"WE DID IT" (Ruppert: G7 Acknowledges Peak Oil a Reality)

[Beam Me Up]

Ministers are seeking energy market transparency to discover if world oil supplies may be scantier than they thought in May when they urged producers to open the spigots…

Another G7 official suggested the rise in oil costs was rooted in such fundamental factors as over-estimated supplies and was not solely due to speculation.

There is "a recognition that oil resources are scarcer than was thought a few years ago," the official said. "We agree there is a need for more transparency on the potential supply of various areas."

If scarcity is the chief culprit, the oil price shock may not prove as temporary as hoped, the official said. (emphasis added)

"WRAPUP 1-G7 finance chiefs mull oil before China meeting"
Reuters, October 1, 2004

>snip<

Recent statements by the G7 group of nations and other breaking news stories have now irrevocably placed Peak Oil on the table. The bottom line is that the G7 have admitted that demand has outpaced supply and that due to cooked books and secrecy, they really have no idea how much oil is left, or available for production (two different questions). Within months there will be no more important story on the planet. After that, and as the G7 must begin to offer explanations and answers for all mankind - let alone the soon-to-be anachronistic financial markets - we will be there, dogging every announcement with our research. And we will be demanding honest answers.

In various forms and degrees, panic may ensue. Resource wars over Peak Oil and scarcity began officially on September 11th 2001 and they are now proliferating through a multitude of "proxy" wars from Southeast Asia, to the Caucasus, to West Africa (Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea among others), to Georgia, to Chechnya.

As http://www.fromthewilderness.com">FTW has always insisted, the principal objective of these Peak Oil activists was to get to this point of admission sooner rather than later; openly, rather than in secret, so that all of the human race, especially that majority not concerned solely with stock portfolios, net profits, share value or return on investment could have a say in a debate which will assuredly impact everyone's chances for survival and, most importantly, the future of all the world's children.

I hope I speak for all of us when I say that whatever we have endured, it was worth it.

>snip<

One simple fact has never changed. Before oil can be produced it must first be found. Global oil discoveries peaked in 1964 and have been declining for 40 years. M. King Hubbert predicted the US oil production peak to occur 40 years after US oil discoveries peaked around 1930. He was right. Last year not a single field of 500 million barrels was discovered (for the first time since the 1920s) anywhere on the planet. The world uses a billion barrels of oil every eleven and one half days. We are now roughly 40 years after the peak of global discovery. This simple arithmetic has never changed. The outcome hasn't changed either.

More: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100404_we_did_it.shtml

[donsu]

1. kick

nt

[Vickers]

2. "Last year not a single field of 500 million barrels was..."

"...discovered (for the first time since the 1920s) anywhere on the planet."

:wow::wow::wow::wow::wow:

[Minstrel Boy]

5. worldwide oil discoveries by decade:

And this, despite great technological advances in detecting reserves.

[barb162]

80. I have read there hasn't been a major field discovered in 20 yrs.

[Beam Me Up]

3. This dovetails with DEAN's Energy Policy financing our enemies

In this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2448454

This is what it is all about folks. Putting * in the White House, keeping American's energy policy TOP SECRET, 9/11, the so called "War on Terrorism" (which is a cover for the real resource war in which we are now engaged--waisting even MORE valuable resources AND funding our 'enemies').

DEMOCRATS WILL WIN as the Republican Right Wing has not only STRATEGICALLY FAILED to protect the real interests of the American People, but has SYSTEMATICALLY TRANSFERRED OUR WEALTH OUT OF COUNTRY.

Do I smell a revolution?

[Jose Diablo]

4. The aroma of cordite is indeed 'in the wind' n/t

[Beam Me Up]

6. Everyone should see documentary: "THE END OF SUBURBIA"

The Movie Website
http://www.endofsuburbia.com/

Preview Clips
http://endofsuburbia.com/previews.htm

More information on oil depletion and its implications
http://www.postcarbon.org

Learning to live in a low energy  world
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com

[radwriter0555]

7. Peak Oil is a scam and a myth. There is no oil shortage, no crisis,

no NUTHIN.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr53.html

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr54.html

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

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr59.html

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr64.html

[Beam Me Up]

8. RUPPERT IS CALLING YOUR OUT: PUT UP OR SHUT UP

Read the text.

[nodehopper]

9. wow

ok, so you really think that oil supplies are infinite? this is not like "chemtrails" scam. When supplies of a natural resource are finite, there will be a peak in prodution followed by a decline. That's like saying the laws of mathematics are scam.

[radwriter0555]

11. So read the articles I've posted by Dave McGowan. He's infinitely more

informed than Ruppert on this issue.

Ruppert is all about the government scam aspect, while McGowans' information is about reality.

I back McGowan on this, even though I've backed Ruppert on many many issues.

[JohnyCanuck]

12. Read this too when evaluating Abiotic vs Organic origins of oil

Note to mods: fromthewilderness.com gives permission to reproduce entire article if not for profit.


© Copyright 2004, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes only.

Abiotic Oil: Science or Politics?

By
Ugo Bardi

www.aspoitalia.net

http://www.aspoitalia.net/aspoenglish/documents/index.html[br />
Ugo Bardi offers a simple assessment of the abiotic theory. His logic is so clear, and the culmination of his argument is so cogent, that even a child could understand it. And the conclusion is inescapable - at least to honest enquiry - abiotic theory is false, or at best irrelevant. -DAP]

OCTOBER 4, 2004: 1300 PDT (FTW) -- For the past century or so, the biological origin of oil seemed to be the accepted norm. However, there remained a small group of critics who pushed the idea that, instead, oil is generated from inorganic matter within the earth's mantle.

The question might have remained within the limits of a specialized debate among geologists, as it has been until not long ago. However, the recent supply problems have pushed crude oil to the center stage of international news. This interest has sparked a heated debate on the concept of the "production peak" of crude oil. According to the calculations of several experts, oil production may reach a maximum within a few years and start a gradual decline afterwards.

The concept of "oil peak" is strictly linked to a view that sees oil as a finite resource. Several economists have never accepted this view, arguing that resource availability is determined by price and not by physical factors. Recently, others have been arguing a more extreme view: that oil is not even physically limited. According to some versions of the abiotic oil theory, oil is continuously created in the Earth's mantle in such amounts that the very concept of "depletion" is to be abandoned and, by consequence, that there will never be an "oil peak."

The debate has become highly politicized and has spilled over from geology journals to the mainstream press and to the fora and mailing lists on the internet. The proponents of the abiotic oil theory are often very aggressive in their arguments. Some of them go so far as to accuse those who claim that oil production is going to peak of pursuing a hidden political agenda designed to provide Bush with a convenient excuse for invading Iraq and the whole Middle East.

Normally, the discussion of abiotic oil oscillates between the scientifically arcane and the politically nasty. Even supposing that the political nastiness can be detected and removed, there remains the problem that the average non-specialist in petroleum geology can't hope to wade through the arcane scientific details of the theory (isotopic ratios, biomarkers, sedimentary layers and all that) without getting lost.

Here, I will try to discuss the origin of oil without going into these details. I will do this by taking a more general approach. Supposing that the abiogenic theory is right, then what are the consequences for us and for the whole biosphere? If we find that the consequences do not correspond to what we see, then we can safely drop the abiotic theory without the need of worrying about having to take a course in advanced geology. We may also find that the consequences are so small as to be irrelevant; in this case also we needn't worry about arcane geological details.

In order to discuss this point, the first task is to be clear about what we are discussing. There are, really, two versions of the abiotic oil theory, the "weak" and the "strong":

- The "weak" abiotic oil theory: oil is abiotically formed, but at rates not higher than those that petroleum geologists assume for oil formation according to the conventional theory. (This version has little or no political consequences).

- The "strong" abiotic theory: oil is formed at a speed sufficient to replace the oil reservoirs as we deplete them, that is, at a rate something like 10,000 times faster than known in petroleum geology. (This one has strong political implications).

Both versions state that petroleum is formed from the reaction of carbonates with iron oxide and water in the region called "mantle," deep in the Earth. Furthermore, it is assumed (see Gold's 1993 paper) that the mantle is such a huge reservoir that the amount of reactants consumed in the reaction hasn't depleted it over a few billion years (this is not unreasonable, since the mantle is indeed huge).

Now, the main consequence of this mechanism is that it promises a large amount of hydrocarbons that seep out to the surface from the mantle. Eventually, these hydrocarbons would be metabolized by bacteria and transformed into CO2. This would have an effect on the temperature of the atmosphere, which is strongly affected by the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in it. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is regulated by at least two biological cycles; the photosynthetic cycle and the silicate weathering cycle. Both these cycles have a built-in negative feedback which keeps (in the long run) the CO2 within concentrations such that the right range of temperatures for living creatures is maintained (this is the Gaia model).

The abiotic oil-if it existed in large amounts-would wreak havoc with these cycles. In the "weak" abiotic oil version, it may just be that the amount of carbon that seeps out from the mantle is small enough for the biological cycles to cope and still maintain control over the CO2 concentration. However, in the "strong" version, this is unthinkable. Over billions of years of seepage in the amounts considered, we would be swimming in oil, drowned in oil.

Indeed, it seems that the serious proponents of the abiotic theory all go for the "weak" version. Gold, for instance, never says in his 1993 paper that oil wells are supposed to replenish themselves. As a theory, the weak abiotic one still fails to explain a lot of phenomena, principally (and, I think, terminally): how is it that oil deposits are almost always associated to anoxic periods of high biological sedimentation rate? However, the theory is not completely unthinkable.

At this point, we can arrive at a conclusion. What is the relevance of the abiotic theory in practice? The answer is "none." The "strong" version is false, so it is irrelevant by definition. The "weak" version, instead, would be irrelevant in practice, even if it were true. It would change a number of chapters of geology textbooks, but it would have no effect on the impending oil peak.

To be sure, Gold and others argue that even the weak version has consequences on petroleum prospecting and extraction. Drilling deeper and drilling in areas where people don't usually drill, Gold says, you have a chance to find oil and gas. This is a very, very weak position for two reasons.

First, digging is more expensive the deeper you go, and in practice it is nearly impossible to dig a commercial well deeper than the depth to which wells are drilled nowadays, that is, more than 10 km.

Secondly, petroleum geology is an empirical field which has evolved largely by trial and error. Petroleum geologists have learned the hard way where to drill (and where not to drill); in the process they have developed a theoretical model that WORKS. It is somewhat difficult to believe that generations of smart petroleum geologists missed huge amounts of oil. Gold tried to demonstrate just that, and all that he managed to do was to recover 80 barrels of oil in total, oil that was later shown to be most likely the result of contamination of the drilling mud. Nothing prevents others from trying again, but so far the results are not encouraging.

So, the abiotic oil theory is irrelevant to the debate about peak oil and it would not be worth discussing were it not for its political aspects. If people start with the intention of demonstrating that the concept of "peak oil" was created by a "Zionist conspiracy" or something like that, anything goes. In this case, however, the debate is no longer a scientific one. Fortunately, as Colin Campbell said, "Oil is ultimately controlled by events in the geological past which are immune to politics."


www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100404_abiotic_oil.shtml

[radwriter0555]

37. sorry, but I'm not buying the regressive scare tactics of big oil. see, it

serves THEIR needs to keep us skeered of the OIL IS RUNNING OUT, THE OIL IS RUNNING OUT.

Without that fear, all the wind comes out of their sails.

I read alexanders oil and gas news and information. Oddly, they're not talking about peak oil. The only ones who are talking about it, are the ones who are using it to sieze global power.

I back Dave McGowan. There is no danger of our oil running out anytime in the next few centuries. There is no shortage, no crisis... just lots n lots of fear oriented profiteering.

[Beam Me Up]

38. OH? Alexanders: "Global Peak Oil Gathering" 19-20 Oct 04

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/spotlight/welcome.html

Impact Of Oil Output Fall At Ageing Fields Seen As Acute
 Global Peak Oil Gathering
Gathering And Think-Tank
www.gasandoil.com/peakoil/

A Gathering of Intelligence,
Facts and Visions

19-20 October 2004,
Koblenz, Germany

The discussion around the future global demand, supply and reserve-situation is intensifying.

Are we actually running out of oil (and gas) or not? And if so when?
Will the reserves collapse or will new finds take care of the future?
Will production keep up with demand? And if not, what then?
Many questions and even more answers.

This will be of interest to:
Long-term viewing people, Consultants, Experts, Government representatives, people interested in future energy-developments, long-term planners, (energy-)strategists, the energy-investment community, banks, (re-)insurance-companies, transportation-specialists, energy-companies and institutions, etc.

For more information visit www.gasandoil.com/peakoil/ and download the brochure for the introduction, programme, speakers & registration form.

For more information you can also contact the organizer:

Alexander Wöstmann
T: [phone]
E: [e-mail]

August 27, 2004

Falling oil output from ageing fields, once insignificant compared with global production, has become large enough to impact world supply and may help explain the constant tightness in the oil market this year, according to analysts.

Oil production is now in decline in at least 18 major producing countries including the U.S., U.K. and OPEC members Indonesia and Venezuela, and total production from this group is falling by around 1 million barrels a day every year, according to the latest data.

The oil futures market can spike on a temporary outage of just a few hundred thousand barrels a day, so what is in effect a permanent outage of 1 million b/d may help explain some of the momentum behind the 53% rise in U.S. crude futures so far this year to near $50 a barrel, analysts who study depletion said.

"Depletion has become a serious issue for the oil market, and I believe it is contributing to market tightness," said Chris Skrebowski, editor of the London-based Energy Institute's Petroleum Review. Skrebowski has studied the issue using data from BP PLC's (BP) widely-read Statistical Review of World Energy data.

"What it means is that before you meet a single barrel of demand growth you have to replace all the missing barrels," he continued. "Depletion is really an extra demand. Countries where oil production is still expanding are being put under increasing pressure to make up growing depletion rates. It's a huge drag on the system."

And, as oil fields are ageing and their output declining even within countries where outright production is expanding, overall decline rates are estimated at closer to 3.5 million b/d.

>snip< more at source

[radwriter0555]

42. You missed a key phrase....

"Global supply continues to grow overall despite the depletion, with flows in the second quarter of this year up 5% , or 4 million b/d, against a year ago, at 82.3 million b/d, according to the International Energy Agency."

A bit contradictory to the scare tactics, isn't it?

Factor in the untapped oil fields off North Korea, the untapped oil and gas field leases in Somalia, the trapped Caspian reserves that wouldn't be going through Afghanistan any time soon.... and suddenly, you're left with a so-called SHORTAGE of "cheap oil'.... isn't it strange?

THEN we can talk about the "wildly profitable" oil fields in California that some nutty oil co is shutting down...

There is no oil shortage, just some folks 'hard at work' to make us think there is.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. So how does he answer the question of what happened to the oil

when man wasn't extracting and burning it?

Since we know, with 100% certainty, that carbon dioxide levels have been increasing in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution started, that shows that there hasn't just been a change from bacteria oxidising it to humans doing it. It all that oil is still being created at a greater rate than we now burn it, where did it use to go?

And why did oil production in the US peak and then decline? It would have been in the interests of 'big oil' to continue producing in their own back yard, when they had total control. Why would they take to risk of depending more on foreign sources? Surely this shows the US oil fields, the first to be exploited, were being depleted?

[radwriter0555]

44. OPEC and the middle eastern oil cos don't profit much from US oil,

now do they?

Did you know that Los Angeles produces enough oil right under its City streets to keep it completely independent of any outside oil and gas needs?

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. So 'big oil' isn't Exxon, Texaco, Mobil etc.

but the Middle Eastern countries? How did they manage to cut off the flow of oil from American wells?

No, I've never heard of that about Los Angeles. Any reference?

Any answer to the problem of where the abiotic oil goes when humans aren't burning it?

[KoKo]

51. What? Where is the oil coming from under LA Streets and why aren't

Mobil and Exon right there with a rig pumping it out. :eyes:

[sandboxface]

49. Absolutely not

It only makes sense for 'them' to take oil from OTHER places BEFORE we have to tap into ours. When the rest of the world's fields have either been tapped out or secured by other nations, THEN we can tap into our resources. Think like a corporation.

Places like Iraq are easy. All you need are a few planes to crash into buildings to stimulate public approval and a strong army. How easy was it for us to walk into Iraq and take it over? Iraqi oil isn't even 'sweet' oil, it's crap. But it will run our cars and power our homes.

Both Russia and China sit on top of a HUGE amount of oil, which they don't tap into. They're smart. They're saving it for the down-slope after the peak. Meanwhile, they enjoy cheap oil from the middle east.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. All your comments make sense if you accept peak oil

(which I do). It's when one uses the theory of huge amounts of abiotic oil still being produced, that the increasing use of ME oil doesn't make sense (because in that case, fields don't get tapped out, and there is no downslope).

I was just trying to get a proponent of 'abundant oil' to explain what has already happened. So far, I haven't seen any argument from them that makes sense.

[w4rma]

53. The oil is running out. It's becoming "extinct". (nt)

[rman]

43. So in "reality" peak-oil is a scam by big oil,

as opposed to a cover-up scam by the government.

According to you and Dave.

[radwriter0555]

45. Sure, and those in big oil who pay big bucks to keep texas oil men in the

white house.

[Beam Me Up]

47. The problem I have with "Dave" is this:

He is strong on accusations but short on real evidence to support his theory. Michael Ruppert and those discussing peak oil and its geopolitical ramifications have provided a paradigm which fits with observed facts and helps explain what, to me at least, are otherwise incomprehensible moves on the part of our National Security State run Federal Government and their Corporate Owned Media. Peak oil is MOTIVE for MURDER.

Now, if you and or Dave can provide a competing paradigm which accounts for all that is happening, I, for one, would very much like to see it. But there is a lot to account for. A lot. And so far you and Dave haven't done much to account for it except to say, hey, the fat cats are greedy and will do anything to get more moola. Well, YEAH. So what else is new? Your explanation for the events of 9/11 and all that has followed from it are pure greed and nothing more. "Terrorism" becomes a COVER for "peak oil" which also turns out to be only a cover for "greed." Somehow, that just doesn't satisfy.

EITHER WE ARE GOING TO SEE THE MARKET CONSEQUENCES OF PEAK OIL OR WE ARE NOT. AND THOSE MARKET CONSEQUENCES WILL NOT BE FAVORABLE TO US BUSINESS INTERESTS.

[Javaman]

87. So according to your theory...

The oil fields in Titusville and Dimebox that have run dry should be filling back up anytime now...anytime...anytime...

Sorry, I don't believe your theory...excuse me, but I have to check out the biography, "lone gunman" by Lee Harvey Oswald.

[mhr]

48. McGowan Lost All Credibility With Me With The Following Quote

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr64.html

"The Club of Rome, a non-profit global think tank, said in the 1970s that we'd hit peak oil in 2003. ..."

This is a bold face lie. The COR never said this at all.

Your boy has just been called out for a fraud.

Don't tell me to do more research until YOU actually go read the limits to growth yourself.

I would also suggest that you look up one Mathew Simmons of Houston, TX. Simmons is an adviser to Bush/Cheney and he is now a Peak Oil advocate. He has publicly stated that there is merit to the Peak Oil calculations and he has also directly challenged the Saudis on their production claims.

Simmons has considerably more credibility than your boy McGowan.

[radwriter0555]

70. You're telling me we should trust a Bush/Cheney whore over an unbiased

resource and political constitutional advocate like dave mcgowan?

In fact, ruppert refers to that quote himself, and if you google it precisely, you will find it referenced in countless publications and opinions about the peak oil scam.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/053103_aspo.html

[Vickers]

10. Seriously, man! I mean, can't we just make oil out of old newspapers?

:shrug:

[hatrack]

19. My dirty socks are pretty oily and seem to be producing, well, something

Maybe we could use them! :tinfoilhat:

[bpilgrim]

13. davesweb?

when does he think oil will peak?
what does he use to back this up?

no time to read through longwinded flamewars.

thanks

peace

[Beam Me Up]

15. In brief: Peak is NOW

What difference does a specific date make when we're dealing with something of this magnitude? What difference does it make if it were 2001 or will be 2006? The point all the Peak Oil analysts make is WE WILL NOT KNOW UNTIL IT IS IN OUR HISTORICAL REAR VIEW MIRROR. It will always be a matter of hind-sight ' Oh, that is when we went over the peak '.

[bpilgrim]

16. is that what dave says?

thats what i wanted to know.

:hi:

peace

[Beam Me Up]

20. Dave says:

Peak oil IS A SCAM by the energy magnates; that there is near infinite hydrocarbon energy available via abiotic (non-fossil) sources. Ruppert, et al, have been duped via "The Club of Rome" peak oil scenario predicted in the 70s for 2003.

My question is, if this -- and I mean everything that has happened prior to, including and since, 9/11 -- isn't about peak oil, then what the hell IS it about?

[bpilgrim]

22. oh, really?

"My question is, if this -- and I mean everything that has happened prior to, including and since, 9/11 -- isn't about peak oil, then what the hell IS it about?"

maybe it's part of the cover for the 'rome' club ;->

peace

[fedsron2us]

18. Ruppert has been fingered as an agent provocateur

stooge of the establishment in a number of articles on the web.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=75&contentid=1562

I personally think that Peak Oil is not a scam since the theory has been around since Hubbert published his original predictions in the 1950's. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the idea is being been picked up and exploited by people to support their own views about what is wrong with the world and how it ought to be changed. They cover a whole range of beliefs from sincere and compassionate environmentalists who are deeply concerned about the future of the planet to neo-Nazi crackpots who hope the event will be an excuse for slaughtering the 'untermenschen' in their droves. With regard to Ruppert I read what he has to say but treat his views with some scepticism. My years on the left have taught me to be cautious about my fellow travellers. Some are not what they seem.

<On Edit>

If an American government needed an issue to persuade a reluctant people of the necessity for continuing military adventures around the world then Peak Oil might eventually prove to be more effective than the threat of terrorism. You have been warned.

[Beam Me Up]

21. Healthy scepticsm.

Whoever controls your perception of reality controls you.

I met Mike Ruppert in 1998. I believe he is precisely what he appears to be. That doesn't mean he is always right. HOWEVER, he is presenting a new paradigm for HOW THE WORLD ACTUALLY WORKS and, so far, from my vantage point, this paradigm comes far closer to matching world events than anything else I've seen.

The fact that he has cohorts such as Peter Dale Scott and Catherine Austin Fitts, makes him all the more credible to my mind.

I am reading "Crossing the Rubicon" now. THICK BOOK!!

[fedsron2us]

25. If Ruppert floats your boat thats fine by me.

I just think that we may find that Peak Oil is picked up as an idea by our political masters and is used as an excuse for more imperial war. Before they can do that, however, the topic needs to be given a little play with the populace. Obviously, if Dick Cheney starts promoting the concept then everyone is going to be very suspicious. It is so much better to get the idea into the mainstream by using academics and people of an ostensibly progressive viewpoint. It will not be the first time its been done.

[bpilgrim]

27. they have openly spoken about it

to select audiences and then there's PNAC...

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[Beam Me Up]

32. THIRTY YEARS -- that's how long this has been in the 'main stream'

of academic thought. See post 29 below as an example: Gregory Batreson, Form, Substance and Difference from his book Steps to an Ecology of Mind 1977

Hubert's Peak dates to the 50s

QUESTION: Who decided to NOT give serious academic and government attention to these DEFINING ISSUES?

No PROFIT, no subsidy.

[Minstrel Boy]

28. well said, beam_me_up!

I trust my instincts, though I'm sure they're not as well-honed as Peter Dale Scott's. Ruppert's work has been invaluable. He hasn't championed discrediting theories which add up to nothing but wild conjecture, or led us on goose chases, like an agent provocateur would. (And some do.)

I trust him more now than I did three years ago.

[bpilgrim]

23. not on DU

at least not to my knowledge.

i have a LOT of respect for what he does and am going to see a LOT before i being to believe such a thing about rupptert.

as far as PO goes... if it is true i would think the authorities would want to keep it quite ESPECIALLY if we were using that as our pre-text for war since NO country would go along with us let alone any real american since any FOOL could see the illegality of such a policy.

to me peak oil makes a LOT more sense as to why these madman are behaving the way they are, among other things, but certainly in the top 3.

:hi:

peace

[fedsron2us]

30. Do an Advanced Search on " Peak Oil " in Google

and you will get 72,800 hits, including 45 news articles in the past month. I personally possess the following books on Peak Oil - Hubbert's Peak by Kenneth Defeyyes, Out of Gas by David Goodstein, The Party's Over by Richard Heinberg and The End Of Oil by Paul Roberts. All were published in the last three years. If the authorities are trying to keep this subject quiet then they are doing a really lousy job.

[bpilgrim]

31. thank GORE he 'INVENTED' the INTERNET ;-)

let me know when it shows up in the lame-stream media (print/teeVee) i'm always on the lookout for those ;->

:hi:

peace

[fedsron2us]

33. There are plenty of mainstream articles mentioning Peak Oil

Those published in the past few months include

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?041011fa_fact

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6115395/

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/index.html

If you really want to see how commonly the subject is discussed try checking out the news articles listed regularly in

http://peakoil.com/journal.html
http://peakoil.blogspot.com/

Believe me this subject is getting plenty of coverage.

[bpilgrim]

34. i know there's a handfull

btw: blogs don't count as main-stream... yet ;->

peace

[KoKo]

54. Remember last Spring when Royal Dutch Shell got in trouble for overstating

their reserves? Seems to me another company in the last month or so also got in trouble for this.

Whether "Peak Oil" is imminent or not...companies trying to overstate reserves sounds like a warning that something's afoot. Maybe RDS was trying to help out Bush/Blair with endless wars for oil...but it's a big hit to take in the stock market for a company to be playing numbers with it's resources and be discovered. :shrug:

[KoKo]

52. I just read Hopsikers rant about Ruppet on "Prison Planet." Why should

I believe Hopsiker? :shrug: And what is "Prison Planet" anyway, and why should I believe them?

I'm honestly asking as a skeptic not just being snippy. I've read both Hopsicker and Ruppert and find that both are a little well ...Odd..but both have some interesting observations that I can't discount, since we are told lies by our Mainstream Media and our whole government, how do we know that Hopsiker, Rupper and Prison Planet aren't liars or truth tellers or something in between?

Who knows today? Is "Prison Planet" a debunking site like "Snopes"?

[Beam Me Up]

57. I wasn't aware there was any enmity between Hopsicker and Ruppert

I'll go to prison planet and see if I can find the story to read. If possible, next time supply a link for us. Thanks.

BMU

Edit to add,

I didn't find anything on prisonplanet but I did find this on Hopsicker's site:

COINTELPRO 9.11
Peak Oil & 'The Level Above Saudi'

"As president, I will do what President Bush has not: I will hold the Saudis accountable."-- John Kerry 9.24.04
 
Sept.28 2004-Venice,FL. 
by Daniel Hopsicker
 
Exactly twenty years late, 1984 arrived in America with a vengeance on this month’s third anniversary of the 9/11 attack. Billing themselves as the “9/11 Truth Movement," a group which has been aggressively spamming on the Internet for several years held a press conference in New York City on the third anniversary of the attack. 
 
The cast of characters involved ranges from uniquely out of place former employees of George Bush to an ex-L.A. cop-turned-Internet Pontificator receiving funding and endorsing an ‘off-shore’ organization which numerous published reports said is run by convicted financial swindlers, to a Canadian talk chat host whose deep thoughts about deception and 9/11 are about to be brought to the world courtesy of Saudi-backed producers of such beloved infomercials as "TRADE YOUR WAY TO RICHES and “The Millionaire Mind.” 
 
It is the latest indignity in an Orwellian nightmare that would make Orwell himself throw up his hands, retire to Sedona and open a store selling crystals.   

Three years on… and there has still not been an official investigation into the murder of 3000 people nor a report on how it was perpetrated to which the American people are privy.

http://www.madcowprod.com

Is this what you are referring to? I'm still reading it through.

[Beam Me Up]

58. Well, I certainly don't know the answers. I can only give you my

personal impressions -- for whatever that is worth. As mentioned in a post above, my motto is: "Whoever controls your perception of reality controls you." I agree that both Ruppert and Hopsicker are "odd". Perhaps that can't be helped given what we're trying to understand.

Having read the Hopsicker rant, all I can say is, I believe it is quite possible that Michael Ruppert has gotten hitched up with some people he shouldn't be hitched up with. I think such a thing is not only quite possible, but in a certain sense, quite probable.

If Michael Ruppert is getting close to the truth of 9/11 (and it seems to me that he may be), he is becoming an increasingly dangerous man. Now if you are someone who exists inside the National Security State, how do you deal with people who become too "bothersome"? Certainly to the extent that Ruppert is on to something regarding the NSS's involvement with 9/11, to that extent he is perceived as a threat.

Generally speaking, the first thing the NSS does to rid themselves of such threats is "neutralize" them via one means or another. If the target can be sucked into accepting a false lead (e.g. the recent CBS, Dan Rather debacle), the target can be discredited. Entrapment and blackmail is one option. Character assassination by association with dubious characters is another option. If all else fails, there is always the "unfortunate accident" or the "(assisted) suicide".

Generally speaking one does not expose the inner workings of the NSS and expect to either be believed or, if one is believed, to live a long and prosperous life.

Prison Planet gives me the creeps -- I have no idea who is running "Alex Jones" but I do believe he is being run.

As for Hopsicker, I appreciate the contributions he's made. I do wish he would just get to the point, however, and stop making all these cynical, "witty," aspersions. I can't tell if he is ENVIOUS of Ruppert or if he has some REAL criticism of Ruppert's research. If, indeed, Ruppert is being flocked (set up for character assassination), I would think Hopsicker would try to give him the heads up -- but then what the hell do I know?

[KoKo]

60. ....your assessment is interesting

and all your points make sense in the context of things here in the NSS.
I was surprised at Hopsicker going after Ruppert and you are probably onto something here. Thanks for the reply.

I can't tell if he is ENVIOUS of Ruppert or if he has some REAL criticism of Ruppert's research. If, indeed, Ruppert is being flocked (set up for character assassination), I would think Hopsicker would try to give him the heads up -- but then what the hell do I know?

[Beam Me Up]

14. KICK: THIS ISSUE MAY BE *THE* DEFINING ISSUE OF THIS ELECTION

The Republican ELEPHANT farted in the Living Room of our MEDIA CONTROLLED REALITY BUBBLE and everyone is acting like not only doesn't it stink, it isn't even there.

H E L L O !

The right wing, "bottom-line-is-the-only-important-thing-to- our-national-security" social mantra that has defined American Global Hegemony for the past 50 years and more IS RUNNING OUT OF GAS!! Literally.

IT IS OVER.

The shit is going to hit the fan BIG TIME.

[rman]

59. I don't think it is very likely

that the public at large will become consious of this issue within one month.
But probably it will become unavoidable not to long after. Come to think of it, repubs will probably blame Kerry.

[Beam Me Up]

61. I have to chuckle.

You obviously believe that the issues being discussed via the corporate owned media are "the issues" that make or break a candidate or an election. I'm too far through the looking glass to believe that. The public is usually the last to know.

As far as blaming Kerry, that is one strategy that is being discussed. The scenario runs like this: Let the Democrat win -- since the tide of public opinion has turned so far against our dunce-in-chief -- but then let the economic, oil and terrorism shit hit the fan and blame it all on the Democrats. All that is easily stage managed via the corporate owned media.

If we win this election, our battles have only just begun.

BMU

[rman]

63. I believe

that the issues being discussed via the corporate owned media are practically the only issues that most people hear about, since most people listen only to main stream media.

In spite of more then a few articles and books about peak oil, the general public seems to think you're a nutcase when you start about peak oil. In the mainstream media it is hardly getting the attention it deserves. In other words the issue is for all intents and purposes under the radar for the public. How can an issue about which the public is the last to know, be a defining issue for the election?

[Beam Me Up]

67. As I indicated, we're on different sides

of the National Security State run Federal Government "looking glass" when it comes to "elections" if you believe what defines them are the topics discussed via the Wall Street traded media. From my vantage point, the real, defining issues are SELDOM discussed via the media and, indeed, the majority of American people know NOTHING about them. It is a difference of perspective known as "The Paranoid Shift" The truth of our situation is far stranger than any fiction and yet quite easy to understand once you've looked behind the curtain of the NSS.

BMU

[rman]

69. believe it or not,

but we're on the same side of the paranoid shift. Your thinking that we are not is probably caused by a misunderstanding.

If you mean to say that it is in fact not the people who decide the outcome of the elections, then i understand why you say that peak-oil is the defining issue for this election - and i'll have to agree with you. Oil depletion is without doubt the major issue for the men behind the curtain.

[Beam Me Up]

71. Looks like we understand one another.

:thumbsup:

[SoCalDem]

17. It doesn't really matter whether we have 1 yr's worth or 100 yrs' worth

left of oil.. WE NEED TO CONSERVE NOW TO LOWER EMISSIONS AND TOXICITY IN THE ENVIRONMENT..


If we just keep poking holes into Mother earth and sucking out her juices, while we dump CRAP into the air land and sea, we are only killing ourselves..

It's a Lose/Lose with oil.. we knew it ages ago, and yet we keep on pretendiing that we can "manage" things..

[charlie]

24. I'm with you on that

I've read enough pro and con about peak oil to burst my head. But whether true or not, the one certainty is that the use of hydrocarbon fuels is poised to go over the moon in short order, with the rapid modernization of China, India, Southeast Asia, and South American economies. If oil is scarce, we're in for wars and a serious reduction in living standards. If we're swimming in oil, we'll be swimming in carbon emissions. We can't afford to delay efforts to get off the black stuff for much longer.

[bpilgrim]

26. when you want to understand our recent behavior it does

both foreign AND domestic. it also would explain our total lack of attention to that large problem as well... if we're running out we have a conversation dampener built in the system - from their perspective ;->

the PA will come in handy by the time the masses wake from their slumber.

peace

[Beam Me Up]

29. 100% Agreement. Fascism is a MENTAL STATE:

In 1971, Gregory Bateson, one of the geniuses of the century just passed said:

"If I am right, the whole of our thinking about what we are and what other people are has got to be restructured. This is not funny, and I do not know how long we have to do it in. If we continue to operate on the premises that were fashionable in the prescybernetic era, and which were especially underlined and strengthened during the Industrial Revolution, which seemed to validate the Darwinian unit of survival, we may have twenty or thirty years before the logical reductio ad absurdum of our old positions destroy us. Nobody knows how long we have, under the present system, before some disaster strikes us, more serious than the destruction of any group of nations.

Fascism is the result of an epistemological error that identifies the unit of survival with the individual, with a race or a clan or a religion or a nationality -- what have you -- IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO AND IN COMPETITION WITH all other identified individuals, races, clans, religions, nationalities, etc. This INACCURATE epistemology completely misses that LIFE IS A NETWORK OF SYSTEMS OPERATING CODEPENDENTLY.

500 years of EUROPEAN GLOBAL EXPLOITATION by an elite, moneyed class has brought us to this predicament.

Those the gods would slay, they first make mad.

[Beam Me Up]

35. kik

:kick: We're not only NOT done with this topic, we have BARELY gotten started.

IF the PROGRESSIVE LEFT and Democrats do not take hold of this issue, I assure you, the neoNazis will. You won't like it when they do.

[Beam Me Up]

39. kik

:dem: :dem:

[Eloriel]

36. Whoa! Where's Peak_Oil??? Paging Peak_Oil....

:kick:

[Peak_Oil]

75. I'm here, what's up?

Anything new? Other than the G7 calling for clarity on oil supplies, natty gas price tripling in the last two years (I think...), oil just about doubling this year, BP running ads saying Beyond Petroleum, a multiplicity of books, articles, and even documentaries on the subject, our standard of living in the US dropping rapidly, inflation out of control on health care-education-transportation-food-housing (but largely uncounted in the CPI), I don't think anything has really changed very much.

I very much doubt that our government will do anything about Peak Oil other than engaging in the wholesale slaughter of innocent people who have had the incredible misfortune of being born right on top of the greatest material prize in the history of the world. That's why they call it The Prize though, right?

What a shame.

[Must_B_Free]

40. If we haven't drilled everywhere

how do we know what peak is?

[KoKo]

55. True....although one assumes in 50 years or more that they've been

everywhere. But, conservation would cut our oil way back. And, conservation could mean planning before one runs out for a "quart of milk." Just closing stores at 6:00 p.m. every day. Lots of little things lead up to large quantities saved without as much pain as one would think. :shrug:

[Petrodollar Warfare]

62. We have explored 95% of the earth's crust for oil....

...for the unique geological characteristics and history that produce the pressure that was required to create and trap hydrocarbon molecules. The earth has 30 large areas of hydrocarbon molecules that were trapped and preserved, that's it.

You must also take into account that areas with the geological history that could produce hydrocarbon deposits are the most expensively analyzed peices of real estate on the globe - where hundred of billions have been spent and advanced technology such as seismic 3-dimenstional analysis. Colin Campbell and many other veteran oil geologists have stated that we *know* where 95% of the world's hydrocarbon deposits are...and it is a finite substance, a fossilized substance that was created millions of years ago.

Any rationale person who has taken the time to research Peak Oil knows that the oil companies continue to spend billions every year in exploration, but since 1964 they have found less and less oil each year. Findings the past few years have been pathetic, and those who think that oil is not finite or that if we only "drill more holes" we'll find more oil are - bluntly stated - delusional.

BTW, the inscription in the marble entrancway of the CIA headquarters in Langley states the following: “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” Indeed, the CIA has intensely studied the issue of Peak Oil for over 25 years. Recently declassified CIA documents suggest such topics were carefully analyzed with regard to the anticipated peak in Russian oil production.

In March 1977 a CIA Intelligence Memorandum titled "The Impending Soviet Oil Crisis” (ER 77-10147) was issued by the Office of Economic Research and classified "Secret." It was made publicly available in January 2001 in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

{CIA Intelligence Memorandum: “The Impending Soviet Oil Crisis” March 1977 (ER 77-10147) To access the document, go to the web site www.foia.cia.gov. In the document search field type er 77-10147}

This Memorandum predicts the impending peak in Soviet oil production "not later than the early 1980s" would have important consequences regarding the Cold War standoff. Charts in this document estimate the goal for Russian oil production in 1980 would be 12.9 million barrels per day (Mb/d), but the CIA predicted that peak oil would likely occur at 11.8 Mb/d. How did they know this?

Simply, they pay big $$ to scutinize all of the guarded *technical* data on every aspect of global oil issues - and they disregard the 'political" data that is always reported in the media...

It is rumored that one of largest clients of IHS Energy (formerly Petroconsultants) is the CIA. The main asset of this Geneva-based company are their proprietary databases containing all significant information on the world’s petroleum concessions, companies, exploration and development wells outside the USA and Canada.

What is unique about this data that seperates it from public data such as the yearly BP statistical Guide and other "Enron-esque fuzzy math." Well, IHS Energy/Petroconsultants has proprietary data on virtually all discoveries, on production history by country, field, and company as well as details pertaining to geophysical surveys. The reports produced by this firm are approximately $35,000. The major media and government do not discuss this highly technical information, despite the oil and gas industry’s recognition that no other organization has such a comprehensive data base on the upstream petroleum industry.

A noteworthy and potentially turning point in modern history was reached in 1995 when Petroconsultants released their report, The World’s Oil Supply 1930-2050, prepared by C.J. Campbell and J.H. Laherrere. The authors concluded the mid-point of ultimate conventional oil production would be reached around the year 2000, with a permanent decline in production beginning in the first decade of the new millennium. They expected production post-peak would halve about every 25 years, with an exponential decline of production by 2.5 to 2.9% per year.

Cheney and Bush know this, so did Gore and Clinton. (Heck, according to Michael Moore's movie F.9/11, former President George H. Bush is the *only past President who still receives the daily CIA intelligence assesments* - so he probably knew too!) The problem? Our political campaign finance "system" *de facto* negates our government's ability to act in the long-term national security intereats of the American people. Instead, our strategic policy is short-term and profit oriented - which is inextrciably tied to the campaign fiance system - supported and controlled by the industrial-military-petroleum-banking Conglomerate.

So, given our self-defeating campaign finance structure and dollar-oil-military link, we now find ourselves the furthest 'behind the curve' re energy conservation/transportation reforms that are absolutely necessary for the impending global Peak Oil (Europe, Japan and China are trying to conserve, while we are not). The tragic cumulation of this "system" in the U.S. is designed to maintian US supremacy via enforecment of the military-induitrial-petroleum-banking conglomerate - and the result may have produced the 9/11 tragedy according to Michael Ruppert and many others.

Here's a passage from Ruppert's newest book (just released this month), "Crossing the Rubicon":

"The Why and the how" (pgs. 572-573)

It is my belief that sometime during the period of 1998 and early 2000, as certain elites became aware of the pending calamity of Peak Oil, they looked at the first highly confidential exploration and drilling results form the Caspian Basin and shuddered....The data could not be kept secret forever The data would surely come out, and what would happen to the markets then?"..."The CIA is Wall Street. Even of the oil had been there, it could not be monetized, because there was no safe route or pipeline to get it out. Alarms starting going-off"...

"...Dick Cheney and the neo-cons stepped up with a plan. That was probably more than Al Gore and the neo-liberals had to offer in light of the emergency now building. Any plan was better than no plan.".."Obviously, the first objective for Dick Cheney and the neo-cons had been to secure control of the White House in the 2000 election so that the rest of the plan could be implemented if necessary."

"From their perspective, the Republican neo-cons were faced with a choice of massive panic and collapse of the financial markets; a loss of public faith in the political system; and the loss of most of their power and wealth if the truth were known. To borrow a metaphor from Professor Peter Dale Scott, both the neo-libs and neo-cons were players at a very lucrative crap game. Through they often played viciously against each other, their prime objective was to keep playing the game at all costs. Whenever the game was threatened - as is the case with 9/11 - they quickly closed ranks to protect it while the turf over which they continued to fight among themselves grew smaller and smaller and the contests more heated and bloody.

Within their own mindset and within the parameters of an economic and governmental system that functioned (and it continues to function) in the mode of organized crime - incapable of transparency, riddled with corruption and cooked books, based upon the destruction of life for the sake of net profits and supremacy - these men, led by Dick Cheney, chose what they thought was their only logical option. I believe it seemed to them the "right" thing to do; after all, it was only a few thousand lives. Other rulers have made similar choices in the past. But as all empires learn, once the river is crossed there is no turning back." (Hence the title - Crossing the Rubicon)

#####

Bottom Line: Millions of years ago Mother Earth endowed certain geographical areas under the Earth's crust with disparate levels of hydrocarbon molecules, and for the past 80+ years men have engaged in tremendous amounts of slaughter and political oppression in attempts to gain control over of this black gold - or hold onto the wealth of this black gold through various unsavory means (now including petrodollar warfare). As you know, the latest chapter in this contest has so far involved the tragic death of over 1000 U.S. soldiers, 16,000 wounded, and probably 55,000 dead and/or wounded Iraqis, most of whom were regular civilians.

Well, my naive hope is that humanity will somehow see the self-defeating outcome if this pattern continues, and begin to do things differently - and soon - especially here in the US. Either we do this via multilateral negotiations and compromises, or time and Mother Nature will do it via unyeilding physics - and unlike nations - neither physics nor time is negotiable.

That's enough for now...(my book on these subjects, "Petrodollar Warfare" will be released in the spring of 2005)

[Beam Me Up]

64. "Petrodollar Warfare" sounds very interesting, can you tell us more?

Thank you for posting to this thread. I, too, share some "naive hope" -- but at this point that is about all it is. Along with Ruppert, I feel IT IS ESSENTIAL for the Left to begin to come up with CONCRETE ALTERNATIVES TO THE neoCON GLOBAL AGENDA.

Frankly, I believe they've already FAILED miserably to protect this nations ECONOMIC interests -- not to mention a feast of other social and ecological interests. And I (knowing really very little) am of the opinion all of this boils down to our NOT having a "economics" which takes the REAL COSTS of energy use into account. The RIGHT WING has FAILED; and we are all going to suffer the consequences of this failure.

I'm more of an 'artist' type; I don't really understand economics and "petrodollars." I've read a little bit, such as Peter Dale Scott's BCCI, Afghanistan, and Past Drug-Terrorist Networks: One cannot really understand the present crisis without understanding the degree to which the flow of narcodollars and petrodollars has corrupted governments, corporations and social structures around the world, including the US. The influence of these foreign funds is not usually visible. Most people for example are not aware that until recently the largest shareholder of Chevron, and the second-largest shareholder of Chase Manhattan, were both Arabs. AND "The US handled the quadrupling of oil prices in the 1970s by arranging, by means of secret agreements with the Saudis, for the recycling of petrodollars back into the US economy. The first of these deals assured a special and on-going Saudi stake in the health of the US dollar; the second secured continuing Saudi support for the pricing of all OPEC oil in dollars. See David E. Spiro, The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1999), x, 103-1a, 121). These two deals assured that the US economy would not be impoverished by OPEC oil price hikes. The heaviest burdens would be borne instead by the economies of less developed countries" (Peter Dale Scott, Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afganistan, Colombia, and Indochina, (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), 41-42; cf. 53-54)."

Can you explain in rather simple terms how the petrodollar economy is 'supposed' to work -- and then the consequences it actually has for us? Or is that too big a question?

[Petrodollar Warfare]

66. These 2 articles will bring you up to speed...

..on these fairly complex issues. BTW, my book is 300 pages and 500 references, so yes this is a bit too complex for this forum..but here's my original essay from Jan 2003 and updated in Jan 2004...

Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq:
A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

...and once you've read that long essay twice, here's the other on-line essay that helps answer some of your questions about the historical backgroud. (this info is covered in Part I of my upcoming book).

A New American Century?
Iraq and the hidden euro-dollar wars by F. William Engdahl
http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/2003/04/20030409.php

BTW, I'll post more on my book, along with a dedicated website when appropriate...stay tuned.

[Beam Me Up]

68. Thank you. I will read these and most certainly "stay tuned" :) n/t

[KoKo]

56. Kick this! I didn't get any answers to my questions..hoping for some...

:kick:

[gandalf]

65. Hopsicker and Ruppert

One has to give Hopsicker credits for his very important work on the Florida angle of 9/11. Nobody else has done that, most people here are "only" internet researchers. And I think H. produced interesing results. Nevertheless, he has not to be right in everything.

On the other hand I think Ruppert delivers interesting stuff. Only sometimes he makes predictions, some of which are not solidly supported by facts. But interesting nevertheless. And it is plausible that in this attempts to get money he might have been unlucky in choosing his sponsors. And what Hopsickers writes about his plans about "population reduction" sounds a bit creepy...

A similar article about the 9/11 truth movement is here.

[robertpaulsen]

72. The real question for the 9/11 truth movement: What poisons the well?

I have to give rense credit for making me think even though I may not necessarily agree with them. But I have to disagree with the main premise of this article, that the government set up 9/11 to EXPOSE THEMSELVES AS GUILTY OF THE CRIME for the express purpose of setting up a one-world government. This is prima facie absurdity.

The real question we need to ask when we, as the author (who the hell is Angie anyway?) says, look a gift horse in the mouth, is: Does anything this 9/11 truth seeker says detract from the goal of exposing the truth and bringing the real 9/11 masterminds to justice? I'm sure there are a lot of wackos in the 9/11 truth movement. Like me. :) But the only time we should be taking sides in this movement is when someone tries to poison the well, i.e. deliberately disseminate false information that disrupts and dilutes the pursuit of 9/11 truth. Using an historical analogy, Perry Russo may have had questionable political sympathies, but provided valuable truths about the conspiracy to kill JFK. However, the corroborating witness who fingerprinted his daughter every night to prevent substitutions by "them" was a government plant that derailed the trial. Garrison himself was accused of accepting bribes and having ties to the mafia. This is how the government works at disrupting the exposure of a conspiracy. I defy anyone to provide an example in history where the government set up a conspiracy designed to expose themselves as culprits after they had already framed a convenient patsy. It just doesn't happen.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html

Just for the record, Hopsicker didn't write about Ruppert's plans for population reduction in that link, McGowan did. I wouldn't call it creepy, I would say it's downright horrifying. But to paraphrase a previous poster, whether it's in one year or a hundred years, that's the horrifying reality we will eventually have to face if the economic infrastructure of the planet remains dependent on finite resources.

[Sterling]

73. I am buying the book this week. I want to get it at B&N.

Is it in stock yet?

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Swamp Rat]

76. Why aren't you in Iraq?

[Sterling]

77. You are the first picture?

Why someone would sign up just to get banned for posting that I don't know. I takes all kinds I guess.

[Sirveri]

78. Proof of Peak Oil

It's quite Simple.

We (the world) use 80 Million Barrels a day
We (the world) are capable of supplying 82 Million a day.
Demand is growing at 3%
Supply is growing at 1%

We outstrip Supply in 2 years. Simple math. That's Peak Oil. The point at which oil STARTS getting REALLY expensive.

[stickdog]

79. Whether or not peak oil is "true" is not a fundamental question.

If it ain't now and trends don't drastically change, it will be soon enough.

Moreover, profiteers like Bush & Cheney would be warring to control strategic resources and territories regardless.

[KoKo]

82. Good Point, Stickdog. Arguing over "Peak Oil" diverts us from the

FIRST Problem. Getting them out... We all know that "conservation" is important whether we have oil forever down the road or are coming near Peak Oil where there will be a decline.

There are things we can do to help our air and conserve oil and gas. We just need to be asked to sacrifice. Or, if Peak Oil is near, we will be "forced" to sacrifice.

But, as "stwardards and keepers" of our earth we should be doing better than "use it up, burn it out" and whine for more. :shrug:

[Sterling]

83. Yes but maybe not as desperately?

I think maybe we could have avoided 9-11 if not for the seriousness of the crisis. Maybe not, maybe they would have killed all those people anyway?

[barb162]

81. time for everyone to be dumping SUVs, for starters

[JohnyCanuck]

84. Canada's National Post carries a front page story on Peak Oil.

Is the age of oil coming to an end?

Jonathan Kay
National Post
Sunday Oct 02

In the billions of years since its creation, our planet has produced about two trillion barrels of commercially extractable oil. In the space of little more than a century, humans have burned almost half of that. And we will likely make far quicker work of the rest. Oil consumption was once monopolized by a small set of wealthy Western nations. No longer: In Asia, in particular, hundreds of millions of upwardly mobile citizens crave the same gas-guzzling conveyances the West has taken for granted since the First World War.

Thanks to corporate upheaval in Russia, tribal warfare in Nigeria, Iraq's insurgency and the threat of a terror attack against Saudi oil terminals, it is not hard to imagine a new crisis pushing the price of oil into three figures. But though such a spike could set the world's economy reeling, the effect would likely be short-lived. Wars, uprising and political squabbles eventually end. And the first order of business for whichever government they leave standing is usually to get the pumps up and running. The far more intractable problem will arise when those pumps start going dry and there aren't enough new ones to replace them.

<snip>

Moreover, the global rate of virgin oil discovery has been in decline for decades, suggesting the world has run out of Kuwaits and Saudi Arabias.

<snip>

But even if oil supply does rise for several more decades, it is uncertain whether its ascent can match the steep demand from Asia's boom nations, which are in the midst of a wholesale shift to oil-based economies.

Is the age of oil coming to an end?

[sandboxface]

85. A film on PEAK OIL everyone here must see!

Check out the sample clips online.

Teh End of Suburbia
http://www.endofsuburbia.com/

Another segment from the film:
http://aeschatech.com/medialibrary/endofsuburbia_hydrogen.mov

[JohnyCanuck]

86. New web site www.survivingpeakoil.com

Has a section on reader submitted articles on how we can adjust our societies and economies to live in a less energy intensive fashion. It invites submissions from any interested parties.
www.survivingpeakoil.com/articles.php

e.g.

Small, resource poor Eritrea, on the southwestern coast of the Red Sea, is the home of two cutting edge environmental developments based on the use of sea water to produce food, animal fodder and the ability to green the desert.

Using sustainable aqua culture techniques along with the often despised mangrove tree, a company called Seawater Farms has developed the first commercial scale, self sufficient, non polluting production of food for humans and animals using sea water in Eritrea.

Along side the award winning Eritrean mangrove plantations developed by Dr. Norman Sato, these cutting edge efforts could very well be the answer to problems ranging from desertification and declining fresh water resources to reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and its apparent contribution to global warming.

Seawater Farms starts with a large canal dug into the shore of the Red Sea. Leading inland, this canal feeds tanks made of brick or concrete that hold shrimp. The nutrient rich waste water from these shrimp tanks are channeled to algae ponds that support a fish called Talapia that can thrive in both salt and fresh water. The waste water from the fish ponds is routed to ponds that grow a salt water plant called silicornia that provides a nutritious vegetable described as a sort of salt water lettuce as well as fiber and protein rich seeds that produce a high quality cooking oil. The waste water from the silicornia ponds is sent to mangrove ponds that provide a home to wildlife, suck up CO2, cool off and help humidify the desert and provide fodder in the form of green forage and seeds for camels, goats and cattle. The sea water in the mangrove ponds filters through the sand and returns to the ocean as clean or cleaner than when it arrived.

A Little Role Model in the Horn of Africa