Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Abiotic Oil vs. Peak Oil

Abiotic oil refers to the non biological, i.e., not fossil, origin of
oil. This link
gives the basic case for it.

Peak oil refers to the biological or at least non renewable origin
of oil. This involves production reaching a peak, then tapering
off. This is a known phenomenon of oil wells. The implication
of course, largely ignored by the public until recently, is that
someday there will be no more oil to get. All fields will peak,
taper off and finally the world production will be down to the
early days of oil production around the turn of the 20th century
from the 19th.

Davesweb has some interesting stuff on it, the best is the
analysis of Laurel Canyon oddities in the music industry, and
in Hollywood anyway. While Alex Constantine argues that
the government has been surreptitiously making a war on the
counter culture music industry, a more convincing case is
by Dave and others, that the counterculture was created by
the CIA and others, to discredit the non hippy non radical
opposition to the Viet Nam war, and probably furthering
other cultic interests as well. Other stuff may be beyond his
level of competence, and isn't that important anyway.

(for instance, it really doesn't matter whether the Twin Towers
collapse was helped by explosives in place or the result of
heated NOT melted steel that bowed just enough to slip
off the projections from the support scaffolding that held
the floor scaffolding, resulting in pancaking as the weight
was more than the other floors could hold.

What matters is what Dave Emory would call the milieu 
in which it happened, i.e., the proven indications of
prior knowledge by financial and political interests in 
the USA and Europe, and Bush circle and family 
alliances with the Bin Laden family and others who 
gained from all this. Either way, you have USA 
government complicity.)

Dave argues that since Mike Ruppert doesn't seem to
argue against war (seems to me he is taking it for granted
that it is bad and only helping closet nazis etc.,) and not
proposing any alternative to oil as viable, that he is
effectively arguing in support of war to take over the
Middle East, since it is positioned to have control of all
future oil supplies.

The Peak Oil thing, argues Ruppert, is the hidden reason
for all the wars. But making it public to the public makes
them trust the government war machine propaganda less.

Davesweb argues that Ruppert is just engaging in war
propaganda while pretending not to, since he is making
an excellent case, as are all Peak Oil promoters, for the
USA taking over the Middle East. Even if not saying we
should do so, such writing provides a motive.

Abiotic Oil, however, does not solve the problem. The
occasional refill of an oil well, is not invariable and
universal. It may reflect seepage from an as yet unknown
oil deposit, not seepage from ongoing production.

Even if it does reflect ongoing production, this is not
apparently going on everywhere, and it goes on slower
than the oil is pumped out.

So Peak or Abiotic, it doesn't matter. There is a shortage
looming. Granted prices were artificially kept high, by
the cartel controlling availability. (I wonder if some
collusion is done by the non Middle Eastern producers,
since the price of oil seems to be uniform, regardless
of the source. And new oil finds keep happening.)

But even though the predicted peak has been bumped
forward in time by some, there is slowing production
and increasing demand, so a real shortage is probably
coming, and Ruppert to the contrary notwithstanding, the
presently crude and inefficient alternatives are not much
worse than the early crude and inefficient gasoline engines.

The artificial production of crude oil, and of diesel, some
plants sap are basically pure diesel, is another angle to
play to buy time, or supplement the alternative sources.

Meanwhile, while we screw around irritating people,
coalitions build. Iran, China, Russia, Venezuela.

We should quit irritating people, before we get taken
down. What a superpower might or might not be able
to do, a coalition of many could do nicely, and without
necessarily using nuclear weapons beyond maybe a
few low yield devices here and there.

No comments:

Post a Comment