M. King Hubbert invented the theory of “peak oil.” This running-out-of-oil scare is based on the idea that oil is a fossil fuel and the supply is finite. But this is not true; the peak oil theory is a hoax.
Hubbert’s Peak remains a widely accepted concept among petroleum geologists, with many believing that the world will eventually run out of oil, but, in reality, it is a matter of faith rather than a scientific hypothesis.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe to our emails now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
The Great Oil Conspiracy: How the US Government Hid the Nazi Discovery of Abiotic Oil from the American People by Jerome R. Corsi, 2014 edition
Please note: The following has been summarised by an AI programme. AI programmes are prone to inaccuracies and “hallucinations.” We advise readers to refer to the original book to check the accuracy of information. Chapter 3 of the book includes several images of documents, so AI was not able to summarise this chapter as sensibly as it might have ordinarily done. A copy of the book can be downloaded HERE and you can listen to the audiobook HERE.
Chapter 3: Hubbert’s Peak and the Running-Out-of-Oil Scare
Table of Contents
- Fossil Fuel Theory and Peak Oil Concept
- Abiotic Oil Theory and Renewable Resource Debate
- Implications of Oil Theories on Energy Policy
- Hubbert's Peak Theory and Its Scientific Validity
- Hubbert's Peak in Historical and Corporate Context
- Environmental and Economic Consequences of Fossil Fuel Dependence
- Empirical Evidence Contradicting Peak Oil Predictions
- Germany's Synthetic Oil Industry and Strategic Motivations
- Government Involvement in Synthetic Fuel Production
- Post-War Scientific Collaboration and Operation Paperclip
- Security Concerns and Controversies in Operation Paperclip
- Fischer-Tropsch Process and Industrial Applications
- Debunking Peak Oil Myths with Economic and Production Data
Fossil Fuel Theory and Peak Oil Concept
The concept of Hubbert’s Peak and the running-out-of-oil scare is based on the idea that oil is a fossil fuel, which implies that there is only a finite amount of oil available in the earth, and that we will eventually run out of it.
The logic of the fossil-fuel theory is that if oil is derived from ancient forests and dinosaurs, then there is only a limited amount of oil available, and when we use it all up, we will be done, which is reinforced by the peak oil theory.
The peak oil theory and the fossil fuel theory are self-reinforcing concepts, where if oil is fossil fuel, then we are necessarily running out, and if we are running out, then oil must derive from a limited and non-renewable natural resource.
The abiotic theory of the origin of oil, on the other hand, suggests that the earth produces oil as a natural substance in an ongoing manner, which means that we may never run out of oil, and that oil is a renewable resource.
Abiotic Oil Theory and Renewable Resource Debate
The abiotic theory allows for a scientific calculation to determine if and when oil depletion will occur, based on estimating current worldwide oil consumption rates, accurately estimating oil reserves, and calculating oil replacement rates.
If the abiotic theory is correct, then deep-earth and deep-water abiotic oil reserves may be plentiful across the globe, and oil production is not limited by the presence of ancient organic material, which would mean that oil depletion may not be an imminent reality.
The debate between the fossil fuel theory and the abiotic theory has significant economic and political consequences, as it affects the development of alternative fuels and conservation efforts, and the calculation of oil reserves and consumption rates.
Implications of Oil Theories on Energy Policy
The idea that oil is a fossil fuel and that worldwide oil depletion is inevitable is used by politicians to argue for the development of biofuels, wind, and solar energy, but if the abiotic theory is correct, then oil depletion may not be a pressing issue, regardless of the rate of worldwide oil consumption.
The concept of abundant abiotic oil suggests that alternative energy technologies, such as biofuels, wind power, and solar power, may be unnecessary unless they can match the energy output and efficiency of hydrocarbon fuels at a reasonable price.
The idea that the world is running out of oil, based on the fossil fuel theory, is a major driver of the alternative energy movement, and if this fear is eliminated, the urgency to develop alternative fuels may decrease.
Hubbert’s Peak Theory and Its Scientific Validity
M. King Hubbert, a geophysicist, formulated the concept of “Hubbert’s Peak” in 1956, which predicted that US oil production would peak in the 1970s and then decline, but his prediction appears to have been incorrect as US oil production continues to increase.
Hubbert’s prediction was not based on a rigorous scientific examination of empirical evidence, but rather seemed to be a thought experiment, and the fact that the theory has been revised multiple times to accommodate new data undermines its validity as a scientific hypothesis.
The theory of “Hubbert’s Peak” has been revised over time, with predictions of peak oil production being pushed back from the 1970s to between 2004 and 2008, which raises questions about the theory’s scientific rigor and validity.
According to Princeton Professor Emeritus Kenneth S. Deffeyes, who worked with Hubbert at Shell Oil, Hubbert’s 1956 prediction was made despite pressure from Shell Oil’s head office to withdraw it, which suggests that the prediction may have been motivated by factors other than a purely scientific analysis.
The concept of “Hubbert’s Peak” has become a cornerstone of the peak oil theory, but its lack of scientific rigor and the fact that it has been repeatedly revised to accommodate new data suggest that it may be more of a prejudice than a valid scientific hypothesis.
Hubbert’s Peak in Historical and Corporate Context
Hubbert’s Peak, a theory predicting the peak and subsequent decline of global oil production, is also associated with Kenneth S. Deffeyes, who worked with the theory’s creator, M. King Hubbert, at Shell Oil’s research lab in Houston.
Deffeyes described Hubbert as having “an exceedingly combative personality” and noted that his belligerence during technical arguments was notorious, with a saying around the lab being “That Hubbert is a bastard, but at least he’s our bastard.”
The theory of Hubbert’s Peak was initially met with reservations from Shell Oil, but major US oil companies eventually embraced it, as it suggested that oil would become scarce and command premium prices, which would be economically beneficial for them.
Deffeyes wrote a book titled “Hubbert’s Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage” in 2001, in which he predicted that global oil production would reach a peak and then decline, but he later revised his predictions in a 2003 paperback edition to accommodate empirical data that showed US oil production continuing to increase.
The revised edition of Deffeyes’ book included a modified chart of Hubbert’s original 1956 graph, which had to be altered to change the predicted peak of US oil production from the early 1970s to a later date, as actual production levels were higher than initially predicted.
Despite the empirical data contradicting Hubbert’s hypothesis, Deffeyes chose to modify the predictions to preserve the theory, rather than conceding that it was faulty, and acknowledged that US oil production had increased since 1985, largely due to successes in Alaska and the Gulf Coast.
The theory of Hubbert’s Peak has been perpetuated despite contradictory evidence, and this may be due to the economic interests of major US oil companies, which stand to benefit from the perception of oil scarcity and high prices.
Matthew R. Simmons, a now-deceased Houston investment banker and peak oil proponent, published a book in 2005 titled “Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy”, in which he argued that Saudi Arabia, the world’s leading oil producer, had reached a point of significant oil depletion after a period of successful exploration from 1940 to 1968.
Simmons believed that despite employing the best exploration technologies, Saudi Arabia had been unable to find new giant or super-giant oil fields since 1968, and was instead relying on production from aging super-fields, leading him to conclude that the country’s oil industry was facing a dim future.
The idea that Saudi Arabia is facing oil depletion has significant implications for the global oil supply, as it suggests that other oil fields around the world may also be nearing depletion, making the future of oil uncertain and problematic for a world economy dependent on hydrocarbon fuels.
Hubbert’s Peak remains a widely accepted concept among petroleum geologists, with many believing that the world will eventually run out of oil, with some estimates suggesting that this could happen within the next 100 years, and that the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to global warming and climate change, as noted by analysts such as Donella Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and Dennis Meadows in their 2004 update to the “Limits to Growth” study.
However, Hubbert’s Peak is considered by some to be a tautological restatement of the fossil fuel theory or a matter of faith rather than a scientific hypothesis.
Environmental and Economic Consequences of Fossil Fuel Dependence
The dominant view is that oil is a non-renewable energy source, and that the burning of fossil fuels is irresponsible and contributes to environmental problems, with some arguing that the amount of fossil fuel laid down by nature over millions of years is being burned at an alarming rate, leading to rapid climate change.
The authors who believe that hydrocarbon fuels are fossil-produced think that the level of exploitation of oil is not sustainable and that Americans must reduce their use of oil, which could involve scaling back the US economy and restricting lifestyles, as well as implementing new legislation to mandate the use of alternative fuels like solar and wind.
The traditional thinkers who adhere to the fossil fuel theory of the origin of oil often predict a gloom-and-doom energy future, similar to the thinking of Thomas Malthus, who predicted that population growth would outstrip food production, leading to crises like war and famine.
However, Malthus’ theory has been proven wrong by human experience, as populations have grown beyond expected limits due to human adaptation, invention, and technological advancement, yet Malthusians continue to predict doom-and-gloom scenarios, including peak oil theorists who push back the date of predicted calamities.
Empirical Evidence Contradicting Peak Oil Predictions
Despite the predictions of running out of oil, worldwide data shows that there are more proven petroleum reserves than ever before, with new and gigantic oil fields being discovered at an increasing rate, which suggests that the abiotic theory may be a more appropriate model for understanding how the earth produces hydrocarbon fuels naturally.
According to the Energy Information Administration of the US Department of Energy, worldwide crude oil reserves have increased over time, with 1.34 trillion barrels of reserves in 2009, compared to 1.02 trillion barrels in 2000, and 683 billion barrels in 1980, indicating a long-term trend upward in oil reserves despite increased consumption.
The evidence of increasing oil reserves and new discoveries challenges the doom-and-gloom predictions of fossil fuel advocates and suggests that the abiotic theory of oil production may be more accurate, which is supported by the work of authors such as John Houghton, who wrote about global warming and energy issues.
Germany’s Synthetic Oil Industry and Strategic Motivations
The German oil economy has undergone significant development in synthetic oil plants for producing oil from coal over the past ten years, driven by the goal of achieving complete oil autarchy without regard to cost or financial considerations.
This effort is part of the German master plan for world domination, which aims to produce all essential resources for modern warfare within its own borders, including securing adequate oil supplies due to the limited success in finding natural petroleum deposits.
The synthetic oil industry has been built on the basis of political and strategic expediency, leveraging Germany’s wealth of coal deposits, particularly lignite or brown coal, to compensate for its lack of natural oil resources.
Approximately five out of every six gallons of gasoline and gas oil produced in Germany are derived from synthetic oil plants, with the German synthetic production accounting for around 60 percent of total European natural crude oil production.
The history and economic appraisal of the synthetic oil industry are difficult to determine due to the secrecy surrounding the industry, with most information being closely guarded by the Germans, except for some technical data acquired from early commercial contracts and Allied aerial reconnaissance.
The greatest expansion in the synthetic industry has taken place since 1938, with the total capacity of the present German synthetic plants estimated to be close to 5,000,000 metric tons of product per year, costing around 4 or 5 billion Reichsmark or 1.4 to 2 billion dollars.
The structure of the industry is complicated by government participation, making it challenging to estimate the capital investment in the synthetic oil industry or the cost of the synthetic oil produced, but both are known to be enormous compared to the natural petroleum products industry.
The cost of producing liquid fuels from coal is significantly higher than from petroleum, with estimates ranging from ten to thirty times the plant cost, depending on the processes used, and the cost to manufacture a gallon of gasoline from coal is at least 20 cents, which is five times as great as the cost of producing gasoline from petroleum.
Government Involvement in Synthetic Fuel Production
Prior to the war, the cost of a gallon of gasoline from American refineries, excluding profits and taxes, was approximately 4 US cents per gallon, and with added profits and shipping costs, it could be delivered to Germany for about 6 cents per gallon.
The German petroleum companies, particularly those with international affiliations, have had limited participation in the synthetic oil industry, and instead, the German coal, chemical, and heavy industries, under government direction and subsidies, have been responsible for the development of synthetic plants and production.
The synthetic oil industry has received government encouragement and subsidies from its earliest days, and eventually, it came under government direction and control, with the Nazi government accelerating its development by increasing subsidies and direction.
The development of synthetic oil processes was carried out by companies such as I.G. Marbenindustrie, which sponsored the work of Professor Bergius, and the Ruhr Coal Owners Association, which supported the work of Professor Fischer and Dr. Tropset, and these processes were seen as vital for any future war.
The Four Year Plan, inaugurated by the Nazi government, incorporated all resources and industries into a controlled production program, and to carry out the synthetic program, companies were formed under State direction, with the State providing extensive credits and subsidies, which covered half the cost of new plant construction in many cases.
The German oil industry was controlled by the government through the trade association Wirtschaftsgruppe Kraftstoffindustrie, which passed on government instructions to the companies in the industry, and all companies were required to be members of this association.
The main companies involved in the production of synthetic oil in Germany included Brabag, also known as Braunkohlen- und Brikettindustrie A.G., which was formed in 1935 under state direction and had a capital stock subscribed jointly by several major German companies, including A.G. Saehsische Werke, Anhaltische Kohlenwerke, and I.G. Farbenindustrie A.G.
Brabag’s capital was 100 million Reichsmarks in June 1939, with plans to increase it by 25 million Reichsmarks over the next five years, and the company had already erected or was constructing plants worth 295 million Reichsmarks by 1938.
The production of synthetic oil was a crucial aspect of the German war effort, with companies like I.G. Farbenindustrie A.G. playing a significant role in the development and production of synthetic fuels, as evident from a Nazi air force ministry letter dated August 9, 1943.
The German government provided financing commitments for the production of synthetic fuels, including the Fischer-Tropsch process, as seen in a document from the Bank Deutschen Luftfahrt in Berlin, and the US government took an interest in these plants after the war, as documented in a letter from the Office of the US High Commissioner for Germany dated December 30, 1949.
Post-War Scientific Collaboration and Operation Paperclip
The US government also took an interest in the scientists involved in the development of synthetic fuels, including Helmut Pichler, who was part of Operation Paperclip and had his fingerprint ID card and other documents declassified, and a memorandum dated January 10, 1949, recommends him for a visa.
Helmut Pichler held several patents and patent applications related to the synthesis of benzene and acetylene from methane, including a process for the production of higher hydrocarbons, as listed in the document DRP 643386.
‘The Great Oil Conspiracy’, lists various patents and patent applications made by Helmut Pichler, a scientist who worked on the production of hydrocarbons, including processes for the production of hydrogen-poor and carbon-rich hydrocarbons, and the synthesis of higher hydrocarbons from carbon monoxide and hydrogen.
The patents mentioned include DRP 649102, DRP 553178, Austria Patent 160916, and several German patents, such as ST 56459, ST 56470, and ST 56856, which describe different methods for the production of hydrocarbons using various catalysts, including cobalt and iron.
The list of patents also includes processes for the production of paraffin, the synthesis of solid hydrocarbons, and the manufacture of iron catalysts, highlighting the extensive research and development work conducted by Helmut Pichler in the field of hydrocarbon production.
The book also provides a personal statement from Helmut Pichler, in which he describes his background, his decision to undertake post-graduate research work in Germany, and his affiliation with the Franz Fischer Institute of Coal Research, where he worked under the supervision of Dr. Franz Fischer.
Pichler states that he had no affiliation with the Nazi party and that his focus was solely on his scientific work, and that he continued to work on his research projects even after the war, with the permission of the American and British authorities.
The document is part of the declassified files of Operation Paperclip, a secret US program that recruited scientists from Nazi Germany after World War II, and includes a sworn statement from Helmut Pichler, in which he affirms the accuracy of the information provided.
The documents provided are declassified files from the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, DC, related to Nazi FT scientist Leonard Alberts, who was part of the Operation Paperclip program.
Security Concerns and Controversies in Operation Paperclip
Leonard Alberts was a German scientist who worked for the Abwehr, the German Intelligence, during World War II, and his political affiliations and statements have raised concerns about his security risk.
The Department of Justice, in a letter dated November 9, 1949, expressed their opinion that Alberts’ presence in the United States would constitute a risk to internal security, citing his pro-Nazi outlook and unscrupulous activities.
The letter, written by the Assistant to the Attorney General, also mentioned that Alberts was capable of dealing with Russia or any other group that would pay for his technical knowledge, and that his current employer, the Blaw-Knox Company, had ties to Germany.
Despite the security concerns, the Secretary of Commerce, in a letter dated July 14, 1950, endorsed Alberts as critical to national defense, highlighting the importance of his work in a specific field.
The documents also mention other individuals, such as Colonel Daniel B. Ellis, USAF, and Major Robert E. Humphries, who have been involved in the evaluation of Alberts’ security risk and have expressed grave misgivings about his presence in the United States.
Additionally, the documents include fingerprint ID cards and affidavits from Nazi FT scientists, including Leonard Alberts and Erich Frese, which are part of the Operation Paperclip declassified files.
The Operation Paperclip program was a secret US program that recruited German scientists, including those with Nazi affiliations, to work in the United States after World War II, and the documents provided offer a glimpse into the complexities and controversies surrounding this program.
Fischer-Tropsch Process and Industrial Applications
The Ruhrehemie A.G. company was formed by a group of principle shareholders, including Gelsenkirchener Bergwerke A.G., Gutehoffnuncshiltte Harpener Bergbeu A.G., Fried, Krupp, and Mannesmann, and it acquired exclusive rights to the Fischer-Tropsch process around 1935, leading to the construction of a plant for commercial operation and the formation of a subsidiary company called Ruhrbenzin A.G.
The Ruhrchemie plant served as the initial operational site for the Fischer-Tropsch process, as well as a research and development center for the process and its modifications, and it was a crucial target for investigation due to its importance in the production of synthetic fuels.
The catalyst factory at Sterkrade-Holten was responsible for producing all the catalysts required for the operation of the six Fischer-Tropsch plants in the Ruhr area, and it was also a key target for investigation, with declassified reports from the Combined Intelligence Objectives Subcommittee (CIOS) providing information on the plant’s operations, flow chart, and bomb damage assessment.
The text also mentions that other Fischer-Tropsch plants in Germany, as well as those in foreign countries such as Japan, were licensed by Ruhrchemie and relied on the company for technical information, highlighting the significance of Ruhrchemie in the development and operation of the Fischer-Tropsch process.
Debunking Peak Oil Myths with Economic and Production Data
According to the data from the Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy, the proven oil reserves worldwide have been increasing over the last quarter century, with estimates at 645 billion barrels in 1980, 700 billion barrels in 1985, 1 trillion barrels in 1990, 999 billion barrels in 1995, 1.02 trillion barrels in 2000, and 1.28 trillion barrels in 2005.
The spike in oil prices to $147 a barrel in July 2008 is discussed, and it is argued that this was not due to a decrease in oil production, but rather to speculation in the oil futures markets, and that the subsequent decline in oil prices to under $40 a barrel by the end of the year was due to a decrease in worldwide oil demand resulting from the economic recession.
The peak oil theory is a hoax. The world is not running out of oil, but rather oil prices are determined by supply and demand, and speculators and traders play a significant role in determining oil prices.
The price of oil reached an all-time high of $147 a barrel in July 2008, but despite this, there was no shortage of oil in the United States, with no rationing or gas lines at service stations being required, indicating that the high price was not a result of oil becoming inherently scarce.
Ecologist George Wuerthner, who is predisposed to view peak oil theory favorably, acknowledges that there are problems with the concept that the maximum worldwide oil production rate has been or will soon be reached, citing the large amount of proven reserves in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
According to George Wuerthner, the estimated global oil supplies left in reserves, as predicted by Hubbert, were significantly lower than the actual amount of proven reserves known to exist, with Saudi Arabia and Venezuela alone having nearly 558 billion barrels of proven reserves, which is close to the total global oil supplies that Hubbert estimated would remain.
The world has already burned through more than a trillion barrels of oil, demonstrating the inaccuracy of Hubbert’s predictions of oil supplies, and the estimated proven reserves left globally are currently more than 1.3 trillion barrels from the top seventeen oil-producing countries alone, further disproving the peak oil theory.
George Wuerthner’s article, “The Myth of Peak Oil,” published in Counterpunch on March 29, 2012, highlights the flaws in Hubbert’s estimates and the peak oil theory, suggesting that the concept of peak oil is not supported by the actual data on oil reserves and production.
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, World News
If there is one type of person I can’t stand, its a control freak.