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

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?

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!

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.

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.

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

 

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

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'?

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:

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.

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, 

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

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/

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

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

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

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.

Read more: Oil in bedrock granite<BR>off Vietnam's shores http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47673#ixzz1FgfFUP40

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........

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.

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

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.