In other words, it's not about seizing the resources that we need
to survive; it's about denying our 'enemies' the resources that
they need to survive.

~We are hearing doomsday predictions of the demise of man. Human
civilization as we know it is in its final hours. And we have,
apparently, simply thrown up our hands in despair. Why bother
looking for new sources of petroleum? Why bother double checking
old sources of petroleum? Why bother giving any consideration to
any alternative sources of energy? Why bother doing anything at all?

Clearly, there is something very, very wrong with this picture.

~I have already posed a series of questions for the 'Peak Oil'
crowd, all of them pertaining to the deception employed to sell the
concept: Why are we being deceived about the true origins of oil
and gas? Why are we being deceived about who is really behind the
notion of 'Peak Oil'? And why are we being deceived about the
viability of various alternative energy sources?
*****

A True Story.....,

It appears that, unbeknownst to Westerners, there have actually been, for quite some time now, two competing theories concerning the origins of petroleum. One theory claims that oil is an organic 'fossil fuel' deposited in finite quantities near the planet's surface. The other theory claims that oil is continuously generated by natural processes in the Earth's magma. One theory is backed by a massive body of research representing fifty years of intense scientific inquiry. The other theory is an unproven relic of the eighteenth century. One theory anticipates deep oil reserves, refillable oil fields, migratory oil systems, deep sources of generation, and the spontaneous venting of gas and oil. The other theory has a difficult time explaining any such documented phenomena.

So which theory have we in the West, in our infinite wisdom, chosen to embrace? Why, the fundamentally absurd 'Fossil Fuel' theory, of course -- the same theory that the 'Peak Oil' doomsday warnings are based on.
Interestingly enough, there is another story about oil that, unlike the 'Peak Oil' story, actually has been suppressed. It is a story that very few, if any, of my readers, or of Michael Ruppert's readers, are likely aware of.
But before we get to that story, let's first briefly review what we all 'know' about oil.

As anyone who stayed awake during elementary school science class knows, oil comes from dinosaurs. I remember as a kid (calm down, folks; there will be no Brady Bunch references this week) seeing some kind of 'public service' spot explaining how dinosaurs "gave their all" so that we could one day have oil. It seemed a reasonable enough idea at the time -- from the perspective of an eight-year-old. But if, as an adult, you really stop to give it some thought, doesn't the idea seem a little, uhmm ... what's the word I'm looking for here? ... oh yeah, I remember now ... preposterous?

How could dinosaurs have possibly created the planet's vast oil fields? Did millions, or even billions, of them die at the very same time and at the very same place? Were there dinosaur Jonestowns on a grand scale occurring at locations all across the planet? And how did they all get buried so quickly? Because if they weren't buried right away, wouldn't they have just decomposed and/or been consumed by scavengers? And how much oil can you really squeeze from a pile of parched dinosaur skeletons?

Maybe there was some type of cataclysmic event that caused the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs and also buried them -- like the impact of an asteroid or a comet. But even so, you wouldn't think that all the dinosaurs would have been huddled together waiting to become oil fields. And besides, scientists are now backing away from the mass extinction theory.

The Wall Street Journal article previously cited noted that it "would take a pretty big pile of dead dinosaurs to account for the estimated 660 billion barrels of oil in the [Middle East]." I don't know what the precise dinosaur-carcass-to-barrel-of-oil conversion rate is, but it does seem like it would take a hell of a lot of dead dinosaurs. Even if we generously allow that a single dinosaur could yield 5 barrels of oil (an absurd notion, but let's play along for now), more than 130 billion dinosaurs would have had to be simultaneously entombed in just one small region of the world. But were there really hundreds of billions of dinosaurs roaming the earth? If so, then one wonders why there is all this talk now of overpopulation and scarce resources, when all we are currently dealing with is a few billion humans populating the same earth.

And why the Middle East? Was that region some kind of Mecca for dinosaurs? Was it the climate, or the lack of water and vegetation, that drew them there? Of course, the region could have been much different in prehistoric times. Maybe it was like the Great Valley in the Land Before Time movies. Or maybe the dinosaurs had to cross the Middle East to get to the Great Valley, but they never made it, because they got bogged down in the desert and ultimately became (through, I'm guessing here, some alchemical process) cans of 10W-40 motor oil.

Another version of the 'fossil fuel' story holds that microscopic animal carcasses and other biological matter gathered on the world's sea floors, with that organic matter then being covered over with sediment over the course of millions of years. You would think, however, that any biological matter would decompose long before being covered over by sediment. But I guess not. And I guess there were no bottom-feeders in those days to clear the ocean floors of organic debris. Fair enough. But I still don't understand how those massive piles of biological debris, some consisting of hundreds of billions of tons of matter, could have just suddenly appeared, so that they could then sit, undisturbed, for millions of years as they were covered over with sediment. I can understand how biological detritus could accumulate over time, mixed in with the sediment, but that wouldn't really create the conditions for the generation of vast reservoirs of crude oil.
So I guess I must be missing something here.

The notion that oil is a 'fossil fuel' was first proposed by Russian scholar Mikhailo Lomonosov in 1757. Lomonosov's rudimentary hypothesis, based on the limited base of scientific knowledge that existed at the time, and on his own simple observations, was that "Rock oil originates as tiny bodies of animals buried in the sediments which, under the influence of increased temperature and pressure acting during an unimaginably long period of time, transform into rock oil."

Two and a half centuries later, Lomonosov's theory remains as it was in 1757 -- an unproved, and almost entirely speculative, hypothesis. Returning once again to the Wall Street Journal, we find that, "Although the world has been drilling for oil for generations, little is known about the nature of the resource or the underground activities that led to its creation." A paragraph in the Encyclopedia Britannica concerning the origins of oil ends thusly: "In spite of the great amount of scientific research ... there remain many unresolved questions regarding its origins."

Does that not seem a little odd? We are talking here, after all, about a resource that, by all accounts, plays a crucial role in a vast array of human endeavors (by one published account, petroleum is a raw ingredient in some 70,000 manufactured products, including medicines, synthetic fabrics, fertilizers, paints and varnishes, acrylics, plastics, and cosmetics). By many accounts, the very survival of the human race is entirely dependent on the availability of petroleum. And yet we know almost nothing about this most life-sustaining of the earth's resources. And even though, by some shrill accounts, the well is about to run dry, no one seems to be overly concerned with understanding the nature and origins of so-called 'fossil fuels.' We are, rather, content with continuing to embrace an unproved 18th century theory that, if subjected to any sort of logical analysis, seems ludicrous.

This story really begins in 1946, just after the close of World War II, which had illustrated quite effectively that oil was integral to waging modern, mechanized warfare. Stalin, recognizing the importance of oil, and recognizing also that the Soviet Union would have to be self sufficient, launched a massive scientific undertaking that has been compared, in its scale, to the Manhattan Project. The goal of the Soviet project was to study every aspect of petroleum, including how it is created, how reserves are generated, and how to best pursue petroleum exploration and extraction.

The challenge was taken up by a wide range of scientific disciplines, with hundreds of the top professionals in their fields contributing to the body of scientific research. By 1951, what has been called the Modern Russian-Ukrainian Theory of Deep, Abiotic Petroleum Origins was born. A healthy amount of scientific debate followed for the next couple of decades, during which time the theory, initially formulated by geologists, based on observational data, was validated through the rigorous quantitative work of chemists, physicists and thermodynamicists. For the last couple of decades, the theory has been accepted as established fact by virtually the entire scientific community of the (former) Soviet Union. It is backed up by literally thousands of published studies in prestigious, peer-reviewed scientific journals.

For over fifty years, Russian and Ukrainian scientists have added to this body of research and refined the Russian-Ukrainian theories. And for over fifty years, not a word of it has been published in the English language (except for a fairly recent, bastardized version published by astronomer Thomas Gold, who somehow forgot to credit the hundreds of scientists whose research he stole and then misrepresented).

This is not, by the way, just a theoretical model that the Russians and Ukrainians have established; the theories were put to practical use, resulting in the transformation of the Soviet Union - once regarded as having limited prospects, at best, for successful petroleum exploration - into a world-class petroleum producing, and exporting, nation.

J.F. Kenney spent some 15 years studying under some of the Russian and Ukrainian scientists who were key contributors to the modern petroleum theory. When Kenney speaks about petroleum origins, he is not speaking as some renegade scientist with a radical new theory; he is speaking to give voice to an entire community of scientists whose work has never been acknowledged in the West. Kenney writes passionately about that neglected body of research:

The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not new or recent. This theory was first enunciated by Professor Nikolai Kudryavtsev in 1951, almost a half century ago, (Kudryavtsev 1951) and has undergone extensive development, refinement, and application since its introduction. There have been more than four thousand articles published in the Soviet scientific journals, and many books, dealing with the modern theory. This writer is presently co-authoring a book upon the subject of the development and applications of the modern theory of petroleum for which the bibliography requires more than thirty pages.

The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not the work of any one single man -- nor of a few men. The modern theory was developed by hundreds of scientists in the (now former) U.S.S.R., including many of the finest geologists, geochemists, geophysicists, and thermodynamicists of that country. There have now been more than two generations of geologists, geophysicists, chemists, and other scientists in the U.S.S.R. who have worked upon and contributed to the development of the modern theory. (Kropotkin 1956; Anisimov, Vasilyev et al. 1959; Kudryavtsev 1959; Porfir'yev 1959; Kudryavtsev 1963; Raznitsyn 1963; Krayushkin 1965; Markevich 1966; Dolenko 1968; Dolenko 1971; Linetskii 1974; Letnikov, Karpov et al. 1977; Porfir'yev and Klochko 1981; Krayushkin 1984)

The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not untested or speculative. On the contrary, the modern theory was severely challenged by many traditionally-minded geologists at the time of its introduction; and during the first decade thenafter, the modern theory was thoroughly examined, extensively reviewed, powerfully debated, and rigorously tested. Every year following 1951, there were important scientific conferences organized in the U.S.S.R. to debate and evaluate the modern theory, its development, and its predictions. The All-Union conferences in petroleum and petroleum geology in the years 1952-1964/5 dealt particularly with this subject. (During the period when the modern theory was being subjected to extensive critical challenge and testing, a number of the men pointed out that there had never been any similar critical review or testing of the traditional hypothesis that petroleum might somehow have evolved spontaneously from biological detritus.)

The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not controversial nor presently a matter of academic debate. The period of debate about this extensive body of knowledge has been over for approximately two decades (Simakov 1986). The modern theory is presently applied extensively throughout the former U.S.S.R. as the guiding perspective for petroleum exploration and development projects. There are presently more than 80 oil and gas fields in the Caspian district alone which were explored and developed by applying the perspective of the modern theory and which produce from the crystalline basement rock. (Krayushkin, Chebanenko et al. 1994)

Hasn't the conventional wisdom been, for many decades, that oil is a 'fossil fuel,' and therefore a finite, non-renewable resource? Since when has it been an intelligence community secret that a finite resource will someday run out?

On September 26, 1995, the New York Times ran an article headlined "Geochemist Says Oil Fields May Be Refilled Naturally." Penned by Malcolm W. Browne, the piece appeared on page C1.

Could it be that many of the world's oil fields are refilling themselves at nearly the same rate they are being drained by an energy hungry world? A geochemist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts ... Dr. Jean K. Whelan ... infers that oil is moving in quite rapid spurts from great depths to reservoirs closer to the surface. Skeptics of Dr. Whelan's hypothesis ... say her explanation remains to be proved ... Discovered in 1972, an oil reservoir some 6,000 feet beneath Eugene Island 330 [not actually an island, but a patch of sea floor in the Gulf of Mexico] is one of the world's most productive oil sources ... Eugene Island 330 is remarkable for another reason: it's estimated reserves have declined much less than experts had predicted on the basis of its production rate. "It could be," Dr. Whelan said, "that at some sites, particularly where there is a lot of faulting in the rock, a reservoir from which oil is being pumped might be a steady-state system -- one that is replenished by deeper reserves as fast as oil is pumped out" ... The discovery that oil seepage is continuous and extensive from many ocean vents lying above fault zones has convinced many scientists that oil is making its way up through the faults from much deeper deposits ... A recent report from the Department of Energy Task Force on Strategic Energy Research and Development concluded from the Woods Hole project that "there new data and interpretations strongly suggest that the oil and gas in the Eugene Island field could be treated as a steady-state rather than a fixed resource." The report added, "Preliminary analysis also suggest that similar phenomena may be taking place in other producing areas, including the deep-water Gulf of Mexico and the Alaskan North Slope" ... There is much evidence that deep reserves of hydrocarbon fuels remain to be tapped.

This compelling article raised a number of questions, including: how did all those piles of dinosaur carcasses end up thousands of feet beneath the earth's surface? How do finite reservoirs of dinosaur goo become "steady-state" resources? And how does the fossil fuel theory explain the continuous, spontaneous venting of gas and oil?

The Eugene Island story was revisited by the media three-and-a-half years later, by the Wall Street Journal (Christopher Cooper "Odd Reservoir Off Louisiana Prods Oil Experts to Seek a Deeper Meaning," Wall Street Journal, April 16, 1999).
 http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm

Something mysterious is going on at Eugene Island 330. Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, was supposed to have declined years ago. And for a while. it behaved like any normal field: Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330's output peaked at about 15,000 barrels a day. By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels a day. Then suddenly -- some say almost inexplicably -- Eugene Island's fortunes reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels a day, and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million. Stranger still, scientists studying the field say the crude coming out of the pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed 10 years ago. All of which has led some scientists to a radical theory: Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some continuous source miles below the Earth's surface. That, they say, raises the tantalizing possibility that oil may not be the limited resource it is assumed to be. ... Jean Whelan, a geochemist and senior researcher from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts ... says, "I believe there is a huge system of oil just migrating" deep underground. ... About 80 miles off the Louisiana coast, the underwater landscape surrounding Eugene Island is otherworldly, cut with deep fissures and faults that spontaneously belch gas and oil.

So now we are talking about a huge system of migrating dinosaur goo that is miles beneath the Earth's surface! Those dinosaurs were rather crafty, weren't they? Exactly three years later (to the day), the media once again paid a visit to the Gulf of Mexico. This time, it was Newsday that filed the report (Robert Cooke "Oil Field's Free Refill," Newsday, April 19, 2002).
 http://csf.colorado.edu

Deep underwater, and deeper underground, scientists see surprising hints that gas and oil deposits can be replenished, filling up again, sometimes rapidly. Although it sounds too good to be true, increasing evidence from the Gulf of Mexico suggests that some old oil fields are being refilled by petroleum surging up from deep below, scientists report. That may mean that current estimates of oil and gas abundance are far too low. ... chemical oceanographer Mahlon "Chuck" Kennicutt [said] "They are refilling as we speak. But whether this is a worldwide phenomenon, we don't know" ... Kennicutt, a faculty member at Texas A&M University, said it is now clear that gas and oil are coming into the known reservoirs very rapidly in terms of geologic time. The inflow of new gas, and some oil, has been detectable in as little as three to 10 years. In the past, it was not suspected that oil fields can refill because it was assumed that oil was formed in place, or nearby, rather than far below. According to marine geologist Harry Roberts, at Louisiana State University ... "You have a very leaky fault system that does allow it (petroleum) to migrate in. It's directly connected to an oil and gas generating system at great depth." ... "There already appears to be a large body of evidence consistent with ... oil and gas generation and migration on very short time scales in many areas globally" [Jean Whelan] wrote in the journal Sea Technology ... Analysis of the ancient oil that seems to be coming up from deep below in the Gulf of Mexico suggests that the flow of new oil "is coming from deeper, hotter [sediment] formations" and is not simply a lateral inflow from the old deposits that surround existing oil fields, [Whelan] said.

Now I'm really starting to get confused. Can someone please walk me through this? What exactly is an "oil and gas generating system"? And how does such a system generate oil "on very short time scales"? Is someone down there right now, even as I type these words, forklifting dinosaur carcasses into some gigantic cauldron to cook up a fresh batch of oil?
Desperate for answers to such perplexing questions, I turned for advice to Mr. Peak Oil himself, Michael Ruppert, and this is what I found: "oil ... is the result of climactic conditions that have existed at only one time in the earth's 4.5 billion year history." I'm guessing that that "one time" - that one golden window of opportunity to get just the right mix of dinosaur stew - isn't the present time, so it doesn't seem quite right, to me at least, that oil is being generated right now.

In June 2003, Geotimes paid a visit to the Gulf of Mexico ("Raining Hydrocarbons in the Gulf"), and the story grew yet more compelling.
 http://www.geotimes.org/june03/NN_gulf.html

Below the Gulf of Mexico, hydrocarbons flow upward through an intricate network of conduits and reservoirs ... and this is all happening now, not millions and millions of years ago, says Larry Cathles, a chemical geologist at Cornell University. "We're dealing with this giant flow-through system where the hydrocarbons are generating now, moving through the overlying strata now, building the reservoirs now and spilling out into the ocean now," Cathles says. ... Cathles and his team estimate that in a study area of about 9,600 square miles off the coast of Louisiana [including Eugene Island 330], source rocks a dozen kilometers [roughly seven miles] down have generated as much as 184 billion tons of oil and gas -- about 1,000 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalent. "That's 30 percent more than we humans have consumed over the entire petroleum era," Cathles say. "And that's just this one little postage stamp area; if this is going on worldwide, then there's a lot of hydrocarbons venting out."

Dry oil wells spontaneously refilling? Oil generation and migration systems? Massive oil reserves miles beneath the earth's surface? Spontaneous venting of enormous volumes of gas and oil? (Roberts noted that - and this isn't really going to please the environmentalists, but I'm just reporting the facts, ma'am - "natural seepage" in areas like the Gulf of Mexico "far exceeds anything that gets spilled" by the oil industry. And those natural emissions have been pumped into our oceans since long before there was an oil industry.)

The all too obvious question here is: how is any of that explained by a theory that holds that oil and gas are 'fossil fuels' created in finite quantities through a unique geological process that occurred millions of years ago?

Why do we insist on retaining an antiquated theory that is so obviously contradicted by readily observable phenomena? Is the advancement of the sciences not based on formulating a hypothesis, and then testing that hypothesis? And if the hypothesis fails to account for the available data, is it not customary to either modify that hypothesis or formulate a new hypothesis -- rather than, say, clinging to the same discredited hypothesis for 250 years?

In August 2002, the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a study authored by J.F. Kenney, V.A. Kutchenov, N.A. Bendeliani and V.A. Alekseev. The authors argued, quite compellingly, that oil is not created from organic compounds at the temperatures and pressures found close to the surface of the earth, but rather is created from inorganic compounds at the extreme temperatures and pressures present only near the core of the earth.
 http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm

I mention that because I happened to read something that Michael Ruppert wrote recently that seems pertinent: "In real life, it is called 'the proof is in the pudding.' In scientific circles, it is called peer review, and it usually involves having your research published in a peer-reviewed journal. It is an often-frustrating process, but peer-reviewed articles ensure the validity of science."
 http://www.fromthewilderness.com

It would seem then that we can safely conclude that what Kenney, et. al. have presented is valid science, since it definitely was published in a peer-reviewed journal. And what that valid science says, quite clearly, is that petroleum is not by any stretch of the imagination a finite resource, or a 'fossil fuel,' but is in fact a resource that is continuously generated by natural processes deep within the planet.

Geotimes also noted that the research paper "examined thermodynamic arguments that say methane is the only organic hydrocarbon to exist within Earth's crust." Indeed, utilizing the laws of modern thermodynamics, the authors constructed a mathematical model that proves that oil can not form under the conditions dictated by the 'fossil fuel' theory.

I mention that because of something else I read on Ruppert's site. Listed as #5 of "Nine Critical Questions to Ask About Alternative Energy" is: "Most of the other questions in this list can be tied up into this one question: does the invention defy the Laws of Thermodynamics? If the answer is yes, then something is wrong."
 http://www.fromthewilderness.com

Well then, Mr. Ruppert, I have some very bad news for you, because something definitely is wrong -- with your 'Peak Oil' theory. Because here we have a published study, subjected to peer review (thus assuring the "validity" of the study), that demonstrates, with mathematical certainty, that it is actually the 'fossil fuel' theory that defies the laws of thermodynamics. It appears then that if we follow Ruppert's Laws, we have to rule out fossil fuels as a viable alternative to petroleum.

So which theory have we in the West, in our infinite wisdom, chosen to embrace? Why, the fundamentally absurd 'Fossil Fuel' theory, of course -- the same theory that the 'Peak Oil' doomsday warnings are based on.

I am sorry to report here, by the way, that in doing my homework, I never did come across any of that "hard science" documenting 'Peak Oil' that Mr. Strahl referred to. All the 'Peak Oil' literature that I found, on Ruppert's site and elsewhere, took for granted that petroleum is a non-renewable 'fossil fuel.' That theory is never questioned, nor is any effort made to validate it. It is simply taken to be an established scientific fact, which it quite obviously is not.

So what do Ruppert and his resident experts have to say about all of this? Dale Allen Pfeiffer, identified as the "FTW Contributing Editor for Energy," has written: "There is some speculation that oil is abiotic in origin -- generally asserting that oil is formed from magma instead of an organic origin. These ideas are really groundless."
 http://www.fromthewilderness.com

Here is a question that I have for both Mr. Ruppert and Mr. Pfeiffer: Do you consider it honest, responsible journalism to dismiss a fifty year body of multi-disciplinary scientific research, conducted by hundreds of the world's most gifted scientists, as "some speculation"?

Another of FTW's prognosticators, Colin Campbell, is described by Ruppert as "perhaps the world's foremost expert on oil." He was asked by Ruppert, in an interview, "what would you say to the people who insist that oil is created from magma ...?" Before we get to Campbell's answer, we should first take note of the tone of Ruppert's question. It is not really meant as a question at all, but rather as a statement, as in "there is really nothing you can say that will satisfy these nutcases who insist on bringing up these loony theories."
 http://www.fromthewilderness.com

Campbell's response to the question was an interesting one: "No one in the industry gives the slightest credence to these theories." Why, one wonders, did Mr. Campbell choose to answer the question on behalf of the petroleum industry? And does it come as a surprise to anyone that the petroleum industry doesn't want to acknowledge abiotic theories of petroleum origins? Should we have instead expected something along these lines?:

"Hey, everybody ... uhhh ... you know how we always talked about oil being a fossil fuel? And ... uhmm ... you know how the entire profit structure of our little industry here is built upon the presumption that oil is a non-renewable, and therefore very valuable, resource?
 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr52.html#note*

And remember all those times we talked about shortages so that we could gouge you at the pumps? Well ... guess what, America? You've been Punk'd!"

For the sake of accuracy, I think we need to modify Mr. Campbell's response, because it should probably read: no one in the petroleum industry will publicly admit giving any credence to abiotic theories. But is there really any doubt that those who own and control the oil industry are well aware of the true origins of oil? How could they not be?

Surely there must be a reason why there appears to be so little interest in understanding the nature and origins of such a valuable, and allegedly vanishing, resource. And that reason can only be that the answers are already known. The objective, of course, is to ensure that the rest of us don't find those answers. Why else would we be encouraged, for decades, to cling tenaciously to a scientific theory that can't begin to explain the available scientific evidence? And why else would a half-century of research never see the light of day in Western scientific and academic circles?

Maintaining the myth of scarcity, you see, is all important. Without it, the house of cards comes tumbling down. And yet, even while striving to preserve that myth, the petroleum industry will continue to provide the oil and gas needed to maintain a modern industrial infrastructure, long past the time when we should have run out of oil. And needless to say, the petroleum industry will also continue to reap the enormous profits that come with the myth of scarcity.

How will that difficult balancing act be performed? That is where, it appears, the 'limited hangout' concerning abiotic oil will come into play.

Perhaps the most telling quote to emerge from all of this came from Roger Sassen, identified as the deputy director of Resource Geosciences, a research group out of Texas A&M University: "The potential that inorganic hydrocarbons, especially methane and a few other gasses, might exist at enormous depth in the crust is an idea that could use a little more discussion. However, not from people who take theories to the point of absurdity. This is an idea that needs to be looked into at some point as we start running out of energy. But no one who is objective discusses the issue at this time."

The key point there (aside from Sassen's malicious characterization of Kenney) is his assertion that no one is discussing abiotic oil at this time. And why is that? Because, you see, we first have to go through the charade of pretending that the world has just about run out of 'conventional' oil reserves, thus justifying massive price hikes, which will further pad the already obscenely high profits of the oil industry. Only then will it be fully acknowledged that there is, you know, that 'other' oil.

"We seem to have plum run out of that fossil fuel that y'all liked so much, but if you want us to, we could probably find you some mighty fine inorganic stuff. You probably won't even notice the difference. The only reason that we didn't mention it before is that - and may God strike me dead if I'm lying - it is a lot more work for us to get to it. So after we charged you up the wazoo for the 'last' of the 'conventional' oil, we're now gonna have to charge you even more for this really 'special' oil. And with any luck at all, none of you will catch on that it's really the same oil."

And that, dear readers, is how I see this little game playing out. Will you be playing along?
 http://www.rense.com/general63/staline.htm

* There is a close parallel here with the diamond industry. It is a relatively open secret that the diamond market is an artificial one, created by an illusion of scarcity actively cultivated by DeBeers, which has monopolized the diamond industry for generations. As Ernest Oppenheimer of DeBeers said, nearly a century ago, "Common sense tells us that the only way to increase the value of diamonds is to make them scarce -- that is, reduce production." And that is exactly what the company has done for decades now.
There are reportedly nearly one billion diamonds produced every year, and that is only a fraction of what could be produced. Diamonds are not, conventional wisdom to the contrary, a scarce resource, and they are therefore not intrinsically valuable. Without the market manipulation, experts estimate that the true value of diamonds would be roughly $30 per carat.
Interestingly enough, Soviet researchers have noted that diamonds are the result of the same processes that create petroleum: "Statistical thermodynamic analysis has established clearly that hydrocarbon molecules which comprise petroleum require very high pressures for their spontaneous formation, comparable to the pressures required for the same of diamond. In that sense, hydrocarbon molecules are the high-pressure polymorphs of the reduced carbon system as is diamond of elemental carbon." (Emmanuil B. Chekaliuk, 1968)

So what we appear to have here are two resources, both of which are created in abundance by natural geothermal processes, and both of which are marketed as scarce and valuable commodities, creating two industries awash in obscene profits.
 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr52.html#diamonds
 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/index.htm
these interesting comments from some correspondence by the late Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty:


Oil is often called a 'fossil' fuel; the idea being that it comes from formerly living organisms. This may have been plausible back when oil wells were drilled into the fossil layers of the earth's crust; but today, great quantities of oil are found in deeper wells that are found below the level of any fossils. How could then oil have come from fossils, or decomposed former living matter, if it exists in rock formations far below layers of fossils - the evidence of formerly living organisms? It must not come from living matter at all!

[...]

This response is for Daniel E. Reynolds, 29 July 1996 on the subject of "Oil - A renewable and abiotic Fuel?"

Dan, your use of the word "abiotic" is good. As a non-fossil fuel, petroleum has no living antecedent. It contains chemical elements found in living matter; but it is not "formerly living matter." There has not been enough true "formerly living matter" through all of creation to account for the volume of petroleum that has been consumed to date.

My background in this subject goes back to 1943. I was the pilot who flew a U.S. Geological Survey Team from Casablanca to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. We met the Cal. Standard Oil team holding down that lease. Then we went back to Cairo to meet President Roosevelt during the Nov. 1943 "Cairo Conference" with Churchill and Chiang Kai Shek. FDR ordered the immediate construction of an oil refinery there for WW II use. This led to ARAMCO.

During the "Energy Crisis" of the 1970's I was detailed to represent the U.S. Railroad industry as a member of the "Federal Staff Energy Seminar" program started by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, sponsored by Georgetown University. That began in Jan 1974 and continued for four years. It was designed to discuss "the working of the United States national energy system, and new horizons of energy research." Among the regular attendees were such men as Henry Kissinger and James Schlesinger...most valuable meetings.

During one meeting we took a "Buffet Break" and I was seated with Arthur Kantrowitz of the AVCO Company..."Kantrowitz Labs" near Boston. At the table with us were four young geologists busily talking about Petroleum. At one point one of them made reference to "Petroleum as organic matter, and a fossil fuel." Right out of the Rockefeller bible.

Kantrowitz turned to the geologist beside him and asked, "Do you really believe that petroleum is a fossil fuel?" The man said, "Certainly" and all four of them joined in. Kantrowitz listened quietly and then said, "The deepest fossil ever found has been at about 16,000 feet below sea level; yet we are getting oil from wells drilled to 30,000 and more. How could fossil fuel get down there? If it was once living matter, it had to be on the surface. If it did turn into petroleum, at or near the surface, how could it ever get to such depths? What is heavier Oil or Water?" Water: so it would go down, not oil. Oil would be on top, if it were "organic" and "lighter."

"Oil is neither."

They all agreed water was heavier, and therefore if there was some crack or other open area for this "Organic matter" to go deep into the magma of Earth, water would have to go first and oil would be left nearer the surface. This is reasonable. Even if we do agree that "magma" is a "crude mixture of minerals or organic matters, in a thin pasty state" this does not make it petroleum, and if it were petroleum it would have stayed near the surface as heavier items, i.e. water seeped below.

My D. Van Nostrand "Scientific Encyclopedia" says "Magma is the term for molten material. A natural, complex, liquid, high temperature, silicate solution ancestral to all igneous rocks, both intrusive and effusive. The origin of Magma is not known." My "Oxford English Dictionary" does not even have the word "Magma."

Some years ago I wrote two or three pages that appeared in the McGraw Hill Yearbook of Science and Technology, i.e. "Railroad Engineering." Even that source is a bit uncertain about the "origin of petroleum" to wit:

"Less than 1% of the organic matter that originates in or is transported to the marine environment is eventually incorporated into ocean sediment," and

"Most petroleum is formed during catagenesis (undefined anywhere). If sufficient organic matter is present oceanic sediments that undergo this process are potential petroleum sources. Deeply buried marine organic matter yields mainly oil, whereas land plant material yields mainly gas." (Their idea of "deeply buried" is the "out.")

All this leaves us no where. I still go with Kantrowitz. Since oil is lighter than water, everywhere on Earth, there is no way that petroleum could be an organic, fossil fuel that is created on or near the surface, and penetrate Earth ahead of water. Oil must originate far below and gradually work its way up into well-depth areas accessable to surface drilling. It comes from far below. Therefore, petroleum is not a "Fossil" fuel with a surface or near surface origin.

It was made to be thought a "Fossil" fuel by the Nineteenth [sic] oil producers to create the concept that it was of limited supply and therefore extremely valuable. This fits with the "Depletion" allowance philosophical scam.

During one of our C.S.I.S. "International Nights" (1978) the Common Market Energy boss, M. Montibrial of France, told us that while petroleum was being marketed then for $20.00 per barrel or more, it cost no more than 25 cents per barrel at the well-head. There is our petroleum problem! We were paying more than $1.50-$1.60 per gallon, one 42nd of a barrel, at that time. Interested folks need to learn more about the Chartered Institute of Transport, and not waste their time with OPEC, the "Cover" story.

Those who pumped the Pennsylvania wells "dry" during the late eighteen hundreds saved what they had for those better days.

L. Fletcher Prouty
[ http://www.prouty.org/oil.html]

 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr59.html


* * * * * * * * * *

So ... I was taking care of some important business the other day, and being a multi-tasking kind of guy, I was also idly leafing through a copy of one of Uncle John's Bathroom Readers. Now, Uncle John is not normally one of my primary sources of information, but I happened to stumble across a subject that immediately caught my attention: underground coal fires (I later conducted a Google search on "underground coal fires" to verify the information provided by Uncle John).


I learned that, although underground coal fires are a common phenomenon, most people are completely unaware that they occur. How common are they? At any given time, thousands of coal veins are ablaze around the world. In China's northwestern province of Xinjiang alone, there are currently about 2,000 underground coal fires burning. Indonesia currently hosts as many as 1,000.


Some of these fires have been burning for thousands of years; Burning Mountain Nature Reserve, for example, in New South Wales, Australia, has been aflame for an estimated 5,500 years. Other coal fires are of more recent vintage, often started through the actions of the notoriously destructive human species. But underground coal fires long predate mankind's proclivity for starting them, and many of the fires burning today are due to entirely natural causes.


New Scientist noted, in February 2003, that "coal seam fires have occurred spontaneously far back into geological history." ("Wild Coal Fires are a 'Global Catastrophe'," New Scientist, February 14, 2003) Radio Nederland added that "Geological evidence from China suggests that underground coal fires have been occurring naturally for at least one million years." (Anne Blair Gould "Underground Fires Stoke Global Warming," Radio Nederland, March 10, 2003)


And how much coal, you may be wondering, do these fires consume annually? No one can say with any certainty, but it is estimated that in China alone, some 200 million tons of coal go up in smoke every year. That's a hell of a lot of coal. More coal than China exports, in fact. In other words, the world's leading coal exporter loses more coal to underground fires than it produces for export.


"Very interesting," you say, "but what does any of this have to do with 'Peak Oil'?" Glad you asked. Coal is, you see, a member of the same hydrocarbon family as oil and natural gas, and it is, like gas and oil, claimed to be a 'fossil fuel' created in finite, non-renewable quantities at a specific time in the earth's history (when the stars were, I'm guessing, in the proper alignment). And yet this allegedly precious and limited resource has been burning off at the rate of millions of tons per year, year in and year out, for at least a million years, and probably much longer.


This raises, in my mind at least, one very obvious question: how is it possible that nature has been taking an extremely heavy toll on the globe's 'fossil fuels' for hundreds of thousands of years (at the very least), without depleting the reserves that were supposedly created long, long ago; and yet man, who has been extracting and burning 'fossil fuels' for the mere blink of an eye, geologically speaking, has managed to nearly strip the planet clean?

Is it not perfectly clear that that is a proposition that is absurd on its face -- so much so that it is remarkable that the 'fossil fuel' myth has passed muster for as long as it has? Nevertheless, that entirely illogical myth is the cornerstone on which an even bigger lie - the myth of 'Peak Oil' - is built. Go figure.

 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr64.html


* * * * * * * * * *

NEWSLETTER #59
April 13, 2004
Oil News Briefs


From "The Global Energy Outlook for the 21st Century," a lecture delivered on May 21, 2003 by Peter R. Odell, Professor Emeritus at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam, where he was the Director of the Center for International Energy Studies:
Finally, a word of caution on the essential fragility of a study on the very long-term future for the world's energy supply which accepts without question the validity of the original 18th century hypothesis that all oil and gas resources have been generated from biological matter in the chemical and thermodynamic environments of the earth's crust. There is an alternative theory - already 50 years old - which suggests an inorganic origin for additional oil and gas. This alternative view is widely accepted in the countries of the former Soviet Union where, it is claimed, "large volumes of hydrocarbons are being produced from the pre-Cambrian crystalline basement". Recent applications of the inorganic theory have, however, also led to claims for the possibility of the Middle East fields being able to produce oil "forever" and to the concept of repleting oil and gas fields in the gulf of Mexico. More generally, it is argued, "all giant fields are most logically explained by inorganic theory because simple calculations of potential hydrocarbon contents in sediments shows that organic materials are too few to supply the volumes of petroleum involved."

The significance of the alternative theory of the origin of additional oil and gas potential is self evident for the issue of the longevity of hydrocarbons' production potential and production costs in the 21st century. Instead of having to consider a stock reserve already accumulated in a finite number of so-called oil and gas plays, the possibility emerges of evaluating hydrocarbons as essentially renewable resources in the context of whatever demand developments may emerge. If fields do replete because the oil and gas extracted from them is abyssal and abiotic (based on chemical reactions under specific thermodynamic conditions deep in the earth's mantle), then extraction costs should not rise as production from such fields continues for an indefinite period. Neither do estimates of reserves, reserves-to-production ratios and annual rates of discovery and additions to reserves have any of the importance correctly attributed to them in evaluating the future supply prospects under the organic theory of oil and gas' derivation. In essence, the "ball park" in which consideration of the issues relating to the future of oil and gas has hitherto been made would no longer remain relevant.
[more:  http://www.clingendael.nl/ciep/pdf/Odell_2003_05_21_lecture.pdf]

From "The New Pessimism about Petroleum Resources: Debunking the Hubbert Model (and Hubbert Modelers)," by Michael C. Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research, Inc. and research affiliate at the Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology:

Recently, numerous publications have appeared warning that oil production is near an unavoidable, geologically-determined peak that could have consequences up to and including "war, starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens" (Campbell in Ruppert). The current series of alarmist articles could be said to be merely reincarnations of earlier work which proved fallacious, but the authors insist that they have made significant advances in their analyses, overcoming earlier errors. For a number of reasons, this work has been nearly impenetrable to many observers, which seems to have lent it an added cachet. However, careful examination of the data and methods, as well as extensive perusal of the writings, suggests that the opacity of the work is - at best - obscuring the inconclusive nature of their research.

Some of the arguments about resource scarcity resemble those made in the 1970s. They have noted that discoveries are low (as did Wilson (1977) and that estimates of ultimately recoverable resources (URR) are in the range of 2 trillion barrels, approximately twice production to date. But beyond that, Campbell and Leherrere in particular claim that they have developed accurate estimates of URR, and thus, this time the wolf is really here. But careful examination of their work reveals instead a pattern of errors and mistaken assumptions presented as conclusive research results.

The Hubbert Curve

The initial theory behind what is now known as the Hubbert curve was very simplistic. Hubbert was simply trying to estimate approximate resource levels, and for the lower-48 US, he thought a bell-curve would be the most appropriate form. It was only later that the Hubbert curve came to be seen as explanatory in and of itself, that is, geology requires that production should follow such a curve [editor's note: if, that is, petroleum is organic in origin]. Indeed, for many years, Hubbert himself published no equations for deriving the curve, and it appears that he only used a rough estimation initially. In his 1956 paper, in fact, he noted that production often did not follow a bell curve. In later years, however, he seems to have accepted the curve as explanatory.

[...]

Revival of the Hubbert Method

The recent authors, notably Campbell and Leherrere have apparently rediscovered the Hubbert curve, but without understanding it, at least initially. Campbell and Leherrere initially argued that production should follow a bell curve, at least in an unconstrained province. But this is demonstrably not the case in practice: most nations' production does not follow a Hubbert curve. In fact, Campbell (2003) shows production curves (historical and forecast) for 51 non-OPEC countries, and only 8 of them could be said to resemble a Hubbert curve even approximately.

The authors initially responded to this weakness by arguing the Hubbert curve could have multiple peaks, which of course means it would not follow a bell curve at all, and destroys the explanatory value of the bell curve. As the alleged value of the Hubbert curve lies partly in demonstrating the production decline post-peak, not knowing whether any given peak is the final one renders this useless, nor would the peak imply that midpoint production had been reached (indicating URR).

Recognizing this, the theory has been modified again, to "The important message from Hubbert's work, which is often forgotten by economists, is that oil has to be found before it can be produced." (Laherrere 2001b, p.4) In other words, the Hubbert curve, originally held as scientific and inviolable, is of no particular value. Yet the authors have not only mistakenly believed in its properties, they have not been forthcoming about their own errors.

[...]

Opaque Work, Unproven Assertions

The lack of rigor in many of the Hubbert modelers' arguments makes them hard to refute. The huge amount of writing, along with undocumented quotes and vague remarks, necessitates exhaustive review and response ...

Perhaps because they are not academics, the primary authors have a tendency to publish results but not research. In fact, by relying heavily on a proprietary database, Campbell and Leherrere have generated a strong shield against criticism of their work, making it nearly impossible to reproduce or check. Similarly, there is little or no research published, merely the assertion that the results are good.
[much more at:  http://www.energyseer.com/NewPessimism.pdf]

From James Bernstein's "Oil Giants Taking Heat," Newsday, March 31, 2004:

Worried about a downward slide in oil prices later this year, OPEC is expected today to announce a cut in production, which will likely result in higher pump prices. But consumer groups are charging that big oil companies are largely responsible for the current upward spiral in gasoline costs, saying they have deliberately withheld supplies and reduced storage capacity.

[...]

But in the United States, consumer groups say the blame for higher pump prices lies not so much with OPEC as with the huge oil companies. Public Citizen, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog organization, is preparing to release a report later this week charging that the oil industry deliberately consolidated in the 1990s so that it could withhold supplies and reduce storage capacity.

[...]

The Consumer Federation of America said in a recent report that in the past 15 years, more than 70 refineries in the United States were closed. Additionally, its report said, the nation's storage facilities were reduced by nearly 15 percent. Mark Cooper, the organization's research director, said an updated report is expected soon.

"The problem is not crude oil," Cooper said. "It's inadequate refinery capacity and inadequate stockpiles, all of which are the result of decisions made by the oil companies to tighten the market."
[more:  link to www.nynewsday.com]

From "Mergers, Manipulation and Mirages: How Oil Companies Keep Gasoline Prices High, and Why the Energy Bill Doesn't Help" (March 2004), the Public Citizen report referenced in the Newsday article:

The United States has allowed multiple large, vertically integrated oil companies to merge over the last five years, placing control of the market in too few hands. The result: uncompetitive domestic gasoline markets. Large oil companies can more easily control domestic gasoline prices by exploiting their ever-greater market share, keeping prices artificially high long enough to rake in easy profits but not so long that consumers reduce their dependence on oil ...

The largest five companies operating in the United States (ExxonMobil, Chevron Texaco, ConocoPhillips, BP and Royal Dutch Shell) now control:

14.2% of global oil production (nearly as much as the entire Middle East members of the OPEC cartel).
48% of domestic oil production (which is significant given the fact that the U.S. is the 3rd largest oil producer in the world).
50.3% of domestic refinery capacity.
61.8% of the retail gas market.
These same five companies also control 21.3% of domestic natural gas production.
It is therefore little wonder why these top companies enjoyed after-tax profits of $60 billion in 2003 alone.

These figures are in stark contrast to just a decade ago, when the top five oil companies controlled only:

7.7% of global crude oil production.
33.7% of domestic crude production
33.4% of domestic refinery capacity.
27% of the retail market.
In addition, in 1993, the top five U.S. companies controlled only 12.7% of domestic natural gas production.
The major difference between 1993 and 2003 is that the largest oil companies have merged with one another, creating just a handful of oil monopolies that control significant chunks of the American oil and gas markets. Armed with significant market share, companies can more easily pursue uncompetitive activities that result in price-gouging ...

Gasoline prices are rising because of uncompetitive actions by this handful of new mega-companies, not because of environmental regulations ...

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concluded in March 2001 that oil companies had intentionally withheld supplies of gasoline from the market as a tactic to drive up prices -- all as a "profit-maximizing strategy." These actions, while costing consumers billions of dollars in overcharges, have not been investigated by the U.S. government.

... Since 2001, President Bush has been removing more than 100,000 barrels of oil a day from the market to stock the SPR [Strategic Petroleum Reserve], filling it by more than 100 million barrels since he's been in office to over 640 million barrels -- well more than 90% capacity. President Bush's actions, while providing more than enough protection against external supply shocks, severely strains domestic supplies for the market.

[...]

Companies have exploited [their] strong market position to intentionally restrict refining capacity by driving smaller, independent refiners out of business. A congressional investigation uncovered internal memos written by the major oil companies operating in the U.S. discussing their successful strategies to maximize profits by forcing independent refiners out of business, resulting in tighter refinery capacity. From 1995-2002, 97% of the more than 920,000 barrels of oil per day capacity that have been shut down were owned and operated by smaller, independent refiners.

[...]

If these allegations of price gouging sound too conspiratorial for some to accept, examples in related industries demonstrate that price-fixing, collusion and price-gouging are regular occurrences in today's economy, as large corporations routinely abuse their market power to engage in anti-competitive behavior.

[...]

Contracts representing hundreds of millions of barrels of oil are traded every day on the London, New York and other energy trading exchanges. An increased share of this trading, however, has been moved off regulated exchanges such as the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and into unregulated Over-the-Counter (OTC) exchanges. Traders operating on exchanges like NYMEX are required to disclose significant detail of their trades to federal regulators. But traders in OTC exchanges are not required to disclose such information allowing companies like Enron, ExxonMobil, and Goldman Sachs to escape federal oversight and more easily engage in manipulation strategies.

The growth of these OTC exchanges exploded in 2000 when Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. The Act, among other things, punched a large loophole in government of energy trading by greatly expanding the ability of traders to operate in unregulated over-the-counter exchanges. These OTC markets do not feature the tighter regulation that typically applies to traders engaged in regulated exchanges, such as the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). Since this deregulation law took effect, the industry - led by Enron - has been plagued by dozens of high-profile scandals attributed to the lack of adequate regulatory oversight over traders' operations. Free from government transparency regulations, energy traders have demonstrated an ability to manipulate prices more easily.

[...]

The fuel economy average for passenger vehicles in the U.S. peaked in 1988. Due to the changing mix of vehicles on the road and the absence of meaningful government action, the average is currently lower today than it was a decade ago. This fuel economy is stagnating because no new significant car or truck fuel economy standards have taken effect for 15 years, and SUVs and pickups are subject to lower standards than regular autos.
[full report:  http://www.citizen.org/documents/oilmergers.pdf]

From a press release for the Consumer Federation of America report (July 2001) referenced in the Newsday Article:

Gas price increases are not mainly the result of any change in crude oil prices. Instead, they have been caused principally by growing industry concentration that has allowed refiners and marketers to reduce refining and storage capacity and withhold supplies in individual markets. Between 1994 and 1999:

Over ten percent of the nation's refineries and branded gasoline stations were closed. In the past 15 years, more than 70 refineries were closed.
The nation's petroleum storage facilities were reduced by nearly fifteen percent.
The industry systematically lowered stocks on hand to the point where only a one or two-day supply above minimum levels was available to keep the country's gasoline distribution running (compared to a supply of a bout a week in the 1980s)
This consolidation and concentration has been permitted by mergers that allowed the industry to manipulate prices. By standards of the Reagan Administration's Justice Department, four-fifths of the national refinery and gasoline markets now are considered to be dangerously concentrated.

"A concentrated, vertically integrated industry has responded slowly to price shocks and has even acted to keep supplies off the market," noted Cooper. "While the industry complains that clean air standards requiring different additives in different markets restrict region-to-region flows of gasoline, these requirements actually give individual suppliers greater market power, aggravating the concentration problem," added Cooper.

Over the past two years, the refiner/marketer share of the pump price has more than doubled, escalating industry profits. Compared to 1999, in 2000 net income from refining and marketing doubled. In the first quarter of 2001, profits increased by nearly 75 percent.
[full report:  http://www.consumerfed.org/gaspricespiral.pdf]

 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr59.html

*****

On June 21, the Los Angeles Times ran a story that the ever-growing 'Peak Oil' crowd seems to have missed. The article concerned the Shell oil refinery in Bakersfield, California that is scheduled to be shut down on October 1 -- despite the fact that the state of California (and the nation as a whole) is already woefully lacking in refinery capacity.

Now why do you suppose that Shell would want to close a perfectly good oil refinery? It can't be because there is no market for the goods produced there, since that obviously isn't the case. And it isn't due to a lack of raw materials, since the refinery sits, as the Times noted, atop "prolific oil fields." The Scotsman recently explained just how prolific those fields are:

The best estimates in 1942 indicated that the Kern River field in California had just 54 million barrels of remaining oil. By 1986, the field had produced 736 million barrels, and estimates put the remaining reserves at 970 million barrels. ( http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=578462004)

Of course, just because there is a strong demand for a product, and a ready source of raw materials with which to produce that product, does not mean that any corporate entity is obligated to bring that product to market. In the corporate world, the only thing that ever matters is the "bottom line," because corporations exist for one purpose only: to generate profits. So the only question, I suppose, that really matters, is: can the refining of gasoline and diesel fuel at this particular facility generate profits for the corporation?


One would naturally assume, given Shell's decision to close the refinery, that the answer to that question is "no." But that would be an entirely wrong assumption, since the truth is, as L.A. Times reporters discovered when they got their hands on internal company documents, that the refinery is wildly profitable. How wildly profitable? The Bakersfield plant's "profit of $11 million in May [2004] was 57 times what the company projected and more than double what it made in all of 2003." (Elizabeth Douglas "Shell to Cut Summer Output at Bakersfield Refinery, Papers Say," Los Angeles Times, June 21, 2004)

Go ahead and read that again: "more than double what it made in all of 2003." In a single month! And 2003 wasn't exactly what you would call a slow year at the Bakersfield refinery. According to Shell documents obtained by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, "Bakersfield's refining margin at $23.01 per barrel, or about 55 cents profit per gallon, topped all of Shell's refineries in the nation."
( http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=114-04062004)


Let's pause briefly here to review the situation, shall we? There is a product (gasoline) that is in great demand, and that will always be in great demand, since the product has what economists like to call an "inelastic" demand curve; for many months now, that product has been selling for record-breaking prices, especially in the state of California, and there is no indication that that situation will change anytime soon; there are abundant local resources with which to produce that coveted product; and, finally, there is a ridiculously profitable facility that is ideally located to manufacture and market that product.


Given that situation, what response would we normally expect from that facility's parent corporation? Sit back and let the good times roll? Attempt to increase production at the facility and rake in even greater profits? Sell the facility and make a windfall profit? Or, tossing logic and rationality to the wind, shut the facility down and walk away?


That last one, of course, is what Shell has chosen to do. And this story, believe it or not, gets even better:

The internal documents obtained by the Times, including a refinery output forecast, indicate that Bakersfield will soon be producing far less than its capacity. After relatively high output rates in May and early June, Shell plans to cut crude oil processing about 6% in July and another 6% in August, according to the forecast. Those two months are when California's fuel demand reaches annual peak levels.
Aamir Farid, the general manager of the Bakersfield refinery, was asked the reason for the plan to reduce output at the time of peak demand. Farid claimed that he was not aware of any such plan, but he added that if there was such a plan, "there is a good reason for it." However, he also added that, "off the top of my head, I don't know what that good reason is."


And why would he? Certainly the manager of the refinery can't be expected to know why his facility is planning to dramatically reduce output, can he? The best explanation that Farid could come up with was to speculate that there "could be maintenance planned or projections for a shortfall of crude." Neither of those scenarios are very plausible, however.


Bakersfield, whose suburbs include Oildale and Oil Junction, won't likely be facing a shortfall of crude anytime soon. And as for the notion of planned maintenance, I doubt that anyone actually believes that Shell plans to perform two months worth of maintenance work on a facility that will be permanently shuttered just one month after that work is completed.


To be fair, I suppose it could be the case that Shell, being the benevolent giant that it is, wants to get the place in tip-top shape for the new owners -- except that there are no new owners, primarily because "Shell didn't search out potential buyers for the refinery once it decided to shutter it." Indeed, Shell actively avoided finding a buyer for the plant (which became a fully-owned Shell asset just three short years ago), since any new owner would probably object to the bulldozers and wrecking balls that Shell plans to bring in just as soon as the refinery's doors have closed. ("FTCR uncovered a timetable showing decommissioning and demolition are set to begin immediately after the refinery's shut down date."  http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=114-04062004)


Can any of you 'Peak Oil' boosters out there think of any legitimate reason why a purely profit-driven corporation would acquire an outrageously profitable asset and then proceed to deliberately destroy that asset? ... because I have to tell you, I have been struggling to come up with an explanation on my own and the only one that I've got so far is that the corporation might be involved in some kind of conspiracy to manufacture an artificial shortage of a crucial commodity. I know that 'Peak Oil' theory holds that we don't need the refinery capacity because, you know, we're running out of oil and all, but that doesn't explain why a tremendously profitable refinery isn't being kept in operation at least until all the local wells have run dry, does it?


Shell will, by the way, continue to operate its Martinez, California refinery -- for now at least. The Martinez facility is also wildly profitable, showing a "net profit of $34 million in May." That tidy profit was, as it turns out, "just shy of Shell's profit expectations at Martinez for all of 2004." Strangely enough, the Martinez facility, like the one in Bakersfield, "cut crude processing in July, by nearly 10%, a reduction attributed to planned heavy maintenance."


It's always a good idea, I suppose, to schedule heavy maintenance work during times of peak energy demand. That's the kind of intelligent business decision we would expect from a corporate giant with decades of experience in the energy business.

On July 8, the LA Times, armed with yet more internal company documents and an unnamed company whistleblower, revisited the story of the Bakersfield refinery. As of July 1, it was discovered, Shell had "reduced crude oil processing at the refinery to levels 19% below capacity" -- more than triple the unexplained reduction that had been planned for the facility.
(Elizabeth Douglas "FTC Probing Shell's Plan to Shut Refinery," Los Angeles Times, July 8, 2004)


According to both company documents and the unnamed employee, "there were no problems with the plant's equipment," and no other explanation was offered for the radical reduction in processing -- undoubtedly because there is no legitimate reason for the decreased output. So obvious is the company's intent to artificially tighten gasoline and diesel supplies that the FTC was obliged, for the sake of appearances, to step in and pretend to launch an investigation. Shell's response to the investigation has been to delay the closing of the refinery for a few months while it goes through the motions of pretending to find a buyer.


In completely unrelated news, a July 31 LA Times report announced that "profit at ChevronTexaco Corp. more than doubled during the second quarter ... echo[ing] the strong quarterly results reported by other major U.S. oil refiners this week." ChevronTexaco's profit jumped from $1.6 billion to $4.1 billion. Not too shabby. Three days later, the Times reported that Unocal's earnings for that same quarter had nearly doubled, from $177 million to $341 million.
(Debora Vrana "Chevron Profit Soars," Los Angeles Times, July 31, 2004, and Julie Tamaki "Unocal's Earnings Nearly Double," Los Angeles Times, August 3, 2004)


Nobody should conclude from any of this, of course, that inflated fuel prices are attributable to rampant greed and the quest for obscene profits. No, clearly rising fuel prices are a sign of 'Peak Oil.' Just ask Mike Ruppert and Mark Robinowitz. Or better yet, bypass the flunkies and go directly to the scriptwriters at Halliburton and the Club of Rome.


* * * * * * * * * *


Speaking of Ruppert, I thought that I should, as a favor to you, big Mike, point out what appears to be a slight inconsistency in your research methodology. I do this to provide you with an opportunity to correct the problem, so that people don't get the impression that you are the kind of guy who doesn't let the truth get in the way of advancing an agenda.


While attempting to justify your unwavering refusal to focus any attention whatsoever on the so-called 'physical evidence' portion of the 9-11 skeptics' case, you have loudly proclaimed that pursuing that approach "will never penetrate the consciousness of the American people in a way that will bring about change. What will penetrate, from my experience, is taking non-scientific reports that most people instantly accept as credible, whether news reports or government statements or documents, and merely showing that they are lies. That opens the wedge, and removes any reliance upon expert or scientific testimony which is typically used to confuse simple facts."

I trust that you remember penning those words. And I trust that you also remember penning these words, which you felt compelled to send on their merry way to my mailbox: "I challenge you to an open, public debate on the subject of Peak Oil ... I challenge you to bring scientific material, production data and academic references and citations for your conclusions like I have .. I will throw more than 500 footnoted citations at you from unimpeachable sources. Be prepared to eat them or rebut them with something more than you have offered."

Do you see the problem here? It almost sounds like you are saying that there are completely different rules for conducting 9-11 research than there are for conducting 'Peak Oil' research. By my reading, what you seem to be saying is that sometimes you want to avoid the scientific stuff at all costs and instead focus solely on demonstrating that "news reports or government statements or documents ... are lies," because that will "penetrate the consciousness of the American people." But at other times, you want to rely exclusively on all that expert scientific testimony - the kind that is "typically used to confuse simple facts" - and you want to pretend that the media reports and government statements that you are citing are "unimpeachable sources."

I have to admit that it is all very confusing to me, but luckily we have a seasoned, world-class investigator out there who knows, intuitively perhaps, which of the two completely contradictory techniques to employ in a given situation. The rest of us, I suppose, lacking invaluable LAPD training, can only aspire to such greatness.

 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr64.html


* * * * * * * * * *

A number of compelling 'Peak Oil' related postings have been brought to my attention in recent weeks. The most interesting of the bunch is reproduced here in its entirety, as it provides a good overview of the fossil fuel/abiotic petroleum debate for those readers who have arrived late in the game.

 http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin


Abiogenic petroleum origin
The theory of abiogenic petroleum origin states that petroleum is produced by non-biological processes deep in the Earth. This stands in contrast to the more widely held view that it is created from the fossilization of ancient organic matter. According to this theory, petroleum is formed by non-biological reactions deep in the Earth's crust. The constituent precursors of petroleum (mainly methane) are commonplace and it is possible that appropriate conditions exist for oil to be formed deep within the Earth.

Although this theory has support by a large minority of geologists in Russia, where it was intensively developed in the 1950s and 1960s, it has only recently begun to receive attention in the West, where the biogenic theory is still believed by the vast majority of petroleum geologists. Although it was originally denied that abiogenic hydrocarbons exist at all on earth, this is now admitted by Western geologists. The orthodox position now is that while abiogenic hydrocarbons exist, they are not produced in commercially significant quantities, so that essentially all hydrocarbons that are extracted for use as fuel or raw materials are biogenic.

External links
Fuel's Paradise (Wired) ( http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/gold_pr.html)

The Mystery of Eugene Island 330 (Science Frontiers) ( http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf124/sf124p10.htm)

The Origin of Methane (and Oil) in the Crust of the Earth (Thomas Gold) ( http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/usgs.html)

Gas Resources Corporation collection of documents ( http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm)

Abiotic oil debate ( http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html)

Gas Origin Theories to be Studied (American Association of Petroleum Geologists) ( http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm)

Abiogenic formation of alkanes in the Earth's crust as a minor source for global hydrocarbon reservoirs (Nature) ( link to www.nature.com)

Geobiology @ MIT about biomarkers
 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr66.html

* * * * * * * * * *
NEWSLETTER #70
October 12, 2004
Beware the 'Peak Oil' Agenda
 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr70.html

It has become apparent that many people have misinterpreted my 'Peak Oil' rants. I know this because I get e-mail with messages like, "thanks for giving me hope," and "thanks for changing my view of the future." I am sorry to have to report here that the newfound optimism of some of my readers is entirely unwarranted. After reviewing my past writings, I realize that the fault for this misunderstanding lies with me, since I haven't done a very good job of articulating exactly what my position is.

This, my friends, is the harsh reality, so pay very close attention: the fact that 'Peak Oil' is an entirely manufactured construct does not mean that the doomsday scenarios painted by the 'Peak' crowd will therefore not become our new reality. This is not just another scam to further pad the pockets of the oil industry and other financial elites. The stakes are much higher than that. Much higher.

In order to clarify my position on 'Peak Oil,' it would be instructive to briefly review the areas of agreement, and the areas of disagreement, that I have with those who are selling the scam.

The Peakers claim that 'Peak Oil' is the single most important issue that we are facing today. I agree with that assessment (but not because 'Peak Oil' is a valid concept).

The Peakers claim that much of America's military might has been directed in recent years at conquering the key oil and gas producing regions of the world. And that is obviously quite true. Central Asia and Iraq have been seized, Venezuela has suffered through constant meddling by the CIA, the Sudan has been targeted for a future assault, and Saudi Arabia and Iran have been subjected to saber rattling.

But the Peakers also claim that these military ventures have been motivated by America's desire to seize what will soon be the last drops of the world's precious reserves of oil -- and that is entirely untrue.

The Peakers claim that we will very soon be facing a world where chaos reigns supreme -- a world of war, famine and death on a scale unknown in recorded human history. And that does, in fact, appear to be the case. And we're not talking about the distant future here, folks; we're talking about the very near future.

But the Peakers also claim that this global "die off" will be a regrettable, but quite natural, and entirely unavoidable, consequence of the world's oil taps running dry. And that is the really big lie. That is the lie that will very soon be used to rationalize the killing off of hundreds of millions, possibly billions, of the world's people. There are, you see, simply too many people in the world who, by merely being alive, are standing in the way of the aspirations of the global elite.

The people that the 'Peak Oil' pitchmen are fronting for are deadly serious about selling 'Peak Oil' to the masses -- and not just in theoretical terms, as a cynical ploy to raise prices and increase profits. No, it has become clear that the real goal is to actually cut off most of the world's oil supplies under the ruse that the oil simply no longer exists. The desired result is massive social unrest, widespread famine, and endless war. The majority of the world's people will not survive. Those that do will find themselves living under the overtly authoritarian form of rule that will quickly be deemed necessary to restore order. And if you think that we here in America are exempt, you are sadly mistaken.

In order to pull off this stunt, all the world's major oil producing regions must be solidly under the control of the U.S. and it's co-conspirators, otherwise known as 'allies.' In other words, the puppet-masters have to control all the major oil taps, so that they have complete control over the flow of oil -- or lack of it. And that, in a nutshell, is the real reason for America's recent military ventures. The goal, you see, is not to steal Iraq's oil, or the oil in the 'Stans, or in the Sudan, or in Venezuela, or anywhere else. We don't want to take their oil, because the truth is that we don't really need it ( http://www.oilandgasreporter.com/stories/090101/cov_opinions.shtml). What we want to do is sit on the taps so no one else can get to the oil.
In order to carry out the 'Peak Oil' agenda, the powers-that-be need to have all the major oil producers on board. Some of them have been on board all along. Some have to be recruited through military force (Iraq, for example). Some will be compelled to join the team through covert operations (e.g., Venezuela). And some are being brought on board through threats, intimidation, and saber rattling.

The two most sought after recruits, of course, are Russia and Saudi Arabia, since they are the world's two top oil producing nations. As of this past April, Saudi Arabia apparently hadn't yet received the latest memos on 'Peak.' Much to the consternation of Ruppert and his handlers, Saudi officials announced on April 28 that the Kingdom's estimate of recoverable reserves had nearly quintupled! (The article below says "tripled," but the math isn't that hard to do.)


Saudi Oil Is Secure and Plentiful, Say Officials
Tim Kennedy, Arab News
 link to www.arabnews.com

Note that the oil reserves claimed by Saudi Arabia alone (1.2 trillion barrels) exceed what the Peakers claim are the total recoverable oil reserves for the entire planet. Let's pause here for a minute and think about the significance of that: one tiny patch of land, accounting for less than than 1/2 of 1% of the earth's total surface area, potentially contains more oil that the 'Peak' pitchmen claim the entire planet has to offer! Is there not something clearly wrong with this picture?


Needless to say, that sort of candor by the Saudis could put a serious crimp in Washington's plans to sell the 'Peak Oil' scam. Perhaps that is why, just three days after that announcement, the Saudi oil industry was attacked by some of those terr'ists. Not to be deterred, however, Saudi officials announced three weeks later, on May 21, that the Kingdom still intended to dramatically increase its petroleum output. And a week after that, on May 29, those crafty terr'ists launched yet another brazen attack on the Saudi oil industry. Shit happens, I guess.


At that very same time, and in the months that followed, the U.S. was sending clear signals that it would not hesitate to set its military dogs loose on the Kingdom if necessary. Michael Moore's "the Saudis are the real enemy" movie, for example, splashed across America's screens. Various voices involved in both the official and unofficial 9-11 investigations were pointing the finger toward the Saudis as well. The message couldn't have been clearer: "we can easily drum up public support for 'regime change' if you won't play ball." The Saudis, it would appear, have now fallen in line.

The real problem with the Saudi crude, as near as I can determine, is that the Saudis and the 'Peakers' have entirely different ideas about what the price of crude oil should be. At the time of the attacks in Saudi Arabia, it was hovering at about $40.00/barrel, and is now at about $50.00/barrel. The Saudis would like to bring it down to $25.00/barrel. And the 'Peakers' would like to see it raised to - are you ready for this? - a whopping $182.00/barrel -- which would, quite obviously, place oil out of reach for the vast majority of the world's people.
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3777413.stm)

The $182.00/barrel figure was provided by Matthew Simmons to a BBC reporter at the 'Peak Oil' conference held earlier this year in Berlin. According to Simmons, "Oil is far too cheap at the moment ... we need to price oil realistically to control its demand." Simmons is described in the BBC article as "an energy investment banker and adviser to the controversial Bush-Cheney energy plan." He is, in other words, a perfectly credible source -- if we choose to overlook the fact that everyone connected to the Bush-Cheney team reeks of corruption and outrageous lies.

Nevertheless, the Peakers just adore Mr. Simmons, who was described by Michael Ruppert as "the de facto star of the [Peak Oil conference]." 'Peak Oil' pitchmen just love to quote Simmons, says Ruppert, "because his voice is refreshing."
( http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/062104_berlin_peak.html)

Simmons is a member of ASPO (Association for the Study of Peak Oil), founded and led by 'Peak Oil' guru Colin Campbell and promoted relentlessly by Michael Ruppert, who boasts of having "a great many friends in ASPO." According to the BBC, ASPO includes in its ranks "a diverse range of oil industry insiders," including a good number of "oil executives" and "investment bankers." Just the sort of salesmen we should trust, in other words, when shopping for a suitably apocalyptic future.

And make no mistake about it: the future that has been scripted by the architects of 'Peak Oil' is not going to be pretty. Massive population reduction has always been a key component of the 'Peak Oil' agenda. Ruppert first acknowledged that fact in an e-mail to this website in March of this year. This is what he wrote at that time:



I advocate an immediate convening of political, economic, spiritual and scientific leaders from all nations to address the issue of Peak Oil (and Gas) and its immediate implications for economic collapse, massive famine and climate destruction (partially as a result of reversion to coal plants which accelerate global warming). This would, scientifically speaking, include immediate steps to arrive at a crash program - agreed to by all nations and in accordance with the highest spiritual and ethical principles - to stop global population growth and to arrive at the best possible and most ethical program of population reduction as a painful choice made by all of humanity.


At that time, I accused Ruppert of advocating a eugenics program, and I was, not surprisingly, harshly criticized by the Ruppertians for doing so. Numerous members of the cult of 'Peak Oil' sent e-mail accusing me of "putting word's in Ruppert's mouth." But more recently, while addressing the Commonwealth Club (which apparently just began extending invitations to dissident journalists; who knew?), Ruppert put the words in his own mouth when he quoted approvingly from a eugenics tome penned in 1952 by Charles Galton Darwin. Darwin was, for the record, a rather notorious figure in the American eugenics movement, as were other Darwins and Galtons before him. Are we supposed to believe that there was no significance to the fact that Ruppert referenced a noted eugenicist while addressing such a distinguished audience?
(www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/Commonwealth.pdf)

In a previous newsletter, I reported that Ruppert had briefly addressed the issue of population reduction during the speech that he delivered at this year's 9-11 conference in San Francisco. Since then, I have had the opportunity to review an audiotape of Ruppert's entire 'Peak Oil' presentation at the event. Here is a complete (enough) transcript of that presentation:

Look, let's talk about Peak Oil quick, and [sounding clearly irritated] I'm really tired of the debate. I'm really tired of "there's no proof; there's no evidence." I'm not gonna take time to go through this, but if we talk about Peak Oil real quickly, who's been talking about it?

[Ruppert then ran through a lengthy list of mainstream media and trade journal articles. The presentation went something like this: "Foreign Affairs Magazine, yadda, yadda, yadda, James Kenneth Galbraith, yadda, yadda, yadda, Sunday Herald, yadda, yadda, yadda, Los Angeles Times, yadda, yadda, yadda." Several derisive comments were added about these sources not being "conspiracy rags." Ruppert then read lengthy and unsubstantiated excerpts from the writings of both Galbraith and Dale Pfeiffer, before closing with the following.]

Now the question is: do we want to do it nice or do we want to do it nasty? The world has chosen to embark on a path that is the worst Nazi nightmare ever seen. It will be bloody, it will be violent, it will involve population reduction by the most brutal, venal, underhanded methods. So ultimately what I have to say to you is that, as I look at this, and as I've studied this, and as I've worked for 26 years to unravel this -- this covert mechanism that governs our lives, I'm firmly convinced that what we are now faced with is a choice offered to us by our creator: either evolve or perish. Thank you. Thank you.

So what is Ruppert telling us here ... other than that "our creator" is now apparently now demanding that we evolve?
What exactly is this "world" of which he speaks -- this "world [that] has chosen to embark on a path that is the worst Nazi nightmare ever seen"? I don't think that it is the people of planet Earth that have collectively chosen to take this path. And I doubt that it is the planet itself that has chosen this path. Isn't it really the case that this path was forced upon the world by the global elite and their paid stooges?

Is Ruppert telling us that we are all facing a violent, bloody death, so we might as well start taking care of the job ourselves -- in a less "nasty" and more, uhmm, "nice" manner? Are those the only two options available? Why is a "bloody," "brutal," "violent" and "venal" future taken as a given? To be sure, we are certainly heading in that direction, but we needn't necessarily continue to do so, unless we blindly accept the manufactured reality as an objective, and inevitable, reality. Of course, Ruppert and his fellow 'Peakers' seem to be working very hard to guarantee the arrival of that "Nazi nightmare" future.

The truth is that such a future awaits us only if the claims of the 'Peakers' are true, or, more importantly, if we allow ourselves to be convinced that the claims are true when they most certainly are not. It is vitally important, therefore, that the people of the world be given the opportunity to thoroughly review all sides of this issue. After all, if the Peakers are right, then all of our lives are very much on the line. And yet, strangely enough, the majority of the Ruppertians who have chosen to spew their bile into my mailbox have made it quite clear that they have no desire to read any opposing points of view.
Could it be any more obvious that these people have no interest in ascertaining the truth?


Just this week, Ruppert discretely added a new article to his website, which he posted "on an unpublished URL at the FTW web site" -- guaranteeing that none of his readers will ever know it is there, unless they learn of it elsewhere. Asked to explain his previous comments on population reduction, Ruppert does not deny that he advocates some type of forced depopulation program; he only denies having a specific program in mind:


I have no list of people who should be in charge of this. Everyone should have a say. I have suggested that such an endeavor might best include people of more humane vocations than those of the economists, politicians, and financiers who are currently in charge of most domestic and international institutions. I have never said anywhere that there was a specific group of organizations or people who should run this. I have listed philosophies and disciplines that ought to be included in an effort to avoid the sort of draconian disaster that now seems likely.
( http://www.fromthewilderness.com/10questions.shtml)


I wonder why it is that Ruppert continues to shelter his readers from this aspect of the 'Peak Oil' gameplan? If this is such an important issue, and if we should all have a voice in the 'debate,' as Ruppert has claimed, then why has he not brought the issue to the forefront? Why has he chosen instead to leak it in a limited way? Ruppert claims that, in order to be "ethical in the face of an inevitable disaster, the entire human community will have to share useful information as equably as is humanly possible." Why then is Ruppert not sharing this most important of information?


We turn now to a disturbing new post on the FTW website, which Ruppert has modestly titled "WE DID IT!" Before even getting to the actual text of the piece, we already know, just from the article's lengthy subtitle, that Ruppert is taking another stroll into Bizarro World. With equal parts bombast, ignorance, and unintentional irony, he actually refers to his critics as "Flat-Earth, Abiotic Oil Advocates." This is a guy, it will be recalled, whose mission in life is to relentlessly promote a scam predicated on a unproven, 250-year-old theory, while blithely ignoring an unchallenged body of modern scientific research -- and yet he dismisses the other side as Flat Earthers! ( http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100404_we_did_it.shtml)


The full subtitle of the post is "World's Seven Largest Economies Admit They Have No Idea How Much Oil Is Left - Issue Emergency Call for Transparency at DC Summit: A Challenge to the Flat-Earth, Abiotic Oil Advocates and Cornucopian Economists - It's Now or Never."


Ruppert begins by re-posting a Reuters report:


Group of Seven finance ministers and central bankers met at the tightly guarded U.S. Treasury building over lunch and were to work through the afternoon before a dinner with Chinese counterparts that has currency reform on the menu.

The officials will set out their world-view at about 5:45 p.m. EDT (2145 GMT) in a communiqué sources said would include a call to bolster oil-market monitoring to make it easier to discern if scarce supply, hefty demand or market speculation lay behind crude's drive to record levels ...

The G7 gathering comes ahead of weekend meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank...

Ministers are seeking energy market transparency to discover if world oil supplies may be scantier than they thought in May when they urged producers to open the spigots...

Another G7 official suggested the rise in oil costs was rooted in such fundamental factors as over-estimated supplies and was not solely due to speculation.

There is "a recognition that oil resources are scarcer than was thought a few years ago," the official said. "We agree there is a need for more transparency on the potential supply of various areas."


Ruppert next segues into a rant of his own -- a rant that may some day be regarded as the quintessential Ruppert diatribe. In just a few short pages, he manages to squeeze in virtually all of his most acclaimed rhetorical flourishes, including:
~ the arrogant self-importance - "We were right and this can no longer be ignored. We did it."
~ the appearance of Mike the Martyr - "a group of dedicated men and women, recognized as being in the forefront of the movement to place Peak Oil front-and-center on the world's agenda, have endured intense resistance ... I hope I speak for all of us when I say that whatever we have endured, it was worth it."
~ the bombastic challenges - "Show us the oil! People are dying now ... Put up or shut up."
~ the bizarre delusions of grandeur - "I do know that the world is paying very close attention to what I have written."
~ the deliberate misrepresentation of critic's arguments - "That's what these 'critics' argued would happen when the time came: there would be some magic switcheroo, and a new energy source would be unveiled."
~ and, the newest addition to his arsenal, the shameless hyping of his book - "This book may change the outcome of the election."

While Ruppert celebrates his 'victory,' perhaps the rest of us should pause here and consider exactly what it is that he is celebrating. Just months ago, Ruppert called for the leaders of the world to meet and discuss the implications of 'Peak Oil,' including the necessity of taking "immediate steps to arrive at a crash program" for depopulating the world. And now we have the global elite meeting behind closed doors to discuss the implications of a phantom oil shortage, and those elite are, Ruppert believes, "well into discussing 'options' which they don't want the rest of us to know about." At stake, Ruppert notes, is "everyone's chances for survival and, most importantly, the future of all the world's children."

And we are supposed to believe that this is somehow a positive development? I don't think so. To the contrary, it would appear that the call for 'transparency' is a signal that the puppeteers have control of enough of the global chessboard to begin implementing the 'Peak Oil' scam. They are not meeting behind closed doors to discuss how to contend with a global oil shortage; they are meeting behind closed doors to discuss how to manufacture a global oil shortage.

As I said earlier in this post, these people are deadly serious about staging this apocalyptic scenario. And the stakes, for all of us, are very high. Consider that, for many years now, concerted efforts have been made to program our children to passively accept death as a mundane, routine occurrence. Do not make the mistake of assuming that that is a phenomenon unrelated to the 'Peak Oil' agenda.

Television, movies, and video games dwell relentlessly on death, frequently violent death. Each and every year, the volume and intensity of such propaganda is cranked up higher and higher. By the time our kids reach adulthood, they have processed through their malleable minds thousands of graphic images of death. Many of those deaths they may even have caused themselves, as operators of graphically violent "first person" computer and video games.

The next in the series of "Harry Potter" books - promoted endlessly as the best thing to happen to children's books since Dr. Seuss - will reportedly feature the death of one of the beloved characters. One of the new features of the latest version of the wildly popular "Simms" computer game is that the virtual characters that our children create to populate their virtual worlds will now die virtual deaths.

Our high schools for some time now have offered students "death education." The Citizens Commission on Human Rights has noted that, "For decades, schools around the world have used 'death education,' a psychological experiment in which the children are made to discuss suicide, what they would like placed in their coffins, and write their own epitaphs in an effort to 'get kids more comfortable with death.'"
( http://www.cchr.org/topics/educators/violence/)

Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld writes that "Death education has been a part of the progressive curriculum in virtually every public school in America for at least the last fifteen years. Yet no one in the establishment, let alone the U.S. Department of Education, has sought to find out what death education is doing to the minds and souls of the millions of children who are subjected to it. But we do have plenty of anecdotal information on hand."
( http://www.ritalindeath.com/blumenfeld31.htm)

Why are our children being conditioned to accept death? How thorough will this depopulation program be? How long will it take to shatter all remaining social bonds -- to instill in the masses an "every man for himself" mind set? How quickly will we collectively descend into barbarism? If the masters of our collective illusion can convince us that we live in a "kill or be killed" world, how much of the dirty work of depopulation can they get us to do ourselves? What would we all do to stay alive in a high stakes game of global Survivor?

The architects of 'Peak Oil' hope to find out soon.

 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr70.html
*****
* * * * * * * * * *


I happened upon an interesting post the other day entitled "The End of Fossil Fuels," written by Thomas J. Brown in 1998. It seems that Mr. Brown was ahead of the curve in catching on to the 'fossil fuel' myth, because, as it turns out, the title of his article refers not to the purported end of the oil era, but rather to his "attempt to describe the inadequacy of the term 'fossil fuel' and to prevent its further usage in the English language through education in the mysteries of the hydrocarbon structures in the earth."

good report with revealing satellite imagery; @
( http://www.borderlands.com/archives/arch/endfos.html)


There is much of interest in Brown's must-read missive, but what I would like to focus on here is the graphic to the left -- a composite map of Indonesia. What can be seen quite clearly in Brown's graphic is that oil and gas fields, as well as oil and gas seeps, follow a well defined arc that is also, strangely enough, marked by persistent earthquake and volcanic activity.

Being the naturally curious sort of guy that I am, and being also a native Californian, I thought it might be interesting to see if this same correlation holds true on my own home turf, so I did a little searching on the Internet and came up with two maps of the state of California -- one depicting the state's oil and gas fields and seeps, and the other depicting the location of the notorious San Andreas Fault. And - lo and behold - it turns out that pretty much the entire length of the San Andreas Fault, site of countless earthquakes, is marked by oil and gas seeps. And along both sides of the fault lie enormous oil and gas fields.


Weird, isn't it? I mean, you wouldn't expect 'fossil fuel' deposits to have any correlation with tectonic plate activity, would you?





What are we to make of this? You don't need an advanced degree in geology to draw the conclusion that earthquakes and volcanic activity both appear to be manifestations of the pressures created by the buildup of abiotic hydrocarbons generated in, and rising from, the earth's mantle. In other words, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are natural relief valves that operate when oil and gas seeps alone are not enough to ease the constantly building pressure. You could say, I suppose, that earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are just planet Earth's way of passing gas.

Speaking of oil and gas seeps, I was admiring the new, and very cool, National Geographic "Earth at Night" composite satellite photo the other day, and I couldn't help but notice that in addition to the bright white lights of sprawling urban centers, there are also a number of bright red lights visible. According to the photo legend, the red lights represent natural gas burn-off: "A lot of valuable fuel is going up in smoke. More than 100 billion cubic meters of natural gas (a by-product of petroleum extraction) are burned off annually, enough to power both France and Germany for a year. Why the waste? Some countries find the gas too challenging and expensive to transport long distances to population centers. Nigeria alone emits up to 20 percent of the world's flares, which add to atmospheric pollution."

So it seems that in addition to the tens of millions of tons of coal that are burned off every year in underground coal fires (as discussed in Newsletter #64), and the massive amounts of oil and gas that seep out every year into the planets land, air and water, more than 100 billion cubic meters of natural gas are burned off every year. As previously discussed, much of this activity has been occurring for hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of years. If you do the math on that you will probably find that the numbers don't jibe with a theory that postulates that oil, gas and coal are all 'fossil fuels' deposited in finite quantities at a specific time in the earth's history.

Notice, by the way, that the natural gas flares in Nigeria are overshadowed by the natural gas flares around the Persian Gulf, which in turn pale in comparison to the natural gas flares up in a place called Russia. Apparently, there is a lot of petroleum extraction going on up there. Maybe they're on to something with that nutty abiotic oil theory.

Returning to the oil and gas field map of California, notice that about 2/3 of the way down the state, at the south end of the San Joaquin Valley, lies a large concentration of oil fields. That happens to be, as it turns out, the area around Bakersfield, California -- site of the notorious Shell refinery discussed in a previous newsletter. The Bakersfield area's vast oil fields can be seen in more detail on the oil field map below (which you can click on for an even more detailed version).

The Shell refinery was back in the news in September, when the company was working diligently to sabotage any potential sale of the facility: "Several buyers are interested in Shell Oil Co.'s Bakersfield refinery, but an acquisition could be thwarted by the company's refusal to sell on-site storage tanks, pipelines and other key parts of the facility, according to people familiar with the situation ... Shell first decided to shutter the refinery without trying to sell it and then, under pressure from state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer and others, earlier this year began to entertain offers. The company warned at the time that it intended to keep the refinery's crude oil contracts, reducing the pool of possible buyers to those that could secure a new source of oil for the landlocked facility. Now, according to the people close to the negotiations with potential purchasers, Shell has put up the additional roadblocks. It has offered to lease the storage tanks and pipelines to a buyer but 'at extraordinarily high rates,' one source said. This source called the situation 'pretty much unprecedented in a refinery transaction.'"
(Elizabeth Douglas "New Obstacles to Refinery Deal," Los Angeles Times, September 15, 2004)

 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr71.html
*****
There has not been enough true "formerly living matter" through all of creation to account for the volume of petroleum that has been consumed to date
 link to www.the7thfire.com
*****
Several readers have written to me, incidentally, with a variation of the following question: "How can you say that Peak Oil is being promoted to sell war when all of the websites promoting the notion of Peak Oil are stridently anti-war?"

But of course they are. That, you see, is precisely the point. What I was trying to say is that the notion of 'Peak Oil' is being specifically marketed to the anti-war crowd -- because, as we all know, the pro-war crowd doesn't need to be fed any additional justifications for going to war; any of the old lies will do just fine. And I never said that the necessity of war was being overtly sold. What I said, if I remember correctly, is that it is being sold with a wink and a nudge.

The point that I was trying to make is that it would be difficult to imagine a better way to implicitly sell the necessity of war, even while appearing to stake out a position against war, than through the promotion of the concept of 'Peak Oil.' After September 11, 2001, someone famously said that if Osama bin Laden didn't exist, the US would have had to invent him. I think the same could be said for 'Peak Oil.'
*****

I also need to mention here that those who are selling 'Peak Oil' hysteria aren't offering much in the way of alternatives, or solutions. Ruppert, for example, has stated flatly that "there is no effective replacement for what hydrocarbon energy provides today."

The message is quite clear: "we're running out of oil soon; there is no alternative; we're all screwed." And this isn't, mind you, just an energy problem; as Ruppert has correctly noted, "Almost every current human endeavor from transportation, to manufacturing, to plastics, and especially food production is inextricably intertwined with oil and natural gas supplies."
 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/

If we run out of oil, in other words, our entire way of life will come crashing down. One of Ruppert's "unimpeachable sources," Colin Campbell, describes an apocalyptic future, just around the corner, that will be characterized by "war, starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens."

My question is: if Ruppert is not selling the necessity of war, then exactly what is the message that he is sending to readers with such doomsday forecasts? At the end of a recent posting, Ruppert quotes dialogue from the 1975 Sidney Pollack film, Three Days of the Condor:

Higgins: ...It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In 10 or 15 years - food, Plutonium. And maybe even sooner. Now what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then? Turner: Ask them. Higgins: Not now - then. Ask them when they're running out. Ask them when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask them when their engines stop. Ask them when people who've never known hunger start going hungry. Do you want to know something? They won't want us to ask them. They'll just want us to get it for them.
The message there seems pretty clear: once the people understand what is at stake, they will support whatever is deemed necessary to secure the world's oil supplies. And what is it that Ruppert is accomplishing with his persistent 'Peak Oil' postings? He is helping his readers to understand what is allegedly at stake.
Elsewhere on his site, Ruppert warns that "Different regions of the world peak in oil production at different times ... the OPEC nations of the Middle East peak last. Within a few years, they -- or whoever controls them -- will be in effective control of the world economy, and, in essence, of human civilization as a whole."


Within a few years, the Middle East will be in control of all of human civilization?! Try as I might, I can't imagine any claim that would more effectively rally support for a U.S. takeover of the Middle East. The effect of such outlandish claims is to cast the present war as a war of necessity. Indeed, a BBC report posted on Ruppert's site explicitly endorses that notion: "It's not greed that's driving big oil companies - it's survival."
 http://www.fromthewilderness.com
Ruppert's arguments range from the vaguely compelling to the downright bizarre. One argument that pops up repeatedly is exemplified by this Ruppert-penned line: "One of the biggest signs of the reality of Peak Oil over the last two decades has been a continual pattern of merger-acquisition-downsizing throughout the industry."


Really? And is that pattern somehow unique to the petroleum industry? Or is it a pattern that has been followed by just about every major industry? Is the consolidation of the supermarket industry a sign of the reality of Peak Groceries? And with consolidation of the media industry, should we be concerned about Peak News? Or should we, perhaps, recognize that a pattern of monopoly control - characterized by mergers, acquisitions, and downsizing - represents nothing more than business as usual throughout the corporate world?


Another telling sign of 'Peak Oil,' according to Ruppert and Co., is sudden price hikes on gas and oil. Of course, that would be a somewhat more compelling argument if the oil cartels did not have a decades-long history of constantly feigning shortages to foist sudden price increases on consumers (usually just before peak travel periods). Contrary to the argument that appears on Ruppert's site, it is not need that is driving the oil industry, it is greed.


In what is undoubtedly the most bizarre posting that Ruppert offers in support of his theory, he ponders whether dialogue from an obscure 1965 television series indicates that the CIA knew as far back as the 1960s about the coming onset of 'Peak Oil.' ( http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/042003_secret_agent_man.html)

Even if that little factoid came from a more, uhmm, credible source, what would the significance be? Hasn't the conventional wisdom been, for many decades, that oil is a 'fossil fuel,' and therefore a finite, non-renewable resource? Since when has it been an intelligence community secret that a finite resource will someday run out?


A few readers raised that very issue in questioning my recent 'Peak Oil' rants. "Even if we are not now in the era of Peak Oil," the argument generally goes, "then surely we will be soon. After all, it is inevitable." And conventional wisdom dictates that it is, indeed, inevitable. But if this website has one overriding purpose, it is to question conventional wisdom whenever possible.


There is no shortage of authoritatively stated figures on the From the Wilderness website: billions of barrels of oil discovered to date; billions of barrels of oil produced to date; billions of barrels of oil in known reserves; billions of barrels of oil consumed annually. Yadda, yadda, yadda. My favorite figure is the one labeled, in one posting, "Yet-to-Find." That figure, 150 billion barrels (a relative pittance), is supposed to represent the precise volume of conventional oil in all the unknown number of oil fields of unknown size that haven't been discovered yet. Ruppert himself has written, with a cocksure swagger, that "there are no more significant quantities of oil to be discovered anywhere ..." ( http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/013004_in_your_face.html) A rather bold statement, to say the least, considering that it would seem to be impossible for a mere mortal to know such a thing.


Ruppert's figures certainly paint a scary picture: rapid oil consumption + diminishing oil reserves + no new discoveries = no more oil. And sooner, rather than later. But is the 'Peak Oil' argument really valid? It seems logical -- a non-renewable resource consumed with a vengeance obviously can't last for long. The only flaw in the argument, I suppose, would be if oil wasn't really a 'fossil fuel,' and if it wasn't really a non-renewable resource.


"Conventional wisdom says the world's supply of oil is finite, and that it was deposited in horizontal reservoirs near the surface in a process that took millions of years." So said the Wall Street Journal in April 1999 (Christopher Cooper "Odd Reservoir Off Louisiana Prods Oil Experts to Seek a Deeper Meaning," Wall Street Journal, April 16, 1999). It therefore logically follows that conventional wisdom also says that oil will reach a production peak, and then ultimately run out.
( http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm)

As I said a few paragraphs ago, the purpose of this website is to question conventional wisdom -- by acquainting readers with stories that the media overlook, and with viewpoints that are not allowed in the mainstream. It was my understanding that From the Wilderness, and other 'alternative' websites, had a similar goal.

But is 'Peak Oil' really some suppressed, taboo topic? If it is, then why, as I sit here typing this, with today's (March 7, 2004) edition of the Los Angeles Times atop my desk, are the words "Running Out of Oil -- and Time" staring me in the face from the front page of the widely read Sunday Opinion section? The lengthy piece, penned by Paul Roberts, is replete with dire warnings of the coming crisis. Save for the fact that the words 'Peak Oil' are not routinely capitalized, it could easily pass for a From the Wilderness posting.
( link to www.latimes.com)

The Times also informed readers that Roberts has a new book due out in May, entitled The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World. Scary stuff. Beating Robert's book to the stores will be Colin Campbell's The Coming Oil Crisis, due in April. Both titles will have to compete for shelf space with titles such as Richard Heinberg's The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies, published April of last year; David Goodstein's Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil, which just hit the shelves last month; and Kenneth Deffeyes' Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage, published October 2001. The field is getting a bit crowded, but sales over at Amazon.com remain strong for most of the contenders.

The wholesale promotion of 'Peak Oil' seems to have taken off immediately after the September 11, 2001 'terrorist' attacks, and it is now really starting to pick up some steam.

The BBC covered the big story last April ( http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/040403_oil_war_bbc.html).

CNN covered it in October ( http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100203_cnn_peak_oil.html).

The Guardian covered it in December ( http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/120303_bottom_barrel.html).

Now the Los Angeles Times has joined the chorus.

I guess the cat is pretty much out of the bag on this one. Everyone can cancel their subscriptions to From the Wilderness and pocket the $35 a year, since you can read the very same bullshit for free in the pages of the Los Angeles Times.

 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr52.html

*****

DECEPTION,DISDAIN & DISREGARD FOP SOUND ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE PROTOCOLS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED IN THIS EXCHANGE, really blow their own cover
 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr53.html
*****
~I was a little worried that those in the Ruppert camp would be smart enough to not respond to my last newsletter. Those worries were quickly put to rest, however, as it took less than 24 hours for me to receive an ill considered, vitriolic response

~You continue to insult the intelligence of a great number of individuals who possess far more expertise on energy and covert operations than I believe you have.

~Do you really know what you're talking about?

~laughably ignorant

~profoundly ignorant question.

~extremely dim bulb

~utterly idiotic

~except in the limited minds of some.

~Here is where your ignorance, inaccuracy, and bias spill over.

~ignorance

~I have let you slide on a number of comments in your rant, but you have stepped way over the line by accusing me of "misusing the Internet to smear the reputations of well-intentioned and courageous advocates." Who are you to accuse me of "misusing the Internet"? As a matter of fact, who are you to accuse anyone of "misusing the Internet"? Where do you get the idea that you have a right to police the Internet? And what exactly is "misusing the Internet," Larry? Is it using the Internet to post opinions that challenge your own? Is that what it is, Larry?

~You people are very good at issuing confrontational challenges, but you aren't so good at sticking to the issue at hand. As a reminder, the thing that primarily needs to be proven is the 'fossil fuel' theory. Because without that, you got nothing. I hate to beat a dead horse here, but that proof has to be the first plank of your argument. You can try to argue around it all you want, but we're really not going to make much progress here if you insist on doing that.
*****
NEWSLETTER #54
March 18, 2004
Ruppert Responds!



The official response is now in from Michael Ruppert, and it is a doozy. Although Ruppert's missive is filled, as was Chin's, with juvenile insults, misrepresentations, and completely unfounded accusations, I will, out of respect for my readers (though certainly not for Ruppert, who has earned no measure of respect from me), make every effort to take the high road here (several of you have written to caution me not to let these people provoke me into losing my cool, and that seems to be sound advice).


I will first present Ruppert's formal reply in its entirety (another suggestion from some of you), so that readers can get the full flavor of how this man operates. In many ways, his missive requires no commentary from me, for he has done a fairly respectable job on his own of revealing what he is, how he operates, and what his agenda is. Nevertheless, there is much here that I cannot let pass without comment.


Here then, exactly as it was received, is Ruppert's formal response to my counter-proposal for a public debate. I have added only a bit of subtle emphasis, because I felt certain that Ruppert would want to ensure that one point in particular gets across loud and clear:


Mr. McGowan:
see Full piece @  http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr54.html
~so that readers can get the full flavor of how this man operates.
(excerpt)
1. Instead of advocating war I oppose it. Anyone who has attended any of my more than 35 lectures in eight countries (more than 15,000 live audience members) will know, of a certainty, that my position on solutions is absolutely clear. I advocate an immediate cessation of all military conquest and imperialism by the US government and industrialized powers; an end to the war on terror. I advocate an immediate convening of political, economic, spiritual and scientific leaders from all nations to address the issue of Peak Oil (and Gas) and its immediate implications for economic collapse, massive famine and climate destruction (partially as a result of reversion to coal plants which accelerate global warming). This would, scientifically speaking, include immediate steps to arrive at a crash program - agreed to by all nations and in accordance with the highest spiritual and ethical principles - to stop global population growth and to arrive at the best possible and most ethical program of population reduction as a painful choice made by all of humanity. It would also include arrival at a painful, but absolutely necessary, plan to implement a global program of "contraction and convergence" whereby consumption, rampant economic growth based on globalization, and corrupt economic practices is reversed in favor of a planned and executed program intended to reduce the size of a world economy which is inherently linked to the consumption of hydrocarbon energy. In stating this position I have made it clear that nothing of any real significance will be changed at all until a complete revision is made in the way money works -- on a global and local scale -- because it is financial activity and monetary policy which will dictate how any contingency plans are implemented and paid for.

this letter contains intimidation, unfounded accusations, insults, brazen misrepresentations, specious allegations-really is a diatribe exposing Ruppert's modus-operandi.
 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr54.html
*****
NEWSLETTER #55
March 19, 2004

Who Is Really Behind the 'Peak Oil' Scare?


energy, oil executives pushing this agenda
new economic policy controlled heavily by energy policy
 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr55.html
*****
NEWSLETTER #56
March 24, 2004
The Debate Continues (by proxy)


It seems to me that, in the final analysis, what the 'Peak Oil' crowd is selling looks very much like what the Bush administration is selling: control of popular opinion through fear. The methodology and the goals (justifying endless war and openly fascistic domestic policies) appear to be the same. The only difference that I can see is that Team Bush sells the agenda through fear of phantom terrorists, while Team 'Peak Oil' sells it through fear of a phantom apocalypse just over the horizon.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ramares: The Peak Oil proponents have both academic and industry connections. And what points Ruppert is making about where the idea comes from is irrelevant. What IS relevant is whether or not Peak Oil is real.


Me: I disagree. It is definitely relevant that he misrepresents where the idea is coming from. Why lie about something unimportant? I think the deception speaks directly to the issue of whether 'Peak Oil' is real. Why all the deception about the true origins of oil, and about who is behind the concept [of Peak Oil], and about the viability of alternative energy sources? There has to be a reason why the idea is being sold with so much deception.

[No further responses]
*****


These 'Peak Oil' enthusiasts seem to be so damn busy preparing for armageddon that they don't have any time to spare to review any opposing points of view. So now I am supposed to debunk decades of conventional wisdom in one paragraph? And do it without coming off sounding like a complete loon? I'm not really sure I could pull that one off. Next up is a lengthy missive from Nicholas Levis, webmaster of the 9-11 skeptics site Osama's Kidneys, and one of the organizers, along with Ruppert, of the San Francisco event.


Oh yes, I remember now. The deception surrounding the origins of oil is not random; rather, it serves a very specific purpose -- creating the impression that oil is a non-renewable, and therefore inherently scarce, resource. So if we are to acknowledge that we have been misled about oil being a non-renewable resource, why would we automatically assume that it is nevertheless still scarce?


Many have suggested that to prove 'Peak Oil' isn't real, it must be proven that replenishment rates exceed consumption rates. But how could this possibly be proven? How is it possible to ascertain the rate at which oil is generated and replenished when the only hard data comes from an industry that doesn't acknowledge that oil is generated at all?


All of the figures thrown around in the debate over 'Peak Oil' come from the petroleum industry. And all of those figures are based on the notion of oil as a static resource. Why is that? How do those figures have any credibility? How, for that matter, does the oil industry itself have any credibility? Aren't these the same folks, after all, who have worked hand-in-hand with the CIA for decades to destabilize foreign governments, commit egregious human rights violations, and brutally rape the environment? Or is that a different oil industry?


The one I am thinking of was created by a guy by the name of Rockefeller, I believe. A pretty powerful fellow, from what I hear, with a little bit of money to throw around and some friends in high places. He basically created the petroleum industry, and he held monopoly control of it for a pretty fair amount of time, according to legend. I mention that because it occurs to me that if you were to compose a list of people who might be powerful enough to create an entire global industry based on a fiction, the name Rockefeller would probably be very near the top of that list.


The petroleum industry is now, as it has always been, essentially an enormous, global criminal enterprise. Mr. Levis has acknowledged that that industry of "evil murderous cartel bastards" has "lied about shortages in the past to create crises." And yet now, when the stakes are considerably higher, he seems to suggest that we should accept the industry's pronouncements as the truth. I find such a stance difficult to understand.


How do we know that oil fields always, or usually, follow Hubbert's depletion curves? Don't we really only 'know' that in the same sense that we 'know' that oil was produced only during the Jurassic period by mysterious piles of compressed organic matter? And how do we know that known reserves are running as dangerously low as the industry claims?


It seems to me that it would not be necessary, in many cases, to drill new wells, but merely to uncap existing wells. And how could that not be a more cost-effective strategy than exploring for new sources of oil? Isn't that kind of like saying that it would be easier for me to dig a new hole in my backyard to toss the dogshit in than it is to simply lift the lid on the one that is already there? How does that make any sense?


Bissada said, in 1995, that it was "too expensive in the present economic climate." But how about now, in a climate of "Holy shit! We're all going to die!"? Is it still too expensive? Is it really conceivable that, if the situation were as dire as it has been presented as being, we wouldn't have taken such rudimentary measures as checking for the replenishment of abandoned wells?


But if there is considerably more available oil than we have been led to believe, then why, as many respondents have asked, do so many U.S. military ventures seem to revolve around oil? Reader Richard, as it happens, has a compelling answer to that question: "I think you should know about 'Resource Denial Theory.' It's a sub-section of Geopolitical Theory, so beloved of the Bushite and Zbigniew Brzezinski crowds, and states you must take control of areas where strategic resources are located - like oil - and prevent rivals from entering. Your power derives from the control of these resources."

In other words, it's not about seizing the resources that we need to survive; it's about denying our 'enemies' the resources that they need to survive. And that, to me, seems a more reasonable explanation for what we are witnessing than the one being marketed by the 'Peak Oil' crowd..
*****


Finally, we have reader Jim, who observed that: "This also explains the obvious inconsistency that petroleum corporations are investing so little into alternative energy, even as the 'peak oil' story hits the mainstream press." There are, to be sure, a number of questions raised by that seeming contradiction, as there are by Mr. Ruppert's contention that the oil industry is cutting back on exploration and new drilling.


We are hearing doomsday predictions of the demise of man. Human civilization as we know it is in its final hours. And we have, apparently, simply thrown up our hands in despair. Why bother looking for new sources of petroleum? Why bother double checking old sources of petroleum? Why bother giving any consideration to any alternative sources of energy? Why bother doing anything at all?


Clearly, there is something very, very wrong with this picture.


[Check here for details about an AAPG sponsored conference on the origins of petroleum to be held this July in Vienna, Austria:  http://www.aapg.org/education/hedberg/vienna/index.html]

Mr. Ruppert,


There is quite a bit of ground to cover here, so it is difficult to know where to begin. One thing, however, really seemed to jump out at me, so I suppose we should begin there. Obviously, I was mistaken when I said that you offered little in the way of solutions. I stand corrected. Thank you very much for clarifying that. And thanks for removing any doubt about what your true agenda is. I am sure that many readers will appreciate that.

I believe very strongly that you need to get that message out there more prominently. It appears that some of your readers aren't getting it. I believe that to be the case because one of them just wrote to me with the following comments: "Thank you so much for the 'peak oil' rant. I subscribed to FTW for one year and never could get a line on what he's saying." The reader (thanks, Joan!) explained that she got the 'we're running out of oil' concept, and she understood the 'there are no alternatives' part, but she didn't really understand what comes next. The problem, clearly, is that she did not pick up on the program of "ethical" population reduction.


You really need to pound away at that one. Why do you limit such critical information to just the 15,000 people in eight countries that have attended the lectures that you never tire of mentioning? Why not splash it across your home page in bold print? Or better yet, you might consider renaming your website The Center for the Study of Ethical Population Reduction - or something along those lines.

Before we move on, I have a few quick questions that maybe you can answer for me, when you can find the time: do you have a specific eugenics program in mind at this time, or are you still working out the details? Do you think we should start with all the non-white people? Will getting rid of the non-white people be enough, or will some of 'us' have to go as well? What exactly is your target population level? What do you think the criteria will be? My driver's license says that I have blond hair and blue eyes, but I am still wondering: is there anything more that I can do to increase the chances that I will be a 'keeper'? And one last question: have you considered showing true leadership in these troubled times by becoming the first person to volunteer for euthanasia? If we have to thin the herd here, Mike, I think you are missing a golden opportunity to set an example for your flock.

 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr54.html

*****

 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr56.html

*****

It is important to remember here, dear readers, that all of this - all the duplicity, all the vitriol, all the slander and libel, all the attempted character assassinations (not just in this newsletter, but in #53, #54, and #56 as well) - has come about because of just a single posting that I put up on my website some three weeks ago. And that posting was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a personal attack on anyone. It was simply a challenge to the notion that petroleum is a 'fossil fuel.'

I have already posed a series of questions for the 'Peak Oil' crowd, all of them pertaining to the deception employed to sell the concept: Why are we being deceived about the true origins of oil and gas? Why are we being deceived about who is really behind the notion of 'Peak Oil'? And why are we being deceived about the viability of various alternative energy sources?

To those questions I now need to add another, equally important, question: Why is such a concerted effort being made to silence and discredit anyone who challenges the 'Peak Oil' theory?

I will be patiently awaiting answers to those questions from the 'Peak Oil' Team. And I will be patiently awaiting my invitation to speak at the second part of the 9-11 conference, to be held in Toronto.

more evidence of refuse to debate and instead obfuscate and attack @

 http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr57.html

*****



PETROLEUM PEAK?
A Lesson In Unlearning


The now deceased Catholic spiritualist, Fr. Anthony DeMello, described three acts that human beings find particularly challenging. In no special order they are; to include the excluded; to turn the other cheek and to admit when we are wrong. The inability to exercise these options comes from an over-developed ego deeply entrenched in its illusions. If one is to be an unlearner, one must readily embrace the errors he or she is bound to make on the road to truth. In the case of Peak Oil, it is quite possible that this editor has been wrong.

Many of this website's frequent visitors have no doubt noticed that I have written on the subject of Peak Oil in quite a few of my pieces. To those still unfamiliar with the concept, Peak Oil describes the geo-political situation of dwindling oil reserves, thought to be an event occurring decades from now but touted by some researchers and oil industry officials as a present day reality. In the light of Peak Oil, researchers such as Mike Ruppert of From the Wilderness (www.copvcia.com) make a strong case that today's War on Terror is a smokescreen for a worldwide grab of oil reserves in the last gasping breaths of petroleum-based power brokers.

This message has been successfully broadcast throughout the globe. Present at all the anti-war marches are usually signs that amplify the sentiment, "No blood for oil!" Even if people don't understand the particulars of Peak Oil, it is not hard to observe the connection that oil is playing in international politics at the moment. If Peak Oil is indeed a present reality, then the dire forecasts of global war, famine, and the literal breakdown of modern human civilization are likely to occur within this decade and carry into the next. What the world will look like on the other side of these events is left to anyone's guess. The cockroaches will be happy at least.

But what if the Peak Oil predictions are not correct? How can they not be? Isn't oil a "fossil fuel"... a "non-renewable" resource? As it turns out, the assumptions of American and British science may be grossly incorrect.

At the heart of this important debate is the work of scientists in Russia and the Ukraine, which has been strongly advanced since its official birth in 1951. Trapped in a containment policy by the Western Powers during the Cold War, the Soviet Union realized that it was cut off from much of the world's oil reserves. It therefore turned its brightest minds onto the question of petroleum production.

The belief that petroleum was a fossil fuel, therefore biological in its origin, was first advanced in the 18th century. Within fifty years, however, leading scientists in Germany and France had attacked the theory of petroleum's biological roots. It was not seriously challenged again until the Soviet scientists thoroughly crushed the idea by the 1960's. Despite these efforts, the theory remains powerfully in place in the West and petroleum is still largely regarded as a non-renewable resource.

What the modern Russian and Ukrainian scientists have extensively proven is that petroleum is abiotic, meaning that it is not derived from long decayed biological matter. While the Soviet Union did not survive long enough to see the physical benefits of this theory, modern Russia certainly has. It has been reported in several sources this year that Russia has become the world's leading producer and exporter of oil. This achievement has brought Russia from the brink of collapse at the end of the Cold War to the brink of being a superpower yet again.

The implications of this science are simply staggering. Not only will the already existing oil fields one day fill up again, but new oil reserves can be found simply by digging deeper into the earth. The Russian and Ukrainian scientists have reported that the world is not running out of oil as much as we are running into it. (www.gasresources.net)

Critics of abiotic oil in the West say the science is unfounded and that deep drilling is too costly. To the charge of abiotic oil being poor science, the critics must explain Russia's emergence as an oil-producing power and the United States' decline as one. To the charge of deep drilling costing too much, critics must answer whether a decade or more of global conflict in order steal other countries' oil is a fairer price to pay than renewing our own supplies. Both war and drilling cost money, but wars also cost blood and the loss of a nation's future.

Learning that oil is a renewable resource puts the global conflicts presently occurring, and the future ones in the making, in an entirely new light. Instead of seeing these events as the dying days of a technological civilization losing its power, we can view these conflicts as yet another sordid manipulation towards increasing global fascist power. By scaring the world into a belief that its resources are limited, the global manipulators are leading us yet again into another war that need not be fought.

In the final analysis, admitting my error and realizing that Peak Oil is not a solid reality is only a partial relief. Humanity need not fight any wars over energy, as there is more than enough on this planet to supply us all. However, as with all hydrocarbon fuel sources, we have still not found a way to reduce the pollution created in their production and emission. Perhaps during this grateful reprieve, if we can avoid the manipulation into war, humans might reinvent themselves and their civilization into a more abundantly cooperative venture. In order to do that, we might have to admit we are wrong about quite a few things. An unlearned life will demand no less.

WHOSE LIFE ARE YOU LIVING

 http://www.unlearning.org/editor30.htm
*****

(3) "...the understanding that peace is both inner and outer. It is a condition of consciousness, a state of being and becoming which involves cognition, conation and affection. In its integral stage it has a contentment and fulfillment because it is its own witness and has a calm and a repose and a balance of the intelligence of the head and the heart, an intuitive understanding that is born of wisdom and compassion, a harmony that transcends opposites or contraries and says without speaking, knows without looking, and is without doing. Peace in the integral being is consciousness of love and light." (contributed by Dr. Vasant V. Merchant, Editor, The International Journal of Humanities and Peace), and lastly (but not finally),

(4) To be enduring, peace must include minimally, the following attributes: resource sufficiency, cooperation, freedom from ignorance and illiteracy; personal and communal opportunities, compassion and caring for others, behaviors and actions that result in all parties "winning", renewable, sustainable energy--sufficient hope, love and prosperity for all, and prospects for the "good life" for all.

We now have an expanded (albeit, not exhaustive) global, spiritual, meta-physical, physical, philosophical, biological, anthropological, economic, social, political, natural and operational definition of peace. Peace is defined as being a normal, natual and essential condition for the continued and continuing progression of all humanity toward 100% success.

Like perennial wild flowers given the right conditions of climate and nature, peace is ever-recurring at various times and places--in greater and lesser degrees--throughout the human community. Peace and its constituent qualities of sufficiency, altruism, cooperation, hope, love and serenity remain life-sustaining and anti-entropic--our teacher of the "ways", our "beacon" for success and survival--our preferred and natural state.

 http://www.geni.org/energy/issues/global/myths/scarcity/dog1.htm



Achieving Peace, A New Paradigm(Part 2): Scarcity vs. Plenitude

 http://www.geni.org/energy/issues/global/myths/scarcity/paz.htm
*****
****
***
**
!
"Why do we insist on retaining an antiquated theory that is so
obviously contradicted by readily observable phenomena? Is the
advancement of the sciences not based on formulating a hypothesis,
and then testing that hypothesis? And if the hypothesis fails to
account for the available data, is it not customary to either
modify that hypothesis or formulate a new hypothesis -- rather
than, say, clinging to the same discredited hypothesis for 250 years?"

homepage: homepage: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com


Who wants to read all of this? 15.Mar.2005 13:05

doideedoidoi

1382 lines and over 26,000 words.

Can't you just paraphrase the book and post a link?

Thank goodness there's always someone... 15.Mar.2005 13:12

The Weed of Jimson

...willing to repost thirty pages of crap without having even had the decency to add his/her own observations on the matter.<br>
<br>
Here's my awesome reposted response:<br>

<i>When he got out of the train at Petersburg, he felt after his sleepless night as keen and fresh as after a cold bath. He paused near his compartment, waiting for her to get out. 'Once more,' he said to himself, smiling unconsciously, 'once more I shall see her walk, her face; she will say something, turn her head, glance, smile may be.' But before he caught sight of her, he saw her husband, whom the stationmaster was deferentially escorting through the crowd. 'Ah, yes! The husband.' Only now for the first time did Vronsky realise clearly the fact that there was a person attached to her, a husband. He knew that she had a husband, but had hardly believed in his existence, and only now fully believed in him, with his head and shoulders, and his legs clad in black trousers; especially when he saw this husband calmly take her arm with a sense of property.</i>

I'm glad we had this time to chat!

thankfully 15.Mar.2005 13:47

.

Some of the claims made at the beginning of this piece were so laughable that it was a good indication that the rest could be skipped.

This is one of those theories that its advocates need to step back and think about what the implications would mean. Certainly, there is a desire to promote the notion of scarcity, that's a central tenet of capitalism. But if one really thinks for a few minutes about what it would mean if this conspiracy was accurate, certain foreign and domestic policies would be quite different.

Fossil origin is obvious 15.Mar.2005 13:54

Geoman

The fossil origin of oil is obvious. Think about it. Why do they all happen to be where ancient shallow seas were, where massive deposits of organic matter for millions of years occurred. Africa and South America were once attached and they drifted apart. When they were together there was an ancient shallow sea which gave us the oil fields of Nigeria and Venezuela which have since drifted apart thousands of miles, but the oil is still there.

"The fossil origin of oil is obvious." 15.Mar.2005 14:09

doideedoidoi

Yes, that's really neat. But why does does the article have 26,000+ words?

If a viewpoint or story can't be explained in a more reasonably sized article, then nobody is really going to read the whole
thing. I didn't read one single bit of it. I just counted the words. Hell, I can't believe how long it took to scroll
all the way to the bottom.

fucking reposts 15.Mar.2005 14:34

clamydia

Yeah, this kind of shit used to happen all the time before editorial decided to start composting most of the reposts.

Agree to Disagree 15.Mar.2005 17:14

Moor

I agree that there's a lot to read here, especially in light of the fact that nearly the same information was posted several articles down. On the other hand, people who blithely discount the abiotic theory of petrochemical formation might need to read through it. They just may learn something new.

The Russians have certainly benefitted from following the logic of the abiotic paradigm. Their deep drilling methods - that penetrates through the "biotic zone," where oil is believed to have been formed, and where a lot of oil is actually found - have produced some of the most productive wells on the planet. There is good reason why Russia has become the largest single-country producer of oil.

Even the hard core bioticists have a hard time explaining how the "organic" matter, that presumably served as the raw material for the oil that the Russians are extracting, could have gotten seven miles deep in the earth's crust.

reposted crap, reposted anti-crap. 15.Mar.2005 17:27

this thing here

let's say that there is a constant supply of oil. i don't give a fuck about how it is created. that is completely irrelevant to the argument, an obfuscatory tactic if there ever was one.

so, let's say that there is a constant supply of oil, DESPITE a rapidly rising demand. in fact, the supply of oil is so "constant", that there is enough supply of it for ANY DEMAND.

therefore, with demand issues completely removed from the economic equation, oil prices would neccessarily plummet to unbelievable lows.

except for one thing. the cost of recovering the oil, and refining it, and distributing it. those costs are never going to go away. ever.

now, according to the theory presented here that there is no scarcity of oil at all on planet earth, and in fact, the scarcity itself is a massive conspiracy on the part of the oil corporarions to drive up prices, and is >THE LARGEST INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE-NAZI OPERATION EVER SEEN ON THE PLANET, INTENTIONALLY MURDERING BILLIONS OF PEOPLE UNDER THE RUBRIC OF A CONVENIENT LIE<, the plentiful oil lies where inside the earth? that's right, it lies >far deeper inside the Earth than we've ever drilled before<. so how far down? >hundreds of miles inside Earth<.

wow. sounds expensive to drill down that far. better make sure that you drill in the right place. so exploration drilling will be yet another expense. and then there's this other issue of what form are the hydrocarbons? solid, liquid, gas, plasma, coal, shale, oil, natural gas? hmm, i bet it will be expensive to get them pumped (if they can be) hundreds of miles up, and then refined into usable form.

so, who's going to pay the cost of this massive technological undertaking? yep, that's right, the costs are passed on to the consumers.

so, DESPITE the fact that oil is plentiful, so plentiful that demand is no longer a pricing issue, and therefore prices should plummet, they won't. WE'LL STILL BE PAYING A FUCKING FORTUNE.

ahh, but the theory presented in the original article never goes in to that problem, does it. all i get from the article is that oil corporarions are deliberately NOT selling their product, so as to drive up prices sky high. upon this tactic gets foisted the term "Peak Oil". but wait, it get's better! in one of the comments, someone writes it is a plan >INTENTIONALLY MURDERING BILLIONS OF PEOPLE UNDER THE RUBRIC OF A CONVENIENT LIE.<, >A COVER OPERATION TO KILL BILLIONS OF PEOPLE AND TO JUSTIFY HIGH PRIVATE MONOPOLY OIL PRICES OFF FALSE IDEAS OF SCARCITY.<

interesting. so, instead of selling a product and continuing making a massive profit, because of monopoly prices, the oil corporations want to go even farther and kill billions of people (their customers), even though there's a plentiful, unlimited amount of oil hundreds of miles underneath the earth.

given that kind of environment, with mass death and crumbling societies all around, how could the oil corporations justify the expense of designing technology which can recover hydrocarbons hundreds of miles beneath the surface of earth? and if they can't recover THAT oil, how are they going to sell ANY product. and if they can't sell ANY product, how else are they going to make any money? and if they can't make any money, how will they be powerful, and murder billions of people?

so, no matter what, prices are going to go up. whether you believe in Peak Oil, or you beleive that oil corporations are holding out on billions of customers (despite having an unlimited supply on their hands), or because the cost of recovering "unlimited" oil from hundreds of miles down is going to be more than steep, prices for oil are going to go up and up and up.

so, no matter what, consumers of oil will find ways to cut down on their oil buying. most likely, by demanding more fuel efficient cars, and by demanding more energy efficient homes and products and technology. but wait, that doesn't make any sense. there's an unlimited supply of hydrocarbons, right? why use it drop by drop when there's a gushing torrent? oh, i get it. the oil corporations will refuse to sell their product. so that way they can take all the credit for changing our society from a disgusting, wasteful, inefficient, environmentally damaging one into one that is efficient, and smart and respectful of planet earth. the oil corporations will tell us that they did it for "our benefit, because we love you." but wait, i thought they wanted to kill billions of us?

what is plainly obvious to me is how despite all the words pumped out by the original article and some of the comments, all of them fail to realize that just because there's supposed to be "unlimited" oil "hundreds of miles" down in the earth, doesn't mean that it can be recovered in our lifetimes, and secondly even if it was recovered, that it would be cheap.

but as is typical of the obfuscatory bullshit that this anti-peak oil theory is, it tries to cover it's bullshit with an out: "the corporations will just refuse to sell their unlimited, easily recoverable product".

no sooner than i post this, i will be called an "employee of an oil corporation", a fascist, an idiot, all the typical comments that someone who doesn't know who the fuck i am or how i stand on issues, or what i think about oil and war and iraq and corporations and the creeping fascism in this country would say, because this is first time they've used indymedia, and because their being paid to drive wedges, to be very very clever, but not quite enough...

let's make this very clear: people who support the idea of Peak Oil DON'T support corporate fascism in america, DON'T want some kind of bullshit out where american society doesn't have to change it's dirty, inefficient, environmentally damaging way of going about things because there's some magical "unlimited" supply of "cheap" oil 200 fucking miles down, and DO want to get our asses in gear NOW and come up with better, cleaner ways of producing energy.

What planet do you live on? 15.Mar.2005 21:19

Red neck

It's just so hard for people to rap their mind around the fact that the world they're living in isn't reality. It's only a few decades old but they believe it's eternal. Your grandparents knew what reality looked like. They understood that you get out of it what you put into it and resources had to be used wisely. People today live in a virtual reality fantasy world, they believe that the world is like television or the internet--ethereal.
You know it not just oil that finite every resource on the planet is finite, try getting around soil and water. We can use our resources more efficiently. We can be inventive. We can find substitutes and alternative...

Just so I don't sound like total doom and gloom... I'm personally excited about solar energy harnessed by Stirling engines.. Just one of the viable alternatives out there...but we're going to have to face the fact that we live in a FINITE WORLD!
 http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,20967,1018934,00.html

Wall Street Acknowledges Peak Oil 16.Mar.2005 00:56

t r u t h o u t

John S. Herold Inc. is the first Wall Street firm to predict when specific energy companies will hit their peaks.


to 'this thing here' 16.Mar.2005 02:49

tentatively...

"let's say that there is a constant supply of oil. i don't give a fuck about how it is created. that is completely irrelevant to the argument, an obfuscatory tactic if there ever was one. "


Er, the physical reality of how oil is created can hardly be ignored. Different pathways would yield totally different capacities for a certain oil extraction.

Besides, in the above, all I see are just a string of total assumptions like some economist would "presume" this and then "following from that, etc."--without ever dealing with the falseness of the assumption.

Next, the point you seem to make to me is that corporations are somehow going to be wanting to expand oil production. They are not however. They are going to demote oil production for global planning purposes. These include eugenic (petrol demotion cuts down food fertiliers, more expensive transportaion, etc.). They are doing these market manipuations for ideological purposes, milking it for economic along the way of course.

It's ideological and totally will of the wisp subjective decisions of these fey elites we are talking about. These corporate elites are attempting to consolidate oil, and then shut it down. On the one hand, that's fine with me. However, they are NOT GOING TO BE THE ONES that are going to corporately sponsor alternative technologies and energy sources. THey are simply going to sit there and use the huge dieoff as a means for conquering the world in the interests of "stability" while of course they created the instability. That is my prediction of their motivations, based on McGowans's work as well as watching the allowances of oil destruciton in Iraq, likely attacking Saudi arabia to keep their production low until they got the picture to stop saying publicly "we are getting more and more oil we find, etc.", that is another issue why the Rothschild's wanted to take over Russian technoloigcal infrastructure for oil, taht is pulling it up; and that is the danger they see in Iran saying that "we are finding two more oil areas, our reserves are growing." They don't want that information to get out, because 30 years ago they decided that the lie of peak oil (which has been maintained in the corporatist West by Rockefellers and the Seven Sisters oil companies) can be used to shift into an alibi for population reduction. It's all documented. It's in the Club of Rome's strategy for how they see population reduction coming about: by reducing oil production.

However, it's all about intentionally reducing oil production. They know this. They are instead attempting to blame a neutral issue that is a total figment of their imagination--a figment that they want to be everyone's collective imagination figment as well, "oh sorry, unavoidable (sic), peak oil, you know and all that."

Don't count on corporations introducing other technologies as they consolidate and then shut off oil.

Certainly we should have never gone the oil route anyway except for very Skull and Bones connected oil politics. For more on that, highly documented, I suggest you look at a video of the Skull and Bones researcher Kris Millegan, scroll back through the 9-11 seciton of PIMC for that, and I suggest you find The Nation's artile from a few years back called "The Secret History of Lead." There's enough infomation there to totally dismiss that we have oil for any economic reasons. We have oil because oil is far easier to create a planned economy of political and economic dependence upon these elites, and they have killed to maintain this clientelism of power thorugh their monopoly energy flow which is the way they maintain power.


another quote from 'this thing here' which I totally agree with though I wanted to show the different in interpretation here:

tth says: "so, DESPITE the fact that oil is plentiful, so plentiful that demand is no longer a pricing issue, and therefore prices should plummet, they won't. WE'LL STILL BE PAYING A FUCKING FORTUNE."

So what? What is so important about that? You assume that they are planning on continuing oil or somemthing, siimply because we demand-serfs want some type of energy? Hell no they are. It has already been declared by groups like Shell through their actions that they are NOT GOING TO expand oil production, so it's a moot point, regardless of the expense, regardless of its renewability, regardlessof whether it is cheap or not. They are ideologcially deciding to shift energy materials globally, and to do that, they are getting their ducks in a row to demote oil production, period. Buy it all up, keep the oil contracts from the refineries (or and then fail to actually order any oil, an inverse monopoly shut down, a monopsony).


tth writes: "interesting. so, instead of selling a product and continuing making a massive profit, because of monopoly prices, the oil corporations want to go even farther and kill billions of people (their customers), even though there's a plentiful, unlimited amount of oil hundreds of miles underneath the earth. given that kind of environment, with mass death and crumbling societies all around, how could the oil corporations justify the expense of designing technology which can recover hydrocarbons hundreds of miles beneath the surface of earth? and if they can't recover THAT oil, how are they going to sell ANY product."

They're not going to be selling anything. They don't want to. Shell's actions are just one example of that recently. They are shutting down refineries, despite alreay massive profits from these refineries. You cannot look to economics academics to understand this. You have to look at their ideological goals, and how they are operationalizing their ideological goals through market manipuations.

tth writes: "let's make this very clear: people who support the idea of Peak Oil DON'T support corporate fascism in america, DON'T want some kind of bullshit out where american society doesn't have to change it's dirty, inefficient, environmentally damaging way of going about things because there's some magical "unlimited" supply of "cheap" oil 200 fucking miles down, and DO want to get our asses in gear NOW and come up with better, cleaner ways of producing energy."

There's nothing called Peak Oil. I ask for the data instead of ask for the spin about that assertion? I'd like to see it. Like McGowan, you are going to be faced with the fact that there is nothign there to justify the idea of peak oil physically. I know you don't support corporate fascism. I know you as well as I want to see some type of energy change. I simply fail to see how corporations are going to allow the clear market preferences to be registered. They have been ruthless in this oil/tech consolidation--and then they are shutting down production.

There's nothing to "promote" about abiotic oil. It simply is. I know of no one arguing that abiotic oil 'means' that it is wise to promote it! Get that through your head. All this bandying about seeing ulterior motives to a discussion of abiotic oil's reality is not a form of apologetics for using oil.

Abiotic oil is still a poor energy choice, due to greenhouse effects.












hat the global masters are taking that is doing it, and it has nothing to do with markets or demand wanting it. Demand doesn't mean shit to them, as the McGowan articles and analysis about the Californian refinery certainly indicate. Stop thinking that you can influence them by consumer politics.

What a waste of bits 16.Mar.2005 21:07

Abiotic lunacy

1) Oil can be found between 7000ft at 12000ft. Below 12000ft the hydrocarbon chains are broken down by the heat and natural gas is the typical result. Above 7000ft and the temperature is too moderate to yield lengthy hydrocarbon chains.

2) If oil is created in a manner other than fossil decomposition, why are wells drying up? Why do wells not refill? Why has the US been in permanent decline since 1973?

3) For someone who types so much, it's amazing you don't read more. If you really want to broadcast your understanding of the subject, wouldn't it be easier to wear a T-Shirt that simply reads "DUMBASS".

let's be clear, once more... 17.Mar.2005 15:13

this thing here

>They're not going to be selling anything. They don't want to.<

this is THE FREAKING POINT!

if they DON'T WANT TO SELL any oil, who the fuck gives a shit about abiotic oil?

and if abiotic oil isn't going to be sold, what does it matter if there is some or there isn't some?

Peak Oil doesn't become the moot point, abiotic oil does. and without abiotic oil, your whole freaking argument is moot.

i'm trying to take the arguments in the original article and some of the comments and carry them to their logical ends. when i do, all i get back is nonsense and even more questions. this is yet one more reason why i treat those attacking Peak Oil with the UTMOST suspicion...

OK, we're friends ;-) 26.Mar.2005 11:20

.

you quoted:

>They're not going to be selling anything. They don't want to.<

this is THE FREAKING POINT!


Hmm. That was my point as well you know. It was totally unclear to me (and I expect others) exactly what you were saying before. I see your point as far as the social/tech issues go, though it is important to expose the physical sciences lie upon which they intend to lull people to sleep over.

. 26.Mar.2005 11:29

.

"2) If oil is created in a manner other than fossil decomposition, why are wells drying up? Why do wells not refill? Why has the US been in permanent decline since 1973? "

They are being socially shut down. As indicated int he article above, if you would so kindly read it. And they are hardly 'drying up' as is indicated above as well, if you would so kindly read it.

media is complicit and selling you lies 01.Apr.2005 23:08

CjC

who is naive enough to believe that billion$ oil companies, cabal would not fund & institute a DisInfo support campaign?

info-nannies
info-nannies

author is full of alternative energy feedstock biomass (horseshit) 01.May.2005 10:52

some guy on the internet

Ya know... The NWO-NAZI-JEW-REPTILIAN-CHILDMOLESTING-ALIEN-GRAY-ETHERIC-INVADING Club of Rome never actually predicted anything other than a resource depletion by 2070 and even that was based on the computer model data inputs they had in 1970. This anti-peaknik obviously is operating on 2nd hand disinfo straw-man memes. Then again, this is the internet so no big surprise there. Dave Delaney notes this on his blog here:  http://davidmdelaney.blogspot.com/

-----------------------------------
Friday, June 25, 2004

Lying about Limits to Growth

We continue to see off-hand comments by industrialists, environmentalists, and journalists, to the effect that the MIT report commissioned by the Club of Rome, The Limits to Growth, Meadows et al, 1972, can be ignored because its predictions have already proved to be completely wrong.

The Limits to Growth (LTG) was published in 1972. It predicted that the pursuit of economic growth, unless abandoned, would produce a catastrophic world wide economic failure and population decrease, probably by 2070. It made no other predictions! In particular it did not predict that oil would be exhausted by 1992, or any other date. The earliest economic collapse occurring in the numerous runs of the computer model described in LTG was 2039. Any repudiation of LTG on the basis that its predictions have failed must remain false until 2070 at least.

It is fascinating, and not a little irritating, that many environmentalists who believe essentially what LTG propounded, are among those who repeat baseless repudiations of it. How can this be? There is probably an interesting article waiting to be written to explain this social phenomenon. In any event, for those who might want to revisit this question, but do not have time to read LTG, here's an excellent retrospective precis written in 2003. It also points out that none of LTG's predictions have yet proved false: What was there in the famous "Report to the Club of Rome" ?, Jean-Marc Jancovici, December 2003,  http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/club_rome_a.html

----
See also Matthew Simmons take on this issue:

 http://www.energybulletin.net/1512.html
 http://www.energybulletin.net/1516.html

peak oil - abiotic theory 10.May.2005 22:49

UNEMPLOYED COMEDIAN

The abiotic theory and peak oil.

Interesting to say the least.

I must ask the abiotic theorist and the media challenged to please be seated.
I understand how afraid you must be.
Believing that everything and everyone is just another conspiracy would make sleeping very difficult.... no?

Ok here it is.

Are you sitting?

The gulf of mexico is a huge meteor crater!!! ta da!!

Ok?

Did ya get it?

No applause needed - just throw money!

Wham!!! pow!!!

Holy fragmented thought patterns Batman!!!!

and thats how all those FOSSIL fuels or as I have heard a abiotic theorist put it "dinosaur goo" got to those depths.

"crafty little fellers" ??? no .....try PLUGGING in "BIG FUCKIN ROCK" into yer PIN HEADED equation.

Now go watch some more perry mason, have a beer and maybe a few prozac.

We will turn out the lights for ya but I am not sure they are coming back on tomorrow.

PS . MOM SAYS SHE WILL TAKE CARE OF ME IF I MOVE TO THE WOODS AND PROMISE TO BE A GOOD BOY AND AS FOR YOU, SHE SAYS, YER FUCKED!!!