9/11, Energy Monopolies, & Oil

[Pinkertontrunks]

Hi ian,

I too look forward to meeting up with you to discuss this in person. I hope you don't mind but I thought I would just raise some issues now if that's OK?

The problem that critics have with the theory of abiotic oil is that regardless of whether there is a case for its existence, the timescale for replenishement is way too long to in any way ameliorate the decline in world output. We currently consume almost 30 billion barrels of oil per year globally. No scientist who advocates abiotic oil has yet proved that the earth can produce even 1% of that in a year. If it could, then the earths surface would be literally covered in the stuff, which it isn't. But let's assume the earth does produce 1% of our current consumption per year. That means that when we do start to run dry it will take 100 years to make enough to support our current lifestyle for just one year, only then we will have to wait another 100 years to do it all over again.

As an ex oil industry man, you must know that oil is only found in certain areas, parts of the globe where rock has been subjected to great forces at strict depths and covered with water tight seals such as salt to trap the oil within the ground. Remove any of these geoligcal requirements and your chances of finding conventional oil are greatly reduced. You may find the source rock that hasn't been cracked at great depths and temperatures yet such as kerogen, or old, dried, non-conventional oil in the form of tar that seeped out of the ground thousands of years ago due to a lack of capping structure, such as found at Alberta in Canada, but you won' find fresh oil bubbling from a the ground like a spring on a mountain. One has to ask why.

I would be interested in seeing the evidence regarding moth balled rigs. My understanding is that the cost of renting a rig has gone up dramatically as oil companies scour the globe for new reserves and as such, rigs are hard to come by. Of course if oil is abundant then countries like Saudi Arabia would not need to look elsewhere. Strange how they decided to rent a load of rigs in the gulf of mexico last year then.

http://austin.bizjournals.com/industries/energy/oil_gas/2005/08/01/hou ston_daily18.html

I am also interested in seeing the evidence that Haliburton and Schlumberger are investing in ASPO. I can only find one 'story' that makes this claim but no hard data to back this up. This story repeats itself many times on the web. My guess is that it is a lie. Here is one URL:

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr55.html

The issue of profits is also interesting. The way I see it is that whenever a business enters a niche market it will do well. The recent state of the worlds IT businesses are a perfect example. IT specialists have been able to command outrageous salaries for doing, well, IT work, but because it has everything to do with computers and we are told that we need computers and therefere we need computer specialists, the income generated by such a profession is proportionally over-inflated. The same can be said for oil companies, Now I'm sure that there is much confusion banded about just to excite the money markets but Big Oil profits overall are going to be high if the price of oil is high. Simple really. Nothing complicated in that. Of course, if we don't like it then we should just stop buying from them which means no driving our cars or using anything oil related, which is about 95% of everything we ever do buy including food. Alternatively, there is nothing to stop you and I from buying shares in oil companies so that we can do well out of it also. There is no conspiracy here in my mind, just crappy old capatilsm at work as usual. I will repeat, most of the world's oil is not in the hands of the companies we buy from everyday such as BP, Shell, Texaco etc. Please read this which I've posted before.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005 080201978.html

There should be no excuse made for the attrocity of 9/11 whether it be peak oil, imperialism or something else. I have not used PO as an excuse, but I do believe it is a significant factor. If oil and gas is so plentiful then why is the US in Iraq and why did it defend the construction of the gas pipeline in Afghanistan immedialtely after 9/11? Why does the US now want control over Iran - could it be the new oil bourse or Iran's massive gas supply which the US needs to control in order to cope with the domestic peak in natural gas it is experiencing back home?

Take care,

Ben

[ian neal]

Hi Ben and others.

Sorry but time only allows the briefest of overviews as to why I find the case for imminent Peak Oil unconvincing

Abiotic oil theory (1) I haven’t actually looked into abiotic oil in any detail but my hunch is that it is irrelevant.

Irrelevant because regardless of whether or not it is true or whether or not it could solve our energy security problems, the risk of climate change (and especially sudden onset climate change ) surely demands that we find ways to give up our oil addiction and live in balance with nature. And for the same reason I reckon whether imminent Peak Oil is true or not is irrelevant. If it’s true we need to move away from oil asap, if it’s not true we still need to move away from oil asap.

On abiotic oil I would also stress the conservatism of supposed scientific expertise that resists changes in orthodoxy and the vested political powers that keep certain science and knowledge especially when it comes to energy (eg tesla and zpe) in the cupboard

However in these days of growing fascism that we live I suspect that the Peak Oil issue is being used by certain interest groups for their own nefarious ends. That is not to say that all Peak Oil awareness campaign groups are in on any scam.

You can see that talking up the dangers of Peak Oil and generally raising market uncertainty is in the interests of

The oil companies and oil financiers/traders who benefit from higher oil prices
Governments in both oil producing and consuming countries who benefit from higher revenues divorced from general taxation
The banks
The nuclear industry
The proponents of US empire
The fascists, rapturists and Malthusian death cult psychos

There are widely conflicting reports on oil reserves and security and new oil finds. Given the deep and merky connections between oil and the fascist tendencies in the White House now and historically, it is hard to trust the honesty and independence of oil industry data, but these 2 reports caught my eye in 2004. 1 and 2

If we work with the assumption that ignores abiotic oil, with peak oil we are not talking if but when and then the question becomes ‘is peak oil IMMINENT’? I think it is not imminent, which allows enough time for energy conservation and shifts to alternative/renewable energy to provide the solutions

In considering which evidence and opinion to trust I look at the links and connections and try to see hidden agendas. For example what do these links mean?

The links between Peak Oil and big oil (many ex executives amongst the chief ASPO experts eg 1 and 2),

Peak oil and big money (eg the Astor family and their support of ASPO) and

Peak oil and dodgy people and organizations eg (the doom merchants and the BNP

The links between Peak Oil and Malthusian fascist population control. Ignoring the obvious arguments that it is multitudes of Americans not Ethiopians that the planet can’t sustain, it is a short hop for some Peak oil proponents to eugenics and ‘humane culls’

The links between Peak Oil and the divisions sown in the US 9/11 truth movement by the accusations of Mark Robinowitz and Mike Ruppert and the questionable campaigning strategy of Mike Ruppert on 9/11 (I assume you're familiar with this)

That’s it. Take care and let me know your thoughts.

[Jim]

Sky One (UK) tonight 10pm - Conspiracies

Tuesday 10, 22:00, Sky One

An investigation into the many conspiracy theories circulating around the US-led invasion of Iraq, from the non-existent weapons of mass destruction to the demonisation of Saddam Hussein.

Oil and the Euro bourse included

http://www.sky.com/skycom/tvguide/0,,495-0-48089951,00.html

[Andrew Johnson]

Peak Oil or no Peak, it is important to establish some of the facts regarding “Free Energy” issues.

1) Only 1 device that I know that appears to be over unity is (or was) commercially available. This is the Hydrosonic Pump, invented by James Griggs.
2) Hundreds of experimenters have reproduced the effects seen by Ponds and Fleischmen in their original cold fusion experiments. Many of these are document at www.lenr-canr.org for all to research and explore. These effects include anomalous heating, transmutation of elements and anomalous radiation (the most controversial of the findings).
3) A number of people have supported the findings of Russi Talyarkin and his Sonofusion experiments.
4) Dr Eugene Mallove, former Lead Science Writer at MIT, left the organisation when he found out in their report on Cold Fusion in 1989, they had changed their results to indicate they had not found any of the effects mentioned above.
5) More info here:

http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf

6) He then went on to form the New Energy Foundation to help fund researchers working in the area of “Free Energy” and “Zero Point Energy” technology. He spoke about things in February 2004 on Coast to Coast

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/Dr%20Eugene%20Mallove%20-%20Coas t%20to%20Coast%20-%20Feb%2003%202004.mp3

7) Dr Mallove was murdered on May 17th 2004.
8) Nick Cook, award winning journalist of Jane’s Defence weekly stated on the Art Bell show on 14th March 2004 that he was in contact, through a trusted intermediary, with someone who had a working, solid state free energy device.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/NickCookZPDevice.mp3

From the research that I have done, it seems to me that the same mixture of tactics – disinformation, hoaxing and ridicule (and murder) are at work in the field of free energy as in many other areas – such as 9-11 Truth.

I am not really sure about the Peak Oil scenario – which is why I personally (as expressed in previous posts) am hedging my bets. The reason why I have begun to err on the side of it being a scam is because the pattern of control tactics and fear-mongering tactics which seem to be being used with this topic are reminciscent of many other such areas I have been looking into and finding more to it than the mainstream media feeds you with.

[Pinkertontrunks]

Hi Andrew & ian neal,

I do find what you say very interesting.

I am very willing to accept that free energy technology might be available and is being surpressed. I read a bit about Tesla before I even found out about peak oil.

The only problem with free energy is that it is just that - energy. Oil is a lot more than 'just energy', it is also a key ingredient in most plastics (we live in a plastic world including our clothing), pesticides (for food production, necessary if we are to farm on a large scale and prevent crop failure), lubrication for machines/cars etc, road building in the form of tar/asphalt, and so on. Free energy is rather limited in that respect and will not fill the gaps in our society that oil will leave behind. Gaps that could create problems for future society.

What I have come to appreciate is that your criticism of PO is not just because you don't believe in it but because your overal skepticism about most other political and mainstream ideas is leading you to question what might otherwise be a very real event. In short, I feel you are blinded by internet created conjecture This is not my criticism of you, just an observation.

Although, I believe there maybe some truth in the fact that the PTB are controlling our lives I don't follow that everything is such a conspiracy and even if it is, I really cannot be bothered to worry about it because a) I have no proof, b) I enjoy doing other things and c) I have little time to investigate further anyway. 9/11 is different because the evidence is so easily available and plain to see, visually if nothing else, and therefore I can easily agree with you.

We do seem to get stuck on this idea that the oil companies are deliberately controlling the price of oil. I would refute that. None of the major oil companies have made any public statement regarding PO. Most, such as BP, state that although a peak is likely sometime in the future, it will not be for another 20 years and output will grow in accordance with IEA and USGS projections. Mainstream media has also made no public statement to the effect that PO is definitely for real and will happen soon although some have run stories that there is a theory called PO and it could cause problems (such as in Rolling Stone magazine last year). Only the geologists, petroleum experts, theologians and energy experts such as Campbell, Deffeyes, Skrebowski, Heinberg, Simmons and so on are spreading the word - very few people actually and they are not doing so by using mainstream media in most cases. I doubt whether 1% of the people in the this country or even the US know about PO or what effect it will have on society if true. And of those 1%, I imagine that most don't even fully agree with it or understand its impact. Put it simply, PO theory is hardly known at all, even though it has been around for over 50 years, all of which suggests the oil companies are doing very little to use it for their own gains right now.

I have a friend who works as an oil industry analyst in the City. She regularly updates me on the fact that oil ouput is currently very static and contrary to media reports that Opec are regularly increasing production, little, if nothing extra, is actually showing up on the markets. This could therefore be a very real indication that the IEA and USGS are wrong and that the peakniks are correct about an imminent peak. Maybe that is why the price is going up.

Talking of prices, PO will probably bring the price of oil down for extended periods of time. As the price rises and politicians and the public take note, curbs in our use of oil will cause periods of overproduction and that will bring the price down again. Lower prices will lead to increased consumption and so the whole scenario will repeat itself over and over until the decline is too great for anymore overproduction to take place. A peaking in supply is therefore not the winning event the oil companies are really looking for.

Can I just say as well, one problem I have found with many people when I talk about PO is that I find it contradicts their very concept of how oil production works and will continue to work in the future. This maybe the case with yourselves. I have found that the majority of people assume that oil flows out of wells at a steady rate until the well is bled dry and that global output will continue in exactly the same way until all reserves are consumed in 30-40 years time. This is not the case and hundreds of graphs of individual wells will show this. What actually happens is that all oil wells will reach a peak in output during their lifetime, usually after half the oil has been removed. This is because the first half of the oil is the easily extracted, easily refined, sweet crude delivered to the surface under its own pressure, and the second half is the thick sour crude which usually has to be pumped out and refined at great expense and time. It is this extra effort that leads to the fall in output and the more that is extracted the more energy and technology is required. The only way to stop a world peak is therefore to find more oil than we consume. Unfortunately this is not happening and in reality, global reserves are very much overstated as evident by the overnight revision in proven reserves by many Middle Eastern countries in the mid 1980's when Opec changed the rules to link reserves with quotas.

Here are some graphs from the North Sea (and one from the US)

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/blanchard/

Oil field production graphs are also very much proof that abiotic oil (if it exists) will not save the day since otherwise there would be no peak.

I cannot force you to accept PO theory. However, I make no apologies in saying that I do believe in it and am therefore making changes to my family's lifestyle to counter its possible effects. If am wrong then I will have lost nothing. If I am right then I might just be better prepared than those who either know nothing about it or those who choose to ignore it. Only time will tell I guess.

[Andrew Johnson]

PT,

I am very well aware of the other uses of oil - yes - such as it being very important in food production (besides its use as a fuel) - this being less obvious to some than its use in the manufacture of, for example, plastics. There are probably quite a few others who contribute to this forum who did A-Level Chemistry or some equivalent.

This is not the central thrust of what I was saying. Your posts are too long-winded to read every word. Your position and mode of delivery of your opinion are quite familiar to me - I am just surprised you find the time to type as much as you do and in the way you do. Congratulations! I hope you got a water-cooled keyboard for Christmas (or do you use Dragon Naturally-Speaking, I wonder...)

[Pinkertontrunks]

[Andrew Johnson]

PT,

Thanks for your kind words. Yes - you are right - it was pathetic wasn't it?
I feel ashamed. I will try harder next time.

A Happy New Year to you too!

Keep up the good work!

Cheers!

[xmasdale]

[Andrew Johnson]

That's a useful synopis - thanks. The point re intelligence reports is to me reminiscent of the Rockingham committee.

I just finished listening to the audio that Sinclair posted the link to. Very interesting.

There are, of course, many issues for us to be concerned about - most of which are not being addressed by anyone.

Just one note (which may or may not be relevant), Sky One is of course owned by Rupert Murdoch - which I am sure most people here are aware of...

[xmasdale]

[Sinclair]

Just to add to the debate, the following article is from http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/2004/01/20040118.php, which is linked to from the excellent http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/ site.

[Andrew Johnson]

Audio:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/Jerome%20Corsi%20and%20Michael%2 0Ruppert%20-%20Peak%20Oil%20Debate%20-%20Coast%20to%20Coast%20-%20Jan% 2012%202006.mp3

(19.4 megs) Approx 1 hr 50 mins playback

Synopsis (from http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2006/01/12.html)

The Oil Debate
Author Jerome Corsi and researcher Michael Ruppert debated whether oil is a renewable source produced deep inside the Earth, or a finite resource which will become more scarce within our lifetime.

Corsi's position: Oil is not "fossil fuel" but rather an "abiotic" substance that is naturally replenished on a constant basis. The so-called scarcity is a tact taken by the oil companies in order to increase their profits. Various surveys going back to the early 1900's have all claimed that we were going to run out of oil, but we now have a greater supply than we ever had. Oil companies should lose their tax incentives if they don't increase their reserves.

Ruppert's position: The world is behaving as if the Peak Oil theory were true, and our supplies will begin to dwindle from the amount they are now at. The notion of replenishing abiotic oil is not supported in scientific literature. Further, specific abiotic sites such as Dneiper-Donets basin and the Eugene Island Lot have turned out to be a bust or in decline in terms of supplying oil. People should adjust their lives as if Peak Oil is indeed true, and prepare and plan ahead for that eventuality.

A Fast Blast poll found 62% siding with Corsi and 38% with Ruppert.

[ian neal]

In this debate I would add the third option they could both be wrong (or atleast peak oil is not imminent and abiotic oil is either not true or insignificant)

[Pinkertontrunks]

Here is an article on the Iranian Oil Bourse which you may find interesting.

http://energybulletin.net/12125.html

[brian]

What they don't want you to know about the coming oil crisis

"..Our society is in a state of collective denial that has no precedent in history, in terms of its scale and implications..."

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article339928.ece

[who murdered di ?]

Oil control tames evil from particapating in other money making skeems i.e. sort of world peace. However check this link out in relation to "Run engines on water" http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin/pdinventory.pl?pdlanding=1 &referid=2930&purchase_type=ITM&item_id=0286-7628713&word=Inventor_Off ers_Plan & http://www.merittinternational.com/pollutionfree/ Crises " WHAT CRISES !

[Pinkertontrunks]

[ian neal]

Regarding the water car, check these people out http://www.earth2012.org/

Re Jeremy Leggett piece, whilst I agree that oil security is a concern, it argues that any short term crisis is based on a gap btwn demand and supply due to the limits of production capacity rather than inadequate reserves and puts oil peak further in the distance (20-30yrs) than the imminent warnings of some peak oil advocats. If this were the case any imminent gap would most likely be down to the limitations of the oil industry rather than geological limits. That said climate change (and the other social and environmental costs of oil) is IMO more than enough reason to move rapidly away from oil.

[Andrew Johnson]

Eugene Mallove, after years of working with research (backed up by findings like those documented on www.lenr-canr,org and others) stated clearly that he felt if a fraction the amount of money that had been spent on hot fusion were spent on some of the alternative energy technologies, they would become viable:

http://www.peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Hydrogen_from_Water

People can take this, or they can leave it. It's not for me to say (although I have personally formed my own opinion - which can be deduced from the fact that I am posting this here:

See Stanley Meyer's Water Powered Car.  Dennis Lee and Stanley Meyers drove together in Stanley's water powered car from California to New York powered by 28 gallons of Water.  Stan was subsequently conscripted to work for the Pentagon and then was murdered by poison when he hoisted a toast to success powering Army Tanks with the hydrogen in water.

Click Here  or right click to download

People can, if they wish, assume that all the people concerned in the matters discussed above are liars, cheats, incompetents, hoaxers or misguided fools - some of them may well be one or even 2 of these things. But the more I hear....

And yes I've heard all about Dennis Lee's "shenanigans", thanks.... I was more interested in Mallove and Meyer (and Wilhelm Reich for that matter)

[who murdered di ?]

[Pinkertontrunks]

Oil reserves are huge but finite. The problem is in our inadequacy to overcome geological, production and political problems to make the best use of it. Until we can do this, we will still have a supply issue, which is now coming to a head. Peak oil is not down to one problem but many.

If we could extract it more effectively, however, we might just consume it faster anyway. Either way, it's a lose lose situation.

As for water powered cars, salt water cannot be used. It is extremely corrossive (I work in the water industry). It will eat through metal and most plastics. Fresh water is the only option.

Fresh water is of course recycled but is still in short supply and not available to everyone all of the time. Until we can control the water cycle successfully, it will remain an issue, one that will be more of a concern to us than oil in the coming years.

When oil does run out, how will we build these inventions that run on alternative energies? The construction of just one car consumes about 90 barrels of oil, both as an energy and as a product (in plastics, etc). What energy will take oil's place to allow for the construction of new cars and new industry based on these new technologies that will keep up with demand and maintain economic growth (remember, no economic growth means bye bye Western lifestyle).

Only one fuel comes close to contend with oil and that is coal and its use will blow the climate out of the water.

[Andrew Johnson]

Hmmm,

I guess we're doomed, DOOMED...! What are we to do?

[Pikey]

Hi comrades

Keep positive, remember

[Pinkertontrunks]

[Andrew Johnson]

Hi PT,

I have hope. If you don't want to "fight me" or anyone else, then perhaps language like "you don't understand the issue" and "ashamed" can be avoided. Use that sort of language if you feel it necessary, but I endeavour to avoid it as much as I possibly can.

I am not hiding form reality - I do not really understand why you think I am. I, as with the 9-11 issue, have presented evidence for people to take or leave. I generally avoid using certain types of language and just say "I disagree". And I disagree with many of the points you have raised - that's all. Who am I to say whether you are right or wrong? I'm a nobody. But being a nobody does not prevent me from disagreeing with you and presenting evidence as to why. It's a disagreement on my side, not a fight. Others can interpret these exchanges as they see fit.

To simplify the issue, whether we are at peak oil or not, the price is apparently going to go up and cause us problems. As regular citizens, therefore, there is very little we can do except "skimp and save". If larger groups/companies/countries want to go to war over "the remaining" oil or the places where it comes out of the ground, then what can we do? Very liitle.

As I said, I feel there is very good evidence that there is SOME hope in alternative energies and these should be explored MORE vigorously than they are now. Sadly, 9-11 type lies are being told about free energy technologies (and I presented evidence as to why I think this is the case).

So, as I see it, we have 2 choices:

1) Consider ourselves victims of our fate
2) Look for deeper and wider for alternatives to Oil

I personally don't see, at least until Iran explodes, 1 & 2 being mutually exclusive - if you do, that's absolutely fine by me - I don't need to expend time and energy convincing you otherwise, because you have already decided. No problem.

[Pinkertontrunks]

Andrew,

I spend my time spreading the word about our future. I send information and DVD's to people across the globe concerning the possible problems of peak oil.

I also run a business that promotes renewable technology.

If I recall, you were one of the first to reply to my initial email and basicaly you belittled my viewpoint

[Andrew Johnson]

But, as can be seen, I did as you asked and posted the Matt Savinar audio - therefore giving people more information which agreed with your point of view - and pretty passionately, from listening to Mr Savinar, I would say.

Others can therefore decide for themselves what the truth is in all this.

And I agree there is a problem with oil, as I tried to express in my previous post and I do agree with certain things in the peak Oil scenario. I disagree with you about the range of options for a solution. Simple as that.

[who murdered di ?]

Why not use vegetable oil for engine fuel ! Also i have read that oil is like blood (i.e. take few pints out and the blood recreates itself inside the human body) has anyone else heard this theory ?

[Pinkertontrunks]

I would urge everyone to watch this one hour lecture by Mike Ruppert on peak oil.

It is presented by Matt Savinar.

9/11 is mentioned.

Please don't ignore it.

Thanks,

Ben

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1344460573920722313&q=ruppert +on+peak+oil