News & Analysis
Libertarian Truths and the Big Lie of Peak Oil ... Now Confirmed?
In 1980, official estimates of proved oil reserves in the United States stood at roughly 30 billion barrels. Yet over the past 30 years, more than 77 billion barrels of oil have been produced here. In other words, over the last 30 years, the United States produced more than two and a half times the proved reserves we thought we had available in 1980. Thanks to new and continuing innovations in exploration and production technology, there's every reason to believe that today's estimates of reserves are only a fraction of what will be produced and delivered tomorrow—not only here in the United States, but across the entire North American continent. – Institute for Energy Research, North American Energy Inventory, December 2011
Dominant Social Theme: There's hardly any oil in the world and free-markets are just a big trick!
Free-Market Analysis: There is no doubt the elite dialectic is shifting. Used to be that the mainstream media faithfully reported the meme that the world was running out of oil, and this was later refined into the Peak Oil meme.
Now, thanks to the Internet, the powers-that-be are confronting a realigned dialectic. They are being forced to live with it in order to keep up with the times – and before they lose all credibility. In this article, we want to examine the larger dialectical shift and what it means ... using Peak Oil as the chosen example.
This white paper excerpted above appears at the Institute for Energy Research, which is loosely affiliated with the CATO Institute via founder and CEO Robert L. Bradley Jr. Here is a bit of his bio:
Bradley is a visiting fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London, an honorary research fellow at the Center for Energy Economics at the University of Texas at Austin, and an adjunct scholar at both the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He is a member of the academic review committee at the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University.
Bradley is affiliated with a "softer" libertarian school. The controlled dialectic may be making more use of these outlets in our view. It is expanding in any case, and shifting. Today it is not unusual to read about the "American empire" or controversies as regards central banking.
The Economist, for instance, appropriates the Daily Bell analysis of the Internet as a modern day Gutenberg Press. But the Economist's bought-and-paid-for elitist editors make one major change: They claim that SOCIAL MEDIA is the heart and soul of modern-day Gutenberg technology. That's because the elites control social media but don't control blogs like ours. Just Google "Economist Magazine" ... "Gutenberg Press" and "Daily Bell."
This is how the elites subtly distort the conversation and create dialectics that continue to skew the dialogue in ways that are of benefit to them and their quest to create world government. Alternatively, as with Peak Oil, they simply begin to beat a retreat in order to retain even a smidgen of credibility.
A False Dialectic?
The elites are nothing if not persistent. (We figure they've been around thousands of years one way or another.) Lately, there have arisen accusations that the ENTIRE free-market movement is an elite dialectic.
In our view, this is yet another attack launched on free-market thinking by those who seek to build a case, apparently, for the sustained relevance of modern regulatory democracy. These arguments are being put forth, in part, by confusing the muscular Rothbardian wing of libertarianism with the softer free-market approach of the Chicago Fresh Water School and other such entities.
This is not surprising, as the patron saint of a certain kind of ethnic-focused conspiracy theory, Eustace Mullins, was seemingly confused about free-market economic theory and believed that the Austrian school and, say, the Freshwater School were one and the same thing. (He also seems to have believed the Austrian School was founded in the 1920s instead of the mid-1800s.) Mullins had great sense of intuitive history, but his lack of footnoting and seeming factual inaccuracies warn us to take his reporting cautiously.
The idea, in fact, that genuine free-market thinking itself is a "dialectic" and controlled by the elites does not make sense. Such free-market thinking, at root, is anarchical. Anarchy is merely the absence of government. It was the Austrian economist Murray Rothbard who elaborated on anarchy in the late 20th century.
In order to claim that Rothbardian Austrian economics is a manipulated dialectic, one must confront the history of anarchy that goes back tens of thousands of years. This is patently impossible as Austrian free-market thinking has only been around for about 150 years.
Money and Innuendo?
Almost any intellectual movement can be impugned by attributing malevolent motives to funding sources. Not so long ago as a spoof, we showed how the historical Jesus Christ could be tied directly to Genghis Khan of Mongolia.
We entitled the article, "New Elite Meme? ... Dialectical Parallels Between Jesus Christ of Nazareth and Genghis Khan of Mongolia" and even though we all-but-stated it was satire, people STILL took it seriously. Here is the beginning of the article:
In the depths of the Internet, we have come across several articles explaining not only that Genghis Khan was the logical successor to Jesus Christ, but that the two may even have been funded by the same Money Power. One such article is entitled, "The Glorious Concomitance of Christ and Khan – a Revisionist View of the Greatest Figures of the Age."
It is apparently written by "Comrade Khorijin Of the Borjigin clan (sub clan: Basut)" and has caused quite a stir in certain circles. Using a long and complex narrative derived in part from brief excerpts via partially-published books on various websites, he attempts to show that the Money Changers Christ drove from the Temple actually became supporters of his. He claims they funded Christ's travels around Israel and much of his proselytizing.
Paraphrasing Marx, Khorijin writes, "While initial efforts at empire building may appear at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing, appropriate analysis brings out that capital is a rigid prerequisite. When we lift a corner of the yurt, we once again find a familiar sight: Organized Jewry."
We could have, for instance, linked George Washington to Julius Caesar or Dolly Parton to, say, Popeye. Funding sources are always myriad within the context of large socioeconomic movements and it is easy to cast aspersions and draw dark conclusions that are, in fact, unwarranted.
Free-Market Thinking, Soft Versus Hard
Why continually confuse the Chicago Fresh Water School with Rothbardian/Misesian economics, as Mullins did? Ludwig von Mises, Rothbard's teacher, is the initial standard-bearer for the muscular libertarianism that has emerged in the 21st century.
The billionaire Koch Brothers provide much of the funding for assorted "soft libertarian" think tanks and publications. It is well known within libertarian circles, anyway, that there is a great deal of acrimony between the modern Koch-supported wing of "soft" libertarianism and the muscular version preached by Rothbard and elaborated on within modern, larger anarchical movements.
Friedrich von Hayek, who settled at the Chicago Fresh Water School, is part of the soft libertarianism that Rothbard came to reject. Ludwig von Mises himself walked out a Mont Pelerin Society meeting claiming disgustedly the society was "socialist." After a few short years, Rothbard himself had an acrimonious parting of the ways with CATO, run by the Kochs.
The Chicago School, CATO, the Mont Pelerin Society, GMU and numerous journals and publications purveying free-market principles can be seen as part of what might be called the "soft libertarian" movement. But it is a great leap of logic (and an unfortunate one) to conflate those involved with Rothbard's Mises Institute with less ideological facilities. One of the dividing lines is the outright rejection of central banking ... something Koch supported entities often seem not especially enthusiastic about.
Hayek himself, a socialist as a young man, was apparently a chosen vehicle for soft libertarianism and his book the Road to Serfdom was relentlessly marketed to provide Hayek, and thus the Chicago School a higher profile. The leading thinker of the Chicago School was Milton Friedman who, throughout his adult life, provided various justifications for the ruinous price-fixing of central banking.
Rothbard, on the other hand, proved fairly impervious to the blandishments of those who would control his anarchic impulses, walking out of CATO when he realized he would have to moderate his views to suit the Kochs. Libertarianism, as we can see, is not a single movement!
In fact, there is a good deal of difference between the Rothbardian perspective and the softer, Koch-influenced libertarianism of mainstream free-marketing (academic) thinking. Of course, we are not arguing that some of Hayek's insights were invalidated by his participation in soft libertarianism. Milton Friedman, too, made many good libertarian points (in between his defense of a certain kind of central banking).
The dialectic that conflates the Chicago School with Rothbardian/Misesian perspectives confuses the larger, intellectual history of the freedom movement. The way to escape this "matrix" is to read enough about free-market thinking so that the easy solutions of ethnic blaming and greenbackerism become less attractive. Knowledge is a powerful antidote.
The Great Conversation eventually winnows lies from truth. Austrian economics, for instance, is merely a feeder into a freedom conversation that goes back thousands, even tens of thousands of years. Concepts such as "human action" and the business cycle are relevant no matter who provides us with their insights. Ultimately, humankind's progress, such as it is, is dependent on IDEAS.
Back to Peak Oil ...
Let us return to Peak Oil. These elites have maintained control – certainly in the past 100 years or so – by using what we call dominant social themes. These fear-based scarcity promotions frighten middle classes into giving up wealth and power to globalist facilities like the UN.
We know that the "oil scarcity" theme is one of the hoariest and most malicious because we understand its history. M. King Hubbert created the Peak Oil lie back in 1956. Hubbert was apparently an agent of the elite.
He was what they call a technocrat, someone who believed in the rule of society by scientists, engineers and bankers. Sound familiar? Of course, a technocrat just took over Italy, and Greece, too. The European Union is in a sense a technocratic project.
How many faux theories – often disproven – have the kind of staying power that Hubbert's theory has evidenced? Why? Because it is evidently and obviously an elite supported meme. There is little in the world, or so it would seem, that remains popular and current within the mainstream if it is not supported by the power elite. (Soft libertarian Hayek is probably another example.)
The top elite's goal is to create world government and scarcity memes are incredibly helpful to this process. By artificially suppressing the amount of oil available in the world, the power elite continues to manipulate society and move it toward its long-awaited New World Order.
But as a result of the Internet, the ability of the elites to support its scarcity-based propaganda is failing. We are seeing more and more evidences of this lack of control. The utter implosion of the Kony 2012 video campaign is but one example. Global warming, the "war against terror" and "vaccines are a cure-all" all are memes in various stages of collapse.
Now here we have to caution here that we are not attempting to enter into a discussion over whether the Institute for Energy Research is "controlled" by some shadowy elite. We simply observe that its seemingly truthful analysis of the fraud of oil scarcity will of necessity receive considerable play throughout the Internet. In fact, its pro-offered analysis provides us reasons why IDEAS and RESEARCH are more important than variants of "conspiracy theory." Here's more from the article:
Even with steadily increasing rates of economic and population growth, as well as increasing energy consumption, the United States today possesses greater recoverable supplies of oil, natural gas and coal than at any point in its recorded history. How can that be? Have vast new sources of hydrocarbon fuels magically materialized beneath our feet over the past 100 years? Or is it possible that, despite what you've read, heard and have been told, our continent has always had a lot more energy available to it than some would have us believe?
The answers lie in the data. In 1980, official estimates of proved oil reserves in the United States stood at roughly 30 billion barrels. Yet over the past 30 years, more than 77 billion barrels of oil have been produced here. In other words, over the last 30 years, the United States produced more than two and a half times the proved reserves we thought we had available in 1980. Thanks to new and continuing innovations in exploration and production technology, there's every reason to believe that today's estimates of reserves are only a fraction of what will be produced and delivered tomorrow—not only here in the United States, but across the entire North American continent.
The way to handle thematic collapses is to get out ahead of them. The elites cannot control the Internet dialogue and cannot undo the damage the Internet has already done. All they can do is tolerate a realignment of the larger dialectic. This is what's called a LIMITED HANGOUT. It's happening whether the elites in aggregate want it or not.
We don't know exactly how the elites will rebrand oil scarcity, given that fracking is boosting recoverable oil and gas estimates radically. And Internet reports about the large amounts of available oil and gas around the world are increasingly dispersed and common. Last year, one of the Forbes brothers claimed there was enough oil and gas just in the US alone to last 1,000 years at current consumption rates. Probably that's an under-estimate, too.
And this report from the Institute claims massive resources of oil and gas in North America: nearly 4 trillion barrels of oil in the US alone, another nearly 2 trillion in Canada and 100 billion in Mexico.
There are 14 quadrillion cubic feet of total natural gas in the US, 31 quadrillion cubic feet in Canada and 750 trillion cubic feet in Mexico. There are 10.3 trillion short tons of coal in the US, 353 billion short tons in Canada and 1.3 billion in Mexico. The world may be running out of many things, including civility, but one thing it is not running out of is energy.
Increasingly, in fact, there is evidence emerging that oil is abiotic and not the product of "fossils" (as in fossil fuel). Even the name "fossil fuel" is an obvious attempt by the powers-that-be to brand energy as scarce and non-renewable. We see such truths with increasing wonder as the Internet Reformation gains traction.
There is likely no such thing as Peak Oil. There is plenty of oil, gas and coal. The elites manipulate the basics of human life, food, water and energy to scare people into giving up their power to a chosen few ... including technocrats. But as real information continues to come out thanks to the Internet, it is increasingly difficult to keep up the facade. Thus, the dialectic must migrate.
This is a big challenge for the elites as we have pointed out in the past. How they will surmount it, we don't know. They seem increasingly to be turning to the age old tools of economic chaos, military brutalization and legislative authoritarianism. Like the Gutenberg Press before it, the Internet is making it increasingly impossible for elite memes to survive, much less thrive.
Conclusion: There are six billion who are not elites and a handful who are, mostly within a few dynastic families. Pushing around increasingly enlightened billions is a tough task. As the manipulation subsides, we wonder what will take its place in the long term ...
Updated on day of publication.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by travis690 on 04/01/12 01:56 PM
The problem with this article is its misrepresentation of what Peak Oil is. Hibbert's Peak Oil theory referred to the idea that the amount of oil recovered each year (after the peak) would decrease; it never hypothesized about the total amount of recoverable oil.
 |
Posted by Mountainview on 03/22/12 04:59 PM
Chinese hyper-activity in South-West Africa testifies their belief in either the peak oil story or at least the "peak cheap oil" story.
The $6 per brl production cost of the Ghawar field is definitely behind us. The recent Petrobras deepwater discovery with attached government royalty demand will make $80 per brl production costs a fair guess.
Conclusion: There are still reserves around, but what are the economics?
|
Posted by WD on 03/21/12 07:44 PM
For an informed view of the oil business and the apparent seperation between the price of oil and the laws of supply and demand, read "The Oil Card" which can be found here: Click to view link
Bottom line, modern world war is raged with economic tools not guns. We, the cattle, are still the victims of this warfare in that we are the ones who pay for it.
Before considering that a one world system might eliminate this warfare, it might be prudent to consider that if the elite ever get total control of the world, the bill will be much higher.
|
Posted by Dilence Sogwood on 03/21/12 04:03 PM
More points:
-Coal fired electicity plants are switiching to natgas due to economics. Profits are good for CO2 (if you care about CO2).
-Chart oil against gold. This is not a demand-driven price increase.
-Oil to gas energy content ratio of 6:1 should imply a natural $20.83 when it is trading at 2.19.
Makes you scratch your head.
|
Posted by Dilence Sogwood on 03/21/12 03:49 PM
Ummm... Groundwater has never been influenced by an oil shale well.
And who cares how many BOEs the Saudis claim are recoverable?
Do you realize we have a glut of midcon US oil, and a COMPLETE OVERABUNDANCE of natgas?
The involved companies are working as fast as they can to reverse US LNG infrastructure so we can export. And the leftists want to block that too, because it would slow production.
|
Posted by Dilence Sogwood on 03/21/12 03:45 PM
bjones knows nothing about EUR recovery rates, technology, recompletion, or the inaccuracy of those "reports." Don't imagine "straws" -- learn something about the industry. Talking about straws is TOTAL IGNORANCE.
The oil gushes for sure.
|
Posted by Dilence Sogwood on 03/21/12 03:42 PM
WTI oil trading at a $23 discount to Lousianna Light Sweet and a $17 discount to Brent.
How can **supposedly depleted** onshore midcontinent wells be producing a glut?
How can these meme persist when PRICE tells everyone otherwise?
Reply from The Daily Bell
Exactly! That's the point of the info from the Institute as well. The PROMOTION tells us that the US has 2/3rds less oil than has actually been produced in the past decades! The PROMOTION (and the numerical projections) inform us of scarcity. The reality is far otherwise. It's just the "big lie."
|
Posted by memehunter on 03/21/12 03:41 PM
DB: You think too highly of yourself. There are plenty of attacks launched on free-market thinking. Anyone using Google can see the variety of attacks. There are hundreds of them.
M: No, this has nothing to do with what I think of myself. First, it would help if the DB would point to specific articles or "attacks" - then I would know what you have in mind. Second, I think it's safe to say that many of your points allude to articles written by Migchels or by me (in fact, you even used your Khorijin article in a reply to one of my feedbacks). So, whether your points were referring specifically to our articles or to others, I have plenty of reasons to respond to them.
DB: We've written articles defending free markets long before you came along.
M: Seniority has nothing to do with truth.
DB: We've also written politely in the past about both Makow and Migchels and weren't aware you spoke for them.
M: I'm not speaking for them in general, but I feel entitled to respond for them (especially Migchels with whom I collaborated on a few articles) regarding these specific points. I also note that Migchels has referred specifically to the DB in some of his articles on Austrianism.
DB: We feel far less cordial to YOU given your incessant thread-clogging (up to 50 responses on a single thread, etc.) and general bad behavior.
M: As noted before, the word "responses" implies that someone was addressing my feedbacks. As for the general bad behavior, I don't need to remind the DB elves of the lengthy list of insults, jokes, and other derogatory allusions that they directed towards me.
Moreover, the DB elves themselves know, better than most readers, that I once enjoyed a much more cordial relationship with the DB. Unfortunately, not only the DB has proven to be less than truthful on some specific topics (the relationship of elites to Zionism and to Austrian economics comes to mind), they have also refused to change their mind and have instead resorted to personal attacks. This explains most of the general cooling in the relationship that occurred in the last six months.
|
Posted by memehunter on 03/21/12 12:27 PM
I thought that this article was about Peak Oil but somehow it veers midway into the Libertarian/Communist dialectic. I feel I've done more than my share in blowing up the myth of Libertarianism/Austrianism as an 'anti-elite' movement, and I'm not sure I have a lot more to add besides the series of articles published on Makow and on Anthony Migchels' website.
However, I feel the need to address the following comments:
DB: 'The elites are nothing if not persistent. (We figure they've been around thousands of years one way or another.) Lately, there have arisen accusations that the ENTIRE free-market movement is an elite dialectic.'
M: I would like the DB to clarify the following:
1. Is the DB claiming that I am myself working for the elites, or that Henry Makow or Anthony Migchels are elite stooges? Please provide us with an honest answer. And, if you intend to persist with these insinuations, it would help if you could enlighten us as to whom or what is funding the DB.
2. Since when Austrianism/Libertarianism claims to be 'the ENTIRE free-market movement'?
DB: 'In our view, this is yet another attack launched on free-market thinking by those who seek to build a case, apparently, for the sustained relevance of modern regulatory democracy.'
M: Not speaking on behalf of other 'attackers' here, but I don't see how my work is building a case 'for the sustained relevance of modern regulatory democracy'.
DB: These arguments are being put forth, in part, by confusing the muscular Rothbardian wing of libertarianism with the softer free-market approach of the Chicago Fresh Water School and other such entities.
M: I would like the DB to clarify the following:
1. What is the position of the Rothbardian school on usury?
2. In the context of individual freedom, what is the position of the Rothbardian school on the need to consider involuntary or 'forced' choices by "passive" recipients of active and voluntary decisions(this relates, of course, to Rothbard's now-famous claim that parents should have a legal right not to feed their children)?
DB: 'In order to claim that Rothbardian Austrian economics is a manipulated dialectic, one must confront the history of anarchy that goes back tens of thousands of years. This is patently impossible as Austrian free-market thinking has only been around for about 150 years.'
M: Not only it is not 'patently impossible', it is the truth, plain and simple.
See:
1. The 'Catholic' Wing of Libertarianism
Click to view link
2. The 'Satanic' Core of Libertarianism
Click to view link
3. Libertarians - Another 'Jews vs Communism'
Click to view link
For a quick overview in the form of a chart (which, of course, is an oversimplification but does convey the big picture):
Click to view link
DB: 'Almost any intellectual movement can be impugned by attributing malevolent motives to funding sources.'
M: I agree with this statement. However, our series of articles (including Anthony Migchels' articles) has done a lot more than that. We have shown how Austrianism/Libertarianism is actually beneficial to the transnational oligarchic elite families which control Money Power, in other words the plutarchy that currently dominates the world. Granted, that doesn't mean that the entire ideology is flawed, but then one can also find nuggets of truth in Keynesianism or Communism.
DB: 'Funding sources are always myriad within the context of large socioeconomic movements and it is easy to cast aspersions and draw dark conclusions that are, in fact, unwarranted.'
M: I will simply point out that the DB has been looking at funding and, more generally, 'cui bono'/'follow the money' linkages for several years, including issues such as Peak Oil and global warming, among others.
I suppose that the DB elves have been doing this because such relationships are more often than not very revealing, even though they need to be supported by other arguments (which we have provided in several articles, by the way). Logically, this method should also be applicable to whatever socioeconomic movement one wishes to examine, including Austrianism/Libertarianism.
DB: 'Knowledge is a powerful antidote. The Great Conversation eventually winnows lies from truth.'
M: Again, I agree. No matter what the DB thinks about the series of articles showing the connections of Austrianism/Libertarianism to elites, we have contributed, in a modest way, to further the general knowledge about this movement. I don't see why our contributions should be less considered as less worthy than the DB's sometimes controversial contributions to the discussion on other topics, including Peak Oil.
In conclusion, I note once again that we should not confuse 'freedom' with Libertarianism. I am not 'anti-freedom' (in fact, I am not even actively 'anti-Libertarian', at least no more than I am 'anti-Communist' - I simply felt compelled to contribute to an intellectual effort to disprove the DB's persistent claims that the elites dislike Austrian economics and, more generally, to denounce the alternative media's infatuation with Austrianism), but I do object to the concept of ultra-individualistic freedom as presented by some prominent Libertarian schools and factions.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Is the DB claiming that I am myself working for the elites, or that Henry Makow or Anthony Migchels are elite stooges? Please provide us with an honest answer. And, if you intend to persist with these insinuations, it would help if you could enlighten us as to whom or what is funding the DB.
DB: The article speaks for itself, but we will address the above point by stating we did NOT claim you worked for a specific power elite, nor anyone else in particular. You think too highly of yourself. There are plenty of attacks launched on free-market thinking. Anyone using Google can see the variety of attacks. There are hundreds of them. We've written articles defending free markets long before you came along. We've also written politely in the past about both Makow and Migchels and weren't aware you spoke for them. We feel far less cordial to YOU given your incessant thread-clogging (up to 50 responses on a single thread, etc.) and general bad behavior. DB is small and generally underfunded, but if you attack DB directly, we shall surely return the favor.
|
Posted by bjones442 on 03/21/12 12:09 PM
This article presents a very uniformed view of the issue of Peak oil. But in hope it's a mistake of definition, I will clarify what Peak Oil is in the intended use by many knowledgeable people.
Peak Oil is not about running out of oil. The author is correct in that there is plenty of oil. One of the few things he did get right.
Peak Oil is about production rates. Example: If your car has a full tank of gas but the gas cannot be delivered to the engine because of a clogged fuel filter, you have plenty of gas but your engine will not function properly because of the restricted flow.
This is a simple analogy but it works in a global oil suppy scale. Many decades ago, many wells were drilled and oil literally gushed out of the ground. That is a rare event these days.
Now, the wells are very deep, and the oil in many cases, must be forced out of the reservoir. This is especially true of many of the giant oil finds such as Saudia Arabias Ghawar oil field It's the largest oil field in the world and has been producing since 1948, the same year I was born. I'm still pumping, but I don't pump as fast as I used to. Brazil has recently discovered massive oil reserves offshore. The reserves are under two miles of water and several thousand feet of salt.
Imagine how many "straws" must be stuck into the reservoir to produce profitable recovery of the oil. Each straw is very expensive to install, and recovering the oil from those depthts in not cheap,or quick.
The Peak Oil meme the author refers to is bunk, to paraphrase Henry Fords reference to history.
The winds of change are blowing across the entire global energy sector. The world will have to adjust accordingly. It will. It always has. But things will be different.
These winds of change are not being created by the Power Elite. Many winds are, but this isn't one of them.
 |
Posted by dave jr on 03/21/12 10:41 AM
Peak oil theory has little to do with how much oil is still in the ground, and nobody knows how much oil has NOT been discovered. Even if oil is abiotic, geologic processes are very slow.
It is known that US oil production from traditional wells did "peak" in the 70's. It is known that any resevoir will peak with regards to its profit producing potential created by the recoverable NET energy. There is a limit to how many wells can be sunk into a reserve before the added expense (energy in) no longer pays off. It is also known that over time, production of any resevior tapers off requiring additional inputs, reducing net energy.
The best analogy is consumption of the proverbial low hanging fruit. Mining tar sands, fracking, off shore, deep sea or deeper wells generally, artic drilling and increased use of less desireable heavy sour crude are all examples of increased energy input and decreased energy yeild. This reduction of net energy effects every aspect of our modern economy.
And then there is the elite language of "demand destruction", why? It doesn't make any sense. Why would the elite trash an entire oil based economy that they worked so hard to gain control of, just to increase profit in one sector? It seems more probable to me that the elite are trying to maintain their oil profit even though they know it will reduce profit from the general economy. Profit from resources is vital to them in their command and control over us. It may be a struggle for them to balance the two, and as they are losing, more draconian government based help is needed. They are in a hurry.
And why isn't the peak oil meme not taught in the schools and announced all over the media like the global warming hoax?
I agree we don't have to worry about running out of oil soon. All I am saying is, I don't expect energy to get any cheaper in the future, just as I don't expect regulatory democracy to ease up in the future. It will all have to come to a head.
There are still too many unanswered questions for me to dismiss the subject entirely.
|
Posted by paul leo faso on 03/21/12 08:32 AM
This one is simple, "PEAK OIL" is a scam of the highest order.
Follow link to 2007 bombshell now confirming Russia's huge current production;
Click to view link
Then follow this for the solution to this madness;
Click to view link
|
Posted by thefinancedude on 03/21/12 08:12 AM
HEY DB!
Simmons also tried to warn everyone about the seabed being far more damaged than what was being reported in the BP GULF BLOWUP. He conveniently died towards the latter part of the mania phase of that cycle.
|
Posted by paul leo faso on 03/21/12 08:12 AM
For those who still believe in the fairy tale of "PEAK OIL" here is the opening salvo that blew the whistle on this all time scam in 2007 by Joe Vialls;
Click to view link
Confirming this observation were the current production numbers stated by BLOOMBERG, that Russia still is extracting more barrels that anyone on Earth today.
GOOGLE-"WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR" and you will see the E-V1, the all electric car by G.M. destroyed, chopped up and the long term battery rigts sold off by G.M. to the OIL WHORES IN TEXAS, where they sit on a shelf unused. Meanwhile, pop the hood of your car and posit this question; why has everthing in the last 100 changed except this engine? The internal combustion engine engine has morphed into the "ETERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE" for a very fixed and corrupt reason.
The solution to the tyranny is found at this link;
Click to view link
It is time to rip the mask off of the beast and drive a billion wooden stakes into its' black heart.
We need oil like we need cancer.
GOOGLE; TESLA S SEDAN -
GOOGLE; FISKER CAR
 |
Posted by rossbcan on 03/21/12 08:10 AM
DB: "elites to support its scarcity-based propaganda is failing."
The "point" and method of functioning (why it "works") of scarcity memes is based on the immutable economic law of supply and demand, where supply is a matter of perception (liars control / misrepresent the real facts) and demand is also a product of perception (how much you value and "need" it), with the added factor that alternative choices (direct, force of law manipulation of supply and demand) are suppressed by monopoly suppressing innovation, environmental "regulation" decreeing resources inaccessable, etc.
The key to overcoming this manipulation is to gain, within the general populace an accurate, fact based appraisal, on any issue, of what the true supply is, and, what the true alternatives are so we can make informed individual, summing to collective choices, on any issue. This is easy, you just have to perform an intelligently directed search of available information and filter the lies from truth using natural, physical LAWS OF REALITY:
Click to view link
Scarcity memes are also how "justice" profits. They illegally and falsely claim the right to threaten you (survival, your highest value) and then, by fake ignorance and corruption control the statistical outcome such that "justice" is available to very few (appearance of having a chance) while the very many are impoverished by "due process", a "crap shoot" with less chance of success than a state lottery. Media undereports those impoverished and overreports the "winners", to manage perceptions.
Manipulation of perceived supply and demand is also the dirty little secret of the legal "profession": Justce is a simple matter, easily dispensed by a properly educated 12 year old. So called "brilliant" lawyers and judges are just glib sociopaths, pretending to be intelligent by perceptual manipulation, falsely convincing us that the "good of the majority" makes it "neccessary" that the productive and free (those who actually build civilizations) be in chains, crippled, handicapped, in servitude, "or else":
Justice Defined: We are all free to profit or suffer and learn (adapt to excellence) by facing the consequences of our OWN choices. Injustice is to be forced to suffer the consequences of choices of unaccountable (irresponsible) others.
|
Posted by erikSF99 on 03/21/12 06:55 AM
No problem, global warming is fake: Piers Corbin, Tim Ball, Lord Monckton, Alexander Cockburn, the BBC Film The Great Global Warming Swindle--it doesn't take much or long to figure it out. Vaccines as dangerous: no problem: Dr. Wakefield, Dr. Connett, John Rappoport and countless others provide detailed explanations. Eugenics, NWO, Education, color revolutions, GLADIO, Agenda 21, Big O as Manchurian candidate, NATO as first world-wide military alliance, yep, all documented.
Lindsey Williams says that the world's largest oil rig is now up at Prudhoe Bay. I looked it up in the internet, sure enough, it's been there 2 years. Peak Oiler Mike Ruppert says that oil companies haven't invested in new refineries because there isn't enough oil to process and it doesn't make financial sense. Taking that argument, unless there's a lot of oil up in Prudhoe Bay what financial reason would they have had to build and drag the biggest oil rig in the world up there? I accept Mr. Williams contention that there is a lot of oil there, that it has been kept secret, that Kissinger was sent around the mid-east in the 1970s to set up the Petro-Dollar (John Perkins would seem to confirm this) and that now the U.S. is preparing to default on the bonds held by the Saudis et al.
I'm saying I buy it all... except that Peak Oil theory is false. We know the Saudis are using tremendous amounts of water in Ghawar and it may be on the verge of collapse. We know that Russian production peaked. NOW, of course, there's a lot in Iraq and Iran and Venezuela. But there being a lot doesn't mean it will offset declining fields elsewhere.
The arguments against global warming, vaccines and so on are detailed and reasonable. When I read an article claiming xxx reserves and read a peak oil rebuttal to that anti-peak article, sorry, the rebuttal is more logical.
Oil Sands? Come on, has there been a vaster, more destructive, energy-intensive oil production process? Oh... that's right: Fracking: causing earthquakes in Arkansas, destroying ground water. Fracking involves a toxic soup of unbelievable strength. No one in their right mind would want to support fracking. And, in any case, it comes up with the same problem of cost and energy-intensive production. As with oil shale, the estimates have been revised downward. It's just another pump-and-dump for those who haven't already lost their investment dollars.
I even think Mike Ruppert, despite his repeated avowal of his credentials, is (knowingly or unknowingly) part of the meme of scarcity, Agenda 21 Earthers and (implicitly) for eugenics. So, I'm skeptical about his motives but the peak oil information and argument still stands up.
I think people like Richard Heinberg (post-carbon institute) make a serious mistake linking Peak Oil up with the phony global warming agenda. I also think it is mistaken for Peak Oilers to attribute the economic collapse to scarcity: the elites crashed the economy and destroyed consumption demand in the west before peak was reached so there's no way to say that peak oil is causing the "collapse of industrial civilization" as Mike Ruppert would say. The 6% decline in U.S. and European oil demand has been matched by a 6% increase in Asia. If there is Peak Oil (and I believe there is), then the elites are managing it brilliantly--they are staying ahead of the (downward) curve.
I'm going to check out any links, people mentioned in the comments and see if I can find convincing arguments that Peak Oil is a fraud. I'll listento the Prouty interview and track down links from there.
If you are the elite and there's enough oil and gas in the U.S. why crash the U.S. economy when you are perfectly adept at ripping off the ordinary person under any circumstances? Is it just an excuse to have resource wars in the Middle East and Africa? Is it just an excuse to start World War III with China and Russia?
If there is enough oil to go around why the Eugenics programs? Why not just keep growing the economy to the infinity that abiotic oil would allow? Plenty of opportunities to rule the world with a large population made satisfied and (once-upon-a-time) middle-class like the U.S. Plenty of expensive infrastructure to build, debt to be piled up.
Please send me links to articles that are convincing--not just wishful thinking or unsubstantiated claims.
Thanks!
Reply from The Daily Bell
Your reasonable approach is nice to see and read. Good luck with your investigations. But we shall be surprised if, at the end, you retain your view that oil, and geological energy in general, is "scarce."
|
Posted by JM on 03/21/12 12:40 AM
Here is an interesting interview:
The Origin Of Oil - Leroy Fletcher Prouty Jr. Colonel, United States Air Force
Click to view link
 |
Posted by clark on 03/21/12 12:36 AM
I wonder if James Quinn read this one?
He certainly didn't like me informing him that there was nothing to peak oil when I visited his Burning Platform blog.
It's too bad, because his stuff about the Fourth Turning was pretty good reading.
... And the beat goes on. ...
|
Posted by seer on 03/20/12 10:08 PM
I have read his book. He claims their is a separate large oil field on Gull? Island in Prudhoe Bay. He was a traveling minister on the pipeline and often rode with the oil field managers from construction camp to construction camp. They use over 40 Jet engines to pump the natural gas back into the ground. I believe Lindsey said they had planned to build a natural gas pipeline along side the oil pipeline but this was thwarted by the EPA?
|
Posted by seer on 03/20/12 10:02 PM
This Institute for Energy Research,appears to have 9 employees. Several have worked for congressmen on Capitol Hill. Between 2003 and 2007, the Institute received $ 307,000 from Exxon-Mobil. They purport to be a non-profit independent research firm who evidently know MORE than the American geologists as a whole.
If we used coal to produce oil we would have a relatively abundant source of fuel but... we would need to burn coal to produce this benefit. It would make more sense energy wise to produce electricity and drive electric cars. The coal tars contain a lot of oil, why do the Canadians and their investors not build a refinery in Canada and extract this oil- it is an energy intense process.
No one would be blind enough to say we might not stumble upon some easy oil but as it now stands the American geologists do not have a clue. Once an oil field is depleted by 50% it becomes more energy intense to extract. Ethanol is about a zero sum product meaning it takes as much energy to produce it as we obtain from it takes oil to be produced. Meanwhile people starve.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Yes, and Matthew Simmons, famous energy investment banker and foremost exponent of the peak oil theory, wrote the 2005 book "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy," f
He then promptly founded The Ocean Energy Institute, a think tank and venture capital fund in Rockland to promote offshore wind energy research and development ...
Conflicts of interest abound, obviously. Funding does not necessarily determine factual truth. If the US has indeed produced 2/3rds more oil than best estimates predicted, what does that say about the industry's energy analysis or the mainstream media's reporting of it?
|
|
