Peak Oil, an Imperial Hoax
From the very beginning, the 9/11 truth movement has been infiltrated by "Peak Oil" ideologists (or disinformers).
They argue that the false-flag attack of 9/11 and the subsequent wars in Afghanisthan, Iraq, and possibly the upcoming one in Iran, are the natural consequences of a world running out of oil.
"Peak Oilers" do not offer any hope in alternative energy sources, for as Michael Ruppert claims in "From the Wilderness": "there is no effective replacement for what hydrocarbon energy provides today."
Instead, they paint bleak doomsday scenarios of the future, like when Colin Campbell writes that the consequences of oil depletion will be: starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens."
The implication, of course, is that if we, the West, want to survive, we need to secure Middle East oil-reserves for ourselves. Otherwise, China or India will get them.
It´s either us or they who will starve.
But once again we have fallen for a "Big Lie".
We neither need to secure any middle-Eastern oil reserves for our survival, nor is the world actually running out of oil.
For, you see, oil and gas are not finite fossil resources at all - they are a-biotic and renewable.
David McGowan from "The Center for an Informed America" has done his home-work and came up with some in the western world most under-reported but still in Eastern Europe most well researched and proven scientific facts:
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.
(In) 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."
Then McGowan cites a story written on September 26, 1995,in the New York Times: "Geochemist Says Oil Fields May Be Refilled Naturally." Penned by Malcolm W. Browne, the piece appeared on page C1.
The same story was revisited more than 3 years later by the Wall Street Journal:(Christopher Cooper Reservoir Off Louisiana Prods Oil Experts to Seek a Deeper Meaning," Wall Street Journal, April 16, 1999).
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."
Of course the "mystery" of Eugene Island would not be mysterious at all, if western media and science had payed the slightest attention towards what has been going on in Russia and the former Soviet Union for more than 50 years.
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 a vague, qualitative hypothesis, but stands as a rigorous analytic theory within the mainstream of the modern physical sciences.
In this respect, the modern theory differs fundamentally not only from the previous hypothesis of a biological origin of petroleum but also from all traditional geological hypotheses.
Since the nineteenth century, knowledgeable physicists, chemists, thermodynamicists, and chemical engineers have regarded with grave reservations (if not outright disdain) the suggestion that highly reduced hydrocarbon molecules of high free enthalpy (the constituents of crude oil) might somehow evolve spontaneously from highly oxidized biogenic molecules of low free enthalpy.
Beginning in 1964, Soviet scientists carried out extensive theoretical statistical thermodynamic analysis which established explicitly that the hypothesis of evolution of hydrocarbon molecules (except methane) from biogenic ones in the temperature and pressure regime of the Earth's near-surface crust was glaringly in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
They also determined that the evolution of reduced hydrocarbon molecules requires pressures of magnitudes encountered at depths equal to such of the mantle of the Earth. During the second phase of its development, the modern theory of petroleum was entirely recast from a qualitative argument based upon a synthesis of many qualitative facts into a quantitative argument based upon the analytical arguments of quantum statistical mechanics and thermodynamic stability theory. (Chekaliuk 1967; Boiko 1968; Chekaliuk 1971; Chekaliuk and Kenney 1991; Kenney 1995)
With the transformation of the modern theory from a synthetic geology theory arguing by persuasion into an analytical physical theory arguing by compulsion, petroleum geology entered the mainstream of modern science.
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) Similarly, such exploration in the western Siberia cratonic-rift sedimentary basin has developed 90 petroleum fields of which 80 produce either partly or entirely from the crystalline basement. The exploration and discoveries of the 11 major and 1 giant fields on the northern flank of the Dneiper-Donets basin have already been noted.
There are presently deep drilling exploration projects under way in Azerbaijan, Tatarstan, and Asian Siberia directed to testing potential oil and gas reservoirs in the crystalline basement.
http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm
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.
The real thing to worry about is HEAT emissions. At about 25% efficiency using oil based energy systems the other 75% is wasted energy heating the air. Either from your cars rad or the one at the nuke plant HEAT is going to get you. Waste heat is the enemy. Go green Avoid ALL wasteful atmosphere heating.
Erlenda said this about 'Peak Oil advocates,
"...they paint bleak doomsday scenarios of the future, like when Colin Campbell writes that the consequences of oil depletion will be: starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens."
The implication, of course, is that if we, the West, want to survive, we need to secure Middle East oil-reserves for ourselves. Otherwise, China or India will get them.
It´s either us or they who will starve."
I reject the idea that Ruppert, for one, would argue that, because we are running out of oil, we need to go out and steal what oil is left before others do.
Erlanda gives no argument 6to support the implication she draws.
One could draw other implications. For example, One could recognize that no matter what you do to steal the remaining oil supplies, the fact is everyone will eventually run out. Therefore, it makes more sense to develop changes in ones societies which do not require the same large expenditures of energy.
That is, "Peak Oil" theory is an argument for drastically scaling back in the use of non-renewable energy resources.
The problem that I have heard from Ruppert and others has been that if we do not start now to change society"s use of oil, when the supplies dry up, there will be an unresistable demand to get oil supplies in the worst ways. There will be a demand by otherwise rational people to take what we need. This is the eventuality that Ruppert, and others, wants to avoid.
The debate about whether oil is abiotic or not is secondary, I believe to the question of how fast any oil process takes to make or replenish our supplies.
I do not believe there is any evidence that any theory allows for the replacement of our oil supplies at any rate near how fast they have been used up.
The same is true for some of the most extreme "global warming" theories.
In these theories not even the use of alternative energies is sufficient to combat doomsday.
No, you need to cut down drastically on all human industry and reduce humanity to the stone age (except for the tiny deserving elite, of course). And since stone-age economy cannot feed 6 billion people or more, than we just have to starve the rest of us, or according to some other Malthusians find the right virus to do the job more efficiently, maybe Ebola?
Now lets see, what Ruppert has to say about it:
Ruppert Endorses 4 Billion
World Population Reduction?
Largest 'Layoff' In History
Knowing all of the above, it was extremely shocking to read Ruppert's endorsement of the Malthusian worldview. Michael himself is well aware that the Illuminati organizations that control the world are on the same page with his conclusions. The only difference is that Ruppert recommends that the Global Elite not be the ones to make the decisions as to who gets the "Get Out of Earth Free" Monopoly cards.
Instead, Ruppert suggests that these tough decisions be made by our world Religious, Social, Educational, Environmental and Moral leaders, who have the best interests of "the people" and the planet at heart.
Care to offer a list? How does this esteemed Committee get elected? Will they, too, once all the killing is ethically done, commit hare Kari themselves as a sign that they've been legitimate all along?
I thought the question at the bottom of "Peak Oil" as well as "Global Warming," was a factual question. "Is it true, or not?"
So, I take it the issue is whether the oil is being used up and cannot be replenished whatever the way it is produced.
This seems to me to be the basic question. It is a side issue whether oil comes originally from old organic material or from a non-organic process.
The answer to this question will be determined through some kind of study having to do with an examination of the science of how oil is produced.
The consequences of there being no more oil, or not enough to meet our needs, is another issue. It is an issue which does not have a bearing on how we answer the factual question about whether there is enough oil, or how it is produced.
We might find ourselves unable to produce enough oil to meet our needs. This possibility, unfortunately, will not make it possible for us to find or produce any more oil. We will not have any more of a limited resource by just asking for it.
Ruppert has the idea that there is only so much oil. When it's gone, or even when it's not being produced as much as we would like, we will have various social and economic problems. He is saying the problems are predictable.
My reading of Ruppert's work on this issue leads me to question Erlenda's interpretation.
Whether or not there's an economic elite out there, the illuminati, Ruppert argues his audience should have a plan for what to do to try to reduce the suffering that seems a predictable consequence of there being dwindling oil supplies.
I have here spent some time defending Ruppert from the charge he is advocating that the weak should be eliminated so that the strong can survive. I haven't cited much from Ruppert himself. I might go to his book, Crossing the Rubicon, where he said,
"...Big oil isn't drilling anymore because they know there are no more large finds out there to drill in. More drilling doesn't mean more supply. It means more holes in the ground...
Yet, even still, as this effort which has taken so much to complete, nears an end, there are signs that the thin veneer between outward confidence and fear; between a half-truth which is really a lie and a whole truth which can lead to real solutions; is fast approaching. Until that Rubicon is crossed there will be no real solution other than continued war, bloodshed, and destructive behavior that is blocking us from more peaceful, longer term, and more humane solutions."
Crossing the Rubicon, page 567.
I take it Ruppert sees our wars and belligerance in various places like Iraq, and Iran, is motivated by the desire on the part of these economic elites to gain control of the resourse. So long as the rest of us go along with the present consumption of oil, there will be no argument to change.
Ruppert is saying that so long as we refuse to acknowledge the limitations on this energay resource, we will continue to drive ourselves over a cliff.
I think it's noteworthy that Erlenda suggests that our concern about Global Warming, like Ruppert's concern about "Peak Oil," serves the purposes of this economic elite. It seems that both theories are intended, according to Erlenda, to convince people to do themselves in, or go along with their demise, so that the planet can be taken over by the elites.
Again, the question for us is whether it is true that the planet's climate is being changed by our industrial waste products and what those changes will mean for us.
Whether or not our society can commit itself to making changes to promote its survival is another question. I do not think we can make "Peak Oil" or "Global Warming" go away by pointing out they feed the machinations of evil but powerful people.
with Steven. I think it’s really probable were making the world much harder to live, especially for those who live in poor conditions, many animal and plant species and – of course – future generations (of all species, including our own offspring; except when you’re of a certain descent...) AND one day we’re gonna be out of (cheap) oil and similar commodities.
We in the industrialised world, and our ancestors in the 200 years before us, built up a huge ecological debt. Built from the riches obtained through slavery, imperialism and mutual piracy. This debt can easily be canceled out with current conventional debts, which are in itself extremely unjustifiable. I’m reading Ecological Debt from Andrew Simms right now and he can say these things much better than I can.
Let’s not fall for the devlish chant the “environmental industry” only wants to defend it’s interests. Of course some individuals and organisations do, but these will never outweigh the power, evil and sheer selfishness of their natural enemy. For example the car industries. Today they threatened to leave Europe and raise car prizes when maximum permited CO2 emissions are to be lowered.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6339915.stm
They threaten to fire many people, which they would do and have done anyway, because the don’t give a .. about anything but their own short term financial rewards. I’m a doubter, but in this case I know which side I’m on.
on the consequences.
The facts that speak for an abiotic oil theory are very convincing, just read the link I provided and read McGowan´s other newsletters and Kenney´s book.
Abiotic oil, oil-fields refilling themselves and the encreasing estimates countries like Saudi Arabia are reporting make a real good point, that we are not running out of oil.
And the whole matter is another panic meandering to get us to consent to war.
It is about facts, no doubt, and it is about who is credible enough to be believed.
And sorry, the oil industry goons do just not have sufficient credibility to be believed.
And I find it rather strange, that people who believe in all kinds of conspiracies, people who normally do not trust the mainline informations do still believe those oil-industry people.
And about changing our ways.
Europeans actually are doing a lot already to change to alternative energies, mostly because of global warming fears.
It's not really possible to say that there are no abiotic routes to oil production but the abiotis crowd are really on the margins amongst scientists. A few discussions about this matter:
energybulletin
oildrum1
oildrum2
In oildrum2 you can see that the origins of oil are not really the issue. The issue is about discovery and production. Since 1985 we have discovered less than we have produced and the gap has (basically) got worse since 1990.
That is if the numbers are accurate, but even if they are not that accurate I don't think you would find many people saying we have not been increasing our demand!
The production and depletion of individual fields and of countries follows the same basic bell shaped curve where production can be increased up until roughly 50% has been produced and then it is downhill in production terms from there.
This is well documented in various examples:
North Sea discovery peaked in 1972, production peaked in 1999 and is down by about 25% since.
USA discovery peaked in about 1930 and production peaked in 1971.
It is perfectly logical that it should work this way whether the origins of oil are biotic or abiotic or both. What cannot be argued seriously even by an proponent of abiotic oil is that this process would yield our current usage of 83 million barrels per day, for if that were the case then we would be sloshing around in the stuff produced over the past billion years or so.
I do not think most of the peak oil crowd are saying we are doomed for an enormous die off. They are alarmed at the incompetence and lack of honesty of our politicians. Not that that should surprise anyone.
There are alternatives for electrical generation (nuclear, wind, solar) and coal to liquids can be used for transportation as can electric cars and trains powered by electricity.
We may have to stop importing apples from the other side of the world but I think a doomsday scenario is far from a given. We just need honest information and education and I fully agree this is an enormous problem in our world.
Another problem is that oil is used in almost everything we do, for example production of plastics, shampoo, drugs etc etc and that is a worry. We need to stop burning the stuff at such a rate until we come up with solutions.
I don't agree with the Zionist conspiracy idea (pushing peak oil) but rather with the oil company and OPEC and political conspiracy (refusing to address depletion explicitly)
For my money it is not a matter of "if" but "when" world production peaks and I would be surprised if it were more than ten years hence. Of course I could be wrong, but I would put money where my mouth is on this.
Ironically, for American readers, I as a Brit feel we are in a far worse position than yourselves as you have stacks of arable land relative to your population.
Unfortunately the imbeciles in Washington are thinking of using it for ethanol production, but you can sort that out in time.
Erlenda has suggested that people who promote the theory of “Peak Oil” also want to soften up their readers to believe that the many undeserving weak should die so that the few deserving strong could survive in the world of depleted resources.
I have resisted this claim because it’s not my reading of these people. Many argue that in the face of what they take to be the facts about oil being a limited resource, all of us have to plan ahead if we want to reduce suffering.
They do not advocate the idea that anyone has to give up on living. They just make the argument that people have to learn to live differently.
Here are some sites offering information on this issue:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7203633/the_long_emergency
http://www.countercurrents.org/po-norman181006.htm
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/28/1439240
http://baloghblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/beyond-panic-peak-oil-revisited.h...
are Malthusians.
But there are quite a few of them in the forefront.
And what they write is sickening.
And this, together with the convincing a-biotic oil-theory, suggests to me, that Peak Oil is a Malthusian and Imperialist desinformation campaign.
Of course it would not hurt the world, if a little less oil was burnt, but the doomsday scenarios painted by the Peak Oilers´ most famous spokesmen is hurting any hope for a just and peaceful future.
But then, justice and peace will recover from the oily blow, don´t worry.
I understand Malthus to be saying that in a world of limited resources, it will not be possible to have unlimited population growth. There will come a time when the planet will not support an ever increasing number of people.
I take it one way in which Malthus's problem could come to a head is if the population came to rely on a certain amount of oil, but suddenly had that resource dry up.
The same kind of problem arises if we suddenly find ourselves with a decrease in fresh water, breathable air, or with an unlivable environment, see the business about Global Warming.
I think if the posibilities of "Peak Oil" or "Global Warming" came about in any way as theorized, the prospect would be frightening.
That Erlenda uses the word "sickening" suggests she thinks the "doomsayers" take some pleasure or satisfaction in the possible suffering that these developments would cause. I think she believes that some might be satisfied because they believe, according to her, that the poor and weak will fimally be efficiently "weeded out."
As I've said, I don't see this kind of sadism in the writers I've read.
Erlenda suggests that the argument "Peak Oil" or "Global Warming" people make will somehow "hurt any hope of a just and peaceful future." In her brief post she did not explain how justice would be thwarted by having come up with an accurate understanding of our predicament.
As I pointed out, there are two questions. Is our oil running out? And, If it is running out, what can we do to prevent suffering? The doomsayers are foretelling what might be our doom, but many of them also encourage us to make plans to avoid our possible doom.
If they would argue that there is nothing to be done, or that we cannot save ourselves, then I might agree that they are making it difficult for us to develop any plans for a "just and peaceful future." What's more, if they tried to have us ignore or deny to ourselves the facts, then I would think they were trying to bring about the doom they predict.
I find the "Peak Oil" people to be basically innocent of the kind of charge Erlenda makes about them.
She says, to conclude, "But then, justice and peace will recover from the oily blow, don't worry." I find this reassurance without merit, unfortunately.
She gives us no reason to think that things will go differently in the future than they have gone in the past. I believe we have been driving civilization into the ground. So, given our commitments, and those alone, I think we are doomed. The fact that there will be less oil is only a minor issue.
The problem of doom has more to do with how our commitments to various self-destructive maladies of thought drive us.
So, for example, the person with his fingers on the nuclear weapons launch buttons believes there's no talking to the Iranians. He thinks we have to kill enough of them that they cannot in the future harm him, and his buddies.
The rest of us may or may not agree with him. Doesn't matter. The only person who matters is the President, and he is apparently immune to reason on certain issues.
We are being lead down a slippery slope to multiple catastrophes involving people like the President who are dangers to themselves and others because they can't, for example, listen to reason.
I point this out not because I want to see people suffer, or because I would rather the strong few survive instead of the weak many. Instead, I think we have to understand why Bush uses force to get his way in order to stop him.
First, because it unveils another theory behind how our oil and gas is created - not so much because the theory implies that there may never be a "peak", but more so because it is remarkable that this theory is NEVER presented in the mainstream media. Neither have I seen it in alternative media.
However, I do agree with stephen that the biggest two problems facing humanity today is not the quantity of the oil available on earth for human consumption (exploitation), but the insanity of the people driving humanity off a cliff with their rabid militarism AND the power wielded by those who CONTROL the energy supplies, to MANUFACTURE scarcity, where otherwise there is none.
On the other hand, Erlenda does make a good point that misunderstanding the nature of the source of oil and gas on earth can result at best in an unnecessary narrowing of possibilities in people's minds, and at worst in the justification of resource wars by power hungry megalomaniacs.
Interesting subject, although peak oil has not up until now been my forte.
Blaming (or mistrusting) the bringer of bad news doesn't make the bad news go away.
I agree again with Steven the real problems are collective problems of thought. We are merely part of nature, but we CAN be a destructive force for that same nature that gives us a liveable environment (for ourselves therefore). Our leaders can't be trusted with averting this pending Malthusian situation; worldwide social-economic systems of injustice are some of the roots of the problem, I would say.