Most people do not know that petroleum is infinite. It is a common misperception that oil was created from a decaying process from ancient forests and dinosaurs, but it is simply not true, according to a new book, The Great Oil Conspiracy: How the U.S. Government Hid the Nazi Discovery of Abiotic Oil from the American People by New York Times bestselling author Dr. Jerome Corsi.
Does Oil Come From Dinosaurs?
Some believe in the abiotic theory for the origin of oil, which asserts oil is “a natural product the Earth generates constantly rather than a ‘fossil fuel’ derived from decaying ancient forests and dead dinosaurs.” “For decades, the confiscated German documents remained largely ignored in a United States where petro-geologists and petro-chemists were convinced that oil was a ‘fossil fuel’ created by ancient decaying biological debris,” as reported by WND.
Corsi suggests that the US government and Big Oil conspired to bury their findings “because they didn’t want the public to know that the planet naturally produces oil, abundantly on a deep earth level.” It is no surprise that the “fossil fuel” explanation for oil persists.
Additionally, synthetic oil can and has been created. This information is held closely to the vest and has been revealed by US government documents confiscated after World War II. These amazing documents show that a process to create synthetic oil from coal was discovered by German Chemists Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, scientists at Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in the 1920s. By 1944, Germany was able to produce 124,000 barrels of synthetic fuels daily. How is this not common knowledge?
The Truth about America’s Oil Reserves
EFT News reports some mind-blowing facts about America’s Oil Reserves, much of it gleaned from Institute for Energy Research report, a “not-for-profit organization that conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets.”
“At current consumption rates, the United States has enough oil to last into the 23rd century without ever importing a single drop of oil from another country.” Some astounding claims are made in this report, such as, “Overall, the United States is sitting on approximately 1.442 trillion barrels of recoverable oil deposits.”
The story points out some quotes from elected officials, “With only 2% of the world’s oil reserves, we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices” said Barack Obama. And this quote is reminiscent of one made by Jimmy Carter, “Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil than it can produce.” It seems like politics gets in the way of the truth, sometimes.
Perhaps oil is infinite, perhaps not. The origin of the formation of oil is not settled, and further research is needed to unlock the secrets of petroleum. However, if it is true that we have a rich abundance of oil in the United States, and if it is true that synthetic oil is a possibility, why is there a war against oil? Why not continue to explore green alternatives while tapping into the rich resources of the United States?
5 Reasons to Question “Peak Oil” Theory
“Peak Oil” is the theory that the world is running out of “fossil fuels” whose depletion will turn society on its head. However, there still exist dual theories on the origin of oil, neither of which can yet be fully proven. It is of great importance to weigh both theories and their implications. Special interests, hidden agendas and policy are at stake which could have dire consequences for governments, private interests and individuals if decisions are made based on faulty intelligence.
There also exists the third argument that it is irrelevant whether oil is a “fossil fuel” or “abiotic”, we simply are pumping much faster than the oil wells can renew themselves. This argument tends to be made by “fossil fuel” theorists and those heavily invested in the environmental movement.
“Peak Oil” theory suggests that the world has reached its zenith in terms of extraction and level of oil consumption.
#1 Dmitri Mendeleev Didn’t Buy It
Famous Russian scientist and creator of the periodic table, Dmitri Mendeleev, didn’t buy it. He believed oil to be abiogenic, formed by “non-biological processes deep in the Earth crust and mantle.”
Co-founder of the 1869 Russian Chemical Society, Mendeleev was described as “a chemist of genius, first-class physicist, a fruitful researcher in the fields of hydrodynamics, meteorology, geology, certain branches of chemical technology (explosives, petroleum, and fuels, for example) and other disciplines adjacent to chemistry and physics, a thorough expert of chemical industry and industry in general, and an original thinker in the field of economy.”
Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that oil renews itself somewhere deep in the Earth’s crust.
“It is safe to assume that most elemental gasses rise in to pockets where heat and pressure would allow forming of larger molecules, including hydrocarbons.
Acknowledging this fact is a double dilemma for the ‘environmentalists’ because hydrocarbons then become ‘renewable’ and using petroleum becomes environmentally friendly.
Russian chemist, Dmitri Mendeleev, in the late 19th century proposed that petroleum products could be formed by chemical processes, independent of buried organic biomass. This theory was further expanded by Russian scientists in the 1950’s with their abiogenic theory of natural petroleum production. At the same time that Dr. M. King Hubbert was fashioning his Malthus based “Peak Oil Theory”, claiming pending end of a finite resource.
The Hydrocarbon, Oxygen and Carbon atoms necessary for Earth’s natural Hydrocarbon production are from ‘elemental’ fission production. We are left to guess at what the Earth’s average Hydrocarbon production rate actually is, but it is certain that OIL is a renewable resource. Completely depleted oil fields in the United States have refilled to as much as 1/3 of original capacity.
While Earths Hydrocarbon production does not appear finite in the near term, there is one thing that is FINITE. The Earth only has a finite storage capacity for this daily petroleum production. This is a double blow to the eco-wackos.”
#2 The Totalitarian Technocracy Pushes the Idea of “Fossil Fuels” & “Peak Oil”
August Review think tank founder Patrick Wood has given a much-needed update on the status of humanity’s push toward technocracy. “Peak Oil” theorist Hubbert was a key player in this movement.
“Holding politicians and economists responsible for the debacle of the Great Depression, Technocracy promoted the idea that democracy was a sham and that scientists and engineers should take over the reins of government and impose rationality on the economy.
Technocracy envisioned a no-growth society and the elimination of the price system, to be replaced by the wise administration of the Technocrats. Hubbert believed that a ‘pecuniary’ system, guided by the ‘hieroglyphics’ of economists, was the road to ruin.”
That a totalitarian technocracy pushes “Peak Oil” theory and wants to reposition humanity under serfdom in their neo-feudal system is not something simply to be brushed aside.
#3 Failed Predictions
“As for their physical availability, the recurring and pessimistic ‘Peak Oil’ reports must be taken with the due grain of salt. The recent discoveries of ultra-deep oil deposits off the Brazilian coast, in the Gulf of Mexico and other places, besides the promising development of the technologies for exploring the vast and widespread reserves of shale gas, suggest that the alleged limits to the hydrocarbon production expansion are not yet at sight.
By the same token, the possibility of exploring ultra-deep abiotic hydrocarbons must be considered. Although it is contested by the Western mainstream geosciences thinking, the inorganic formation of hydrocarbons is admitted by Russian and Ukrainian scientists since the mid-20th century and certain non-sedimentary oil deposits have been successfully explored in those countries for decades. Such promising possibilities were reinforced by experimental evidences of hydrocarbon formation in the Earth’s upper mantle, in recent experiments performed in the US and Sweden.
#4 Club of Rome, Depopulation & Faux “Global Warming” Theory
The Club of Rome, responsible for carving the world up into ten regional blocs, seeks to deindustrialize the planet and bring it under their technocratic control based on myths such as overpopulation, CO2 as a pollutant and the discredited theory of man-made global warming.
They put models out depicting limits to growth instilling fear of total societal collapse. They even cited the 1970’s oil shocks as proof of their theory. However, as mentioned below, the oil shocks were a result of deliberate manipulation and no natural occurrence.
They perpetuate the myth of CO2 as a pollutant and voraciously seek to strip humanity of any resource use, having gone so far as to hatefully label humanity as the common enemy upon which we can all unite. They readily admit that their ideas of pollution and global warming were concocted for these purposes!
The essence of the “Global Warming” theory not unlike its augmenting “Peak Oil” hypothesis is deindustrialization and depopulation.
This is why Ugandans and Hondurans are currently being massacred by United Nations and European Union contracted mercenaries as a CO2 sacrifice to the Mother Earth goddess Gaia.
The problem is not overpopulation but the distribution of resources and these same powerful interests are at fault for deliberately preventing this from happening due to their hatred of humanity. Tonnes of food are thrown away daily in developed countries while the Third World dies of starvation.
The Council on Foreign Relations also provided an updated report in addition to the Club of Rome’s called The Global 2000 Report to the President. They state that “basic natural resources–farmlands, fisheries, forests, minerals, energy, air, and water–must be conserved and better managed.” Of course, the technocracy will be the ones to manage our land for us in their neo-feudal society.
#5 A Mode of Societal Control
In 1967 a dozen high-level government officials reportedly met in underground “contingency of government” (COG) mountain bunkers to discuss the ultimate means of social control and world order. This came to be published incidentally as the Report from Iron Mountain and eventually corroborated by collaborator John Galbraith (subsequently refuted by the same).
The report suggested numerous methods of social control. Of course, it was in tune with the 1909 Carnegie Endowment meeting minutes uncovered by Norman Dodd and the Reece Commission, in their investigation of the tax-exempt foundations. In those old minutes, Carnegie suggested war was the ultimate mode of social control and later begged the question on how they could start a war.
The Iron Mountain report suggested the fabrication of alternate enemies such as terrorists to control society (from the Red Scare to the omnipresent Al-Qaeda to now the “Haqqani Network”).
It then went on to suggest fabricating fear via a global environmental threat, with the possibility of selectively increasing the rate of pollution themselves if their lie wasn’t plausible enough. Think geo-engineering and the BP Gulf oil spill.
The report even suggested staging a fake alien invasion to unite humanity. Of course, our present leaders are playing along with this script, from Nobel economist Paul Krugman to the United Nations and Vatican preparations for “alien contact.”
It is interesting to note that a discovery of aliens would again solely target Christianity and no other faith. [Source]
Prominent ufologists such as Jacques Vallee and J. Allen Hynek suggest that UFO’s are extra-dimensional and not extra-terrestrial phenomena.
Pretext for Deindustrialization
The evidence suggests the elites may yet be pulling another one on us. “Peak Oil” clamor largely emanates from the malicious technocracy and discredited “Global Warming” crowds.
Exxon heads themselves have stated the oil barrel price range should be between $60 and $70 based on supply and demand fundamentals sans price manipulation.
This artificial manipulation is stimulated by powerful private interests such as one occurrence in 1973, where such a group (Bilderberg) met and deliberately raised oil prices 400%. It was a fake crisis, but continues to be cited by “Peak Oil” theorists. [Source]
A Saudi Sheikh stated “: ‘I am 100 per cent sure that the Americans were behind the increase in the price of oil. The oil companies were in real trouble at that time, they had borrowed a lot of money and they needed a high oil price to save them.’
He says he was convinced of this by the attitude of the Shah of Iran, who in one crucial day in 1974 moved from the Saudi view, that a hike would be dangerous to Opec because it would alienate the US, to advocating higher prices.
‘King Faisal sent me to the Shah of Iran, who said: ‘Why are you against the increase in the price of oil? That is what they want? Ask Henry Kissinger – he is the one who wants a higher price’.’
Yamani contends that proof of his long-held belief has recently emerged in the minutes of a secret meeting on a Swedish island, where UK and US officials determined to orchestrate a 400 per cent increase in the oil price.” [Source]
The actual report may be accessed here. It also talks of creating an “international federal reserve.”
What if “Peak Oil” need not be a problem? Why fret and clamor for inadequate energy sources such as solar and wind energy? If oil is renewable, why not explore the Russian-Ukrainian theory and attempt to determine the rate of renewability and extract this resource appropriately?
What about all of the other suppressed technologies? Prohibition was largely a ploy by the ruling oil barons and bankers to eliminate alternate sources of fuel, such as alcohol and other various fuel sources. Why can’t we go back to producing engines which make use of these alternate fuels such as alcohol and deal with the current problems surrounding the production of ethanol (which is extremely inefficient)?
Rudolf Diesel’s engine also ran on peanut and vegetable oil. As his patents were being taken away from him as done to Nikola Tesla, Diesel was found floating in the sea.
Collapse may be coming for a variety of reasons, not necessarily because of oil. It may be inevitable given the historic scale of the Ponzi scheme that is called the global economy.
I personally do not even own a car. For those that do, it would be wise to utilize the variety of alternatives that are out there and not be dependent on the technocracy. Water, air, alcohol and vegetable oil fuel cars are already in existence. However, numerous proponents of such independent fuel sources are blackmailed or murdered.
While certain admirable researchers, economists and analysts seem to get one-side of the equation they still cling to the muddy waters of the “Peak Oil” theory, bathed in the eco-fascism of the environmental and technocracy movements.
A recent interview with a person in a position of public influence attests to this. In his body of work, musician Michael Franti notes well the corruption of certain elites through his travels to Iraq and beyond, yet buys into the discredited eco-fascist movement. Incredibly, he even wrote Obama a song. Others such as Dmitry Orlov and Mike Ruppert offer sound and very valuable analysis on a variety of subjects yet promote the “Peak Oil” theory.
I hope the likes question the origins of “Peak Oil” theory and the enviro-fascism that comes with it; the power of having such individuals positioned against the technocracy would make a great difference in the further struggle against totalitarianism.
Oil prices do not follow the classic laws of capitalist supply and demand. Despite the fact the Energy Department reported a 2 million-barrel rise in crude oil supplies for the week that ended March 18, according to a survey by Platts, the energy information arm of McGraw-Hill Cos, the price of gas continues to rise. The increase represented 970,000 barrels.
Supply and demand is an irrelevant theory under globalist mercantilism.
“Supply and demand mean nothing to the oil industry. Basic economics teaches that if supply goes down, prices will go up. If demand goes down, prices go down. The inverse of each is also true, unless you are in the oil industry,” writes The Mercury in an op-ed. “Previous excuses for price increases of gasoline have been damage to refineries by Hurricane Katrina, a pipeline leak in Alaska, the increased cost of refining for the summer time driving season, the war in Iraq, and most anything that can be associated with gasoline.”
Confronted with an overall supply increase, the industry expects gasoline supplies to decline by 2 million barrels, distillate stocks to shrink by 1.5 million barrels and refinery utilization to increase by 0.3 percentage point to 83.7 percent according to BloombergBloomberg.
Nielsen Wire reports that a 50-cent increase in gas prices would cost the typical U.S. household about $52.50 per month, and if prices were to rise two dollars, that would mean $210 a month, or more than $2,500 a year.
In December, former oil industry chaplain Lindsey Williams said the price of oil would skyrocket to between $150 and $200 a barrel this year. Williams became a friend and trusted confidant of oil industry executives while he served as chaplain for them and their construction crews building the Alaska pipeline during the 1970s.
It happens every time the rising price of crude oil pushes a gallon of gasoline toward $4 in the U.S. — the debate over the role of speculators in commodities markets grows louder and sharper.
Do speculators — that is, traders who purchase futures contracts purely for profit and with no intention of taking delivery of the product — play a necessary role in creating liquid markets for everything from oil to orange juice? Or do they manipulate prices for their own benefit often at the expense of consumers?
The answer, of course, is ‘yes’ to both questions. But there seems to be a heightened urgency to the debate this time around as global economies struggle to recover from the worst economic downturn in decades.
The concern is that by artificially pushing the price of oil higher, the speculators are threatening the already fragile global economic recovery, especially here in the U.S.
As everyone knows, the price of crude oil and the price consumers pay for a gallon of gasoline are inextricably linked. When crude rises, so does the price at the pump, and that takes money out of the pockets of U.S. consumers, whose spending comprises 70% of domestic economic activity. Since late January, when political turmoil began to spread across the Mideast, the average price of a gallon of gasoline has risen more than 40 cents to $3.52 from $3.10, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
“The real loser becomes the domestic economy,” said Hamza Khan, an analyst with the Schork Report, an energy markets newsletter. “When consumers have to pay more at the pump they’re going to cut back elsewhere and that is going to hurt U.S. companies.”
While traders — especially pure speculators — thrive on market volatility, profiting on sudden surges and plunges, that same uncertainty wreaks havoc on small business owners trying to plan for their future.
Eventually that uncertainty will put a crimp in hiring, Khan warned. “Who’s going to hire if they might be going out of business in two weeks?” he asked.
The violence roiling the Middle East has raised genuine concerns that disruptions in the oil supply could create a shortage. Earlier this week a barrel of crude hit a two-year high of $105.
But the concerns so far are nothing more than that — concerns. In Egypt, security along the well-traveled Suez Canal and the important Suez-Mediterranean pipeline was beefed up almost simultaneous to the outbreak of political unrest there. The situation in Libya, which controls the largest oil reserves in Africa, is murkier, but to date global production has not been markedly curtailed by the violence in that country. Besides, Libya only produces 2% of the global oil supply.
Meanwhile, stockpiles remain plentiful and, if anything, demand is expected to slow as China puts the brakes on its overheating economy.
Nevertheless, big speculators (primarily hedge funds) are pouring money into the oil market in the form of net-long positions, or bets that the price will continue to rise. According to data from the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, net-long positions rose by 30% in the days immediately following the outbreak of violence in Libya.
Khan said the disparity between what’s actually happening in the oil markets and the number of contracts betting on a rise in prices represents a “disconnect,” one that detracts from speculators’ important role of providing liquidity and transparency to markets.
By some estimates speculators have added $15 a barrel to the price of oil.
Kevin Kerr, president of commodities firm Kerr Trading International, pulled no punches, calling the current price levels “simply a money grab and fear trade.”
“Speculators in the energy markets right now have a lot of risks to consider but unfortunately it can get overdone and I hope that the various funds and large speculative entities will take a step back and really evaluate the true fundamental picture. We do have plenty of oil on the market right now and while some fear premium is certainly legitimate, in my opinion it is not a justification for over $100 right now,” he said.
Kerr said the escalating violence in Libya, as rebel forces attempt to oust long-time dictator Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi, raises legitimate concerns for “real disruption,” but still does not justify the current prices.
Kerr also warned of the global impact resulting from artificially high oil prices: “Speculators and funds who are driving up the price of oil based on fear premium and the weak dollar will hopefully evaluate the implications for driving the price much higher than it really needs or deserves to go, at least at this stage,” he said.
Finally, Kerr recalled “the extreme liquidation” that followed the last precipitous rise in oil prices, when a barrel passed $147 in the summer of 2008 and then plunged below $40 in a matter of months.
“I would like to say that rampant speculators learned from what happened in 2008 but it seems fiduciary responsibility and true market fundamentals are still on the back burner,” Kerr concluded.