portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

bikes/transportation | energy & nuclear | sustainability

The Long Emergency

****What's going to happen as we start running out of cheap gas to guzzle?
**Even after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, America is still sleepwalking into the future. I call this coming time the Long Emergency.
**There has been no replacement whatsoever of oil already extracted from the fields of America or any other place.
**It will change everything about how we live.
**The widely touted "hydrogen economy" is a particularly cruel hoax.
** Virtually all "biomass" schemes for using plants to create liquid fuels cannot be scaled up to even a fraction of the level at which things are currently run.
** In March, the Department of Energy released a report that officially acknowledges for the first time that peak oil is for real and states plainly that "the world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary."
The Long Emergency

A few weeks ago, the price of oil ratcheted above fifty-five dollars a barrel, which is about twenty dollars a barrel more than a year ago. The next day, the oil story was buried on page six of the New York Times business section. Apparently, the price of oil is not considered significant news, even when it goes up five bucks a barrel in the span of ten days. That same day, the stock market shot up more than a hundred points because, CNN said, government data showed no signs of inflation. Note to clueless nation: Call planet Earth.

Carl Jung, one of the fathers of psychology, famously remarked that "people cannot stand too much reality." What you're about to read may challenge your assumptions about the kind of world we live in, and especially the kind of world into which events are propelling us. We are in for a rough ride through uncharted territory.

It has been very hard for Americans -- lost in dark raptures of nonstop infotainment, recreational shopping and compulsive motoring -- to make sense of the gathering forces that will fundamentally alter the terms of everyday life in our technological society. Even after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, America is still sleepwalking into the future. I call this coming time the Long Emergency.

Most immediately we face the end of the cheap-fossil-fuel era. It is no exaggeration to state that reliable supplies of cheap oil and natural gas underlie everything we identify as the necessities of modern life -- not to mention all of its comforts and luxuries: central heating, air conditioning, cars, airplanes, electric lights, inexpensive clothing, recorded music, movies, hip-replacement surgery, national defense -- you name it.

The few Americans who are even aware that there is a gathering global-energy predicament usually misunderstand the core of the argument. That argument states that we don't have to run out of oil to start having severe problems with industrial civilization and its dependent systems. We only have to slip over the all-time production peak and begin a slide down the arc of steady depletion.

The term "global oil-production peak" means that a turning point will come when the world produces the most oil it will ever produce in a given year and, after that, yearly production will inexorably decline. It is usually represented graphically in a bell curve. The peak is the top of the curve, the halfway point of the world's all-time total endowment, meaning half the world's oil will be left. That seems like a lot of oil, and it is, but there's a big catch: It's the half that is much more difficult to extract, far more costly to get, of much poorer quality and located mostly in places where the people hate us. A substantial amount of it will never be extracted.

The United States passed its own oil peak -- about 11 million barrels a day -- in 1970, and since then production has dropped steadily. In 2004 it ran just above 5 million barrels a day (we get a tad more from natural-gas condensates). Yet we consume roughly 20 million barrels a day now. That means we have to import about two-thirds of our oil, and the ratio will continue to worsen.

The U.S. peak in 1970 brought on a portentous change in geoeconomic power. Within a few years, foreign producers, chiefly OPEC, were setting the price of oil, and this in turn led to the oil crises of the 1970s. In response, frantic development of non-OPEC oil, especially the North Sea fields of England and Norway, essentially saved the West's ass for about two decades. Since 1999, these fields have entered depletion. Meanwhile, worldwide discovery of new oil has steadily declined to insignificant levels in 2003 and 2004.

Some "cornucopians" claim that the Earth has something like a creamy nougat center of "abiotic" oil that will naturally replenish the great oil fields of the world. The facts speak differently. There has been no replacement whatsoever of oil already extracted from the fields of America or any other place.

Now we are faced with the global oil-production peak. The best estimates of when this will actually happen have been somewhere between now and 2010. In 2004, however, after demand from burgeoning China and India shot up, and revelations that Shell Oil wildly misstated its reserves, and Saudi Arabia proved incapable of goosing up its production despite promises to do so, the most knowledgeable experts revised their predictions and now concur that 2005 is apt to be the year of all-time global peak production.

It will change everything about how we live.

To aggravate matters, American natural-gas production is also declining, at five percent a year, despite frenetic new drilling, and with the potential of much steeper declines ahead. Because of the oil crises of the 1970s, the nuclear-plant disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and the acid-rain problem, the U.S. chose to make gas its first choice for electric-power generation. The result was that just about every power plant built after 1980 has to run on gas. Half the homes in America are heated with gas. To further complicate matters, gas isn't easy to import. Here in North America, it is distributed through a vast pipeline network. Gas imported from overseas would have to be compressed at minus-260 degrees Fahrenheit in pressurized tanker ships and unloaded (re-gasified) at special terminals, of which few exist in America. Moreover, the first attempts to site new terminals have met furious opposition because they are such ripe targets for terrorism.

Some other things about the global energy predicament are poorly understood by the public and even our leaders. This is going to be a permanent energy crisis, and these energy problems will synergize with the disruptions of climate change, epidemic disease and population overshoot to produce higher orders of trouble.

We will have to accommodate ourselves to fundamentally changed conditions.

No combination of alternative fuels will allow us to run American life the way we have been used to running it, or even a substantial fraction of it. The wonders of steady technological progress achieved through the reign of cheap oil have lulled us into a kind of Jiminy Cricket syndrome, leading many Americans to believe that anything we wish for hard enough will come true. These days, even people who ought to know better are wishing ardently for a seamless transition from fossil fuels to their putative replacements.

The widely touted "hydrogen economy" is a particularly cruel hoax. We are not going to replace the U.S. automobile and truck fleet with vehicles run on fuel cells. For one thing, the current generation of fuel cells is largely designed to run on hydrogen obtained from natural gas. The other way to get hydrogen in the quantities wished for would be electrolysis of water using power from hundreds of nuclear plants. Apart from the dim prospect of our building that many nuclear plants soon enough, there are also numerous severe problems with hydrogen's nature as an element that present forbidding obstacles to its use as a replacement for oil and gas, especially in storage and transport.

Wishful notions about rescuing our way of life with "renewables" are also unrealistic. Solar-electric systems and wind turbines face not only the enormous problem of scale but the fact that the components require substantial amounts of energy to manufacture and the probability that they can't be manufactured at all without the underlying support platform of a fossil-fuel economy. We will surely use solar and wind technology to generate some electricity for a period ahead but probably at a very local and small scale.

Virtually all "biomass" schemes for using plants to create liquid fuels cannot be scaled up to even a fraction of the level at which things are currently run. What's more, these schemes are predicated on using oil and gas "inputs" (fertilizers, weed-killers) to grow the biomass crops that would be converted into ethanol or bio-diesel fuels. This is a net energy loser -- you might as well just burn the inputs and not bother with the biomass products. Proposals to distill trash and waste into oil by means of thermal depolymerization depend on the huge waste stream produced by a cheap oil and gas economy in the first place.

Coal is far less versatile than oil and gas, extant in less abundant supplies than many people assume and fraught with huge ecological drawbacks -- as a contributor to greenhouse "global warming" gases and many health and toxicity issues ranging from widespread mercury poisoning to acid rain. You can make synthetic oil from coal, but the only time this was tried on a large scale was by the Nazis under wartime conditions, using impressive amounts of slave labor.

If we wish to keep the lights on in America after 2020, we may indeed have to resort to nuclear power, with all its practical problems and eco-conundrums. Under optimal conditions, it could take ten years to get a new generation of nuclear power plants into operation, and the price may be beyond our means. Uranium is also a resource in finite supply. We are no closer to the more difficult project of atomic fusion, by the way, than we were in the 1970s.

The upshot of all this is that we are entering a historical period of potentially great instability, turbulence and hardship. Obviously, geopolitical maneuvering around the world's richest energy regions has already led to war and promises more international military conflict. Since the Middle East contains two-thirds of the world's remaining oil supplies, the U.S. has attempted desperately to stabilize the region by, in effect, opening a big police station in Iraq. The intent was not just to secure Iraq's oil but to modify and influence the behavior of neighboring states around the Persian Gulf, especially Iran and Saudi Arabia. The results have been far from entirely positive, and our future prospects in that part of the world are not something we can feel altogether confident about.

And then there is the issue of China, which, in 2004, became the world's second-greatest consumer of oil, surpassing Japan. China's surging industrial growth has made it increasingly dependent on the imports we are counting on. If China wanted to, it could easily walk into some of these places -- the Middle East, former Soviet republics in central Asia -- and extend its hegemony by force. Is America prepared to contest for this oil in an Asian land war with the Chinese army? I doubt it. Nor can the U.S. military occupy regions of the Eastern Hemisphere indefinitely, or hope to secure either the terrain or the oil infrastructure of one distant, unfriendly country after another. A likely scenario is that the U.S. could exhaust and bankrupt itself trying to do this, and be forced to withdraw back into our own hemisphere, having lost access to most of the world's remaining oil in the process.

We know that our national leaders are hardly uninformed about this predicament. President George W. Bush has been briefed on the dangers of the oil-peak situation as long ago as before the 2000 election and repeatedly since then. In March, the Department of Energy released a report that officially acknowledges for the first time that peak oil is for real and states plainly that "the world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary."

Most of all, the Long Emergency will require us to make other arrangements for the way we live in the United States. America is in a special predicament due to a set of unfortunate choices we made as a society in the twentieth century. Perhaps the worst was to let our towns and cities rot away and to replace them with suburbia, which had the additional side effect of trashing a lot of the best farmland in America. Suburbia will come to be regarded as the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world. It has a tragic destiny. The psychology of previous investment suggests that we will defend our drive-in utopia long after it has become a terrible liability.

Before long, the suburbs will fail us in practical terms. We made the ongoing development of housing subdivisions, highway strips, fried-food shacks and shopping malls the basis of our economy, and when we have to stop making more of those things, the bottom will fall out.

The circumstances of the Long Emergency will require us to downscale and re-scale virtually everything we do and how we do it, from the kind of communities we physically inhabit to the way we grow our food to the way we work and trade the products of our work. Our lives will become profoundly and intensely local. Daily life will be far less about mobility and much more about staying where you are. Anything organized on the large scale, whether it is government or a corporate business enterprise such as Wal-Mart, will wither as the cheap energy props that support bigness fall away. The turbulence of the Long Emergency will produce a lot of economic losers, and many of these will be members of an angry and aggrieved former middle class.

Food production is going to be an enormous problem in the Long Emergency. As industrial agriculture fails due to a scarcity of oil- and gas-based inputs, we will certainly have to grow more of our food closer to where we live, and do it on a smaller scale. The American economy of the mid-twenty-first century may actually center on agriculture, not information, not high tech, not "services" like real estate sales or hawking cheeseburgers to tourists. Farming. This is no doubt a startling, radical idea, and it raises extremely difficult questions about the reallocation of land and the nature of work. The relentless subdividing of land in the late twentieth century has destroyed the contiguity and integrity of the rural landscape in most places. The process of readjustment is apt to be disorderly and improvisational. Food production will necessarily be much more labor-intensive than it has been for decades. We can anticipate the re-formation of a native-born American farm-laboring class. It will be composed largely of the aforementioned economic losers who had to relinquish their grip on the American dream. These masses of disentitled people may enter into quasi-feudal social relations with those who own land in exchange for food and physical security. But their sense of grievance will remain fresh, and if mistreated they may simply seize that land.

The way that commerce is currently organized in America will not survive far into the Long Emergency. Wal-Mart's "warehouse on wheels" won't be such a bargain in a non-cheap-oil economy. The national chain stores' 12,000-mile manufacturing supply lines could easily be interrupted by military contests over oil and by internal conflict in the nations that have been supplying us with ultra-cheap manufactured goods, because they, too, will be struggling with similar issues of energy famine and all the disorders that go with it.

As these things occur, America will have to make other arrangements for the manufacture, distribution and sale of ordinary goods. They will probably be made on a "cottage industry" basis rather than the factory system we once had, since the scale of available energy will be much lower -- and we are not going to replay the twentieth century. Tens of thousands of the common products we enjoy today, from paints to pharmaceuticals, are made out of oil. They will become increasingly scarce or unavailable. The selling of things will have to be reorganized at the local scale. It will have to be based on moving merchandise shorter distances. It is almost certain to result in higher costs for the things we buy and far fewer choices.

The automobile will be a diminished presence in our lives, to say the least. With gasoline in short supply, not to mention tax revenue, our roads will surely suffer. The interstate highway system is more delicate than the public realizes. If the "level of service" (as traffic engineers call it) is not maintained to the highest degree, problems multiply and escalate quickly. The system does not tolerate partial failure. The interstates are either in excellent condition, or they quickly fall apart.

America today has a railroad system that the Bulgarians would be ashamed of. Neither of the two major presidential candidates in 2004 mentioned railroads, but if we don't refurbish our rail system, then there may be no long-range travel or transport of goods at all a few decades from now. The commercial aviation industry, already on its knees financially, is likely to vanish. The sheer cost of maintaining gigantic airports may not justify the operation of a much-reduced air-travel fleet. Railroads are far more energy efficient than cars, trucks or airplanes, and they can be run on anything from wood to electricity. The rail-bed infrastructure is also far more economical to maintain than our highway network.

The successful regions in the twenty-first century will be the ones surrounded by viable farming hinterlands that can reconstitute locally sustainable economies on an armature of civic cohesion. Small towns and smaller cities have better prospects than the big cities, which will probably have to contract substantially. The process will be painful and tumultuous. In many American cities, such as Cleveland, Detroit and St. Louis, that process is already well advanced. Others have further to fall. New York and Chicago face extraordinary difficulties, being oversupplied with gigantic buildings out of scale with the reality of declining energy supplies. Their former agricultural hinterlands have long been paved over. They will be encysted in a surrounding fabric of necrotic suburbia that will only amplify and reinforce the cities' problems. Still, our cities occupy important sites. Some kind of urban entities will exist where they are in the future, but probably not the colossi of twentieth-century industrialism.

Some regions of the country will do better than others in the Long Emergency. The Southwest will suffer in proportion to the degree that it prospered during the cheap-oil blowout of the late twentieth century. I predict that Sunbelt states like Arizona and Nevada will become significantly depopulated, since the region will be short of water as well as gasoline and natural gas. Imagine Phoenix without cheap air conditioning.

I'm not optimistic about the Southeast, either, for different reasons. I think it will be subject to substantial levels of violence as the grievances of the formerly middle class boil over and collide with the delusions of Pentecostal Christian extremism. The latent encoded behavior of Southern culture includes an outsized notion of individualism and the belief that firearms ought to be used in the defense of it. This is a poor recipe for civic cohesion.

The Mountain States and Great Plains will face an array of problems, from poor farming potential to water shortages to population loss. The Pacific Northwest, New England and the Upper Midwest have somewhat better prospects. I regard them as less likely to fall into lawlessness, anarchy or despotism and more likely to salvage the bits and pieces of our best social traditions and keep them in operation at some level.

These are daunting and even dreadful prospects. The Long Emergency is going to be a tremendous trauma for the human race. We will not believe that this is happening to us, that 200 years of modernity can be brought to its knees by a world-wide power shortage. The survivors will have to cultivate a religion of hope -- that is, a deep and comprehensive belief that humanity is worth carrying on. If there is any positive side to stark changes coming our way, it may be in the benefits of close communal relations, of having to really work intimately (and physically) with our neighbors, to be part of an enterprise that really matters and to be fully engaged in meaningful social enactments instead of being merely entertained to avoid boredom. Years from now, when we hear singing at all, we will hear ourselves, and we will sing with our whole hearts.

Adapted from The Long Emergency, 2005, by James Howard Kunstler, and reprinted with permission of the publisher, Grove/Atlantic, Inc.
(Posted Mar 24, 2005)

 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7203633?rnd=1111817098011&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.872
fake "fossil fuel" ideology invented by corporations to hide abiotic oil reality 26.Mar.2005 11:09

sorry, try again

NOTE THIS IS HARDLY AN APOLOGETICS FOR OIL, ONLY THAT OIL IS SCARCE BECAUSE OF SOCIAL AND CORPORATE GREED DESIGNS INSTEAD OF MATERIAL ISSUES.



Title: Popularization of "Peak Oil" comes from Club of Rome!; Ruppert's heroes disown oil stance
Author: Dave McGowan
Date: 2005.03.14 08:01
Description: MICHAEL RUPPERT: TAKE FOOT, INSERT IN MOUTH: "...curiously enough [Michael Ruppert even recommends for great information...] the Center for an Informed America [McGowans own website]. Huh? Who knew that this site provided reliable information? I guess Ruppert's been too busy with other things to update his links page, since we all know that this website stopped being a "source for reason and reliable information" the minute that I opted not to toe the 'Peak' line. But here I digress. [One of Ruppert's heros: Prouty] "The point here is that Prouty was, as near as I can tell, something of a hero to Mr. Ruppert. And the funny thing about that is that Prouty was, as it turns out, a vocal supporter of the notion that oil is abiotic in origin. According to the late Colonel, "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." Prouty also wrote that the notion that petroleum is a 'fossil fuel' came "Right out of the Rockefeller bible." ( http://www.prouty.org/oil.html) RUPPERT CITES 'ROCKFELLER BIBLE' PHRASES ACCORDING TO OWN HEROES. "Who would have ever guessed that if the guy that Ruppert claims as a mentor were alive today, his would be the loudest voice raised to denounce what Ruppert is selling as a Rockefeller-scripted scam?" "...we have been deliberately lied to for decades about the source and availability of the substance that is the very life-force of modern industrial society."

FIVE BACKGROUND COMMENTS/SUMMARY POINTS BEFORE THE ARTICLE STARTS:

1. For those young enough to have to catch up with the villany of your ancestors, if you want to understand it, the Club of Rome connection shows that ideological "peak oil lie" talk and material "kill everybody off" talk were blended together from the very start--like strands of DNA inseparable and required for each other to replicate the lie meme. This has been an interlinked helix of ideological/material ideas espoused from the same high level group for at least 30 years--despite of course knowing that their own foundational meme about "depleting oil" was a lie. A propaganda campaign. If they knew that, and still propagaged the lie, then the connected policy recommendation they had--mass depopulationism--was the real goal looking for some means to cast the blame for their actions elsewhere and leave the very active guilty looking blameless. Team "Peak Oil" is the selling tool. The following information shows that depopulatist agenda setters--read that as eugenicists and biowarfare people--have decided upon selling the lie of "peak oil" from the very beginning of their strategy of depopulationism/eugenics/biowarfare vectors in the 1970s.

2. McGowan and others make the interesting point that the whole framework of "gas depletion allowances" which give the oil companies millions of dollars in tax write-offs, are thus a lie as well. These should be revoked since oil is abiotic and renewable. These 'depletion allowances' (sic) should disappear in a puff of legal logic. Of course the oil corporation elites of Bush/Cheney are going to keep selling you their "peak oil" scam: its built into the U.S. tax perk structure for several generations of amassed profits. Make that amassed stolen profits, because they have been based on lies.]

3. McGowan writes: "Oh yes, before I forget, I need to, regrettably, hand out a couple of Hall of Shame Awards. The first goes to the Centre for Research on Globalisation, for posting, among other things, a repellent piece by F. William Engdahl entitled "Iraq and the Problem of Peak Oil." The second goes to Online Journal, for posting too many 'Peak Oil'-themed pieces to list here (including a number of articles penned by Larry Chin, who doesn't seem to be able to write on any subject without tying it in to 'Peak Oil'). Both of these websites were, at one time, among the best at providing alternative news and commentary. Both are now pitching 'Peak Oil' without offering any hint that there is another side to the debate. And that, I'm afraid, is absolutely shameful."

4. While the BBC has been busily pitching the 'Peak Oil' scare, The Scotsman has been rather skeptical of the scam. On May 21, correspondent James Reynolds focused on a new report by Dr. Leonard Magueri in the journal Science. In the report [in peer-reviewed Science magazine, instead of unreviewed corporate propaganda preferred by Michael Ruppert], Magueri argued "the world is not running out of oil, and the reality is that there are abundant supplies for years to come." Magueri pointed out that estimates of proven reserves have been increasing since the 1940s, and, "thanks to new exploration, drilling and recovery technology, the worldwide finding and development cost per barrel of oil equivalent has dramatically declined over the last 20 years, from an average of about $21 in 1979-81 to under $6 in 1997-99. At the same time, the recovery rate from world oilfields has increased from about 22 percent in 1980 to 35 percent today."
(  http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=578462004)

On June 16, The Scotsman openly ridiculed the 'Peak Oil' concept (and various other end-of-the-world scenarios that have been pitched over the years). After recounting numerous predictions of imminent demise that never came to pass, the authors conclude with this tongue-in-cheek assessment of 'Peak Oil': "But perhaps the most often repeated catastrophe predicted is the exhaustion of the world's oil reserves. As early as 1919 the head of the US geological survey forecast that the end would come in nine years....[gotta keep up the agit-prop agenda, because only lies and mass psychology support a monopoly price structure for the world's most plentiful resource to be sold artificially as the world's most finite resource.]"
(  http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=683192004)

5. WAS DR. GOLD MURDERED TO KILL OFF A MAJOR ABIOTIC OIL MEDIA SPOKESMAN? "Bardi associates the abiotic petroleum theory specifically with Dr. Thomas Gold, noting only in a footnote that the theory actually "had its origin in the work of a group of Ukrainian and Russian scientists." Also interesting is that Bardi repeatedly refers to Gold in the present tense, implying that the doctor is still alive and able to defend his work, although Bardi is certainly aware of Dr. Gold's untimely demise just a few short months ago (just as 'Peak Oil' stories were popping up all over the mainstream media)." ... "My own feelings about the late Dr. Gold are decidedly mixed. On the one hand, he was almost certainly the plagiarist that he was accused of being. And the possibility exists, I suppose, that he may have deliberately misrepresented the science, thereby making abiotic petroleum theory infinitely easier to discredit and marginalize. On the other hand, however, Gold undeniably did more than anyone else to bring the notion of abiotic petroleum origins to the Western world. And the timing of his death was certainly suspicious, to say the least -- especially now that it is being followed by appalling post-mortem attacks..."

THE ROCKEFELLER CORPORATE OIL MAJORS SHOULD BE THROWN INTO JAIL FOR SELLING FRAUDULENTLY PRICED ITEMS AS WELL AS CHEATING ON GENERATIONS OF THEIR CORPORATE TAXES (DUE TO TAX WRITE OFF 'DEPLETION ALLOWANCES', WHICH THEY KNEW WERE LIES). THIS ABIOTIC OIL STORY IS PERHAPS THE LARGEST UNDERGROUND (NO PUN INTENTED) SCAM STORY OF THE PAST 200 YEARS: AN ONGOING CORPORATE SUCCESS OF PRICING ABIOTIC RENEWABLE OIL TO ACT OUT AN ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY, COMBINED WITH ALL THE RELATED IDEOLOGIES REQUIRED TO SELL THAT MOTIF OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY, AND ALL THE MILLIONS THEY HAVE MADE AND STILL MAKE ON THE FRAUD, AND ALL THE TAX DOLLARS THEY HAVE STOLEN, ETC."

5. "...we have been deliberately lied to for decades about the source and availability of the substance that is the very life-force of modern industrial society."

full texts, two articles:

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/03/313305.shtml




2.

Title: Hey Folks, it's a Coercive Hoax. stOp. (S)HriLL (O)iL (S)hiLLs.
Author: CultureJamCleveland
Date: 2005.03.15 12:53
Description: 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,....
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/03/313421.shtml

From the article 26.Mar.2005 11:31

Bubb

From the article: "Some "cornucopians" claim that the Earth has something like a creamy nougat center of "abiotic" oil that will naturally replenish the great oil fields of the world. The facts speak differently. There has been no replacement whatsoever of oil already extracted from the fields of America or any other place."

All large oil fields are from places of ancient shallow seas. This strongly refutes the abiotic cornucopian theory.

... 26.Mar.2005 12:23

this thing here

perhaps you don't intend the "abiotic oil theory" to be an apologetic theory for oil, but with all due respect, THAT IS ALL IT IS.

if there were such a thing as abiotic oil, then internal combustion engines, tail pipes, refined crude oil, smog and pollution would still exist 200 years from now, wouldn't it. how convenient. why would mankind have to change a damn thing, with all the abiotic oil sloshing around?

frankly, i think the larger lesson behind the dire warnings about oil supply is that non-sustainable societies, built on non-sustainable economic, political and energy practices, will crumble.

and they will crumble not because the people in these societies were stupid, or did not possess the technologies and brainpower neccessary to rectify the situation, but because they were lazy and refused to notice the elephant in the room, lazy and afraid of change, lazy and afraid of tackling their addictions, lazy and afraid of making the tough decisions, lazy and fearful of working their butts off to come up with something better...

responses 26.Mar.2005 13:40

yes and no

"i think the larger lesson behind the dire warnings about oil supply is that non-sustainable societies, built on non-sustainable economic, political and energy practices, will crumble. "

Sure. I agree with that. The point is that that is not what is happening. These corporate elites are not consolidationg oil technology and then shutting it off to create a sustainability society. Dont' be naive. They are not your "champions." They are simply, from the 1970s onward--these "end of oil" ideas were connected with their depopulation ideas (read above), they are killing of billions of their opposition, after which, you will find more ongoing unsustainability and you will find an occult techo-fascist empire of consumer and computer monitoring 24/365.

On the "shallow seas" issue. No. There's no evidence of that since there is no evidence that oil does come from biotic origins. Besides, fault lines and earthquake zones (which are ruptures from the crust and allow seaps from the mantle, are a better predictor of where abiotic oil seaps up.

Next, there has never been any evidence that oil IS fossil related anyway, and instead there are conduits of how these complex hydrocarbons can be created under high temperateure and pressure contexts from inorganics. There is no evidence how this can come from organics. Everything of course, I tire myself, can be researched for yourself if you bother to follow the links above. I don't claim that I inherited this knowledge. It came from a bit of study on the bogus political, physical, and economic ideas promoted by the corporations to keep you complacent.

"Peak Oil" we will need to adapt 26.Mar.2005 13:45

reader

What will we do when the globalists decide our reality will be "peak oil"? They control our reality and whatever script they present is the one we as a Nation deal with. Innovative individual adaptations to this monopolistic reality needs to be shared with others as alternatives become feasible. But on a large scale the globalists use their media to tell us whatever they decide will be the cover story for stealing us blind. The oil extracted from Alaskan does not fill our tanks nor will future oil extracted from America's public lands serve the peoples needs. The Bush regime will continue as previous regimes in selling our resources to foreigners who hold the fiat currency that the private Federal Reserve bankers just keep on printing. We are living with the realilty of the global elite who have a worldwide monopoly over resources due to the fiat currency systems they control. We are are just the pawns.

HEAR ! HEAR ! The reader has it right! 26.Mar.2005 15:49

Progressive Democrat

I HAVE TO DO THIS -- REPEAT reader WORD FOR WORD ! !

"What will we do when the globalists decide our reality will be "peak oil"? They control our reality and whatever script they present is the one we as a Nation deal with. Innovative individual adaptations to this monopolistic reality needs to be shared with others as alternatives become feasible. But on a large scale the globalists use their media to tell us whatever they decide will be the cover story for stealing us blind. The oil extracted from Alaskan does not fill our tanks nor will future oil extracted from America's public lands serve the peoples needs. The Bush regime will continue as previous regimes in selling our resources to foreigners who hold the fiat currency that the private Federal Reserve bankers just keep on printing. We are living with the realilty of the global elite who have a worldwide monopoly over resources due to the fiat currency systems they control. We are are just the pawns."

The only thing that I would point out different is this: Yes! Global capital controls the reality of the majority of Americans through their control of corporate media. BUT, No! Viewers/readers of IndyMedia don't have their minds controlled by corporate media!

Of course, there's always some off-the-media denialism posted at PIMC just as there's always two sides to every story. But, unless our eyes are glued to corporate tv, we can judge for ourselves whether the denialist theories (such as "abiotic oil") have any basis in reality, or not. Same for global warming: you can see on the iNet the melting of the polar ice caps and you can go to Glacier Park and look for yourself! The ultimate in denialism is the idea that there is no overpopulation of the planet!

WAKE UP AMERICA! DENIAL WON'T WORK!

to "yes and no". 27.Mar.2005 11:48

this thing here

be "my champion"?

that's the whole freaking point of peak oil, that oil corporations CAN'T and WON'T be anyone's "champion" because they will insist on selling a product which has no future. their inability to change, and likewise the inability to change of a government backed by their money and a society based on their outdated, futile technology, will crumble, unless steps are taken to find ways to MOVE AWAY FROM OIL, "ABIOTIC", BIOTIC, EXTRATERRESTRIAL, OR OTHERWISE.