|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
Peak Oil a HOAX put out by the conglomerates?
 Sat Apr 24, 2004 3:39 am
|
 |
|
Artificial Scarcity for MONOPOLY?????
****
The world's overflowing oil reserves?
By Will Smale
BBC Online business reporter
The oil is there, but can we access it all?
Oil is making headlines again.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3590137.stm
Tuesday, 20 April, 2004, 08:57 GMT 09:57 UK
Never far from newsworthy, such is its over-riding economic and political importance, the spotlight has returned as harsh as ever.
The price of benchmark US light sweet crude recently reached its highest level for 13 years, and the cartel of petroleum exporting nations, Opec, maintained its decision to cut production - potentially fuelling yet more rises.
Add increasing violence in Iraq delaying its return to full oil production, and it is understandable that oil analysts have been getting the jitters.
Not to forget President George W Bush, who in an election year really does not want to see car-loving Americas moaning about high gasoline prices, which have also risen as a consequence.
And oil giant Shell already admitting twice this year that it has over-estimated its own oil reserves.
But looking behind the politics and other reasons for the upward pressure on prices (such as historically low oil and petrol stockpiles in the US), just how much oil is left under the surface of Planet Earth?
Technological advances
Loads - or more than 1,000bn gallons of proven (we know for sure) reserves to be precise, up to 40 years' worth.
Add that still yet to be discovered, and the figure and timescale is much higher still.
Who holds the world's oil - and how long will it last?
At-a-glance
Yet before you go out and buy your own oil-fuelled power station, there are two small cautioning factors.
Firstly that the world is consuming oil as fast as it can get its hands on it (75m barrels a day rising to 120m by 2030 according to the International Energy Agency); and secondly, will it be economically viable or technically possible to get our hands on all the remaining oil?
Bruce Evers, oil analyst at Investec Bank, says trying to determine how many more decades of oil the world can enjoy is like asking the question 'how long is a piece of string?'.
"Technology has improved so much over the last 10 to 15 years that companies can now get at oil reserves that previously would have been considered impossible." he said.
New reserves
"And over the next decade or so even better technologies will no doubt come on stream.
"For example, engineers can now take 3D or even 4D seismic images to stretch existing reserves and aid the finding of new ones."
Opec's bid to keep prices high
"Obviously the future depends on continuing demand for oil, but there are a number of newly developing fields around the world - such as Azerbaijan, Russia and Angola," Mr Evers added.
"Oil remains pretty popular."
The impact of ongoing technological advancements aiding oil exploration is the main factor put forward by Chris Hayes, of Cambrian Group, a Wales-based oil and gas consultancy whose engineers help the industry's main players find and best access reserves around the world.
"If you go back 20 to 30 years, firms were only able to drill for oil in shallow waters," said Mr Hayes, well operations business development director.
"Today there are a growing number of deep-water projects."
Green alternatives
Mr Hayes added that while oil supplies would eventually dry up, that point could be a century away.
"If you stand back and look at it totally objectively, it took millions of years to develop each drop of oil, which we now use in seconds, so it is 100% certain that oil will one day run out," he said.
"However, we have potentially got another 100 years of oil production. Yet as it becomes more scarce, prices will no doubt go up, and there will inevitably have to be a gradual move to alternative power sources."
It is this switch to alternative - and renewable - energy sources that Greenpeace has long campaigned for.
Its argument is that because oil is a pollutant, reserves should be left in the ground.
Reliance
"If all the remaining reserves were burnt it would cause massive amounts of pollution," said a Greenpeace spokeswoman.
"Instead we need to be phasing out fossil fuels and moving towards renewable alternatives."
Yet such is the overriding reliance upon oil, it is going to require a seismic advance in alternative power sources for cars and other vehicles before this situation changes.
Without such a development you can see countries and companies trying to get at the very last drop.
---------
http://www.letsroll911.org/
[Edited 3 times, lastly by Mech on 05-08-2004] |
| |
|
|
electricmojoman
Joined: 07 Feb 2004
Posts: 332
|
|
Sat Apr 24, 2004 5:24 am
|
|
|
Peak oil is real. The whole caos of the Bush administration is a direct attachment to that need and greed for oil. Just pay attention to the next time you hear the word "billions of barrels" and see if it refers to a day or month that we consume that much.
Oil's Power brokers are making their last stand for control. Out of greed and fear that they will lose soon. In their minds: We must have Iraq or no oil control during the down slide of oil.
This is why Bush actually believes he is helping us. He has justified others people's greed for his purpose of being good.
America has an oil mafia. They cannot make money on the market with the Saudi's and Iraq flooding the market. The first gulf war started because the Hughes company, who made slant drilling, tried to drill into Iraq from Kuwait. Pissed Saddam off and so he attacked. We come and save the day and Putting sanction on Iraq was the sole purpose of that war. If saddam was taken out the sactions would have never happened.
This war comes right as the sanction were to be lifted and RUSSIA and France had signed contract for the oil. This is a world game for oil.
Peak oil is very real and the greed that is unfolding is what the bible's revelations are all about if you ask me. I am so much an anti-bible thumper but how ironic is it that the most religious place on earth has the biggest commodity known to man underneath it. One day that bubblin crude is going to dry up around the world and those people are going to be hoodwinked, armed, controlled and killed to get that oil.
People really should reflect how much oil is needed in an industrialized nation. For the war machines, our transportation, our electricity, power plants and so on!
[Edited 1 times, lastly by electricmojoman on 04-23-2004] |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sat Apr 24, 2004 5:32 am
|
|
|
Truth to tell I don't know who to believe..but lately I am believing Peak Oil is an elaborate Ruse FOR CONTROL..over supplies. And they use the Phony left wing environmental movement to push it.
According to some reports just the oil under Alaska is enough to last the United States for the next Century.
But the TOPIC HEADLINE reads IS it a HOAX ?
Question mark...meaning...WHO do we believe?
-------
http://www.letsroll911.org/
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 05-08-2004] |
| |
|
|
electricmojoman
Joined: 07 Feb 2004
Posts: 332
|
|
Sat Apr 24, 2004 5:54 am
|
|
|
I gave my belief. Thanks.
quote:
According to some reports just the oil under Alaska is enough to last the United States for the next Century.
Well, I'm not going to waste time arguing something that has no common sense to it. Iraq may not even last a whole century and it's the second largest on the map. Alaska is a pool next to an ocean compared to Iraq.
We gain a billion people every 15 years now.
As for alaska, if it is all we have left in America than it should be touched Last no matter what. If oil is gone one day and what is left is owned by, oh say China or Russia, the could kick our ass in seconds with no oil for our military machines. Alaska should go last and I'm proud to be a leftist in that view!
[Edited 1 times, lastly by electricmojoman on 04-23-2004] |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sat Apr 24, 2004 6:05 am
|
|
|
Mabye you would see things more my way if you know who the Left-wing Environmental movements (not the grassroots) is Funded by.
Nothing but GLOBALIST entities
Shell
Arco Petroleum products
Rockafeller foundation
You name it
Just FOOD FOR thought Mojo
-----
http://www.letsroll911.org/
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Mech on 05-08-2004] |
| |
|
|
electricmojoman
Joined: 07 Feb 2004
Posts: 332
|
|
Sat Apr 24, 2004 6:35 am
|
|
|
I've heard that before and it makes no sense nor do I believe it. That is an over stereo type that leaves out a lot of respectful enities and people who are environmentalist. those enities you speak of are right wing communistic, greedy , militants who spend all their waking hours deregulating laws that so called Leftist put their whole lives and souls into to get change.
You cannot believe everything you read.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by electricmojoman on 04-23-2004] |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sat Apr 24, 2004 6:40 am
|
|
|
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LOOK AT WHO FUNDS THEM MOJO...HOW SIMPLE DOES IT GET?
Go to environmentalists (big ones..not the grassroots) websites and SEE WHO FUNDS THEM.
It's all about getting more and more control over everyones lives..NOT saving the environment.
-------
http://www.letsroll911.org/
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 05-08-2004] |
| |
|
|
Guest
|
|
Tue Apr 27, 2004 11:07 am
|
|
|
Actually if the illuminati visions are true they want to save the environment, but for themselves, and at the expense of your life,liberty and property. And your right Mech they do that by gaining control over your life.
For example take a look at the EPA regulations ,some vary by state, that regulate whether or not your vehicle passes the emissions inspection. If it doesn't they can suspend and/or revoke your driver's license. That is control over your life.
And it is riduclous to assume that that emissions law is saving the planet when you have factories billowing out pollutants by the million-fold and our president took our country out of the multi-national kyoto treaty. Not to mention the contrails/chemtrails polluting our skies ( whether or not chemtrails are real the fact that planes are releasing chemicals (ie.gas etc.) that end up clouding the whole sky within hours sometimes minutes is more than enough evidence for massive amounts of pollution,but you don't see anyone regulating filters on planes do you?
The fact of the matter is that while limiting the harmful emissions coming from your car is a worthy cause it is not something that is going to destroy the planet when you have all these other more noticable pollutants doing that job already. All it is,is just one more way to control your life. Its absurd to lose your license like that especially if you don't have the money to fix the problem, how are you going to work if you cant drive, how can you pay the repair bill if you cant drive to work to get the money!!! And to top it off if you do drive w/out your licsense you go to jail where you cant work to get the money to get out to work to get the money to pay for the repairs to fix the car so you can drive legally. (sorry if i rambled this is just unbeliviable.) So in other words they got you by the balls!
Once again while environmentalism is a worthy cause without a doubt it is being done for the wrong reasons. Hell they want to kill 80% of us. However, if you go against it that's wrong because don't you want a healthy enironment and trees to keep giving you the oxygen you and your family needs. No person in their right mind would say kill all the animals or destroy that rainforest or pollute that place. And yet these noble causes for environmentalism is being used for greed and evil. The point is once again they got you by the balls.
ow hell, I've been born in the wrong century!
|
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sat May 22, 2004 5:32 pm
|
|
|
Natural Gas, Oil Occur Naturally & Are Not a Limited Fossil Fuel, Says Prominent Scientist
http://www.americanfreepress.net/RFA_Articles/
Natural_Gas__Oil_Occur_Natural/natural_gas__oil_occur_natural.html
A lot of powerful interests use “energy shortage” scares to manipulate not only public opinion (particularly in regard to U.S. foreign policy toward oil producing nations) but also the price of oil itself.
However, the truth is that oil is not a limited resource, according to one of the world’s most prestigious scientists, whose views on the subject have not received the publicity they deserve. Dr. Thomas Gold contends, based on long study, that oil, natural gas and coal are not so-called “fossil fuels.”
Instead, according to Dr. Gold, these resources are constantly being manufactured within the Earth by natural processes that are little understood and which point toward new, relatively unexplored realms in science.
In his book, The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels, which is available in most bookstores, Dr. Gold has outlined the entirety of his theory.
Dr. Gold was the guest on the Oct. 28 broadcast of Radio Free America, the weekly call-in talk forum with Tom Valentine, sponsored by American Free Press. He and Valentine were joined by a longtime mutual friend, oil wildcatter John Ledbetter, who has used Dr. Gold’s research in his own oil drilling ventures.
What follows is an abbreviated transcription of the broadcast. Valentine’s questions are in boldface. Gold’s responses are in regular text. Ledbetter’s comments are in italics.
Your most controversial idea is the non-biological origin of natural gas and oil. You put forth the position that dinosaurs and plants and the fossils from those living beings are not the origin of oil and natural gas. Your theory was first publicly referenced in a book by your colleague, the late Fred Hoyle, one of the world’s leading physicists and astronomers, in which Hoyle had a chapter entitled “Gold’s Ore Theory,” the ore referring to the porous spaces in the Earth. What first prompted you to suggest that oil and natural gas is generated from a chemical substance in the crust of the Earth?
The astronomers have been able to find that hydrocarbons, as oil, gas and coal are called, occur on many other planetary bodies. They are a common substance in the universe. You find it in the kind of gas clouds that made systems like our solar system. You find large quantities of hydrocarbons in them. Is it reasonable to think that our little Earth, one of the planets, contains oil and gas for reasons that are all its own and that these other bodies have it because it was built into them when they were born?
That question makes a lot of sense. After all, they didn’t have dinosaurs and ferns on Jupiter to produce oil and gas?
That’s right. Yet, for some reason my theory was not heard. The old theory that it was all made from fossils had become so firmly established that when the astronomers had perfectly definitive evidence on most of the other planets, it was just ignored, especially by the petroleum geologists who had, by then, called these things “fossil fuels.” So once they had a name, then every body believed it.
The oil geologists have carved a niche for themselves and they are perceived now to “know more” about how oil was supposedly formed from dinosaur bones than anybody. However, you have taken your theory (which argues against the traditional theory) and have gone one step further by saying that there is a biosphere; that living entities (fungi, microbes, etc.) are not necessarily just the ones we see on the surface of the Earth but that living creatures are deep in the Earth which could have given rise to creatures on the surface.
I will tell you why this had to be so and why I became convinced. In the whole petroleum and coal story, there is this extraordinary paradox that all of these substances contain some biological material. But the chemistry in detail fits it better, as many chemists have said, with the theory of a primordial hydrocarbon mixture (say an oil or gas mixture) to which biological products have been added. That was one aspect that has been quite firmly noted by many Nobel laureate chemists and others.
So every time they find oil deep in the ground and they analyze it chemically, they are effectively supporting your theory?
Absolutely. That has been known, also, for quite a large number of years since the mid-1950s.
Human skull fossils have been found in anthracite coal in Pennsylvania. The official theory of the development of coal will not accept that reality, since human beings were not around when anthracite coal was formed.
That’s right. Coal was formed millions of years ago.
However, you cannot mistake the fact that these are human fossils. Nonetheless, your theory explains how this could come about.
The La Breatarpits in Los Angeles have saber toothed tigers and all kinds of things in them. But the only thing which, at the present time, you can see anything that would make coal of the kind that we mine (usually at a very shallow level) are the big tar pits and tar lakes, such as the one at La Brea and ones in Trinidad.
The coal we dig is hard, brittle stuff. It was once a liquid, because we find embedded in the middle of a six-foot seam of coal such things as a delicate wing of some animal or a leaf of a plant. They are undestroyed, absolutely preserved, with every cell in that fossil filled with exactly the same coal as all the coal on the outside. A hard, brittle coal is not going to get into each cell of a delicate leaf without destroying it. So obviously that stuff was a thin liquid at one time which gradually hardened.
The only thing we find now on the Earth that would do that is petroleum, which gradually becomes stiffer and harder. That is the only logical explanation for the origin of coal. So the fact that coal contains fossils does not prove that it is a fossil fuel; it proves exactly the opposite. Those fossils you find in coal prove that coal is not made from those fossils. How could you take a forest and mulch it all up so that it is a completely featureless big black substance and then find one leaf in it that is perfectly preserved? That is absolute nonsense.
Where then does the carbon base come from that produces all of this?
Petroleum and coal were made from materials in which heavy hydrocarbons were common components. We know that because the meteorites are the sort of debris left over from the formations of the planets and those contain carbon in unoxidized form as hydrocarbons as oil and coal-like particles. We find that in one large class of meteorites and we find that equally on many of the other planetary bodies in the solar system. So it’s pretty clear that when the Earth formed it contained a lot of carbon material built into it.
Your book points out that there are all sorts of life forms within the Earth.
It was an unthinkable thing, when this discovery was made, that there were life forms that did not depend on life on the surface, such as the process called photosynthesis where we find chemical energies created from the sunlight. That had been thought to be the only way life was to be supported. And here we find gasses and liquids coming up from cracks in the ocean floor which feed enormously intense forms of life, which includes quite large creatures. It is only because we found and saw some of these large creatures that this was discovered. However, the principal things that are living there are microbial, which feed the large creatures.
To verify your theories, you participated in the drilling of an unusual oil well in Sweden. Please tell us about that.
I was responsible for initiating the drilling of two quite deep wells in a huge meteorite crater in central Sweden. The reason I was interested in that was be cause it was in pure granitic rock with not a stitch of any sediment—nothing biological, just hard brittle rock.
To the average oil geologist that kind of area would be a wasteland.
They thought I was absolutely crazy to get the Swedes to drill there.
We were not able to produce commercial quantities of oil, because of the bacteriological content which clogged up the wells, but the bacteria which were living there were on the oil that was coming up. The bacteria that were captured at the various levels were just exactly those that would only reproduce at the elevated temperatures that, of course, occur at the various levels. There was no question that these were microbes from down there that were living, in fact, on the oil and gas as their principal food source and that this was their supply of energy.
Let me tell you why I was convinced. We first pulled up 80 barrels of oil, so this was not just trace amounts. Yet, I had been told by I don’t know how many traditionalists that this was an absolutely mad place to look for oil.
Meanwhile, based on the Swedish results, the Russians have drilled 300 deep holes in granitic rock of this type in Russia and found oil in most of them. The White Tiger field off the coast of Vietnam is producing at a very good rate now from granitic-based rock, so we know that this whole story is correct.
You were confident that this drilling would be successful in Sweden, despite the naysayers, weren’t you?
Well, there was sort of a great intellectual puzzle in the whole oil and gas business, and it was the following: All oil and gas areas contain unquestionably biological molecules. There are degrees of complexity that could not be found without biology. There not only had to be something alive, but it had to be in large quantities.
Another thing is that oil, consistently, the world over, contains a large concentration of the natural gas helium, which is totally chemically unconnected to biology. There is no biological material that could have attracted it or produced it. It’s an element, so it cannot be produced.
The great puzzle was why the helium, an unrelated substance to anything biological, was found in petroleum. The helium could only have become concentrated by mechanical pumping, because nothing chemically would affect the helium at all. The only way you can concentrate it is to mechanically pump it and it occurs diffusely distributed in the rock, but it is highly concentrated by a huge factor just in oil. So how would oil, if it is derived from dinosaurs and plants, have concentrated the helium? It is out of the question.
The only way in which the helium could have become concentrated would be if when it was diffusely distributed in all the porous spaces in the rock that another substance in large quantity came charging through those porous spaces and held the spaces open with high pressure. Oil pumped up whatever residual gas was mainly in those porous spaces. Then, when it comes to shallower levels—which is where we eventually find it—the oil contains whatever it has pumped up from deep levels below.
The puzzle was that this nonbiological material was highly concentrated by a factor of perhaps a thousand in oil and so were the biological molecules. It was a puzzle as to why those two contradictory things came together.
How about magnetite (that is, iron)? What part does it play in your theory?
The thing is that microbes can live on petroleum where it is oozing up from deep below only if they can loosen some oxygen. Hydrocarbons are only useful for energy and microbes need an energy supply which can be used for the combustion process. That needs oxygen. Without oxygen, all of the coal in the world would be useless to you.
Microbes have no free oxygen like we have in the atmosphere, so they have to find their oxygen from materials that are buried in the rocks. There the substances that are the most prolific suppliers of oxygen are iron oxide and sulphur oxide.
What we have found for a long time to the puzzlement of many petroleum geologists is that petroleum bearing areas have magnetite, a less oxidized form of iron, and sulphur and sulphides, which are compounds of sulphur, but not oxidized.
So to get that kind of magnetite around the oil, microbes consumed some of the oxygen to make the magnetite out of the ferrous iron that is in the rock. This proves that there is a biological factor at play.
Actually, the magnetite grains are very tiny and no such tiny ones occur naturally without biology. They are clearly biological products and there is no question that we found this in huge quantities in Sweden. Probably all the iron mines in Sweden that started the big Swedish iron industry are the same as what we found at our oil drilling. A great deal of the microbic activity found in the crust of the Earth is what we find in mining operations.
Many metal deposits that are totally unexplained, where the textbooks say that they have never been able to find any reason why these metals clustered together, can be explained. The answer as to why they got concentrated is because at depth at high pressures, it is very much easier to make complex molecules that contain metals. Then they come up and disintegrate and leave the metal atoms behind and that’s why we find copper and zinc and lead.
What about the methane balls that are being found at the bottom of the ocean?
That’s methane hydrate. Any place on the ocean floor that is cold and high pressure allows an ice that is a mixture of methane and water to form methane hydrate. In other words, methane has come up everywhere and met up with the water and there it makes the methane hydrate ice. It is thought that the total amount of the element carbon that is sitting on the ocean floors in the form of methane hydrate is more than all the coal and oil that we know of.
Your work contends that there is so much natural gas in the earth that it is causing earthquakes in trying to escape from the Earth. We could probably harness natural gas anywhere we wanted if we would just study your work. This is John Ledbetter:
If you’ll drill deep enough anywhere, you will find natural gas. It may not be in commercial quantities every time, but more than likely it will be. This whole thing involving the supposed scarcity of gas and petroleum and all of the politics that goes along with it—in the face of the findings of Dr. Gold—makes you wonder what everybody is really up to.
Is the oil and gas industry reconsidering things in light of your work?
In many other countries they are listening to me: in Russia on a very large scale, and in China also. It is just Western Europe and the United States that are so stuck in the mud that they can’t look at anything else.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 05-22-2004] |
| |
|
|
msu94
Joined: 16 Feb 2002
Posts: 207
Location: Tucson, AZ |
|
Tue May 25, 2004 11:57 pm
|
|
|
Actually its just one of those urban legends that the US has giant oil reserves that could last us centuries.
I think US reserves are about 3% of world reserves. Compared to the middle eastern fields, ours remaining fields are still pretty minuscule.
Left wing groups love to minimize each find and say it isnt big enough to go for. For example the ANWR field could give us 100 percent of consumtion for 90 days. But that is actually meaningless, because it could never be pumped out in 90 days, and you dont decide if a field is worth it or not if it doesnt supply the whole country.
Does it sound better if it is 10 percent of our consumption for 900 days? What about 5 percent for 1800 days? Either of those would actually play a pretty significant role in keeping US prices down, since a 5 percent shortage or glut, can often affect price by 10 percent.
Same with offshore. We have some pretty good fields off CA, FL, and NJ. It is possible to drill those an in environmentally sound manner. But there are left wing groups such as Greenpeace, who oppose ALL domestic petroleum exploration.
Often those people who are most likely to vote against oil exploration and production, are the first to bitch about high prices. But they sure dont whine about new shopping malls and old navy/gap stores which take up plenty of acreage.
|
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Wed May 26, 2004 1:19 am
|
|
|
Agreed... about the overzealous greenies.
My uncle from Canada who worked in the Petroleum industry in Northern Ontario told me that they (oil companies) are finding new patches all the time..more than ever and we won't be running out any time soon. the REAL issue is processing the stuff. We havent had a new refinery in the US in a decade or two now.
I still think its a BIG OL hoax we are "running out of Oil" as National geographic recently suggested. I think its a ploy. I cite much data that proves contrary. Im no fan of pollution or greedy oil barons either.
I say we neeed to get smarter and use other sources of oil and gas besides what you can drill out of the ground...like the previous thread stated could be done....also things like Biodiesel, methanol, et al.
Its all out there...but certain bank accounts are getting FAT by not implementing these sort of strategies. |
| |
|
|
msu94
Joined: 16 Feb 2002
Posts: 207
Location: Tucson, AZ |
|
Wed May 26, 2004 1:41 am
|
|
|
Well right now its not so much a matter of running out, as it is outstripping the available supply. Between us and China, all the oil/gas that is being produced is being used up. Saudi is talking about upping production by 2mill barrels/day just to help out.
While people love to bash domestic oil companies for the price of gas, they really dont have much of a role at all in the price of oil, since US production really has been in decline for years. The cost of the oil and the associated fed/state/local taxes are by far the biggest part of the price of a gallon of gas.
I have a little bit of time in the oil field in 97, until the price of oil dropped back down to 10 and drilling ceased. In West Texas, if you can get a well that consistently gives you 10 b/day, you are doing pretty good.
Eventually we will have to start drilling in ANWR and the coastal areas, and we should start now, take and slow and do it right, rather than wait until it was needed yesterday and its done hastily.
|
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Wed May 26, 2004 1:51 am
|
|
|
I dont think we will even have to tap ANWR any time soon if we get off our butts and set our nations energy priorities straight, meaning using all means of energy production available..smartly. I think ANWR should be a last resort in the case of a dire shortage.
Amen on being "taxed to death". Thats part of the reason why small companies and individuals with limited incomes have such a hard time making it here.
My 2 cents.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 05-25-2004] |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:42 am
|
|
|
NEWSLETTER #71
November 24, 2004
Belated Election Commentary ... and
More Stuff to Piss Off the Peak Oil Crowd
So ... I suppose you are expecting some kind of pithy commentary on the election, right? But to tell you the truth, I got nothin'. I have been sitting here staring at my monitor for a few weeks now, trying to figure out exactly what it is that I want to say. What can I possibly say now that wasn't said four years ago?
I guess I could say that the outcome is not what I expected. Since my last prediction, in August, my money has been riding on a disputed electoral win for Kerry coupled with a fraudulent popular vote victory for The Hunchback. And for much of the day, it looked very much like that might indeed be the final outcome. That’s how Zogby called it at 5:00 PM eastern time (49.4% of the popular vote for Bush, versus 49.1% for Kerry, but a 311 to 213 electoral vote victory for Kerry).
It wasn’t the early forecasts though that convinced me that Kerry was the chosen one. I had thought (obviously quite mistakenly), that the 'powers that be' needed Kerry in the hot seat. After all, you would think that someone is going to have to take the blame for the massive fallout from the first four years of Plan Bush. With the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government all firmly controlled by the Republican Party, along with the majority of statehouses, and with no preceding administration to blame, where is the finger going to point?
The economy cannot possibly be kept afloat on a sea of governmental and consumer debt for too much longer. There is every indication that a military draft will be instituted. As has already been demonstrated, the war in Iraq can only grow bloodier and more unpopular. New frontiers in the ‘War on Terror’ will likely open up. An unpopular tax increase seems inevitable, to finance endless wars and corporate giveaways. Millions of seniors, already robbed by Medicare 'reform,' will be robbed yet again through Social Security 'reform.' None of this will prove very popular with the American people, so you would think that there will be much blame to throw around.
Does this mean then that it is actually a good thing that Bush 'won'? Will his administration now be held accountable for the true costs of its policies?
Of course not. What the hell are you thinking? If you should find yourself entertaining fantasies of a massive backlash, with public opinion turning solidly against the Bush mob, just remember that they are only that: fantasies. Public opinion will not turn for at least two reasons: (1) in case you haven't noticed yet, 'public opinion' is whatever Washington and its media whores say it is; and (2) the Bush regime is no doubt counting on - indeed, has already planned for - another fundamental change in the political landscape -- something that will cast everything in a new light.
So what could that big change be? Another 'terrorist' attack is certainly a possibility that should never be ruled out. But there is another possibility as well: playing the 'Peak Oil' card. Consider that with 'Peak Oil' on the table, endless war becomes, in the minds of many, a necessary evil. Despite their protestations, the 'Peak' pitchmen are well aware of that fact. Greatly increased militarism and military spending (along with massive cuts in domestic spending), and the institution of a military draft, become necessary for survival. The 'panic over the end of oil' becomes a handy scapegoat for the economic meltdown.
I have seen 'Peak Oil' referenced in several election post-mortems. I guess then that it must be time to once again take an alternative look at what the 'Peak' team is selling. And I have a lot of stuff here that I want to get through, and not much time to get through it all, so let's get started.
* * * * * * * * * *
I happened upon an interesting post the other day entitled "The End of Fossil Fuels," written by Thomas J. Brown in 1998. It seems that Mr. Brown was ahead of the curve in catching on to the 'fossil fuel' myth, because, as it turns out, the title of his article refers not to the purported end of the oil era, but rather to his "attempt to describe the inadequacy of the term 'fossil fuel' and to prevent its further usage in the English language through education in the mysteries of the hydrocarbon structures in the earth."
(http://www.borderlands.com/archives/arch/endfos.html)
SE ASIA
There is much of interest in Brown's must-read missive, but what I would like to focus on here is the graphic to the left -- a composite map of Indonesia. What can be seen quite clearly in Brown's graphic is that oil and gas fields, as well as oil and gas seeps, follow a well defined arc that is also, strangely enough, marked by persistent earthquake and volcanic activity.
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/gold10.gif |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 1:43 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
