|
|
It appears that, unbeknownst to
Westerners, there have actually been, for quite some time now, two competing
theories concerning the origins of petroleum. One theory claims that oil is
an organic 'fossil fuel' deposited in finite quantities near the planet's
surface. The other theory claims that oil is continuously generated by
natural processes in the Earth's magma. One theory is backed by a massive
body of research representing fifty years of intense scientific inquiry. The
other theory is an unproven relic of the eighteenth century. One theory
anticipates deep oil reserves, refillable oil fields, migratory oil systems,
deep sources of generation, and the spontaneous venting of gas and oil. The
other theory has a difficult time explaining any such documented phenomena.
So which theory have we in the West, in our infinite wisdom, chosen to
embrace? Why, the fundamentally absurd 'Fossil Fuel' theory, of course --
the same theory that the 'Peak Oil' doomsday warnings are based on.
I am sorry to report here, by the way, that in doing my homework, I never
did come across any of that "hard science" documenting 'Peak Oil' that Mr.
Strahl referred to. All the 'Peak Oil' literature that I found, on Ruppert's
site and elsewhere, took for granted that petroleum is a non-renewable
'fossil fuel.' That theory is never questioned, nor is any effort made to
validate it. It is simply taken to be an established scientific fact, which
it quite obviously is not.
So what do Ruppert and his resident experts have to say about all of this?
Dale Allen Pfeiffer, identified as the "FTW Contributing Editor for Energy,"
has written: "There is some speculation that oil is abiotic in origin --
generally asserting that oil is formed from magma instead of an organic
origin. These ideas are really groundless."
(
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/04_04_02_oil_recession.html )
Here is a question that I have for both Mr. Ruppert and Mr. Pfeiffer: Do you
consider it honest, responsible journalism to dismiss a fifty year body of
multi-disciplinary scientific research, conducted by hundreds of the world's
most gifted scientists, as "some speculation"?
Another of FTW's prognosticators, Colin Campbell, is described by Ruppert as
"perhaps the world's foremost expert on oil." He was asked by Ruppert, in an
interview, "what would you say to the people who insist that oil is created
from magma ...?" Before we get to Campbell's answer, we should first take
note of the tone of Ruppert's question. It is not really meant as a question
at all, but rather as a statement, as in "there is really nothing you can
say that will satisfy these nutcases who insist on bringing up these loony
theories."
(
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102302_campbell.html )
Campbell's response to the question was an interesting one: "No one in the
industry gives the slightest credence to these theories." Why, one wonders,
did Mr. Campbell choose to answer the question on behalf of the petroleum
industry? And does it come as a surprise to anyone that the petroleum
industry doesn't want to acknowledge abiotic theories of petroleum origins?
Should we have instead expected something along these lines?:
"Hey, everybody ... uhhh ... you know how we always talked about oil being a
fossil fuel? And ... uhmm ... you know how the entire profit structure of
our little industry here is built upon the presumption that oil is a
non-renewable, and therefore very valuable, resource*? And remember all
those times we talked about shortages so that we could gouge you at the
pumps? Well ... guess what, America? You've been Punk'd!"
For the sake of accuracy, I think we need to modify Mr. Campbell's response,
because it should probably read: no one in the petroleum industry will
publicly admit giving any credence to abiotic theories. But is there really
any doubt that those who own and control the oil industry are well aware of
the true origins of oil? How could they not be?
Surely there must be a reason why there appears to be so little interest in
understanding the nature and origins of such a valuable, and allegedly
vanishing, resource. And that reason can only be that the answers are
already known. The objective, of course, is to ensure that the rest of us
don't find those answers. Why else would we be encouraged, for decades, to
cling tenaciously to a scientific theory that can't begin to explain the
available scientific evidence? And why else would a half-century of research
never see the light of day in Western scientific and academic circles?
Maintaining the myth of scarcity, you see, is all important. Without it, the
house of cards comes tumbling down. And yet, even while striving to preserve
that myth, the petroleum industry will continue to provide the oil and gas
needed to maintain a modern industrial infrastructure, long past the time
when we should have run out of oil. And needless to say, the petroleum
industry will also continue to reap the enormous profits that come with the
myth of scarcity.
How will that difficult balancing act be performed? That is where, it
appears, the 'limited hangout' concerning abiotic oil will come into play.
Perhaps the most telling quote to emerge from all of this came from Roger
Sassen, identified as the deputy director of Resource Geosciences, a
research group out of Texas A&M University: "The potential that inorganic
hydrocarbons, especially methane and a few other gasses, might exist at
enormous depth in the crust is an idea that could use a little more
discussion. However, not from people who take theories to the point of
absurdity. This is an idea that needs to be looked into at some point as we
start running out of energy. But no one who is objective discusses the issue
at this time."
The key point there (aside from Sassen's malicious characterization of
Kenney) is his assertion that no one is discussing abiotic oil at this time.
And why is that? Because, you see, we first have to go through the charade
of pretending that the world has just about run out of 'conventional' oil
reserves, thus justifying massive price hikes, which will further pad the
already obscenely high profits of the oil industry. Only then will it be
fully acknowledged that there is, you know, that 'other' oil.
"We seem to have plum run out of that fossil fuel that y'all liked so much,
but if you want us to, we could probably find you some mighty fine inorganic
stuff. You probably won't even notice the difference. The only reason that
we didn't mention it before is that - and may God strike me dead if I'm
lying - it is a lot more work for us to get to it. So after we charged you
up the wazoo for the 'last' of the 'conventional' oil, we're now gonna have
to charge you even more for this really 'special' oil. And with any luck at
all, none of you will catch on that it's really the same oil."
And that, dear readers, is how I see this little game playing out. Will you
be playing along?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few final comments are in order here about 'Peak Oil' and the attacks of
September 11, 2001, which Ruppert has repeatedly claimed are closely linked.
In a recent posting, he bemoaned the fact that activists are willing to "Do
anything but accept the obvious reality that for the US government to have
facilitated and orchestrated the attacks of 9/11, something really, really
bad must be going on." That something really, really bad, of course, is
'Peak Oil.'
(
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/013004_in_your_face.html )
To demonstrate the dubious nature of that statement, all one need do is make
a couple of quick substitutions, so that it reads: "for the German
government to have facilitated and orchestrated the attack on the Reichstag,
something really, really bad must have been going on." Or, if you are the
type that bristles at comparisons of Bush to Hitler, try this one: "for the
US government to have facilitated and orchestrated the attack on the USS
Maine, something really, really bad must have been going on."
The reality is that the attacks of September 11, and the post-September 11
military ventures, cannot possibly be manifestations of 'Peak Oil' because
the entire concept of "Peak Oil' is meaningless if oil is not a finite
resource. I am not saying, however, that oil and gas were not key factors
behind the military occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. The distinction
that I am making is that it is not about need (case in point: there is
certainly nothing in Haiti that we need). It is, as always, about greed.
Greed and control -- control of the output of oil fields that will continue
to yield oil long after reserves should have run dry.
One final note, this one directed at Michael Ruppert: I of course accept
your challenge to participate in a public debate. However, I fail to see any
benefit in limiting the audience of that debate to a "mutually acceptable
panel of judges." I suggest we make this a truly public debate, available to
anyone who wants to follow along. The debate, in other words, has already
begun. Consider this my opening argument.
By the way, this isn't about 'winning,' and it isn't about a 'purse.' It's
about the free and open exchange of ideas and information. It's about the
pursuit of the truth, wherever that path may lead. And it's about presenting
all the available information to readers, so that each of them can
determine, for themselves, where that truth lies. To demonstrate my
commitment to those goals, I will gladly post, exactly as it is received,
any response/rebuttal to this missive that you should feel inclined to send
my way. I will leave it to my readers to decide who 'wins' this debate. Will
you be extending the same courtesy to your readers?
* There is a close parallel here with the diamond industry. It is a
relatively open secret that the diamond market is an artificial one, created
by an illusion of scarcity actively cultivated by DeBeers, which has
monopolized the diamond industry for generations. As Ernest Oppenheimer of
DeBeers said, nearly a century ago, "Common sense tells us that the only way
to increase the value of diamonds is to make them scarce -- that is, reduce
production." And that is exactly what the company has done for decades now.
There are reportedly nearly one billion diamonds produced every year, and
that is only a fraction of what could be produced. Diamonds are not,
conventional wisdom to the contrary, a scarce resource, and they are
therefore not intrinsically valuable. Without the market manipulation,
experts estimate that the true value of diamonds would be roughly $30 per
carat.
Interestingly enough, Soviet researchers have noted that diamonds are the
result of the same processes that create petroleum: "Statistical
thermodynamic analysis has established clearly that hydrocarbon molecules
which comprise petroleum require very high pressures for their spontaneous
formation, comparable to the pressures required for the same of diamond. In
that sense, hydrocarbon molecules are the high- pressure
polymorphs of the reduced carbon system as is diamond of elemental carbon."
(Emmanuil B. Chekaliuk, 1968)
So what we appear to have here are two resources, both of which are created
in abundance by natural geothermal processes, and both of which are marketed
as scarce and valuable commodities, creating two industries awash in obscene
profits.
Originally published at
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr52.html
More research that punches a big hole in the Peak Oil
hysteria
1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7
History of Banking Fraud:
The Coming Battle
By M. W. WALBERT
The Coming Battle
documents from Congressional records, newspaper reports and writings by
the founding fathers and others a chronology of events long forgotten that
shaped our fledgling nation from 1776 to 1899. Read about the manipulation
of our money and its supply, the intentional creation of recessions,
depressions and panics, manipulation of the stock markets, and the
demonetization of silver.
Secrets of the Federal Reserve
by Eustace Mullins
Eustace Mullins' carefully
researched and documented treatise picks up from Walbert's expose' of
control of the money supply and the economy and
brings it to the mid 1980's.
The
World Order
How control of the world's money has inexorably led to an ever tighter
grip on control of the world's people.
Uranium Wars by Leuren Moret
How control of the world's people has inexorably led to wider use of
depopulation methods which include spreading radioactivity in food,
water, air, and the human genome.
Taking Back Your Power
by Allen Aslan Heart
WHAT CAN YOU DO? Stop playing THEIR game. Take back
your power. Stop paying taxes that are not legal or lawful. Stop paying
bills you don't really owe. Stop using THEIR money. There ARE ways if you
open your mind and look for the gaps in their fences that keep the sheeple
in their pasture. Are you chattel or a real person? You are the one who
makes that choice.
Our experienced
debt elimination service professionals have been
helping people with debt elimination,
tax freedom, and
credit repair for over
ten years. To contact them
click here.
This
Real Debt Elimination
information is
for the purpose of education and broadening horizons ONLY.
See
Real Debt Elimination links
© 2007, Allen Aslan Heart / White Eagle Soaring of the Little Shell Pembina Band,
a
Treaty
Tribe of the Ojibwe Nation
|
