Chris Martenson And James Howard Kunstler Explain How "The World is Going to Get Rounder and Bigger Again"

Tyler Durden's picture

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
NOTW777's picture

how many more of these lost koolaid drinkers do we need to listen to who find obama charming and are happy they voted for him

Uncle Sugar's picture


 Seriously, how is it not obvious that the teleprompter-in-chief is in over his head.  And now that he's cornered, I expect him to get nasty these next 24 months.


hedgeless_horseman's picture

There is currently a lot of hoopla over shale gas in the USA, but I think that will disappoint us, since it requires gigantic ongoing capital investment, and capital will be in ever-shorter supply. And this is not to mention the other problems and hazards associated with shale gas "fracking," such as the extreme forms of groundwater pollution and cancer clusters.

This is patently false. The capital investment has already been done.  The fracking trucks are everywhere on site, and cheap to replace.  He needs to come up with a better response to the very real and sizeable successes in the Eagle Ford shale. 

Cancer clusters...for fracking? Come on. 

Maybe something along the lines of buying us much needed time?  Dismissing it outright makes him appear less credible.  

His generalized bashing of the South and Christians does not help get the message out.

TBT or not TBT's picture

"Wishful thinking" is what this is called.

Mad Max's picture

Do you know the first thing about gas production from fracked wells in shale formations?


hedgeless_horseman's picture

Hey man, I am peak oil aware.  Check my history on this blog.  Nevertheless, you do know that producers in Eagle Ford are using horizontal drilling and fracking technology to produce oil, not gas?  They are having success all the way up to Dallas county.  I know this only buys a few months of global demand, but Kunstlers statement re shale requiring huge investment is false.  This I do know, and with this knowledge has come some excellent returns.


Could you recommend some good web sites/books/gurus on energy situation?

PS: Your horse is going the wrong way.


hedgeless_horseman's picture

I work in Houston, so the best information I receive comes from friends and neighbors that are in the industry. 

Here is one site:

And this is from a link on Matt Savinar's LATOC site to a current National Geographic article:

Published November 9, 2010


The year 2006 may be remembered for civil strife in Iraq, the nuclear weapon testing threat by North Korea, and the genocide in Darfur, but now it appears that another world event was occurring at the same time—without headlines, but with far-reaching consequence for all nations.

That’s the year that the world’s conventional oil production likely reached its peak, the International Energy Agency (IEA) in Vienna, Austria, said Tuesday.

According to the 25-year forecast in the IEA's latest annual World Energy Outlook, the most likely scenario is for crude oil production to stay on a plateau at about 68 to 69 million barrels per day.

In this scenario, crude oil production "never regains its all-time peak of 70 million barrels per day reached in 2006," said IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2010.

In previous years, the IEA had predicted that crude oil production would continue to rise for at least another couple of decades.

Now, because of rising oil prices, declines in investment by the oil industry, and new commitments by some nations to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the new forecast says oil production is likely to be lower than the IEA had expected.

End of Cheap Oil

The projected flat crude oil production doesn’t translate into an immediate shortage of fuels for the world’s cars and trucks. IEA actually projects that the total production of what it calls “petroleum fuels” is most likely to continue steadily rising, reaching about 99 million barrels per day by 2035.

This growth in liquid fuels would come entirely from unconventional sources, including "natural gas liquids," which are created as a by-product of tapping natural gas reservoirs.



PS: Your horse is going the wrong way.

Maybe so, but he keeps passing GO, so I will keep him on this lead until he tires.

trav7777's picture

naw...IEA's production growth thru 2035 is mostly made up by "oil not yet discovered"

IOW, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...we need 2 or 3 more Ghawars.

The abiotic crowd says that these things are out there lurking underneath Wal Mart parking lots

Rick Masters's picture

I live where they frack and I'm not happy about it but it must be easy to support something in PA when you live in TX. I can tell you for certain fracing on the scale necessary to produce sufficient energry will not occur here. It's politically impossible.

hedgeless_horseman's picture

Eagle Ford is in Texas.  So are other big shale plays.

If you drive, buy groceries at the supermarket, or heat your house with gas or oil, then you, sir, are supporting fracking and a variety of other extraction methods.  The stuff don't jus' rise up like a gusher anymo'; and thus our decreasing ratio of EROEI. 

Mad Max's picture

Oil wells and gas wells aren't the same thing, and some occasional success with one in one formation doesn't mean some new paradigm.

And oh yes, I know that horizontal drilling and fracking has been in some use for decades.

All the excitement Kunstler is attacking is gas wells in various northern parts of the lower 48.  The typical fracked gas well produces strongly for about a year and then declines very, very fast.  It's not like older oil wells in good giant fields that could be drilled once and produce well for decades, with a total productive lifespan of 30-50 years.  Rather it's more of a flash in the pan, a couple years of smoldering and then it's out, useless, wasted.  And for that you seriously contaminated a lot of groundwater and used up a lot of previously clean surface or upper groundwater to do it.  Not real bright.

The excitement over this shale gas from expensive fracked wells just shows how bad our energy situation is.

flattrader's picture

Shale gas fracking.

Exploding water from your well and dead cattle from drinking fracking run off.

What's not to like?

Shale gas drilling:  Pros and Cons

I'd rather have nuclear power plants (on the French model) and electric cars than this kind of potential environmental disaster fueling nat gas cars.

Mad Max's picture

Nuclear power managed responsibly has insignificant risks and very little environmental downside.  Yes, you need to dig a deep hole somewhere that doesn't get earthquakes, and bury your high-level waste in waterproof containers at the bottom of that hole.  This is maybe 0.1% the effort of dealing with the drawbacks of coal power.

After that, it's all politics and blinding ignorance among the chattering classes.

Shale gas makes a few people rich in the short term and destroys the environment where it's been done.  And it provides only a very short-term supply of fuel.  It's at least as bad as tar sands, maybe worse.

Cathartes Aura's picture

that deep hole to "bury your high-level waste in waterproof containers" tends to be located in "other people's" back yards, and is (understandably) not so welcomed:

German police scuffled with protesters Saturday as tens of thousands of people gathered in Dannenberg, northern Germany, vowing to block a nuclear waste convoy arriving from France.

god forbid nations bury their shit in their own space.


Mad Max's picture

Any nation over 100 square miles can find a safe, reasonable place to bury this waste.  1000 feet under Manhattan would work just fine, no worries, no risk to the inhabitants of the surface.  100% seriously.

The US should have been putting waste in Yucca Mountain for the last 15-20 years, but you can thank Harry Asshole Reid for blocking that completely sensible and safe as can be waste storage option.  It's farther in the desert than the fucking nuclear test site, site of roughly 1000 nuclear explosions, for chrissake.

Rogerwilco's picture

@hedge less

You are confused. Fracking technology has little or nothing to do with oil shale, it's used in natural gas formations. Anyway, the problem with shale deposits isn't one of access, many can be strip-mined. The problem is processing, and the current technologies require lots of energy and water to convert the trapped hydrocarbons to a useful working fluid.

Here in Western Colorado we have huge oil shale deposits, some of them dating back to the 1930s when large tracts were reserved by the Navy. But short of building a nuclear plant and diverting half of the flow from the Colorado River, ther is no practical way to process these deposits at any reasonable cost.

Mad Max's picture

Everything after "Anyway," is correct.

However, while fracking for gas gets all the attention (and is what 99% of people mean when they say "fracking"), various forms of rock fracturing have been used for some time to increase oil production when the reservoir rock is not as permeable as the well owner would like it to be.  The process is similar to fracking in a gas formation, but the product and the rock are different.

Anything more detailed probably needs to go to TOD or something...

hedgeless_horseman's picture

You are confused. Fracking technology has little or nothing to do with oil shale, it's used in natural gas formations.

Who decided to give the Western Slope internet access?  Sadly, you are the one that is confused.  The oil and gas shale the rest of the world outside of Mesa County speaks of today is not the shale you know from the mountains above Parachute/Grand Valley/Whatever-the-fuck-you-call-it-now.  You should go back to polishing your Chippewas and cruising North Avenue in your monster truck. 

High Plains Drifter's picture

Either that or do the right thing and get assassinated.

1100-TACTICAL-12's picture

I guess in this guy's opinion, Anyone below the Mason-Dixon, will be shooting their neighbor, humping their cousin, while eating corn bread & pullin on a  moonshine jug ..

hedgeless_horseman's picture

Dickhead for a neighbor...check.

Good looking, check.

Like cornbread...check.

Like moonshine...big check.

Looks like he might be right.

dnarby's picture

+1 I like the author, but the first poster is right.  Amazing he got all those junks.  Guess we better brush up on Washington's "How to persuade stubborn people"


3. If you were President and had free reign, what would be your energy plan?




SheepDog-One's picture

Must be some damn kickass Kool-Aid these people are drinking. I stopped reading at 'If I were president, I'd start a public debate about proceeding with nuclear energy'.. hell youre worthless, all you encounter group touchy feely assclowns, theyre the reason we're in this present mess! They all still live in a college dorm mentality!

Ripped Chunk's picture

Funny how SD was junked but the 2 trolls above skate.

SheepDog-One's picture

? Lot of junkers around today. What I wish we had were the old '+1' rating ability instead of just junk!

NOTW777's picture

remnants of the paid george soros yahoo posters;

the census jobs are over, they hear about ZH and flock

Sabremesh's picture

I think you're flattering yourself.

NOTW777's picture

so you get a quarter for each junk?

an obama doll? what

Ripped Chunk's picture

That would be nice.

I personally would rather have a bunch of these junkers in a sound proof room myself.

barkster's picture

the old peak oil scam again...

G-R-U-N-T's picture

Exactly...Not this "Peak Oil" crap again!!!

TumblingDice's picture

Yea Peak Oil was sooo 2008...or 1978 if talking in Production per capita terms.

tmosley's picture

Exactly.  As oil runs out, we will transition to cheaper sources of energy.  That is all there is to it, and all there ever has been.  You don't see anyone dying, or industries grinding to a halt due to peak charcoal.

Eventually, this process will run out of consumable fuel, that is true.  But A, that period is far, far away and unpredictable, and B, there are renewable alternatives that will put an upper limit on energy costs eventually.  If you can print solar cells from organic materials and plaster them everywhere, then you aren't going to have as big a problem as, say, having to grow algae and press the oil out.  Solar technologies are already appearing that have the better cost profiles than central fossil fuel based energy production.  New technologies are coming down the pike to make organic cells self repairing, which in theory would extend the life of those cells to the point where the only real method of failure will be physical destruction of the cell.  Further, cheap, simple graphene production is poised to revolutionize cell efficiencies (source:  We're talking printing presses that make solar panels here.

The only thing stopping that train is government interference.  Get rid of that, and energy will flow until everyone has all they need, or until space colonization begins in earnest.

trav7777's picture

Jeez, you're stupid.

You say this same mantric shit every time the peak oil problem is brought up.

Just techno polyannaism.  CHEAPER sources of energy...than oil?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You have been slapped around in PO discussion so many times, yet you are unrelenting; this is precisely what is WRONG with this country and with people in general.

You're WRONG, ok?  It's time to own up to that.  You're wrong like all the people you bleat about who won't accept the correct crap you say about the Fed or the economy.  You complain that they won't listen.  They are resistant to persuasion by the truth.

Yet HERE YOU ARE doing the very SAME THING.  Amazing

Oh regional Indian's picture

Peak Oil.. Solved.

Oilternative Engineering @

Resonance, beaches!



cosmictrainwreck's picture

geez, looeze! the two ANTI-peakOil aboe trav7777 get junked like crazy, then trav - totally PRO-peakOil gets junked, too. Everybody in a pissy mood today?

trav7777's picture

there are people who understand and accept peak oil and then there are idiots...but around here everyone get junk'd

cosmictrainwreck's picture

geez, looeze! the two ANTI-peakOil above trav7777 get junked like crazy, then trav - totally PRO-peakOil gets junked, too. Everybody in a pissy mood today?

(see how many I get for this one)


Rick Masters's picture

 faced with the truth that they might be wrong you have two choices: admit your mistake or produce evidence to spupport your theory. Must get busy doing the prooving.

TumblingDice's picture

Renewables right now make up less than 10% of all energy production, with hydroelectric power taking the largest chunk of that. The net energy that you can extract from non-renewable energy is decreasing exponentially since the "energy invested" part of the (energy extracted - energy invested) equation is growing and the "energy extracted" is starting to decrease. In 1980 we could use about 90% of all energy extracted from oil now we use about 70% and the rest goes towards extracting/refining/transporting more oil.

The point here being, that if the net energy from 85% of the world energy output is decreasing at an expotential rate, the other 15% have their work cut out for them. The math doesn't add up.

Citxmech's picture

What "cheaper source" of energy?

Name one thing that provides the kind of energy density that petroleum does, that has larger reserves, and costs less. 

Citxmech's picture

Sorry, two out of three only.

Solar energy's density is much less than petroleum.

Calculate what it would take to run your house using solar.  Why haven't you converted yet?  It's "cheaper" than running on the grid right? 

Now try the same calculation for running an integrated solar panel manufacturing facility powered by solar.  It is not economically viable.  Solar simply returns less energy per dollar invested than petroleum.  As petroleum gets more expensive, solar's ineffeciency won't get better either, it actually get's more expensive. 

Try mining those rare earths with solar...  or flying a jet, or running a train, ship, etc. etc. 

In a sense, bio-fuels are also forms of solar - review how efficient they are.

As energy costs go up, more inefficient energy sources may get more tolerable, but that will not facilitate increased growth, as the net energy return is still lower than oil. 

hedgeless_horseman's picture

Dang it!  I must be too dense to understand density.

Oh regional Indian's picture

Resonant Storage and Extraction Systems.

Like our bodies. ATP replication system. But mechanical.

The possibilities if we allow ourselves to be bold, are limitless.


trav7777's picture


GFD, I just can't take anymore of this.

Dude.  Do you have ANY IDEA how paltry the wattage is of a biological machine?  I mean what can Alberto Contador light up, a few fucking lightbulbs?

A car motor is SO VASTLY beyond what these chemical processes can achieve...not even in the same galaxy, power-wise.

The possibilities are limitless...LOL, how goofy.  NO, they aren't.  Dude, get a grip.  It does nobody any good for you wacko polyannas to go around spouting your technobabble pie in the sky bullshit about how if we'd just wish upon enough fucking stars sufficiently strenuously, all our dreams including perpetual motion would come true.

Oh regional Indian's picture


Any intelligent person reading your comment-stream will realize that you are all mind, no heart, no body (nobody), totally stuck in your grandiose head. Do you even have a body? Maybe not. You spout abuse and derision on one and all and expect me to take you seriously? Really? 

When I am saying with absolute confidence and my name and address and place of business listed and available to one and all, that I have a solution to EVERY PROBLEM CREATED FOR MANKIND BY THIS TECHNOLOGICAL MOSNTOROUS INDUSTRIAL AGE DESIGNED DYSTOPIA.....WAIT.... READ THAT AGAIN>>> EVERY PROBLEM, WHETHER OF FOOD, CLOTHING/SHELTER/HEALTH/FITNESS/TRANSPORT/LAND USE/ENERGY GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION and any other category of human endeavor your paltry brain can come up with, that I'd pay the least attention to a thought prisoner like you?

Worthless Glass house sitting stone thrower, I have not heard a single positive thing in any of your posts so far.

Crawl away!

Wait, before you crawl, here is some wisdom from you, from the mouth of a better man than I, Frank Herbert:

In all of my universe I have seen no law of nature, unchanging and inexorable. This universe presents only changing relationships which are sometimes seen as laws by short-lived awareness.These fleshy sensoria which we call self are ephemera withering in the blaze of infinity, fleeting aware of temporary conditions which confine our activities and change as our activities change. If you must label the absolute, use its proper name: Temporary.


And particularly for the calcified, like you, obviously:

The person who takes the banal and ordinary and illuminates it in a new way can terrify. We do not want our ideas changed. We feel threatened by such demands. "I already know the important things!" we say. Then Changer comes and throws our old ideas away.

Now crawl away! ORI