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:
NEWSLETTER #64
August 17, 2004
Whoa, Dude! Are We Peaking Yet?
"The Club of Rome, a non-profit global think tank, said
in the 1970s that we'd hit peak oil in 2003. It didn't happen." So
said Kevin Kelleher, writing for Popular Science magazine in August of this
year. But it did indeed happen, according to Michael Ruppert and his band
of resident 'experts,' who collectively insist that the planet is now at
the point of 'peak' oil production. (Kevin Kelleher "How Long Will
the Oil Age Last?" Popular Science, August 2004)
It appears then that today's 'Peak Oil' crowd has some pages
in their propaganda playbook that were lifted directly from the Club of
Rome, which raises the obvious question: what exactly is the Club of Rome?
Who is it that has handed Michael Ruppert and company the
baton?
The initial membership list of the Club of Rome, as it turns
out, contains some interesting [American Nazi] names:
DAVID ROCKEFELLER: Bilderberger, cofounder of the Trilateral
Commission, former chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, scion of
the world's most prominent oil dynasty, and all-around bad guy.
JOHN J. McCLOY: Former advisor to the Mussolini regime who
had the honor of sitting in Adolf Hitler's private box at the Berlin Olympic
games; later served as High Commissioner of Germany, during which time he
signed an order freeing the majority of the Nazi war criminals that had
been convicted at Nuremberg; still later, served on the infamous Warren
Committee.
AVERELL HARRIMAN: Skull and Bonesman and high-level political
operative through several presidential administrations; together with members
of the Dulles family and the Bush/Walker family, established various business
entities engaged in providing funding to Nazi Germany, even after the United
States had entered the war.
Katherine Graham: Longtime publisher of the Washington Post
and longtime CIA asset who once famously said, while speaking at the CIA's
Langley, Virginia headquarters: "We live in a dirty and dangerous world.
There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't.
I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps
to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what
it knows."
Quite a distinguished cast of characters, I have to admit
-- although not necessarily the type of people whose lies and spin most
dissidents/progressives would accept as good coin.
But guess what?
If you are buying (or selling) the 'Peak Oil' bullshit, then
you already have.
* * * * * * * * * *
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.
[Ask Enron, they do the same thing.]
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), [THE
'BUY IT UP SHUT IT DOWN/DESTROY IT THEME,' PLAYING OUT IN IRAQ PRESENTLY]
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. [It's larger than that, putting
the depopulation agenda setters above into play, who simultaneously are
oil executive monopoly families for 150 years or more. Do you follow this
yet?] 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 [the lie of] 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.
* * * * * * * * * *
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.
... I have seen 'Peak Oil' referenced in several election
post-mortems. I guess then that it must be time to once again take an alternative
look at what the 'Peak' team is selling. And I have a lot of stuff here
that I want to get through, and not much time to get through it all, so
let's get started.
* * * * * * * * * *
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."
( 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)
Included in the Times article was a litany of excuses offered
by Shell for the closure of the refinery: "Shell, the U.S. unit of
Anglo-Dutch company Royal Dutch/Shell Group [a huge block of stock of which
is owned by Bilderberg connected European royalty], said it decided to close
the Bakersfield refinery because of dwindling supplies of crude oil in the
San Joaquin Valley. In addition, the company said, the refinery is old,
inefficient and not profitable enough."
The excuses were, of course, patently false, as the Times
and Ms. Douglas were well aware.
Douglas is, after all, [hypocritically] the very same journalist
who previously reported that the Bakersfield refinery'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." Nevertheless, Shell's claims
went unchallenged in the September report. (Elizabeth Douglas "Shell
to Cut Summer Output at Bakersfield Refinery, Papers Say," Los Angeles
Times, June 21, 2004)
Judging by the latest oil field maps, there doesn't appear
to be any shortage of crude at the south end of the San Joaquin Valley.
In fact, the company's own actions refute that claim, for if the local crude
oil contracts are soon to be worthless, then why would Shell insist on keeping
them?
On September 23, the Times revisited the Bakersfield story
once again, revealing that, contrary to Shell's patently bogus claims, dozens
of companies are interested in purchasing the wildly profitable facility:
"Shell initially made no effort to sell the facility,
and repeatedly told lawmakers and others that no one would want it, especially
because the company intended to keep the refinery's crude oil contracts.
On Wednesday, Shell said more than 70 parties had expressed interest in
the Bakersfield refinery, and that 20 signed confidentiality agreements
so they could dig deeper into the plant's books."
(Elizabeth Douglas "Shell Studying Offers for Its Bakersfield Site,"
Los Angeles Times, September 23, 2004)
There has been no further word from the Times on the progress
of any possible negotiations. The last word from Shell was that the refinery
would be closed either at the end of the year or on March 31, 2005, "if
no deal is reached."
Despite the intense interest in the facility, I wouldn't bet
the family farm on a deal being reached.
I am still waiting, by the way, for someone - anyone - from
the 'Peak Oil' crowd to explain the pending closure and demolition of a
wildly profitable refinery sitting atop vast reserves of oil, at a time
when refinery capacity in the nation as a whole, and in California in particular,
is already woefully inadequate. Despite the fact that the 'Peakers' have
carefully avoided any mention of the controversial refinery closure, I know
that they are aware of it, because the newspaper that has been providing
commentary on the story is the local paper of the Grand Poobah of the 'Peak'
spokesmen.
Elsewhere in the news, Astrobiology Magazine says that, on
the planet Mars, there is an "intriguing connection between methane
and water vapor found in three broad geographic regions, a result that may
suggest looking further for past or dormant microbial life." I guess
then we should start looking for signs of past or present life on Saturn's
moon Titan as well, since it contains, according to NASA, "lots of
hydrocarbons." Those dinosaurs really racked up the frequent flyer
miles, apparently.
( http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1207&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0,
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/multimedia/pia6988.html and http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/multimedia/pia06980.html)
Something else I recently stumbled across was a post by Mike
Ward, on Alternet, in which he lists what he claims are the "Top 10
Conspiracy Theories of 2003-2004." ( http://alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18735)
Number 9 on that list was "Peak Oil and the End of the World."
"One would hope peak oil is a hand-wringing fantasy on
a par with the survivalist craze that accompanied Y2K," writes Ward,
"But there are some facts in favor of the peak oil agitators."
One of those "facts," according to Ward, is "the otherwise
inexplicable war in Iraq - which, though a political liability in the short
run, is likely in the long haul to yield the U.S. virtually unending supplies
of oil just when the peak oil theorists claim it's going to start getting
quite scarce."
Ahh, yes ... providing an explanation (and a backhanded justification)
for what is claimed to be an "otherwise inexplicable war." That,
as I recall, is almost exactly what I initially posited about the 'Peak
Oil' theory, thereby thoroughly pissing off any number of 'Peakers.' Of
course, I left out the fable about the war being otherwise inexplicable.
"If the peak oil theory is right," added Ward, "the
Iraq war, terrible though it is, will be remembered - like the assassination
of Archduke Ferdinand or the Nazi invasion of Poland - as a mere prelude
to a much bloodier affair ... Many oil-peakers speak of a coming 'die-off,'
as the world population adjusts to the resources available to it - by perishing
in the billions from war, famine, exposure, and civil unrest."
But wait! As it turns out, it doesn't have to be an apocalyptic
future after all, at least according to the BBC. On April 19, correspondent
Alex Kirby concluded that, "there is every reason to plan for the post-oil
age. Does it have to be devastating? Different, yes - but our forebears
lived without oil and thought themselves none the worse. We shall have to
do the same, so we might as well make the best of it. And the best might
even be an improvement on today."
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3623549.stm)
So there is nothing to fear, you see ... well, other than
that whole "die-off" thing ... but if you happen to be among the
survivors, then things will be looking pretty rosy, apparently. And that
is certainly nice to know.
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 mass psychology rags 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.
Since then things have improved and the latest estimate is 2043."
( http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=683192004)
Meanwhile, Lyndon LaRouche (Lyndon LaRouche? How did he get
into this discussion? Oh yeah, I remember now -- I decided to include him
after I read a recent interview in which the great Mike Ruppert said, and
I quote, "I share a near universal respect of the LaRouche organization's
detailed and precise research." So, like I was saying, Lyndon LaRouche)
"called on May 28 for the price of oil to be set at a target price
of $25-26 per barrel, by nation-to-nation contracts, in order to bankrupt
and take away the power of the speculators, and restore order to the oil
market." According to the LaRouchians (who, let's face it, make a hell
of a lot more sense on this issue than their admirers, the Ruppertians),
"Some fools will insist on buying the Brooklyn Bridge, no matter how
many times you tell them it's already been sold. The same is true with the
story that there is an oil shortage. The truth: No oil shortage exists.
Figures from the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA), the central
collection point for world oil information, show that for the first quarter
of 2004, world oil supplies were in the range of 82.3 million barrels a
day (mbd), with consumption lower, in the range of 80.5 mbd to as high as
81.5 mbd. Thus, the world was in surplus during the first 90 days of the
year, during the very period that world oil prices leapt by $7 per barrel."
Furthermore, say the LaRouchians, "there is no relationship between
the price of oil and the amount of oil being produced. Over the past several
decades, oil production has increased slowly and predictably." True
enough.
( http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3123oil_speculation.html)
In September, the prestigious Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences published an interesting study by a distinguished group
of academics (as opposed to the oil industry spokesmen that the Peakers
routinely cite): "We present in situ observations of hydrocarbon formation
via carbonate reduction at upper mantle pressures and temperatures. Methane
was formed from FeO, CaCO3-calcite, and water at pressures between 5 and
11 GPa and temperatures ranging from 500°C to 1,500°C. The results
are shown to be consistent with multiphase thermodynamic calculations based
on the statistical mechanics of soft particle mixtures. The study demonstrates
the existence of abiogenic pathways for the formation of hydrocarbons in
the Earth's interior and suggests that the hydrocarbon budget of the bulk
Earth may be larger than conventionally assumed."
( http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0405930101v1?view=abstract)
What?!?! Hydrocarbons can be produced without biological matter?
Right here on Earth? Just like on Mars? But New Scientist just said a couple
weeks ago that "Methane is of great interest because on Earth, almost
all of it (sic) comes from living things - everything from rotting plants
to bovine flatulence. But there are other possible sources of methane on
Mars."
And they have, [supposedly] like, real scientists working
there at the offices of New Scientist. But I guess they somehow missed the
PNAS study -- and the decades of Soviet research that preceded it.
( http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996669)
The study even found its way into the mainstream media, by
way of the San Francisco Chronicle: "Oceans of fossil fuel-like gases
and fluids, enough to support a high-tech society for many millennia to
come, might exist far deeper inside the Earth than we've ever drilled before,
researchers speculate. Since the mid-19th century, a small but enthusiastic
minority of [non-Rockefeller] scientists have argued that petroleum and
other fuels are formed by purely chemical, or abiogenic, processes hundreds
of miles inside Earth. An early champion was the great Russian chemist Dmitri
Mendeleyev, pioneer of the periodic table that hangs on the wall of virtually
every high school chemistry classroom."
( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/14/MNG048ODH01.DTL)
Who knew that the distinguished Dr. Mendeleyev was, in reality,
a "Flat-Earther"?
Physics Web picked up the story as well: "Scientists
in the US have witnessed the production of methane under the conditions
that exist in the Earth's upper mantle for the first time. The experiments
demonstrate that hydrocarbons could be formed inside the Earth via simple
inorganic reactions -- and not just from the decomposition of living organisms
as conventionally assumed -- and might therefore be more plentiful than
previously thought."
( http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/9/9/1)
The Peakers, predictably enough, got their panties in quite
a collective wad over this scientific debunking of their scam. By October
4, the Portal of Peak Propaganda had up a post that attempted, rather pathetically,
to 'debunk' abiotic oil 'theory.' The piece was penned by a Ugo Bardi, a
member of ASPO, shockingly enough, and the author of an Italian language
"The Sky is Falling" book.
( http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100404_abiotic_oil.shtml)
Bardi makes one remarkable admission in his rant -- quite
likely the truest statement to ever appear in a 'Peak Oil' post on Ruppert's
website: "The concept of 'oil peak' is strictly limited to a view that
sees oil as a finite resource." So here we have, from the portal of
all things 'Peak,' an admission that if oil is not a finite resource, then
'Peak Oil' is an inherently fraudulent theory. That, of course, has been
my position all along. It is precisely why the Peakers must necessarily
begin their arguments by first establishing that oil is, in fact, a nonrenewable
'fossil fuel.'
Thus far, they have studiously avoided doing so, probably
because their arguments are not founded in any known body of scientific
research.
Here is how Bardi approaches the idea of abiotic oil: "Here,
I will try to discuss the origin of oil without going into ... details.
I will do this by taking a more general approach. Supposing that the abiogenic
theory is right, then what are the consequences for us and for the whole
biosphere? If we find that the consequences do not correspond to what we
see, then we can safely drop the abiotic theory without the need of worrying
about having to take a course in advanced geology. We may also find that
the consequences are so small as to be irrelevant; in this case also we
needn't worry about arcane geological details."
What Bardi is saying here, amazingly enough, is that we shouldn't
be concerned whether 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, because that is, in reality nothing more than
an "arcane geological detail." I mean, honestly now, who has time
to bother with such trivialities?
Bardi then proceeds to 'debunk' the abiotic 'theory' (which
was actually proven, once again, by the PNAS study) by claiming that if
oil was abiotic in origin, then the planet would be drowning in oil, and
the planet is not drowning in oil, so therefore oil cannot be abiotic. After
devoting exactly two paragraphs to that amazingly specious argument, Bardi
then states authoritatively: "At this point, we can arrive at a conclusion.
What is the relevance of the abiotic theory in practice? The answer is 'none.'"
Wow! That was easy, wasn't it?
Interestingly, 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).
Bardi ends his post on this particularly repellent note: "So,
the abiotic theory is irrelevant to the debate about peak oil and it would
not be worth discussing were it not for its political aspects. If people
start with the intention of demonstrating that the concept of 'peak oil'
was created by a 'Zionist conspiracy' or something like that, anything goes.
In this case, however, the debate is no longer a scientific one."
It has never been the position of this website that 'Peak
Oil' is a "Zionist conspiracy" or a "Zionist Scam."
And, contrary to what some people seem to believe, the fact that an easily-discredited
disinformation-peddler like Joe Vialls has suddenly inserted himself into
the 'Peak Oil' debate, on the anti-'Peak' side, is not a welcome development
( http://joevialls.altermedia.info/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html). Rather,
it is an indication that with the 'Peak Oil' scam under fire, a new line
of defense has kicked in: linking the abiotic, anti-'Peak' position to virulent
anti-Semitism. That is precisely why, close on the heels of the Vialls'
piece, we now find Bardi completing the one-two punch. Nice tag-team work,
guys. You should be very proud of yourselves.
Bardi's post was followed a couple weeks later by another
'debunking' post, this time by Jean Laherrere, one of the High Priests of
the Cult of Peak. The Laherrere post, however, is only for the eyes of those
very special people who pay good money every year to be lied to by Ruppert
and Co. (and for certain critics who may or may not be supplied user names
and passwords by disgruntled subscribers). As it turns out though, all you
really need to know about the piece can be found in the first two paragraphs
of the introduction by Dale Allen Pfeiffer:
The following paper is a critique of the writings of Thomas
Gold, written by Jean Laherrere. It is a scientific dialogue and contains
many technical terms and references which may be nearly unfathomable to
the layperson. However, it is a very important discussion because it lays
bare many of the errors in Gold's arguments. Unfortunately, Thomas Gold
is no longer with us to respond to these criticisms. However, this critique
has been floating around in one form or another for a few years now, and
it is not unreasonable to assume that Thomas Gold was aware of it.
Jean Laherrere has told me that he sent a copy of this critique
(along with materials critical of abiotic theory) to V.A. Krayushkin, the
main Russian proponent of abiotic oil, in 2001, shortly before a conference
where both men were to present papers. Dr. Krayushkin canceled his appearances
and has since gone out of his way to avoid addressing Jean Laherrere's criticism.
Jean's comments on the Dneiper-Donets Basin will be presented in the second
part of this series. If a scientist cannot or will not defend his theory
against fair scientific scrutiny, then his argument is immediately caste
into doubt.
Incredibly enough, Pfeiffer has, in just two brief paragraphs,
established himself as the single most reprehensible player on the entire
'Peak' team (an impressive feat, considering the competition). After avoiding
any mention of Gold's work for, oh, the last three years or so, even while
feverishly pitching the 'Peak Oil' line, Pfeiffer actually has the fucking
nerve to post a critique of Gold's work now, just a few months after the
doctor conveniently dropped dead.
Pfeiffer's claim that Laherrere's post, specifically entitled
"A Critique of Thomas Gold's Claims for Abiotic Oil," circulated
for three years without a response from Gold, is undoubtedly a gross misrepresentation,
as is evident from Pfeiffer's careful choice of words: "floating around
in one form or another," and "not unreasonable to assume that
Thomas Gold was aware of it."
Pfeiffer follows that claim with another that is an obvious
lie -- so much so that it could only be passed off as good coin to an audience
that is woefully ignorant of the other side of the debate. The truth of
the matter is that Dr. Krayushkin has been, for quite some time, one of
the late Dr. Gold's harshest critics. Krayushkin, along with the rest of
the Soviet and Ukrainian scientists who developed modern abiotic petroleum
theory, consider Dr. Gold to have been a plagiarist -- and not a particularly
good plagiarist, but rather one who got the basic theory right, but the
actual science wrong. ( http://www.gasresources.net/Plagiarism(Overview).htm)
Krayushkin's opinion of Gold is quite evident in a letter
sent by the doctor to a Professor John Briggs, which can be found here:
http://www.gasresources.net/VAKreplytBriggs.htm. It is pretty clear that
Krayushkin would not be at the head of the line to defend Dr. Gold's work,
which he considers to be a stolen and bastardized version of his own work.
Why then would Laherrere send Krayushkin a paper entitled "A Critique
of Thomas Gold's Claims for Abiotic Oil"? Perhaps Laherrere's time
would be better served sending Ricky Martin a critique of William Hung's
performance of "She Bangs."
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 by the likes of Bardi and Laherrere.
Strangely enough, even as they are busily savaging one dead
guy who can't defend himself, Team 'Peak' is simultaneously claiming to
be following in the footsteps of another dead guy, who also can't defend
himself.
In Ruppert's recent "We Did It!" post, he wrote
the following: "We have studied and learned from the lessons given
us by great authors like L. Fletcher Prouty ..."
( http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/100404_we_did_it.shtml)
On the From the Wilderness website (on the "Recommended
Reading" page), Ruppert lists what he describes as "seven of the
most important books that I would recommend as teaching books about 'How
things really work.'" At the very top of that list is The Secret Team,
Third Edition by L. Fletcher Prouty. ( http://www.copvcia.com/book_list.shtml)
Elsewhere on the site, Ruppert provides links to other sites that he has
found to be "sources for reason and reliable information." ( http://www.copvcia.com/links.shtml)
Here is a portion of that list of links:
* Gulf War Veterans
* Col. Fletcher Prouty's Site
* The Center for an Informed America [David McGowan's website]
* Brian Willson's Site
Again we see Col. Prouty being touted as a voice of reason,
along with, curiously enough, some website known as the Center for an Informed
America. 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.
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)
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?
Moving on then, let's see what else is happening in the world
of 'Peak Oil.' 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.
I can read 'Peak Oil' stories in my morning newspaper. I read
one just the other day in the November edition of Playboy. And there is
something seriously wrong when you can't even flip through a friggin' Playboy
without being assaulted with 'Peak Oil' propaganda. So my question to webmasters
Chossudovsky and Conover is this: If you are running websites that purport
to be 'alternative' sources of news and information, and yet you are selling
the very same story as the Los Angeles Times, Playboy, and scores of other
widely read, mainstream media sources, while at the same time denying your
readers a truly alternative point of view, and one that happens to be actually
backed by science, are you really still doing your jobs?
Just a few more links and we're all done for this outing.
[the links for these are internal to the main link, below:]
First up is a must-read post by Rod Allison, entitled "Reply to Certain
Biogenic/Peak Oil Lobbyists." You'll never guess which lobbyists Allison
is referring to. Next up is a post that we'll refer to as "Confessions
of a Reformed True Believer." For the scientifically minded, we have
an offering entitled "Hydrocarbon Production From Fractured Basement
Reservoirs." From Chris Bennett comes a piece entitled "Sustainable
Oil?," which is a decent overview of modern abiotic oil theory, except
that it leaves out the fact that the theory was forged in the former Soviet
Union. I guess that's to be expected though for a post that originally appeared
on WorldNetDaily. Lastly - and this one is truly shocking - oil company
profits continue to soar, as do oil producer profits: "Exxon Mobil
Profit Soars" and "The $300 billion bonanza."
For those hungry for yet more anti-'Peak' news and commentary,
Kelly Cooke has tackled the subject on several occasions on her blog at
reSearched. Scroll through and you will find commentary and a number of
interesting links. Also check the Peak Oil page on Brian Salter's website.
Many of the links there are to my newsletters, but there are a number of
other good links as well.
Next up will be additions to the 9-11 Revisited series, and
maybe more 'Peak Oil' stuff.
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr71.html
.
[BIG ROCKEFELLER SAY: GOTTA TAKE OUT IRANIAN OIL PRODUCTION, MESSING UP
THE WHOLE 'PEAK OIL' SCAM WITH NEWS LIKE THIS, SAME AS SAUDI'S WERE PUBLICLY
ANNOUNCING--UNTIL THEY AS WELL WERE IMMEDIATELY HIT BY 'TERRORISM', AND
THEY GOT THE MESSAGE.]
TEHRAN, March 8 (Xinhuanet) -- Iranian Oil Minister Bijan
Namdar Zanganeh announced here Tuesday that Iran has discovered two new
oil and gas fields in the south of the country.
The new oil field, with an estimated capacity of 5.7 billion
barrels, was located in the southern province of Khuzestan, 40 km northeast
of the provincial capital of Ahvaz, Zanganeh told reporters.
"The field also holds 242 billion cubic meters of gas,
of which 36 billion cubic meters are recoverable," he said.
Zanganeh said that the gas field is situated east of the great
South Pars gas field in another southern province of Bushehr and the capacity
is estimated at 168 billion cubic meters of gas and 183 million barrels
of gas condensate.
The minister added that the oil field belonged solely to Iran
while the gas field was shared with another country.
Iran previously boasted that it has 132 billion barrels of
oil and 26,800 billion cubic meters of gas in proven reserves, both at the
second in the global list. Enditem '
add a comment on this article
Idiocy! 14.Mar.2005 09:42
Mike Novack stepbystpefarm <a> mtdata.com link
Whether pertoleum is produced over geologic time from biotic
compounds or petroleum is produced over geologic time from non-biotic compounds
is irrelevant to the the fact (in both cases) that it is produced over geologic
time.
Get it? What petroleum there is took many millions of years
to come into being and we are using all that up in a couple hundred. The
source compounds are irrelevant to the reality that it wuill soon be gone.
This is not the time to quibble of usage of the term "fossil".
If I call the water stored in the aquifers of the planet "fossil water"
I do NOT mean by that usage to imply that the bodies of living organisms
was invoved! << just that it was stored over geologic time >>
The "biotic" theory of oil production does NOT say
that all the olil that exists was produced a 100 million years ago and isn't
being produced at a steady rate by those same geologic processes while oyu
read this. That's not the problem. The problem is the RATE of petroleum
production compared with the rate of extraction and the same situation exists
with respect to the "abiotic" theory of where petroleum came form.
Try this thought experiment. Imagine the bathtub in your house.
Imagine that the bottom drain is closed and the tap dripping. Wait long
enough and the tub gets filled to the upper drain level (your tub SHOULD
have an upper drain to prevent overflow). OK, now imagine that you are going
to use that water. You have a bucket in your hand, and every couple minutes
you scoop up a bucketful of water and dump it into the toilet. What happens?
The tub ends up empty with only a tiny bit of water left in the bottom you
can't effectively scoop with the bucket. Yes of course, water is coming
in all the time from the tap, but only dripping. Water not coming in anywhere
near as fast as you were taking it out.
Do you understand "peak oil" NOW?
Fossil fuel 14.Mar.2005 10:16
Watson link
It seems to me that oil is created by fossils. If you look
at all the major oil deposits, they have been formed in ancient shallow
sea areas.
1)The Texas/Gulf region,
2)the Persian Gulf region which was the ancient Tethys sea area,
3)the sea between western Africa (Nigeria) and Venezueala which have since
drifted far apart, and
4) the ancient sea area between what is now Pennsyvania and Scotland (North
Sea oil), the Cambrian Sea also drifted far apart.
The fact that they have maintained their oil deposits even
after continental drifting is stronger evedence yet for fossil origins.
Still holding off on that new SUV purchase 14.Mar.2005 10:18
peak oil supporter link
Sorry, but the peak oil Rockefeller conspiracy isn't going
to change my decision not 2 buy that new SUV, even if there is unlimited
oil 4ever amen..
It is entertaining to believe that an infinite supply of oil
exists, but 4 now i'll continue riding bicycle and public trans, hitchiking,
etc..
Oil in the delta of the Niger River is best left underground.
The damage done to the Ogoni people by Shell and ChevronTexaco by polluting
the delta ecosystem is enough reason 4 me 2 boycott the petroleum corporations
4ever!!
****
"What petroleum there is took many millions of years
to come into being and we are using all that up in a couple hundred."
Nope on the "using it up in a couple of hundred."
You obviously failed to read the above. Or expected that no one else did....?
"What petroleum there is took many millions of years
to come into being and we are using all that up in a couple hundred."
Nope on "took millions of years" as well--because
of the refilling gas reserves that have been noted as well in other articles
on this point.
So you are left standing on nothing in the way of any argument.
Besides, to the others, the point is hardly the oil: the point
is the people connected to consolidating the technology around oil extraction.
These people are intentionally ("they"= corporate elites) shutting
down production as a political goal and a depopulation goal. A political
goal. A depopulation goal.
This is hardly an argument for "pro-oil". This is
a discussion of their nazi policy designs that include, basically, killing
you. When of course it is the corporations that are destroyign the planet
not the people. Even with mass death there will still be the degradating
corporations. They are simply wanting to kill off people to consolidate
their control.
'PEAK OIL' THEORY BITES THE DUST 14.Mar.2005 22:15
*****
Report March 7, 2005
Stalin & Abiotic Oil versus international
corporate oil's PLANNED GLOBAL HOLOCAUST
'PEAK OIL' THEORY BITES THE DUST: 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.
Only the world is being led like sheep to believe that the
oncoming PLANNED HUMAN HOLOCAUST is going to be strictly accidental instead
of WHAT IS REALLY 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 modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep,
abiotic petroleum origins is not controversial nor presently a matter of
academic debate--UNLESS YOU ARE REALLY LOOKING FOR A FLIMSY ALIBI CALLED
'PEAK BIOLOGICAL OIL' TO FRAME A COVER OPERATION TO KILL BILLIONS OF PEOPLE
AND TO JUSTIFY HIGH PRIVATE MONOPOLY OIL PRICES OFF FALSE IDEAS OF SCARCITY.
In September, the prestigious Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences published an interesting study by a distinguished group
of academics (as opposed to the oil industry spokesmen that the Peakers
routinely cite): "We present in situ observations of hydrocarbon formation
via carbonate reduction at upper mantle pressures and temperatures. Methane
was formed [ABIOTICALLY] from FeO, CaCO3-calcite, and water at pressures
between 5 and 11 GPa and temperatures ranging from 500°C to 1,500°C.
The results are shown to be consistent with multiphase thermodynamic calculations
based on the statistical mechanics of soft particle mixtures. The study
demonstrates THE EXISTENCE OF ABIOGENIC PATHWAYS for the formation of hydrocarbons
in the Earth's interior and suggests that the hydrocarbon budget of the
bulk Earth may be larger than conventionally assumed."
( http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0405930101v1?view=abstract).
. .
The study even found its way into the mainstream media, by
way of the San Francisco Chronicle: "Oceans of fossil fuel-like gases
and fluids, enough to support a high-tech society for many millennia to
come, might exist far deeper inside the Earth than we've ever drilled before,
researchers speculate. Since the mid-19th century, a small but enthusiastic
minority of [non-Rockefeller] scientists have argued that petroleum and
other fuels are formed by purely chemical, or abiogenic, processes hundreds
of miles inside Earth. An early champion was the great Russian chemist Dmitri
Mendeleyev, pioneer of the periodic table that hangs on the wall of virtually
every high school chemistry classroom."
( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/14/MNG048ODH01.DTL)
Who knew that the distinguished Dr. Mendeleyev was, in reality,
a "Flat-Earther"?
Physics Web picked up the story as well: "Scientists
in the US have witnessed the production of methane under the conditions
that exist in the Earth's upper mantle for the first time. The experiments
demonstrate that hydrocarbons could be formed inside the Earth via simple
inorganic reactions -- and not just from the decomposition of living organisms
as conventionally assumed -- and might therefore be more plentiful than
previously thought."
( http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/9/9/1)
The Peakers, predictably enough, got their panties in quite
a collective wad over this scientific debunking of their scam.
Peak Oil is a Scam
15.Mar.2005 04:25
Peak Oil Supporter writes, "It is entertaining to believe
that an infinite supply of oil exists." The abiotic theory of the origin
of petrochemicals neither implies nor endorses this conclusion. Yours is
a specious argument on this point.
Mike Novack presumes that the rate petrochemical production
over geologic time is a constant, irrespective of whether it occurs via
biotic or abiotic processes. He, then, relates this assumption to the increase
of demand and the falling off of refining production and concludes there
is no difference. "We're running out of oil. Case closed." This
conclusion is precisely what the purveyors of the Peak Oil scam want you
to believe. Tyhey don't really care how you have come to embrace the lie.
They only care that you do embrace the lie. Having a little more knowledge
than the average man, you have merely unwittingly lumped into this subtergfuge,
through false reasoning and unproven assumptions, another theory of petrochemical
production into your belief in Peak Oil. The abiotc theory makes no such
comparison and draws no such conclusion.
In some respects, the "Peak Oil," biotic mantra
of the decline of the earth's petrochemical resources is no different than
the once popular belief (probably still held by many) that diamonds are
"rare," which explains why they are expensive. The truth of the
matter is that the diamond cartel controls the distribution of these really-not-so-rare-afterall,
precious stones, and thereby keeps the price for them artificially high.
... 15.Mar.2005 17:20
this thing here link
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.
this other thing here. ;-) 16.Mar.2005 03:12
grouping link
connected post linked here, where poster answers 'this thing
here'. The comment is way way down the list. tth has posted his comment
verbatim I think on both threads, right?
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.