Da Russki Oils

Voters: LORDKAHUNA ghostrideryyz meepNinjaMcDeath qwerty hobo magicchex Dumbskull lefen Reason: too lazy to actually read

Worst reject reason ever. The Alpha Queue is making me very sad lately. Unrejecting.

i applaud that decision

Poorly written conspiracy-theory. Lefen didn't like it, so Lefen rejected it.

chex too rejected it because it was generally boring and long and not worth anyone's time.

That's what I thought, but that's not how I voted. Other people might like it.

I didn't see this one in the queue, and I am very glad that it was 'unrejected'. It may be more conspiracy theory, but if you think about it, the Dead Dinosaur Theory of oil origins IS hard to fathom. The relation between petroleum ( hydrocarbons- hydrogen and carbon in molecular form ) and diamonds ( pure carbon ) is obvious when pointed out, and the origins of one should be very similar to the origins of the other. Is oil really just diamond in liquid form ( possibly due to the addition of hydrogen)? Is it possible to manufacture oil in the same way that diamonds can be made, and from the two most plentiful elements on earth ( if not in the entire universe)? We all know that alternatives to petroleum and the more economical ways of using petroleum are pretty ruthlessly debunked and/or supressed by the oil industry and it's friends in the science establishment. Economical yet ( relatively ) powerful car engines such as this routinely disappear or are found to be 'pipe dreams' after early successes ( or both ). Why is so hard to believe that a theory that questions the idea that the world is running out of oil would not be treated the same way for the same reasons?

what lefen said

but I only read about half, did it get better?

Not much LK. dragonstaff has a point but I thought diamonds and oil both came from coal which still originates from biomatter.

'Roach, that is what 'they' want you to believe. Coal is actually much younger and is actually hardened peat, which , of course, is found at ground level in places like Ireland.

Unbelievably long......yada yada yada......

but kinda interesting. It does remind me of the rantings of a tortured mind. I'll need more coffee, Red Bull, green tea and cocain to read the hole thing.

vasudeva Voters: LORDKAHUNA ghostrideryyz meepNinjaMcDeath qwerty hobo magicchex Dumbskull lefen Reason: too lazy to actually read Worst reject reason ever. The Alpha Queue is making me very sad lately. Unrejecting.

Next time I go drop a deuce I'll print it and read it. I promise

Meh! you don't have to read the whole thing to figure out that it's not mentioned anywhere in current petrochemical literature and maybe it should be.

And yes LK, it does get better...

It directly challenges another pseudo-scientific claim about 'oil' mainly, peak oil.

As I see it, the messaging around 'peak oil' is politically motivated and targeted to a group of folks. This I feel, is a frustrated academic's 'counter spin' on the whole thing. Here is a cut:

Several readers have written to me, incidentally, with a variation of the following question: 'How can you say that Peak Oil is being promoted to sell war when all of the websites promoting the notion of Peak Oil are stridently anti-war?'

But of course they are. That, you see, is precisely the point. What I was trying to say is that the notion of 'Peak Oil' is being specifically marketed to the anti-war crowd -- because, as we all know, the pro-war crowd doesn't need to be fed any additional justifications for going to war; any of the old lies will do just fine. And I never said that the necessity of war was being overtly sold. What I said, if I remember correctly, is that it is being sold with a wink and a nudge.

The point that I was trying to make is that it would be difficult to imagine a better way to implicitly sell the necessity of war, even while appearing to stake out a position against war, than through the promotion of the concept of 'Peak Oil.' After September 11, 2001, someone famously said that if Osama bin Laden didn't exist, the US would have had to invent him. I think the same could be said for 'Peak Oil.'

Roach, diamonds are formed in kimberlite pipes which are ancient volcanic remnants.

But we made volcanos in Jr. High Science Class.

I could've had diamonds & oil?

I had a pipe....

Peak oil is a scam. There are oil deposits being found left and right on the Asian continent, but you don't here about that from the mainstream news. Why? because all the fellows that run the current oil scam that is bein pulled on us right now would lose out.

thisLink or just google : oil white tiger fields - if you need more 'credible' links. Or actually google anything with russia, vietnam, oil,.etc...

Its not going to be fun and games when gas is $5++ a gallon!

'Another telling sign of 'Peak Oil,' according to Ruppert and Co., is sudden price hikes on gas and oil. Of course, that would be a somewhat more compelling argument if the oil cartels did not have a decades-long history of constantly feigning shortages to foist sudden price increases on consumers (usually just before peak travel periods). Contrary to the argument that appears on Ruppert's site, it is not need that is driving the oil industry, it is greed. ' Example below.

Gas is meeping $2.81a gallon where i live. Legal finacial rape.

Diamonds come from kimberlite pipes, right, I forgot about that, middle-age-man, thanks. Nonetheless, I've been reading up on abiotic oil formation. I also read the link mineralGod attached. I'm rather confused. I've come across several articles now on both sides that dierectly refute each other. This this one, by J.F.Kennedy maintains he is wrong. The numbers (such as tempuratures and pressures at specific depths and what happens to hydrocarbons and drilling equipment in those situations) seem to contradict each other so I'm at a loss. I think even with an abiotic source of oil we won't be able to exploit it sufficently to stave off peak oil as a product of demand and supply gaps.

doh, that first lik was supposed to say: This one by Richard Heinberg is the most forthcomming on the evidence behind his position.

I thought diamonds come from the brown man in the jewlery shop.... meep I'm behind the times.

these comments are longer than the article :

I rejected it because it was BS!

I ran this past a friend of mine who has a PhD in Geology. Here's what he said:

''Peak oil' which the author is referring to was first described by M. King Hubbert, I think during the 1950's, also called the 'Hubbert Peak'. Whether we have actually reached the peak or not is debatable. However, we do know that no new major oil fields have been found since the early 1970's. Continued levels of high oil production at this point can only be sustained for a short time and then only by the application of new technologies that allow us to extract the last dregs out of oil fields already plundered for the easiest oil. There is still quite a bit of oil, its just that the expense and technological hurdles required to get it make it unprofitable. If the price goes high enough then companies will go after these marginal fields tho'. Despite this, the fact remains -we are not finding any new major oil fields. ANWR is not new either - we have known about it for decades.

Frankly, the author admonishes western scientists for dismissing Soviet scientific theory. However, he then hypocritically dismisses the large body of evidence to support the 'fossil origin'. This idea of 'abiotic oil' has been around for a while and is not a secret - many introductory geology courses actually discuss it and it can be found in many textbooks. One significant test of this came a few years ago when a Scandinavian scientist elicited a large grant to drill for abiotic oil (I forget where) and guess what he found? Nada.

For the conspiracy minded, as both you and I are, the author may actually be using the abiotic hypothesis in an attempt to discredit evolution. 'Fossil origin' relies implicitly in the accuracy of faunal succession- that is that various organisms existed at certain discrete times during Earth's history and have undergone changes (evolution). That this article is appearing now when 'intelligent design' is currently in vogue suggests to me the author has ulterior motives.'

'The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not ...' is how about 10 paragraphs start, and that was annoying as meep. Not that it isn't causing discussion, but it seems like a meep link, so why get upset if us alphas gas it?

The oil and gas of Linkswarm are products of its rotting fossils and derelicts. With the exception of Gothmog's, whose origins are abiotic I am afraid.

LOL

Not a bad debate for a rejected link!

Probably because the reject reason was meeping meep.

I've rejected it because I read like a hundred magazine articles about peak oil at work 6months ago. The subject matter isn't new.

But hey if people are not as hip and up to date as me then by all means let them read it.

Gothmog: but it seems like a meep link, so why get upset if us alphas gas it?

Ignoring for the moment the worthwhile debate around what constitutes a meep link, the reject reason was essentially 'I didn't even feel like looking at this, so I'm going to help reject it.'

If you don't want to look at it, that's fine -- kill the page and move on.

But don't decide in ignorance what to do with it. Same goes for the bullmeep inherent in 'I don't like Bill Gates, so I'm rejecting this link about Bill Gates.' Or 'my car broke down in Wyoming once so I'm rejecting this link about Wyoming death art.'

Make sense now?

Also 'Da Ruski Oils' is a meep title for a link. I tried to change it but I guess it didn't work

Qwerty: The subject matter isn't new.

An example of a good reject reason, for the record. Part of why the Alpha Queue exists is for me to get a concensus feedback on whether something is a repeat to the Internet-viewing world at large. Voting -1 on something that is old -- and not worth having around again, as some things are -- is good.

Great Link! I love reading conspiracy theories! This one makes a lot of good points. To say this article is BS says to me you didn't read the whole thing. I like the idea of Peak Oil. finding it interesting the the world in general seems not to care very much for the most part and watching the global situation worsen with the threat of more war and economic collapse.

But I guess not ever running out of oil would be good to.

I will say one thing. I don't know if it is a problem with my browser, but the article seems to repeat its own text alot near the bottom.

Hey I wanted a ghey meep link for you Qwerty!

Seriously, who thinks the russians have oil? No the caucaus and caspian... no not Yukos--it's all in a-rab land.

At any rate the Rense site itself is a rambling namby-pasym of nutjobs rattling off one cook theory after another. The fact is that it could be really true because of our bias in the 'western' world of ignoring whatever isn't helping the bottom line--there is that crack in the armor.

I think this link was as good as 4 links! unfortunately it was all mashed up into one. And golly, how many posts about posting a link can we have?

Vote for Official Clipswarm