Alex Jones says Peak Oil is a fraud!

This article I read speaks volumes in most cases but when I read this paragraph it really started to confuse me.

I point out these examples not to lionize Alex Jones as some kind of messiah but in response to the claims of many researchers that they are the 'grandfather' of the 9/11 truth movement or words to that effect.

It is disturbing to note that in many instances these same researchers have been seen to push obvious frauds like the peak oil theory.

www.prisonplanet.com...

So now I ask you. Who is telling the truth in regards to oil? Is it Alex Jones who claims the Peak Oil theory is all a hoax or is it Mike Ruppert of From the Wilderness who has claimed that he has proven that peak oil is for real? Your comments and thoughts would be most appreciative.

I'm inclined to agree with Alex. Maybe I'm naive, but seems to me the earth should be caving in when there is no oil left deep beneath the surface.

I think its all about marketing to make money. Supply vs demand.


Good find!

Originally posted by AlwaysLearning
I'm inclined to agree with Alex. Maybe I'm naive, but seems to me the earth should be caving in when there is no oil left deep beneath the surface.

I think its all about marketing to make money.
Good find!

Well one thing is for sure. We all know Bush is an oil man and whether Peak Oil is a reality or not he and his family sure are making billions off oil which one of the main reasons why I believe we are in the Middle East and why gas prices are so hi.

I know! What's wrong with people that they keep taking it up the rear from the creep...and seeming to like it too! It flips me out! Talk about laughing all the way to the bank! Sheeple is all I can say. Maaaaaaa

If Peak Oil is a "conspiracy"perpetrated by the powers-that-be, then why is it you will only find it discussed seriously in oil and gas journals, progressive environmentalist websites, and the like, instead of the mainstream media?

If it's a fraud, why did Matt Simmons, an investment banker in the oil industry who served on Cheney's energy committee in 2000 -- where Peak Oil was evidently discussed -- write a book claiming Saudi Arabia is about to peak and we had better wake up?

Why are Republicans like Simmons and Roscoe Bartlett (R-RI) calling out the same warnings that progressives like Kunstler and Klare? Why if M. King Hubbert was right about US production peaking in 1970 would he be wrong about global production between 2000-2010?

If it's such a fraud, why would an investment guru like Jim Rogers say, "If you think the price of oil is going to $32 and staying there, let me know where the oil is coming from. I expect the price will be $100–$150 within the decade."

These are not foam-mouthed 9/11 "researchers" claiming this, these are bankers, scientists, financiers, even a congressman. If you read sites like Energy Bulletin.net or Peak Oil.com you will see a regularly daily drumbeat of articles from all over the world citing experts right and left talking about this theory. Most of these experts are ex-oil industry, including OPEC. Most of those in denial are economists and cornucopians, people whose understanding of petroleum science is so limited they can believe things like the abiotic theory of oil, or, as an earlier poster so bluntly misstated and misunderstood geology: "If all the oil is gone, the earth would collapse."

Not only is that a farcical understanding of earth science, it totally misrepresents Peak Oil theory: the Peak means HALF the oil is gone, and that's the easy half. Meanwhile population and construction and industrialization and motorization continue to shoot up because without mindless constant growth the world economy will collapse. Well neverending rising demand against constantly diminishing supply pushes the price of oil well over $100 and beyond -- until the wars break out.

The problem is not fraud or conspiracy, it's that most of the power elites believe in free market and capitalism, which dicates that if prices get high enough demand will create new supply. Because that is the general consensus

That doesn't work for high-powered, finite energy sources like oil and gas, for which there is no appropriate subsitute in the works and you can't just hope "technology" can magically solve it all.

You can't run semitrucks and 747s on solar panels, windmills, or coal boilers. The world is going to change quite rapidly because of this.

That is what people are trying to warn you about. That is why it is so alarming -- it's not just the gas in your car but what heats your home and powers the ships and planes that carry the inexpensive plastic products and cheap food grown with petroluem based fertilizer and pesticides halfway across a continent and even the whole world, on the backs of cheap energy. Cheap energy that isn't so cheap anymore.

That's what Peak Oil means.

Originally posted by AlwaysLearning
I'm inclined to agree with Alex. Maybe I'm naive, but seems to me the earth should be caving in when there is no oil left deep beneath the surface.

I think its all about marketing to make money. Supply vs demand.


Good find!

Why would the Earth cave in when there is no oil left? It isn't like the Earth is a hollow ball that will collapse under its own weight if there is no oil. Why didn't the Earth cave in 3 billion years ago before there were substantial oil deposits? The oil wasn't always there. Also, it isn't as if we've pumped every reservoir of oil empty, nor will we ever accomplish such a feat. Merely the cost of extracting any more oil in a lot of fields will exceed the profit of selling that oil. There will still be plenty of oil but it won't be very economically feasible (in a market driven economy anyway) to get every last ounce of oil out. Most of it, sure, but there will still be oil left.

Anyway, point is, the Earth isn't hollow and will not cave in--and Nicorette gave some good examples as to why Peak Oil is an actual fact. Interestingly, we've reached the peak of a lot of other resources as well--for instance, I think we're close to peak uranium--I could be off on that, but I read that the number of large uranium finds is steadily decreasing. I mean I look around me everyday and I'm totally astounded that there is enough stuff to go around. And I'm in like the 20th largest metropolitan area in the US, which comprises only about 5% of the world population. And just in this one city I can't fathom the amount of oil, steel, and everything else necessary to satiate the demands of a million and a half Americans, much less all 300+ million Americans, 1.2 billion Chinese, 1 billion Indians, etc. There isn't that much stuff in the world. The only thing debatable about peak oil, peak cadmium, peak platinum, peak uranium, peak tungsten, etc. is the time table. Abiotic resources are finite--human appetite isn't. Do the math.

wolf.readinglitho.co.uk...

It aint just about petrol, crude oil is manipulated into a very large range of products.
When we have no natural enemy we become our worst.

Why does this give me the feeling that Alex Jones just disagrees with the majority opinion on principle?

Does Alex Jones think that all the world's oil goes straight into cars, trucks and SUVs only?

Originally posted by rg73I think we're close to peak uranium--I could be off on that, but I read that the number of large uranium finds is steadily decreasing. I mean I look around me everyday and I'm totally astounded that there is enough stuff to go around. And I'm in like the 20th largest metropolitan area in the US, which comprises only about 5% of the world population. And just in this one city I can't fathom the amount of oil, steel, and everything else necessary to satiate the demands of a million and a half Americans, much less all 300+ million Americans, 1.2 billion Chinese, 1 billion Indians, etc. There isn't that much stuff in the world. The only thing debatable about peak oil, peak cadmium, peak platinum, peak uranium, peak tungsten, etc. is the time table. Abiotic resources are finite--human appetite isn't. Do the math.

That is the problem, in a nutshell.

Natural gas is about ten to twenty years lagging behind oil in terms of peak, but it is also a finite resource (and often found in the same place as oil). And it's difficult to transport (it's a gas, after all).

Uranium is also finite and I don't know if it's "peaked" but the price has really gone up and China is going to build like three reactors a year for the next ten or twenty years -- the exact numbers escape me.

Coal we have in abundance but it is pretty dirty as a power source (global warming) and converting it into a liquid to power motor vehicles (as the Germans had to, in WW2) is a net energy loser, I think. Wood is renewable but lacks the energy density of the others and deforestation is already a global problem.

All this scarcity means there is no way even a third of the people, a "middle class" can spring up in Asia (let alone Africa and South America) because the resources just are not there -- barring some technological miracle like fusion power.

It's the tragedy of the commons, the limits of growth.

Nicorette has a very good grasp of the situation IMHO. I've been following the peak oil problem for at least 5 years and yes the energybulletin site is the absolute best to track news about energy and peak oil.

Everybody is acting like it's the real thing, even the oil companies. I think the conspiracy here is keeping it from the public who just can't handle the truth (to quote a movie).

As far as Alex Jones is concerned I take him with a grain of salt. I find him alarmist (especially on issues I am more familiar with than him - like our provincial childcare programs) and a couple of things have always nagged me about him. His stance on peak oil being one of them.

I don't really care who is saying what, I pay attention to what they are saying and whether or not it makes any sense.

On the issue of peak oil the evidence is overwhelming.
.


[edit on 5/3/2005 by Gools]

You have voted Nicorette for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

You summed up the situation perfectly

[edit on 3-5-2005 by sardion2000]

edit: fixed quote box to fit the page


[edit on 5/3/2005 by Gools]

Thanks for the kind marks, I appreciate it!

I've also been following this issue closely, but only less than a year. If only I had known earlier I would've rebalanced my portfolio earlier! The good news is that it really isn't that difficult an issue to get a grasp on, if you have the time to do some Internet reading. The science is comprehensible. So article by article, newspaper by newspaper, word is getting out. "The End of Suburbia" documentary on DVD is also a great introduction.

The best sites that I know of that link to peak oil and energy depletion news are these:

www.energybulletin.net...
www.peakoil.com...
www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net...

Energybulletin.net is probably the most reliable and wide-ranging, although I think it's based in New Zealand so there are more kiwi articles then I would expect

I have a question. Does it really matter if oil replenishes itself if we are using it faster than it replenishes?

Perhaps massive reserves are sitting down further than we've ever thought to drill, and perhaps the Russians have basiclaly already proven that. If so, then problem solved. Otherwise, we are in for a world of hurt.

I'll finish by adding that this is not the first 'peak-oil' scare, nor even the second, nor third. Eventually chicken little really might be right, but the odds are not on his side.

Perhaps massive reserves are sitting down further

It doesn't matter how much oil is down there deep in the crust as the further down it is means it's just that much more expensive to pump up against the force of gravity, that's why Oil companies pump gas into the well's to force more oil up, but that will eventually become uneconomical as well. We better get off our ass quickly or we'll have major lifestyle changes to cope within the next generation.

You will see when Major Oil fields start to go offline in the near future.

Will this Entire Section get it Right?

"Peak Oil," has absolutely nothing to do with actual available reserves, but with refinement capacity, a deliberate choice from the increasingly top layered oil cartels. More centralized ownership of refineries, and oil supplies are at issue. More mergers of an already heavily concentrated industry that also owns the media is the problem with "Peak Oil." Facing the revival of an earlier Club of Rome sponsored report "Limits to Growth," is highly pertinent to this contemporary atmosphere about petroleum. There are massive gas and oil reserves just offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, now simply build the infrastructure and you can profitably produce and sell petroleum products at a much lower price driving the overall economy. Existing reserves in Alaska can fill every need of the entire United States for a very long time, however at current flows of the market most all of that oil goes to Asia. That is why "opening the Alaska reserves," as the White House wants to do, is absurd when almost none of it reaches the United States.

The problem right now is that planned shortfalls in refinement capacities results in this "Peak Oil," propaganda campaign. Well I suppose you cannot blame Ruppert for taking money either directly or indirectly from this oil cartel. He appears to be a primary proponent of it; hey you got to make a living don't you?

Well for those people who want to face the full gamut of facts, such things are not entirely a fantasy but rather direct planning. You are paying inflated prices right now; an educated guess is more than 20 times production costs. Face it and get it right.

This group should be renamed "Peak Oil Fraud."

[edit on 4-5-2005 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by mrmulder
So now I ask you. Who is telling the truth in regards to oil? Is it Alex Jones who claims the Peak Oil theory is all a hoax or is it Mike Ruppert of From the Wilderness who has claimed that he has proven that peak oil is for real? Your comments and thoughts would be most appreciative.

Perhaps "enough" money was made from oil and it's now time to push for something else or to raise oil prices.

Originally posted by MiTo
Perhaps "enough" money was made from oil and it's now time to push for something else or to raise oil prices.

Raise oil prices? If oil prices keep rising two things will happen:

1. Bush family will make even more money
2. The public will find another mean of transportation

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Will this Entire Section get it Right?

"Peak Oil," has absolutely nothing to do with actual available reserves, but with refinement capacity, a deliberate choice from the increasingly top layered oil cartels. More centralized ownership of refineries, and oil supplies are at issue. More mergers of an already heavily concentrated industry that also owns the media is the problem with "Peak Oil." Facing the revival of an earlier Club of Rome sponsored report "Limits to Growth," is highly pertinent to this contemporary atmosphere about petroleum. There are massive gas and oil reserves just offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, now simply build the infrastructure and you can profitably produce and sell petroleum products at a much lower price driving the overall economy. Existing reserves in Alaska can fill every need of the entire United States for a very long time, however at current flows of the market most all of that oil goes to Asia. That is why "opening the Alaska reserves," as the White House wants to do, is absurd when almost none of it reaches the United States.

The problem right now is that planned shortfalls in refinement capacities results in this "Peak Oil," propaganda campaign. Well I suppose you cannot blame Ruppert for taking money either directly or indirectly from this oil cartel. He appears to be a primary proponent of it; hey you got to make a living don't you?

Well for those people who want to face the full gamut of facts, such things are not entirely a fantasy but rather direct planning. You are paying inflated prices right now; an educated guess is more than 20 times production costs. Face it and get it right.

This group should be renamed "Peak Oil Fraud."

[edit on 4-5-2005 by SkipShipman]

Even the most optimistic estimates of the Gulf of Mexico reserves put it into around 50 billion recoverable barrels. This doesn't make Peak Oil a fraud, it only delays its onset for a few years--and that is provided that Mexico can bring those fields online within the next ten years (unlikely). And those 50 billion barrels are still a relatively small increase in total available oil. It might take up the slack for Chinese (and eventually Indian) demand for a few years.

And it doesn't matter if prices are inflated beyond production costs--if the market supports inflated prices (which it does) and if the market will support continued escalation in price at the pump, we're still going to have the same dilemma regardless. If prices escalate too much and we have no means of putting a break on it, it doesn't matter how much oil is left in the ground.

In any event, all you need to do is the math. If the Chinese economy continues to grow at 9% how many Gulf of Mexico sized finds do you need to keep the system going? There is simply no way you can claim oil is not a finite resource. That is a fact. And you cannot deny that the world population is increasing, that China and India have exploding economies and need for oil, and that eventually, infinite demand plus finite supply will equal a crisis. Sure, new finds might delay such a crisis for a decade or even two. But there is no scientifically nor economically tenable position that you can take that would prove that oil will not become a limiting factor for civilization as it is currently configured.

Originally posted by rg73

Sure, new finds might delay such a crisis for a decade or even two.

If we have 20 years+, that's more than enough time to develop alternatives. Who knows? Maybe we'll figure out how to tap into zero point energy by then.