Peak Oil debate...resolved?

[donk]

With the passing of Mike Ruppert, I am reminded of the issue that got me over the hump, off the fence, down the rabbit hole (whatever you want to call the transition from the mundane, physical 3D, atheist mentality I’ve had most my life): PEAK OIL

One poster in the tribute thread mentioned he was “on the wrong end of the peak oil debate”…so now I’m curious: what is the “right end” of the peak oil debate?

My personal belief was that we find ourselves in a civilization dependent on affordable-usable-energy-to-the-lower-and-middle-classes-based civilization, which is currently built on the paradigm that petrochemical and carbon based sources (oil, NG, coal) are necessary to continue with the status quo/BAU (business as usual, as he liked to call it).

I believe there is a finite amount of the resources this paradigm is based on. I also believe that technology is way obsolete, though this is by design, and keeping this fact a secret (and even “conspiracy”) continues the BAU that our controllers—those who make the decisions that determine what the “energy industry” is doing—desire and seem to exist for (them and the way of life they have created for us).

My understanding of the “peak oil debate” is that we have reached (passed, actually) the point where it costs a barrel of oil to extract one, that the return on the investment of energy from “fossil-fuel” based technology is negative. Also, my understanding came from studying such things about a half decade or so ago, when the claim was that hit that point around aught-four or five, which is around the time people stopped believing gas was going to go back down as it was supposed to be as cyclical as the rest of the commodities and investments in our faith-based economy, and it seemed that resource scarcity was no longer THE thing to be concerned about (at least from where I was at the time).

I have come to the conclusion that the faith-based economy can be molded into whatever the creators of it want, as long as there were believers, and there are plenty—so I feel the can be kicked much much further down the road than I used to believe. My economics degree and subsequent lead to the belief that social collapse was inevitable, this was proven to be contrived as the decade progressed and all that really had to be done was the constant changing of inconvenient rules and covering of the violations of the larger ones. It seemed to me that the magnitude and quantity of these rule changes and cover ups made “peak oil debates” obsolete and irrelevant.

I am convinced that “free energy” technology will be “discovered” (and metered/controlled) just as soon as the can kicking becomes more unmanageable than it is now, and maybe between now and then some new crisis will be invented…however—I do believe that crisis was real, within the confines of the system that it was created in—which most of us here agree is just reality show or game within the bigger picture.

But I’m curious, where does the debate stand today? The “facts” were all wrong back then? Petrochemicals are limitless, we will never achieve net loss on EROI of oil?

[araucaria]

Peak oil fits in with the scarcity paradigm. Some oilfields have dried up, while others, I gather, seem to keep on giving beyond expectations. And of course new supplies are being found in places like Greece. So we get squeezed both ways – price hikes because of the scarcity and no escape to alternative fuels because there is still more oil to be sold.

We don't really know what oil actually is. What if it was some kind of Gaian blood supply that is somehow replenished? There is a limit to the number of blood donations you can make because of the need for replenishment, just as you can log a forest or fish a sea only up to a point if you want to keep the forest or the fish supply. We may be getting more oil than anticipated, but we may be doing much more damage than we thought we were doing just by emptying areas underground, which itself is probably not as harmless as we think.

I don’t think there is a right and a wrong side to this debate. We should have been way past this discussion by now. The trouble is of course that free energy is something that would be a total disaster unless we get the psychopaths down to a manageable level. As the late Brian O’Leary used to say, we can’t have Dick Cheney running this show.

[donk]

I agree completely, however, it was "a thing"...it occasionally even came up in the mainstream, and I was wondering if it still did. A decade ago the data pointed toward "peak oil" being projected to have happened about 2004-2005. There was disinfo and stigma attached to the idea, which the purists fought to make clear that it wasn't "running out of oil", rather it was the point it took more energy than it produced. I stopped paying attention long ago, and was wondering I guess if peak oil is even still "a thing" to most people (for lack of better word), or if the game has been changed so much it's not even "part of the rules"...not even on the radar?

[sirdipswitch]

No peak oil. Big oil, formed OPEC, as a means to control prices. They then turned off U.S. oil, to make us dependent on foreign oil. Back in the day, early 80's, I was a bit more pro-active than today, I met with a Canadian Geologist, that had come up with a "new" theory. He surmized that oil, cooking over millions of years underground, would more than likely, Burp. Yep, burp. He bought a dead well. Dry well. He then drilled it "deeper". The deepest in history, and found 100 times more oil than was in the burp, that it took 20 years to pump dry. I talked with him after he had re-drilled many, with the very same results.

But, he did so just "prior" to big oil, finally making their move. They started shuting down U.S. and Canadian oil. yep. They started turning off oil wells all over both countries. I met with ranchers from, Montana, N&S Dakota, Wyoming, and Colorado, who said one day the oil comanies just came in and started turning everything off, and some were even brand new wells. They left one well pumping on each ranch. They then went in and covered them all with dirt and grass, and today you can go out there and not find a trace of an oil well, when there used to be thousands of them out there pumping merrily away. And suddenly we were dependent on foreign oil. That's why gas prices went from 30 cents a gallon, to $4.00 per gallon. Not peak oil.

I remember also in "71", I bought a new Datsun. Yep me, I had fell in love with those cute little critters, while in Thailand. They were small, fun to drive, and got 35 miles per gallon, and not the 10 or 12 I grew up with. The Big three auto manufacturers were goin nuts, sayin all these little cars would "flood" our market, and there was really no need to "worry" over running out of "oil", cuz we; "Have enough in the ground, for the next 500 years "!!!! Then just as suddenly they joined forces with those Little car makers, and 5 years latter, through a bunch more double-speak, we were "out of oil"!! huh??? What happened to that 500 years worth???

Yep, I been in this ol wabbit hole for very long time. ccc.

[araucaria]

Weren't people saying that the Iraqi war(s) was/were about the US getting its hand on Iraqi oil - to take it off the market?

[donk]

So do you think there was focused, coordinated "psyop" to bring the meme of peak oil into the finance industry, where the "data" flooding the media and contradictory beliefs about manipulated the markets to the controllers desires, or was it created as a "fact" to those highest level players in the industry, who actually believed it--and in that case the controllers benefit from the "chaos" and "unknowns" it created?

It's such a big game that it seems that most would have actually believe in it in order for it to exist, if I am making any sense?

[Rocky_Shorz]

truthfully I have looked back far enough through those in Power to understand Oil was forced on the modern world, to get us hooked so we would accept wars to keep our oil junky habbits going... Religious wars were no longer something the modern world cared about...

wars for oil turned into a religious battle, which perpetuated the pain we are still going through today...

I'm ready to unplug my IV, and go 99% pure on my addiction...

when everyone is ready to turn away from oil and continue what Tesla started, the wars will end...

[donk]

Weren't people saying that the Iraqi war(s) was/were about the US getting its hand on Iraqi oil - to take it off the market?

I'm pretty sure the oil being stolen there by US interests (aka global oil companies) are STILL unmetered, as they definitely were through and immediately after that "war".

Also a more logical assumption would be it a myriad objectives happening while the main objective is mindf*cking the consumers of the "news". This would include the implied threat to the (petro) dollar that saddam was moving to euros, maybe the secret tech and archeological knowledge looted from the birthplace of western civilization, and perhaps even good old fashioned traumatizing humans, not so much for the loot as for the "loosh"?

Who knows, war serves the controllers/originators of it well in a plethora of ways, all they have to do is drop a few (believable or not) reasons into the conversation, and people's emotional attachment to their beliefs takes over...

[NancyV]

Not only is PEAK OIL most likely a myth but there is also a lot of evidence that oil is self renewing. I've read many articles over the years about both scenarios. The article below is from 2005 but still relevant. It talks about the peak oil myth and touches on self renewing oil. IF oil is self renewing then we would never run out of it. The controllers are not only handing us the peak oil myth to manipulate prices, control populations, have excuses for wars and make a shtload of money, they deliberately repress GOOD clean energy sources while promoting clean energy sources they know are not as viable or effective....just so we will THINK they are in favor of alternative energy.

The Myth Of Peak Oil
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/peak_oil/index.htm

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | October 12 2005

Peak oil is a scam designed to create artificial scarcity and jack up prices while giving the state an excuse to invade our lives and order us to sacrifice our hard-earned living standards.

Publicly available CFR and Club of Rome strategy manuals from 30 years ago say that a global government needs to control the world population through neo-feudalism by creating artificial scarcity. Now that the social architects have de-industrialized the United States, they are going to blame our economic disintegration on lack of energy supplies.

Globalization is all about consolidation. Now that the world economy has become so centralized through the Globalists operations, they are going to continue to consolidate and blame it on the West's "evil" overconsumption of fossil fuels, while at the same time blocking the development and integration of renewable clean technologies.

In other words, Peak oil is a scam to create artificial scarcity and drive prices up. Meanwhile, alternative fuel technologies which have been around for decades are intentionally suppressed.

Peak oil is a theory advanced by the elite, by the oil industry, by the very people that you would think peak oil would harm, unless it was a cover for another agenda. Which from the evidence of artificial scarcity being deliberately created, the reasons for doing so and who benefits, it’s clear that peak oil is a myth and it should be exposed for what it is. Another excuse for the Globalists to seize more control over our lives and sacrifice more American sovereignty in the meantime.

The lies of artificial scarcity

The crux of the issue is that if oil was plentiful in areas in which we are being told by the government and the oil companies that it is not, then we have clear evidence that artificial scarcity is being simulated in order to drive forward a myriad of other agendas. And we have concrete examples of where this has happened.

Three separate internal confidential memos from Mobil, Chevron and Texaco have been obtained by The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.

These memos outline a deliberate agenda to gouge prices and create artificial scarcity by limiting capacities of and outright closing oil refineries. This was a nationwide lobbying effort led by the American Petroleum Institute to encourage refineries to do this.

An internal Chevron memo states; "A senior energy analyst at the recent API convention warned that if the US petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity it will never see any substantial increase in refinery margins."

The Memos make clear that blockages in refining capacity and opening new refineries did not come from environmental organizations, as the oil industry claimed, but via a deliberate policy of limitation and price gouging at the behest of the oil industry itself.

The mystery of Eugene Island 330 and self-renewing oil supplies

Eugene Island is an oil field in the gulf of Mexico, 80 miles off the coast of Louisiana. It was discovered in 1973 and began producing 15,000 barrels of oil a day which then slowed to about 4,000 barrels in 1989.

But then for no logical reason whatsoever, production spiked back up to 13,000 barrels a day.

What the researchers found when they analyzed the oil field with time lapse 3-D seismic imaging is that there was an unexplained deep fault in the bottom corner of the computer scan, which showed oil gushing in from a previously unknown deep source and migrating up through the rock to replenish the existing supply.

Furthermore, the analysis of the oil now being produced at Eugene Island shows that its age is geologically different from the oil produced there after the refinery first opened. Suggesting strongly that it is now emerging from a different, unexplained source.

The last estimates of probable reserves shot up from 60 million barrels to 400 million barrels.

Both the scientists and geologists from the big oil companies have seen the evidence and admitted that the Eugene Island oil field is refilling itself.

This completely contradicts peak oil theory and with technology improving at an accelerating pace it seems obvious that there are more Eugene Islands out there waiting to be discovered. So the scientific community needs to embrace these possibilities and lobby for funding into finding more of these deep source replenishing oilfields.

The existence of self-renewing oil fields shatters the peak oil myth. If oil is a naturally replenishing inorganic substance then how can it possibly run out?

The future of oil

This year in particular we have seen a strong hike in oil prices and are being told to simply get used to it because this is the way it is going to be. In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita gas prices have shot up amid claims of vast energy shortages. Americans are being asked to turn off lights, change thermostat settings, drive slower, insulate homes and take other steps. Meanwhile the oil companies continue to make record profits.

Flying in the face of the so called peak oil crisis are the facts. If we are running out of oil so quickly then why are reserves being continually increased and production skyrocketing?

In the 1980s OPEC decided to switch to a quota production system based on the size of reserves. The larger the reserves a country said it had the more it could pump.

Earlier this year Saudi Arabia reportedly increased its crude reserves by around 200 billion barrels. Saudi oil Is secure and plentiful, say officials.

“These huge reserves enable the Kingdom to remain a major oil producer for between 70 and 100 years, even if it raises its production capacity to 15 million barrels per day, which may well happen during the next 15 years,”

Is this the normal course of behavior if we are currently at the peak for oil production? The answer is no, it's the normal course of action for increasing production.

There have also been reports that Russia has vastly increased its reserves even beyond those of Saudi Arabia. Why would they do this if they believed there would be no more oil to get hold of? It seems clear that Russia is ready for unlimited future production of oil.

There is a clear contradiction between the peak oil theory and the continual increase in oil reserves and production.

New untapped oil sources are being discovered everywhere on earth. The notion that there are somehow only a few sources that the West is trying to monopolize is a complete myth, promulgated by those raking in the massive profits. After all how do you make huge profits from something available in abundance?

A Wall Street Journal article by Peter Huber and Mark Mills describes how the price of oil remains high because the cost of oil remains so low. We are not dependent on the middle east for oil because the world's supplies are diminishing, it is because it is more profitable to tap middle east supplies. Thus the myth of peak oil is needed in order to silence the call for tapping the planet's other plentiful reserves.

Richard Branson has even stated his intention to set up his own refinery because the price of oil is artificially being kept high whilst new sources are not being explored and new refineries not being built.

"Opec is effectively an illegal cartel that can meet happily, nobody takes them to court," Branson has said. "They collude to keep prices high."

So if more refineries were built and different resources tapped, the oil prices would come down and the illegal cartel OPEC would see profits diminish. It is no wonder then that the argument for peak oil is so appealing to OPEC. If no one invests to build refineries because they don't believe there is enough oil, then who benefits? OPEC and the oil elites of course.

It seems that every time there is some kind of energy crisis, OPEC INCREASES production. The remarkable thing about this is that they always state that they are doing it to ease prices, yet prices always shoot up because they promulgate the myth that they are putting some of their last reserves into the market. Analysts seem confused and always state that they don't believe upping production will cut prices.

In a recent report the International Monetary Fund projected that global demand for oil by 2030 would reach 139 million barrels a day, a 65 percent increase.

"We should expect to live with high and volatile oil prices," said Raghuram Rajan, the IMF's chief economist. "In short, it's going to be a rocky road going forward."

Yet independent analysts and even some within OPEC seem to believe that the demand for oil is diminishing. Why the contradiction?

The peak oil and demand myth is peddled by the establishment-run fake left activist groups, OPEC and globalist arms such as the IMF.

Rolling Stone magazine even carried an article in its April issue heavily biased towards making people believe the peak oil lie.

The Scientific evidence also flies in the face of the peak oil theory. Scientific research dating back over a hundred years, more recently updated in a Scientific Paper Published In 'Energia' suggests that oil is abiotic, not the product of long decayed biological matter. Oil, for better or for worse, is not a non-renewable resource. It, like coal, and natural gas, replenishes from sources within the mantle of earth.

No coincidence then that the Russians, who pioneered this research have pumped expenditure into deep underground oil excavation.

We have previously scientifically exposed the scam behind peak oil. Here is a 1 hour+ audio clip featuring Alex Jones' comments on peak oil and then the analysis of respected scientific commentator Dr. Nick Begich who presents evidence to suggest the idea of Peak oil is artificial.

A dangerous fallout precedent being set is that people on both the left and right believe wars are being fought in order to tap the last reserves of oil on the planet. The "coalition of the willing", whoever they may be for any given war, will not pay particular attention to refuting this claim because it allows them a reason to start and continue said war.

Even though many will see it as immoral, many will subconsciously attach it as a reason for the war. In reality the war is purely for profit, power and control, oil can be a part of that, but only if the peak oil claim is upheld.

If we continue to let the corrupt elite tell us we are wholly dependent on oil, we may reach a twisted situation whereby they can justify starvation and mass global poverty, perhaps even depopulation, even within the western world due to the fact that our energy supplies are finished.

Peak oil is just another weapon the globalists have in their arsenal to move towards a new world order where the elite get richer and everyone else falls into line.

[Milneman]

And on the other end of that spectrum, keeping it academic of course, is this:

http://www.carbontracker.org

The Carbon Tracker Initiative is aiming to improve the transparency of the carbon embedded in equity markets. This will be done by identifying the scale of unburnable carbon currently listed on stock exchanges around the world in order to demonstrate the systemic risk to markets. This forms around 5 central workstreams:

Assessing systemic climate change risk
Challenging valuation assumptions and identifying stranded assets
Accounting for impaired/stranded/sub-prime assets
Investigating the Capital Raising process
Exploring the contradiction between climate policy and markets

Unburnable Carbon – Are the world’s financial markets carrying a carbon bubble?

In March 2012, Carbon Tracker’s seminal report ‘Unburnable Carbon’ was Highly Commended in the City of London’s Sustainability Awards.

This award-winning analysis by Carbon Tracker discovers that:
Already in 2011, the world has used over a third of its 50-year carbon budget of 886GtCO2, leaving 565GtCO2
All of the proven reserves owned by private and public companies and governments are equivalent to 2,795 GtCO2
Fossil fuel reserves owned by the top 100 listed coal and top 100 listed oil and gas companies represent total emissions of 745GtCO2
Only 20% of the total reserves can be burned unabated, leaving up to 80% of assets technically unburnable.

This new research from Carbon Tracker and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at LSE calls for regulators, governments and investors to re-evaluate energy business models against carbon budgets, to prevent $6trillion carbon bubble in the next decade.
Unburnable carbon 2013: Wasted capital and stranded assets has revealed that fossil fuel reserves already far exceed the carbon budget to avoid global warming of 2°C, but in spite of this, spent $674billion last year to find and develop new potentially stranded assets.
“Smart investors can see that investing in companies that rely solely or heavily on constantly replenishing reserves of fossil fuels is becoming a very risky decision. The report raises serious questions as to the ability of the financial system to act on industry-wide long term risk, since currently the only measure of risk is performance against industry benchmarks.” Professor Lord Stern

The problem, people, is not the resource, or the renewability of it. Here's the challenge I put forward to people who question climate change. Forget oil and climate change. Take a walk in downtown Beijing. Breathe deeply. Ask yourself: is this good for one's health?

http://www.asianweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/china-beijing-smog-pollution.jpg

Here's another concept I didn't think about until my professor brought it up in the last week of lectures. We were actually discussing the ethics of oil and climate change when this little nugget hit the surface.

What about peak food???

[araucaria]

Petroleum of course needs to be put in its historical perspective, which is what the great Eustace Mullins does in his book MURDER BY INJECTION,The Story of the Medical Conspiracy Against America. See the quotes below for the links to farming, medicine, ill-health, finance, war, communism, Nazism: just about everything, which can be summed up in a name: Rockefeller.


The current hero of the Rockefeller interests is Norman
Borlaug, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970. An Iowa
farmer, Borlaug had been sent to Mexico by the Rockefeller
interests in 1944 to develop new types of grain. During his
experiments there, he mated 60,000 different species of wheat,
resulting in the creation of an all tropical race of dwarfs, double
dwarfs and triple dwarfs by 1964. This was hailed as "the green
revolution." The resulting "superwheat" produced greater yields, but
this was done by "hyping" the soil with huge amounts of fertilizer
per acre, the fertilizer being the product of nitrates and petroleum,
commodities controlled by the Rockefellers. Huge quantities of
herbicides and pesticides were also used, creating additional markets
for the Rockefeller chemical empire. (…)

Modern fertilizer is a petroleum based industry. (…) Farmers also
borrowed heavily to buy expensive tractors which ran on gasoline,
greatly adding to the Rockefeller revenues, and at the same time
depriving them of the fertilizer formerly available from their horses.
113-4
Like J. P. Morgan, who had begun his commercial career by
selling the U.S. Army some defective guns, the famous Hall carbine
affair, John D. Rockefeller also was a war profiteer during the Civil
War; he sold unstamped Harkness liquor to Federal troops at a high
profit, gaining the initial capital to embark on his drive for
monopoly. His interest in the oil business was a natural one; his
father, William Rockefeller had been "in oil" for years. William
Rockefeller had become an oil entrepreneur after salt wells at
Tarentum, near Pittsburgh, were discovered in 1842 to be flowing
with oil. The owners of the wells, Samuel L. Kier, began to bottle
the oil and sell it for medicinal purposes. One of his earliest
wholesalers was William Rockefeller. The "medicine" was
originally labelled "Kier's Magic Oil.'' Rockefeller printed his own
labels, using "Rock Oil" or "Seneca Oil," Seneca being the name of
a well known Indian tribe. Rockefeller achieved his greatest
notoriety and his greatest profits by advertising himself as "William
Rockefeller, the Celebrated Cancer Specialist." It is understandable
that his grandsons would become the controlling power behind the
scenes of the world's most famous cancer treatment center and
would direct government funds and charitable contributions to those
areas which only benefit the Medical Monopoly. William
Rockefeller spared no claim in his flamboyant career. He guaranteed
"All Cases of Cancer Cured Unless They Are Too Far Gone.'' Such
were the healing powers that he attributed to his magic cancer cure
that he was able to retail it for $25 a bottle, a sum then equivalent to
two months' wages. The "cure" consisted of a few well known
diuretics, which had been diluted by water. This carnival medicine
show barker could hardly have envisioned that his descendants
would control the greatest and the most profitable Medical
Monopoly in recorded history.
As an itinerant "carnie," a travelling carnival peddler, William
Rockefeller had chosen a career which interfered with developing a
stable family life. His son John rarely saw him, a circumstance
which has inspired some psychological analysts to conjecture that
the absence of a father figure or parental love may have contributed
to John D. Rockefeller's subsequent development as a money mad
tyrant who plotted to maim, poison and kill millions of his fellow
American during almost a century of his monopolistic operations
and whose influence, reaching up from the grave, remains the most
dire and malignant presence in American life. This may have been a
contributing factor—however, it is also possible that he was totally
evil. It is hardly arguable that he is probably the most Satanic figure
in American history.
It has long been a truism that you can find a horse thief or two
in any prominent American family. In the Rockefeller family, it was
more than a truism. William seems to have faithfully followed the
precepts of the Will of Canaan throughout his career, "love robbery,
love lechery." He fled from a number of indictments for horse
stealing, finally disappearing altogether as William Rockefeller and
re-emerging as a Dr. William Levingston of Philadelphia, a name
which he retained for the rest of his life. An investigative reporter at
Joseph Pulitzer's New York World received a tip that was followed
up. The World then disclosed that William Avery Rockefeller had
died May 11, 1906 in Freeport, Illinois, where he was interred in an
unmarked grave as Dr. William Levingston. William Rockefeller's
vocation as a medicine man greatly facilitated his preferred
profession of horse thief. As one who planned to be in the next
county by morning, it was a simple matter to tie a handsome stallion
to the back of his wagon and head for the open road. It also played a
large part in his vocation as a woman-chaser; he was described as
being "woman-mad." He not only concluded several bigamous
marriages, but he seems to have had uncontrolled passions. On June
28, 1849, he was indicted for raping a hired girl in Cayuga, New
York; he later was found to be residing in Oswego, New York and
was forced once again to decamp for parts unknown. He had no
difficulty in financing his woman-chasing interests from the sale of his
miraculous cancer cure and from another product, his "Wonder
Working Liniment," which he offered at only two dollars a bottle. It
consisted of crude petroleum from which the lighter oils had been
boiled away, leaving a heavy solution of paraffin, lube oil and tar,
which comprised the "liniment." William Rockefeller's original
miracle oil survived until quite recently as a concoction called
Nujol, consisting principally of petroleum and peddled as a laxative.
It was well known that Nujol was merely an advertising sobriquet
meaning "new oil," as opposed, apparently, to "old oil." Sold as an
antidote to constipation, it robbed the body of fat-soluble vitamins,
it being a well-established medical fact that mineral oil coated the
intestine and prevented the absorption of many needed vitamins and
other nutritional needs. Its makers added carotene as a sop to the
health-conscious, but it was hardly worth the bother. Nujol was
manufactured by a subsidiary of Standard Oil of New Jersey, called
Stanco, whose only other product, manufactured on the same
premises, was the famous insecticide, Flit.
188-90

Just as the elder Rockefeller had spent his life in the pursuit of
his personal obsession, women, so his son John was equally
obsessed, being money-mad instead of women-mad, totally
committed to the pursuit of ever-increasing wealth and power.
However, the principal accomplishments of the Rockefeller drive
for power, the rebate scheme for monopoly, the chartering of the
foundations to gain power over American citizens, the creation of
the central bank, the Federal Reserve System, the backing of the
World Communist revolution and the creation of the Medical
Monopoly, all came from the Rothschilds or from their European
employees. We cannot find in the records of John D. Rockefeller
that he originated any one of these programs. The concept of the tax
exempt charitable foundation originated with the Rothschild minion,
George Pea-body, in 1865. The Peabody Educational Foundation
later became the Rockefeller Foundation. It is unlikely that even the
diabolical mind of John D. Rockefeller could have conceived of this
devious twist. A social historian has described the major
development of the late nineteenth century, when charitable
foundations and world Communism became important movements,
as one of the more interesting facets of history, perhaps equivalent
to the discovery of the wheel. This new discovery was the concept
developed by the rats, who after all have rather highly developed
intelligences, that they could trap people by baiting traps with little
bits of cheese. The history of mankind since then has been the rats
catching humans in their traps. Socialism—indeed, any government
program—is simply the rat baiting the trap with a smidgeon of
cheese and catching himself a human. 191
An important step on the road to world monopoly was the most
far-reaching corporation invented by the Rothschilds. This was the
international drug and chemical cartel, I. G. Farben. Called "a state
within a state," it was created in 1925 as Interessen Gemeinschaft
Farbeindustrie Aktien gesellschaft, usually known as I. G. Farben,
which simply meant "The Cartel." It had originated in 1904, when
the six major chemical companies in Germany began negotiations to
form the ultimate cartel, merging Badische Anilin, Bayer, Agfa,
Hoechst, Weiler-ter-Meer, and Greisheim-Electron. The guiding
spirit, as well as the financing, came from the Rothschilds, who
were represented by their German banker, Max Warburg, of M. M.
Warburg Company, Hamburg. He later headed the German Secret
Service during World War I and was personal financial adviser to
the Kaiser. When the Kaiser was overthrown, after losing the war,
Max Warburg was not exiled with him to Holland; instead, he
became the financial adviser to the new government. Monarchs may
come and go, but the real power remains with the bankers. While
representing Germany at the Paris Peace Conference, Max Warburg
spent pleasant hours renewing family ties with his brother, Paul
Warburg, who, after drafting the Federal Reserve Act at Jekyl
Island, had headed the U.S. banking system during the war. He was
in Paris as Woodrow Wilson's financial advisor. 193
In medicine, the Rockefeller influence remains entrenched in its
Medical Monopoly. We have mentioned its control of the cancer
industry through the Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. We have listed
the directors of the major drug firms, each with its director from
Chase Manhattan Bank, the Standard Oil Company or other
Rockefeller firms. The American College of Surgeons maintains a
monopolistic control of hospitals through the powerful Hospital
Survey Committee, with members Winthrop Aldrich and David
McAlpine Pyle representing the Rockefeller control. 200-1
The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research finally dropped
the "Medical Research" part of its title; its president, Dr. Detlev
Bronk, resided in a $600,000 mansion furnished by this charitable
operation. Rockefeller's general Education Board has spent more
than $100 million to gain control of the nation's medical schools and
turn our physicians to physicians of the allopathic school, dedicated
to surgery and the heavy use of drugs. 201
As Ezra
Pound demanded in one of his famous radio broadcasts, "Health,
dammit!" America became the greatest and most productive nation
in the world because we had the healthiest citizens in the world.
When the Rockefeller Syndicate began its takeover of our medical
profession in 1910, our citizens went into a sharp decline. Today,
we suffer from a host of debilitating ailments, both mental and
physical, nearly all of which can be traced directly to the operations
of the chemical and drug monopoly, and which pose the greatest
threat to our continued existence as a nation. 204

[donk]

In the height of my peak oil fears in the middle of last decade, I had occasion to lunch with then president of US Chamber of Commerce...when I brought my fears of economic collapse (due to over-leveraging--aka fraud--of derivatives and the whole housing debacle) he said it was a non-issue thanks to the amount of existing liquidity. When I asked him if he was worried about peak oil, he was quick to respond he wasn't worried about oil at all, the resource scarcity that bothered him? Water.

Milneman: I agree, the issue I came to worry about more was it NOT peaking, and us poisoning the earth continually burning it up. And the whole issue that our food supply is pretty entirely petroleum-based (with the rare exception for y'all growing your own...)

[araucaria]

In the height of my peak oil fears in the middle of last decade, I had occasion to lunch with then president of US Chamber of Commerce...when I brought my fears of economic collapse (due to over-leveraging--aka fraud--of derivatives and the whole housing debacle) he said it was a non-issue thanks to the amount of existing liquidity. When I asked him if he was worried about peak oil, he was quick to respond he wasn't worried about oil at all, the resource scarcity that bothered him? Water.

Milneman: I agree, the issue I came to worry about more was it NOT peaking, and us poisoning the earth continually burning it up. And the whole issue that our food supply is pretty entirely petroleum-based (with the rare exception for y'all growing your own...)
Thre should be no problem with water: 70% of the planet is under sea water and the level is rising. Of course we still need to implement the technology, which as always means curbing greedy capitalists. Gerald Pollack's Fourth Phase of Water suggests how this could be done.



Andrew Norton Webber discusses this and there is a lot of research on his website.
I'm just now looking at Andrew Norton Webber's material, such as here (http://whale.to/a/distilled_water1.html).

His statements that the water in the body and in plants, and that rain water, is distilled are misleading, in my view. Such water was once distilled water, it is not still pure distilled water.

For example, rain water went through a distillation process, when it was evaporated into the air.

But it won't show up as zero (0) parts per million using a dissolved solids meter, because it has reabsorbed various minerals and ions, in the process of raining and becoming running surface and perhaps later underground water.

Similarly, in the body and in plants, dissolved mineral ions are essential for life. For example basic cell health depends on maintaining a large excessof Na+ outside the cell and a large excess of K+ ions on the inside (see here (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/biology/nakpump.html)). The voltage drop across the cell wall is a key attribute of health.

I recommend these books:

Healing is Voltage: The Handbook, 3rd Edition by Jerry L. Tennant (http://amzn.com/1453649166)
The Fourth Phase of Water: Beyond Solid, Liquid, and Vapor by Gerald H. Pollack (http://amzn.com/0962689548)


The essential steps to good water are


remove the crud, such as by distilling, then
restore the essentials, including mineral ions in easily absorbed forms and structure.

[donk]

...well it was a major player--Mr. Big Biz himself, so I guess he was just prepping for the next contrived (tech suppression-based) shortage the media will transmitting in the whole BAU status quo game--he's at a level he gets to know the next couple moves before the rest of us (if he isn't actively participating in making them himself)

Though he seemed to me a good genuine dude, just that he's completely immersed in the paradigm...I had occasion to see him again recently but chose not to talk shop and enjoy the human moments at that time

...oh and as to your wording: there shouldn't be a problem with oil. It shouldn't difficult for "them" to make getting potable water a problem for most of us, if history is an indicator

[Snowflower]

It does not matter if oil is made from dead plants or if it is continually renewing itself from deep in the earth.

What matters is that the earth is floating in space and no ships are docking at the port to bring resources from some place else.

So what if oil is constantly generated? So what if it takes millions of years to make it from dead plants? When resources get used up, they are gone.

What do you suppose the earth uses as material to make anything? She doesn't pull in molecules from the vacuum of space, that's for sure. So, once the oil is burned, what will she use to make more?

That's really the only point worth making in the debate.

[Delight]

There should be no problem with water: 70% of the planet is under sea water and the level is rising. Of course we still need to implement the technology, which as always means curbing greedy capitalists. Gerald Pollack's Fourth Phase of Water suggests how this could be done.

When "Peak Oil" was popularized it was a looming threat. Then as the "threatened" scene failed to appear, people were disenchanted. IMO the will to create a whole new way must come from incentives toward a positive direction people feel is for the good. The same with "Global Warming". Climate change was couched as being warming. It is probably global cooling and wild fluctuation. How could we "plan" for wild fluctuation?

Issues are not often presented so that people can appreciate the objectives being for even better and better experiences and that this is a value...long range and with the least interference with Biosystems.

Apparently when Tesla came to Edison with his demonstration of a much better technology, Edison already was committed to the infrastructure he had invested in. He told Tesla to forget about seeing all the infrasturucture replaced just because the idea might work better.

There is way old infrastructure EVERYWHERE that is devoted to systems creating foul air, dirty water and denatured foods our daily lives run within: sewers, streets, machinery, services like community water filtration that leaves in pollutants, health care that is introducing even more consequences like antibiotic resistance. In every place, we can detail how the systems might be retrofitted, expanded or replaced for greater and better and more healthy reasons. The investment was already made and new cannot dovetail or old retrofit, expand or be replaced without drastic and inconvenient effort....

Just because earth may well create oil like blood does not mean it is elegant and useful to crudely bleed her.
Just because we have running water does not mean we should pee our drugs and pour our wastes into central sewers.
Just because tractors can plow earth does not mean this is Good for earth or people REALLY.

1."there SHOULD be no problem" .......I am sure from what I have read that there are enough now existing potentially integrated technologies so we can have beauty, clean air, clean water, abundant clean food, interesting work, sophistication AND the natural world.

It will take people who think we can have what we never had before. It is like being a poor Dickinsonian street urchin agreeing my living conditions are what should be expected as I was born into them.

People have other more pressing issues many days, and people cannot foresee how we "should have no problems" by the use of letting natural systems lead the way to comprehending our systems and change them JUST BECAUSE that is coordinated with nature.

What is the NOT threatening (and emergency based) "plug in" that could bring the people, resources and knowledge together? The threats that fail to develop are used as excuses to keep the crude.

The way I imagine it is that people would need to agree to orient around the systems. Society would almost have to change to a feeling that the fulcrum of importance is not individual desires and wants but community and system wide elegance. I have heard this slammed as some sort of evil socialism. But it is Over Unity as a value to gauge from.

I recall one definition of progress: "From what we have we give and from we give, more is returned". A system making no greater return would be jettisoned and when it was found that something failed to provide the beauty for the community, out that goes also.

I see a world butterfly approach...least force and greatest freedom of movement so when changes are good, we don't have heavy and cumbersome undoings of infra-prisoning (the prison of the infrastructure).

That is my visioning beyond "Peak F-utility"

[ThePythonicCow]

When resources get used up, they are gone.
They are still here ... just in a different form.

Given enough energy, and the right technology, it can be converted back at useful rates.

[Ilie Pandia]

To properly discuss the peak oil issue I think we need to look at more data and consider the following:
- oil consumption rate and how it is increasing
- oil replenish rate (if indeed this is real) and how it relates to consumption rate: it replenishes fast enough to cover the ever increasing demand?
- how did oil came to be. Two competing theories: biotic and abiotic oil. If biotic, then replenish only means that deep oil surfaces not that "new oil" is produced
- how much energy is required to drill and then pump oil - too much to get profit?
- price manipulation is usually related to greed and not the availability of a resource. In other words, we cannot conclude from artificial price inflation that oil is still plentiful or renewable. If someone can get away with lying about stock to get their prices up they will likely do it, but that does not say anything about the stock level.

With the data I have seen so far I think that peak oil is real in the sense that:

1) we are burning it much faster than it is being produced (replenished or not). So it will end. It is just a matter of when?

2) burning oil affects the climate (another can of worms, I know), and all the CO2 released in the air will have an impact. With my current understanding there is a global warming going on (due to raise in CO2 levels), but that is again abused and manipulated to tax people even more.

So not everything is clear cut and if the Big Oil is lying about something that does not imply that the exact opposite must be true. If fact, on the opposite side is another arm of the same power playing "the opposition" and winning either way.

[Ilie Pandia]

Another note: closing down domestic pumps in favor of foreign oil makes perfect strategic sense if the resource is scarce: you want to use up the neighbor's resources first so they will lose access to it and only then you will use your own, that is close to home and easily defendable.

Doing it the other way around is risky, because you never know who will grab that oil if left alone in foreign territory.

So this again points to a scarce resource being managed, not a plentiful one.

[gnostic9]

truthfully I have looked back far enough through those in Power to understand Oil was forced on the modern world, to get us hooked so we would accept wars to keep our oil junky habbits going... Religious wars were no longer something the modern world cared about...

wars for oil turned into a religious battle, which perpetuated the pain we are still going through today...

I'm ready to unplug my IV, and go 99% pure on my addiction...

when everyone is ready to turn away from oil and continue what Tesla started, the wars will end...

Hi Rocky. Why does Mother Earth/Gaia need oil? Is it a vital lubricant, maybe to stabilise earthquakes, when plates collide? or does it have no function, just a breakdown of carbon based life? When Mother Earth/Gaia is deprived of this through transfusion/siphoning, is she weakened? Is it the blood of the Mother? Just a thought! Love peace and joy to you brother/sister and all at avalon! ScarcityHaHaHa=diamonds!

[Milneman]

In the height of my peak oil fears in the middle of last decade, I had occasion to lunch with then president of US Chamber of Commerce...when I brought my fears of economic collapse (due to over-leveraging--aka fraud--of derivatives and the whole housing debacle) he said it was a non-issue thanks to the amount of existing liquidity. When I asked him if he was worried about peak oil, he was quick to respond he wasn't worried about oil at all, the resource scarcity that bothered him? Water.

Milneman: I agree, the issue I came to worry about more was it NOT peaking, and us poisoning the earth continually burning it up. And the whole issue that our food supply is pretty entirely petroleum-based (with the rare exception for y'all growing your own...)

The y'all growing your own is going to change. In our lifetimes.

Science is showing that as temperatures rise, the productivity of grains like wheat drops.

In other words, what we produce is not producing as much. The idea of peak food seems bizarre when you see how much food is thrown away because it's one minute past it's best, but the issue isn't what we're throwing away alone. It's what we're capable of producing on the planet now given climate, soil quality, and the ability of a plant to produce. As temperature and climate rise, those numbers drop.

We stop driving cars, we safeguard our wheat supply. Drive, or eat. Make your choice. And you must choose because we are running out of time.

[Cardillac]

look, folks, wake up; oil is neither a fossil fuel nor is it rare; so why is there a discussion about this?- I thought Avalonians were already of this but I guess not- am I in the wrong film?

please inform-

for those who are still in the dark about oil I'll break it down in the simplest of terms (hope you're ready)-

except for the sweet oil that comes bubbling to the top (very rare) one doesn't find/strike oil until ca.under 20k feet-

the most vast oil reserves are under 30k feet (still with me?)-

no fossil on this planet has been found under 16k feet (gosh!) so how could oil be a fossil fuel?-

it isn't-full stop-

beside that the vast oil reserves under 30k feet are "abiotic" (they replenish themselves just as our bodies replenish donated blood) so I think we can safely assume oil can deal with itself (gosh!)-

so why is this bogus topic an Avalon topic?- I thought we were more advanced/above it all-

Larry

[Ilie Pandia]

Hello,

Oil could sink (due to gravity and other processes) to way below the line of know fossils. Also not having found any fossils yet, does not imply that no fossils do not exist. (I am also assuming is easier to drill for liquid that it is to drill for fossils and this may be a wrong assumption).

Our body replenishes our blood by creating new blood cells via some processes that are fairly known and accepted to be true. Also blood is created by "consuming" resources that come from "food".

The process of how abiotic oil comes into existence is not that well explained, in my view. What resources are "used up" into making this a abiotic oil must be explained. For abiotic oil to be real, there would have to be an "oil cycle" that recreates it once it has been "used up". So I think that any explanation for the abiotic oil must address this cycle and how it works.

[Carmody]

The production process for making any of the alchemist stones takes place with a temperature that never exceeds ~155F, or 67C.

From it comes....... gasses and oils. Which is only a stage of the conversion.

This is the breakdown of elements into oils. it is done in a matter of months.

Due to this aspect, of molecular breakdown, and then..we have a major furnace aspect with deep earth, and then add in tremendous amounts of water were recently found..then we add in tremendous amounts of sulfur.

Well, in essence, abiotic oil production is a very real thing, IMO and IME. all the precursors and even the science of it is out there and real, so the earth doing it on a grand scale is not even a question, to me.

There is no peak oil.

However, I do agree that we need to stop using it the way we do. we need to stop having it be a control on us and we need to move into renewable energy systems,and over-unity energy systems.

If it takes gasoline being $20 a gallon to get that done, I'm on board with that.

[Ilie Pandia]

Read this article about why there is so much oil in the Middle East. It sheds some light on the oil creation process:

http://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2010/01/why-so-much-oil-in-the-middle-east

Finally this article on Wikipedia (not necessarily a reliable source) has some interesting information about fossil fuels:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel

So it appears that actually fossils are not required to be found near or in the fossil fuel.

[Ilie Pandia]

The production process for making any of the alchemist stones takes place with a temperature that never exceeds ~155F, or 67C.

From it comes....... gasses and oils. Which is only a stage of the conversion.

This is the breakdown of elements into oils. it is done in a matter of months.

Due to this aspect, of molecular breakdown, and then..we have a major furnace aspect with deep earth, and then add in tremendous amounts of water were recently found..then we add in tremendous amounts of sulfur.

Well, in essence, abiotic oil production is a very real thing, IMO and IME. all the precursors and even the science of it is out there and real, so the earth doing it on a grand scale is not even a question, to me.

There is no peak oil.

However, I do agree that we need to stop using it the way we do. we need to stop having it be a control on us and we need to move into renewable energy systems,and over-unity energy systems.

If it takes gasoline being $20 a gallon to get that done, I'm on board with that.

The problem that I see here is that in production of the alchemist stone there is someone putting everything together in the right conditions and proportions.

Oil, on the other hand has to rely on geological processes that take millions of years, to put everything into place. This is why I believe that oil is renewed, but it takes millions of years while we've burned most of the easily extractable oil in under a 100 years?

[Melinda]

Not to detract from the validity of questions in your original post donk, but your thread has prompted questions that reach beyond them, which address the bigger picture around them.

Post 10, by Milneman : “The problem, people, is not the resource, or the renewability of it. Here's the challenge I put forward to people who question climate change. Forget oil and climate change. Take a walk in downtown Beijing. Breathe deeply. Ask yourself: is this good for one's health?”

This is the first thing I think of when I witness people debating climate change and fuel supplies. Regardless of if, how and when it can be irrefutably proven that our current fuel usage creates or contributes to climate change, we know for a fact that it contributes to pollution and destruction of our environment. The same goes for if, how or when it could be proven that the sources of oil are being naturally replenished faster than previously thought.

The extraction of the fuels can be dangerous work. The processes involved in the recycling of products (in a culture that uses those fuels) can also be very dangerous work for the people involved. With truly abundant, clean, independent energy supplies you wouldn’t face those risks in the same way.

So whether or not oil can be replenished, it’s time for our culture to move on from it.

As we all know - there is huge intensity to the politics wrapped around the control of energy supplies. Even with solar-power the materials needed for the hardware are subject to market manipulation.
This report by Nicola Jones makes a few relevant points :

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/a_scarcity_of_rare_metals_is_hindering_green_technologies/2711/


“A shortage of "rare earth" metals, used in everything from electric car batteries to solar panels to wind turbines, is hampering the growth of renewable energy technologies. Researchers are now working to find alternatives to these critical elements or better ways to recycle them...”

“...in 2011... the average price of "rare earths" — including terbium and europium, used in fluorescent bulbs; and neodymium, used in the powerful magnets that help to drive wind turbines and electric engines — shot up by as much as 750 percent in a year. The problem was that China, which controlled 97 percent of global rare earth production, had clamped down on trade.”

“In the Guiyu area of southern China, for example, more than 100,000 people work to take apart e-waste, boiling up circuit boards to remove the plastic and then leaching the metals with acid, at great risk to the environment and themselves. Uncontrolled burning leads to contaminated groundwater, and one study found elevated levels of lead in children living in Guiyu.”

Even without exotic Tesla-style energy technologies, we could have more efficient and safer recycling now – it’s just that our profit-driven marketplace, based on scarcity, doesn’t prioritise it. But truly clean and abundant energy supplies could take our recycling to a whole other level.

Additionally, as astronaut Brian O’Leary commented (I miss his voice) with free energy technologies we could navigate the stars, mining metals and minerals from asteroids.

Progressive energy technologies can facilitate laboratory production of certain materials, ones that are considered ‘rare’ in order to manipulate market profits. As one example... In a recent Project Camelot interview with nuclear engineer MT Keshe, he claimed that he and fellow scientists knew how to ‘make’ gold, but that it was not in his interest to destabilise markets and devalue commodities. This is also likely one (not the only) reason why he doesn’t currently advocate the energy from his new plasma reactors being financially free. To energy pioneers what is more useful, than publicly discussing gold production, is an educated populace that values using these new energy technologies to provide solutions for poverty, pollution and ill-health, in a peaceful infrastructure centred on peace – not the pursuit of profit. See 1:11:33 to 1:14:55 here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDFR994bcjk&feature=youtu.be&t=1h11m33s

The more we focus our intent on new systems and a new way of seeing, from the heart and a deep sense of valuing one another and our planet, the more likely we are to overcome the energetic force that has dug its feet in with existing ‘market values.’


Post 7, Rocky_Shorz : “...when everyone is ready to turn away from oil and continue what Tesla started, the wars will end...”

In his 2013 Global BEM talk, Michael Riversong addressed some of the safety aspects around wireless electricity:

See 25:24 – 28:02 here : http://youtu.be/-vxr3kUwXzs?t=25m24s


“…The environmental profile of this is very positive, and the wireless transmission that Tesla developed is something that definitely we should be pursuing. We have not found heavy electromagnetic fields coming from these systems. That’s another source of environmental pollution... [...] ...naturally I get out some of the meters and I get out a short wave radio... [...] ...Brought one of those in to one of the demos at the conference in 2011 and we could not find a signal. I expected, when Nelson flipped the switch, we would get Nnnnn [makes signal-detection noise] all over the place. Nothing. Something is going on with that type of wireless transmission, where the field does not exist – it doesn’t seem to have any presence between the receiver and transmitter. Where the receiver is it picks up the resonant field and translates it back into electricity. In between we don’t know what we have, but we don’t seem to have health effects, and this again tracks with what Tesla was saying.”

At 39:37 -


“...Tesla specifically said that the frequencies we now associate with microwave, which essentially are above 1GHz (one gigahertz) up to what we call infrared. That range of frequencies is dangerous to health. Flat out. We shouldn’t be using them. And of course what are all those cell phones on our pockets running on, and all those wi-fi systems? It’s all microwave. We don’t know what the cumulative effects of those things are going to be. And so we would do best in developing our new technologies to just kind of stay away from that area for a while, until we can piece together what’s going on. I suspect a lot of what we’re going to find is that we have to operate on resonance.”

Riversong is keen on our rethinking how we look at energy, even down to our language - preferring to describe new energy solutions as ‘regenerative’ sources rather than ‘sustainable.’ It is about perceiving abundance, building a new culture based on that way of thinking. One in which we respect the earth and one another, rather than plundering the planet for resources.

As Delight remarked in post 10 : “...It will take people who think we can have what we never had before...”

A culture of artificial scarcity gives people an unconscious excuse to consider a lack of human and environmental safety an acceptable price for maintaining the status quo. I think the cognitive dissonance around that is growing, and more and more of us are seeing the price to be paid for relinquishing our sovereignty, scientific understanding, and despoiling the earth without a long term view. Educated and given a choice, who wouldn’t choose energy sources and technologies that resonate with a healthier body and spiritual intent?

I’d rather see us progress with our potential to travel, farm off planet and share educational information - than be relegated to lives of toiling in the mud. Much as I love feeling my feet in the earth, it is more of a pleasure when it’s done from love rather than due to a life of farming that’s imposed by scarcity. We can have a significantly higher standard of living than that > and peacefully.

I’d like to bump this entire post by araucaria >

Peace to all


Peak oil fits in with the scarcity paradigm. Some oilfields have dried up, while others, I gather, seem to keep on giving beyond expectations. And of course new supplies are being found in places like Greece. So we get squeezed both ways – price hikes because of the scarcity and no escape to alternative fuels because there is still more oil to be sold.

We don't really know what oil actually is. What if it was some kind of Gaian blood supply that is somehow replenished? There is a limit to the number of blood donations you can make because of the need for replenishment, just as you can log a forest or fish a sea only up to a point if you want to keep the forest or the fish supply. We may be getting more oil than anticipated, but we may be doing much more damage than we thought we were doing just by emptying areas underground, which itself is probably not as harmless as we think.

I don’t think there is a right and a wrong side to this debate. We should have been way past this discussion by now. The trouble is of course that free energy is something that would be a total disaster unless we get the psychopaths down to a manageable level. As the late Brian O’Leary used to say, we can’t have Dick Cheney running this show.

[cursichella1]

The problem, people, is not the resource, or the renewability of it...

Here's another concept I didn't think about until my professor brought it up in the last week of lectures. We were actually discussing the ethics of oil and climate change when this little nugget hit the surface.

What about peak food???

Peak food goes hand and hand with peak oil and just about everything else. it is all about energy exchange and value, whether it is fossil fuel, human labor, calories or dollars. think about how increased cost of fuel makes the price of food skyrocket, which effects on and on down the line. often, too, energy "savings" product have a larger carbon footprint in their manufacturing processes and transport than can ever be recouped in their actual use.

btw, for Michael Ruppert, R.I.P.

[Delight]

In his 2013 Global BEM talk, Michael Riversong addressed some of the safety aspects around wireless electricity:

See 25:24 – 28:02 here : http://youtu.be/-vxr3kUwXzs?t=25m24s

Quote “…The environmental profile of this is very positive, and the wireless transmission that Tesla developed is something that definitely we should be pursuing. We have not found heavy electromagnetic fields coming from these systems. That’s another source of environmental pollution... [...] ...naturally I get out some of the meters and I get out a short wave radio... [...] ...Brought one of those in to one of the demos at the conference in 2011 and we could not find a signal. I expected, when Nelson flipped the switch, we would get Nnnnn [makes signal-detection noise] all over the place. Nothing. Something is going on with that type of wireless transmission, where the field does not exist – it doesn’t seem to have any presence between the receiver and transmitter. Where the receiver is it picks up the resonant field and translates it back into electricity. In between we don’t know what we have, but we don’t seem to have health effects, and this again tracks with what Tesla was saying.”
At 39:37 -

Quote “...Tesla specifically said that the frequencies we now associate with microwave, which essentially are above 1GHz (one gigahertz) up to what we call infrared. That range of frequencies is dangerous to health. Flat out. We shouldn’t be using them. And of course what are all those cell phones on our pockets running on, and all those wi-fi systems? It’s all microwave. We don’t know what the cumulative effects of those things are going to be. And so we would do best in developing our new technologies to just kind of stay away from that area for a while, until we can piece together what’s going on. I suspect a lot of what we’re going to find is that we have to operate on resonance.”

Riversong is keen on our rethinking how we look at energy, even down to our language - preferring to describe new energy solutions as ‘regenerative’ sources rather than ‘sustainable.’ It is about perceiving abundance, building a new culture based on that way of thinking. One in which we respect the earth and one another, rather than plundering the planet for resources.

Your post was great!
I enjoyed the whole video....

-vxr3kUwXzs

[cursichella1]

When resources get used up, they are gone.
They are still here ... just in a different form.

Given enough energy, and the right technology, it can be converted back at useful rates.

Exactly. The energy is out there. And the goons are doing everything in their power to quash innovation towards making free energy available to all. Therein lies the problem (and solution).

[ghostrider]

I believe oil , in the earth is gone ... that's the reason for all the fracking ... in a sense , oil has peaked ... also the main reason for the oil piplines they want so desperately to build , cause we need oil from elsewhere , ours is gone ...

[araucaria]

Apparently when Tesla came to Edison with his demonstration of a much better technology, Edison already was committed to the infrastructure he had invested in. He told Tesla to forget about seeing all the infrasturucture replaced just because the idea might work better.

There is way old infrastructure EVERYWHERE that is devoted to systems creating foul air, dirty water and denatured foods our daily lives run within: sewers, streets, machinery, services like community water filtration that leaves in pollutants, health care that is introducing even more consequences like antibiotic resistance. In every place, we can detail how the systems might be retrofitted, expanded or replaced for greater and better and more healthy reasons. The investment was already made and new cannot dovetail or old retrofit, expand or be replaced without drastic and inconvenient effort....
…
1."there SHOULD be no problem" .......I am sure from what I have read that there are enough now existing potentially integrated technologies so we can have beauty, clean air, clean water, abundant clean food, interesting work, sophistication AND the natural world.
…
People have other more pressing issues many days, and people cannot foresee how we "should have no problems" by the use of letting natural systems lead the way to comprehending our systems and change them JUST BECAUSE that is coordinated with nature.
…
The way I imagine it is that people would need to agree to orient around the systems. Society would almost have to change to a feeling that the fulcrum of importance is not individual desires and wants but community and system wide elegance. I have heard this slammed as some sort of evil socialism.

That’s me you were quoting, thank you.

Huge infrastructure is a major problem. France Telecom became a telecommunications giant because France had an extremely primitive telephone system into the 1970s and so they could start almost from scratch when other countries were beginning to think about overhauling theirs. Systems have gotten so huge that we are stuck with them. The only way forward is gradually, on a local, micro level. And as you say, this is already happening. It is only once we get to this community-based society that we will be able to think about global matters in other terms than monopolistic control over energy. It is all about flexibility and ultimately creativity. We are currently hidebound by the incredible rigidity of global gridlock that is the hallmark of mechanical archontic forces operating on the macro level.

[donk]

look, folks, wake up; oil is neither a fossil fuel nor is it rare; so why is there a discussion about this?- I thought Avalonians were already of this but I guess not- am I in the wrong film?

please inform-

for those who are still in the dark about oil I'll break it down in the simplest of terms (hope you're ready)-

except for the sweet oil that comes bubbling to the top (very rare) one doesn't find/strike oil until ca.under 20k feet-

the most vast oil reserves are under 30k feet (still with me?)-

no fossil on this planet has been found under 16k feet (gosh!) so how could oil be a fossil fuel?-

it isn't-full stop-

beside that the vast oil reserves under 30k feet are "abiotic" (they replenish themselves just as our bodies replenish donated blood) so I think we can safely assume oil can deal with itself (gosh!)-

so why is this bogus topic an Avalon topic?- I thought we were more advanced/above it all-

Larry

I started this thread in reaction to someone mentioning being on the "the wrong side of the peak oil debate". I am interested the debate, which exists. Whatever your particular beliefs, whether you think oil is finite or not, whether you feel the information transmitted about the amount of oil or even the nature of oil is bogus, why would you participate in this thread?

If you know everything and think all of us are stupid for not knowing what you know...well, kindly tone your contempt of opposing views down please--I like hearing from folks who might feel intimidated by the "argument"...I don't think it needs to be an argument or debate, I hope to share experience.

I appreciate your views on it, thank you for sharing it. I am not emotionally attached to my ideas, which I will share when I get to read through all these posts I've only skimmed. You obviously feel you have the answers, perhaps there's a more productive way of transmitting them?

"Peak oil"-- as a meme at the very least, damn near a religion to me a decade ago, considered "solid science" or "facts" or "truth" to some, and completely non existent to others' awareness--does exist. It is a thing. I like hearing others views and ideas on it.

This thread is mostly (for me) to get perspectives of others, from direct experience. Which pieces of information they believe (and why). What they see other people believing (and maybe speculation on why), what information they see promoted, what insights or intuitions or connections they may have. What they feel about the "argument" itself. What they think the most important points are.

I appreciate all who participated so far. It doesn't have to be an "argument". And maybe we can discuss the "debate" angle without actually debating...in the traditional sense. I invite everyone to share their experience, and urge everyone who does to try not to bring the traditional "need to be right" that comes with topics where a lot of people seem to "know everything they need to know" about the subject.

I have my beliefs, they have evolved from openly absorbing a myriad of perspectives. I used to be the Mark Wahlberg character from "I <3 Huckabees", these days I'm more interested in the opposite view. And I'm even MORE interested in hearing any other view anyone would like to share. Thanks

[donk]

It does not matter if oil is made from dead plants or if it is continually renewing itself from deep in the earth.

What matters is that the earth is floating in space and no ships are docking at the port to bring resources from some place else.

So what if oil is constantly generated? So what if it takes millions of years to make it from dead plants? When resources get used up, they are gone.

What do you suppose the earth uses as material to make anything? She doesn't pull in molecules from the vacuum of space, that's for sure. So, once the oil is burned, what will she use to make more?

That's really the only point worth making in the debate.

I've definitely come around to this point of view, which is an excellent segue to one of the important concepts of the "peak oil" mindset, one that I feel is crucial to hash out and determine the truth about, Jevons Paradox: it don't matter where it comes from, the more efficiently we produce the faster we consume it, which the data we're fed seems to indicate we're on an exponential curve...from Wikipedia:


In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes Jevons effect) is the proposition that as technology progresses, the increase in efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.[1] In 1865, the English economist William Stanley Jevons observed that technological improvements that increased the efficiency of coal use led to increased consumption of coal in a wide range of industries. He argued that, contrary to common intuition, technological improvements could not be relied upon to reduce fuel consumption.[2]

The issue has been re-examined by modern economists studying consumption rebound effects from improved energy efficiency. In addition to reducing the amount needed for a given use, improved efficiency lowers the relative cost of using a resource, which tends to increase the quantity of the resource demanded, potentially counteracting any savings from increased efficiency. Additionally, increased efficiency accelerates economic growth, further increasing the demand for resources. The Jevons paradox occurs when the effect from increased demand predominates, causing resource use to increase.[2]

The Jevons paradox has been used to argue that energy conservation may be futile, as increased efficiency may increase fuel use. Nevertheless, increased efficiency can improve material living standards. Further, fuel use declines if increased efficiency is coupled with a green tax or other conservation policies that keep the cost of use the same (or higher).[3] As the Jevons paradox applies only to technological improvements that increase fuel efficiency, policies that impose conservation standards and increase costs do not display the paradox.

[Snowflower]

Donk, we most likely agree because we have followed a similar path down the rabbit hole. I also was first awakened with "eating Fossil Fuels" an article on "From the Wilderness" back in 2001, went on to forums in yahoo groups, then really active in LATOC (moderator and sometime admin) then when that exploded, migrated into the webbot, then when that was ended for me by a psychopath, found my way here. Through it all, went from peak oil to food, disease, water, economy, wars, politics, PTB, holographic universe, expanding earth, magnetic pole shift, ice age, meaning of life, vibration of all that is - I have learned more about more important subjects in the past 13 years than I did in the previous 50 years.

Peak oil as a specific topic is something I don't think much about anymore, but when I do, it is to understand that the "slow camp" was right. They always said that the result of peak oil (actually reached in 2008) would be a long, slow decline of civilization - and it is in progress. I have no idea which ingredient will trigger the final tipping point over the edge of the cliff and have come to understand that it doesn't matter. I've also come to understand that I will know that the SHTF when I cannot find out what happened and live out the rest of my life focused in this very narrow world of mountains, goats, and grandchildren - and that it will be a wide enough world for me as we start creating a new civilization.

[STR]

[QUOTE=NancyV;822946]Not only is PEAK OIL most likely a myth but there is also a lot of evidence that oil is self renewing. I've read many articles over the years about both scenarios. The article below is from 2005 but still relevant. It talks about the peak oil myth and touches on self renewing oil. IF oil is self renewing then we would never run out of it. The controllers are not only handing us the peak oil myth to manipulate prices, control populations, have excuses for wars and make a shtload of money, they deliberately repress GOOD clean energy sources while promoting clean energy sources they know are not as viable or effective....just so we will THINK they are in favor of alternative energy.

The Myth Of Peak Oil
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/peak_oil/index.htm

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | October 12 2005

Peak oil is a scam designed to create artificial scarcity and jack up prices while giving the state an excuse to invade our lives and order us to sacrifice our hard-earned living standards.
QUOTE]

I live in Oklahoma surrounded by oil pumps both active and inactive. I remember thirty or so years back when we first moved into our neighborhood there was a pump going right here in the neighborhood. You can see the place where it was to this day all cleaned up tho and the pump removed. I can confirm that the oil companies periodically check these for how much they have refilled and recently in our area they had helicopters flying over late at night (told us in advance on the radio and paper it would be done by the way) for seismic or sound wave testing and it was all related to studies to see the condition of these wells all shut down some 25 or more years back. Guess what!? There is talk now of some pumps being put back in so to me this silent activity going on under our noses in one neighborhood probably reflects out to reflect a good idea of what is going on in Texas, Louisiana, Florida and other oil states as well. They know they fill back up. They don't really deny it cause they know there is always seep that seeps back after the well is capped. The curious thing is some fill more than others and rates vary I guess.

One guy on a Rense radio show said its known for the oil to refill in time but we use it too fast to count on that. It takes a lot less time to deplete it out than it does to seep back in to any amount worth taking unless you are fracking all around the area adjacent apparently. In this way the wells that were once active and are not now can get some oils squeezed in there quicker and I guess at times it is just as easy to get the oil out by activating the well again at least for a time.

[Snowflower]

The whole thing has to do with EROEI = energy returned on energy invested. Once upon a time, it took about a barrel of oil's worth of energy to get 50 barrels of oil out of the ground. Today they are lucky to spend one barrel and get 1.5 barrels out. That one fact is the basis of our collapsing economy. The world's equilibrium is based on cheap energy. Energy (from oil) is no longer cheap.

It does not matter if they reopen wells unless those wells suddenly started returning 50 barrels for one barrel spent. And that is not happening. It does not matter if they get oil from tar sands because (beyond destroying the planet) their net gain is around 1/4 barrel. It won't stop the collapsing economy.

The key is the collapsing economy because the economy is still rooted in cheap energy and energy is no longer cheap.

Besides, the world is doomed anyway because of the number of calories expended to create one calorie of food. Same principal as oil, but with food as the outcome. We are using 20 calories of energy for every calorie of food grown. Those calories are coming from what used to be cheap oil: electricity to pump water from deep aquifers; gas and oil to run (not to mention build) tractors and other farm equipment; transport to markets; packaging; storage in freezer or cans; transport to consumers, storage at consumers; power to prepare food. Call it "stored sunlight." We have been borrowing energy from stored sources without paying anything back for it.

20 calories out and 1 calorie in = NOT sustainable. When will it crash? Any day now.

[donk]

There should be no problem with water: 70% of the planet is under sea water and the level is rising. Of course we still need to implement the technology, which as always means curbing greedy capitalists. Gerald Pollack's Fourth Phase of Water suggests how this could be done.

When "Peak Oil" was popularized it was a looming threat. Then as the "threatened" scene failed to appear, people were disenchanted. IMO the will to create a whole new way must come from incentives toward a positive direction people feel is for the good. The same with "Global Warming". Climate change was couched as being warming. It is probably global cooling and wild fluctuation. How could we "plan" for wild fluctuation?

Issues are not often presented so that people can appreciate the objectives being for even better and better experiences and that this is a value...long range and with the least interference with Biosystems.

Apparently when Tesla came to Edison with his demonstration of a much better technology, Edison already was committed to the infrastructure he had invested in. He told Tesla to forget about seeing all the infrasturucture replaced just because the idea might work better.

There is way old infrastructure EVERYWHERE that is devoted to systems creating foul air, dirty water and denatured foods our daily lives run within: sewers, streets, machinery, services like community water filtration that leaves in pollutants, health care that is introducing even more consequences like antibiotic resistance. In every place, we can detail how the systems might be retrofitted, expanded or replaced for greater and better and more healthy reasons. The investment was already made and new cannot dovetail or old retrofit, expand or be replaced without drastic and inconvenient effort....

Just because earth may well create oil like blood does not mean it is elegant and useful to crudely bleed her.
Just because we have running water does not mean we should pee our drugs and pour our wastes into central sewers.
Just because tractors can plow earth does not mean this is Good for earth or people REALLY.

1."there SHOULD be no problem" .......I am sure from what I have read that there are enough now existing potentially integrated technologies so we can have beauty, clean air, clean water, abundant clean food, interesting work, sophistication AND the natural world.

It will take people who think we can have what we never had before. It is like being a poor Dickinsonian street urchin agreeing my living conditions are what should be expected as I was born into them.

People have other more pressing issues many days, and people cannot foresee how we "should have no problems" by the use of letting natural systems lead the way to comprehending our systems and change them JUST BECAUSE that is coordinated with nature.

What is the NOT threatening (and emergency based) "plug in" that could bring the people, resources and knowledge together? The threats that fail to develop are used as excuses to keep the crude.

The way I imagine it is that people would need to agree to orient around the systems. Society would almost have to change to a feeling that the fulcrum of importance is not individual desires and wants but community and system wide elegance. I have heard this slammed as some sort of evil socialism. But it is Over Unity as a value to gauge from.

I recall one definition of progress: "From what we have we give and from we give, more is returned". A system making no greater return would be jettisoned and when it was found that something failed to provide the beauty for the community, out that goes also.

I see a world butterfly approach...least force and greatest freedom of movement so when changes are good, we don't have heavy and cumbersome undoings of infra-prisoning (the prison of the infrastructure).

That is my visioning beyond "Peak F-utility"

Well said, I agree and think you touched on so many great points, thanks!

[NancyV]

We could go back and forth posting various scientists opinions/theories/evidence that oil is either biotic or abiotic, limited or unlimited, available near the surface or is also abyssal (really fracking deep-*pun intended). I have posted a link and introduction to the abyssal, abiotic theory of a scientist, J.F. Kenney, below. He is more into the almost unlimited aspects of abyssal oil and not about the possible self renewing aspects of it. This is another aspect of what could be an interesting debate if we didn't have the tendency to promote our possible absolute conviction that ONE theory is definitely irrefutable. We humans are prone to wanting our own agendas or beliefs reinforced.

If you have been an environmentalist type for many years you may be inclined to disbelieve anything that would suggest that the earth is renewing itself constantly, that species constantly become extinct and it's a natural process, that earth can continually transform biological materials into oil, that there is an almost unlimited supply of abyssal oil. You may latch onto the anthromorphizing of "Mother Earth" which we romantic new age hippy type humans love to do and ascribe human emotions to the earth, thinking "she" is in pain, either mental or physical. (yes I indulged in the new age hippy game for a few years in my youth). Of course being a logical environmentalist who sees the folly of polluting where we live is very intelligent. Only an ignorant fool thinks it's okay to breathe and eat substances that are poisonous to us. (unless they are highly evolved and have transcended physical influences)

We choose to brainwash ourselves into beliefs we hold and want to reject anything that contradicts those beliefs. We don't like being wrong! LOL... Good thing I LOVE being wrong because then I know that I have fallen into another belief that I'll need to drop. It's a constant battle to remain aware and not accept any programming. Beliefs are not facts, they are choices and preferences subject to change. Even some of the most cherished so called factual scientific physics theories, like Einsteins E=MC2, have been disproved by quantum physicists. Then again if they replace E=MC2 with their own theory, THAT will likely be disproved.

With all the lying from governments, politicians and scientists bought and paid to support certain theories, it seems safer to not buy 100% into ANY theory or any so called "proof". I try to stay more detached and always like to look at the pros and cons presented by both sides. However I'm still human and subject to being swayed by certain arguments. I definitely have likes and dislikes. If I am absolutely SURE about something, which occasionally still happens, then that is usually disproved or at least cogent arguments are eventually put forth that show me I was again foolish to make a final decision about the veracity of a theory.

Just as a point of interest, which I don't expect or care if anyone believes, I have merged with the earth several times and felt all life (and everything is alive because it's all the same living energy). I have heard and felt trees, rocks and mountains communicating and understood the language of the wind. It's an incredible experience somewhat like merging with Source but on a "lower" or different level. In those experiences of merging with the earth I did not fear being depleted at all by any minuscule human endeavors, such as drilling for oil, coal mining, species becoming extinct. Earth feeling fear, compassion, love, etc. is our human propensity to make earth in our likeness, maybe so we can relate better. When I was merged with the earth I did feel the love energy, and that is NOT the human type love..... I felt NO fear, pain or any negative type emotions that we humans feel or think the earth would feel if "she" was like us. She isn't like us. WE aren't even like we think we are! (but that's a whole different story)

Ultimately energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed (another Einstein theory). I tend to believe this because I have felt it, but I cannot even say that my own experiences PROVE anything! I'm always open to fooling myself. (Maybe that's why I love the FOOL card in the tarot deck! LOL)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT RECENT PREDICTIONS

OF IMPENDING SHORTAGES OF PETROLEUM

EVALUATED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF

MODERN PETROLEUM SCIENCE.

continued here: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Energy.html

J. F. Kenney

Joint Institute of the Physics of the Earth

Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow;

Gas Resources Corporation, Houston.

ABSTRACT: For almost a century, various predictions have been made that the human race was imminently going to run out of available petroleum. The passing of time has proven all those predictions to have been utterly wrong. It is pointed out here how all such predictions have depended fundamentally upon an archaic hypothesis from the 18th century that petroleum somehow (miraculously) evolved from biological detritus, and was accordingly limited in abundance. That hypothesis has been replaced during the past forty years by the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins which has established that petroleum is a primordial material erupted from great depth. Therefore, petroleum abundances are limited by little more than the quantities of its constituents as were incorporated into the Earth at the time of its formation; and its availability depends upon technological development and exploration competence.

[sirdipswitch]

So... why is there oil down there in the first place? It is Mother Natures', "Lubricant" and "Shock Absorber", to Her natural geologic processes. Remove it, and produce an increase in severity of those same geologic processes. An increase in both seisemic and volcanic, activity. And... Mother, is smarter than big oil. She made it "Self Renewing", in critical areas.

AND... ain't too brite... to "mess" with Mother Nature. ccc.:wizard:

PLUS... She put "Ample" Renewable... free energy in our atmosphere, for us to use, and informs all, willing to do a little investigation, how to extract it for that purpose.

yep... bechersweetbippy she does.cc.:wizard:

[Snowflower]

Yep. We're probably giving Gaia arthritis.

[donk]

Thinking about the "renewable" aspect and the mention of reinforcing our own beliefs: if that's the "truth" than to me it's an even worse situation. Likening it to earth's lube or Gaia's blood is a nice analogy. We should be treating it as sacredly as we do our own blood (or should be), using only for emergency, being careful how we extract it, respecting the source, using for the good of all.

Treating it and thinking about it the way most of us have been programmed to do, as infinite and renewing or as a substance we need to race the competition to get at or a god given right to drill at 5 miles under the ocean, to me is just suicidal.

[Carmody]

Like the bundy thread and all it indicates, it's about grace under fire.

As soon as we can work with one another cohesively, with the least amount of issues, then we can get to the over unity devices, and anti-gravity.

Right now, as a group of humans we are the worst kind of war-like, illiterate, unaware, animalistic, cannibalistic, murderous octopus that anyone could imagine.

For all of our 'goodness' and correctness, we are all of these other things, as well.

And if we unite, and we unite against what we feel is a common enemy, that that is no good either. We'd still be living with the same problems as before.

Our best chance, that I can see, really is tearing down the genetic components that bring us sociopathy.

I don't think that we'll be either allowed, or welcome into a galactic community, until something akin to that takes place.

Why say that in this thread? ell, everything is connected to everything, and in this case, very much so.

Concentration on the issue of peak oil -or no peak oil, has little to nothing to do with solving our real problems, problems which will hold us back and tear us down, long before and long after this peak oil/no peak oil question is answered.

I can understand the need for a thread, but the real issue lies elsewhere.

Peak oil is symptomatic, not causal.

[ralfy]

Just two weeks ago, one source asked if we have now reached peak production for tight oil:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/woodmackenzie/2020/02/21/have-we-passed-peak-growth-for-tight-oil/

For context,

In the 1950s, Hubbert predicted that U.S. conventional production would peak in the 1970s, and world conventional production in the mid-1990s. He also referred to unconventional production that would be needed to make up for that.

U.S. conventional production did peak in 1970, and a global oil crunch followed. A few years after that, Hubbert was interviewed, and he said that the recent crunch will postpone world conventional peak by around a decade, to the mid-2000s.

Meanwhile, in 1971, the Club of Rome predicted that world economic output would peak after 2020 due to a resource crunch.

In 1979, world oil production per capita peaked but it only became known later. To this day, it has not recovered.

In 2005, world conventional production peaked (as predicted by Hubbert). Some experts also reported that world discoveries peaked in the 1960s, and that two-thirds of oil-producing countries experienced peak or declining production by 2005.

In 2008, the global economy crashed due to soaring debt and high oil prices, and may have been influenced by rising oil production costs. Meanwhile, the U.S. began to produce from unconventional sources to make up for conventional production issues, but it needed rising oil prices. The global economy remained weak for a decade.

In 2010, the IEA acknowledges that world conventional production peaked in 2005. They could not conclude that earlier because they only started to do a global survey of oil fields in 2008. Meanwhile, the EIA reported that U.S. unconventional production might peak after 2020.

Also, in 2010, Lloyds of London and the U.S. military argued that oil supply issues would take place by 2020 assuming that economic growth would continue. BP reported that total global production was being compensated by U.S. tight oil production.

In 2012, one scientist went back to the Limits to Growth forecasts and noted that four decades of real data tracked the forecasts, which stated that global economic output would peak after 2020.

A few years after that, several reports revealed that due to volatile oil prices, the oil industry had to borrow large amounts of money to continue producing oil, and that it is facing diminishing returns: increasing amounts of money needed to get less new oil each time. The BIS estimates that its debts have now reached $2.5 trillion, and it needs oil to rise to around $100 a barrel to pay off the debt. At the same time, it has to borrow more money to continue increasing production, and will need oil price to rise to at least $150 a barrel to tap oil from fields like Manifa.

With the current pandemic, demand may drop, leading to lower oil prices, which in turn will affect producers that need higher oil prices in order to tap more costly sources. Hence, the news given above.

Finally, about anti-gravity and other technofixes, these involve lag times across many decades, if not low energy returns. In short, any transition to alternative, if not better, energy sources will require large amounts of cheap oil to act as a buffer.

[Pam]

Just two weeks ago, one source asked if we have now reached peak production for tight oil:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/woodmackenzie/2020/02/21/have-we-passed-peak-growth-for-tight-oil/

For context,

In the 1950s, Hubbert predicted that U.S. conventional production would peak in the 1970s, and world conventional production in the mid-1990s. He also referred to unconventional production that would be needed to make up for that.

U.S. conventional production did peak in 1970, and a global oil crunch followed. A few years after that, Hubbert was interviewed, and he said that the recent crunch will postpone world conventional peak by around a decade, to the mid-2000s.

Meanwhile, in 1971, the Club of Rome predicted that world economic output would peak after 2020 due to a resource crunch.

In 1979, world oil production per capita peaked but it only became known later. To this day, it has not recovered.

In 2005, world conventional production peaked (as predicted by Hubbert). Some experts also reported that world discoveries peaked in the 1960s, and that two-thirds of oil-producing countries experienced peak or declining production by 2005.

In 2008, the global economy crashed due to soaring debt and high oil prices, and may have been influenced by rising oil production costs. Meanwhile, the U.S. began to produce from unconventional sources to make up for conventional production issues, but it needed rising oil prices. The global economy remained weak for a decade.

In 2010, the IEA acknowledges that world conventional production peaked in 2005. They could not conclude that earlier because they only started to do a global survey of oil fields in 2008. Meanwhile, the EIA reported that U.S. unconventional production might peak after 2020.

Also, in 2010, Lloyds of London and the U.S. military argued that oil supply issues would take place by 2020 assuming that economic growth would continue. BP reported that total global production was being compensated by U.S. tight oil production.

In 2012, one scientist went back to the Limits to Growth forecasts and noted that four decades of real data tracked the forecasts, which stated that global economic output would peak after 2020.

A few years after that, several reports revealed that due to volatile oil prices, the oil industry had to borrow large amounts of money to continue producing oil, and that it is facing diminishing returns: increasing amounts of money needed to get less new oil each time. The BIS estimates that its debts have now reached $2.5 trillion, and it needs oil to rise to around $100 a barrel to pay off the debt. At the same time, it has to borrow more money to continue increasing production, and will need oil price to rise to at least $150 a barrel to tap oil from fields like Manifa.

With the current pandemic, demand may drop, leading to lower oil prices, which in turn will affect producers that need higher oil prices in order to tap more costly sources. Hence, the news given above.

Finally, about anti-gravity and other technofixes, these involve lag times across many decades, if not low energy returns. In short, any transition to alternative, if not better, energy sources will require large amounts of cheap oil to act as a buffer.

Very interesting and timely post! Welcome to the forum ralfy! I look forward to hearing more from you!!!