Reply Private New

Replies (3) Next 10 Prev Next

Send PM Follow Ignore

Followers	217
Posts	32534
Boards Moderated	3
Alias Born	09/10/2000

ThatHawaiiGuy

Re: ThatHawaiiGuy post# 15018

Friday, 09/28/2007 3:44:26 PM

Friday, September 28, 2007 3:44:26 PM

Is "Peak Oil" A Scam?

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3797

Is oil in short supply?

I’ll address that in a second, but first, if oil is NOT about to “run out,” is that good news or bad? If oil were plentiful, would we pollute ourselves to death? Or would we break the monopoly of oil companies, and develop alternative energy sources? Today the oil companies are so rich that they can kill any alternative energy sources that threaten the monopoly.

Hmmm…

Anyway, what about this 'Peak Oil' claim?

Geologists are not certain how oil is formed. In western nations, the reigning theory is that oil is formed from the fossil remains of plants and animals. If that is true, then oil is limited. But what if oil isn’t only fossilized critters? What if some other natural process also creates oil? The universe is full of hydrocarbons. Oil is a hydrocarbon.

One field of geology says oil can also be produced by natural or “abiogenic” processes that do not involve critters. Russian geologists have studied this approach since the mid-1700s, and kicked into high gear during the 1950s.

With the rise of the oil monopolies (such as Standard Oil, led by the Rothschild-connected Rockefeller) the “biological” theory won out, partly because the theory allows oil monopolies to claim that oil is “scarce.”

Russian scientists, however, don’t buy the western theory. Many of them take the “abiogenic” approach, and have found oil in places where western geologists said there should be no oil. (More on this below.) Thus, perhaps our problem is not 'Peak Oil,' but politics. Or as I call it, artificial scarcity.

Western geologists admit that abiogenic processes create methane and hydrocarbon gases inside the earth, but not in commercially significant quantities. They say there is no direct evidence (yet) of petroleum (liquid crude oil and long-chain hydrocarbon compounds) formed abiogenically within the crust.

Maybe they’re right.

Then again, maybe they’re mistaken. Or maybe they're just plain lying for the oil companies and universities that employ them. Many Russians say they are lying, as we shall see below.

The wikipedia zionists have a very long and technical article about the origins and history of the “abiogenic” approach.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin )

The article says, “Some proponents see a pro-Western bias in the promotion of the biogenic theory. Political and economic considerations often influence discussions of petroleum origins.”

(Yes, and in today’s world, “pro-western” usually means pro-zionist, or pro-bankers, or simply pro-monopoly.)

Some geologists think the abiogenic theory might be valid, but that abiogenic oil is too deep to obtain. (The deepest well so far is the Kola Borehole in the East European Craton, at 12 km, or 7.46 miles.)

Other geologists blast the “abiogenic” approach altogether, saying there is “no free lunch.” (That is, there is no reason to question oil company greed.)

One article disagrees.

(http://www.rense.com/general78/expeak.htm)

Titled “Confessions Of An 'Ex' Peak Oil Believer” its author says that the Russians are on to something big, and that “pro-western” oil interests are worried. The author suspects there’s plenty of oil if we can develop the technology to drill ultra-deep wells and explore the earth's inner regions.

He claims that the Russians are forging ahead with oil-discovery technology. He quotes several Russians who say that western oil companies have a vested interest in the ‘Peak Oil’ scare.

He says the Russians used the “abiogenic” approach to discover oil and gas in the Dnieper-Donets Basin, between Russia and Ukraine, a region previously thought barren.

The article says…

“Around 2004, Pentagon strategists began to wonder if Russian geophysicists were on to something. If Russia had the scientific know-how, and the USA did not, then Russia had a strategic trump card. Therefore the USA focused on Russia’s pipelines. The USA built military bases around Russia, to cut her port links to Western Europe, China and the rest of Eurasia. Ironically, it was US / Israeli aggression in the Middle East that created closer cooperation between China and Russia, plus a growing realization in western Europe that the Russians are on to something big.”

“Peak Oil theory is based on a 1956 paper done by the late Marion King Hubbert, a Texas geologist employed by Shell Oil. (Just as Thomas Malthus came up with his "scientific" theories of economics while he was employed by the awful East India Company. --AZ) Hubbert argued that oil wells produced in a bell curve manner. Once their ‘peak’ was hit, inevitable decline followed. Hubbert predicted the United States oil production would peak in 1970. When US oil output began to decline in around 1970, Hubbert became famous. Of course, oil did not peak because of resource depletion in the US fields. It "peaked" because Shell, Mobil, Texaco and the other partners of Saudi Aramco flooded the US market with cheap Middle East imports, tariff free. This was a Wal Mart-style approach that forced small domestic producers to sell their wells to the oil giants, since the small guys could not compete, price-wise.”

Meanwhile the Russians began drilling in a "barren" region of Siberia. They developed eleven major oil fields and one giant field based on their deep 'abiogenic’ geological estimates. They drilled into crystalline basement rock and hit oil on a scale comparable to Alaska's North Slope.

Next, the Russians went to Vietnam in the 1980s and offered to finance drilling costs to show that their geological theory worked. The Russian company Petrosov drilled in Vietnam's White Tiger oilfield offshore (into basalt rock some 17,000 feet down) and extracted 6,000 barrels a day of oil to feed the energy-starved Vietnam economy.

The article continues…

“In the USSR, abiogenic-trained Russian geologists perfected their knowledge. By the mid-1980's, the USSR emerged as one of the world's largest oil producers. Few in the West understood why, or bothered to ask.”

The author interviewed Dr. J. F. Kenney, a geophysicist who worked in Russia. Kenney says the Dnieper-Donets Basin has produced as much oil as Arabia’s Ghawar field. If all that oil came only from fossilized critters, there would have to be a pool 19 miles wide, 19 miles deep, and 19 miles high. No such pool exists anywhere. Thus, it can’t all be fossilized critters.

“Western geologists do not bother to offer hard scientific proof of fossil origins. They merely assert it as a holy truth. The Russians produced volumes of scientific papers, mostly in Russian, but the dominant Western journals have no interest in publishing this material. After all, careers and academic professions are at stake.”

When Bush invaded Iraq, the Russians stopped sharing any of their technology. The author notes that zionist Jew gangster Mikhail Khodorkovsky (of Yukos Oil) was arrested in 2003, after Khodorkovsky had held a private meeting with Cheney. Khodorkovsky was about to sell a dominant stake in Yukos to ExxonMobil. Cheney’s Halliburton Corp is the world's largest oil geophysical services company. Had Exxon got the stake, Exxon would have controlled the world's largest resource of geologists and engineers trained in abiogenic techniques of deep drilling.

Meanwhile the western oil companies want the cheap easy oil of the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere, and they’ll kill to get it. The only potential threat to their control is inside Russia, whose energy companies are no longer zionist-controlled (they are now state controlled).

Western geologists (employed by oil companies) says the Russian abiogenic theory is ridiculous. However, western scientists also said that German scientist Alfred Wegener was wrong about Continental Drift, which Wegener first explained in 1915. Up to the 1960's, US “scientists” -- such as Dr Frank Press, White House science advisor -- called Wegener a "lunatic." Western geologists finally admitted that Wegener was correct when his theory of Continental Drift allowed the discovery of vast oil resources in the North Sea.

Today, Western “scientists” still say Wegener is a “lunatic” regarding abiogenic oil. However the Russians have used Wegener’s “lunatic” theories since the 1950s.

Conclusion

I don’t know if the abiogenic theory is correct. This stuff is too technical for me. I do know that all monopolies lie by nature.

Which nations have the most oil? We don’t know, since our figures come from highly questionable sources such as the Oil & Gas Journal published by the Energy Information Administration, which is overseen by Cheney’s Department of Energy.

Here’s where they say the largest reserves are...

1. Arabia
2. Canada
3. Iran
4. Iraq
5. Kuwait
6. United Arab Emirates
7. Venezuela
8. Russia
9. Libya
10. Nigeria
11. USA
12. China
13. Qatar
14. Mexico
15. Algeria
16. Brazil
17. Kazakhstan
18. Norway
19. Azerbaijan
20. India

Are Cheney and his followers correct about ‘Peak Oil’?

Somehow I doubt anything that Cheney says.

‘Peak Oil’ is only a ‘fact’ if you buy what western oil companies say.

I think there’s a much bigger picture involved, as is the case with ALL claims made by monopolies.

Keep Last Read

Replies (3) Next 10 Prev Next

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.

Volume
Day Range:
Bid Price
Ask Price
Last Trade Time:

Boards:

Quotes:

Boards

News

Market Data

Markets

Discover

Discover

Boards:

Quotes:

Join the InvestorsHub Community