r.j., you say that peak crude production was in 2005. This graph says that we’ve experienced peak oil many times. You’re basing your opinion on the difference in production between ‘05 and ‘06. That’s like saying global warming is bunk just because this year was colder than last year. If you look at just the Persian gulf production, you see one and two year fluctuations like that between ‘05 and ‘06 dating all the way back to ‘74-’75. Politics, r.j., politics. Also note that the US seems to have hit peak production in 1985, some 20 years before you claim the world hit PEAK oil. Again, politics (environmentalism) is the biggest cause.
What’s conventional oil? We were procuring oil much differently in the ‘30’s than what we did in the 60’s and so on and so forth. Technology has changed the view of “conventional” oil many times over and will continue to do so.
r.j.
The current peak is about 73 million barrels a day (mbd) in May 2005. That’s nearly 3 years ago.
Again, you’re cherry picking numbers to support your argument. Look at the graph that I supplied. Your claim actually looks more like a cycle:
I didn’t include the country by country numbers, you can look at that for yourself. And note that Russia, which has some of the largest petroleum reserves on the planet, hasn’t even released their production since 1992. Regardless, I’ve found four periods of PEAK oil production. Again I ask you, if we’re really going to run out of oil production in twenty or thirty years, why isn’t the Middle East decreasing production now to raise the prices and keep their cash cow fat and happy for the next hundred years? Why did OPEC get so upset when Bush announce the coalition with Central and South America to ramp up ethanol production? And how can the war keep oil prices high when you just said it was a geological problem? That doesn’t make any sense.
r.j., you say that peak crude production was in 2005. This graph says that we’ve experienced peak oil many times. You’re basing your opinion on the difference in production between ‘05 and ‘06. That’s like saying global warming is bunk just because this year was colder than last year. If you look at just the Persian gulf production, you see one and two year fluctuations like that between ‘05 and ‘06 dating all the way back to ‘74-’75. Politics, r.j., politics. Also note that the US seems to have hit peak production in 1985, some 20 years before you claim the world hit PEAK oil. Again, politics (environmentalism) is the biggest cause.
I’m sorry, I had no idea how little you knew about this subject. I can see I’m going to have to back things up a little. Firstly, I did acknowledge that we may get that conventional oil number back above 73. Maybe 75, maybe 80, but that the data suggests it probably won’t get that high. That’s because of known depletion rates in many countries and known untapped reserve capacity in countries that aren’t depleting (like say Venezuela) The big unknown lies with countries like Saudi Arabia who are so secretive of their data. Like I said, if you can look at the reserve capacity and known depletion of conventional oil and show me how we get all that much higher than 73 I’d like to know. I’d be mighty impressed. You’re argument amounts to “we’ve always increased production, so we always will”. This is nonsense. Oil is finite. Oil will peak. The question is when.
If you keep making your argument about the historic nature of the climb up the upslope of supply, then eventually you will be wrong. In order to show that you aren’t wrong now you need to demonstrate this USING DATA. That is, show me how the world will produce, say 80 mbd of conventional oil in five years time. What are the breakdown of the countries who will do it? Now bear in mind that several countries that contribute to the current number of 73 are in depletion. Which countries? The US, Indonesia, North Sea, Iran, Mexico, Australia and New Zealand, Kuwait, Turkey, all of Europe. The estimated decline rate from these sorts of countries, or even individuals fields within non-depleting countries is 3.5-4%. What that means is that if the production rate is 73 mbd this year, then next year only 69 mbd will be produced from those existing sources. Thus 4 mbd of new oil will have to come online. This needs to be made up countries that haven’t peaked - Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Kazahkstan, Iraq, Brazil, UAE, Angola, Nigeria etc. That’s just to stay at 73. The next year you have to do it all over again. That’s because depletion is relentless. Within five years, Nigeria, the UAE will be in decline. Given how little oil has been discovered in the last decade, the capacity to keep bringing enough new conventional oil production online to cover the annual decline is increasingly tough.
As for the US, it peaked in 1970, not 1985. That’s Peak Oil common fact #1. Politics is not the cause of peak oil in the US. The US has produced more than 90% of it’s proven reserves and conventional oil. The US will never produce more than 9.46 (peak) mbd of conventional crude oil. Roscoe Bartlett (R) explained this to Congress:
We have drilled more oil wells in our country than all of the rest of the world put together. In spite of having 530,000 producing oil wells, today we produce a bit more than half the oil that we produced in 1970, in spite of the fact that we have large amounts of oil from natural gas liquids, from oil from Alaska, and from oil from the Gulf of Mexico. I have used this chart 40 times here, and what is so hard to understand about this chart?
In 1956, we were here, and he (Hubbard) predicted in 1970 we would be here. And then he predicted, in spite of enhanced oil recovery, in spite of the best discovery techniques and modeling in the world, in spite of drilling more oil wells than the rest of the world put together, we are still producing in the lower 48 way less than half of the oil than we produced in 1970. What is so hard to understand about this?
What’s conventional oil? We were procuring oil much differently in the ‘30’s than what we did in the 60’s and so on and so forth. Technology has changed the view of “conventional” oil many times over and will continue to do so.
Conventional oil is basically flowing liquids. That includes light sweet crude (like Texas) and heavy sour (like Venezuela). Light Sweet is much better, cheaper, easier to extract. Other sources of oil must be converted in liquids. That includes NGL (natural gas liquids), oil sands, oil shale, biofuels. Alberta oil sands, for instance, are solid, not liquid. They are thick gunky oil rich sands, or bituman. (see here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands)
Technology has never changed the definition of conventional oil. What you mean to say is that technology does improve the economy of extraction by reducing costs. The oil being extracted now in Alberta is not merely economic because of rising prices, but also due to improvements in technology.
I didn’t include the country by country numbers, you can look at that for yourself. And note that Russia, which has some of the largest petroleum reserves on the planet, hasn’t even released their production since 1992. Regardless, I’ve found four periods of PEAK oil production. Again I ask you, if we’re really going to run out of oil production in twenty or thirty years, why isn’t the Middle East decreasing production now to raise the prices and keep their cash cow fat and happy for the next hundred years? Why did OPEC get so upset when Bush announce the coalition with Central and South America to ramp up ethanol production? And how can the war keep oil prices high when you just said it was a geological problem? That doesn’t make any sense.
Firstly, Russia may be in decline. Secondly, we aren’t going to “run out of oil production in twenty or thirty years”. Whatever gave you that idea. We’ll probably never run out. Thirdly, who says some countries in OPEC aren’t easing production to raise prices (venezuela ring any bells). Fourthly, why did OPEC get upset over ethanol? Because they make money from oil. I’m sorry, if you had a point here, I’m not sure what it is. Fifthly, war vrs geological problems. It’s not an either or. You seem to want to find one explanation for high oil prices and pin it on that. The price is high because of a large number of factors, both supply side and demand side. The war is a contributing factor on the supply side, but I’m perfectly willing to accept it isn’t a substantial one. I really don’t want to overstate the war. A bigger factor is supply constraints due to the stretching of capacity that is characteristic of peak oil. That’s because spare capacity is very tight.
I like how Bartink completely ignored the numbers involved in the profit margin for Exxon and how it is in step with most businesses. At any rate.
To further samsgran’s point, I just thought I would share some more numbers.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/241.html
Sorry, couldn’t find ‘07 or ‘08 data yet.
What this chart shows is how much federal and state tax each of the 50 states pulled in from gasoline in 2006.
The U.S. as a whole pulled in 35 Billion, with a B, dollars. Now *that* is an obscene profit margin. Basically, the US gov’t made 10% of what Exxon did, only, with absolutely no work and no risk. (Yes, yes, I understand the money goes to gov’t workers, work, programs, blah blah blah. I have no problem with paying a fair amount of taxes, that being said, it still must be noted the gov’t makes a hell of a lot of money from gasoline.)
Not to mention, that is just gas sales in the U.S. Exxon makes money from a world market. And then they pay taxes on it. So there’s another chunk of money from gas sales the U.S. gov’t reaps.
If you do a little digging, you will also see that nearly every state has a % tax on gas, so the higher the price of gas, the more money states make in revenue. In short, it’s a little disingenuous for Politicians to be bitching about the price of gas when taxes are jacking up gas sales by $35 bil a year or more, as well as padding the gov’t income.
r.j.
You’re argument amounts to “we’ve always increased production, so we always will”.
I had no idea you had such a difficult time comprehending the English language. My point was not that we’d always increase production. As I clearly showed with the graph, my point is that oil production has historically risen and fallen--for various reasons. My point is that you’re basing your views on the very small snapshot between 2005 and 2006. I’m just pointing out that we’ve experienced these peaks and valleys for decades.
r.j.
It’s quite simple really, oil is more expensive because we’ve passed PEAK.
r.j.
Oil is finite. Oil will peak. The question is when.
I never said it wasn’t finite. I’m just saying that you don’t know when we’ll reach peak and you proved it when you wrote “The question is when.” So are we at peak not? You’ve now stated two different views which I’m quite sure both are supported by your “data”. Except that we haven’t seen your data…
r.j.
Fifthly, war vrs geological problems. It’s not an either or. You seem to want to find one explanation for high oil prices and pin it on that.
No, I didn’t. I responded to bart’s claims that the war was causing all of our current high prices. I stated that there were many factors, the biggest ones being market factors including consumption by China and I should have included India.
And you include Bartlett’s speech to Congress? Only in Maryland can a certified nutjob get elected:
In March 2004, Bartlett attended a Washington ceremony in which the Rev. Sun Myung Moon crowned himself the Messiah. Many lawmakers attended the Moon’s coronation, with many later saying they were duped into attendance and didn’t know of the crowning ceremony beforehand. Bartlett said he attended because Moon owned the conservative newspaper The Washington Times and that he didn’t know about Moon’s speech beforehand. However, it was later reported that Bartlett took a more extensive role in the ceremony, carrying Moon’s robe to Moon for the coronation, in which Moon and his wife were declared “messiahs of the world.” Bartlett had also been listed on the original invitation as one of six Congressional co-chairs of the event.
In June 2007, at the request of a regional newspaper, Bartlett released his 2007 earmarks, with requested spending totaling $322.51 million. Bartlett’s largest request was for $87 million for “operationally responsive space.” His spokeswoman did not know what that means.
You want data, show me data. Show me data from a group that isn’t opposed to BIG OIL. I’ve said all along that we have no idea how much oil is left for production, yet you say we have and haven’t reached peak. I said that the Middle East isn’t reporting it’s numbers correctly and you come back with “OPEC is secretive with their numbers”. You’re all over the place on this. Are we at PEAK or not? Yes or no…
If you do a little digging, you will also see that nearly every state has a % tax on gas, so the higher the price of gas, the more money states make in revenue. In short, it’s a little disingenuous for Politicians to be bitching about the price of gas when taxes are jacking up gas sales by $35 bil a year or more, as well as padding the gov’t income.
The great state of Nebraska, which already has close to the nation’s highest taxes on gas, is now considering adding another 4.5 cents per gallon—because gas revenues have dropped! Gas revenues have dropped because gas sales have dropped. Gas sales have dropped because people are being a little more consciencious about their gas consumption. So let’s raise the tax!!!!! (And then they wonder why everybody fills up in Council Bluffs at a price nearly 10 cents a gallon cheaper.)
Jim” I noticed Bart’s little two-step myself. You have to remember that Bart lives in his own little liberal fantasy world where every problem can be solved by the mere expedient of doing away with free enterprise and all businesses and putting the government in charge of everything. It’s socialism on steroids (AKA communism), and it has worked so well in the past. It also puts the people with superior intellects—such as his own—in charge of us ignoramuses who haven’t the foggiest idea what’s best for ourselves, and must be led by the hand every minute of every day.
The U.S. as a whole pulled in 35 Billion, with a B, dollars. Now *that* is an obscene profit margin. Basically, the US gov’t made 10% of what Exxon did, only, with absolutely no work and no risk.
The U.S. as a whole pulled in 35 Billion, with a B, dollars. Now *that* is an obscene profit margin. Basically, the US gov’t made 10% of what Exxon did, only, with absolutely no work and no risk.
How much capital does Exxon (or other big oil companies) require to do what they do?
As in, if you have a shack somewhere with an old selectric and you took in 100 billion in profits… that’s one thing. When you have a world wide organisation doing surveys, drilling, getting shake downs from foreign socialists, using expensive equipment, hiring armies of high paid experts… and you make a $100 billion… it doesn’t necessarily mean your doing anything right. It depends on the ROI… return on investment.
The U.S. as a whole pulled in 35 Billion, with a B, dollars. Now *that* is an obscene profit margin. Basically, the US gov’t made 10% of what Exxon did, only, with absolutely no work and no risk.
How much capital does Exxon (or other big oil companies) require to do what they do?
As in, if you have a shack somewhere with an old selectric and you took in 100 billion in profits… that’s one thing. When you have a world wide organisation doing surveys, drilling, getting shake downs from foreign socialists, using expensive equipment, hiring armies of high paid experts… and you make a $100 billion… it doesn’t necessarily mean your doing anything right. It depends on the ROI… return on investment.
Exxon’s return on investment is 7%, not especially high considering the high prices. Their price/earnings ratio is extremely low.
I had no idea you had such a difficult time comprehending the English language. My point was not that we’d always increase production. As I clearly showed with the graph, my point is that oil production has historically risen and fallen--for various reasons. My point is that you’re basing your views on the very small snapshot between 2005 and 2006. I’m just pointing out that we’ve experienced these peaks and valleys for decades.
But that’s just it, I’m not basing my argument on 2005 and 2006. I’m not saying we’ve passed peak because in 2005 we were here, and in 2006 we are here - therefore - we have peaked. That’s not my argument. If it were you’d have a point. My argument is we’ve (probably) passed peaked in 2005 because the rate is 73 mbd, the depletion rate is 3.5% per/year and the new production in the pipeline is almost certainly not enough to offset the loss through depletion. That’s my argument.
What’s your argument? You haven’t made one, you’ve just criticised me erroneously.
I never said it wasn’t finite. I’m just saying that you don’t know when we’ll reach peak and you proved it when you wrote “The question is when.” So are we at peak not? You’ve now stated two different views which I’m quite sure both are supported by your “data”. Except that we haven’t seen your data…
OK. If there was some confusion I apologise. You can’t say for certain you’ve peaked until it’s well in the past. My initial comment was a throwaway line at the end of another post. Having said that, if I had to bet, I’d say we’ve peaked in conventional oil. As for data.
And you include Bartlett’s speech to Congress? Only in Maryland can a certified nutjob get elected:
Crichton’s favourite tactic, play the man and not the ball… Don’t criticise the argument, criticise the person making it. “Oh my God, Bartlett might not be as Conservative as he lets on”. Is that all you do, check the conservative credentials of someone to determine whether they get your seal of approval, or do you actually listen to, or read, what they have to say and make your mind up then. I say to you, if Bartlett is such a nutjob, then take his basic argument and demonstrate the nuttiness of it. Don’t tell me that Sun Myung Moon is nutty, demonstrate to me, through reasoned argument, why that speech to congress was nutty.
Or better still, show me how oil WON’T PEAK in the next ten years or so. Where is all this new production coming from? We’re going to need 30 mbd new production just to cover rising demand and depletion from existing sources.
You want data, show me data. Show me data from a group that isn’t opposed to BIG OIL.
Another Crichton favourite. People who say things you don’t like must have an agenda. They’re probably socialists. OOOHHH, socialists. I’ve found that peak oil people tend to cover the entire political spectrum, from complete greenies and lefties who relish peak oil and the collapse of capitalism to libertarians and conservatives who recognise it for what it is, a threat to continued prosperity. Many peak oilers are in favour of burning more coal, more nuclear, and less taxes on Big Oil to help them eek every last drop of oil from their production to give industry time to invest in R and D for new technologies. All in all, it’s a very difficult group to categorise.
I’ve said all along that we have no idea how much oil is left for production, yet you say we have and haven’t reached peak. I said that the Middle East isn’t reporting it’s numbers correctly and you come back with “OPEC is secretive with their numbers”. You’re all over the place on this.
We have no idea, you say. That’s a big statement. First of all, we have SOME idea. We’ve searched most places on the planet except the poles and we know more or less what we are dealing with. OPEC is a little secretive, but they have a large incentive to overstate reserves, not understate. That’s because they’re on a quota system that allows them to produce in relation to reserves. When this rule was introduced in the 80s, all the OPEC members magically doubled their inventory of known reserves.
Big Oil, due to the regulation in the industry have been very transparent. They tend to boast about their production because they needs capital investment. As Sl0re pointed out, the return on investment isn’t that great, because the investment is HUGE!!! So they can’t be shy.
What I am saying is that we have a figure of “proven reserves” which is a misnoma but due to the motivation of the players involved is likely to be an inflated figure. Plus we know from geologists that there simply aren’t many more places in the world where their could be that much more oil - the poles, the outer-continental shelf, but that’s about it. So it’s wrong to say we have no idea how much oil there is.
Besides, you keep missing the point. It isn’t about reserves, it’s about capacity. It isn’t about the size of the reserve but the amount that is supplied to the market per day or year. There could be a squillion gazillion barrels of oil under Umpa-Lumpa land and it wouldn’t matter one jot if there isn’t a project underway whereby the Umpa-Lumpa’s have the capacity to bring lots of that oil to market really quickly. Bringing oil to the market from even a modest field takes a decade or more. We know approximately how much new capacity is in the pipeline by examing projects under development. And it’s not enough. There may be oil off the coast of Florida but if no one is doing anything about it, it won’t help us in 2015 when we’ve already passed peak.
Are we at PEAK or not? Yes or no.
Regarding conventional oil, almost certainly. But when most people talk about peak oil they are talking about all liquid fuels (the 85 mbd figure). That has not peaked yet and won’t for a couple of years, I’d say. But the chances of this peak being later than 2015 are extremely low.
The U.S. as a whole pulled in 35 Billion, with a B, dollars. Now *that* is an obscene profit margin. Basically, the US gov’t made 10% of what Exxon did, only, with absolutely no work and no risk.
How much capital does Exxon (or other big oil companies) require to do what they do?
As in, if you have a shack somewhere with an old selectric and you took in 100 billion in profits… that’s one thing. When you have a world wide organisation doing surveys, drilling, getting shake downs from foreign socialists, using expensive equipment, hiring armies of high paid experts… and you make a $100 billion… it doesn’t necessarily mean your doing anything right. It depends on the ROI… return on investment.
Exxon’s return on investment is 7%, not especially high considering the high prices. Their price/earnings ratio is extremely low.
Thanks for the info… yeah, 7% is no windfall profit.
Jeez, r.j., you’ve moved the goalposts once again with not one, but two new definitions of peak oil. And now you say we have SOME idea of our reserves yet we’ve already gone past peak oil as you’re possibly willing to bet on it. So you recategorize your “it’s real simple, we’ve gone past PEAK oil” as an afterthought--even though at the time it was the most simple, concise and profound reason for high oil prices known to man. Before you said we’re at PEAK conventional oil, now, when pressed you say we’re “almost certainly” there. You’re all over the place on peak oil of any variety.
It isn’t about the size of the reserve but the amount that is supplied to the market per day or year.
Uhh, yeah, I said that a whole page ago when I stated that our own guvment is hog tying our oil producers.
I should have not used the word “conservative” in the bartlett link. I was pressed for time as I had to be on my way to work. I list Bartlett as a loon because he is. He goes to messiah Moon’s self-crowning, even holds the guys robe for him and then says he was there because of the Washington Times. Moon’s religion is widely known in this country. And you have to admit, anyone that comes up with the term “an operationally responsive space” to justify spending a few million taxpayer dollars is not all together with it. Care to define “operationally responsive space”? More roscoe p. bartlett:
He opposes drilling in ANWR - he’s been there and he doesn’t think the environmental impact will be that bad, but he doesn’t think when we have such tiny reserves as a nation that it makes any sense to use them up as fast as we can.
I think what is so incredibly inspiring about Roscoe is that he’s speaking his truth straight from the heart without the slightest concern about whether anyone’s going to approve or not. These things desperately need saying, and he’s going to say them and damn the short-term consequences. The normal slippery politician spin-shit is utterly missing from the man. He’s a hero, or at least he’s now mine.
Yah, that Roscoe’s really something. The real deal, sniff sniff. Until today when he voted to drill ANWR.
It all gets back to my original point. The war in Iraq is not a very big deal when high oil prices are concerned. It’s as simple as that.
Dead Humpback Whale on the Beach in Big Sur. Wa… (more)
Added: June 27, 2006
Dead Humpback Whale on the Beach in Big Sur. Washed up on the beach at Andrew Molera State Park on June 23, 2006. California Condors have been feeding on a Gray whale that washed up a couple miles away and the Ventana Wildlife Society is hoping the condors will begin feeding on the Humpback whale. (less)
No reason is given as to how and why said whale might have died, but to many sesoned, discerning Thinkers the “facts” matter little as the Irrefutable Truth is quite clearly and obviously exposed for all to sternly admonish:
InlovewithRonald (1 week ago) What enjoyment do you get out of this???
wonderfulbob (3 weeks ago) This whale would have lived another 500 years if it weren’t for all the pollution.
CandyDate (3 weeks ago) Poor thing. Jeez..our oceans are getting so toxic that I wonder what will be left alive after another 50 years. Such magnificent creatures out there, and they may all be gone except for floating algae and sewage when the next generation comes of age. I really think it’s past being fixable now. Mama Earth has to do the rest on her own.
I agree with of that, Nanakanisurra!
Nanakanisurra (1 month ago) Poor thing. Jeez..our oceans are getting so toxic that I wonder what will be left alive after another 50 years. Such magnificent creatures out there, and they may all be gone except for floating algae and sewage when the next generation comes of age. I really think it’s past being fixable now. Mama Earth has to do the rest on her own.
tube4yourass (1 month ago) this our destiny!too
Some of them crusty old wizened ordinary codgers out there on the Great Plains occassionally tend to say that if something smells like shit, feels like shit, looks like shit, tastes like shit, runs like shit, sounds like shit, behaves like shit… its probably shit.
Dead Humpback Whale on the Beach in Big Sur. Wa… (more)
Added: June 27, 2006
Dead Humpback Whale on the Beach in Big Sur. Washed up on the beach at Andrew Molera State Park on June 23, 2006. California Condors have been feeding on a Gray whale that washed up a couple miles away and the Ventana Wildlife Society is hoping the condors will begin feeding on the Humpback whale. (less)
No reason is given as to how and why said whale might have died, but to many sesoned, discerning Thinkers the “facts” matter little as the Irrefutable Truth is quite clearly and obviously exposed for all to sternly admonish:
InlovewithRonald (1 week ago) What enjoyment do you get out of this???
wonderfulbob (3 weeks ago) This whale would have lived another 500 years if it weren’t for all the pollution.
CandyDate (3 weeks ago) Poor thing. Jeez..our oceans are getting so toxic that I wonder what will be left alive after another 50 years. Such magnificent creatures out there, and they may all be gone except for floating algae and sewage when the next generation comes of age. I really think it’s past being fixable now. Mama Earth has to do the rest on her own.
I agree with of that, Nanakanisurra!
Nanakanisurra (1 month ago) Poor thing. Jeez..our oceans are getting so toxic that I wonder what will be left alive after another 50 years. Such magnificent creatures out there, and they may all be gone except for floating algae and sewage when the next generation comes of age. I really think it’s past being fixable now. Mama Earth has to do the rest on her own.
tube4yourass (1 month ago) this our destiny!too
Some of them crusty old wizened ordinary codgers out there on the Great Plains occassionally tend to say that if something smells like shit, feels like shit, looks like shit, tastes like shit, runs like shit, sounds like shit, behaves like shit… its probably shit.
Jeez, r.j., you’ve moved the goalposts once again with not one, but two new definitions of peak oil. And now you say we have SOME idea of our reserves yet we’ve already gone past peak oil as you’re possibly willing to bet on it. So you recategorize your “it’s real simple, we’ve gone past PEAK oil” as an afterthought--even though at the time it was the most simple, concise and profound reason for high oil prices known to man. Before you said we’re at PEAK conventional oil, now, when pressed you say we’re “almost certainly” there. You’re all over the place on peak oil of any variety.
You haven’t even begun to tell me why we aren’t at peak or close to it. Some people described peaking as a process. You don’t so much peak as plateau and it takes a couple of years. A characteristic of this is that you get price volatility before the actual peak. So why are prices high? Because we are in the process of peaking. Whether the actual formal high point as been hit yet is impossible to tell. No doubt you will interpret this attempt at clarification as shifting the goalposts.
As for two definitions. I’ve already provided the definitions. People in the industry use these distinctions all the time, it’s very important. It’s as if you’re saying, “you’re making it too complicated, can’t we talk about one thing”.
Perhaps you should spend less time worrying about where I “am at” on this peak oil thing, and think about peak oil itself. After all, if you take a dozen experts in the field, they’ll be all over the place as well. Some say we’ve already peaked. Others say 2010, 2012. Other than the IEA and CERA, who don’t do much geological analysis, most are before 2020. So these people are all over the place as well, but they are all saying the same general thing, which is that we’ve got a massive energy crisis on our hands.
Uhh, yeah, I said that a whole page ago when I stated that our own guvment is hog tying our oil producers.
The US will never significantly increase it’s oil production.
I should have not used the word “conservative” in the bartlett link. I was pressed for time....
Once again, all you are saying is that Roscoe Bartlett’s theory about peak oil is wrong because he is a nutjob. This is clearly a fallacious ad hominem argument. By that reasoning everything Roscoe Bartlett believed would be wrong. If he happened to believe that the world was round, that would be wrong. Why? Well, because he is a nutjob.
It all comes down to the samo, samo: The whale, like countless others, was murdered for a quick oil profit, the cynical, callous, mypoic imperialist greed of which is in turn killing all multi-celled life on the planet. That is, unless you vote Green. “Death to America” is all you need concern yourself with, ever.
r.j.
Perhaps you should spend less time worrying about where I “am at” on this peak oil thing, and think about peak oil itself.
Perhaps you should spend less time making statements like “the simple explanation is that we’re past PEAK oil” when in fact you have no idea if we are or aren’t. Perhaps you shouldn’t come up with three different answers for the exact same question. I’m not having a difficult time understanding the numerous concepts of peak oil, I’m having a difficult time understanding why you backed clearly away from your declarative “the simple explanation is that we’re past PEAK oil.”
And why isn’t my concern over Bartlett’s qualifications and mental health relevant? Is it because he agrees, or appears to agree, with your take? Is it because you quoted him as Gospel without researching him to find out that he’s wacky? It doesn’t concern you that he gave his his highly touted, Obama-like PEAK Oil speech and then promptly acted against it by voting to drill in Anwar? Maybe you should seek the data he used to change his position on drilling in Anwar.
Getting back to my point--the war which began in 2003 has very, very little to do with today’s oil/fuel prices. I’ve agreed with you, oil is finite. So what does that have to do with oil prices being substantially higher now than when Pelosi, Reid and the other dems took control of Congress? Pretty much nothing is the simple answer…
And why isn’t my concern over Bartlett’s qualifications and mental health relevant? Is it because he agrees, or appears to agree, with your take? Is it because you quoted him as Gospel without researching him to find out that he’s wacky? It doesn’t concern you that he gave his his highly touted, Obama-like PEAK Oil speech and then promptly acted against it by voting to drill in Anwar? Maybe you should seek the data he used to change his position on drilling in Anwar.
OK, try abstracting the argument from Bartlett. I used a quote from Bartlett to make a point, but I could have used someone else. I’m more concerned about the point itself, which was that the US peaked in oil production in 1970 and will never get back there. So forget about Bartlett and tell me how America will ever again get close to producing 9.46 mbd of conventional oil. If there are some magical reserves I don’t know about, or super secret projects… I’d like to know.
Getting back to my point--the war which began in 2003 has very, very little to do with today’s oil/fuel prices. I’ve agreed with you, oil is finite. So what does that have to do with oil prices being substantially higher now than when Pelosi, Reid and the other dems took control of Congress? Pretty much nothing is the simple answer…
Pelosi is not to blame for higher oil prices. She may be to blame for higher gasoline prices, but you’d know more about federal taxes then me. I don’t think she has been around long enough to have influenced flow rates through environmental policy. None the less, enough bad energy policy from Pelosi and, say, Clinton or Obama chasing windfall profit taxes would certainly drive prices up. But that’s not the reason now. Besides, you shouldn’t be too American-centric on these things. Some economists think that if America went into recession that oil prices would come down, but you have (well, not officially) and they haven’t. The price of oil is global and determined by supply and demand. The main demand pressures are from China, India an
