911-strike.com     A wakeup call for non-violent political action

New Blog!  www.crookedshepherds.wordpress.com 

New pentagon overflight evidence: www.thepentacon.com 

The Five Sided Fantasy Island -- an analysis of the Pentagon explosion

Rebutting "Pentagon 9/11 Getting the Facts Straight"

Eyewitnesses and the Plane-Bomb Theory

Home
Up
Ruppert response

Solar power
Peak Oil
Robotics
Space

 
 

"Peak Oil"??  Don't buy into the hype!   Jerry Russell 3/12/04

Yes, there's some truth to it.  As time goes by, oil and natural gas are going to get harder and harder to find, and they're going to get more expensive.  But "Chicken Little" is paranoid and delusional, and the sky is not falling any time soon.  Figures indicating that production is going to peak in 2004 or 2007, or that it may have peaked already, are based on incomplete evidence and bad science.

Oil is not made of dinosaurs & old lettuce.  The origins of oil are abiotic.  Other planets in the Solar System, like Saturn and Jupiter, contain significant amounts of methane.  Many near-earth asteroids also contain large proportions of carbon.  Just like the rest of our solar system, the primordial matter of Earth itself also undoubtedly contains a significant percentage of carbon -- and petroleum can be formed only in conditions of very high temperature and pressure deep within the earth.

Thus, the availability of oil is ultimately limited by our skills in exploration and drilling, and there are no fundamental limits posed by the number of dinosaurs that lived a hundred million years ago.

There may well be plenty of oil to make Global Warming a reality and make the earth into an overheated, living hell.  Or for that matter, to disrupt the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Current, and trigger the next Ice Age.  We are playing with forces we don't understand, but not only with fire!

"Peak Oil" is being used to push environmentally destructive drilling of American wilderness preserves.  Don't let an artificially created panic shortage, become the instrument for the destruction of the heritage that past environmentalists have been able to save.

Solar and Wind Energy are Viable Alternatives

Giant wind turbines have already made a massive contribution to Europe's energy independence.  Wind energy costs can be as low as three cents a kilowatt hour -- that's a bit cheaper than natural gas, oil or nuclear power plants.

Huge strides are being made in solar photovoltaic research.  Bulky, expensive crystalline silicon cells will soon be obsolete.  The future belongs to artificial photosynthesis technology, based in thin-film plastics and built with nanotechnology.  This is not science fiction, it is a Venture Capital Reality.  The European semiconductor giant ST Microelectronics is aggressively pursuing this technology, and in Silicon Valley, the founders of Google are major funding partners of Nanosolar.  When these new solar panels are available on the market, solar power will be cheaper than coal.

Electricity on the grid can't be used to power automobiles directly, but it can be used to make hydrogen, and hydrogen can easily be stored as lithium hydride, and burned directly in internal-combustion engines.  Critics of the hydrogen technology complain about expensive cryogenic storage, and unreliable fuel-cell technology -- but they don't tell you about these simple alternatives that work.

Unless this technology can be suppressed by the entrenched elitist oil interests of Skull & Bones and the CIA, the "Fossil Fuel" industry will soon live up to its name -- it will be extinct.

The War in Iraq is not about preserving the American Way of Life in an age of scarcity, and the crimes of September 11 (if indeed it was an "inside job") will not in any way contribute to maintaining a high standard of living for the American people.  Americans are not silent benefactors or partners in the theft of Iraqi oil.  The only beneficiaries are the likes of Halliburton, Dynergy, Carlysle Group and the family fortunes of the Bushes, Cheneys and Bin Ladens.

Mike Ruppert's $1000 bet

Investigator Mike Ruppert of www.fromthewilderness.com recently posted the following challenge to the 911 truth alliance mailing list:

I will give $1,000 cash money to anyone who can show me one oil field that is today producing oil from abiotic sources. Thomas Gold's 1980s nonsense discovery in the Gulf of Mexico is today a dry hole. He is laughed at by everyone in the industry, not the financiers, but the geologists (both private and from universities) and the actual drillers.

All that happened in the 1980s was that oil which had been pushed into interstitial spaces by secondary recovery (steam injection) slowly seeped back into the vacuum left by pumping. The well went dry in a few years. This is a common occurrence for anyone who's worked in the industry. Thomas Gold was an astronomer who foolishly decided to leave

[....]

I will hold claimants to the same scientific standards of proof that FTW has used for three years. And, as part of that bet, I will demand that each claimant pay me $50 for my time when I prove them wrong. That's 20 to 1 odds. Just throwing a bs article at me won't qualify. You have to show me a hard scientific paper from a university or a producing well where it has been demonstrated that the oil is abiotic and that reserve are refilling.

[....]

So put you money where your mouth is.

Any takers?

Mike Ruppert

I have accepted Ruppert's challenge, and provided him with the following information:

Abiotic oil is being produced today from the Dnieper-Donets Basin in Russia, according to this article

The Exploration and Development of the Twelve Major and one Giant Oil and Gas Fields on the Northern Flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin. V. A. Krayushkin, T. I. Tchebanenko, V. P. Klochko, Ye. S. Dvoyanin, J. F. Kenney, (2001), Energia, 22/3, 44-47.

The article is available on the Web at http://www.gasresources.net/DDBflds2.htm. 

I don't know much about the journal Energia, but I believe it is the one published by the University of Twente in the Netherlands ( http://www.sms.utwente.nl/energia/home.html ; not available without a subscription.)

JF Kenney (the senior author of the Energia paper) has made a major theoretical contribution to what he calls "The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins" with his discovery that petroleum can be synthesized from iron, calcium carbonate and water at conditions of temperature and pressure similar to those found in the earth's mantle. His experiment is discussed in this paper from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

The Evolution of Multicomponent Systems at High Pressures VI. The Thermodynamic Stability of the Hydrogen-Carbon System The Genesis of Hydrocarbons and the Origin of Petroleum.  J. F. Kenney, V. G. Kutcherov, N. A. Bendeliani, V. A. Alekseev, (2002), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A.), 99/17, 10976-10981.

Again, this article is available on the Web at http://www.gasresources.net/AlkaneGenesis.htm . As you may be aware, the PNAS is not (strictly speaking) a peer-reviewed academic journal, but submissions must be recommended and endorsed by a member of the very prestigious National Academy of Sciences.

A very interesting analysis of the pros and cons of the abiotic theory may be found at the Association of American Petroleum Geologists website

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.html 

In this article, research geochemist Michael Lewan is quoted as one of the most knowledgeable advocates of the opposing theory, that petroleum is a "fossil fuel". Yet even Lewan admits "I don't think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic source of hydrocarbons. The key question is, 'Do they exist in commercial quantities?'"

The AAPG article also mentions a letter published in Nature, April 2002, "Abiogenic formation of alkanes in the Earth's crust as a minor source for global hydrocarbon reservoirs" which discusses evidence that methane gas from the Kidd Creek Mine in Ontario is of abiogenic origin.

The AAPG is organizing a conference in Vienna this July 11-14, 2004, Origin of Petroleum -- Biogenic and/or Abiogenic and Its Significance in Hydrocarbon Exploration and Productions

http://www.aapg.org/education/hedberg/vienna/index.html 

The call for papers states

"For half a century, scientists from the former Soviet Union (FSU) have recognized that the petroleum produced from fields in the FSU have been generated by abiogenic processes. This is not a new concept, being first reported in 1951. The Russians have used this concept as an exploration strategy and have successfully discovered petroleum fields of which a number of these fields produce either partly and entirely from crystalline basement."

Note that the organizers of the conference include Michel Halbouty, recipient of a "Legendary Geoscientist" award http://www.agiweb.org/news/spot_01mar02_Halbouty.html  as well as Ernest Mancini of the University of Alabama, and the cornucopian author Peter Odell of Erasmus University. Evidently they are taking the abiogenic theory seriously, at least to the extent of organizing this conference.

Ruppert modus operandi

Ruppert's energy editor, Dale Pfeiffer,  promptly posted my information to the EnergyResources Yahoo group, moderated by Tom Robertson.  This was a breach of etiquette in terms of the policies of the 911truthalliance mailing list (moderated by Lori Price of CLG), and when I complained to the list about this, I received the following response from Mike Ruppert:

Listen, let's take the passive-aggressive gloves off here you asshole.

You have already lost the bet and I have more than enough information to
prove you wrong. What I haven't done yet is write it up or finish
reading the Russian piece thoroughly to see if I can learn something.

So Mike is admitting that he hasn't even finished "reading the Russian piece thoroughly" but he's already sure I'm an "asshole".  Well, I would be the first to admit that I have absolutely no qualifications as a petroleum geologist, and if I'm wrong, I'm out fifty bucks and a little embarrassment among friends.  If Ruppert is wrong, he's taking part in a massive disinformation campaign, under the auspices of KPFK Radio of Los Angeles.

But I am not expecting that collecting on this bet is going to be easy.  As you can see from the following post by Ron Anicich, Ruppert does not react well to criticism:

http://www3.sympatico.ca/ron666/ruppert.html
Over a month later my CKLN colleague Greg Duffell, with whom I have spent many months exploring the many facets of Vreeland's claims, posed the following questions to Ruppert on the same Yahoo discussion forum:

Mr. Ruppert,

I just wish you'd answer my oft-repeated question to you as to whether you discussed your interview with us at CKLN on May 16th with Mr. Vreeland and if you, as he claims, advised him not to do an interview with us scheduled for May 19th. I've asked several times on this forum. Perhaps you haven't seen it.

I'd also like to get clarification about the "Allan Greenspan" wine story, but you seem to avoid any real commentary about that.

I'd appreciate a response to either or both.

Sincerely,
Greg Duffell

What happened next was truly bewildering. Ruppert sent the following reply:

It is futile to try to explain algebra to an impaired third grader. As far as covert operations go, you are in this class. It was either you or your partner who asked me one of the stupidest questions I have ever heard. At that point you became persona non grata to me because you had demonstrated not the slightest degree of humility, manners, or willingness to learn. You just assumed that you knew everything - about everything.

Your worst problem is that you assume great experience and understanding when you are dangerously naïve. Your most accurate statement in one of your postings was that you were an amateur. I heartily agree.

As to the wine statement there is nothing to explain. Vreeland was disoriented, in obvious pain and I recorded his statements over a hotel phone in Sacramento. When I made the posting I said that I had no way to verify what I had heard. Then I found out - thanks to this list - that Vreeland's attorney Rocco Galati had indeed been poisoned and that it had been reported in a Canadian paper.

I met with Galati in person on my last visit to Toronto and we discussed the poisoning among other issues. I have agreed not to make any further disclosures on the subject until after an upcoming court date where much more will be disclosed.

Your bad manners, your inept arrogance and your bellicose private threats to me off this list are ample evidence of how you should be treated. There are times when a child should not be allowed to interfere in matters of life and death, especially when the child doesn't have the common sense possessed by an artichoke.

That is the last response you will get out of me. Now enjoy your ensuing tantrum. But trust me, as far as Mike Vreeland is concerned, you will have your comeuppance soon enough. And it won't be coming from me.

Have a nice day!

Mike Ruppert

This response speaks volumes about Ruppert. This collection of holier-than-thou unsupported accusations, childish insults and self-righteousness sums up his attitude toward being questioned perfectly. Even when the questions are quite inoffensive and reasonable.

It is also interesting to note that Ruppert admits to making the assertion that Rocco Galati had been poisoned before receiving any confirmation of the fact whatsoever. Even stranger when you consider that Galati was a phone call away the entire time.

Anicich sums up his report thusly:

As I have illustrated clearly here, Ruppert's reporting of the Vreeland story is misleading and inaccurate on many occasions. The innuendo which makes up the bulk of his reporting of this story, while he simultaneously claims to be a "professional journalist," is unconvincing. As far as journalistic standards are concerned, Ruppert rarely rises to the level of the Weekly World News. I am quite concerned about Rupppert's acceptance by people who consider themselves to be progressive for this reason. Many on the left now seem quite willing to lend an ear to a reporter who more closely resembles PT Barnum than a credible journalist.

While Ruppert asks questions that will not likely be answered any time soon and may not even be valid, we run the risk of loosing sight of the true post-9/11 tragedy, the undisputed curtailing of our basic freedoms in the name of a supposed war on terror.

UPDATE 3/14/04: EnergyResources Yahoo Group

Dale Pfeiffer posted my $1000 challenge to Energy Resources, at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/messages/52582

Jean Laherrere responded at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/messages/52655

Unfortunately the bulk of his reply was in an attachment, and as far as I can tell, the contents are not available through the Yahoo system.

Further responses from Dale Pfeiffer may be found at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/messages/52689

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/messages/52693

I made a post to Energy Resources at message 53542, which was simply a link back to this page.  Pfeiffer's replies appear at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/messages/53561

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/messages/53562

At message 53562, Pfeiffer apparently re-posts the information that may have been originally contained in Laherrere's attachment (also mirrored here).  The information seems to be largely based on USGS figures, which the "dissident" petroleum geologists are readily willing to dismiss when it suits their purposes.  Furthermore, with all due respect to Dr. Laherrere, the material has not been published in peer-reviewed journals for the most part.

As you will see if you page through the energyresources links, Pfeiffer has apparently been taking debating style tips from Mike Ruppert.

Dave McGowan of Center for an Informed America also received Ruppert's $1000 debate challenge! See his response at:

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr52.html

UPDATE 3/15/04:  A reply from Ruppert has arrived. Serving as judge, jury and executioner, Mike Ruppert has denied my $1000 claim.  No surprise about that. His reply is posted here:

 http://www.911-strike.com/ruppert-denial.htm

Nothing in Ruppert's reply has changed my mind in the slightest.  I say that Ruppert owes me $1000.

Stay tuned as I try to collect!