U.S. Military Warns of Massive Oil Shortages by 2015

[The Consul]

The amount of petroleum products I use or touch throughout the coarse of each day boggles my mind. Science is somehow granted messianic promise but it is only a placebo to mollify the masses before dieoff management is initiated. The layers of energy transfer, waste management and food chain externalities cannot be undone by any political force currently at work on the planet. The resurrection of latent revolutionary zeal is coming only from the right. There is no comparable SDS, Weather Underground or Free Speech movement to the left. There is no counterpoint ideological focal point there like there was in the past with, say, Marcuse. The advantage of the right is they are not afraid to be embarrassed by the crackpots they court to energize their base, they are now actively recruiting them. The left as a word is as good as communist and now the “vast right wing” conspiracy is similarly making the term progressive a dirt word, the euphemism used by traitors to steal the thunder from the American dream and turn all our children into godless, gay zombie socialists who will wander around aimlessly until they are run over by drunken illegal alien Mexican drug dealers. The great gluttonous mass wants to turn off both sides, their drains bamaged to dysfunction over the course of the last thirty years. Problem with the sixties was it lent hope to changing the system from within. We can make mommy and daddy understand. Obvious at this stage that is impossible. Like the old saying goes it is going to get a lot worse before it gets any better. The right no longer can even pretend to see any value in their opposition. When Bush said you are either for us or against us he was not just speaking to old family friends in a cave. All this shit Bill Ayers gets thrown at him, no one talks about his motivation. I read his book before I heard of Obama. The pyrite on the pendulum has definitely shifted. The question is whether mass awakening occurs before the “kool aid” is administered to the backs of our heads. Oh wait...wait...maybe the answer is encoded in a Coke commercial during American Idol. Are other western democracies as alienated as our own?

[Nordic]

Peak Oil -- Bah.

Fiction.

There is no "finite" amount of oil. And, it is not a fossil fuel.

Abiotic oil, as it is more accurately named, is not "finite".

In sum, any "shortage" would be a falsehood, and serve to only benefit the select few --- invariably the same 'select few' behind many other manufactured events of the current or recent epoch...

Sure. That's why oil production in the United States peaked in the 1970's. Because Americans hate making money by pumping liquid up from the dirt beneath their homes. Why do that when you can work at minimum wage?

Why in the world would you believe that any natural resource is anything other than finite? Even coal is finite. Water is fucking finite. There's just a hell of a lot of it.

I love how some people will just come out and say things like they're FACT. You, Hugh, a few others here and there. You just KNOW. Sure.

[wintler2]

Operator kos, we'll have to wait and see on the zero point antigravity technology. For these flying triangles to be real & human-made would required some huge breakthroughs in propulsion and aerodynamics, for them to have also solved fuel supply is too Disney for me. As (i think) you say, natural limits on availability of resources limit the likely significance of any new highly complex technology.

Should flag my bias, i am quietly thrilled that the USAF might/will run out of fuel. But it really does seem that they're worried.

I guess its hard to find civilian applications for the ability to shoot children from a helicopter.

If we stopped mining nickel, they'd run out of bullets.

[Belligerent Savant]

Peak Oil -- Bah.

Fiction.

There is no "finite" amount of oil. And, it is not a fossil fuel.

Abiotic oil, as it is more accurately named, is not "finite".

In sum, any "shortage" would be a falsehood, and serve to only benefit the select few --- invariably the same 'select few' behind many other manufactured events of the current or recent epoch...

Sure. That's why oil production in the United States peaked in the 1970's. Because Americans hate making money by pumping liquid up from the dirt beneath their homes. Why do that when you can work at minimum wage?

Why in the world would you believe that any natural resource is anything other than finite? Even coal is finite. Water is fucking finite. There's just a hell of a lot of it.

I love how some people will just come out and say things like they're FACT. You, Hugh, a few others here and there. You just KNOW. Sure.

Uh-huh.

In response to Operator Kos and Nordic --

Yes, perhaps I was purposely pushing buttons by my bold declarations in my previous post, but sometimes pushing buttons helps energize the flow of discussion, wouldn't you say?
Believe what you wish...

Exhibit 1, from back in 2004:

http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=6&sec ... m=4&y=2004

WASHINGTON, 29 April 2004 — Officials from Saudi Arabia’s oil industry and the international petroleum organizations shocked a gathering of foreign policy experts in Washington yesterday with an announcement that the Kingdom’s previous estimate of 261 billion barrels of recoverable petroleum has now more than tripled, to 1.2 trillion barrels.

Additionally, Saudi Arabia’s key oil and finance ministers assured the audience — which included US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan — that the Kingdom has the capability to quickly double its oil output and sustain such a production surge for as long as 50 years.
....
“Saudi Arabia’s vast oil reserves are certainly there,” Naimi added. “None of these reserves requires advanced recovery techniques. We have more than sufficient reserves to increase output. If required, we can increase output from 10.5 million barrels a day to 12 - 15 million barrels a day. And we can sustain this increased output for 50 years or more. There will be no shortage of oil for the next 50 years. Perhaps much longer.”

Exhibit 2:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Abioge ... eum_origin

Although this theory has support by a large minority of geologists in Russia, where it was intensively developed in the 1950s and 1960s, it has only recently begun to receive attention in the West, where the biogenic theory is still believed by the vast majority of petroleum geologists. Although it was originally denied that abiogenic hydrocarbons exist at all on earth, this is now admitted by Western geologists. The orthodox position now is that while abiogenic hydrocarbons exist, they are not produced in commercially significant quantities, so that essentially all hydrocarbons that are extracted for use as fuel or raw materials are biogenic.

Exhibit 3:

http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html

[too long to excerpt here].

OK, ON EDIT, I'll post a portion here:

The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not controversial nor presently a matter of academic debate. The period of debate about this extensive body of knowledge has been over for approximately two decades (Simakov 1986). The modern theory is presently applied extensively throughout the former U.S.S.R. as the guiding perspective for petroleum exploration and development projects. There are presently more than 80 oil and gas fields in the Caspian district alone which were explored and developed by applying the perspective of the modern theory and which produce from the crystalline basement rock. (Krayushkin, Chebanenko et al. 1994) Similarly, such exploration in the western Siberia cratonic-rift sedimentary basin has developed 90 petroleum fields of which 80 produce either partly or entirely from the crystalline basement. The exploration and discoveries of the 11 major and 1 giant fields on the northern flank of the Dneiper-Donets basin have already been noted. There are presently deep drilling exploration projects under way in Azerbaijan, Tatarstan, and Asian Siberia directed to testing potential oil and gas reservoirs in the crystalline basement. (http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm)

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/w ... ssion.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"?

-----------------------------------------

Oh, and, interesting you mention that oil production crisis from the 70's [the below is also from the 'questionsquestions' link above]:

The Fake Oil Crisis of 1973

Some "peak oil" writers have opined that the crisis of 1972-73 was a kind of "rehearsal" for what is supposedly in our very near future. It is startling to consider, in light of this, the evidence that that crisis was likely a completely contrived affair.

In "A Century of War -- Anglo American Oil Politics and the New World Order" (1992), petroleum industry expert and economist F. William Engdahl presents evidence that the 1973 OPEC "oil shock" and the accompanying oil "shortage" were secretly planned by the highest levels of the US and British elites, with Henry Kissinger playing a key role:
http://earth.prohosting.com/~jswift/engdahl.html

A concise summary of the entire book can be found here:
http://how-the-world-really-works.prosp ... war-5.html

Corroboration of Engdahl's account was provided a few years agb by Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, who was Saudi Arabia's OPEC minister at the time:

'I am 100 per cent sure that the Americans were behind the increase in the price of oil. The oil companies were in in real trouble at that time, they had borrowed a lot of money and they needed a high oil price to save them.'

He says he was convinced of this by the attitude of the Shah of Iran, who in one crucial day in 1974 moved from the Saudi view, that a hike would be dangerous to Opec because it would alienate the US, to advocating higher prices.

'King Faisal sent me to the Shah of Iran, who said: "Why are you against the increase in the price of oil? That is what they want? Ask Henry Kissinger - he is the one who wants a higher price".'

Yamani contends that proof of his long-held belief has recently emerged in the minutes of a secret meeting on a Swedish island, where UK and US officials determined to orchestrate a 400 per cent increase in the oil price.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business ... 88,00.html

[Belligerent Savant]

...here's another to chew on; you'll notice, Mr. Kos, that none of the links provided reference an "Alex Jones" OR "Jeff Rense":

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/40023 ... -to-vanish

EXCERPT:

In the West it is almost universally held that all oil and gas is derived from fossils. This is not the case elsewhere, particularly among Russian and Ukrainian scientists who have, over several generations, tenaciously propounded the notion that oil and gas are abiotic, can be found deep below the surface of the earth in most parts of the world and in very large amounts.



Western geologists and scientists find the theory either annoying or amusing and refuse to consider it seriously although there are exceptions. The theory continues to be held in much higher regard by Russian scientists and geologists (including some working in the West) for historical and perhaps ideological reasons.



Many Russian geologists and petroleum researchers credit the rise of Russia over the past 50 years as the largest producer of oil and second largest producer of natural gas in the world to the successful application of the abiogenic theory of oil and gas formation. The Russians claim to have successfully drilled over 300 ultra deep (around 40,000feet) oil and gas wells through granite and basalt based on this theory. These claims have been questioned by Western geologists and petroleum engineers.



The most recent attempt at gaining credence for the abiogenic idea was only a few months ago. A research team at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, led by Vladimir Kutherov, demonstrated that animal and plant fossils are not necessary for producing oil and natural gas. The team simulated the thermal and pressure processes that occur in the inner layers of the earth to generate hydrocarbons, the chief component of oil and natural gas. The team also noted that oil and gas has been found 7 miles below ground in Texas and fossil oil and gas could not, via, gravity have seeped down to such depths.



According to the Prof. Kutherov all types of bedrock can serve as reservoirs of hydrocarbon energy and their method of discovery can enhance exploration success rates from 20 % to 70 %. The research team has developed a new technique for locating oil and gas resources. It consists of dividing the globe into a fine grid, which corresponds to underground fissures or migration channels. Hydrocarbon resources will be found wherever migration channels intersect, predicts the team.



An abiogenic theory of petroleum is not new, dating from the 16th century .In the 19th century two very accomplished scientists, Alexander von Humboldt and Dimitri Mendeleev( of the Periodic Table fame) advanced the concept. In the 20th century the Russian- Ukrainian School of geology emerged in the Soviet Union to vigorously formulate the modern theory of abiogenic oil and gas. In the West, the most eloquent and determined proponent was the famous astronomer Thomas Gold. After his death, Jack Kenney of Gas Resources Corporation has become the leading Western exponent.




Specific examples to support the abiotic theory have been cited over the years. Each example has been dismissed by the Western establishment as specious while it has been hailed by proponents as convincing. This is always so when a deeply entrenched belief and massive money flows encounter a subversive idea that profoundly threatens the prevailing order. The debate is becoming increasingly shrill as the two diametrically opposed views of Peak Oil and Abiogenic(Superabundant) Oil collide in a clash not only of science but, far more importantly, of money and ideology.


The matrix of scientific, political and business interests in the West, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Brazil (an emerging oil exporter of consequence) and Venezuela that refuses to countenance abiogenic theories is big and potent. These interests want oil and gas to be scarce and expensive for a variety of reasons. It is natural and understandable that no credible test of the theory will be attempted within the ambit of these interests.

The Russian authorities and oil and gas companies seem to be deeply conflicted between intellectual pride (it is their theory, after all) and the desire to keep oil and gas prices high via the idea of scarcity when talking to the rest of the world about their abiogenic oil and gas reserves.


It seems to the author, however, that China and India have compelling economic and national security interests in proving or disproving the theory, convincingly. If the theory is false then they are no worse off than today. If it is correct then they, of the major nations in the world, have the most to gain in subverting the prevailing oil and gas order of the world. So, of course, do scores of millions of ordinary Americans who care nothing about theories but want cheap, abundant, reliable oil and gas.

[JD]

Abiogenic oil exists.

I've seen it. Once upon a time I worked as a gold prospector. Part of the prospecting involved going into an old adit that was driven under a mountain. Hard rock country; granite was the host rock. The mine was cut in the late 1920's so had been open for many years. It ran a mile or so under the mountain and I saw small bituminous flows in fractures on the rock face.

So no doubt abiogenic oil exists as I've seen it with my own eyes and felt it between my fingers.

Abiogenic gas also the same. No personal experience but a friend worked the Sudbury nickle mines in serious hard rock country and says that they needed methane gas detectors in the mines as sometimes the methane could get to explosive levels. No sedimentary rocks for thousands (?) of miles from Sudbury; so clearly not biogenic but abiogenic in source.

Back to oil; I've worked on oil deposits in the Granite Wash that baffle me as per how the oil accumulated in them. They are sitting directly on Precambrian granite; no sedimentary source rocks are stratigraphically above them. Baffling how the oil got in the reservoirs in my opinion. These reservoir's solution gas also contains upwards of 3 percent helium. Possibly these reservoirs contain abiogenic oil? I honestly don't know much about geochemistry and distinguishing biogenic sources for crude and haven't taken the time to really research the Granite Wash matter or get some of my own data. Too many other things to do perhaps a "get around to it sometime" project. I'm open to the possibility though. Really though it doesn't matter where the oil comes from; if can identify a reservoir and a trap (seal no problem there) it'll have oil in it whereever the heck it came from. So doesn't really add to the resources of the world just a curiosity as per how it arrived in place.

Sitting on my bookshelf is Thomas Gold's "Deep Hot Biosphere" (I think that's the title) in which he makes a case for the existance of abiogenic hydrocarbons. He's a planetary physicist and hence takes that mode of thinking. And in some instances I think he's bang on. For example the presence of Helium in many natural gas reservoirs is a clear marker that abiogenic gas is being trapped in petroleum reservoirs.

Hopefully all the above establishes that I'm open minded to the presence of abiogenic hydrocarbons and have spent some time examining the leading proponents ideas on the matter.

Now for what an abiogenic source proponent doesn't want to hear.

Petroleum deposits need source (biogenic or abiogenic or whatever); a reservoir to accumulate in; and trap to keep them in place, and a top seal to keep it in place. The accumulation whether by biogenic or abiogenic methods takes a very long time. Geologically long as in millions of years. So whatever the ultimate source; when we take it out for all practical purposes in the next million years give or take it isn't coming back in. I've examined data on thousands (tens of thousands?) of wells and never seen any that seemed to be recharging. This data includes pressure and production declines. A very rare well will produce with no hydrocarbon decline but that is always explainable by more hydrocarbons in the reservoir providing energy to the well; typically a good sign to drill more into the reservoir. After which then it does indeed decline. (Please don't pull up some web account of Eugene Island; that is very much the situation there it was not recharching).

I don't profess a comprehensive knowledge of Russian petroleum reservoirs; but the ones I've seen (Samatlor and Vahk) are very much in sedimentary rocks and behaving quite normally albeit having been wildly mismanaged. LOL; folks here harp about evil oil companies. Go to Russia and see how public entities managed their petroleum resources and protected the environment. I remember driving by a broken pipeline that was spewing oil and saltwater at big rates perhaps a hundred feet in the air. It was still doing it the next time I drove by three months later. God knows it still might be doing the same.

I have heard the Russians are really dusting off the abiogenic accumulation model to explain their new resurgence to 10.5mm barrels per day. I can't comment on this being accurate or not but am skeptical.

Reason for skepticism is that hard rocks don't have porosity to commercially store significant volumes of oil or natural gas. Hence; the places I know of abiogenic gas and oil it is a curiosity as per the case of the old gold mind or a nuisance in the case of the Sudbury nickle mine. So sad; but true. I'd LOVE to dream up a play involving abiogenic oil that was otherwise and become the next billionaire and provide the industrialized world with more of its lifeblood; but alas I think more likely a leprechaun will give to me his pot of gold LOL.

As per Saudi Arabia; I was invited there about a year ago. Spent a day in the secure Aramco technical campus and talked to a pile of Aramco employees. I learned about where their drilling efforts are focused and what types of wells are being drilled. Unfortunately I wasn't presented with technical explanations of their fields by their staff. However, on the basis of where they are putting their money; I can quite assure you that they are not sitting on piles and piles of new oil reserves. Indeed; they rather arbitrarily tripled their reserves in 1985 to boost their reserves based OPEC production quota. LOL!! On no extra drilling data. So consider that when proudly pulling internet links to grand pronouncements of reserve increases. From the limited work I've been able to do on what they have I think the Chevron estimates for Ghawar made in the late 1960's prior to Saudi nationalization seem accurate and the Kingdom's oil production will plunge right on schedule as Ghawar is fully depleted.

I have other stories of Arabic countries and how they puff and tout reserves figures with all the care of a penny stock promoter working out of a boiler room. But nuff said; take it as a fact OPEC reserves will be overbooked.

The world experienced Peak Whaling in the later 1800's; based on a resource of whales which was clearly biogenic and experiencing recharge at perhaps a million times faster than hydrocarbons leaking into reservoirs. The whalers responded to declining whale hunts by going further afield with faster and bigger boats. Eventually; there were not enough whales for a commercial industry left. After that point, of course, then the conservation efforts started. Too little and too late unfortunately.

Why do people find it so hard to accept we will or indeed have hit limits of petroleum production? Perhaps because it is potentially the end of our civilization as we currently know it. Without very wise planning and cooperative execution of moving to new energy sources we may indeed experience a massive die-off; planned and abetted by the elites or not. We are simply probably past carrying capacity of the planet without pulling on the ancient endowment of hydrocarbons most of us currently live off. When that goes many of the current 7 billion will go to. Doesn't have to be that way; but with the piss poor leadership and civil sense of duty and care to each other in the world today it is the most likely outcome in my opinion.

I find it hilarous the US Military; not the IEA is the first government agency to come clean on the imminence and impact of peak oil and/or decreasing net oil available to society. But I guess they know why they are in Iraq and rattling the sabers with Iran better than the rest of us, eh?

PDF WARNING. Only link I'm putting down. This is called "Tipping Point: Near-Term Implications of a Peak in Global Oil Production" and I strongly recommend it as a read. It covers most of the basis that peak oil thinking misses including the fragility of infrastructure and financial markets, unsustainability of exponential growth; net energy and EROEI; etc. http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Tipping%20Point.pdf

I'm really glad they got the thoughts down in one place as a colleague and I were thinking we'd have to do so but they did it for us.

[JackRiddler]

Thanks JD! That's a great report, and makes my non-expert's view superfluous. I'm so glad to have you here.

I was going to be a lot shorter:

- If Saudi Arabia is sitting on such rich reserves triple what was thought before, why have they started drilling offshore?

- Who cares what its origins are? This is only meaningful if the recoverable stuff recharges faster than we extract it (no), or if there's some trick to speed it up (more scientific quick-fix messianism).

[Belligerent Savant]

Appreciate your perspective, JD, and background on some of your personal experiences.
May I ask what it is that you do as a profession that would provide you with the above information and exposure?

I agree with your assessment that it ultimately matters little what the actual 'source' or origin of oil is [abiotic or 'fossil'], but I respectfully disagree that we are reaching "limits of petroleum production". Sure, we may very well experience all manner of "shortages" in the coming years, and most of us not in the upper 1% tax bracket will very likely suffer greatly because of it. But do I believe that it would be due to an actual [and not manufactured] shortage? I don't think so. Just my opinion, of course, but one based on observances/analysis of the many other falsehoods propagated to the masses over the years to inflict fear, control, and keep the very few at an advantage over the majority.

And, call me stubborn, but a conversation with a handful of Aramco employees does not equate to a full grasp/understandings of the inner workings of Saudi Arabian oil supplies or whatever true agenda they may have with whatever figures they may present to you or the public at large [feel free to backhand me if I'm off base here and perhaps provide a bit more clarity].
Of course, that's not to say those shifty Saudis aren't lying about their actual reservoir volumes or exaggerating their figures to some degree [and we can say the same for the Russians], but unless you're a person of far more clout and high ranks within the oil industry, it's difficult to apply a broad brush and claim the info provided to you by some Aramco employees would essentially paint an accurate picture of the amount of actual oil/petroleum available in the region.

Speaking for myself, my reasons for being skeptical of this "peak oil" theory has nothing to do with fear or avoidance of contemplating the end of our civilization; indeed, our civilization may very well be nearing its end, but that can be for a variety of reasons -- we're exposed to several dozen potential causes for our collective demise within this forum alone on a daily basis, and each cause/event is just as likely to occur as any other [or perhaps in tandem].

It is at least partially due, rather, to the sources from which these 'peak oil' theories originate. The title of this thread alone is quite telling: US MILITARY WARNS OF MASSIVE OIL SHORTAGE.

Sure, it may very well happen. But if it does, would it be for the reasons outlined by the military? Have they suddenly decided to be altruistic towards The People? Or is there another agenda at play here?

Given many of the other incidents of the last half-century or so, I'd lean quite heavily on the latter -- but that's just my humble opinion... I'm just some anonymous poster on a forum..

[JackRiddler]

BS, did this idea originate with the military? No. They are always looking to justify future wars, but they don't really lack for scenarios. Do you think some of what they say, they say because they think it's true?

[Belligerent Savant]

JRiddler:

No, of course I don't believe this 'peak oil' theory originated with the Military, but that raises a good question: where did it originate, and who was it funded by?

And yes, I'm sure the Military issues plenty of statements that they believe to be true, or rather, that those on the mid-to-lower end of the totem pole believe to be true.

Do I believe the high-ups within the military, those with uber-security clearance, are being forthright with whatever statements they're having ther soldiers release to the press?
Hardly.
And those at the higher levels likely don't even know the full story either.

Or perhaps, I'm just making all this up as I go along, and we'll all be gone within 7 yrs due to 'peak oil'..

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Link to a thread started by 'elpuma', citing an article that touches on the "peak oil" theme..

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28542

Gulf Oil Spill "Could Go on Years and Years" ...

by F. William Engdahl

Excerpt:

What the enormity of the oil spill does is to also further discredit clearly the oil companies’ myth of “peak oil” which claims that the world is at or near the “peak” of economical oil extraction. That myth, which has been propagated in recent years by circles close to former oilman and Bush Vice President, Dick Cheney, has been effectively used by the giant oil majors to justify far higher oil prices than would be politically possible otherwise, by claiming a non-existent petroleum scarcity crisis.

[Nordic]

.

Link to a thread started by 'elpuma', citing an article that touches on the "peak oil" theme..

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28542

Gulf Oil Spill "Could Go on Years and Years" ...

by F. William Engdahl

Excerpt:

What the enormity of the oil spill does is to also further discredit clearly the oil companies’ myth of “peak oil” which claims that the world is at or near the “peak” of economical oil extraction. That myth, which has been propagated in recent years by circles close to former oilman and Bush Vice President, Dick Cheney, has been effectively used by the giant oil majors to justify far higher oil prices than would be politically possible otherwise, by claiming a non-existent petroleum scarcity crisis.

Yeah, and that same article quotes Wayne Madsen as being a "washington based investigate journalist". Wayne Madsen is no such thing. Wayne Madsen has zero credibility.

So I don't give that story much credibility, although I certainly don't doubt that this oil volcano could indeed go on for years.

Abiotic oil should be easy enough to prove one way or another. Personally I don't think it matters one bit how the oil is formed.

[JackRiddler]

I'd like you or Engdahl to show where peak oil is an oil company theory. Oil company, he said. So a petroleum geologist publishing a paper who may have worked for an oil company is not the same thing. Show us where an oil company took the position that peak oil is happening (historically imminently, not in some geological theoretical).

Actually, they do so indirectly, and that's every time they issue reassurances that there is no problem because known reserves are still good for decades. (Which only means that peak oil is happening - known reserves will still take decades after peak to deplete before negative net energy.) Curiously these are reassurances.

I'd especially like to see oil companies attributing the 2008 price spike to peak oil. Because they didn't. And Engdahl is engaging in faith-based writing. He doesn't want peak oil to be so, therefore it is an oil company invention, no evidence need be presented. It's the same kind of reverse logic like how libertarian business ideologues hate taxes, therefore global warming is a hoax.

Other than human common sense, which they obviously lack, profit-now capitalist oil companies have no reason to push peak oil. It's like inviting capital to abandon them for alternatives. It's like inviting nations to nationalize them because of an emergency. They want investment for exploration, they understand that even if production is peaking, they're still making more billions than ever, and they want to move into shale with its attendant destruction. They do not want an economy based on decentralized renewable alternative energy generation. Maybe as human beings, they do, but they cease to be humans when they look at balance books and stock prices. Anyone who stays a human in considering bottom-line accounting was selected out by the process which produces corporate managers.

[elpuma]

.

Link to a thread started by 'elpuma', citing an article that touches on the "peak oil" theme..

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28542

Gulf Oil Spill "Could Go on Years and Years" ...

by F. William Engdahl

Excerpt:

What the enormity of the oil spill does is to also further discredit clearly the oil companies’ myth of “peak oil” which claims that the world is at or near the “peak” of economical oil extraction. That myth, which has been propagated in recent years by circles close to former oilman and Bush Vice President, Dick Cheney, has been effectively used by the giant oil majors to justify far higher oil prices than would be politically possible otherwise, by claiming a non-existent petroleum scarcity crisis.

Thanks for posting my earlier post here BS. In many ways, the oil market reminds me of the diamond market...

“We have to tell people that diamonds are valuable,” he said. “We are trying to maintain the price, just as De Beers did, as all diamond producing countries do. But what we are doing is selling an illusion,” meaning a product with no utility and a price that depends on the continued sense of scarcity where there is none.

and...

“If you don’t support the price,” Andrei V. Polyakov, a spokesman for Alrosa, said, “a diamond becomes a mere piece of carbon.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/business/global/12diamonds.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Link to a thread started by 'elpuma', citing an article that touches on the "peak oil" theme..

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28542

Gulf Oil Spill "Could Go on Years and Years" ...

by F. William Engdahl

Excerpt:

What the enormity of the oil spill does is to also further discredit clearly the oil companies’ myth of “peak oil” which claims that the world is at or near the “peak” of economical oil extraction. That myth, which has been propagated in recent years by circles close to former oilman and Bush Vice President, Dick Cheney, has been effectively used by the giant oil majors to justify far higher oil prices than would be politically possible otherwise, by claiming a non-existent petroleum scarcity crisis.

Yeah, and that same article quotes Wayne Madsen as being a "washington based investigate journalist". Wayne Madsen is no such thing. Wayne Madsen has zero credibility.

So I don't give that story much credibility, although I certainly don't doubt that this oil volcano could indeed go on for years.

Abiotic oil should be easy enough to prove one way or another. Personally I don't think it matters one bit how the oil is formed.

Nordic:

for the record, I agree that it does not ultimately matter how the oil is formed, and if you read some of my earlier comments in this thread, I essentially indicate as such, in my response to "JD"...

My main premise and driving point behind my comments is essentially that the 'peak oil' theory is simply another meme put out there by interests that are [needless to say] NOT aligned with those of the masses..

I cannot say for certain WHO put it out there, per se, only that it is yet another diversionary/disinformational [if there is such a word] tactic employed by a group of handlers.

I'll be sure to dig a bit deeper however and post any updates to this thread..

elpuma: agreed on the comparisons to the diamond market [racket]; I believe I may have also alluded to the similarities here somewhere... or perhaps it was a conversation I had a while back with one of my imaginary friends..