"This could be voided if Russia decides to come over to capitalism and a free market"

Oh geez you really don't believe in all that free trade, globalisation corporation claptrap do you ? Take a hint. Watch the corporation and see what so called free trade has done to the world. Then perhaps read some of Chomskey's work ( though I don't necesarily agree with some of his thoughts ) or even better read some writings of John Pilger. Another one to look up while you are googling is F. William Engdahl ( Especially since he writes about oil geopolitics ).

Anyone who believes free trade and capatalism is a force of good on the world needs their head read. ( I mean that as a generalisation ) Free markets are NOT "FREE".

Netpaw, I was being sarcastic with my remark on Russia becoming a 'free market'. I don't know why someone as intelligent as you didn't pick up on it.

And if PO is just a fraud to get people to be afraid, then the conspirators sure are doing a horrible job given the fact that there are only ~6000 people that are members here (and most of them don't come anymore). Gotta hand it to those guys for making us all afraid.

And I'm glad that a president wrote a book about finding oil off the Vietnam coast. Because when I want information about the possibility of oil formations, I turn to the commander in chief. Not geologists.

Errr. I'm not that intelligent.

As for PO being a fraud. Huh just 6000 on this board ? It's not the fatc that the every day person is going to become afraid perse. The undercurrent of Peak Oil is indeed pervasive. It is mentioned in many a news article even with the local papers here in Australia. It is mentioned in the financial papers and is discussed in political forums here in Australia.

To say the apathetic masses will suddenly run around tearing their hair out is missing the point.

Keep your eyes and ears open over the next 3-6 months. When the oil squeeze really hits ( After the US attacks Iran ) then Peak Oil will REALLY start to hit the mainstream in a big way. When petrol prices jump through the roof and it affects peoples ability to get by then the media will really thrust PO down our throats. Don't think the US will go for Iran. Ha we'll see, it's been the plan for a long time.

Oh and trusting the commander in chief ? I take it you were being sarcastic there

You are American yes ? Well I can understand you believing the word of a geologist over the commander in chief. Mind you when the commander in chief wrote the book when he was actually a geologist would that sway your opinion somewhat ? The president was Hoover just in case you were wondering.

Oh and before dismissing the abiotic theory out of hand have a real close look at JF Kenney's papers. Not just a superficial one. Read it then re-read it again. If you start to get a grip on what he says in his papers you will understand why it has never been debunked by the biotic oil believers. Most "geologists" would not have the background in chemistry or physics to even get a proper grip on what he is saying. Never mind the fact that won't acknowledge it or even study those papers for themselves as their beliefs are so ingraned. No one has been able to debunk what he has said in his papers. It's almost laughable. Yet an unproven in fact a debunked theory is accepted as gospel. Perhaps the fact that Rockefellar controlled the US and western education and even publishing systems has something to do with that.

Look into who started up the US education board, then have a look at the papers, interviews and opinions of those people in regards to that education system. It is a sad fact of life that these people have a dim view on the masses. The education system was set up to groom those they thought of as worthy and to hell with the rest. Sounds almost kooky but unfortunately history shows how twisted these people really are.

But yeh.

Ok, I'm not completely against abiotic oil, but I don't have the background in chemistry, physics or anything to write about it or really even research it, so I don't try to understand deeply the origin of petroleum. I'm not going to bother with Kenney's papers (for the time being until I know more chem, geo and phys) if they only deal with the science of the stuff. So do they? Or is it more on the 'conspiracy theory' sides (kooky as you put it)? Is it all science? Or does he actually talk about how abiotic oil would debunk PO? I mean, there is no real reason to look into abiotic oil if the proponents can't even say that it will overrule PO, since PO is the main subject of this board? Does Kenney say that oil is replenishing to attainable levels for our use? or just that oil is constantly being made in the Earth? If its the latter, then it doesn't matter to us, and I have yet to read any abioticists argue that wells are replenishing while backing them up with facts. And I'll remind you, Eugene Island is one case out of 4000 fields. You never take the exception as the rule. Never.

See therein lies the problem. You have admitted that you have as yet not read the papers, because your understanding of chemistry etc is not up to scratch. ( Which is fair enough really, yet you really don't need to understand it all at once. Just a matter of getting hold of what he says then looking into it a bit more using other referances to increase your understanding ).

Kooky stuff ? Hell no. His papers are quite the opposite. It's me who reads the kooky stuff to get a better understanding of how the world operates. But I guess that's another topic alltogether.

Does he say that oil replenishes at x rate ? Hell no. You say that if it does not replenish at x rate then it has no relevance ? Therein lies the other problem. IF it is found that oil is abiotic does it not bring into question much of the information spread by the oil companies, chemical companies etc. Are the facts and figures quoted by the oil companies in fact accurate ? I'll leave you to figure that one out. But by placing his papers in the too hard basket like many have you are in fact placing your trust in something almost blindly. I say almost because I know "peak oilers" and people such as Matthew Simmons quote figures left right and centre, but what if the very basis of the PO theory, that oil is a "fossil fuel" is proven to be a scientific lie ? How does that relate to exploration etc ? Again I'll leave you to think about that one.

But again his papers have never been debunked. Though I understand your response to some extent it is a common one, even the so called experts avoid his papers at all costs. Do you think this is an accident ? I am not the only one who has shown this point that his papers prove oil is in fact not biogenic and has called for science to debunk it. I am not holding my breathe though.

Of course the whole debate would be nipped in the bud if his papers were shown to be wrong. Anyway, not trying to convince yourself one way or another. In all truth it won't really change the outcome as I mentioned before. PO will happen but for geoploitical and ecenomic reasons and for control of course. Not because of a shortage of oil in the commonly accepted sense. Now if people choose to believe the rantings of those connected to the Bush regime then that's their perogative. But for people on this board to dismiss those who believe in abiotic oil as "flat earthers" and then dismiss j f kenneys papers out of hand smacks of ignorance.

Flat wrong. PO isn't about oil being a fossil fuel. It has very little to do with PO. In fact, it could be the complete opposite (abiotic) or something way out of hand (aliens dropped it there), and it still wouldn't have to change PO or the people. PO is about depletion and limits. If oil is abiotic but has a very low replenishing rate, then we can treat it as finite in the common sense and thus we will still have PO. Only with extremely high replenishing rates (> a few dkpd) could abiotic oil refute, or even come close to refuting PO.

I do see the predicament with if abiotic is true, then why would we trust the oil companies, etc. But why would that mean, if abiotic is found to be 100% true, that we would have to not trust the oil companies on their figures? Are they the ones proponing that it is a fossil fuel and funding the 'science' behind it? Are they claiming to know, definatively know, that oil and NG are biotic, or are they just referring to them as fossil fuels just like everyone else? Is it really the responsibility of them to know? I mean, if they can find out where the oil is, isn't that all they need to do? Seems to me like they've done it.

It seems to me that the geologists are the ones claiming that oil is biotic, and the oil companies rely on the geologists to the extent that they care about such.

I am intiruged by this abiotic oil idea. I have no reason to doubt thousands of geologists (who are probably right), and it probably means nothing for Peak Oil. But I think I will have a look at these papers if I ever get around to it, just so I can see both sides, as I would not know one way or the other from my general scientific knowledge alone.

Oh yes ... the it means nothing to PO claptrap. A great way to dismiss the abiotic debate. PO is all about DEPLETION and LIMITS as you so aptly put it.

BUT what I am trying to say to you is that you are receiving this information about depletion and supposed limits by the very companies that push the PO and the "fossil fuel" theories.

Are the oil companies the ones behind the "fossil fuel" theory ? Or the science behind it ?

Do you guys really have ANY idea how the world works ? ANY IDEA AT ALL ? Do you know who is behind our education systems ? Or scientific funding ? Do you believe all the BS that is shoved down our throats daily. If you are from the US look into how your modern education system was founded. You will find ROCKEFELLAR is deeply involved. Not only him but the many so called NGO's and funds set up by these very rich and powerful men. I'll give you one very small yet not so small example.

In Australia like much of the US one of the most toxic substances known to man is poured into our water systems. When you ask our Water Authority for the region I live in they will quote the WHO, The ADA ( American dental association ) etc etc etc when saying the levels they place in our water are safe. Yes I am talking about fluoride.

BUT when you look into the history of those who support the safety of fluoride you find a labrynth of lies and deception. I won't go into it here. But the more you look into this one subject the more you will see the obvious truth. Most of europe won't allow fluoride in their water because they know it is toxic even at low levels. But our so called scientific and political leaders allow this to happen. Just take a quick look if you are interested, it's enlightening to see how the system really works.

Some people call it a failure of the corporate capatalist system. It's all about greed. But when these same type of people are forming our education systems ( even the reserve bank system if you care to look up your history ) are behind scientific medical research for the drug companies ( closely tied to the oil companies ). They don't want to CURE people. Only make them well enough so they can still buy their drugs. But these same people control the very financial system our countries rely on. Think about it. You may also want to look into the collapse of Britain during the world war periods and how that REALLY came about. Same with the Asian financial crisis as well.

The reason I mentioned fluoride is because if you look into it you will find out what happens to scientists that dare speak out.

That's why I have brought up the so called "oil crisis" of the 70's previously . It is not commonly known how that REALLY came about, who did the manipulating and for what reasons. History is full of major events that are also incorrectly taught at schools and through published literature. Even our media is not immune to it. But of course that's an over the top conspiracy theory right ? YEH RIGHT.

Of course you are going to dismiss what I say out of hand. Well that's up to you, but remaining ignorant is your own perogative. Once you start looking into things a little deeper it's a bit like the Matrix and you wish you'd taken the other pill. Start scratching below the surface and you WON'T like what you see.

Now you might be 100 percent right that the abiotic debate has no relevance when it comes to how much oil we can use in a given time. But until such time as the PO community really attempts to debunk JF Kenney's papers in detail ( and I mean all his papers ) then I have reason to dispute anything coming out of the oil company sponsored PO movement. But in all reality I don't think they will be able to debunk his papers. T Gold yes, geez even Kenney disputes some of the things T Gold wrote. That's without looking into the fact that the so called expert doomsayers say how much little oil we have. I guess well over 1 Trillion barrels in Venzuala alone is not enough to sway their estimates... or the hundreds of billions under the Caspian sea. So do you really trust these people ?

I personally don't trust the whole PO debate. But that stems from knowing some of the people and organisations behind it and how they relate to previous stages of history and almost unrelated topics. You really are being hoodwinked. That doesn't mean PO won't happen, by my guess the balls allready rolling, I just think that almost without a doubt it is deliberate. That's even scarier than thinking it's because we are using it too quickly.

I gotta say, if you actually had anything of substance in what you said, you could convince anyone about anything. Really. You are a terrific debater. Congrats. I mean, you try to link flouride to oil. Fucking brilliant. "You know there has been bad studies with flouride. Therefore, PO is false!!!".

Oil companies are the ones saying PO doesn't exist. Why can't you get that through your fucking head? Exxon Mobile has even taken out ads in major newspapers to RIDICULE Peak Oil. And you think they are trying to prop it up across the world? You have some massive balls.

If abiotic has no relevance, then we don't need to concern it. As far as I'm concerned, it has no relevance, even if it's true. Our wells aren't refilling, so what does it matter?

And the hundreds of billions in the Caspian were before much of the drilling occurred. We were promised that Prudhoe Bay and Alaska were going to have enough oil to get us out of the energy crisis, but all it was was a tiny blip. North Sea peak 10 years before it was predicted to! So there are instances when initial estimates are less than the actual. So you shouldn't be surprised when the hundred of billions in the Caspian don't turn out to be that large.

And Ven? Do you have any idea how horrible that oil is? It's basically tar sands, if not down-right tarsands. If it were free flowing oil, the kind we need, then it would have already been in production. Pointing that out is just like those idiots on the street who say in response to PO, "Don't worry, we have shale oil".

BTW, I'm kinda busy, so could you care to explain how abiotic theory explains how shale oil occurs?

Say, that oil is of abiotic origin for the sake of argument.
Does it mean that we can drill into a mantle?
How FAST it is made in a mantle anyway?
Did anyone hear about oil belching vulcano? (this would be a fun).

I have another suggestion:
Why not to mine a CORE?

Just because fluoride is bad for you does not mean that PO is not real. Like I said it is just the way "science" works. Again like I said look up as much info as you can on it and it will open your eyes a bit. But hell or don't it's up to you.

If I had anything of substance ? Ha I have so many papers and stuff stored on my PC to keep me going for ages, and have wiped just as much because I have run out of room. But having someone show you each and every little detail would do nothing. You need to be able to look into it for yourself and come to your own conclusions. People get stuck on a certain subject the fail to look at other events throughout history. I could post hundreds of links to articles I have read or even books that I have read on oil history and history in general, but would anyone read them ? Have you finished reading the links from JF Kenney or even Lynch. Or the ones I provided that show how the "oil crisis" came about and who was behnind it ( You can don't even have top read the whole book ). Yet you say that there isn't any substance to what I have said.

As for the oil companies advertising that PO doesn't exist. What about the oil companies that have spent millions stating peak oil is real ? What about the websites and forums they have started up ? How about the fact that the ASPO was funded by companies such as Halliburton and Sclumberger ?

As for abiotic oil having no relevance. I guess that depends on how you look at it. Perhaps you are right. But if abiotic oil is right then how can you be sure that the info you received from the oil companies and so called experts is right ? If they falsified the whole "fossil fuel" thing, what else have the lied about ? Does that mean that different ways of searching for oil would work ? Does it mean that known oil reserves are even larger than stated by the oil companies ? Surely they are the ones who benefit when oil supplies are resticted aren't they.

Oh as for oil and volcanoes. Surely you aren't that ignorant on the subject are you ? DO you know where all the worlds largest oil deposits are ? They are all in areas filled with mud volcanos. Do you know what is erupted out of mud volcanos ? Oil and gas. They even have a gas fields hanging of the side of a volcano in New Zealand. Oh and just because all the major oil fields are near mud volcanos doesn't prove the abiotic origins of oil, just your point of volcanos and oil showed a little ignorance ( thats not an insult by the way because I'm ignorant on a lot of subjects as well )

It's funny I just read something on the proces of creating biogenic oil in a lab. It was to show that oil has been formed in a lab biogenically. But if you read the papers by Kenney he explains how the process that they used are not replicated inside the earth. Anyway I am not stating that abiotic oil will produce at a certain rate. Even Kenney does not state that. But anyway.

As for Shale oil... I guess if reading JF Kenneys paper is something your not willing to take the time to do then me posting other links into shale oil formation is pointless. Besides it's discussed in his papers anyway.

Err sorry for the sarcasm there. If I get time over the next couple of weeks I'll write up something brief for you guys to have a read of. Been meaning to do it for ages anyway. I won't have the internet again for a couple of weeks so I must apologise if I don't come back and reply in here for a while. It's either pay for my electricity and internet bill or buy food, so I'll have to do without both for a while so I can still eat. It'll be good to get a break from everything anyway.

If shale is explained in the papers, then I'd dabble at them. I was just trying to see if it was actually explained at all.

Which ads have oil companies taken out addressing PO? I'm surprised they weren't shown on here...

I guess the hardest thing to accept about all of this (companies manipulating on a grand scale) is the fact that they need a motive. What is the motive? Well, if you're going to these large scale operations, it always turns out to be global domination or police states, etc. Why would they want to do this? They make a fucking killing off of keeping us as 'free' slaves as it is. If they limit production, production which we NEED to survive, then the popluation will shrink. Less population equals to less wealth and profit for them as there won't be as many people to buy their junk and fill their treasuries. I have a hard time finding any motive for them to want to 'manufacture' all of this. Cheap and, more importantly, plentiful oil is what keeps the world safe. What happens when a massive depression hits? People will go ape-shit and probably go after the rich. Now why would oil companies want to be the target of mobs? If you don't think it's possible, just look at Nigeria.

I can not see any reason, why big oil corporations would go to conspiracy, saying that oil is scarce.

Doing so would help to drive attention to other sources of energy (wind, nukes etc.) and sales of oil would go down without price increases.
Coal liquification would also crop in faster (it still will) and demand for oil would be still reduced.
When in the future oil will go really scarce, no one will need it any more. Once a price exceed certain limit (say $300 per barrel), remaining oil will become obsolete. Few wars may be runned meantime to keep the oil BELOW this critical price as long as possible.

In respect to vulcanos:
I am still not aware of an oil belching vulcano, but I am aware that there is particulary rich plant vegetation in surroundings of vulcano.
People elect to live there even if dangerous. They have a reason for it.
This rich plant vegetation is coherrent with BIOTIC origin of oil.
Analysis of fresh vulcanic ashes and deposits is failing to find an oil there.
It rather looks like erruptions are killing a plant/animal life around vulcano from time to time and some remains of this organic materials are ending up as oil mixed with pumice etc.
The entire process (dead plant/dino to oil conversion) would still take few milions years to complete.

A good friend of mine, Lloyd Sloan, is going to be interviewing Craig Smith on Monday (8/14/2006) at 5 PM CST on WGNU 920AM in St. Louis. You can listen if you want from this URL: http://www.wgnu.net/ (warning, worst website design ever).

The show's website is: http://thesloanrangershow.com/

Craig Smith co-authored Black Gold Stranglehold with Corsi (I had him decline an interview with Corsi but Smith got through). While I am peak oil aware and understand a lot of the concepts, I'm not sure how to approach someone espousing abiotic oil.

What questions/arguments would you recommend? How would you pick him apart? As well, it's a call in talk show; feel free to call in, Lloyd would appreciate it.

PS - I've contacted a couple of peak oil experts regarding interview possibilities but no one seems to be doing interviews (I understand why, they get tired of providing bad news, while the shills try very hard to get their message out). If you would be willing to do an interview let me know and I can get you in contact with him or his assistant. He would like to cover energy, he's just having a hard time getting decent interview contacts.

Thanks.