the Institute of Unlearning, editorial 30

The now deceased Catholic spiritualist, Fr. Anthony DeMello, described three acts that human beings find particularly challenging. In no special order they are; to include the excluded; to turn the other cheek and to admit when we are wrong. The inability to exercise these options comes from an over-developed ego deeply entrenched in its illusions. If one is to be an unlearner, one must readily embrace the errors he or she is bound to make on the road to truth. In the case of Peak Oil, it is quite possible that this editor has been wrong.

Many of this website's frequent visitors have no doubt noticed that I have written on the subject of Peak Oil in quite a few of my pieces. To those still unfamiliar with the concept, Peak Oil describes the geo-political situation of dwindling oil reserves, thought to be an event occurring decades from now but touted by some researchers and oil industry officials as a present day reality. In the light of Peak Oil, researchers such as Mike Ruppert of From the Wilderness (www.copvcia.com) make a strong case that today's War on Terror is a smokescreen for a worldwide grab of oil reserves in the last gasping breaths of petroleum-based power brokers.

This message has been successfully broadcast throughout the globe. Present at all the anti-war marches are usually signs that amplify the sentiment, “No blood for oil!” Even if people don't understand the particulars of Peak Oil, it is not hard to observe the connection that oil is playing in international politics at the moment. If Peak Oil is indeed a present reality, then the dire forecasts of global war, famine, and the literal breakdown of modern human civilization are likely to occur within this decade and carry into the next. What the world will look like on the other side of these events is left to anyone's guess. The cockroaches will be happy at least.

But what if the Peak Oil predictions are not correct? How can they not be? Isn't oil a “fossil fuel”…a “non-renewable” resource? As it turns out, the assumptions of American and British science may be grossly incorrect.

At the heart of this important debate is the work of scientists in Russia and the Ukraine, which has been strongly advanced since its official birth in 1951. Trapped in a containment policy by the Western Powers during the Cold War, the Soviet Union realized that it was cut off from much of the world's oil reserves. It therefore turned its brightest minds onto the question of petroleum production.

The belief that petroleum was a fossil fuel, therefore biological in its origin, was first advanced in the 18th century. Within fifty years, however, leading scientists in Germany and France had attacked the theory of petroleum's biological roots. It was not seriously challenged again until the Soviet scientists thoroughly crushed the idea by the 1960's. Despite these efforts, the theory remains powerfully in place in the West and petroleum is still largely regarded as a non-renewable resource.

What the modern Russian and Ukrainian scientists have extensively proven is that petroleum is abiotic, meaning that it is not derived from long decayed biological matter. While the Soviet Union did not survive long enough to see the physical benefits of this theory, modern Russia certainly has. It has been reported in several sources this year that Russia has become the world's leading producer and exporter of oil. This achievement has brought Russia from the brink of collapse at the end of the Cold War to the brink of being a superpower yet again.

The implications of this science are simply staggering. Not only will the already existing oil fields one day fill up again, but new oil reserves can be found simply by digging deeper into the earth. The Russian and Ukrainian scientists have reported that the world is not running out of oil as much as we are running into it. (www.gasresources.net)

Critics of abiotic oil in the West say the science is unfounded and that deep drilling is too costly. To the charge of abiotic oil being poor science, the critics must explain Russia's emergence as an oil-producing power and the United States' decline as one. To the charge of deep drilling costing too much, critics must answer whether a decade or more of global conflict in order steal other countries' oil is a fairer price to pay than renewing our own supplies. Both war and drilling cost money, but wars also cost blood and the loss of a nation's future.

Learning that oil is a renewable resource puts the global conflicts presently occurring, and the future ones in the making, in an entirely new light. Instead of seeing these events as the dying days of a technological civilization losing its power, we can view these conflicts as yet another sordid manipulation towards increasing global fascist power. By scaring the world into a belief that its resources are limited, the global manipulators are leading us yet again into another war that need not be fought.

In the final analysis, admitting my error and realizing that Peak Oil is not a solid reality is only a partial relief. Humanity need not fight any wars over energy, as there is more than enough on this planet to supply us all. However, as with all hydrocarbon fuel sources, we have still not found a way to reduce the pollution created in their production and emission. Perhaps during this grateful reprieve, if we can avoid the manipulation into war, humans might reinvent themselves and their civilization into a more abundantly cooperative venture. In order to do that, we might have to admit we are wrong about quite a few things. An unlearned life will demand no less.