Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

No such thing as peak oil

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   
First off, I know veeery little of oil and fossil fuels etc lol So if you asked me a question about the link below, I probably couldn't answer it for ya...

educate-yourself.org...

One thing I do know is that supposedly oil is made from decomposing organic matter like dinosaurs and stuff. That is an IMMENSELY large pile of rotting dinosaurs if you ask me, compared to how much oil we use and find. Anybody visit that site before? It's quite interesting and informative. I will probably refer to it alot since thats practically the only site I've visited frequently.




posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Its a pretty theory... but still a theory in my eyes. It just doesnt account for some oil fields repleneshing themselves.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   
If peak oil is not a reality now it will be when 800 million chinese put down their bikes and pick up car keys. Demand will overpower supply in the world of oil.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthWithin
If peak oil is not a reality now it will be when 800 million chinese put down their bikes and pick up car keys. Demand will overpower supply in the world of oil.


There are numerous resources that goes into the construction of cars that may cause bottlenecks in their availability and i have really not seen evidence to suggest that fueling them after construction is soon going to be one of those. We are running into oil rather faster than we are using it and that's happening even with diminished expenditure in exploration.

Stellar



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
We are running into oil rather faster than we are using it and that's happening even with diminished expenditure in exploration.

Stellar


If this was true (and it isn't) that will go against this simple fact:

"They note that worldwide we are consuming three barrels of oil for every new barrel being found."

Source:

cce.ucdavis.edu...

Face it, Peak Oil will soon be a reality.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by PopeyeFAFL

If this was true (and it isn't) that will go against this simple fact:


Depends on who's facts one is using i guess.


"They note that worldwide we are consuming three barrels of oil for every new barrel being found."
cce.ucdavis.edu...


Anything with the word ' peak' in it is probably best avoided if you want my opinion.

www.energybulletin.net...

www.spe.org...

And here is a clue why if you forgot my last source list on why we might never have a peak.

Original New York Times source but i am sneaky so.....

www.oralchelation.com...

World oil reserves are growing and this 'peak' nonsense has been going for decades now while reserves just keep growing and growing. I do not even think the Peak oil scam is run by the big energy groups.....


Face it, Peak Oil will soon be a reality.


Not in your lifetime or mine, and very possibly never, if you have studied the Abiotic theory as i have asked you.

Want to try again? Here you go ....

Greasing the Palms of the Oil Barons

New oil being created today?

CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT RECENT PREDICTIONS
OF IMPENDING SHORTAGES OF PETROLEUM EVALUATED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF MODERN PETROLEUM SCIENCE.


Fears of dwindling oil supply unfounded.

Oil, Oil, Everywhere . . .

Odd Reservoir Off Louisiana Prods
Oil Experts to Seek a Deeper Meaning


Fuel's Paradise

The Origins of Oil and Petroleum

Thomas Gold

New Ideas in Science

Sustainable oil?

Discovering oil

Oil Reserves Are Increasing

Petroleum under pressure

------------


in this article, research geochemist Michael Lewan is quoted as one of the most knowledgeable advocates of the opposing theory, that petroleum is a "fossil fuel". Yet even Lewan admits "I don't think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic source of hydrocarbons. The key question is, 'Do they exist in commercial quantities?'"

The AAPG article also mentions a letter published in Nature, April 2002, "Abiogenic formation of alkanes in the Earth's crust as a minor source for global hydrocarbon reservoirs" which discusses evidence that methane gas from the Kidd Creek Mine in Ontario is of abiogenic origin.

The AAPG is organizing a conference in Vienna this July 11-14, 2004, Origin of Petroleum -- Biogenic and/or Abiogenic and Its Significance in Hydrocarbon Exploration and Productions

www.aapg.org...


Technical resources....

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum.

Generation of methane in the Earth's mantle: In situ high pressure–temperature measurements of carbonate reduction

The Deep, Hot Biosphere

American Scientist and organizations involved?


The call for papers states

"For half a century, scientists from the former Soviet Union (FSU) have recognized that the petroleum produced from fields in the FSU have been generated by abiogenic processes. This is not a new concept, being first reported in 1951. The Russians have used this concept as an exploration strategy and have successfully discovered petroleum fields of which a number of these fields produce either partly and entirely from crystalline basement."

Note that the organizers of the conference include Michel Halbouty, recipient of a "Legendary Geoscientist" award www.agiweb.org... as well as Ernest Mancini of the University of Alabama, and the cornucopian author Peter Odell of Erasmus University. Evidently they are taking the abiogenic theory seriously, at least to the extent of organizing this conference.

www.melbourne.indymedia.org...


Oil and Gas-"Renewable Resources"?

J.F. Kenney, Gas Resources Corporation, Houston, TX
V. A. Krayushkin, T. I. Tchebanenko, V. P. Klochko, Ye. S. Dvoryanin
Institute of Geological Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine
gasresources.net...

Thomas Gold, Professor emeritus of astronomy at Cornell University
About the man... www.news.cornell.edu...
The science... people.cornell.edu... based on data from the U.S. Geological Survey.

American Association of Petroleum Geologists www.aapg.org...

Gas Research Institute ....
www.gastechnology.org

Geotimes
www.geotimes.org...

Michael C. Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research and formerly chief energy economist for DRI-WEFA.
www.energyseer.com...

Jean Whelan, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts
www.whoi.edu... and www-ocean.tamu.edu... Professor Mahlon Kennicutt II , Chemical Oceanography, Texas A&M University: Department of Oceanography both had some very choice things to say that im still looking for in my mess of a links directory.....

Stellar

[edit on 21-6-2006 by StellarX]

[edit on 21-6-2006 by StellarX]

Mod Edit: Truncated Link Of Great Length.

[edit on 8/7/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I find it rather silly when people use government information as proof that 'peak oil' is a reality issue, globally, all the while the same (U.S) government are;

* Helping build up large communist oil using countries such as China.
* Allowing vehicle manufactories to keep manufacturing gas guzzling vehicles such as SUV's etc.

This ain't rocket science Huckleberry Fin



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   
I tend to agree with the idea that there is no such thing as Peak Oil and it's the usual dog and pony show to get us to do their bidding.

Common sense and the numerous resources outlined earlier in this thread aside, the whole notion reeks of leftgatekeeper-ism. And guess who funds and supports that kind of lobby? Why, one major name that comes to mind is Rockefeller which, incidentally, runs ExxonMobil.

[edit on 7/8/2006 by AlnilamOmega]



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by smadgirl


One thing I do know is that supposedly oil is made from decomposing organic matter like dinosaurs and stuff. That is an IMMENSELY large pile of rotting dinosaurs if you ask me, compared to how much oil we use and find.



Oh this I agree with 110%
You gotta figure , lets take a 50 lb log for example. When it rots competely, how much decomposed matter is left over? a very small fraction of that 50 lb log..

The pile of dinos could probably stack up to the moon and back to make ths much oil. Something is just strange about it.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
There is such a misunderstanding about Peak Oil. Peak Oil is not a matter or depleting supplies, its a matter of being able to acquire those supplies. Our known and accessible oil fields ARE running short and there will come a time where extracting energy takes up far more energy than it gains. That's the matter of Peak Oil, we reach a point where we get nothing for something.

It is reality. The only thing with an agenda is physical petroleum itself.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by prophetfxb

Originally posted by smadgirl


One thing I do know is that supposedly oil is made from decomposing organic matter like dinosaurs and stuff. That is an IMMENSELY large pile of rotting dinosaurs if you ask me, compared to how much oil we use and find.



Oh this I agree with 110%
You gotta figure , lets take a 50 lb log for example. When it rots competely, how much decomposed matter is left over? a very small fraction of that 50 lb log..

The pile of dinos could probably stack up to the moon and back to make ths much oil. Something is just strange about it.




Petroleum was formed as a result of the laying down of organisms such as plankton and bacteria millions of years ago on the sea floor.

Oil was formed from sea plants and animals under strongly reducing conditions.

eyrie.shef.ac.uk...

That dino thing, is popular imagery, there was plenty of plants, enough to account for all that volume of oil that was created.

Now, Peak Oil is real, in the sense that all finite ressource (and oil is a finite ressource) goes thru eventually using half of it, and then you use the other half, and as much as you try, when you are on the downward slide, you will never produce as much as when you were in the first half.

This is what happens to the USA around 1970, except for small recess, then never produce as much as in 1970, the year they peaked.

Now, you could think, that you will never live long enough to see the world peak of oil, fine, that is just your perception, your idea, but that peak will happens, in 2 years, 20 or 200, but it will happens, so in that sense it is real.

Every day, we use some 85 millions barrels of oil (1000 barrels per seconds), that is enough to fill up a pool of 2 meters x 25 meters x 240 km long, so dream as you wish, that this will never have an end, but it will.

Will we be smart enough to switch to other form of energy (remove from the equation, ethanol which require a gallon of fuel for every gallon it gave you, or the hydrogen myth, where most of the energy is wasted in the various transformation process, it could only be in-between technology, like real electric car), that is another question. Knowing how humans usually work, they need a real crisis, that hurt bad, before they change their way, something temporary, follow by the good old days, won't do it).



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
hi new here and one of my first posts...

With the discovery of large new reserves of oil, combined with development of new technologies to extract known reserves previously thought uneconomic to extract, the conventional theory of Peak Oil is probably a little off the mark.

However, the common problem with all of these reserves is cost, its simply more expensive to extract these reserves than pumping crude in the currently conventional manner, as Middle Eastern reserves start to dry up cheap (or relatively cheap) energy will start to become a thing of the past leading to perhaps vast increases in standards of living.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
There's a common tactic on discussion boards that I call "link bombardment." It consists of presenting a veritable blizzard of links on a subject to create the impression of knowing what one is talking about. Anyone who reads the posts is expected to believe that the poster has read and (more important) understood and rationally considered all the material linked. It is also expected that few readers will actually do more than glance at the volumes of material linked, so that meaningful discussion of the material is usually avoidable.

The answer to link bombardment is to present a rational argument, with minimal links to provide data in support of that argument where it is needed (I will present only one, below), and invite response. So:

I'll present the link first. Please ignore the opinions expressed and concentrate on the data graphs. I will present my own opinions here. Note the graphs for North American oil production, and for the different peaks for different regions of the world. Very significant points occur when the majority of the world's oil production will occur in OPEC countries (2007), and when the majority of the world's oil production will come from the Middle East (2025), due to earlier declines elsewhere, for reasons that will be clear shortly.

Here's the link: dieoff.org...

As noted above, we have already seen an example of peak oil. It occurred in the United States in 1970. Prior to the 1970s, the U.S. had been a net exporter of oil. In 1973, the U.S. (along with many other countries) experienced catastrophic oil shortages caused by a politically-motivated embargo imposed by the OPEC cartel.

Many people insisted at the time that we weren't running out of oil, which was technically true (the global peak was still many years away). But even though the shortage was politically caused, it was also caused by peak oil, not by the global peak (not yet a reality), but by the U.S. peak.

If the U.S. had not reached its oil peak in 1970, OPEC would not have been able to cause us economic problems with its embargo.

So in that sense, when people insisted that the shortage was not caused by running out of oil, they were wrong.

Similar considerations apply today. "Peak oil" is not a single event with everything running smoothly until we hit it. Oil is produced locally and combined together on the market, so what we have is a lot of regional peaks, and the global peak is something that happens when the decline in regions that have peaked outstrips the increasing production in regions that still haven't.

A lot of regions of the world have already peaked. These include North America (1985), Central and South America (2005), Europe (2000), the former USSR (1987), Africa (2004), and Asia (2002). The only major oil-producing region that has not yet peaked is the Middle East, which is expected to reach peak in 2011.

If we haven't reached the global peak yet, the reason is because increases in Middle East oil production have so far managed to oustrip declines in the rest of the world. But what that means is that the world's oil consumption has come to rely on oil from the Middle East, and if anything should happen to disrupt that flow -- like a war in Iraq, for example -- there is no place in the world from which the lost oil production can be replaced.

So, when the oil companies insist (as they did in one of the links from the bombardment) that today's rising prices are not caused by peak oil, they are, at best, only technically correct in the same sense as people were right about the 1970s shortages. The rise in prices is indeed caused at the moment by non-geological factors such as the Iraq war.

But at the same time, they ARE caused by geological factors, because if oil production weren't already declining everywhere except the Middle East, the Iraq war would not have the effect that it does.

We don't have to wait for peak oil to actually happen to see its effects. We've seen the effects of approaching the peak since the 1970s. Just open your eyes.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   
And, to be more precise and concise and boil it down to a single paragraph:

All the links and data and arguments that say peak oil is a false concept and we will never run short of oil fail on a single point. Most of the world's oil-producing regions have already peaked. If any of these arguments held any water, why do we not see oil production increasing in North America or Europe or Africa? Why is it that the production of oil has exactly followed the pattern predicted by those who predict the global peak? And why should we not expect the planet as a whole to follow the same pattern as its regions do?



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   
heres the way i see it, even if oil somehow reproduced itself from the earth, it can only do that in a certain quanity. Now if you increase the rate at wich you remove that oil, eventually you will reach a point where you've sucked it dry and may end up killing the organism or whatever makes the oil in the first place. So if theres no"peak oil" fine, either way soon, we'll be sucking out more than the earth can remake, and how long does it take to remake? And if it doesn't remake oil deep within the earth, then i guess, we all wont be fat a$#es anymore cause we'll all be walking very soon!


Also, anyone ever been to disneys ride about the future of not having to survive on fossil fuels, where you ride past dinosaurs in a supposed electric car, and they talked about where the future is going, a future without oil... Does anyone remember or ridden it recently to have any insights to waht that crazy ride says. I'm sure it was sponsored by the oil companies.

So anyway, long story short, if theres no peak oil, and you suck every last drop out, and wait for it to make more, what do you call that?



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

There is such a misunderstanding about Peak Oil.


Actually the only misunderstanding i have notice is the one where people believe , due to a massive propaganda campaign, that we are running out of oil when there is no reliable information to even begin to back up such a claim. When one does even a cursury investigation this becomes self evident.


Peak Oil is not a matter or depleting supplies,


Well they say it's running out so the logical assumption is that we will one day ( they tend to be wrong when it comes to anything in terms of what year ) in theory have NOTHING left. Where is the misunderstanding?


its a matter of being able to acquire those supplies.


They keep finding more than they know what to do with so why talk about it running out?


Our known and accessible oil fields ARE running short and there will come a time where extracting energy takes up far more energy than it gains.


Our known reserves are growing massively each year as we are still finding 5 barrels for every three we are using without even considering the massive reserves we already know about and exploit. That does not even reflect the small ammounts we spend these days on oil exploration despite massive tracts of the world ( not to even mention the oceans) have not been explored. Why try find oil when you have so much already?


That's the matter of Peak Oil, we reach a point where we get nothing for something.


There are far better ways to generate energy but that does not mean we are in fact running out of oil or that it is becoming more expensive to find and exploit it. In many many oil rich countries a barrel of water is still far more expensive than a barrel of oil. When that changes in a few decades i might start getting worried.


It is reality. The only thing with an agenda is physical petroleum itself.


It is a 'reality' in many millions of minds but it has nothing to do with physical oil-in-the-ground facts that blatantly disproves all peak oil hysteria.

Stellar



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by PopeyeFAFL
Petroleum was formed as a result of the laying down of organisms such as plankton and bacteria millions of years ago on the sea floor.

Oil was formed from sea plants and animals under strongly reducing conditions.

eyrie.shef.ac.uk...


Is what the theory suggests , yes. There are alternative theories by scientist who were not nearly as obscure ( they were actually pretty smart people who proved themselves in other areas ) that does not seem to get much publicity these days.


That dino thing, is popular imagery, there was plenty of plants, enough to account for all that volume of oil that was created.


Please provide me with some hard math if you like. I do not expect anyone to seriously attempt such a thing but anyways....


Now, Peak Oil is real, in the sense that all finite ressource (and oil is a finite ressource)


Assumption , not proved.


goes thru eventually using half of it, and then you use the other half, and as much as you try, when you are on the downward slide, you will never produce as much as when you were in the first half.


Beside the fact that no one can or has proved that it's a finite resource we CERTAINLY do not know if we have used half or whatever other percentage. Such claims are just blatant vapid speculation without any foundation in any science we practice at this time.


This is what happens to the USA around 1970, except for small recess, then never produce as much as in 1970, the year they peaked.


US oil production did not peak in 1970 ( it was 1974 or 1976 as i recall according to the US petroleum society) and oil prices was not the only thing that rose dramatically in the 70's in the US. Did you know that coal prices went up by 800%? Why have i not heard about peak coal i ask you? Peak oil is shear nonsense and i have been saying this is the nicest way i know for three years now. If anyone intends to prove such a thing they burden of proof is on THEM, NOT on me.


Now, you could think, that you will never live long enough to see the world peak of oil, fine, that is just your perception, your idea, but that peak will happens, in 2 years, 20 or 200, but it will happens, so in that sense it is real.


One imagines that even if oil is being produced in some abiotic way we could conceivably eventually ( who knows if that will take 50 years - according to OPEC- or 5000) simply use far more than is being produced. Whatever the reality those who proclaim peak oil any-moment-now are the one's who must prove why they are right this time when they have been consistently wrong for 3 decades now.


Every day, we use some 85 millions barrels of oil (1000 barrels per seconds), that is enough to fill up a pool of 2 meters x 25 meters x 240 km long, so dream as you wish, that this will never have an end, but it will.


This is not about dreaming and that is why i suggest facts be presented instead of proclamations that big numbers in isolation proves anything. Do you know that we kill 12 million ( or is it 25 million? ) sharks every year and that they keep on biting people? Big numbers = meaningless without context so when doing some elementary math you get such a huge pool of oil ( that we have used so far) that any daily usage becomes hardly worthy of note and not indicative of anything.


Will we be smart enough to switch to other form of energy (remove from the equation, ethanol which require a gallon of fuel for every gallon it gave you, or the hydrogen myth, where most of the energy is wasted in the various transformation process, it could only be in-between technology, like real electric car), that is another question.


It's not a question of smarts as the technology has long been proven reality. Making energy expensive is just another way for government ( really the people behind them ) to ensure that we need them more than they need us. Constricting the flow of energy is what manipulation is all about.


Knowing how humans usually work, they need a real crisis, that hurt bad, before they change their way, something temporary, follow by the good old days, won't do it).


Humans are hardly the problem and you really need to stop being so cynical and instead start looking at what controls the flow of energy and for what purpose instead of assuming that humanity and it's average constituent wants no better.

Stellar



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Is what the theory suggests , yes. There are alternative theories


I'm familiar with some of them. Are you referring to the deep earth generation theory, the idea that oil is produced abiotically below the biosphere in huge abundance and that what is being tapped is only seepage from these deep wells into more shallow pools?

If so, there's a serious problem with that theory. On the basis of it, we would predict that known oil deposits would rather rapidly replenish as they are tapped, in the same way as groundwater replenishes over time. We do not see that happening. Every oil-producing region except the Middle East has passed the peak and oil production in all regions except the Middle East is declining. It has been declining in North America since 1985, and in the U.S. since 1970. This observed fact is consistent with the conventional theory of petro-origin, and inconsistent with the deep-earth theory.

If you mean something else, it would help to specify exactly what.




That dino thing, is popular imagery, there was plenty of plants, enough to account for all that volume of oil that was created.


Please provide me with some hard math if you like. I do not expect anyone to seriously attempt such a thing but anyways....


Then why ask for it? One may observe easily enough that there is more plant matter in the world than animal matter. If petroleum is produced from dead organisms, surely the great majority of it would come from plant rather than animal sources because that's what the great majority of dead organisms are.




Now, Peak Oil is real, in the sense that all finite ressource (and oil is a finite ressource)


Assumption , not proved.


As literally stated, to doubt it is sheer nonsense. The earth itself is finite, and oil represents only a tiny portion of the mass of the earth; therefore, the amount of oil is finite.

As for oil being nonrenewable in a practical sense, again there's the observed fact that every oil-producing region in the world except for the Middle East has reached peak and gone into decline. If you don't want to consider that "proof" in the same sense as a rigorous mathematical proof or a solid experimental proof in science, I suppose you can raise that meaningless quibble. It remains the case that all available evidence supports the idea that oil is nonrenewable, and none whatsoever argues to the contrary.



US oil production did not peak in 1970 ( it was 1974 or 1976 as i recall according to the US petroleum society)


Your memory is in error, but if your underlying assertions are correct, there should have been no peak at all, whether in 1970 or in 1974.



and oil prices was not the only thing that rose dramatically in the 70's in the US. Did you know that coal prices went up by 800%?


Yes, that's called supply and demand. When OPEC imposed its oil embargo, a lot of industries turned to coal as an alternative source of energy. Increased demand for coal = rising prices.



Why have i not heard about peak coal i ask you?


All right, I'll tell you about peak coal. Coal is also a nonrenewable resource, and we should expect that it, too, will meet a global production peak. The difference is that the supply of coal is enormously greater than the supply of oil, so we are nowhere near tapping 50% of it. Just the same, you can find local coal peaks that have been reached in some places, so the same principle applies.

You haven't heard about it because you aren't a geologist or an energy specialist. It isn't an urgent concern, and so has not made the mainstream news. That doesn't mean it's not real.



Making energy expensive is just another way for government ( really the people behind them ) to ensure that we need them more than they need us.


I'm sure that's a factor and I don't care to let the energy companies off the hook. However, to say that this is ALL that's going on is to say that the laws of economics are nonexistent. And that's just not true.

[edit on 13-7-2006 by Two Steps Forward]

[edit on 13-7-2006 by Two Steps Forward]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
About the date of the U.S. peak:

Consider the the OPEC embargo began in 1973. If the U.S. oil peak occurred in 1974, one year later than the beginning of the embargo, the embargo would have had no effect. As long as our oil production was pre-peak, we were a net oil exporter, not importer. Remember what provoked Pearl Harbor.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   
All right, this is a conspiracy-theory discussion board, and StellarX has raised a conspiracy idea involving price-fixing by the energy companies and the government. In that context, I want to point out the difference between a conspiracy theory, properly so called, and a conspiracy fantasy.

Example: the idea that John F. Kennedy was murdered by a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory. There is some evidence behind it: the pattern of gunshots, the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby, the signs of a cover-up in the behavior of the Warren Commission. The evidence doesn't amount to conclusive proof, but it's strong enough to call the "lone gunman" idea into serious question.

The idea that JFK was murdered by a specific conspiracy consisting of LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Mafia is a conspiracy fantasy. The only evidence linking any of these agents to the murder is the fact that all of them had an identifiable motive. And the further idea that we are governed by a shadow government and all our elections are a sham, and that Kennedy was killed because he challenged this shadow government in some behind-the-scenes way (he certainly did not do so publicly), goes beyond fantasy into sheer paranoid delusion.

Similarly: the idea that the energy companies conspire with the government to influence the price of oil (either upward or downward) is a conspiracy theory. As with the JFK assassination, there's evidence supporting it. I would not be inclined to believe, that such a conspiracy does NOT exist, or that it is not a factor in the price we pay for everything oil gives us.

But the idea that such a conspiracy is the sole and only determining factor behind the price of oil, and that such mundane and visible factors as geology and economics play no part, is a conspiracy fantasy.

In general, when a conspiracy theory grants the conspiracy unlimited power and influence and reduces all of us to mere puppets or flotsam on the ocean, it has crossed the line into fantasy.





new topics




 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join