I doubt very seriously anyone at Exxon called the White House and said "invade Iraq for us so we can get exploration and production contracts." If there were commercial quantities of oil in Hell, Exxon executives would not call God and demand regime change. They would buy an extremely nice lunch for the Devil, and they would talk contract and concession terms. Several years ago, at an Iran-US relations shindig on Capitol Hill, I ran into a senior Conoco executive who told me his company spoke weekly with Iranian officials about possible investment in Iran. I have no doubt that ConocoPhillips still maintains its access to Tehran in the event that, someday, the sanctions come down and they are allowed to work in Iran.

(Does anyone remember how funny it was 20 years ago when we all learned that Cuban soldiers fighting on behalf of the Marxist government of Angola were guarding the Chevron concession – the concession that earned Angola the hard currency to pay for those troops?)

It isn't that any US oil company would say "no" to Iraq contracts if the situation shaped up there and contracts came their way. But Iraq is a mess right now, and is there is no security – political, legal or physical – to guarantee a return on a multi-billion dollar investment. It's unlikely that any of these companies asked for this invasion because they all prize stability – the stability of contractual arrangements, of a regular return on capital, of not getting their employees killed and their equipment blown up – above nearly anything else. Even the stability guaranteed by very nasty governments. Dealing with the "devil," whatever headgear it wears, is pretty common in the oil business.

But there is an oil component to the invasion and occupation, and I believe it is this: the United States, through invading and occupying a nation with significant oil reserves, would show the world – especially the up-and-coming consuming nations of China and India – that in the event that push comes to shove, and this resource gets scarce, Americans come first.

"Everyone else gets in line behind us. If there's any left, we'll make sure you get some."

Now, I'm fairly certain that a fair number of Americans will high five and go, "Yeah dude, kick ass! That's our oil! We need it!" But this muscular mercantilism is hardly the "rule of law" we say we believe in and that we claim we're fighting for. Unless, of course, the "rule of law" is whatever rules and laws give us whatever we want at the time. Which is what I think it means sometimes.

I could point out that crude oil formations underneath the Saudi desert, or Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela, or wherever, aren't our property – even if they aren't private property per se – and therefore we are no more entitled to that crude than a ravenous fat man is entitled to a free meal everywhere he goes. However, the militant mercantilist is unlikely to care about such niceties, and is probably happy knowing his government is willing to stick guns in peoples faces and demand they fork over their property because "we need it more."

If you are a Chinese oil company, trying to fuel one of the fastest growing economies in the world, how do you deal with this? The People's Liberation Army cannot hope to match US military power, not now, and likely not in 20 years. If it comes to bullying for crude – high-stakes commodities extortion – China simply won't be able to compete.

I have every reason to believe, however, that the Chinese are betting there will come a day when we are so bankrupt that we won't be able beg, borrow or steal a junkload of lowland Vietnamese robusta coffee and a container load of broken rice intended for Cuba. Or they are betting that polite paying customers – customers with cash, as opposed to promissory notes – will easily buy what a bully can only dream of stealing.

Chinese oil and gas firms have been building extensive business connections across the world, from upstream investment in Iran to partnering with Brazilian state oil firm Petrobras to build natural gas pipelines (China is already a major buyer of Brazilian crude). Chinese firms are interested in building a crude oil pipeline across Colombia so that Venezuelan crude can be loaded onto China-bound tankers at a Pacific Ocean port. And Chinese firms are talking about investing $2 billion to expand development of the Athabasca oil sands in northern Alberta. Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing already owns a huge stake in Canada's third-largest oil firm, Husky Oil, and is thinking of buying more. They are doing this, they say, to help secure future Chinese crude oil needs.

Keep in mind that, right now, Canada is the largest supplier of crude oil to the United States.

Will We Run Out?

So the question is not "when will the crude oil run out?" but "how can we best use the petroleum we have until other economically viable alternatives present themselves?" (I'm not holding my breath for fuel cells any time soon.) That becomes what folks here in Washington call a "policy question," which leads to think tankery, publication of "papers" and funny little books called monographs, conferences, government initiatives, and all manner of other sundry evils.

We cannot ignore the fact that this an industry interlaced with government from top to bottom, whether we are talking about the huge state-owned firms of the big producing nations or our own heavily regulated supermajors. That is the reality, lamentable and regrettable as it is.

But we need to remember a few things.

First, whatever ends up replacing petroleum will come in its own good time, later than we'd like but probably sooner than we expect. It will come because it stores energy and power better than gasoline does and more cheaply to boot. It will come with some tremendous benefits and some unfortunate drawbacks. Consider as you lament the evils of crude oil: the fairly accidental discovery of kerosene and expansion of the refining process in the second half of the 19th century saved whales from an early mass extinction while at same time making nighttime light and winter heat affordable to even the most impoverished parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Gasoline itself was originally a waste product, largely unused until the invention of the internal combustion engine, and automobiles made for cleaner streets (no more manure) and safer farm equipment, given that farmers no longer had to wrestle with motors that had minds of their own. Kerosene itself languished as an unloved byproduct of refining for several decades until the invention of the jet engine.

Second, that new fuel will probably not come as the result of government-sponsored research. Government efforts to target new development – whether hydrogen fuel cells, hybrid engines, coal gasification, ethanol subsidies – may contribute some, but the kind of thinking and investing needed to find or make that new fuel probably cannot be done by government bureaucrats, scientists or regulators, who can only think incrementally and usually only consider efficiency and conservation, rather than entirely new ways of doing things.

I don't necessarily trust technology, but I do trust human ingenuity. Civilization as we know it will grind to a halt without the energy we derive today from crude oil, and that's in and of itself is motivation enough to make sure that future energy is widely available at prices people can afford.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1717

Interesting article by mises. It makes sense that all innovations, and discoveries are done in a free will market society were the bureaucrats merely restricts the endeavor and or obtains a monopoly.

Peak Oil means that it will be too expensive for the zog to fly tanks round the world in C-130 aircraft and so the Arabs will finally over-run Israel.

Also, cheap junk from China will not be so cheap anymore. People might actually start to rebuild factories in the USA.

Maybe, White folks would be pissed that they had to drive expensive cars around on expensive gas, to live in suburbs, instead of just segregating negroes off to the other side of th tracks like in days of yore.

Yahoodits think the sky is falling, hence. Expensive gas is "bad for Jews" thus they have to write books about it.

What I dont like bout Peak Oil, is that it's something like an eschatological fan
tasy. As in, Mother Nature will smack down the Jews for us, so we just need to hunker down til the collapse. I don't believe that. Any more than the Jesus riding down on a cloud or other Gotterdamerung stuff. I think we need to smack the Jews down ourselves and not wait for the Saudis to run out of black gold.

It tells you how logically deprived the mass of people are when they believe the trillions of barrels of oil we've extracted is pooled dinosaur and biological goo.
How did all that oil end up in the Middle East?Was there a dinosaur Jim Jones about 80,000,000 years ago and it got a bunch of fellow dinosaurs to committ suicide in the middle east,thus creating those vast oil fields we pump today?

The most plausible theory of oil is that it is constantly created as a byproduct of the natural processes that occur within the mantle of the earth,hence is not scarce nor will it ever be.

Ever heard of coal seam fires?They burn continually around the globe,burning up more coal in a year than humanity has used in its history.Have we run low on coal yet?
NO.
And for the same reason:hydrocarbons are an abundant and continually created byproduct.

Did you know that diamonds are non even a precious stone?They too are derived from hydrocarbons and there are entire warehouses filled with these things!But for most of the 20th century people were fooled into believing they were scarce because the Debeers monopoly only allowed a certain amount of diamonds every year out onto the world market,and then only to dealers certified by Debeers.

Peak oil is a scam run on many fronts.The oil companies and big refineries have deliberately created a refining shortage in the last 25 years by buying up and then promptly shutting down small,independent refineries while themselves building no new refineries.All this is meant to create greater monopolization of energy resources and to jack prices out of sight.Then of course they blame lack of refining capacity on environmentalists and the Limbaughs repeat their propaganda.The war in Iraq and ME ventures in general have been sold to the idiot Leftists by professional disinfo agents like Mike Ruppert and assorted left gatekeepers,which conveniently keeps the focus off Jews and their machinations.

It pains me that so many WN have hopped on this environmental apocalypse bullshit.Peak oil to some WN has become a substitute "day of the rope" fantasy where benevolent Mother Nature will make energy scarce and kill off all the niggers and muds and end Jew rule just in the nick of time to save the White race!
This pathetic fantasizing is a part of what has put the White world in the hole that it's in now. Fantasizing about economic collapses,energy supply collapses as a means of solving hard and deep problems is a perfect example of the amerikwan mentality of every problem being easy and solved by a magic bullet solution in time to watch the ballgame tonite!

If jew rule does comes to an end it certainly won't be by the hands of a bunch of fantasizers who think Ma Nature is going to save them and solve their problems for them.

Philosophical question of the day:Are such ridiculous,delusional,weak-willed people even worth saving?

To avoid or to bypass concerns over "peak oil", optimists such as the US National Research Council (NRC) have done a recent ‘hydrogen as fuel’ report stating research to use hydrogen in the US as a replacement for car fuel etc “is justified by the potentially enormous benefit to the nation”.

It should be noted that the same argument that a course of experimentation is “justified by the potentially enormous benefit to the nation” has been used to fill the UK with asylum seekers. That too has so far failed to deliver a benefit .

The US is producing 9 million tonne a year of Hydrogen but the expected eventual switch from oil to an Hydrogen energy economy will create many severe new safety and environmental problems. Here are some.:

1. Reid vapour pressure considerations, favour petrol and diesel over Hydrogen for storage in ambient conditions.

VNN forum members can use ‘TANKS’ software (TANKS is available as a free download from the US-EPA website on the net); to calculate just how scary the tank loss numbers are, when it comes to putting a mass value on the releases to air of relatively dense hydrocarbons from a storage vessel .

I measured a loss of 75 tonne a year of pentane at one floating roof double sealed facility – and of course, the losses increase in summer when the roof of the storage tank gets hotter. Compared to ‘heavy’ fluids like pentane, Hydrogen is a nightmare to store :

Whereas petrol and diesel are liquids only partially vapourising (Reid Vapour Pressure again), Hydrogen is already a vapour at ambient conditions on planet Earth making its storage difficult. Storage and transfer requires stainless flow lines - normal steels get hit by hydrogen embrittlement.

With a boiling point of minus 253 C, and density of around 94.5 pound a cubic yard (0.0560646 kilogramme per.litre) and only then after it has been compressed to 10,000 psi; the storage of Hydrogen, for vehicle fuel tanks or in bulk storage is difficult compared to simpler fuel materials such as the alkanes.

Hydrogen Pipelines have to be made thicker and made of more expensive material than oil pipelines . The US has over 600 miles of hydrogen pipeline. (*1)

2. Carbon release inventory from Hydrogen transport.
To measure how efficient Hydrogen is versus oil, the life cycle analysis (LCA) for hydrogen fuel based ‘functional units’ , the lifecycle inventory (LCI) and the tricky concept of “carbon releases (kg Carbon) versus kg of Hydrogen” are being evaluated for different vehicle power sources .

The US ‘Freedom Car’ programme may not be planned to run on ’Freedom Fries’ but may nevertheless run on 'chips':-
Chips of Mg(NH)3.6CL2 which hold 9.1 weight percent H2. are being made in Denmark as ‘handheld hydrogen’ chips or tablets, a dense metal amine storage medium making use of “nano-pores” !.

Global Wetting.?
The killer for hydrogen use in the long term may be future “Global Wetting!.”

Expect a future conference, perhaps a “Kyoto Protocol Mk2”, to address the problems of a wetter world and a reduction in ambient Oxygen levels, caused from burning too much Hydrogen!.

Has much thought been applied to evaluate the negative externalities arising if the planet switches over to an Hydrogen based fuels economy?.

When Hydrogen is burned , water is produced as an effluent stream.

Instead of whingeing about ‘Global Warming’from burning Hydrocarbons, future scaremongers will start to decry any massive use of Hydrogen as a fuel, because of potential ‘Global Wettening’.

Would the public rather have its environment made warm?, or made wet? by intensive fuel use.

Refs
“TANKS”.
USEPA software to help you calculate your own fuel storage losses.

(*1) Source; Susan Hock, Electric and Hydrogen Technologies Systems Center of the US National Renewable Energy laboratory).

It tells you how logically deprived the mass of people are when they believe the trillions of barrels of oil we've extracted is pooled dinosaur and biological goo.

Wrong. It's just over 700 billion barrels since 1859. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_supplies

How did all that oil end up in the Middle East?Was there a dinosaur Jim Jones about 80,000,000 years ago and it got a bunch of fellow dinosaurs to committ suicide in the middle east,thus creating those vast oil fields we pump today?

Wrong again. Seven items that are necessary for oil reserves to form:
[list=1]

Saudi Arabia has all of these in abundance, other places only have some and not as complete. SOURCE: "Beyond Oil" by Kenneth S. Deffeyes, pages 13-16

The most plausible theory of oil is that it is constantly created as a byproduct of the natural processes that occur within the mantle of the earth,hence is not scarce nor will it ever be.

That's totally meaningless. While that may be of interest to geology buffs, it means nothing as far as we're concerned. I will quote the following relevant passage:

There is no way to conclusively prove that no petroleum is of abiotic origin. Science is an ongoing search for truth, and theories are continually being altered or scrapped as new evidence appears. However, the assertion that all oil is abiotic requires extraordinary support, because it must overcome abundant evidence, already cited, to tie specific oil accumulations to specific biological origins through a chain of well-understood processes that have been demonstrated, in principle, under laboratory conditions.

Now, I like scientific mavericks] http://www.energybulletin.net/2423.html [/url]

Ever heard of coal seam fires?They burn continually around the globe,burning up more coal in a year than humanity has used in its history.Have we run low on coal yet?
NO.
And for the same reason:hydrocarbons are an abundant and continually created byproduct.

It is true that coal reserves are much more abundant than oil. But it sounds like now you're confusing coal and oil? Because some miniscule amount of oil is generated abiotically, that means coal is as well? I've never heard this theory. Do you have a source?

Did you know that diamonds are non even a precious stone?They too are derived from hydrocarbons and there are entire warehouses filled with these things!But for most of the 20th century people were fooled into believing they were scarce because the Debeers monopoly only allowed a certain amount of diamonds every year out onto the world market,and then only to dealers certified by Debeers.

That may very well be true, but that's not going to help the oil shortage.

Peak oil is a scam run on many fronts.The oil companies and big refineries have deliberately created a refining shortage in the last 25 years by buying up and then promptly shutting down small,independent refineries while themselves building no new refineries.All this is meant to create greater monopolization of energy resources and to jack prices out of sight.Then of course they blame lack of refining capacity on environmentalists and the Limbaughs repeat their propaganda.The war in Iraq and ME ventures in general have been sold to the idiot Leftists by professional disinfo agents like Mike Ruppert and assorted left gatekeepers,which conveniently keeps the focus off Jews and their machinations.

You're right that the oil industry has gone into consolidation mode, but the reason is this: They see the end is coming. They're not stupid:

If you want to know the harsh truth about the future of oil, simply look at the actions of the oil industry. As a recent article in M.I.T.'s Technology Review points out:

If the actions - rather than the words - of the oil business's
major players provide the best gauge of how they see the
future, then ponder the following. Crude oil prices have
doubled since 2001, but oil companies have increased their
budgets for exploring new oil fields by only a small fraction.

Likewise, U.S. refineries are working close to capacity, yet
no new refinery has been constructed since 1976. And oil
tankers are fully booked, but outdated ships are being
decommissioned faster than new ones are being built.

Some people believe that no new refineries have been built due to the efforts of environmentalists. This belief is silly when one considers how much money and political influence the oil industry has compared to the environmental movement. You really think Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush were going to let a bunch of pesky environmentalists get in the way of oil refineries being built if the oil companies had wanted to build them?

The real reason no new refineries have been built for almost 30 years is simple: any oil company that wants to stay profitable isn't going to invest in new refineries when they know there is going to be less and less oil to refine.

In addition to lowering their investments in oil exploration and refinery expansion, oil companies have been merging as though the industry is living on borrowed time:

December 1998: BP and Amoco merge] http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ [/url]

It pains me that so many WN have hopped on this environmental apocalypse bullshit.

It's much more than just "environmental". In case you haven't noticed, every aspect of human life, aside from a few isolated groups, is completely and totally dependant on oil. It pains me that so many WN are willing to sit back, relax and let ZOG tell them everything's gonna be just OK

Peak oil to some WN has become a substitute "day of the rope" fantasy where benevolent Mother Nature will make energy scarce and kill off all the niggers and muds and end Jew rule just in the nick of time to save the White race!
This pathetic fantasizing is a part of what has put the White world in the hole that it's in now. Fantasizing about economic collapses,energy supply collapses as a means of solving hard and deep problems is a perfect example of the amerikwan mentality of every problem being easy and solved by a magic bullet solution in time to watch the ballgame tonite!

OK, you're absolutely right. And let me say I am decidedly NOT of that school of thought. If there is a "dieoff" it will not favor any race. Only the truly strong will survive.

I only wish peak oil were true! It might be the answer to our prayers.
Unfortunately,I think the whole damn thing is a scam.If oil is being depleted then why are refineries being built outside the U.S.?

And do you actually believe that oil is a "fossil" fuel?Do you actually believe that 2 trillion barrels of dinosaur and biological goo accounts for what we've used and have on known reserve?
What about the body of Russian research that concludes oil is abiotic?

As for that stuff you posted from lifeaftertheoilcrash.net,you've got to be kidding me! I trust that drama queen on that site like I trust jew Kunstler.
Do further searching and Googling and you'll find plenty of good info that contradicts the peak oil thesis.And ask yourself:WHO is pushing peak oil and to what purpose?

Can't you see we're being conned and ultimately set up for something,with peak oil as a convenient and all encompassing cover story?Sort of another version of govt. doing whatever it pleases in the name of "fighting terr'ism"?

I've read somewhere that peak oil is a cover story for a depopulation agenda.Hell,I'd be all for it if meant a couple billion less mud creatures that we have to feed!
:cheers:
But again,I think this is a lot of fantasizing and hoping that some apocalyptic collapse or magic bullet solution is going to save our hide.The american mentality writ large!

.

I don't necessarily trust technology, but I do trust human ingenuity. Civilization as we know it will grind to a halt without the energy we derive today from crude oil, and that's in and of itself is motivation enough to make sure that future energy is widely available at prices people can afford.

I think in the future crude oil derivatives will be readily available for those who can pay up. Anyone who can't will have to run their car off liquid natural gas or some sort of electrical device. This is just my intuition that tells me this based on current trends in the energy mkt. whether this shift occurs in 10 yrs or 100 yrs, I'd say closer to 10. For those who think there is a constant flow of oil being belched up from the Earth and we will never see oil shortages and it's all an oil industry scam than I suggest you just drive on like The Dukes of Hazzard or Smokey and the Bandit.

What I want to know is, if peak oil is a "scam", then why is all media desperate to cover it up? Sweep it under the rug? Pretend it doesn't exist? Why aren't they running headline stories about it every night, playing off people's fears?

Covering it up? I don't see that, it seems the media are full of reports about it.

The reason it is easy to believe it's a scam is that the predicted results line up with the leftist agenda: get everybody out of private cars, into public transportation; limit travel; turn to government for solutions.

Claims of scarcity are used to justify regulation - see the radio/tv airwaves.

Huge natural gas field 'discovered' in Texas

Major energy firms seeing benefit in developing domestic sources

Posted: November 30, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Though it's been in production for nearly 25 years, a huge natural gas field in Texas is now drawing the attention of major energy companies – but only after independent operations proved its worth.

Fort Worth, Texas, is built on top the Barnett Shale natural gas field, a field so vast that the U.S. Geological Service estimates it contains some 26 trillion cubic feet of yet-to-be-discovered natural gas. Estimates are that as much as 160 billion cubic feet of natural gas are in place per square mile in the Barnett Shale formation. The Barnett Shale field is the largest gas-producing field in Texas, covering some 15 counties in the northern part of the state. The core area comprises about 120,000 net acres that stretch north from Fort Worth to the western outskirts of Denton.

The field was undiscovered until 1981 when independent Mitchell Energy drilled the first well. The largest operator in the Barnett Shale field is Devon Energy Corporation, one of America's largest and most successful independent oil and natural gas companies, headquartered in Oklahoma City. In January 2002, Devon completed the acquisition of the field's pioneer, Mitchell Energy. Today, Devon operates more than 1,700 wells into the Barnett Shale core area, wells that today produce more than 550 million cubic feet of natural gas per day.

According to Brian Engel, manager of public affairs for Devon, the company's success in large part derives from developing a light sand, water fracturing technology that permits efficient natural gas exploration from the field.

"The Barnett Shale formation," says Mr. Engel, "has rightfully emerged as the largest natural gas field in Texas and one of the most important natural gas fields in the nation."

Now that the independents have proven Barnett Shale to be hugely productive, major companies including ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, BP and Shell have moved in to buy up production rights.

"It makes sense," explained Tom Biracree, senior financial editor with John S. Herold Inc., an energy research and investment valuation firm based in Norwalk, Conn. "The industry is seeing a decided trend moving toward the development of on-shore natural gas resources in the continental U.S."

Why? "It's an economic market play," explained Biracree. "With the price of natural gas at $10 per thousand cubic feet, not $2, it becomes very attractive for the major industry players to focus more attention on exploring for natural gas right here at home."

Biracree continued, "Developing natural gas resources in the continental U.S. also permits the major companies to avoid the political risk of working overseas. The rules of the game don't change here like they can when you're dealing with a foreign government."

Biracree noted that the industry is learning today how to explore deeper and extract more natural gas profitably from what, in years past, were considered riskier enterprises.

"We have growing expertise in the technologies which make extraction of natural gas from shale profitable," said Biracree. "Besides, today the demand for natural gas is growing in the United States and the market has established very attractive prices. It's the same principle why Wal-Mart trucks in snow shovels in a snow storm." In other words, opportunities like Barnett Shale are market-driven.

Technically, the U.S. Geological Survey describes the Barnet Shale formation as the "Greater Newark East Frac-Barrier Continuous Barnett Shale Gas Assessment Unit." The rock is identified as a Mississippian formation, dating back some 330 million years. Geologists describe the formation as "source rock" or "reservoir rock," assuming that the organic material in the metamorphic shale has morphed into the "kerogen" traditionally assumed as needed to produce natural gas.

Barnett Shale is deeply fractured, with fissures that tended to be sealed by calcium carbonate. The field went undiscovered until Mitchell Energy experimented with employing large gel fracture methods to open the wells to natural gas. The full potential of the field waited for the light sand, water fracture technology developed by Devon Energy Corporation, a technology that fractures the shale so the natural gas can be extracted. The Barnett Shale formation lies at a depth of between 1 to 2 miles below the surface, with the shale running some 400 to 500 feet thick.

Commented Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., co-author of "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil": "With the field only discovered in 1981, the Barnett Shale natural gas resources were not known when Shell Oil geologist M. King Hubbert started worrying about 'peak production.' With natural gas resources this abundant, we can be reasonably be assured there remains a large quantity of natural gas to be extracted at home, right on the continental U.S. That abundance should be apparent even to those who want to maintain the doctrinaire position that the Barnett Shale natural gas is organic in nature."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47639

I agree with the one above who describes the apocalyptic streak in WN. I saw this very clearly in the NA.

Nature as religion.

Government as solution.

No. No. No. No. No.

The reason it is easy to believe it's a scam is that the predicted results line up with the leftist agenda: get everybody out of private cars, into public transportation]
There is probably allot of truth to this, In the west they will impliment this shift that you've stated, getting us out of our private cars. Than the oil will flow to China and India where they will fit billions with automobiles and the energy companies will score huge fueling these grotesque nations. If all goes according to plan chances are the oil will flow from greater Israel which is probably expanding as we speak under the smokescreen that the Iraq war is creating.

 

Isn't replacing hydrocarbons not about attaining 100% efficiency but about converting energy in more usable forms? We'll never be able to use all the energy from the sun but we can use a fraction of it to create usable forms of energy. Regarding the Stirling Engine project in Southern California, using this technology we could double the amount of power on the grid with 3800 square miles of desert - 423GW of electric power. We have 100's of thousands of sq miles of desert. We don't have to propel cars with ICE's anymore. There are small companies that have working electric cars that will go 300 miles on a charge. Wed that electric system to a small diesel engine and you'd have a car that would go practically a year on a few tanks of diesel. As long as you did not travel more than 300 miles in a week you'd never have to buy gas. Most people, even in our inefficient suburban system, don't travel more than 300 miles per week.

I used to think hydrogen was a foolish pursuit until I read about some of the new Solar/Hydrogen generators that have been developed. This company for instance needs a patch of desert about the size of South Dakota to match the world's oil energy consumption with hydrogen:

http://www.shec-labs.com/

The Australians have also devised an efficient means of using Solar Power to generate hydrogen:

When this technology matures it would allow Australia to be a leader in solar technology, becoming part of an OPEC of the future. Australia is ideally placed to commercialise this technology as it has abundant sunlight.

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/08/27/6900038_SolarHydrogen/index.html

What is missing is support and the political will to implement alternative energy sources on a massive scale. All the money we have spent destroying Israel's enemies could have put the U.S a long way down the road to achieving energy independence. If America were returned to a clean White country of 200 million or less the energy problems could be solved. There would be no Armageddon, no apocalypse.

Covering it up? I don't see that, it seems the media are full of reports about it.

The reason it is easy to believe it's a scam is that the predicted results line up with the leftist agenda: get everybody out of private cars, into public transportation]
Perhaps not covering it up exactly, but it's definately a third-rail of politics. No major news source will come out and acknowledge the possibility that oil is a finite resource. It's not even open to debate, it seems. But as far as the science is concerned, the burden of proof still rests with the abiotic crowd.

You are very right about there being an overabundance of leftists on the peak oil bandwagon.

I'm not going to prolong this discussion any more. After all this is a WN board and I don't want to divert the focus any more than necessary. Bottom line to everything here is, without White unity, peak oil is really an afterthought.