Peak Oil

by **AnnaLivia** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:39 pm

the gloomiest doomsayers would even call me utopian, i imagine. but to them i say: you want cold, hard-nosed reality? Reality means leaving room for change! "the man who says it can't be done should get out of the way of the man doing it." just to be clear, i don't have an opinion about ruppert. i do not in the least suspect him of WANTing population reduction. and i do think the wealthiest and most powerful people on the planet have figured out that they can do with a smaller cheap-labor pool, yes. hello to a hundred devices at their disposal? can we dig up and slap that guy who said "may you live in interesting times"? what i wouldn't give to be bored, just once.

by **proldic** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:15 pm

HTML Comments are not allowed

by **proldic** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:17 pm

Milton: "Why is the greatest of free communities reduced to Hobson's choice?" "[Vannevar Bush] never flatly refused to satisfy a politician's curiosity, but rather dared him to comprehend the technical and military issues. Most politicos wisely kept their mouths shut." (From a review of "Endless Frontier" by G. Pascal Zachary, Wall Street Journal, 10/21/97) Brian Salter: “Predictions are currently running rampant in the media and the internet that we are in for an imminent repeat of the 1973 "oil shock". What few mention, however, is that there is convincing evidence the 1973 oil shock was an entirely manufactured affair, planned by the transatlantic finanical elite and the "Seven Sisters" oil cartel (with Henry Kissinger as facilitator) to force up prices, which would then subsequently be blamed on OPEC, an oil "shortage", or both. In light of this, the similarities between the situation today and three decades ago take on a different meaning...” “ After August 1971, dominant US policy under White House National Security Adviser Henry A. Kissinger was to control, not to develop, economies throughout the world. US policy officials probably began calling themselves "neo-Malthusians." Population reduction in developing nations, rather than technology transfer and industrial growth strategies, became the dominating priority during the 1970s, yet another throwback to nineteenth-century British colonial thinking…” “ In 1973, the powerful men grouped around Bilderberg decided to launch a colossal assault against industrial growth in the world…In order to do this, they determined to use their most prized weapon -- control of the world's oil flows…” “ The social impact of the oil embargo on the United States in late 1973 could be described as panic. Throughout 1972 and early 1973, the large multinational oil companies, led by Exxon, pursued a curious policy of creating short domestic supply of crude oil. They were allowed to do so under a series of decisions made by President Nixon on advice of his aides. When the embargo hit in November 1973, therefore, the impact could not have been more dramatic. By October 1973, domestic US stocks of crude oil were already at alarmingly low levels. The OPEC embargo triggered the public into panic purchases of gasoline, calls for rationing, endless gas lines, and a sharp economic recession. The most severe impact of the oil crisis hit the United States' largest city, New York. Germany's government imposed an emergency ban on Sunday driving in a desperate effort to save imported oil costs. By June 1974, the effects of the oil crisis contributed to [banking collapse] and a crisis in the D-mark as a result. Germany's imported oil costs increased by staggering 17 billion D-marks in 1974, with a half-million people reckoned to be unemployed because of the oil shock…Inflation levels reached an alarming 8%…The shock effects of a sudden 400% increase in the price of Germany's basic energy feedstock were devastating to industry, transport, and agriculture. Keystone industries such as steel, shipbuilding, and chemicals all went into a deep crisis at this time as a result of the oil shock..” “ But the economic impact on the developing economies of the world -- the impact of an overnight price increase of 400% in their primary energy source was staggering. The vast majority of the world's less-developed economies, without significant domestic oil resources, were suddenly confronted with an unexpected and unpayable 400% increase in costs of energy imports, to say nothing of costs of chemicals and fertilizers for agriculture derived from petroleum. During this time, commentators began speaking of "triage," the wartime idea of survival of the fittest, and introduced the vocabulary of "Third World" and "Fourth World" (the non-OPEC countries)…” “ In 1973, India had a positive balance of trade, a healthy situation for a developing economy.By 1974, India had total foreign exchange reserves of $629 millions with which to pay -- in dollars -- an annual oil import bill of almost double that or $1,241 million. In 1974, Sudan, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand, Africa and Latin America country after country was faced with gaping deficits in its balance of payments. As a whole, over 1974 developing countries incurred a total trade deficit of $35 billion according to the IMF, a colossal sum in that day, and, not surprisingly, a deficit precisely 4 times as large as in 1973, or just in proportion to the oil price increase…” “ Following the several years of strong industrial and trade growth of the early 1970s, the severe drop in industrial activity throughout the world economy in 1974-75 was greater than any such decline since the war. But, while Kissinger's 1973-74 oil shock had a devastating impact on world industrial growth, it was an enormous benefit for certain established interests -- the major New York and London banks, and the Seven Sister oil multinationals in the US and Britain. Exxon replaced General Motors as the largest American corporation in gross revenues by 1974. Her sisters were not far behind, including Mobil, Texaco, Chevron and Gulf…” “ Is it likely, however, that a bunch of Texas wildcatters could be driving US policy to hoard Middle East oil? Certainly not -- these matters are decided by much more important criteria. In addition to the critical support of Wall Street and London's speculative financial empires offered by control of the oil market…resource monopolies & forced shortages are also ultimately about geopolitical world control, and in the context of current events, this means in particular control of the Eurasian landmass, and that in turn means keeping a lid on the economic growth of geopolitical competitors…who threaten…globalists with their ultimate nightmare: a ‘multipolar’ world …preventing this outcome is the obsession of the new Great Game strategists like Brzezinski (who, I would note, has participated in recent years in the neo-Malthusian ‘State of the World’ conferences organized by Mikhail Gorbachev)…” It is undeniable that the PO movement shares a common message. It is: 1.) Oil is a 'fossil fuel' - a finite, non-renewable resource created at a specific time in the earth's history 2.) It has reached it's "peak" as defined by the Hubbert Curve, and it's all downhill from here 3.) Two things drive this: a. Our western "lifestyle" b. Overpopulation (of the developing world - remember: who's giving birth? Whose birth rates are declining?) 4.) This means the end of society "as we know it" 5.) No combination of alternatives, conservation, or political reform will save us 6.) We should welcome "downsizing" by localizing, building "lifeboats" and "arks", and abandoning hope for national governance 7 ) If we are going to have any chance of surviving as a species, we must embrace a radical program of deindustrialization and population control now. If you read the PO literature, you would not be able to deny this. The effect of the "Peak Oil" meme, which hit really hard post-9/11, is de-politicizing. It's created a "head for the hills" mentality, which is exactly what the system wants. Furthermore, it creates a "blame each other" attitude. "We" Americans, or "the American lifestyle" is to blame for the world's problems, instead of the transnational fascists! "Peak Oil" is no outsider “meme”. As someone here noted, just look at headlines in mainstream publications- like National Geographic and Newsweek, and at articles in the L.A. Times, etc. Recently I saw a "Cliff Bar" quiz that asked "How many years do scientists estimate there are before demand for oil bypasses supply? Answer: 5" It's everywhere! The people seriously challenging "Peak Oil" are absolutely outsiders. To understand the truth of PO, we must really grasp the deeper political truth behind the oil “shortages” of the past. The big picture: how a continuing conspiracy involving the energy cartels in the service of the capitalist NWO, purposefully manipulates the primary fuel for the engine of development in the world - for super-profits, for fear-control, for “forced underdevelopment”, to create the “third world”, to suppress “enemy” governments, and - at its core – to murder millions of democracy-demanding poor people. Domestically, the anti-PO stance is a (not so) small part of a bigger picture – an argument about how the modern North American left has been effectively purged of any real class-based consciousness, largely co-opted by elite foundations, and continuously misled into counter-intuitive distractions/red herrings. Now the left is being deliberately led again – from within – into specific beliefs, decisions, and actions. Many upper-middle class Americans welcome “downsizing”. And why not think its good? After all, the Peak Oil movement is encouraging them to accept a future in which working people cannot afford to own their own homes, and as part of the upper-class they will have no responsibility to do anything about it In fact the Peak Oil crowd want working folks in North America to think they’ve been foolish these last fifty years to think we've deserved that. (The End of Suburbia makes a point of mentioning that Post-WWII America represented a "blip on the economic radar" as a time in which "plumbers and dry-wallwers could afford their own homes".) After all, it was just these greedy, ignorant Americans with their gas-guzzlers and fancy vacations - and medical care - that got us into to this mess. Think about the economic situation we're in: people are getting nervous, and the system needs something for them to blame when the crash comes - which it will. When they can't afford to heat their houses, or have medical insurance, or send their kids to college. Think about the fact that a perceived need for oil supports the military ambitions of the current administration. Moreover, an "economy imperiled by the rising prices, along with the obvious rising dependency" is the perfect cover for an economy that has been intentionally ruined, not just by corporate greed per se, but through an organized effort to break the revolutionary spirit of the working class in the U.S. through poverty and fear. Salter: “A more perceptive analysis would note that Americans have been systematically duped into energy-wasting habits by years of low oil prices and cheap credit, and that the currently rising energy prices create a de facto taxation or wealth transfer, which is perfectly in accord with the long-term policies of de-industrialization and looting of the middle class that are typified by policies like the phony ‘oil shock’ of the ‘70’s...” Believing that widespread use of oil is not environmentally-sustainable does not mean that the truth about contrived shortages, suppressed production, and the existence of abiotic oil is irrelevant to the debate. After all, a petroleum industry orthodoxy has dominated the academia (oil geologists specifically) for decades. The PO movement is clearly part of that. And now they go out of their way to portray themselves as outsiders. Salter: “With promotion from someone like Bush energy advisor Matthew Simmons, and with coverage exploding in the mainstream media, the idea of imminent ‘peak oil’ does not exactly qualify as a ‘renegade’ point of view. In light of this, caution and skepticism are due…” One person who wrote an important early article revealing the forces behind PO propaganda was the late Walt Sheasby, a Green Party member from California. In the article, The Coming Panic Over the End of Oil: Coming to a Ballot Box Near You , Sheasby wrote: “…This much is known…the loudest warnings about the predicted peak of world oil production came from Petroconsultants…ASPO has Associate members like Halliburton and financial sponsors like Schlumberger…There is no reason for ecologists to join debates over the…decline of world oil production, which should be bracketed as irrelevant to the socio-political imperative of democratizing the economy and creating a new energy infrastructure that is based on post-capitalist norms…We must find ways of making the urgency of that transformation a motivation in people's lives…The dangers posed by global capitalism to human life and nature itself are all too real. We need to reject the posing of imminent danger as panic, as Chicken Little's alarm over the Falling Sky…” Dave McGowan challenges the fundamental lack of reasoning underpinning the PO “meme”: “…unbeknownst to Westerners, there have actually been, for quite some time now, two competing theories concerning the origins of petroleum. One theory claims that oil is an organic 'fossil fuel' deposited in finite quantities near the planet's surface. The other theory claims that oil is continuously generated by natural processes in the Earth's magma. One theory is backed by a massive body of research representing fifty years of intense scientific inquiry. The other theory is an unproven relic of the eighteenth century. One theory anticipates deep oil reserves, refillable oil fields, migratory oil systems, deep sources of generation, and the spontaneous venting of gas and oil. The other theory has a difficult time explaining any such documented phenomena. So which theory have we in the West, in our infinite wisdom, chosen to embrace? Why, the fundamentally absurd 'Fossil Fuel' theory, of course -- the same theory that the 'Peak Oil' doomsday warnings are based on...” The entire argument is enhanced by common-sense, such as when McGowan writes: “…although underground coal fires are a common phenomenon, most people are completely unaware that they occur…At any given time, thousands of coal veins are ablaze around the world. In China's northwestern province of Xinjiang alone, there are currently about 2,000 underground coal fires burning. Indonesia currently hosts as many as 1,000. Some of these fires have been burning for thousands of years; Burning Mountain Nature Reserve, for example, in New South Wales, Australia, has been aflame for an estimated 5,500 years…many of the fires burning today are due to entirely natural causes. New Scientist noted, in February 2003, that "coal seam fires have occurred spontaneously far back into geological history." ("Wild Coal Fires are a 'Global Catastrophe'," New Scientist, February 14, 2003) Radio Nederland added that "Geological evidence from China suggests that underground coal fires have been occurring naturally for at least one million years." (Anne Blair Gould "Underground Fires Stoke Global Warming," Radio Nederland, March 10, 2003)…” “And how much coal, you may be wondering, do these fires consume annually? No one can say with any certainty, but it is estimated that in China alone, some 200 million tons of coal go up in smoke every year. That's a hell of a lot of coal. More coal than China exports, in fact. In other words, the world's leading coal exporter loses more coal to underground fires than it produces for export….” " ‘Very interesting’ you say, ‘but what does any of this have to do with Peak Oil?’ Glad you asked. Coal is, you see, a member of the same hydrocarbon family as oil and natural gas, and it is, like gas and oil, claimed to be a 'fossil fuel' created in finite, non-renewable quantities at a specific time in the earth's history …And yet this allegedly precious and limited resource has been burning off at the rate of millions of tons per year, year in and year out, for at least a million years, and probably much longer…” “ This raises, in my mind at least, one very obvious question: how is it possible that nature has been taking an extremely heavy toll on the globe's 'fossil fuels' for hundreds of thousands of years (at the very least), without depleting the reserves that were supposedly created long, long ago; and yet man, who has been extracting and burning 'fossil fuels' for the mere blink of an eye, geologically speaking, has managed to nearly strip the planet clean?..” “ Is it not perfectly clear that that is a proposition that is absurd on its face -- so much so that it is remarkable that the 'fossil fuel' myth has passed muster for as long as it has? Nevertheless, that entirely illogical myth is the cornerstone on which an even bigger lie - the myth of 'Peak Oil' - is built. Go figure….” “…Taken together, what [proponents of the theory of peak oil are saying], essentially, is: ‘Well, okay, we quite likely have been lied to for decades about oil being a non-renewable resource. And, sure, we have been deliberately misled about who is really promoting this whole notion of Peak Oil. And, yes, the story did largely originate with the same folks who told some real whoppers about 9-11, and Iraq, and lots of other things. And no, us peasants don't really have any way of independently verifying any of the oil industry's figures, so we really have no idea how much oil is out there. And, okay, I guess the notion of 'Peak Oil' could be seen as playing into the Bush administration's hands. But even so, shouldn't we assume that 'Peak Oil' is real? And even if it isn't real, isn't it possible that the oil industry has hypnotized itself into thinking that it is real, so shouldn't we therefore act as though it is real, even if it isn't?’’,,,” “ I guess I just view the world a little differently, because the first question that comes to my mind is: why in the world would anyone conclude that we are not being lied to? Clearly there is a reason for the deception. Why have we long been taught that oil is a 'fossil fuel' if it is not? That is not some random lie… The deception surrounding the origins of oil is not random; rather, it serves a very specific purpose -- creating the impression that oil is a non-renewable, and therefore inherently scarce, resource. So if we are to acknowledge that we have been misled about oil being a non-renewable resource, why would we automatically assume that it is nevertheless still scarce?..” “Many have suggested that to prove 'Peak Oil' isn't real, it must be proven that replenishment rates exceed consumption rates. But how could this possibly be proven? How is it possible to ascertain the rate at which oil is generated and replenished when the only hard data comes from an industry that doesn't acknowledge that oil is generated at all?..” “All of the figures thrown around in the debate over 'Peak Oil' come from the petroleum industry. And all of those figures are based on the notion of oil as a static resource…How do those figures have any credibility? How, for that matter, does the oil industry itself have any credibility?..” “ Aren't these the same folks, after all, who have worked hand-in-hand with the CIA for decades to destabilize foreign governments, commit egregious human rights violations, and brutally rape the environment? Or is that a different oil industry? The one I am thinking of was created by a guy by the name of Rockefeller…He basically created the petroleum industry, and he held monopoly control of it for a pretty fair amount of time...” “ I mention that because it occurs to me that if you were to compose a list of people who might be powerful enough to create an entire global industry based on a fiction, the name Rockefeller would probably be very near the top of that list. The petroleum industry is now, as it has always been, essentially an enormous, global criminal enterprise. [Supporters of the theory of Peak Oil] acknowledged that that industry of ‘evil murderous cartel bastards’ has ‘lied about shortages in the past to create crises.’ And yet now, when the stakes are considerably higher, [they] seem to suggest that we should accept the industry's pronouncements as the truth. I find such a stance difficult to understand...” Campbell’s Cheerleaders ---Matt Simmons--- Cheney adviser Mathew Simmons is an “oilianaire” handling an investment portfolio of approximately $56 billion. He sits on the board of Kerr-McGee, a major uranium, oil, and gas producer (and the murderers of anti-nuke activist Karen Silkwood). He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Simmons insists that the US government is very worried about oil depletion. However, Cheney’s secretive National Energy Policy Development Group refused to make its records of closed-door meetings with industry executives public…Simmons apparently wants to make the public's fear of Peak Oil the drum beat, although a more enlightened energy policy, he worries, "is going to take a while." Simmons believes that the reason oil reserves have fallen so far behind oil and gas consumption is: "We drill far less wells. We also stopped doing most genuine exploration." In fact, Simmons believes higher oil prices are essential, since: "The higher the cost, the more you can extend, recovering more and more of the harder and harder to get resources." ---Michael Klare--- In Blood and Oil, he says that the cost of conversion to a post-petroleum economy in the US will run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, and this money should come from a gas tax, particularly aimed at cars and light trucks. This is a right-wing, regressive tax, the burden of which falls on the working class and small businesses - Klare cites farmers and truckers. He calls for “restraint” and “self-discipline”, saying: “Every year, the citizens of this country consume more oil than the year before, and their appetite shows no signs of abating. Convincing people to consume less, and to begin preparing for the day of petroleum scarcity will no doubt be a formidable task.” Like the other PO’ers, he lays the blame on the “citizen” - on suburbia and the wasteful American “lifestyle”. He never mentions how industry - particularly the military-industrial complex - is by far the biggest user/waster of oil. He never mentions how they benefit from stacked public utility control boards, regressive tax structures, and waste-encouraging wholesale power rates. In fact, he writes off any chance of forcing a reduction from industrial users in western countries (p. 193). Interested in how the political views of PO’ers like Klare relate to their interpretation of the science? As revealed in Blood and Oil and Resource Wars, Klare’s geopolitical analysis is seriously flawed. His view of history seems to be colored more by Spencer Abraham, Brzezinski, Haig, et al, than with any leftist movement. His treatment of Russia and the former Soviet Union in particular is typical of the neutered, value-free historical revisionism of most US academia. He writes: “The Soviets once wielded considerable influence (in Iraq)...Soviet officials were frequent visitors to Saddam Hussein’s Bagdhad, and the USSR provided Iraq with the lion’s share of it’s military equipment…although (Russian relations with Iraq) are not as cordial as they were with the Baathist regime in Bagdhad .” He’s basically saying that Russia was the Iraqi Baath Party’s biggest supporter. This is a total lie. The fact is that it was the CIA that was the primary benefactor supporter of the Baath party, going so far as to give Hussein lists of communists and political opponents to assassinate. They directly supported him in his successful coup against a liberal-nationalist government in ‘59. The CIA propped him up the whole way – not the Soviets. Plus they provided a huge amount of material for biochem weaponry through dual-use agricultural loans right up to the eve of the first gulf war. In three sentences Klare essentially marginalizes wind and solar, the most realistic sources of mass-energy: “…wind, solar…all have their advantages and disadvantages. Wind power is commercially viable in areas where the winds are steady and giant windmills do not interfere with other activities or land uses; but the most eligible locations lie in the extreme north, far from population and industrial centers. Solar energy is plentiful, and the technology to capture it well-developed – but the price is high.” People with any understanding of history would instantly recognize these arguments as repetitions of old industry-inspired arguments regarding wind and solar. Contrary to his implication, the areas where wind is steady enough to generate significant power are not few and far between. In fact, large areas of the midwest, the southwest, New England, and the west coast are all perfectly suited for mass wind power. His picture of “giant windmills” interfering with our lives would be laughable if it wasn’t so often repeated. The nuclear and oil polluters have been crying for years about ugly solar farms, and big, bad windmills - suddenly becoming environmentalists when they talk about the poor birds who would be chopped up by windmills and the beautiful country land that would have to be developed. Klare implies that wind farms in the north couldn’t transmit power to population centers. What about the fact that much of our electrical power is coming from massive hydroelectric projects in northern Canada right now? He never mentions why the price of solar/photovoltaic technology is so high. If he was a really credible academic or a genuine “leftist” (he’s the Director of the College Peace Studies Program) he would be writing about the conspiracy to suppress solar/photovoltaic technology by the energy cartels. Read Who Owns the Sun by Berman and O’Connor, of which Publisher’s Weekly said: “Politicians, utility companies and even many mainstream environmental groups come under attack for either their lack of leadership on this issue or for their downright hostility to solar possibilities. The authors argue convincingly that the impediment to widespread adoption…is no longer technological but rather the fear that private utility companies' profit margins will suffer. Numerous examples of the ways in which renewable energy advances have been sabotaged by politicians and utilities are presented, as are a wide array of solutions.” Klare: “Wind, solar - all have their advantages and disadvantages. Wind power is commercially viable in areas where the winds are steady and giant windmills do not interfere with other activities or land uses; but the most eligible locations lie in the extreme north, far from population and industrial centers. Solar energy is plentiful, and the technology to capture it well-developed - but the price is high..” “…tell me, how are you going to run 18-wheelers on solar power?” He chooses not to talk about the fact that this country once had a massive rail infrastructure for transportation of goods and mass-transit that was dismantled by the oil and auto industries. Nor does he mention the conspiracy by General Motors and big oil to buy up all the train tracks, downsize the rail infrastructure, and replace it with the buses and trucks they manufactured. Rail transport is cheaper and much more efficient then trucks. He doesn’t talk about how electric light rail meets the transportation and mass-transit needs of many countries now. You can fit the contents of three 18-wheelers into one freight car. That's how you "run 18-wheelers on solar power". And let's just remind ourselves – I’m saying we're not really running out of oil. It's the environmental and dependency problems associated with oil and gas that should be leading us to a gradual transition to a socialist "post-petroleum" economy. In a post-capitalist economy we will still need to transport vegetables from California to New York, and there will still be truck transport for many years as well. Summing up Klare: 1.) Klare is writing about energy politics and the transition to a post-petroleum economy, and he offers suggestions as to how our society ought to proceed on that path 2.) His geopolitical view posits the US system as a relatively benign counter-balance to Soviet (Russian) influence 3.) He lies directly to his readers about who supported Hussein. 4.) He repeats obvious industry canards about alternative energy 5.) His major call for change is a gas tax on cars and light trucks - which is a regressive tax 6.) He writes off any chance of forcing concessions from industrial users of power in the US - not even mentioning the MIC ---Richard Heinberg--- Author of PO books such as “The Party’s Over”, and “Power Down”, Heinberg admits that of all the alternatives, the case for wind is "probably the most compelling", and says "theoretically" a great deal of energy can be derived from wind, then he proceeds to makes the claim "Wind can deliver net energy; the challenge for industrial societies is to scale up production quickly (he says 5x) to avert...economic and social calamity...Meanwhile, most of the energy needs for that undertaking would have to come from dwindling fossil fuels." If we can't see the essentially ridiculous nature of this negative, fear-mongering argument against wind power, we are lost. With all the trillions this society spends on subsidizing oil and nukes, with all the billions in externalities - the so-called resource wars, the pollution and health costs, the billions for pro-industry scientific and academic research (have you ever seen where all the research $ comes from?) - and you tell me we can't afford a 5x increase in the production of turbines??? Again, this is a lie. Klare and Heinberg both admit that solar is the most efficient ("it's the cost" says Klare). Yet they refuse to discuss - on purpose- the political implications behind a citizen's movement to force solar and wind development. Even a mainstream source such as Publisher's Weekly - no bastion of radical populism - reveals the obvious truth that people like Heinberg and Klare don't want you to know about. That spoils their doomsday scenario. So PO’ers end up sold out to a very big lie: that solar photovoltaic and wind technology, combined with conservation (up to 70% savings just by retro fitting housing stock - Hunter/Lovins) - will never be able to meet the energy demands of our future society. cont...

by **proldic** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:19 pm

HTML Comments are not allowed

by **proldic** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:20 pm

cont. from p1: McGowan: “ How do we know that oil fields always, or usually, follow Hubbert's depletion curves? Don't we really only 'know' that in the same sense that we 'know' that oil was produced only during the Jurassic period by mysterious piles of compressed organic matter? And how do we know that known reserves are running as dangerously low as the industry claims? Some readers have written to ask, ‘but what about all the dry oil wells capped off all across this country?’ A couple of other readers, however, have written to say that those wells aren't necessarily dry. Many of those wells, a reader claimed, were active wells that were capped off to deliberately assist in the creation of the illusion of shortage, especially in the 1960s and 1970s…(my father worked as an engineer in Australia’s New South Wales oil fields in the ‘60’s and confirms this claim)…The question then becomes: do we, in fact, have oil reserves sitting dormant right here at home?…” “ On June 21, the Los Angeles Times ran a story that the ever-growing 'Peak Oil' crowd seems to have missed. The article concerned the Shell oil refinery in Bakersfield, California that is scheduled to be shut down on October 1 -- despite the fact that the state of California (and the nation as a whole) is already woefully lacking in refinery capacity.” “Now why do you suppose that Shell would want to close a perfectly good oil refinery? It can't be because there is no market for the goods produced there, since that obviously isn't the case. And it isn't due to a lack of raw materials, since the refinery sits, as the Times noted, atop ‘prolific oil fields’ The Scotsman recently explained just how prolific those fields are: ‘The best estimates in 1942 indicated that the Kern River field in California had just 54 million barrels of remaining oil. By 1986, the field had produced 736 million barrels, and estimates put the remaining reserves at 970 million barrels...’ (<a href="http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=578462004)">news.scotsman.com/index.c...578462004)</a> “…the truth is, as L.A. Times reporters discovered when they got their hands on internal company documents, that the refinery is wildly profitable. How wildly profitable? The Bakersfield plant's "profit of $11 million in May [2004] was 57 times what the company projected and more than double what it made in all of 2003." (Elizabeth Douglas "Shell to Cut Summer Output at Bakersfield Refinery, Papers Say," Los Angeles Times, June 21, 2004) “ Go ahead and read that again: "more than double what it made in all of 2003." In a single month! And 2003 wasn't exactly what you would call a slow year at the Bakersfield refinery. According to Shell documents obtained by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, "Bakersfield's refining margin at $23.01 per barrel, or about 55 cents profit per gallon, topped all of Shell's refineries in the nation." (<a href="http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=114-04062004)">releases.usnewswire.com/G...-04062004)</a> “ Let's pause briefly here to review the situation, shall we? There is a product (gasoline) that is in great demand, and that will always be in great demand, since the product has what economists like to call an "inelastic" demand curve; for many months now, that product has been selling for record-breaking prices, especially in the state of California, and there is no indication that that situation will change anytime soon; there are abundant local resources with which to produce that coveted product; and, finally, there is a ridiculously profitable facility that is ideally located to manufacture and market that product….” “And this story, believe it or not, gets even better..The internal documents obtained by the theTimes, including a refinery output forecast, indicate that Bakersfield will soon be producing far less than its capacity. After relatively high output rates in May and early June, Shell plans to cut crude oil processing about 6% in July and another 6% in August, according to the forecast. Those two months are when California's fuel demand reaches annual peak levels….” “Aamir Farid, the general manager of the Bakersfield refinery, was asked the reason for the plan to reduce output at the time of peak demand. Farid claimed that he was not aware of any such plan, but he added that if there was such a plan, "there is a good reason for it." However, he also added that, "off the top of my head, I don't know what that good reason is…." "Shell didn't search out potential buyers for the refinery once it decided to shutter it." Indeed, Shell actively avoided finding a buyer for the plant (which became a fully-owned Shell asset just three short years ago), since any new owner would probably object to the bulldozers and wrecking balls that Shell plans to bring in just as soon as the refinery's doors have closed. (‘FTCR uncovered a timetable showing decommissioning and demolition are set to begin immediately after the refinery's shut down date.’)" <a href="http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=114-04062004)">releases.usnewswire.com/G...-04062004)</a> “ Shell will, by the way, continue to operate its Martinez, California refinery -- for now at least. The Martinez facility is also wildly profitable, showing a "net profit of $34 million in May." That tidy profit was, as it turns out, "just shy of Shell's profit expectations at Martinez for all of 2004." Strangely enough, the Martinez facility, like the one in Bakersfield, "cut crude processing in July, by nearly 10%, a reduction attributed to planned heavy maintenance." “ On July 8, the LA Times, armed with yet more internal company documents and an unnamed company whistleblower, revisited the story of the Bakersfield refinery. As of July 1, it was discovered, Shell had "reduced crude oil processing at the refinery to levels 19% below capacity" -- more than triple the unexplained reduction that had been planned for the facility.” (Elizabeth Douglas "FTC Probing Shell's Plan to Shut Refinery," Los Angeles Times, July 8, 2004) “ According to both company documents and the unnamed employee, "there were no problems with the plant's equipment," and no other explanation was offered for the radical reduction in processing -- undoubtedly because there is no legitimate reason for the decreased output. So obvious is the company's intent to artificially tighten gasoline and diesel supplies that the FTC was obliged, for the sake of appearances, to step in and pretend to launch an investigation. Shell's response to the investigation has been to delay the closing of the refinery for a few months…” “ In completely unrelated news, a July 31 LA Times report announced that "profit at ChevronTexaco Corp. more than doubled during the second quarter ... echo[ing] the strong quarterly results reported by other major U.S. oil refiners this week." ChevronTexaco's profit jumped from $1.6 billion to $4.1 billion. Not too shabby. Three days later, the Times reported that Unocal's earnings for that same quarter had nearly doubled, from $177 million to $341 million. (Debora Vrana "Chevron Profit Soars," Los Angeles Times, July 31, 2004, and Julie Tamaki "Unocal's Earnings Nearly Double," Los Angeles Times, August 3, 2004) “ Nobody should conclude from any of this, of course, that inflated fuel prices are attributable to rampant greed and the quest for obscene profits. No, clearly rising fuel prices are a sign of 'Peak Oil.' …” The ‘73 oil "shortages" were secretly planned by the highest levels of the US and British elites, with Henry Kissinger playing a key role. It’s not about the corruption of individual companies or industries. They always serve the higher purpose - the continuation of the system to its stated goal of a one-world (capitalist) government. As author Mike Davis writes in Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famines and the Making of the Third World: “Despite the pervasive ideology that markets function spontaneously (and, as a result, ‘in capitalism, there is nobody on whom one can pin guilt or responsibility, things just happened that way, through anonymous mechanisms’), they in fact have inextricable political histories.” McGowan: ‘…'Resource Denial Theory.' It's a sub-section of Geopolitical Theory, so beloved of the Bushite and Zbigniew Brzezinski crowds, and states you must take control of areas where strategic resources are located - like oil - and prevent rivals from entering. Your power derives from the control of these resources.’ In other words, it's not about seizing the resources that we need to survive; it's about denying our 'enemies' the resources that they need to survive…” The End of Suburbia movie, websites dieoff.com, and books like Power Down are part of the same “fear-control” mechanism - now the threat is our suburban lifestyle and over-breeding third-worlders. Behind it, they are pushing for another radical depopulation of the 3rd world, the “balkanization” of America, the wholesale downsizing of the aspirations of the US working-class, the death of the “middle-class dream”, the ghetto-ization of entire lower middle-class neighborhoods, and the purposeful neglect of state and national government to provide for the needs of the masses of people. Solutions? Wake up to the abject failure of the modern US left to fulfill it’s historical and moral duty to represent a genuine opposition and credible alternative. The first step for “activists” should be to listen to the few remaining voices talking about the lessons of the ‘30’s – the last time this country has seen a truly revolutionary mass-movement that actually threatened the power structure as a whole. Pragmatically, we can reject the dominance of energy decentralization schemes, and widen our focus from small-scale, localized solutions. Don’t play into the “downsizing” of working-class people’s lives. We can become active around citizen control of power, and call for increased involvement in the energy public policy sphere, starting with populist lobbying/agitation for public power, specifically for MUD’s (municipal utility districts) and RE-regulation – all essentially political solutions. Btw, another seemingly “extreme” proposal made in The Limits to Growth was a call to “Shift [developed] economies from production of goods to provision of services”. And this is what we have today. The Limits to Growth calls for “stabilization of the world’s population”. The “stabilization” of which population? White people are not giving birth at a high rate. Since the turn of the century the global elites have used “stabilization” as code for the large-scale depopulation of colonial/3rd world regions – fundamentally necessary under their plan for a (capitalist) one world government. Someone said (paraphrasing): “saying peak oil is eugenics is like saying that the Irish Potato Famine was eugenics”. Hello! It was. “Millions must die” said Lord Lytton, England’s viceroy to India during the period of the “late-Victorian holocausts” (1876-1900), referring to the victims of the purposefully created famines in that country. Between 31.7 - 60.3 million people from Ireland, India, China, Africa, and Brazil, were, as Mike Davis writes, “murdered by the theological application of the sacred principles of Smith, Bentham, and Mill.” The common white western perception of over-breeding 3rd-worlders ignores the primary economic dimension of birth rates – creating the need for larger families – and the key role of economic exploitation in forming and continuing those conditions of poverty. Birth rates naturally moderate given stable economic conditions. cont...

by **proldic** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:22 pm

HTML Comments are not allowed

by **proldic** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:24 pm

cont. from pt 2 Quoting from Australian writer/activist Reihana Mohideen: “…(the) central assumption of the carrying capacity thesis is that a given population should obtain most or all of its food and natural resources from its local environment by ecologically sustainable methods…” “ This notion is archaic even so far as national economies are concerned, and is still more so when the vast, interdependent world economy is considered. No human population, except for a few isolated indigenous tribes, depends entirely on its local environment to meet all its needs. A range of commodities are universally traded. It may make good economic sense to attempt to meet most basic food needs from local sources -- thus assuring uninterrupted supply, lower transportation costs and so forth. But failure to do so does not prove that a region or country is overpopulated. Japan is an obvious example of an advanced economy relying heavily on world markets to meet its food and resource needs…” “ While the assumption that poverty is a product of overpopulation may hold sway in popular consciousness, and is actively peddled by the governments of the Western capitalist nations, there is plenty of evidence to show otherwise. Cuba, which leads the Third World in life expectancy, low infant mortality rates and good nutrition, has a population density similar to Mexico's, where acute poverty is rampant..” “ Ignoring the social roots of hunger while trying to reduce birth rates almost inevitably leads to more coercive birth control programs… One of the most universally observed social phenomena of modern times is the fact that low birth and death rates are results of urbanisation, adequate nutrition, improved health, education and social services and a higher social status for women, all of which accompany industrialisation. The inability of most Third World countries to achieve such development is a result of the imposition, through colonialism and postwar neo-colonialism, of a pattern of development that treats these countries as sources of cheap labour, natural resources, markets and profits for monopoly corporations of the industrialised countries…” “Putting population at the centre of an analysis of environmental destruction diverts attention from the socioeconomic framework in damage has arisen…The population theory is more than simply wrong. The idea that there are too many people in the world and that it would be good if there were fewer tends to devalue human life. Our world appears to be blighted by a “plague” of people, tolerance ebbs, and we confront one another with the fear and hostility of survivalists…” “ So we have US biologists such as Garrett Hardin counselling against famine relief so that starvation, ‘nature's last and most terrible remedy’, can reduce the population to carrying capacity, and sections of the Earth First movement hailing the AIDS epidemic as a potentially providential population control mechanism….” “ What's holding things up? Vested interests in fossil fuels. The big oil companies, and the governments which back them, prevent adequate resources being allocated for solar energy research. A standard argument against solar energy is that its “commercial efficiency” is low. But the social overheads of acid rain, polluted farms and livestock, poisoned lakes and rivers and productive areas laid waste are not costed into the use of fossil fuels. So it's profitable for companies to continue their destructive practices, which are tacitly backed by governments which impose little or no penalties on the major polluters. Again, the problem is one of social relations, not too many people….” “ The populationists' approach is a dead end for the environmental movement. It won't solve any of our immediate ecological problems in the short term, and it directs attention away from the responsibility of the international system of production for profit as the root cause of rapid population growth, poverty and environmental degradation…” The connection between the Club of Rome and eugenics is clear. And the debate between ecologists is as old as the hills. Or as old as 1971, when the Club released Limits to Growth. A simple google search brings back tons of connections. The question isn’t ‘is there a connection?’, but ‘is there a connection to PO?’ If you review the entirety of the PO literature, at its core you will find a clear and open call for radical population reduction. Germaine Greer describes the change from talking openly about eugenics to talking about population planning in Sex and Destiny: "It now seems strange that men who had been conspicuous in the eugenics movement were able to move quite painlessly into the population establishment at the highest level, but if we reflect that the paymasters were the same -- Ford, Mellon, Du Pont, Standard Oil, Rockefeller and Shell -- are still the same, we can only assume that people like Kingsley Davis, Frank W. Notestein, C. C. Little, E. A. Ross, the Osborns Frederick and Fairfield, Philip M. Hauser, Alan Guttmacher and Sheldon Segal were being rewarded for past services." On July 6, 1999, in an op-ed entitled The Church of Malthus, the Wall Street Journal wrote: “…they gathered under the auspices of a special session of the United Nations General Assembly to consider how best to get the organization's member governments (especially Uncle Sam) to pony up the cash to keep the message of people reduction alive well into the next millennium. That's not how they put it, of course… In recent years, however, the effort has been tainted by revelations about Big Brother's enthusiasm for the enterprise: forced abortions in China, forced sterilizations in India and so on…the talk about reducing population is couched in terms of individual "freedom" and "choice," the context of these choices is a world where more babies--especially yellow, brown and black babies--is thought to be a scourge that threatens the well-being of everyone…” “ When the World Bank's Robert McNamara raised the issue in a 1977 speech, he hailed population growth as a threat greater than ‘thermonuclear war’ and lamented that decisions about such growth rested with ordinary mothers and fathers rather than being in ‘the exclusive control of a few governments’…” Regarding forced sterilization, researcher Andrew Halliday writes: “During the (‘80’s-‘90’s) Indonesia used forcible sterilization as part of its (Australian backed) campaign of genocide in East Timor…thousands of Timorese women and girls were forcibly sterilized…Indonesia aimed to sterilise 95,000 Timorese women out of a total population of about 600,000 (after 200,000 had already been murdered during the occupation)…” “ This genocide was not only allowed to occur but actually encouraged by international organisations and western countries. The program was funded by the World Bank and US Agency for International Development. To add insult to injury in 1985 the UN-secretary general awarded Suharto the UN Fund For Population Activities prize….” According to Michael Garrity in Trilateralism, edited by Holly Sklar, “ American Indian women are being sterilized unbeknownst to them or against their wishes in public health clinics nationwide…” Garrity also maintains, "Full blooded Indian woman are the special target of the doctors…" Ruthann Evannoff, in Reproductive Rights and Occupational Health, says: "Overall, at least 25 percent of the Native American women of childbearing age have been sterilized, although the total population numbers less than one million. Recent reports estimate that the percentage sterilized in one tribe alone, the Northern Cheyenne, is close to 80 percent…" In Curbstone Press’ Art On the Line, Jorge Sanjines of the Ukamau (film) Group, who had a hand in exposing the CIA’s funding of the Peace Corps sterilization programs, writes: “Imperialism is determined to exterminate us at all costs. At work behind this sinister attitude are its brutal convictions, its belief in our inferiority that, in their eyes, denies us the right to live and morally justifies wiping us off the face of the earth…(they tell) Indians to not eat protein; they sterilize…women by different means, and they disseminate viruses in strategic areas…as happened with a tribe of Aucas Indians in Ecuador…’The fewer who live the fewer who sin’ they tell our women just before sterilizing them…to them we are mice in the ‘storeroom’ that must be eliminated in order to preserve the supplies…In Puerto Rico (imperialism) is responsible for the sterilization of more than 50% of the working women between 20 and 40…” The idea that “Little of it (eugenics) relates to population reduction ---- It's much more about population cleansing, ‘perfecting’ and such” is dead wrong. Population issues are inextricably linked w/ eugenics. It is an old lie used to hide the true purpose behind eugenics – mass die-off of potentially revolutionary populations. In fact, that was exactly the excuse the Nazis used to get the German medical establishment to support political mass murder. cont...

by **proldic** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:27 pm

HTML Comments are not allowed

by **proldic** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:28 pm

cont from pt 3 The Africa 2000 media group sums it up best: “…Henry Kissinger produced, in April 1974, the classified National Security Council Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200), directed to Washington high officialdom, defining a program aimed at population reduction in Third World countries possessing needed raw materials, since growing populations with aspirations for a better standard of living give rise to high prices for such materials. Kissinger named 13 target countries for population control, including Brazil, India, Egypt, Mexico, Ethiopia, Columbia, and others..” “ The Central Intelligence Agency had a population and manpower subcommittee at least as far back as the 1950s…Over the past 40 years, hundreds of reports have been prepared by the Defense Department, the Department of State, the CIA and others about population control and U.S. national security. Many of them remain partially or entirely classified…” “Similarly a study done in 1988 for the Pentagon calls upon high-level security planners to ensure that "population planning" is given the status of weapons development …”(see "Global Demographic Trends to the Year 2010: Implications for U.S. Security" in The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1989). “ And a 1991 report to the U.S. Army Conference on Long- Range Planning warns that current population trends -- extremely low fertility in developed countries and rapid growth in the southern hemisphere -- raise serious concerns about ‘the international political order and the balance of world power’...The document -- reprinted in Foreign Affairs, Summer 1991 as ‘Population Change and National Security’ -- says that these changes ‘could create an international environment even more menacing to the security prospects of the Western alliance than was the Cold War for the past generation.’ Military and intelligence assessments such as these do not change the importance of NSSM 200, however, but merely update its message to address current concerns…” “What people need to hear loud and clear is we’re running out of energy in America.” - President Bush "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill ... All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." — Alexander King, Bertrand Schneider - founder and secretary, respectively, of the Club of Rome - The First Global Revolution, 1991 "Germany should resist Green pressure to give up nuclear power at precisely the moment it needs more energy, as oil peaks and declines.” - Colin Campbell “Hidden in this warning about a hypothetical breakdown in global over-consumption was an urge to mobilize Western opinion against a real political spectre. People in the Third World were struggling to escape from poverty. They no longer wanted to be part of a world order where Western European and North American corporations gobbled up their natural resources and exploited their labour. That was the threat. The challenge from the oppressed nations was transformed into a myth of destruction.” from ‘The Stockholm Conference’ - Mikael Nyberg at:<a href="http://www.mikaelnyberg.nu/english/greut_05.html">www.mikaelnyberg.nu/engli...ut_05.html</a> Salter: “ cheney energy advisor simmons and other 'peak oil' advocates say we need a new international agency to audit oil producers and set malthusian limits on oil production and consumption. sounds like a replacement for OPEC doesn't it. …and who would provide the reference info for such oil audits? don't know yet, but it turns out that a near monopoly of world petroleum survey and database services is held by western / geco (formed in 1999), which is owned by a holding company run by baron friedrich thyssen-bornemisza, the grand-nephew of the guy who wrote, "i paid hitler…" “ FTW coverage has been promoting the report prepared by global businessnetwork for the DoD that was "leaked" earlier this year, which predicts worldwide 'peak oil' energy catastrophe within 20 years in addition to predictions of severe climate shifts in the same timeframe. GBN was founded by veterans of SRI as well as royal dutch shell's "scenario planning" project which goes back to the 70s. turns out that royal dutch shell execs helped lead the bilderberger meeting at saltsjoebaden, sweden in 1973 which planned the fake "oil shock" of 73-74. their "scenario planning" division led by gurdjieff disciple pierre wack is, humorously, credited with being the only think tank which "predicted" this oil shock!” <a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.11/gbn_pr.html">www.wired.com/wired/archi...bn_pr.html</a> ”…the 73 fake oil shock saved shell's north sea investments. i'd imagine that the 2004 oil shock might wind up helping the new shell-led sakhalin consortium in some way. but i guess it won't end up helping that super-profitable refinery in california that shell has decided to shut down…” cont...

by **proldic** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:30 pm

HTML Comments are not allowed

by **proldic** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:34 pm

cont... an example of colin campbell's circles: > The Pio Manzu International Research Centre, which is a consultative > organ of the United Nations and UNIDO, is holding a conference in > Rimini in Italy on October 18th - 20th, entitled "The Economics of the > Noble Path, Fraternal Rights, the Convivial Society, Fair Shares for > All" > > The Scientific Committee has Henry Kissinger as Honorary President and > Mr Gorbachev as President. > It states its objective as "Research and activity aimed at promoting > the development of an interdisciplinary culture, safeguarding the > dignity of humanity, and encouraging co-operation among the > geopolitical areas of the world" > > C.J.Campbell of ASPO has been invited to participate in Workshop 3 > under the chairmanship of Al Gore to address the subject: "Water or > Oil : the Assets of Living Nature are not up for Sale" <a href="http://www.cge.uevora.pt/energia/Newsletter29.doc">www.cge.uevora.pt/energia...tter29.doc</a> Saudi Oil Is Plentiful Tim Kennedy, Arab News <a href="http://www.arabnews.com/?page=6§ion=0&article=44011&d=29&m=4&y=2004">www.arabnews.com/?page=6&...m=4&y=2004</a> “…They have always created ‘shortage scares’ to get the price up. What I objected to about Mike Ruppert's presentation (Commonwealth Club speech 8/31/04) was [how] he says there are NO viable alternative energy routes and we are all doomed. He says oil peaking is the driving force behind 9/11 and all the wars abroad. And more recently he has been saying there is only one solution, population reduction!!! He says ‘we either do it nasty or nice’ and then starts quoting Francis Galton, one of the early eugenicists and racists….” – John Judge n.b.: Colin Campbell refuses to debate highly respected academic Michael Lynch (<a href="http://www.energyseer.com/NewPessimism.pdf">www.energyseer.com/NewPessimism.pdf</a> )on the subject of PO and remaining reserves, supposedly simply because Lynch called him a “neo-malthusian” in an interview. Ok.. “...progressives [should fight] what is true ‘irrational’ thinking: the arrogant idea that science is somehow ‘pure’, and it ALWAYS trumps polis....reflecting the mindset of the Garret Hardins and the Edward Tellers.…that’s the mindset that brought us lobotomy, atomic testing, Tuskeegee, MK Ultra, Auschwitz…..” – friend

by **chiggerbit** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:42 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>any idea how dead these ensless fields of corn and soybeans here in iowa are now, without petro-chemical fertilizers?<hr></blockquote> Yep, Iowa soil is dead, resembles nothing more than a hydoponic medium. It is offensive that so many subsidies are being given to turn a food product into fuel (gasohol)to be wasted by unconcerned consumers. Some interesting population statistics here: <a href="http://www.overpopulation.org/faq.html">www.overpopulation.org/faq.html</a> <a href="http://www.overpopulation.org/paul.html#allfitintexas">www.overpopulation.org/pa...fitintexas</a> BTW, if we think peak oil is going to be a problem, imagine "peak water".

by **Connut** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 3:19 pm

There is a lot of good stuff out there, not to mention solar, wind and water. Some guy last year reported in a scientific journal his invention of turning garbage into oil - any garbage! Now what a deal is that?! <a href="http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2004/Changing-World-Technologies4apr04.htm">www.mindfully.org/Energy/...4apr04.htm</a> Then we have untapped orgone energy, so keep your eye on Don Croft and his Joe Cell. <a href="http://educate-yourself.org/dc/orgonegenindex.shtml">educate-yourself.org/dc/o...ndex.shtml</a> Plus, Whitley Streiber's journal for July is a fascinating report on intelligent life in the Universe and why we are asleep. <a href="http://www.unknowncountry.com/">www.unknowncountry.com/</a> In the X-files post, probably the one true thing was the reptile/aliens - because we are least likely to believe it. Anyway, keep those chins up, this world we make up needs to be a rich production of love, laughter, and empathetic tears with hot sex and cool thinking thrown in for good measure. Cheers, peace and joy, Connut

by **Connut** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 3:22 pm

There is a lot of good stuff out there, not to mention solar, wind and water. Some guy last year reported in a scientific journal his invention of turning garbage into oil - any garbage! Now what a deal is that?! <a href="http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2004/Changing-World-Technologies4apr04.htm">www.mindfully.org/Energy/...4apr04.htm</a> Then we have untapped orgone energy, so keep your eye on Don Croft and his Joe Cell. <a href="http://educate-yourself.org/dc/orgonegenindex.shtml">educate-yourself.org/dc/o...ndex.shtml</a> Plus, Whitley Streiber's journal for July is a fascinating report on intelligent life in the Universe and why we are asleep. <a href="http://www.unknowncountry.com/">www.unknowncountry.com/</a> In the X-files post, probably the one true thing was the reptile/aliens - because we are least likely to believe it. Anyway, keep those chins up, this world we make up needs to be a rich production of love, laughter, and empathetic tears with hot sex and cool thinking thrown in for good measure. Cheers, peace and joy, Connut P.S. It's never a good idea to live too far into the future - this moment is really the only one we have and we can't hold on to it either ...

by **Dreams End** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 3:27 pm

Thank you, proldic for an excellent and ad hominem free post. Indeed, for people on this site to embrace so easily the word of the petroleum industry in terms of oil supply while we all worry about Rockefeller conspiracies is the height of irony. The example of the 70's oil shock is an excellent example and I didn't know it's hidden history. I suppose there was some "consensus" then in the oil industry. McGowan is an excellent writer, but I think that this thread, if it lives at all, would best be served by separating abiotic theories into a different thread. Much of his arguments are not weakened even if abiotic origins of oil turns out to be spurious (not saying it is, but it's too hard to examine both in one thread.) Perhaps proldic will excerpt that material and give it its own home. However, the irony of accepting the projections of an industry that is so powerful and has been at the heart of so much that is wrong in the world and also STANDS TO BENEFIT from a perception of oil shortages is incredible. One last thing...this is a very divisive issue on this forum. So far, it seems all of us can debate on one topic and be together in our more general quest for "truth"...I certainly hope and expect that to continue...I value this amazing group!

Peak Oil

learn to repair bicycles

Peak Oil

Part 1

Part 2

part 2

Part 3

part 3

Part 4

part 4

Part 5

Part 5

AnnaLivia

And the Upside Is ...

And the Upside Is ...

We trust rockefeller

Who is online