Podcast

Robert McFarlane: Open Fuel Standards Are Critical to Fighting the Peak Oil Catastrophe

Friday, February 25, 2011, 4:47 PM

"Well, I wish I had a more hopeful answer for you. You've nailed it. We really are very likely to face either a disruption violently [by terrorism] or a political decision by OPEC to change the price of oil to $200 to $300 per barrel and literally destroy the global economy."

So predicts Robert McFarlane in today's interview, which focuses on current U.S. energy policy and the risks it faces. Mr. McFarlane's many decades of public and private service in both the Middle East and global energy markets make him uniquely qualified to opine on the merits (or lack thereof) of the energy strategy that the U.S. is pursuing.

He sees the U.S. as committed to a foolish "monopoly-fuel" system that leaves it dependent upon and dangerously vulnerable to the actions of external players, including those hostile to U.S. interests. And as the impacts of Peak Oil begin to be felt, he believes it is a near certainty that our country - along with the global economy - will experience great shocks which we have no plans currently in place to address sufficiently. The solution lies in creating a viable market for alternative fuels, which is in our power to do, provided we can muster the political and civic will. And do so quickly. 

Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Robert C. McFarlane (runtime 34m:39s):

You are missing some Flash content that should appear here! Perhaps your browser cannot display it, or maybe it did not initialize correctly.

Download/Play the Podcast
Report a Problem Playing the Podcast

In this podcast, Robert and Chris discuss:


How we can change from our current flawed policy (i.e., rely heavily on oil imports and go to war every seven years when our interests are threatened) without having to wait for new technologies to save us. We have the technologies we need to become energy self-sufficient; what we need is the national conviction to apply them (e.g., biodiesel, ethanol, methanol, gas, electricity). Consumers can then decide at the pump which one(s) to use. Once enough government-funded infrastructure is in place, private capital will begin to fund the system, as investors are able to see a market-driven mechanism for receiving a return on their investment.

As with our recent interviews with David CollumJoe SaluzziJim RogersMarc Faber, and Bill Fleckenstein, Robert ends the interview with advice for the listener, including contacting your representatives in Congress, expressing your concerns, and asking them to vote for the "open fuel standard." Doing nothing is a mandate for the current monopoly system.


Robert C McFarlane served two tours of duty in Vietnam, then held positions as Special Assistant for National Security Affairs under President Ford and National Security Advisor & special representative to the Middle East and under President Regan. After his reitrement from public service he founded Global Energy Investors a developer of energy infrastructure projects in Asia and South America, and Energy and Communications Solutions LLC which focused on projects in Russia, Turkey and other emerging countries. He serves currently as Chairman of McFarlane and Associates Inc, a consulting firm focused on advancing techonologies in the national and homeland security domains. He now dedicates much of his time to peace-making efforts in the Middle East and reducing US dependence on foreign oil.

Related content

86 Comments

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 97
Not at my dinner table!

cmartenson wrote:

Whether I agree with their assessment or not is utterly besides the point for me, the value is in accepting that this happens to be the way they see the world.

I'm having trouble with the idea that we really learned anything about how McFarlane sees the world.  He is obviously disingenuous, describing his role in Darfur as an "honest broker" when in fact Qatar was recruited to pay for his mission on behalf of the Sudanese government.  Some probing questions about this might have brought out the hypocrisy in McFarlane's arrangement, and perhaps discovered exactly what he is doing for Sudan, but instead McFarlane's view was taken at face value.

If McFarlane is dishonest about his role in Sudan (as he also withheld information from Congress about Iran Contra, resulting in his misdemeanor criminal conviction in 1989) then why should we believe he is telling us the truth about his views about Islamic states, OPEC, the geopolitical situation, Peak Oil, or biofuels?  It's just as likely that he is feeding us an intentionally crafted deception, and that his true beliefs and agenda are very different.  Again, a few questions about the EROEI of biofuels, the amount of farmland required to replace world oil consumption, or the incestuous relations between the US, the Saudis, and other Islamic dictatorships (as exemplified by McFarlane's $410,000/yr consulting contract with Qatar) might have been very revealing.

Based on his record, McFarlane is not a guest that would be welcome at my dinner table.  A meetup with him would be more analogous to a wrestling match, a situation indeed calling for "limber and vigilant" energy, rather than complacent acceptance.

Chris, I found myself wondering if McFarlane placed any advance limitations or ground rules on the lines of questioning that he was willing to tolerate in order to do the interview?

green_achers's picture
green_achers
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Posts: 203
Me too!

Well, I called him a worse name than Logan's run did, so I guess I should be banned, too.

My objection was not that I disagree with his ideas, or that I don't like what he stands for as a human, though both of those are certainly the case.  It was that Chris gave him a forum to promote his agenda without giving the necessary background for judging that agenda.  You can't assume that everyone understands that a title like "Chairman of McFarlane and Associates Inc, a consulting firm focused on advancing techonologies in the national and homeland security domains"  means "lobbyist for major energy and military-industrial corporations."  McFarlane and his ilk sell their influence to the highest bidder, regardless of the actual merits of the ideas being promoted by the bidder.

One might have been excused for thinking that Chris endorsed the ideas, given the banner headline for the interview.  McFarlane is a master of (mis)communication.  He knows that most readers won't read an entire article, a lot will just read the first few paragraphs, and a fair number won't get past the headline.  That one has got to have made him proud.  He probably forwarded it to his clients.

Hey, I love this site, and am thankful for all I have learned here.  I also regret the intemperate language used: there is never an excuse for that.  But I honestly think Chris blew this one.

And I want to thank Logan's Run for doing us all the service of being the first to break the ice by criticizing what was, before that, uncritical acceptance.

timple's picture
timple
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2011
Posts: 2
Please, please provide an xml rss feed for these podcasts!

Great informative post Chris - but to listen I have to download this to my pc then transfer to my Nokia - possible but fiddly. If you simply enclosed the attachments properly in the xml feed then standard podcast programs (like I have on my Nokia) but also available on all other platforms could download automatically when you post new interviews!

I have only found this one http://feeds.feedburner.com/ChrisMartensonBlogs?format=xml and it does not enclose the podcast properly. If there is an alternative I am sorry for the comment but please let me know where it is!

debu's picture
debu
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 17 2009
Posts: 134
Disappointed

This interview with Robert McFarlane is the first content on CM.com I have been disappointed in, indeed deeply so. McFarlane's policy presciptions are seriously flawed, his understanding of our energy plight is superficial at best and his geopolitical "analysis" amounted to little more than wog-bashing.

I am all for being exposed to different viewpoints on this site and elsewhere.  However, the views of the likes of McFarlane and others of our ruling elites who have failed us so spectacularly are unfortunately inescapable because the MSM provides a platform to them and them alone.   There is no need for CM.com to do so too.

CM's time and our time would be better spent interviewing figures who have more to offer both in terms of intellect and integrity.

A very poor showing

The Albatross's picture
The Albatross
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 7 2009
Posts: 6
Are Hydrocarbons [inc Oil] Really Fossil Fuels???

Interesting interview and some fiery comments. 

Here is my assessment.

Synopsis:    Statements that we are beyond Peak Oil entirely hinge upon the claim that Oil = Fossil Fuel.

For e.g.The Energy Story

There are three major forms of fossil fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. All three were formed many hundreds of millions of years ago before the time of the dinosaurs – hence the name fossil fuels. The age they were formed is called the Carboniferous Period. It was part of the Paleozoic Era. "Carboniferous" gets its name from carbon, the basic element in coal and other fossil fuels.

8501818

The Carboniferous Period occurred from about 360 to 286 million years ago. At the time, the land was covered with swamps filled with huge trees, ferns and other large leafy plants, similar to the picture above. The water and seas were filled with algae – the green stuff that forms on a stagnant pool of water. Algae is actually millions of very small plants.

As the trees and plants died, they sank to the bottom of the swamps of oceans. They formed layers of a spongy material called peat. Over many hundreds of years, the peat was covered by sand and clay and other minerals, which turned into a type of rock called sedimentary.

More and more rock piled on top of more rock, and it weighed more and more. It began to press down on the peat. The peat was squeezed and squeezed until the water came out of it and it eventually, over millions of years, it turned into coal, oil or petroleum, and natural gas.

Source:  http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter08.html

The problem with this is that;

1.     Are we to believe that old growth forests -- dinosaurs included -- were buried under over 7 miles of rocks etc, and then "turned" into oil - as this 2007 news release explains?

ExxonMobil announced on Wednesday, April 25, that its subsidiary Exxon Neftegaz Limited has completed drilling of the Z-11 well, the longest measured extended-reach drilling well in the world. It is located on Sakhalin Island at Russia's Far East and is part of Exxon-led Sakhalin-1 oil and gas project. The record-setting well has a total measured depth of 37,016 feet (11,282 meters) or over seven miles, Exxon said in its official press release.

Source:      http://www.huliq.com/19627/exxon-drills-world-s-deepest-well-at-its-russ...

2.    Professor Kutcherov and researchers from the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have reported in the Science Daily that they have proof that oil does not require squashed dinosaurs & their fodder, or indeed any other vegetable material.

Abiotic Oil

The abiotic oil formation theory suggests that crude oil is the result of naturally occurring and possibly ongoing geological processes. This theory was developed in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, as the Union needed to be self sufficient in terms of producing its own energy. The science behind the theory is sound and is based on experimental evidence in both the laboratory and in the field. This theory has helped to identify and therefore develop large numbers of gas and oil deposits. Examples of such fields are the South Khylchuyu field and the controversial Sakhalin II field.

In its simplest form, the theory is that carbon present in the magma beneath the crust reacts with hydrogen to form methane as well as a raft of other mainly alkane hydrocarbons. The reactions are more complicated than this, with several intermediate stages. Particular mineral rocks such as granite and other silicon based rocks act as catalysts, which speed up the reaction without actually becoming involved or consumed in the process.

Experiments have shown that under extreme conditions of heat and pressure it is possible to convert iron oxide, calcium carbonate and water into methane, with hydrocarbons containing up to 10 carbon atoms being produced by Russian scientists last century and confirmed in recent US experiments. The absence of large quantities of free gaseous oxygen in the magma prevents the hydrocarbons from burning and therefore forming the lower energy state molecule carbon dioxide. The conditions present in the Earth's mantle would easily be sufficient for these small hydrocarbon chains to polymerise into the longer chain molecules found in crude oil.

Source:     http://www.viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html

3.    Is this recent off-planet discovery, by the Cassini spacecraft as it orbits Saturn's moon Titan proof positive of Abiotic Oils.

Titan's Surface Organics Surpass Oil Reserves on Earth
02.13.08
 

Artist concept of terrain on Titan

An artist's imagination of hydrocarbon pools, icy and rocky terrain on the surface of Saturn's largest moon Titan.
Image credit: Steven Hobbs (Brisbane, Queensland, Australia).

 Saturn's orange moon Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, according to new data from NASA's Cassini spacecraft. The hydrocarbons rain from the sky, collecting in vast deposits that form lakes and dunes.

The new findings from the study led by Ralph Lorenz, Cassini radar team member from the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Md., are reported in the Jan. 29 issue of the Geophysical Research Letters.

"Titan is just covered in carbon-bearing material -- it's a giant factory of organic chemicals," said Lorenz. "This vast carbon inventory is an important window into the geology and climate history of Titan."

At a balmy minus 179 degrees Celsius (minus 290 degrees Fahrenheit), Titan is a far cry from Earth. Instead of water, liquid hydrocarbons in the form of methane and ethane are present on the moon's surface, and tholins probably make up its dunes. The term "tholins"was coined by Carl Sagan in 1979 to describe the complex organic molecules at the heart of prebiotic chemistry.

Cassini has mapped about 20 percent of Titan's surface with radar. Several hundred lakes and seas have been observed, with each of several dozen estimated to contain more hydrocarbon liquid than Earth's oil and gas reserves. The dark dunes that run along the equator contain a volume of organics several hundred times larger than Earth's coal reserves.

Proven reserves of natural gas on Earth total 130 billion tons, enough to provide 300 times the amount of energy the entire United States uses annually for residential heating, cooling and lighting. Dozens of Titan's lakes individually have the equivalent of at least this much energy in the form of methane and ethane.

Source:      http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20080213.html

Before jumping to the emphatic, irrevocable & 'ask-no-questions' conclusion that Oil = Fossil Fuel, perhaps we should focus on whether this is a fact or just a theory --- especially when we have so much economic, political and military needs/reliance on securing uninterrupted supplies at a fair price.

cheers

jturbo68's picture
jturbo68
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 4 2009
Posts: 193
Abiotic Oil

The Albatross wrote:

The problem with this is that;

1.     Are we to believe that old growth forests -- dinosaurs included -- were buried under over 7 miles of rocks etc, and then "turned" into oil - as this 2007 news release explains?

ExxonMobil announced on Wednesday, April 25, that its subsidiary Exxon Neftegaz Limited has completed drilling of the Z-11 well, the longest measured extended-reach drilling well in the world. It is located on Sakhalin Island at Russia's Far East and is part of Exxon-led Sakhalin-1 oil and gas project. The record-setting well has a total measured depth of 37,016 feet (11,282 meters) or over seven miles, Exxon said in its official press release.

Source:      http://www.huliq.com/19627/exxon-drills-world-s-deepest-well-at-its-russ...

Before jumping to the emphatic, irrevocable & 'ask-no-questions' conclusion that Oil = Fossil Fuel, perhaps we should focus on whether this is a fact or just a theory --- especially when we have so much economic, political and military needs/reliance on securing uninterrupted supplies at a fair price.

cheers

Here we go again with the abiotic oil ...Hopefully we start finding a bunch more of it soon. Wink

There are Mountains and Canyons on the earth that are miles in height and depth.  It is certainly possible for surface features to be lifted or sunk by 7 miles.  Those formations are created via plate tectonics, similarly to the folding of the continental plates that buries the organic matter which created Fossil Fuels.

John

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2491
More Questions Than Answers

The Albatross wrote:

Interesting interview and some fiery comments. 

Here is my assessment.

Synopsis:    Statements that we are beyond Peak Oil entirely hinge upon the claim that Oil = Fossil Fuel.

<snipped>

Proven reserves of natural gas on Earth total 130 billion tons, enough to provide 300 times the amount of energy the entire United States uses annually for residential heating, cooling and lighting. Dozens of Titan's lakes individually have the equivalent of at least this much energy in the form of methane and ethane.

Source:      http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20080213.html

Before jumping to the emphatic, irrevocable & 'ask-no-questions' conclusion that Oil = Fossil Fuel, perhaps we should focus on whether this is a fact or just a theory --- especially when we have so much economic, political and military needs/reliance on securing uninterrupted supplies at a fair price.

cheers

Albatross -

Perhaps we should reexamine why we have so much focus on the economic, political and military need  to secure uninterrupted supplies - at any price?  The US already consumes almost 25% of the world's current daily oil production.  We use 17-20 million bpd out of 85 million bpd produced.  Do the math, 25% of the world's oil production going to 3% of the population?  And we have the stones to bitch about $4 a gallon gas?

I deliberately cut out the section above because it is a pretty clear indication of the myopic view our beloved real life rocket scientists at NASA have.    The "Proven reserves of natural gas on Earth" are denominated in US energy consumption.  Why?  What point is the author trying to make?  Besides 'Last Man Standing'?

green_achers's picture
green_achers
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Posts: 203
Censorship?

What happened to the post that followed mine last night?  It was a little rough on Chris, IIRC, but it made some of the best points I've read in a long time.

Moderator Jason's picture
Moderator Jason
Status: Moderator (Offline)
Joined: Dec 23 2008
Posts: 98
Censorship?

Chris read it.  Afterward, I invited the user to re-post his comment in more constructive and emotionally neutral language.  He has declined the invitation.  However, I can requote the post in neutral terms myself:

12trees wrote:

Chris,

I thought about this for several hours before deciding to jump in.  You are [ . . . ].  I am ashamed for [unhelpful and highly emotionally charged langage ] [. . .] . . . sickening.

First, we have a shortage of conservation, not of energy.  Our energy system is designed to waste most of the input, in order to maintain cash flow for corporations and sheiks.  General Motors had Burt Rutan design a 100 mpg car in the early 80's, and all three automakers produced working diesel/electric hybrids delivering 70 mpg+ with Federal subsidies under Clinton.  The Prius was an inferior knockoff of that taxpayer-purchased success.  GM could import 50 mpg Opels from Europe, or produce them here -- it should simply be required by law.  We could cut our energy use in half, getting down to the per capita level of Japan, with little effort and no new technology.   It just takes talking about the real issues and honesty in government, the one and only thing that we are short of.

All McFarlane's group is asking for is continued waste from a more diverse system of supply.  This makes money for the financial system in particular as they play a million different streams of futures speculation and derivatives.  Status quo, only more so.  For you to give that clear deception the credibility of your good name is -- really unspeakable.

Logan's Run would be an honored guest at my dinner table any evening.  He, a loyal contributor to this site who has participated in so many discussions, is worth a thousand [ . . . ] like McFarlane.  I watched Daily Kos kick everyone off who wanted to have Cheney impeached, and now it is a steady stream of mindless safe babble, supporting an Obama right or wrong party line and therefore worse than useless.

Washington's Blog is honest, courageous, and controversial.  I expect nothing less of you Chris.  This is the real world and it is ugly.

green_achers's picture
green_achers
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Posts: 203
Thanks!  I thought the

Thanks!  I thought the second paragraph was worth being read, even with the invective that preceeded it.

I still don't know what Washington's blog is, though.

The Albatross's picture
The Albatross
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 7 2009
Posts: 6
Why do you Write-Off Abiotic Oil so Quickly??

jturbo68 wrote:

The Albatross wrote:

The problem with this is that;

1.     Are we to believe that old growth forests -- dinosaurs included -- were buried under over 7 miles of rocks etc, and then "turned" into oil - as this 2007 news release explains?

Here we go again with the abiotic oil ...Hopefully we start finding a bunch more of it soon. Wink

There are Mountains and Canyons on the earth that are miles in height and depth.  It is certainly possible for surface features to be lifted or sunk by 7 miles.  Those formations are created via plate tectonics, similarly to the folding of the continental plates that buries the organic matter which created Fossil Fuels.

John

John -- you are completely writing off the current science - including the Cassini findings and Swedish research. 

Why would you fiercely defend a position that Oil = Fossil fuels??  It was only 400 years ago that people implaccably believed that the Earth was flat.

Look behind the hypothesis - who benefits if everyone rolls over for the Fossil Fuel Line --- the oil companies! 

How do they justify raising prices??  Pedal the myth that fossil fuels are harder to find and more expensive to extract!!

How do they coerce citizens into a state of fear??   Keep releasing media interviews that the west my find its economic lifelines shut down because of political tensions in the Middle East.

Why do this??   Because it prepares people for a possible conflict with any threat to supplies.!  Just another conflict that costs lives, money, resources for heartbreak in the homelands.

I have provided sources for both sides of the argument -- where are yours?

Remember Patton's analysis --- it is never the "masses" who provide the leadership or blaze new trails -- it is always those who think for themselves.......

cheers

jrf29's picture
jrf29
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2008
Posts: 448
Okay, let's not write off abiotic oil

Albatross,

I propose that it's not necessary to argue about how oil is generated.  Sure, let's say that oil has an abiotic origin.  Maybe oil is generated by the breakdown of organic matter.  Maybe both.  Maybe neither.

However oil gets there, we're using it up faster than it's being made.  

The world oil supply is nothing but a giant collection of individual oil fields.  And every oil field that has been tapped long enough has eventually dried up.  The oil country in Pennsylvania, where the first oil was discovered . . . we've pumped it dry.  Most of the fields in Texas have become unproductive.  All of these thousands of individual fields are in the hands of private owners who can tell you what happens to old fields.

The entire point of the 3E's is that modern economy requires an exponential increase in energy inputs.  A steady (even abiotic) supply isn't good enough.

So even if we assume that oil has a steady source of repleneshment (like trees, or fish, or topsoil), that's not good enough.  Our use of energy is exponentially increasing, and must continue increasing if we are to avoid economic convulsions.  If there is an abiotic source to oil, it's not exponentially increasing along with our consumption.  That spells trouble.

SagerXX's picture
SagerXX
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 11 2009
Posts: 2120
re: Thanks

green_achers wrote:

I still don't know what Washington's blog is, though.

There is a Washington's Blog here:  http://www.washingtonsblog.com/

This is a person who contributes to ZH under the avatar George Washington.  But if that's the same one you're thinking of, I cannot say.

The Albatross's picture
The Albatross
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 7 2009
Posts: 6
Abiotic Oil vs Interview with Robert McFarlane

Excellent points jfr29 -- my reason for posting was not to add another E [ Excuse ] to the thread, ie Oil = Abiotic -- therefore -- we can Exponentially Extract more.

My point -- If Robert McFarlane tells us that Oil = Fossil Fuel, and this is not true -- then all analysis that follows is also not true. 

Enter the USSR  -- Further confirmation of the science behind Abiotic Oil;

In the 1950’s the Soviet Union faced ‘Iron Curtain’ isolation from the West.
The Cold War was in high gear.
Russia had little oil to fuel its economy. Finding sufficient oil indigenously was a national security priority of the highest order.

Scientists at the Institute of the Physics of the Earth of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Geological Sciences of the Ukraine Academy of Sciences began a fundamental inquiry in the late 1940’s: where does oil come from?

In 1956, Prof. Vladimir Porfir’yev announced their conclusions:

‘Crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths.’

The Soviet geologists had turned Western orthodox geology on its head.

They called their theory of oil origin the ‘a-biotic’ theory—non-biological—to distinguish from the Western biological theory of origins.

They argued that oil is formed deep in the earth, formed in conditions of very high temperature and very high pressure, like that required for diamonds to form. ‘Oil is a primordial material of deep origin which is transported at high pressure via ‘cold’ eruptive processes into the crust of the earth,’ Porfir’yev stated.

His team dismissed the idea that oil is was biological residue of plant and animal fossil remains, as a hoax designed to perpetuate the myth of limited supply.

Source:     http://oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Peak_Oil___Russia/peak_o...

Following their a-biotic or non-fossil theory of the deep origins of petroleum, the Russian and Ukrainian petroleum geophysicists and chemists began with a detailed analysis of the tectonic history and geological structure of the crystalline basement of the Dnieper-Donets Basin. After a tectonic and deep structural analysis of the area, they made geophysical and geochemical investigations.

A total of sixty one wells were drilled, of which thirty seven were commercially productive, an extremely impressive exploration success rate of almost sixty percent. The size of the field discovered compared with the North Slope of Alaska. 

By contrast, US wildcat drilling was considered successful with a ten percent success rate. Nine of ten wells are typically “dry holes.”

Not only has this alternative explanation of the origins of oil and gas existed in theory. The emergence of Russia and prior of the USSR as the world’s largest oil producer and natural gas producer has been based on the application of the theory in practice.

This has geopolitical consequences of staggering magnitude.

Threat Assessment -- If it is determined that closure of the Straits of Hormuz is an extreme-level threat, then we need to prepare for such eventualities.

We must follow the Russian Science that put them into First Place and remove/reduce the implied threat of oil choke points to the west. 

Bottom Line:   Robert McFarlane - in his former role with access to highly classified Intelligence --- must know about these Soviet efforts. 

Why??   Because when the USSR turned from Oil-Poor to Oil-Rich, you can bet that this had massive strategic implications and that Western Intelligence services wanted to know why!.

So -- why would Robert not act in a transparent manner and tell Chris and the team about this???  After all, it is not a state secret anymore, is it?? 

Answer:    Because he is pushing another agenda.!!

Back to your comments jfr29 --- I also agree with your further analysis, we cannot continue along the path of wanton use/abuse of Earths resources.

Where does this leave us??

We must put much more research & effort into responsible, sustainable, innovative and continuing development into systems & technologies that enable us to thrive and survive. 

However, we will never move forward if we blindly follow everyone who rigidly directs us toward absolutes such as Oil Must Come from Fossil Fuels.!

The Russians have been onto this for years - time to drop the subterfuge!!!!

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2353
A few problems

Albatross,

If this were true, you'd think that the first thing that would happen is a reasoned rationing of the resource. The 3R's.

Russia, and it's oil conglomerants (Yukos, et al) have not done anything of this sort. In fact, they've acted in a way that would seem "counter-intuitive" to a revelation of this magnitude when they invaded Georgia some years back to secure the oil and natural gas pipelines in that nation.

Further, the composition of Petrol (http://www.petroleum.co.uk/composition/) is largely carbon with trace elements of nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen. This would give unrefined petrol  a significant bouyancy when compared to other silicate and metallic composites - even under pressure and mass - as the elements are significantly lower in atomic mass than Si, Mg, Fe, et cetra. (http://quake.mit.edu/hilstgroup/CoreMantle/EarthCompo.pdf)

I'm extrapolating to a large degree here - because my field I generally apply these principles ot the atmosphere, but geology has some similar principles... at least from the chemical perspective.

Another thing to consider is the K/T event displaced megatons of mass - laying carbon underneath other, more dense elements - those mentioned above and others, of course. This paints a very plausible picture of carbon being 'tilled under' and continous layers of strata being deposited and redeposited via floods, eruptions, earthquakes and other natural processes. It seems plausible that oil could be abiotic, but the thesis is just not as scientifically palatable as plain 'ole fossil-carbon based oil - which to me makes a good deal more sense, since the chemical conditions to create oil as we know it exist autonomous of the abundance of carbon.

When you introduce the K/T event, it makes perfect sense.

Cheers,

Aaron
(not an expert)

green_achers's picture
green_achers
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Posts: 203
We're going to be deep in

We're going to be deep in the olduvai gorge of future history and some dead-enders are still going to be asserting that it's all a hoax.  Better not to get caught up in arguments with people who base their beliefs on fantasy, and to get on with the preps.

I do notice these things always pop up when there's a serious discussion under way that might cause some to question the power structure, though.  Maybe I'm just being paranoid...

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2353
Question - Green Achers

Green Achers, 

I agree for the most part with JRF above - it doesn't really matter, because either way, we're using it faster than it's "growing back". 

As you said, onward with preparations.

Cheers,

Aaron

look_at_it_this_way's picture
look_at_it_this_way
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 23 2011
Posts: 1
Regarding the McFarlane interview

Greetings. This is my first comment here. I have watched the Crash Course. Robert McFarlane is high on alcohol. Let me clarify. He touts open fuel standards that would allow us to make a choice about what we put in the fuel tanks of our vehicles. A couple of those things being ethanol and methanol. However, the Crash Course points out that the generation of alcohol based fuels is break even at best, and some say the energy return is negative. So I am left feeling that McFarlane doesn't "get it". Does anyone else see this disconnect?

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
ASPO talk in Sydney yesterday

For general interest, here's a commentary on Bruce Robinson's (Convenor of ASPO Australia) talk yesterday, at the prestigious 6th Annual Excellence in OIl & Gas Conference

The conference was attended my many of the well-known Australian oil & gas industry identities,  and some senior government officials.  Between each of the major keynote speakers (of which Bruce was one), an opportunity was given to CEO's of junior and emerging Australian public exploration companies to present their wares.   Their not-so-hidden agenda was to "talk up" their share price and attract more potential investors. 

Myself and Ian McPherson of ASPO were honoured to accept complimentary registrations that Bruce made available.   Considering that the cost was $1,795 per attendee, this was a generous gift.  It included the opportunity to meet new & old contacts, to enjoy a fine lunch, and to participate in the 6PM "networking drinks" in the grand hallway of the Sydney Exhibition & Conference Centre, Darling Harbour.   

Bruce's talk started at 3:30PM in the large auditorium.  His style of delivery  - with regulation dark suit & tie - was appropriate for the corporate culture that pervaded the conference.   Bruce had a lot to cover and did not waste any time, as he warmed up to a rapid point by point synopsis of the current peak oil world view.  There were plenty of good "sound bites" and interesting new ways of seeing things (some drawn from ASPO's Prof.  Aleklett, I suspect).  I believe the oil & gas professionals would each take away several "new angles" or insights, implanted into their consciousness, or if not, in their sub-conscious.

Bruce started with what he called his "oil radar".  The topical reference to WikiLeaks seemed to grab people's attention.  He moved on to make a point about the disparity in government messages in relation to peak oil and climate change. Lines were thrown in on Katrina and the GFC.  The message that preparedness should be mandatory, and good policy for governments, given the information available, came through clearly.  Contrasted to that was a graph showing how ABARE has consistently - and one wonders whether wilfully - put on its rose couloured glasses when preparing oil price forecasts.  I would not be supprised if Bruce was now that organisation's bête noire

There were flashes on the screen showing leading media headlines from the Financial Review, and opinion makers such as Richard Branson, Bakhtiari and the US Joint Forces Command. These reinforced the view (no doubt shared by many of the attendees) that peak oil thinking was now well and truly mainstream.  The Noah story was a simple and persuasive analogy that communicated Bruce's long standing public advocacy of preparedness.  The political risk of high petrol prices was mentioned, and the flashing on the big screen of media headlines "Peak oil: petrol to hit $8 a litre" (the CSIRO study) was a good reminder.  Reputable demand/supply charts were depicted behind the speaker, such as the Macquarie Bank publication, to show that peak oil was now far removed from fringe group thinking.  The downslide of the world's big fields was presented  - North Sea, Canterell, Prudhoe Bay, and OECD, US, Norway.   Politically brave were his comments that quoted sources indicating that the IEA was a cartel to counter OPEC and strongly influenced by the US, to shore up Western economic confidence.        

That takes us to only half way through the talk.   I have found you can download the entire presentation from http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/Bruce/Robinson-Syd-Mar-2011-EOG.ppt.  It is worth taking a look at it and passing it on to others.

To summarise the last slide, I wrote down "FEE".  Acronym for Frugality, Efficiency and Equity.  That seems to sum up what I understand Bruce has been advocating to government for a long time, in response to ASPO thinking.  I feel intuitively that the problems of peak oil (and peak everything) must be addressed, sooner or later, by more austerity, or living happily with less consumption, like we used to in the 1950s.   Ironically, that value-laden message was not really consistent with the values that came through from the junior CEOs, whose purpose and direction was most certainly to win favour from shareholders by finding more of the black gold.  

Towards the end of the conference, during a wait for the next speaker, the conference chairman decided to fill in the time by asking for a show of hands about peak oil. I cannot remember the exact distribution between those who believed the big rollover was starting to happen now, and those who believed the downturn would happen sometime in the next decade.  But it was clear to me that the majority in the room would not have disputed much of what Bruce was presenting.  

This show of hands on peak oil probably emulated the famous 2005 APPEA conference where over half of the ~1200 assembled oil industry execs - in a show of hands - believed peak oil was real and on the horizon.  When the chairman asked finally whether anyone in the room believed world oil production would continue to grow forever, one brave exec put up his hand.  This created (maybe intentionally) some amusement for the audience.  My feeling, having spent 40 years in the oil and gas industry, is that most intelligent executives are aware of the charts that peak oil activists have read.  After all, the world's leading industry periodical - the Oil & Gas Journal - had a major article by Kenneth Deffeyes in 2002, Colin Campbell in 2003, and Samsam Bakhtiari in 2004. The difference, though, may be one of attitude, not knowledge.   To generalise, the oil company CEOs are busy having fun with the thrill of the chase, making money and serving the market god.  Coupled to this is the corporate culture that seems to discourage political controversy.  Therefore they may be happy to leave it to others like Bruce to make political waves about a complex problem.  That is why I thought Bruce's lecture was significant and chosen wisely by the conference organisers.  His talk was more than just about reinforcing the common knowledge.  It was about changing attitudes.       

Written by a member of my Running on Empty Oz Yahoo group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/roeoz/

sofistek's picture
sofistek
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 652
Disconnect

look_at_it_this_way,

Yes, I see the disconnect but it goes further than that. Why is Chris talking to someone who thinks there is a solution? And why do so many comment here mention that word, "solution"? Chris is clear, in his crash course, that what we face is a predicament and predicaments have no solutions, they only have responses. So this whole subject is badly conceived. We even have abiotic oil proponents here. I would have thought regular visitors here would have realised that the next 20 years will be nothing like the last 20 years. It's not just a matter of finding an alternative energy source or even just conserving a bit more. Our whole civilisation is teetering on the brink and cannot be saved; we need to think about new ways of living. This is absolutely critical. So, everyone, stop believing that there is a solution; there isn't!

plato1965's picture
plato1965
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 18 2009
Posts: 615
The fact(?) that Robert

The fact(?) that Robert McFarlane doesn't *get* it.. (or pretends not to)  is still quite useful information.

Is it just me.. or was it eerily like

Buck Turgidson..

I was disappointed with his responses, as I'm sure many of you were.. but.. hey no harm in tryin' ... (tm)

LR et al  , the Alex Jones fanbois,... get ye to infowars.com.

If you think less of Chris for giving him a chance.. meh.. 

Honi soit qui mal  y pense... (tm)  -

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

sofistek's picture
sofistek
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 652
Predicament

I finally listened to the podcast and am a little dismayed. Robert McFarlane clearly (to my mind) believes that if only all cars and trucks could run on a variety of fuels, the predicament becomes a problem and can be solved, then we'll all continue with our lives as normal. Chris did point out that we have a predicament, not a problem, but didn't drive the point. McFarlane believes we have a problem, not a predicament.

Why didn't Chris pull McFarlane up on his optimistic 17 years to change the fleet to flex-fuel? If it takes 17 years to change the fleet, it will take a lot longer than that to get all cars and trucks able to run on flex-fuels, unless that is the only type of new vehicle you can buy from tomorrow. And how does he know that all of these technologies can scale up? When the US uses twice the energy than the total production of plant biomass of that nation each year, then it's clear that anything based on biomass isn't going to work and definitely won't work unless economic growth is halted. McFarlane talked about that guy using no gasoline, but ignores the fact that enough oil is used int the construction of the car and truck to power the vehicles for up to several years.

Why is Chris even talking about energy in isolation? Yes, nothing happens without energy but this is a predicament. We need to change everything, not just energy, to move to a sustainable society. Discussions about our future should not be confined but wide ranging.

nickbert's picture
nickbert
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2009
Posts: 1127
The way I look at this

The way I look at this is to not to take Robert McFarlane's proposal as "the answer", but rather see what nuggets of value I can find from it.  In this case, I don't buy the idea of multi-fuel vehicles as something that will be any permanent solution, but rather as something that might aid in a smoother transition from our current way of life to a more sustainable one.

While I like the idea of multi-fuel vehicles, the open fuel standard I don't care for much.  I can understand the good intention behind it as he describes it, but I see the spectre of "unintended consequences" hovering over such a bill.  I cringe when I think of lawyers in Congress playing engineer and setting specific technical targets, getting their only advice from either auto industry lobbyists or lobbyists with unrealistic expectations and little technical background.  Here's my proposal.... how about we set up a competition similar to the Ansari X-Prize for developing multi-fuel vehicles?  The idea would be to offer cash rewards for any company that can successfully develop a multi-fuel vehicle that can meet a predetermined group of requirements.  If the car companies don't think it can be done and don't bite, the taxpayers don't lose a dime.  If the car companies try and fail, the companies accept the loss and the taxpayers don't lose a dime.  The only time the taxpayer would pay for it is when a proven product that meets the requirements is developed.  Robert Zubrin in one of his books (Entering Space) proposed the same thing for further space exploration goals and technologies to boost private-sector involvement and accelerate the development of a space-based infrastructure.  I don't see any reason why it can't be applied for multi-fuel cars too.

The one potential drawback I see is if a bailed-out car company is involved.... the taxpayer could end up on the hook for failed attempts by a Too-Big-To-Fail automaker.  Still, I would like to see the idea explored further.

- Nickbert

sofistek's picture
sofistek
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 652
Drawbacks

There is another potential drawback: that it gives people "hope" that we aren't in a predicament (as Chris keeps trying to point out and keps failing) and simply have problems to solve, perhaps by having competitions for the solutions.

nickbert's picture
nickbert
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2009
Posts: 1127
Re: Drawbacks

sofistek wrote:

There is another potential drawback: that it gives people "hope" that we aren't in a predicament (as Chris keeps trying to point out and keps failing) and simply have problems to solve, perhaps by having competitions for the solutions.

I think in a crisis we're going to see unrealistic hope attached to a number of 'miracle solutions' no matter what we do; if they do so here, at least this one gives some manner of increased resiliency while society is forced to adapt.  It wouldn't solve the liquid fuels shortage, but it could alleviate the harsher effects by allowing substitutes for limited transportation.  The idea wouldn't be (in my mind anyway) to 'replace' gasoline, but to allow for a gentler transition and limited personal transportation.  The majority would still feel the pinch of higher prices and/or shortages, and driving multi-fuel vehicles (or even just knowing it's an option) forces us to think deeper as individuals and communities on where and how we get our energy.  Without some short-to-mid-term resiliency in our current transportation options, the probability of a systemic infrastructure collapse increases, crippling the ability to expand mass transportation infrastructure or even maintain the limited one we have here in the U.S.  I too favor putting most of our effort in rail and other lower-energy mass transportation options, but I can see how this would be a worthwhile secondary effort.  And if some amazing breakthrough happens to come about and revolutionize low-energy personal transportation, great!  I'm not counting on it, but if such a thing can exist this might help bring it about.

Of course now I thought of another (potential) drawback myself.... there's the possibility that the corn ethanol lobbyists hijack the process and make it part of some grand corn ethanol program.  Not a super high probability IMO given the increasingly negative reputation of corn ethanol, but I'm not going to underestimate the cowardice, greed, or stupidity of those elected and non-elected officials making the decisions.

- Nickbert

sofistek's picture
sofistek
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 652
Only as part of a wider plan

Well, yes, if this was part of a wider plan to change our living arrangements then there might be some merit in it but I didn't get the impression, at all, that McFarlane was thinking in those terms. And now you are even imagining a revolution in personal transport though I hope you wouldn't see such a revolution as allowing business as usual to continue.

Actually, I doubt flex fuel vehicles would do much, as most would simply fill up (or the equivalent) with whatever is the cheapest. Provided no fuel is subsidised in any way and all external costs are internalised, I'm not sure McFarlane's idea would have the intended effect.

The Albatross's picture
The Albatross
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 7 2009
Posts: 6
Dead-enders and Hoaxes - Nice Try

green_archers --- interesting comments -- rather than put forward any explanation, rational rebuttal, or contrarian proof -- you resort to the ancient strategy of simplistically labelling anyone who does not fall into lock-step with your pre-conceived ideas, as deadenders.

Perhaps you should put more effort into research, rather than dish up fawning accolades.....  here.......let me help you...

September 26, 2009

PROOF! Oil is not dinosaur soup

By Dr. Jerome R. Corsi

Scientists create hydrocarbons in lab, supports abiotic oil theory

More bad news for those who believe oil is dinosaur soup or the residue of
ancient decaying forests was produced when a team of international
scientists published earlier this month in an international scientific
journal
that fossils of animals and plants are not necessary to generate
crude oil or natural gas.

In a paper published in Nature GeoScience titled, "Methane-derived
hydrocarbons produced under upper-mantle conditions," three scientists from
the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C.,
the Lomonosov Moscow State Academy of Fine Chemical Technology and the Royal
Institute of Technology
in Stockholm produced ethane, propane and butane
from synthetic chemicals in the laboratory setting.

Using laboratory conditions designed to replicate the heat and pressure
conditions of the earth's upper-mantle, the scientists demonstrated "that
the synthesis of hydrocarbons heavier than methane can be produced by
abiotic processes in the upper mantle."

This new research adds to the mounting scientific evidence that the
prevailing biological theory of the generation of oil is and always has been
nonsense.

Source:       http://coralvillecourier.typepad.com/community/2009/09/proof-oil-is-not-...

Let me help you with a little more research ..............

As a result, seven production oilfields were discovered, the largest of which is known as White Tiger, which is on the continental shelf of Vietnam. The main reserve of the White Tiger oilfield is "concentrated in fractured granite basement that is unique in the world oil and gas production practice." Western oil companies typically expect to find oil only in sedimentary rock. Generally, Western oil companies refuse to drill unless they find "source rock" – sedimentary rock that contains oil the petro-geologists believe derived from decaying ancient biological debris, dead dinosaurs and pre-historic forests. That the Soviets and the Vietnamese have found oil in granite structures is revolutionary, unless, of course, you think from the perspective of the deep, abiotic theory.

From the granite basement offshore Vietnam, the White Tiger oilfield produces almost 280,000 barrels of oil a day. A second oilfield, known as Black Lion, currently produces 80,000 barrels of oil per day, but within three years PetroVietnam expects to increase that output to 200,000 barrels per day.

The White Tiger oilfield is at a depth of 5,000 meters (approximately 3 miles), of which 4,000 meters (about 2.5 miles) is fractured granite basement. How can the "Fossil-Fuel" theory possibly explain finding oil at these deep levels in granite rock?

A survey of worldwide oil exploration in fractured basement formations is maintained on the website of GeoScience, a U.K. consulting firm specializing in ultra-deep oil and natural gas exploration and production. The GeoScience compilation further documents that the oil found offshore from Vietnam is being found in bedrock structures that are volcanic in nature:

Granites constitute the basement in the central part of White Tiger and predominate in the basement of the Dragon field. They also occur in the basement of the White Tiger northern block, together with microcline, hornblende-biotite and biotite-granodiorites. Microcline, hornblende-biotite and biotite-granodiorites also occur in the basement of the Bavi and Big Bear structures.

The basement rocks of the southern Vietnam shelf contain very large oil accumulations.

Read more: Oil in bedrock granite<BR>off Vietnam's shores http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47673#ixzz1FgeVJGUc

And this is where you come in green_archers...............

Craig Smith and I, in writing "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil," have found that anyone advocating the abiotic, "Deep-Earth" theory of the origin of oil is going to invite nearly hysterical attacks from diehard supporters of the "Fossil-Fuel" theory.

Source:     http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47673

As I stated in my earlier posts --- McFarlane has omitted telling you anything about abiotic oil -- he definitely had security clearance to access such vital intelligence, yet he has chosen to throw his weight behind western oil oligarchs  -- who in turn -- only want higher prices......

So next time you are happily filling your car up with increasing higher priced fuel -- and paying huge amounts in food prices  [ + increased transport costs ]  keep telling yourself that abiotic oil is just a fantasy....

Happy motoring........Cool

sofistek's picture
sofistek
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 652
Not from dinosaurs

Well, anyone who uses that kind of headline is not worth reading. Most oil was formed from unimaginable amounts of tiny sea creatures, not dinosaurs. No one denies that oil may be formed by other means but that's not what most of the oil we use originated from. Part of the evidence is where the oil is found, in or near geological formations that would be expected, given it's origins. As someone else said, even if there is some abiotic oil, it clearly isn't being formed at a prodigious rate, otherwise reservoir after reservoir would not be reaching peak and declining. Indeed, we'd probably have oceans of oil, if abiotic formation had been going on for billions of years.

Please get real. There is no point telling us about abiotic oil - it won't save the planet, in any way whatsoever.

green_achers's picture
green_achers
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Posts: 203
Hey, albatross, do you think

Hey, albatross, do you think you're the first person to bring that theory around here?  That  no one around here has investigated those claims?  No, I'm not going to get into a long-winded debate every time some breathless advocate of a theory that is not supported by any credible evidence, and which wouldn't make any difference if it were.  I've also given up on arguing with people who 'think climate change is a massive conspiracy of almost every climate scientist on earth, that evolution is a trick of the devil, or that the earth is flat.  I've got better things to do with my information seeking and processing time.

nickbert's picture
nickbert
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2009
Posts: 1127
eliminating single points of failure during transition

sofistek wrote:

Well, yes, if this was part of a wider plan to change our living arrangements then there might be some merit in it but I didn't get the impression, at all, that McFarlane was thinking in those terms.

I don't either.  That doesn't mean we can't take the idea and adapt it to our own expectations and goals, though.

Quote:
And now you are even imagining a revolution in personal transport though I hope you wouldn't see such a revolution as allowing business as usual to continue.

No, actually I don't expect any such revolution in personal transportation that would keep things the way they are.  I will however allow for the possibility of something that may provide opportunities for limited personal transportation using the in-situ resources available and being less reliant on long supply chains (of either energy or materials).  Even with that said I'm not counting on it, and am still planning with the assumption that mobility via personal motorized transportation will be greatly reduced or largely unavailable (depending on what you're using) and advocating to anyone who'll listen to plan accordingly. 

Quote:

Actually, I doubt flex fuel vehicles would do much, as most would simply fill up (or the equivalent) with whatever is the cheapest. Provided no fuel is subsidised in any way and all external costs are internalised, I'm not sure McFarlane's idea would have the intended effect.

I don't see flex fuel doing much to help the economy or making fuel cheaper either, no matter how ideal the situation (no subsidies and such).  Again, the value I see in multi-fuel vehicles is taking our societies away from single points of failure and a less abrupt transition to lower-energy consumption.  The stresses and pressures from high prices and shortages will still be there to influence changes in behavior, but the idea is to keep the rate of change from overwhelming our ability to adapt. 

- Nickbert

The Albatross's picture
The Albatross
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 7 2009
Posts: 6
So - Why Not Share Your Info Seeking & Processing Results??

Again -- you miss the point -- however, I am still to see any meaningful input with the relevant scienctific research, including links as to how you arrive at your assessments.

Whilst we await further developments from the Cassini space-probe about "Methane Rain on Titan," - perhaps you may yet give us your thoughts on the answers to "What Next?" for a world with limited, affordable & easily extractable oil?

cheers

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2353
RE: Why not Share?

Albatross,

I'm not sure if you intended your post to come across as blatantly disrespectful as it does, but if so, please check the attitude.

I for one resent the following statement:

Quote:
however, I am still to see any meaningful input with the relevant scienctific research, including links as to how you arrive at your assessments.

Are you the arbitor of what is "relevant"?
Are you saying that the research presented all over this forum is invalid because you didn't get a debate sized and fitted to your posts here?
Are you considering the other points of view, or have you made up your mind? 

I presented principles, links and information for discussing the counterpoints to your presented data - and you ignored it. So please don't say "I am still to see any meaningful input with the relevant scienctific research", because you have failed at presenting relevant scientific research. All you have done is presented articles that commensurate with your beliefs.

That is not doing research, it's citing research if you do it properly, which you didn't.

So we can say you have not done research either, but picked  tidy articles that look as if they're supporting your position, when in fact, the only one that does is "Viewzone". Does that sound scientifically credible?

DId you read the paper regarding the "Abiotic Theory"?

The article states "Scientists Prove Abiotic Oil". That's a bold claim. So I read the paper.

It goes on to state the bio-chemical processes involved in gas formation and speculates that because most oil reserves are found near plates in the earths mantle, that oil must come from the interior of the earth. This is called speculation, not proof because it's not "proving" anything - it's a thesis paper presenting "food for thought" through conjectural and speculative observations mixed with some high level mathematics and physics. It's not implausible, but proving and showing possibility are two seperate things.

No one "found" the algae that "create" oil. No one "Observed the process" of oil being created abiotically.
Your article just took cogent and practical set of observations and pronounced the issue solved.

You should more carefully scrutinize your sources, and more politely consider what others say.
Also, "SEARCH" is your friend. Top right.

Cheers,

Aaron 

green_achers's picture
green_achers
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Posts: 203
Thanks, Aaron.  I could

Thanks, Aaron.  I could have been more polite, but it was never my intention to debate the issue.  As I indicated, the issue of abiotic oil has been debated in many forums, including here, and I have no interest in it at this time.  I wasn't talking to Albatross at all at first, but commenting on how the subject had been diverted away from the appropriateness of giving a documented criminal and influence peddler a venue to spread his propaganda.  I was also commenting on the need to keep our eyes on the ball not be turned by diversions that are unlikely to change anything of importance, when we would be better off sticking to our preps.

Whether that's a well-heeled lobbyist promoting wasteful fuel alternatives or a someone who just stumbled upon the concept of abiotic oil doesn't matter.  We all have to be able to exercise a healthy filtering ability to all of the noise out there.

That doesn't mean that I'm not open to a divergent voice if the source is credible.  The Oil Drum and Stuart Staniford are two places I go to to read diverse educated opinions on the scientific and technical aspects of our situation.  I come to this forum to catch very diverse opinions on the economic, financial, and to some extent, policy aspects.  I find John Michael Greer, Dimitri Orlov and Sharon Astyk  great sources for historic and a practical perspectives.  They and a few other sources are a pretty broad group, and some, like the Oil Drum and Stuart, are not strangers from airing contrarian positions.  I suspect if there is anything to this or some other claim, it will be discussed with insight and clarity on one of these forums by someone I have learned to respect.

I can't devote the time or have the background to conduct primary-source research on every tangent that comes across the screen.  I have enough of a science background that I can form pretty good personal opinions based on secondary sources, but I have to be able to apply an educated filter to the process.  Having a poster show up with 2-3 posts breathlessly pumping the latest techno-fix to our well-documented problems is not likely to get a friendly response.

You did well to refer him to the search function.

The Albatross's picture
The Albatross
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 7 2009
Posts: 6
Fossil Fuel Theories...step by step to Conflict

Aaron - I will explain;

1.   My comments were not directed to you - [see para 3] - neither do I claim that "all research on this forum is invalid." - on the contrary, I have been a forum member for some time now, and I appreciate Chris, his team and their sentiments.....neither am I some "breathless new member fixated on my own theories..."

2.   My concern is that we are all being pushed toward extremely risky political, economical & military strategies by Big Govt and their minions.

3.   In this particular topic - Robert McFarlane's interview includes these words -- "......Critical to Fighting the Peak Oil Catastrophe."

4.   My research leads me to reject such absolutes like Oil = Fossil Fuel & Peak Oil Catastrophe.
     
Why??  
      Because of dogma like this;

       a)  Source:    http://www.ecokids.ca/pub/eco_info/topics/energy/ecostats/index.cfm

      b)  Source:     http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/fossilfuels.htm

      c)  Source:     http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=oil_home-basics

      d)  Source:     http://www.jfcom.mil/ --- paper entitled "The Joint Operating Environment - 2010 --- JOE 2010"

5.   Even the US Energy Agency is filled with statements that oil comes from fossil fuels.  In source (d) The JOE 2010 paper, elaborates further --> Peak Oil --> middle east holds most oil  --> choke points --> Straits of Hormuz --> immense threat to Western Economies.......

6.   Therefore future events may well be triggered by the fossil fuel lobby - the implication being that if oil shipments are stopped at critical choke points, then we should prepare for economic argageddon or war.

7.    This means that we have education, economic and military websites mutually supporting the fossil fuel myth.  Yes - I call it a myth - [see para 11 below] 

8.    There is ample proof that we are all being indoctrinated by not just lies about fossil fuels, but as John Williams from Shadowstats.com informs us -- every govt statistic is also a lie.

9.     No one "found" the algae that "create" oil. No one "Observed the process" of oil being created abiotically.
Your article just took cogent and practical set of observations and pronounced the issue solved.

10.   I do not pronounce the issue solved at all - however other govts [such as New Zealand] appear to be moving away from the "fossil fuel" theory;

        Source:    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1011/S00025/new-zealand-defence-white-p...

11.   The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA published in 2002 the details of the Russian-Ukranian abiotic theory, dedicated to Nikolai Alexandrovich Kudryavtsev - who first enunciated the theory;

        Source:    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full

12.    If we all keep following the rest of the crowd, we may find ourselves channelled down the path to yet another major war.

I don't wish to see more wars based upon false theories -- does this clarify my position?

@ green_archers --- thankyou for the references -- I have also visited The Oil Drum -- but none of the others - more homework now..

cheers

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments