The Peak Oil Myth

[ThatHawaiiGuy]

Oil – Is it Even a Scarce Resource?

This is just part of a much longer essay:
http://www.theundergroundinvestor.com/2010/10/inside-the-illusory-empire-of-the-banking-commodity-con-game/

With oil, I believe that the banking/oil cartel utilizes the same perceived and artificially low supply scam as the diamond cartel to effectively create deliberate wild fluctuations in oil prices that they can capitalize on to amass great fortunes. Over my investment career, I have written both articles declaring my belief for the peak oil theory as well as articles in which I rejected the peak oil theory after becoming privy to additional knowledge of which I had previously been unaware. I stand today, after further research, firmly no longer a believer in the peak oil theory. Yes, I am aware of the reported figures about dwindling production in Mexico’s largest oilfield, Cantarell. Yes I am aware of rapidly dwindling oil production numbers for global oil production numbers as well. Yes, I am aware that the predominant number of people in this world believes in the Peak Oil Theory (which alone is reason for me to start questioning it). And yes, I am aware that many will think that it is ludicrous to challenge the Peak Oil Theory. But should the concept of challenging a “universal truth” that we have been told, even instructed to believe, ever be considered ludicrous? For that is all I am suggesting here. I will present facts of an alternative theory regarding the possible abundance of oil that merit consideration and I merely challenge you to consider the possibility that it could be true.

When there is a belief as widely accepted as the Peak Oil Theory, one must always question the source of this belief. In addition to my blogs over the past five years that have explored the fact that virtually every key economic indicator statistic produced by governments are blatantly false, there are many others that have also done a fine job of establishing this fact (just perform a quick perusal of the website ZeroHedge if you are ignorant of this fact). Why do governments produce economic lies? Because they have a better chance of maintaining power if they can successfully con the public into believing the “rosy” economic lies they produce. Why does the diamond cartel produce phony diamond supply statistics every year to mercilessly jack up diamond prices on unthinking, lovestruck men every year? Because producing phony supply statistics allows the diamond cartel to charge artificially high prices for diamond. In other words, the producers of these lies are also the greatest beneficiaries of these lies. So who benefits from the production of phony oil supply statistics, higher oil prices and a fear of peak oil? The oil cartel and bankers.

Understanding the shadowy world of bankers requires one to think like a detective in pursuit of a criminal. Identify a motive for why supply numbers for various key commodities may have been falsely manufactured and you will find the likely culprit behind these manufactured numbers. I have already illustrated to you earlier in this article that bankers have lied to the world about the fundamentals of stock markets and the real determinants of stock price behavior. I have also illustrated to you that bankers have lied to the world about the real determinants of gold and silver prices. I will reveal later, a quote from a Vice Chairman of a Central Bank that reveals his belief that it is not just the prerogative, but also the duty of a Central Banker, to lie to the public. So knowing this, why would anyone believe that bankers would tell us the truth about the real determinants of the price of a barrel of oil?

When oil incredibly soared from $51.20 on January 17, 2007 to $147.20 a barrel in 7 months, and then incredibly crashed to $35.35 a barrel just 5 months later, and then incredibly soared to $81.19 a barrel just 10 months later, I challenge anyone to produce figures of changing supply and demand determinants than can logically explain these massive swings in price over such a condensed period of time. Of course, the textbook media answer provided for these wild swings in price was that enormous global demand caused oil to soar in 2007, a crashing economy in 2008 caused a nosedive in 2008, and economic recovery caused soaring prices once again in 2010. I contend that the real answer is that Wall Street firms engineer massive manipulation of oil futures market contracts to create a significant portion of these wild swings, if not the majority portion of these wild swings, even though “official studies” only attribute a nominal amount, perhaps 10% to 30%, of these wild fluctuations to speculation. Global oil prices, like global gold prices, are completely determined by a paper futures market today. So it is not the producers of oil that cause oil to rollercoaster from $50 to $150 to $35 to $80, and it is not speculators that produce the wild swings in supply and demand estimates that create these rollercoaster rides. Rather it is the bankers that control these paper markets and that control the supply and demand numbers that create these wild swings in price.

When I first started discussing enormous fraud in the pricing behavior of gold markets six years ago, people used to regularly ridicule me for my beliefs, especially whenever I publicly blogged about my beliefs. Back then, my beliefs were grounded in my own research as well as the very substantial mountain of evidence provided by GATA that had not yet made its way into the general consciousness of the mainstream public. Today, public beliefs about gold price suppression schemes have evolved 180 degrees. Now deniers of gold price suppression schemes, not I, are the ones viewed as naïve. I believe the same realizations will eventually happen with all commodities, not just gold. Does anyone else but myself notice that when oil prices are skyrocketing, peak oil theories are widely discussed as the instigator for higher oil prices. However, during times when bankers decide to move the price of oil much lower, why does peak oil almost never factor into the discussions of oil prices?

“Proposing that we know for certain that the process to form oil takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years seems far more absurd to me than the alternate theory of abiotic oil, where scientific evidence supports that the carbon found in the building blocks of oil are not formed from the decomposition of fossilized remains.”

F. William Engdahl, an economic researcher, historian and freelance journalist for some 35 years, states,

“The whole peak oil theory rests on the idea that oil is a fossil fuel, which is accepted as religious dogma by almost every geology department in most of the world. The problem is, oil is not a fossil fuel, it’s not from the detritus of dead dinosaurs or from algae from under the ocean or bird fossils or whatever fossils you want to take. It’s not a biological product.”

If this is true, then what is oil? There is another theory about oil’s origins that very few people are aware of called the abiotic theory of oil that actually has a lot more scientific credibility than the much more speculative “fossil fuel” theory of oil. Mr. Giora Proskurowski, a scientist with the School of Oceanography at the University of Washington in Seattle, recently headed a study that produced some very interesting conclusions. Oil, Proskurowski stated, may actually be a natural product that the Earth’s mantle constantly generates and whose source may be living organisms as small as plankton rather than decaying ancient forests and dead dinosaurs. The advocates of this alternative abiotic theory of oil production believe that oil seeps up through bedrock cracks and is deposited, rather than originated, in sedimentary rock as the fossil fuel theory of oil claims.

As proof of the increasing credibility of the abiotic theory of oil production, scientists point to the Lost City, a hypothermal field 2,100 feet below sea level located along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at the center of the Atlantic Ocean noted for its strange 90 to 200 foot white towers that bubble from its vents. In 2003 and 2005, Mr. Proskurowski and his team descended in a submarine to collect samples of the liquid that bubbles from the Lost City sea vents. Upon analysis, Proskurowski and his team discovered that the liquid that contained natural gas and the building blocks for oil, hydrocarbons. However, the hydrocarbons from the Lost City sea vents contained carbon-13 isotopes. They found no evidence of carbon-12, the carbon isotope typically associated with biological origin. Proskurowski and his team postulated that the hydrocarbons found in the Lost City sea vents were formed from the mantle of the Earth through an abiotic process of Fischer-Tropsh (FTT) reactions, and not from biological material that had settled on the ocean floor.

During the German Nazi regime, Nazi scientists developed FTT equations that could produce synthetic oil from coal and contributed to the world’s understanding of an abiotic process of oil production. Proskurowski also discovered that the methane in Lost City contained no carbon-14, which also lent enormous credence to the scientists’ hypothesis that the carbon source for the hydrocarbons of the Lost City vents came from within the earth’s mantle, far away from organisms that might have had contact with the global carbon cycle at the surface. In other words, the Lost City vents contained organic material formed by inorganic processes, the exact antithesis of how the fossil fuel theory postulates that oil is formed. Before Proskurowski’s study, Cornell University physicist Thomas Gold had argued in his book “The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels” that micro-organisms found in oil were possibly produced in the mantle of the earth.

Again, as I stated before, before one can ever trust information that is so widely accepted, one has to find its source. The problem today is that the vast majority of people are just too lazy to ever question the source even though when one finds the source, the source often has multiple ulterior motives for producing its information. As a consequence of this intelligence inertia, the public-at-large has become extremely prone to blindly and very dangerously accepting any information as fact as long as it is printed in a “credible newspaper” or it is spoken on a “credible television news station.” In 1956, M. King Hubbert coined the term “peak oil”. In 1975 Hubbert himself predicted a worldwide crisis in oil by 1999 or 2000. Even though this did not occur, this did not discredit the peak oil theory whatsoever.

Of course, the question that immediately surfaces is this. Why would the banking cartel want you to believe that the oil is a fossil fuel if it is not? Here is the answer. If bankers could successfully sell the world the idea that oil was a byproduct of a process that involved hundreds of thousands or millions of years of anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms, then it would become infinitely easier to sell the world on the idea of peak oil and manipulate the price of oil. It is extremely difficult to manipulate the price of a commodity if everyone believes that its supply is abundant. So step back for a second, take a deep breath and let’s consider the logical arguments for/against the fossil fuel theory of oil production and for/against the abiotic theory of oil production. Is not a theory that proposes that the process to form oil would take not decades, not centuries, but MILLIONS of years through the decomposition of fossilized remains a theory that resides on the furthest edge of the spectrum of speculation? After all, testing this theory would take millions of years for this is how long this theory’s process presupposes is the necessary timetable for the formation of oil. Proposing that we know for certain that the process to form oil takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years seems far more absurd to me than the alternate theory of abiotic oil, where scientific evidence supports that the carbon found in the building blocks of oil are not formed from the decomposition of fossilized remains.

In regard to oil, F. William Engdahl continues, “It’s a controlled market — this is not a free market! Energy is probably the most controlled market in the world, food being second.” However, with this point, I respectfully disagree with Mr. Engdahl. In my opinion, money is the most controlled market in the world, with food and energy tied for second.

When considering the possibility that the banking cartel had created a lie about the real oil supply and was responsible for a potentially fake fossil fuel theory, my thoughts inevitably led me to questions regarding the US – Iraqi war. In fact, the US military’s invention in Iraq and the Bush administration’s invention of WMDs to justify military intervention almost seem to validate the Peak Oil theory. After all, why would America need to capture strategic control over the Middle East’s oil supply if oil was not a scarce resource but replenished quite abundantly by an abiotic process? I struggled with this question until I asked myself the following two questions, two questions that should always be asked before accepting the validity of any theory propagated by an authoritative source:

(1) Who is the source of this information?, and

(2) If the information is a lie, who benefits from the lie?

To question (1), most people already know that the Peak Oil Theory originated with M. King Hubbert. But can most people answer the question, “Who was M. King Hubbert?” M. King Hubbert was a geoscientist who worked at the Shell research lab in Houston, Texas. His biography provided by Wikipedia, is as follows:

“M.King Hubbert worked as an assistant geologist for the Amerada Petroleum Company for two years while pursuing his Ph.D., additionally teaching geophysics at Columbia University. He also served as a senior analyst at the Board of Economic Warfare. He joined the Shell Oil Company in 1943, retiring from that firm in 1964. After he retired from Shell, he became a senior research geophysicist for the United States Geological Survey until his retirement in 1976. He also held positions as a professor of geology and geophysics at Stanford University from 1963 to 1968, and as a professor at UC Berkeley from 1973 to 1976.”

A few months back, I produced a video series about the principles of ideological subversion that emphasized the essential role of education in the widespread acceptance of false ideas into the mainstream belief system. Hubbert certainly fits the bill here as he was granted numerous opportunities to spread his Peak Oil theories to the masses through his professorships at the top US universities of Columbia, Stanford and UC Berkeley. After Hubbert’s death, Matt Simmons, a Houston oil banker and decades-long friend of former US Vice President Dick Cheney, was able to leverage Hubbert’s peak oil theory to crystallize a global belief in the limited global supply of oil before he eventually turned whistleblower on British Petroleum during the BP Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, and was discredited himself before dying under questionable circumstances in 2010. Simmons was George W. Bush’s energy adviser, a member of the National Petroleum Council and also a member of the secretive, powerful Council on Foreign Relations.

Thus we’ve established that the oil industry and bankers were the source of the Peak Oil theory as well as the impetus behind propelling the theory into prominent global attention. Now let’s turn our attention to question (2). Who benefited the most from the Peak Oil theory and the War in Iraq? Again, the top beneficiaries of the Peak Oil theory and the War in Iraq were, and still are, oil producers and bankers. Why are bankers at the top of the list of beneficiaries of the war, you ask? It’s a simple equation. The US Federal Reserve creates money to fund the war and lends it to the American government. The American government in turn must pay interest on the money they borrow from the Central Bank to fund the war. The greater the war appropriations, the greater the profits are for bankers.

As I’ve only researched the abiotic theory a little over a month in preparation for this article, I am certainly not an expert on this theory. However, I think I’ve raised enough questions that should raise reasonable doubts regarding the possibility that bankers may just be providing false oil supply numbers to manipulate the oil price for personal gain. With that thought in mind, let’s turn our attention to agriculture...