Making Sense II
by
Robert Klassen
by Robert Klassen
DIGG THIS
Making sense
of this world is important
to me for some reason. Some issues that don’t make sense are
the endless wars, global warming, 9/11, and peak oil. I’m grateful
to Butler Shaffer for partially settling my mind about
9/11. I’m not any kind of expert on any of these issues; my
area of expertise is a tiny niche elsewhere, but in that niche I
learned to be a keen observer and a skeptic – medicine has a bad
habit of confusing correlation with causation.
I believe I’m
sufficiently on
record as opposing these insane wars. Global warming evidence
is too politicized to make any sense to me. But I’m getting an impression
of peak oil that might be of interest. As in medicine, we have here
a mixture of science, technology, political power, and a whole lot
of wealth riding on the issue. I’d like to look at some of the evidence.
Peak
Oil is the hypothesis that oil is a limited resource that will
run out after its exploitation reaches a peak of available supplies.
The first question is when? Well, prophesies have varied over time
and the date keeps moving forward. That bothers me. When the doomsayers
keep moving the target, I conclude that either they don’t know or
they are lying. Either way, the practice looks like fraud to me.
I do understand
that manipulating people by fear has a long history of success,
so the constant promise of doom has a certain effectiveness, although
it wears thin after a while. Oil companies have a proprietary interest
in tending quietly to their business, investment counselors have
a proprietary interest in also being quiet about what they know,
and politicians wouldn’t know that the truth mattered even if contemplating
it from a jail cell. Scientists seldom work independently from an
employer, like the state, who doesn’t have a stake in financial
results. The overall short-term objective of all interested groups
seems to be to keep the price of oil up (except during election
cycles).
This whole
game rests on the assumption that dead animals and plants buried
under mountains of dirt turned into rock became fossil fuels, that
is biological hydrocarbons. This has been an appealing hypothesis
since the nineteenth century. I fail to see why. I’ve observed dead
animals and plants decay and disappear in the open and I cannot
imagine millions of tons of dead organic matter suddenly buried
under trillion of tons of rock without first decaying in the open;
our fossil records depend on isolated sudden burials of individuals,
not massive world-wide burial of species. In the twentieth century
we discovered that hydrocarbons exist on dead planets and moons
that never supported dinosaurs or fern forests, and still the fossil
origin is hyped. This is nonsense.
Recently I
bought and read an authoritative book
on the subject. Thomas Gold makes sense. His hypothesis is that
certain planets and moons produce hydrocarbons in the "deep,
hot biosphere" if the right elements are present in the initial
accumulation of space debris by the object. In other words, hydrocarbons
come from deep inside the planet and seep out toward the surface.
Why would liquids and gasses seep out? Centrifugal force from a
rotating mass. Dr. Gold managed to use his considerable prestige
to finance an actual test and proved his hypothesis by deep-drilling
where oil should not be found. (I note that Russian scientists claim
precedence to the hypothesis, an interesting dispute for a claim
to an idea that the pundits say is nonsense.)
One revealing
tidbit
appeared in the news not long ago. Chevron has been exploring the
deep Gulf of Mexico for years and over the past few years planned
to bore a test hole in seven-thousand feet of water. They announced
success, finding oil and gas at twenty-six-thousand feet underground.
What? That’s five miles down! The expense is as impossible for me
to grasp as the achievement. They’re hinting at a floating oil production
city out in hurricane alley! Oh, woe to the doomsayers. Has Chevron
confirmed Gold’s hypothesis? Nobody is saying.
Meanwhile,
back on dry land, our kind and generous bureaucrats allowed tests
holes to be drilled to a thousand feet in the massive oil shale
deposits in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming in order to find a politically
correct method of extraction, which was done.
It remains to be seen if the mighty pencil pushers approve the method,
but my question is why only a thousand feet? How did the oil get
there? (I repeat this question for the Canadian oil sands, another
vast reserve.) Why don’t they drill down a few miles to find out
where it came from? Surely drilling on dry land is cheaper than
drilling in the deep blue sea.
Certainly
the pristine and impoverished sagebrush deserts of the American
West are Holy Ground to urban environmentalists who don’t live there,
and they have the political clout to halt progress, for reasons
I don’t understand, but when the US state goes to war for hegemony
over the middle-east oil states if we are not, in fact, running
out of oil, what’s going on?
Smoke
and mirrors. No, I don’t believe there is a conspiracy, I believe
it’s only political business as usual: Never tell the truth when
a lie will do. It’s a mind-set, a habit, a knee-jerk response, and
nobody who works for the state or who works for a state-corporate
alliance will ever give us a straight answer to any question. But
the truth has a way of wiggling out from under tons of sediment,
kind of like oil, if we’re trying to make sense of the world.
September
25, 2006
Robert
Klassen [send him mail]
retired from a forty-year career in critical-care respiratory therapy.
He is the author of five books, including Atlantis:
A Novel about Economic Government,
and Economic
Government, which describe a solution
to the problem of political government. Here's
his web site.
Copyright
© 2006 Robert Klassen
Robert
Klassen Archives
|