Guest Post: As Things Fell Apart, Nobody Paid Much Attention

Tyler Durden's picture

Comment viewing options

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

go to hell with your peak oil lies, and take your globalist banksta promoted carbon taxes wit you.

Internet Tough Guy's picture

Right on bro, we don't want to hear inconvenient truths. The fact that Mexico, US, the North Sea, North slope, China, Russia, Indonesia are not producing much oil any more is a damn commie conspiracy to steal our SUVs. Fuck it, let's take the Escalade to Cheescake Factory for a 5000 calorie lunch.

snowball777's picture

Don't waste breath on the fun-duh-mentally retarded (global warming and all).

They'll have a hard time denying reality when it hits them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWMdwXCuFQw

Pool Shark's picture

Peak oil or no,

When adjusted for inflation, oil is currently pretty cheap.

Of course, that could change at any time.

Pants McPants's picture

Thank you for pointing this out.  I don't deny peak oil per se, but feel the pricing mechanism (to the extent it is not manipulated) is the single best indicator of whether or not we are running out of oil.  The best way to measure oil price is to base it on another commodity like gold....or just adjust for inflation.

Alienated Serf's picture

Pants, completely OT, but I want to commend you for your choice of cookiepuss as your avatar. 

snowball777's picture

Try pricing in the externalities of oil production and use...it's only 'cheap' at the pump.

Ask anyone in Louisiana, if you're in need of a clue.

OutLookingIn's picture

 

 Price? TRY THIS ON FOR SIZE -

 

Oil per U.S. Barrel: (42 US gallons or 158.9873 litres) = $85.00

Aquafina Water: (1 litre bottle) = $1.69

Therefore, a "barrel" of drinking water is valued at $269.68!

Belief that capitalism will solve lifes problems? Priceless!

Which is over priced? And which is under priced?

 

OnTheFelt's picture

Hey dumb ass,

Out of that entire piece all you can say is "peak oil lies".   Wow, you're a clever one.  Tell you what, here's a novel idea....how about you do some critical thinking on your own instead of regurgitating the typical response from some right winged asshole.  I promise if you do and actually research peak oil, you'll certainly be singing a different tune.

Don't worry we won't mistake you for some libtard who wants cap and trade.  I mean seriously dude, if you can't figure out the validity of peak oil, you're definitely in the wrong forum (zero hedge), so change the channel back to Faux News and then you can worry about more important things, like the mosque being built at ground zero and all those terrorists that are out to get you.

 

FUCKING IDIOT 

tmosley's picture

Before calling people "fucking idiots", perhaps you should do some critical thinking of your own.  Of note is that the chart showing a decline in US oil production and oil imports mirrors that of ALL GOODS.  I guess America must have reached peak textiles, peak cars, peak electronics, indeed peak all manufactured goods at the same time.

Or maybe, just maybe, the oppressive regime of regulations that started growing in earnest during the 70's put a lid on American production of everything, and lead to importation of everything?

Careless Whisper's picture

@OnTheFelt

don't stereotype me or anyone else. i don't get my news from fox and i don't care about that mosque; i care about property rights and if the owner of the land wants to build it, fine, and besides we still don't know what really happened at wtc on 9 11 anyway.

peak oil is a lie just like global warming. there is much oil that has not yet been discovered and many scientists believe that oil is renewable. you may find this interesting:

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Debunking-the-Myth-of-Peak-Oil-Why-...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27414

http://www.infowars.com/articles/economy/peak_oil_index.htm

 

 

snowball777's picture

Keep on sucking that petro-biz propaganda cock, moron.

trav7777's picture

I seem to recall that you were very polite and explained this whole "peak oil" thingie in more mild-tempered detail awhile ago.

Someone's catchin on

russki standart's picture

Peak Oil is another Zionist Lie. Fuck you KUNTsler.

Citxmech's picture

Thank God you were here to explain this to us in such persuasive terms.  Your support for your position is so clearly articulated I could explain why peak oil is an incorrect premise to anybody and they'd understand perfectly and be convinced!  Bravo.

[sarc.]

Blindweb's picture

-Eroei (energy return on engery invested).  The oil sands and oil off the coast of Brazil is going to be more expensive to extract, and therefore prices will be going up forever 

-It doesn't matter if oil is renewable if we're using it faster than it renews.

 

Read that comments below the oilprice article.  They explain it.

Madcow's picture

>80% of the world's hydrocarbon resources are locked up in "heavy oil" and other sources of unconventional crudes.

 

because of technology limitations, these energy sources have not been available - but there are now numerous technology companies that have developed capacity to harvest these unconventional resources. that means there is PLENTY of oil for the future and that prices will come WAY down - 

http://www.petrobank.com/heavy-oil/

http://worldenergysystemsinc.com/

http://www.cnpc.com.cn/cptdc/en/productsservices/cysb/part9/

Blindweb's picture

Yes, plenty of more expensive oil.  Once the price goes up investment in R&D will go down, forever

trav7777's picture

JFC, that whole "EROI" thing just flew RIGHT over your head, didn't it?

Wow.

Madcow's picture

these companies need $80 oil to be profitable.  but at that price, there are unlimited quantities of oil.

my point is there's no such thing as $100 ... $200 ... $ 300 ... and up due to scarcity - 

 

 

trav7777's picture

Like I said, that whole EROI thing flew STRAIGHT THE FUCK over your head, didn't it?

This dollar price you keep citing is really rather irrelevant..."unlimited oil" at $80?  This is the claim of a stooge.

Madcow's picture

Trav - 

the underlying currency oil is priced in is irrelevant - 

the fact is that - with new technology - there is a positive NET BTU. that factor was not in place just a few years ago.

If EROI is constructive, there will be investment, and thus no collapse of oil supplies. 

In anticipation of your next insult,

MC

 

Citxmech's picture

Unless additional "investment" can't solve the problem - at which point your premise collapses.

Again we're back to the argument that "the scientists will save us" and betting our entire future on that outcome as a given.

As a society, we've taken most gifts science has given us, and used them to paint ourselves further and further into a corner.

DaveyJones's picture

always enjoy your comments. "the scientists will save us" sort of stage two in the denial process

steve from virginia's picture

+ $35 oil is already draining the world's economies as these have been built around extremely cheap inputs. It's no surprise that when oil prices reach + $75 bad things start happening in bond markets and currencies.

Oil prices have decoupled from production.  Oil production remained flat from 2005 to 2008 when prices increased from $60 to $96 per barrel (average yearly price). Right now, high oil prices bankrupt oil customers faster than new oil can be put onto the market. This means the funds needed to bring oil to the market are diminishing. Since 'funds' means value rather than nominal amounts, adding 'liquidity' by printing will not bring more oil to market.

Unless the central banks can print something besides debt/currency, that is ...

Like the world's banking system, the world's energy system is insolvent. When shortages begin -- due to insufficient return on the use of the oil produced -- they will be permanent. If the economy cannot afford oil at current levels of activity, it cannot afford oil as activity shrivels ... due to diminished supplies of energy. Lower prices do not make more oil available but do the opposite. What we must fear now is low prices rather than high prices. Low prices indicated diminished wealth.

Both the US and overseas militaries support shortage scenarios beginning in 2012. I suspect because of the declining price and its relationship to production these shortages will appear next year and will be severe. There are already diesel fuel shortages in China leading to electrical blackouts. The fuel shortages will be felt here first in the US in the diesel markets.

The oil market is in a long term bear market with the 2008 high of $147 not likely to be seen for a long time if not forever. The world is going broke faster than ever.

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

$80 oil?  What the f*ck is a dollar? (pardon my french)

 

Oil production has peaked.  That doesn't mean there is zero production in the future.  The implication is that resources will have to be put to better use.

The rate of consumption obviously can't exceed the rate of production (which, funnily enough, sums up how the economic crisis occurred). 

It seems to me energy production stands a good risk of being nationalized if it really becomes that much of a problem.  The industry doesn't HAVE to make a profit.  Shareholders don't NEED increased dividends.

And mankind did pretty good back when we were sailing around, and riding horses.

http://psychonews.site90.net

PsychoNews: Exposing the Oligarchy, one Psycho at a time.

Citxmech's picture

One thing you neglect is that extraction takes energy - that is derived from oil.  So when we're at $40/bbl and some new shale pit is determined to be "profitable" at $80 - it doesn't mean that when we hit $80 that the old number is still valid.  The margin for profit just went up to $95/bbl or whatever.  And so it goes.  Eventually it will become profitable, but at a higher rate than initially predicted.

The price will still impact the economy.  If you don't believe this, you should be buying airline stocks hand-over-fist.

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

Who is in charge of the shitty math, if they say it is 'profitable' at $80 shouldn't they work that into their calculations?

I know what concept you are trying to illustrate, though.

Citxmech's picture

I think it's the same people who are trying to convince us that we have x00 years of oil left everytime a new field is discovered.  Those assumptions seem to always based on current consumption and assume complete recovery at an infinite rate.

 

 

i-dog's picture

"still don't know what really happened at wtc on 9 11 anyway"

We know ... you obviously don't (you probably still think some muslims did it).

"peak oil is a lie"

Are you in the oil industry and speaking from personal knowledge?

Seer's picture

Several points:

1) It was once thought that the sun revolved around the earth;

2) Oil IS reforming;

3) We will NEVER exhaust all oil reserves;

4) Logic/reason is the only means by which to assess things.

It was logic/reason that finally prevailed in presenting man with the truth that the earth revolves around the sun (rather than the other way around).  It is logic/reason that eneabled man to identify how oil was formed, which clearly tells us that oil IS forming (because its an organic process); BUT... it is the RATE of formation that matters, and unless we're willing to sit around for hundreds of thousands of years we can pretty much write off being able to use any substantial amounts of this reforming oil.  Also note that logic/reason has enabled us to understand that the earth is not a big sphere filled with <unicorns/gold/oil>, there IS an actual physical LIMIT.

Oil will never be exhausted.  At some point it will take more energy to extract than is obtained.  Further, and perhaps more importantly, oil will NOT be able to supply enough surplus energy to allow continued growth; it's growth that makes everything work (gives us the ability to sustain a middle class etc.).

As a rural dweller with a (water) well, I can state (logic/reason) that there is an apparent infinite amount of water, every day there's water available!  However... if I draw water faster than the well can recharge I run OUT of water!  The fact that the well is recharging is of little value when I'm all soaped up in the shower and nothing's coming out or it's only a dribble.  Our System cannot operate on a dribble of oil/energy.

The REAL argument is over levels/rates of consumption.  But know this (FACT), there ARE physical limits, and failure to properly identify and account for such limits can have dire consequences.  And the indisputable fact is, infinite growth on a finite planet ISN'T possible.

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

seer  why do you ignore Nat gas?? current tech allows vehicles to run on nat gas as well as gasoline and oil..seems you are fixated on a product that can be replaced with a cheap alternative, so limits to oil are always limits to energy use..no not at all.

trav7777's picture

jfc...what IS IT with you people?

NG PEAKS TOO.

Fuck me, man...I mean, even IF there is suddenly a technological breakthrough that allows us to "go get" suddenly more oil, JUST FOR HOW LONG do you idiots THINK the problem of GEOMETRIC GROWTH can be put off for?

We cannot even push this problem out 10 years assuming we found another Ghawar out there.

tmosley's picture

If there is no such thing as abiotic oil, what are these ultra deep microbes eating?  http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.00153...

Why didn't these little bastards run out the supply millions of years ago?

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

They weren't hungry enough.

What I find interesting is the idea that Peak Oil is NOT Petrobiz propaganda, but abiotic oil IS.

Sorry, but peak oil theory states forever high prices, abiotic oil theory would probably result in nationalization of every oil well on Planet Earth.  How would Big Oil benefit from that?

I am not saying all oil is abiotic, or that it is formed fast enough to meet our current consumption rates, but that there are still things about oil that are unknown.

imapedestrian's picture

I love that comment!  Yes, there is MUCH we do not know... only what we think we know.

+10000

tmosley's picture

Sorry, but peak oil theory states forever high prices, abiotic oil theory would probably result in nationalization of every oil well on Planet Earth.  How would Big Oil benefit from that?

How so?  I don't understand why a situation where wells slowly refilled would cause nationalization.  

I agree that there is certainly some amount of oil that is being generated by means other than digestion of organic matter (I don't really understand how that chemistry is supposed to work anyways--anaerobic bacteria should cause the production of large amounts of CO2, which should cause major blowouts anytime anyone attempts to tap an oil well.  Further, anaerobic digestion is quick, taking place over a few months rather than the millions of years people suggest.  Honestly, as a chemist, the idea of a reaction that takes millions of years to run to completion is asinine, unless they are running at temperatures just a bit below the activation energy of said reaction (but temperature is not that constant--go a bit deeper and any reaction that is going to happen should happen quickly).  Given my understanding of microbiology and chemistry, IF oil were an end product of such a reaction, it should form within a few months, and should be available in very large quantities in the ocean.  To some extent, this is the case (methane calthrates), but not really that much with long chain hydrocarbons.  In reality, such reactions would produce a light oil that will float to the surface and be digested by oil-consuming bacteria and UV light.  This would happen so fast that nothing short of a sudden geological subsidence would account for the presence of a large amount of oil.  I just don't see that happening.

From my understanding, the process MUST occur deep underground such that the oil seeps up slowly and is caught in oil reservoirs.  This process may be slow, though it is likely to vary between areas.  Ways to test this hypothesis would be to A. check old wells for hydrocarbon levels, especially methane, which should regenerate the fastest, and B. drill DEEP and examine the strata for oil consuming microbes (these have recently been detected nearly a mile under the seafloor in the Atlantic, far from any possible area where oil from organic sources could have been produced.

hbjork1's picture

Careless,

Didn't get a post off in a timely way but having read some of your earlier posts, thought you might be "putting em on" just a bit. 

Voice of experience:

I was educated as a Chemical Engineer with emphasis on "what goes in and what comes out".  I am now fallen away from that state of grace but the practice of thinking that way about why things are as they are doesn't go away. 

In 1955, I had a summer job as "Roustabout Class B" in an oil patch in Van(East), Texas, maintaining pumpers that brought oil up from ~1,000 feet.  The West Texas fields were about 3,000 feet and the oil, under pressure, could be extracted with only a "Christmas Tree.  

Times have changed.  Depth of knowledge in technology and methods of getting data on energy sources could not have been imagined then.  Sources being accessed include ocean oil, oil shale, oil in inaccessable locations and biodegradable. Wind and solar as well but they will remain situational.   And then we have highly developed nuclear technologh today which I consider to have the greatest long term potential.  We have reports that Calpine is running a geothermal site in California.  Geothermal, if it can be developed, will, of course, be limitless.

When we get through with all those, the methane cathlarates that caused BP trouble while they were wrecking the livelyhood of fishermen in the Gulf, are plentiiful in the ocean deeps. 

The English PM just resigned under public pressure because he had made a remark in addressing the economic contraction to the effect that "Historically, the average Englishman never had it so good". 

He was, no doubt, exactly right.  Applys here as well. 

How many readers know what an "Iron Lung" is?  The worst of a host of diseases we will never have to deal with.

This is a time of change but there is lots of opportunity if you take your gun and kill the appropriate enemy.  Put a bullet in every boob tube in the house. (not your computer, you will need that to order books.) 

macholatte's picture

a little more critical thinking: (my numbers probably not real accurate but you'll get the picture)

1.  50% of population = children

2.  45% of workforce = government employees

3.  20% of workforce = unemployed

4.  10% of workforce = uncounted small business people gone bust

5.  75% of workforce = non-capitalist non-producers

6.  87.5% of population = dependant on 12.5% of population to survive

 

peak oil or not, this situation is unsustainable.

MichiganMilitiaMan's picture

+1.  Over the short term there are millions of people who should be worried about Peak Entitlement.

1100-TACTICAL-12's picture

I for one am ready for peak, Harry Potter & peak GM.... ENOUGH ALREDY....

TBT or not TBT's picture

Peak Entitlement was surpassed long ago in Europe and realised by the governements there far too late to save the various european nation states from decline.  

Short of some miraculous technology coming the fore...which has happened several times in the last few centuries...the low birth rates brought about by socialism will compound with the the previous decades of low birth rates yielding even lower yield of new citizens, and they'll have such a distorted distribution of ages in their population as to make the whole works grind down into severe social crisis.   In fact they are close already now.   Even better, their subpopulation with the best reproduction rates and therefore with youth on their side, are openly against their host nations' values.  

How about let's not do this in America?

Kali's picture

It's even worse, you forgot the retirees and disabled and non-working spouses from that list.  It is NOT sustainable, the "12.5" can't support themselves anymore because they are FORCED to support those that don't.  One more thought, you forgot WS leeches who siphon off from productive labor too.  The real number may be as low as half of 12.5

Peak Everything's picture

Interesting. The only plan I have seen proposed that might actually avoid WWIII and/or a massive die off is the America 2.0 proposal by Jay Hanson. The jist is that if we downshift our consumption to needs rather than wants then 5% of the population can produce those needs and the other 95% can stay home and look after their kids.

http://jayhanson.us/america.htm

 

trav7777's picture

We will have to implement a Brave New World solution.  As an Alpha++, I will look forward to flying over the tops of most of you in my helicopter

Chump's picture

That is totally fucking retarded, and I am now dumber just for having clicked on that link.

Seer's picture

And of the 12.5% who are capitalist producers," most of these are either:

1) Creating robots to replace workers;

2) Operating robots;

3) Work for non-essential entities like banks.

So, in reality, there are very few people in the US who actually "produce" anything meaningful.  Most that is produced is by oil/energy and robots.  I'll be "producing" food, which I believe is more important than the godly, capitalist "producers" that promote usury and ipods...