Re: UNITE! Info #221en: 1/2 Gold was right: Plenty of oil

From: Rolf Martens (rolf.martens_at_mailbox.swipnet.se)
Date: 08/29/04 

Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:56:21 +0200

In article <20040828105521.24921.00001555@mb-m20.aol.com>,
longmuirg@aol.com says...
>
>
>To respond to some of the issues raised in Rolf Martens latest post --
...

Just a lot of things repeated which you already wrote.

But no answer to any of those two questions I asked you
in that post:

1) When and where did Gold ever say/write that drilling
to some "15 km", not 7 km, would be necessary?

2) When and where was that "dry hole" which you "were
in on" which cost the fantastic amount, not of some
$10 million (the cost of a 7,000 m probing well,
according to some people who should know), but
$200 million?

Also, I recommend to everybody who's really interested
in the facts on the oirigns of oil one site which I've
just recently discovered:

That of the Gas Resources Corporation, of Houston,
Texas, the USA, at:

http://www.gasresources.net/

The (main) writer there, J.F. Kenney, is in touch
with some of those Russian experts whose writings
I long have been looking for - in vain, up until now.

At that silly bio-origin theory, which dominates
all the English-language media etc, those people
just are laughing - quite rightly!

They're calling it "the BOOP" and refuting it most
thoroughly; since back in 1951, the correct theory
has been worked out and tested in practice in the
Soviet Union and later in Russia and the Ukraine.

One nice quote on that page, in an article called
"Science and Junk Science", from UK astronomer Fred
Hoyle in 1982:

"The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen
from some transformation of squashed fish or biological
detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been
entertained by substantial numbers of persons over
an extended period of time."

That article's author, as it happens, does agree
with you on not having a high regard for Marxism.
But this doesn't matter in this context. His very
page itself too happens to be, on the contrary, another
thing that indicates the correctness of that theory
about society.

Rolf M.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast