|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles |
Beam Me Up (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Mar-23-05 01:48 PM Response to Reply #34 |
35. blindpig! Let's think about this together. |
Please understand that I am not totally convinced one way or the other re Peak Oil. As I said, from the beginning, I found the Peak Oil argument persuasive. It explained a lot of things AND fit in with my predisposition regarding our future. Like you, I lived through the tight oil periods of the 70s. I grew up being told that oil comes from ancient biological sources and that it is a limited, non-renewable resource. I'm also an old hippie who came of age with the understanding that social realities are CONSTRUCTS that can be altered. We began looking at alternative social structures and alternative energy sources to fuel them, not to mention alternative ways of looking at the world situation in general.
The way I've come to understand this is those of us of the 60s and 70s gravely underestimated the THREAT we were to what we used to call 'the Establishment'. That is, the established structures of financial and political power in the US and abroad. We were investigating an ALTERNATIVE--decentralized--social model. The powers that be have done everything they could since the 70s to manipulate and squelch that once developing social model. Recently I've begun to look at the idea that crude oil may be geological in origin rather than biological. At first brush I was very skeptical of this information but the more I've thought about it the more it has begun to make sense. The Earth is a mineral rich planet. What do we really know, scientifically, about the origin of petroleum? Here is a quote from Dave McGowan's web site (link at bottom). For over fifty years, Russian and Ukrainian scientists have added to this body of research and refined the Russian-Ukrainian theories. And for over fifty years, not a word of it has been published in the English language (except for a fairly recent, bastardized version published by astronomer Thomas Gold, who somehow forgot to credit the hundreds of scientists whose research he stole and then misrepresented). This is not, by the way, just a theoretical model that the Russians and Ukrainians have established; the theories were put to practical use, resulting in the transformation of the Soviet Union - once regarded as having limited prospects, at best, for successful petroleum exploration - into a world-class petroleum producing, and exporting, nation. J.F. Kenney spent some 15 years studying under some of the Russian and Ukrainian scientists who were key contributors to the modern petroleum theory. When Kenney speaks about petroleum origins, he is not speaking as some renegade scientist with a radical new theory; he is speaking to give voice to an entire community of scientists whose work has never been acknowledged in the West. Kenney writes passionately about that neglected body of research: The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not new or recent. This theory was first enunciated by Professor Nikolai Kudryavtsev in 1951, almost a half century ago, (Kudryavtsev 1951) and has undergone extensive development, refinement, and application since its introduction. There have been more than four thousand articles published in the Soviet scientific journals, and many books, dealing with the modern theory. This writer is presently co-authoring a book upon the subject of the development and applications of the modern theory of petroleum for which the bibliography requires more than thirty pages. It appears that, unbeknownst to Westerners, there have actually been, for quite some time now, two competing theories concerning the origins of petroleum. One theory claims that oil is an organic 'fossil fuel' deposited in finite quantities near the planet's surface. The other theory claims that oil is continuously generated by natural processes in the Earth's magma. One theory is backed by a massive body of research representing fifty years of intense scientific inquiry. The other theory is an unproven relic of the eighteenth century. One theory anticipates deep oil reserves, refillable oil fields, migratory oil systems, deep sources of generation, and the spontaneous venting of gas and oil. The other theory has a difficult time explaining any such documented phenomena. So which theory have we in the West, in our infinite wisdom, chosen to embrace? Why, the fundamentally absurd 'Fossil Fuel' theory, of course -- the same theory that the 'Peak Oil' doomsday warnings are based on. http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr52.html If you are interested, I suggest you poke around on Dave's web site. I find him personally off-putting (has an attitude), but at the same time, I am finding things there that I didn't know. WHY hadn't I heard of these two competing theories before? How come we were never told that the biological theory of oil's origins is scientifically unproven? Also, from my point of view, even if it turns out that Peak Oil is another scam, this doesn't get us out of DEEP DEEP SHIT. 1) The powers that be are still going to try and control the global market and if that means deceiving us into a global war, I believe that is what they will try to do. 2) IF oil is more abundant (although perhaps more difficult to get to because it is further down) we STILL have to deal with the long range consequences of global warming and other environmental impacts. But perhaps the most interesting thing to contemplate is this: IF PEAK OIL IS A LIE, then there is NO justification for what this administration is doing EXCEPT that of maintaining their own hegemony. If Peak Oil is a lie, then there is real hope of a real future--a future that looks very different from the present--a future based on a decentralized distribution of wealth and power. THIS, I am coming to believe, IS WHAT THREATENS THE FASCIST ELITES MOST. In any case, more study and research is needed. BMU |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC