Everything We Think We Know Is Not Just Wrong

Berlin (1525)

We often think of norm-challenging concepts or theories as “ridiculous” or “irrational” not because we are in possession of the facts sufficient to refute them but simply because we have been told to. Too often, an “education” is the process, by sheer repetition and social conditioning, by which science, logic and common sense are distorted for the sake of convenience. We don’t need to ask (just yet) “whose convenience?”; we need to ask how much of what we’ve been raised to believe is utter fucking bullshit.

If I’ve been raised to believe that the sweet water in the well behind my house is undrinkable, the day I discover this to be a lie, the first thing I’m not going to do is hunt down the liars who’ve been selling me bottled water all my life… the first thing I’m going to do is drink.

Read this excerpt from an article on a web page that many “educated” people will dismiss with an exasperated roll of their eyes, or with a knowing sneer. But do read it (I’ve chosen a very brief excerpt) and ask yourself if the anti-normative theory it offers is “ridiculous” because you have the facts to prove that it is… or if it’s  “ridiculous” because it’s in someone else’ best interests for you to think so…?  

The next thing to start wondering (if the theory propounded in the following excerpt intrigues you at all): if I’ve been lied to about this, what else…. what else…?

The Peak King 

Peak Oil theory is based on a 1956 paper done by the late Marion King Hubbert, a Texas geologist working for Shell Oil. He argued that oil wells produced in a bell curve manner, and once their “peak” was hit, inevitable decline followed. He predicted the United States oil production would peak in 1970. A modest man, he named the production curve he invented, Hubbert’s Curve, and the peak as Hubbert’s Peak. When US oil output began to decline in around 1970 Hubbert gained a certain fame.

The only problem was, it peaked not because of resource depletion in the US fields. It “peaked” because Shell, Mobil, Texaco and the other partners of Saudi Aramco were flooding the US market with dirt cheap Middle East imports, tariff free, at prices so low California and many Texas domestic producers could not compete and were forced to shut their wells in.

Vietnam success 

While the American oil multinationals were busy controlling the easily accessible large fields of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and other areas of cheap, abundant oil during the 1960’s, the Russians were busy testing their alternative theory. They began drilling in a supposedly barren region of Siberia. There they developed eleven major oil fields and one Giant field based on their deep ‘a-biotic’ geological estimates. They drilled into crystalline basement rock and hit black gold of a scale comparable to the Alaska North Slope.

They then went to Vietnam in the 1980s and offered to finance drilling costs to show their new geological theory worked. The Russian company Petrosov drilled in Vietnam’s White Tiger oilfield offshore into basalt rock some 17,000 feet down and extracted 6,000 barrels a day of oil to feed the energy-starved Vietnam economy. In the USSR, a-biotic-trained Russian geologists perfected their knowledge and the USSR emerged as the world’s largest oil producer by the mid-1980’s. Few in the West understood why, or bothered to ask.

Dr. J. F. Kenney is one of the only few Western geophysicists who has taught and worked in Russia, studying under Vladilen Krayushkin, who developed the huge Dnieper-Donets Basin. Kenney told me in a recent interview that “alone to have produced the amount of oil to date that (Saudi Arabia’s) Ghawar field has produced would have required a cube of fossilized dinosaur detritus, assuming 100% conversion efficiency, measuring 19 miles deep, wide and high.” In short, an absurdity.

Western geologists do not bother to offer hard scientific proof of fossil origins. They merely assert as a holy truth. The Russians have produced volumes of scientific papers, most in Russian. The dominant Western journals have no interest in publishing such a revolutionary view. Careers, entire academic professions are at stake after all.



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR [letters are vetted for cogency and style]

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s