This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Visualizing Peak Oil: Hype, Hope, Boom, Or Bust

Tyler Durden's picture


While oil prices have slid in their ubiquitous post-QE manner in the last few days, they remain notably elevated amid growing tensions in Iran and central bank largesse spillovers. These short-term fluctuations, however, pale in significance to long-run implications of peak-oil and whether it exists or not. From cost implications to technological innovation and demand destruction and supply constraints, the feedback loops of oil prices over time provide vicious and irtuous cycles for the global economy as we know too well. This brief clip provides all the color we could need on the matter of fossil fuel dilemmas and the diverging opinions of Astenbeck's (ex-Phibro) Andy Hall and Goldman's Michele Della Vigna provide the depth.


DON'T WORRY, DRIVE ON: Fossil Fools & Fracking Lies from MONSTRO on Vimeo.


Andy Hall's Conclusion: In summary, yes there are new oil resources to be developed but it will require high prices for it to happen and even then it is by no means certain that these resources can be developed fast enough to offset declining production from the existing supply base. More likely is that prices will need to rise periodically to curb demand growth emanating from the developing economies. In any event, we feel that longer dated oil prices which remain at a steep discount to spot prices remain a relatively safe investment with very significant upside and limited downside.


What impact high oil prices?


Goldman's Michele Della Vigna: Since the start of this oil price cycle in 2000, peak oil theories have become increasingly popular, due to lack of credible new sources of crude oil. Over the past five years, however, the industry has opened up two new credible sources of future supply: the ultra-deepwater and the “oil shales”. We believe that these new sources of oil will be comparable in scale to the opening up of the North Sea and Mexico in the 1970s and will lead to a meaningful reduction in oil prices, alongside a change in the balance of power of the oil and gas industry. This is why we call it a revolution. However, the technical complexity of these developments and the tightness of the oil services supply chain are likely to delay the impact of these new projects by several years, sustaining a tight oil market.


The 'new' cost-curve...


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 09/24/2012 - 21:21 | 2826588 zorba THE GREEK
zorba THE GREEK's picture

When oil is gone, we will just go back to whale hunting for oil for our lamps.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 21:30 | 2826603 Muppet of the U...
Muppet of the Universe's picture



Don't worry ding bats, we already have nuclear fusion.  You just can't have it cus muppets rule the world.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 21:45 | 2826647 vast-dom
vast-dom's picture

good companion piece on peak oil with Max Keiser:


Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:03 | 2826679 Rusty.Shackleford
Rusty.Shackleford's picture

thanks for that

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 23:11 | 2826843 mick68
mick68's picture


No clue how deep oil will lead to cheaper prices, but the rest is accurate. Big oil needs $150 per barrel to open these new wells up, which explains all the bluster in the middle east. No war of course cause that would diminish demand, but lots of bluster. Unfortunately for big oil though, after 10 years of B.S. bluffing, nobody believes it anymore. Might have to actually start a war to achieve necessary results.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 23:42 | 2826909 markmotive
markmotive's picture

Peak Oil and the New Boom Bust Cycle:

Get used to it folks. What do you think 2008 was about? Yes, extended leverage...but what was the catalyst that sent the pyramid over the edge? High gas prices!

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:05 | 2826685 bobola
bobola's picture

Visualize commuting to work during the week on a bicycle and running errands with it on the weekend.

There, I just gave a solution to 2 frequent Tyler threads; dealing with peak oil and peak obesity...

All I need from oil is to keep the chain from squeaking after riding in the rain.


Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:54 | 2826781 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

You didn't "solve" jack shit, you just shifted from oil consumption to food consumption (providing that the same amount of work is done). Now, regarding the energetic cost of all that additional food....

But I do like the idea of a world cycling community.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 04:01 | 2827103 flyingpigg
flyingpigg's picture

Lawofphysics, that's nonsense. Biking on food is far more efficient than moving a ton of steel on gas. Unless you mounted pedals in your car...

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 07:12 | 2827207 SmallerGovNow2
SmallerGovNow2's picture

Try moving a ton of steel on a bike.  Cheap oil made this country and cannot be completely replaced.  It can be "supplemented" to the tune of maybe 20-25%, but no amount of cycling is going to make up for the energy denseness and transportability of oil...

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:32 | 2828303 Matt
Matt's picture

It can be replaced because eventually, it must. If something cannot go on forever, it wont. Are you trying to say that no one ever moved anything heavy and large prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine?

Some activities that use lots of oil will simply stop happening. Others will be done using other methods, like they were for the thousands of years before the internal combustion engine.

The big problem I see is not running low on oil, but natural gas, since thats where we get our nitrates from. This whole running powerplants on natural gas instead of coal thing could turn out to be massively negative in the long run.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 07:55 | 2827271 LedMizer
LedMizer's picture

Yabba dabba doo!

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 09:38 | 2827590 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

Easy. 1 american behind the wheel in the pedal-driven car, and 5 illegally imported chinese workers to actually stomp the pedals.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 02:03 | 2827036 CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

I do that already. Now...visualize whirled peas. 

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 08:18 | 2827314 sessinpo
sessinpo's picture

Ignore the other post below. The problem you have is you bought into the "peak oil" premise in the first place.

Next you'll be suckered into man made global warming over population of people. The liberal path is a slippery slope that that traps many by using their emotions against them without you even realizing it.

Before long, you are on a path of lies and it becomes to embarrassing to go back to the truth.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 08:31 | 2827355 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

The numbers are available for everyone to see.  World oil production has flatlined.  Don't show me eight apples and then try to tell me you have ten.  It only makes you look stupid.  

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 09:07 | 2827475 N. B. Forrest
N. B. Forrest's picture

I quite agree, (of course with that statement I'll get 30 junks on this site)  All the peak oil people refuse to take into consideration all of the environmental restraints and other regulatory hurdles that the governments of the world are throwing up to block drilling for the easy stuff.  If the progressives would quit throwing sand in the gears of the oil producers, we would be energy independent again. 


Peak oil theory has been around since the '70s.  The 1870s that is.  Yawn...  forgive me if I don't get my knickers in a wad over the latest blow up.  Kind of an odd coincidence that its latest reincarnation has arisen as the leftists have been flouting their Anthropogenic Global Warming schemes. 


Please do the research people. 

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:37 | 2828321 Matt
Matt's picture

Original Peak Oil was about peak production of light sweet crude oil in the continental United States. It said that America would hit peak production in the 1970s. What does a graph of American production of light sweet crude look like? What happened around 1971?

EDIT: should read as conventional production of light sweet crude; AFAIK off-shore drilling, fracking and other non-conventional methods were not included in the model.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 09:40 | 2827594 BobPaulson
BobPaulson's picture

That's your argument? It's a commie plot? I think you just convinced a bunch of people peak oil is a serious issue.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 18:09 | 2829895 billsykes
billsykes's picture

Everyone can stand to lose a couple pounds biking.

I tried it this summer for 3 weeks, to only use my bike, used my car 2x to get groceries (hate shopping, do it all at once).

I really like it, its a faster way for me to get home from work than a cab or bus/train or car. Plus no $350  a month parking fee, and I can park anywhere.

Kind of a nice way to end the day.

If you want an adreneline rush without the porsche payments, I would advise biking as fast as you can in rush hour traffic sans helmet. Tried that too, won't do that again- but shit was it scary fun.





Tue, 09/25/2012 - 02:22 | 2827046 yt75
yt75's picture

To follow up what's going on regarding oil (and fossile energy in general), and best sources these days for me.


Otherwise amazing that GS (and other people) still refer to it as a "theory" when it is really a second grade banality.

And please don't hesitate to sign below :

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 09:43 | 2827606 BobPaulson
BobPaulson's picture

Remember how long they denied smoking is not bad for you? Only about 10% of the population makes decisions based on rational presentation of empirical information. The rest are essentially convinced by who yells the most or has the hottest models presenting their side of the story.

Thu, 09/27/2012 - 10:32 | 2835324 yt75
yt75's picture

I think the comparison doesn't work very well, our entire society has been built on cheap energy since the industrial revolution, with the population explosion as a side effect.

This supply of cheap energy is ending, and not really anything to replace it considering the amount.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 04:16 | 2827110 Andrew Jackson ...
Andrew Jackson epitaph's picture

Muppet is right. google "Z machine"

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:13 | 2826706 krispkritter
krispkritter's picture

If it's blubber we're after, at what point can we start hunting fat Progressives like Michael Moore, Oprah, Roseanne Barr, etc. and really cut down on fossil fuels?

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 06:54 | 2827197 Dr. Bonzo
Dr. Bonzo's picture

I like your thinking man. But why stop at fat progressives? It's my understanding that the meat content on the obese regressives is far superior due to their animal rich high protein diets and fixation on lard consumption. Yum yum. And since it's open season on fatties... why have a political litmus test at all? I say round em all up and off to the beefulo farm with them. If we hurry we might just be able to have our first fatty shanks by Xmas.

Happy holidays indeed.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 07:53 | 2827266 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

Screw all this prepper stuff...

A piece of bacon, a string and a bat is all I need.

Besides gallons of Billy Ray's BBQ sauce.

Long pig pulled pork is delicious if you're not the finicky eater type.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 08:20 | 2827321 sessinpo
sessinpo's picture

Because they are really filled  with hot air, not anything of real useful substance.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 21:23 | 2826590 nah
nah's picture

oil is in

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 21:25 | 2826593 buttmilk
buttmilk's picture

Peak bath salts!

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 21:30 | 2826608 Muppet of the U...
Muppet of the Universe's picture


Mon, 09/24/2012 - 21:25 | 2826591 Lost Wages
Lost Wages's picture

Why don't we just clone more dinosaurs, bury them, and dig them up in a few years when they become oil?

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 23:01 | 2826815 centerline
centerline's picture

can't we just rehypothecate this?  Seems to work for Wall Street.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 09:44 | 2827608 BobPaulson
BobPaulson's picture

Already doing that.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 04:01 | 2827102 Heyoka Bianco
Heyoka Bianco's picture

What if we clone the dinosaurs, let them eat a bunch of fatties, then bury them, pile some more dead fatties on top of that to increase the pressure, get more oil faster, and free up more food, air and water? Problems fucking solved!

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 21:25 | 2826592 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Cost to discover, cost recover, cost to deliver, cost to refine. There is a capital cost and energetic cost. When the BTUs invested is greater than the BTUs recovered, game over. Don't get mad it's just business.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 21:30 | 2826609 samsara
samsara's picture

Exactly and the Export Land Model I mentioned above is on top of that.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:03 | 2826681 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

"When the BTUs invested is greater than the BTUs recovered, game over."

Absolute Fucking Nonsense!  Not all BTU are worth the same.  Natural gas BTUs, e.g., are worth a lot less than kerosene BTUs.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:43 | 2826762 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Perhaps BTU is the wrong term, don't be an ass. If I invest a Joule and only get half a Joule in return, that's a bad investment. If the oil company has to invest significantly more energy than will be recovered, they won't bother.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:58 | 2826811 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

How can you be so fucking stupid?  We've gone over this before.

You don't "invest joules".  You invest dollars.  A dollar does not purchase a constant number of joules.  It can currently purchase many more joules of natural gas than it can kerosene.  In the present marketplace, if one somehow converts one joule, or calorie or BTU, kilowatt-hour, electron volt or any other unit of energy, from the burning of natural gas or coal and from that amount of work obtains one joule (or whatever unit you're using) equivalent of kerosene, that is a good deal.

There's lots of cheap natural gas BTUs available right now and they can be used to replace expensive diesel BTUs one for one.   Capisce?

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 06:45 | 2827194 EnglishMajor
EnglishMajor's picture

The last time I checked we don't run our cars and trucks on natural gas.  Ships don't sail on natural gas.  Planes don't fly on natural gas.  We don't make steel with natural gas.  We don't make highways out of natural gas.  We don't make rubber out of natural gas.  We don't make plastic out of natural gas.  We don't make paint out of natural gas.  We don't make fertilizer out of natural gas.  Barring some inexpensive, interchangable retrofit for industrial society, not all potential BTU's are equal.  Perhaps we will simply reach the point where burning stacks of dollar bills will release more BTU's than they could purchase anyway.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 09:51 | 2827629 post turtle saver
post turtle saver's picture

Wrong. Just flat out wrong.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:11 | 2827937 EnglishMajor
EnglishMajor's picture

Okay, then the better statement of the point is, it is not an either/or option.  You can't have exclusively one or the other or an easy switch back and forth, and forget byproducts for the moment.  How will you retrofit the trucking, airline, shipping and automobile industries to run on natural gas?

Maybe that's the answer, though.  Let's put the printing press to practical use to build pipelines, more pumps at every gas station, and two tanks on every vehicle.  Maybe that would be as good for GDP as building the Death Star.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 23:20 | 2830828 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Trucks and locomotives are pretty easy to retrofit and the payback period is short.  There are companies doing that now.  Cars in South America run on natgas.  If they can do it, maybe Americans can too.  Trains can be electrified.  Electricity can be generated from natgas.   It's not practical to fuel airplanes with natgas.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 09:15 | 2827500 N. B. Forrest
N. B. Forrest's picture



Although I like this site, the attention span of most of the commenters is rather short.  If you can't make and argument in one sentence they just junk you.  But keep it up.   The battle will eventually be won.  The truth will eventually rise to the surface and the goofballs who read 0Hedge will claim to have known it all along.


Unlike those who go to other site, where even when the truth rises to the surface they will still refuse to see it. 

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 23:37 | 2830844 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

ZH, like all popular internet blogs and message boards, have paid, and volunteer in the case of the ADL and some others, shills whose job is to keep public opinion corralled in a manner that is acceptable and profitable to the PTB.  The more popular the site, the better and more numerous are the shills.  There's professional grade software available to manage their shillery.  We are, after all, not watching the MSM and TV when we're here freely blogging.

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the public is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country." -- Edward Bernays

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 09:55 | 2827638 BobPaulson
BobPaulson's picture

I would stand somewhere in the middle on this concept. It's certainly not game over if we convert 1 energy unit of peat to one energy unit of electricity (it has to do with the exergy of the energy, its ease of transport, the amount of waste it generates and the amount of it on the market) but it starts to show some very problematic issues in our economy. For example, the fact that we use so much gas to produce corn is evidence of government manipulation/distortion of a market. Gas is cheap because of fracking and its low density, which is one big hole in the hydrogen economy dream.

The fact that we are burning the glut of gas on the market to get heavy oil out of the ground does point to some problems. The market cannot fully represent the costs of heavy oil and our need for liquid fuels to drive our huge cars from the exerbs to our paper-pushing/non-manufacturing/barrista jobs in the city.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 23:54 | 2830867 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Much of that gas is being flared.   It has negative value.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 21:12 | 2830544 jerry_theking_lawler
jerry_theking_lawler's picture

Dr., please PM me and explain exactly how all BTUs are not the same?? a BTU IS a BTU, right? 1000 Btus of natural gas = 1000 Btus of kerosene, correct? kinda the same as 1000 pounds of feathers weight the same as 1000 pounds of lead....??

I am always excited to learn new scientific concepts (especially after 15+ years of pyroprocessing experience).

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 23:50 | 2830862 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

You are correct, of course, that a BTU is a unit of energy (the amount of heat necessary to raise one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit).

The reason not all BTUs are the same, i.e. have the same value, is convenience, primarily portability and storage.  Natgas is difficult to carry in an aircraft's fuel tanks.  Kerosene is much easier.  So if one needs to operate an aircraft, he buys kerosene even though a comparable number of natgas BTUs are much cheaper.

It usually makes sense to use the cheapest fuel that can be accomodated to provide the necessary BTUs.  That means wood or natgas to heat houses, natgas or coal to generate electricity, gasoline or diesel to fuel automobiles, kerosene to fuel jet aircraft.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 21:27 | 2826597 traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

I love a good peak oil post on ZH. My three favorites: 1. Peak oil; 2. any discussion that devolves into weaponry; and 3. wait for it...wait for it...Gold Bitchez!

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 21:32 | 2826612 Muppet of the U...
Muppet of the Universe's picture

what about a good bernank post?  Or time to short aapl post?  I can't wait for that bubble to implode XD  omfg I'm gonna be so happy :D 

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 21:58 | 2826673 spinone
spinone's picture

Silver, Bitchez!

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:13 | 2826704 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Lead -N-Brass bitchez!

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 23:55 | 2826919 Bear
Bear's picture

How about pewter

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 06:49 | 2827195 EnglishMajor
EnglishMajor's picture

Tungsten, bitches!

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 21:29 | 2826602 samsara
samsara's picture


Even though we are post peak already,  What's more important is covered in the below short artcle.   

What's Reserves matters nothing, Flow Rate per Day is vital,  INTERNAL CONSUMPTION eats directly on the export quantity (See Mexico, Saudi Arabia). 

Global oil exports in decline since 2006: What will importing nations do?


And also this Shale Gas Group of articles

Shale gas - Sept 21


Doubts on Saudi Capacity May Keep Oil Volatile

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 03:59 | 2827098 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Flow rate is irrelevant to Global Production & Trade

Oil exports are a secondary concern for the Saudis

Maintaing the domestic "happy happy joy joy" is their number #1 concern

So they started spending, instead of recycling, the petro dollars decades ago

The conspiracy lunatics were fuming about the incomprehensible presence of Bechtel in Jubail, when they should have been worried about job-killer extrordinaire Jeff Immelt selling the farm to SABIC

For every factory lying in waste in the Rust Belt (and consuming no energy) look at its twin in Jubal and Yanbu

Same goes for Mexico.

An overpaid consultant's pavlovian response is "wage arbitrage" while an underpaid consultant is more likely to drift into colocation and regulatory cost while avoiding such vulgarities as buying off the host government to desecrate the environment to pad the company's bottom line.

The problem isn't that importing nations consume fuel, it is the consumers within those nations consuming are fuel for non-productive acivities, in the case of the US they couldn't have fucked up urban planning any worse if they tried, and a logistics industry based on the fuel efficiency of medium and heavy duty trucks is doomed, but the first casualty will be the iFool who is trying to compete for access to energy resources against large businesses with only the proceeds of his McJob.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 21:38 | 2826626 holdbuysell
holdbuysell's picture

Researching Nikola Tesla and Maxwell's equations is a good start for those interested.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:34 | 2826752 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

+100 Teslas!

Nice introduction here to THE MAN himself in this video, which, if it wasn't for the internet, would never have seen the light of day again...

The Missing Secrets Of Nikola Tesla

Added bonus: hosted by Dean Stockwell (pre-Blue Velvet?)

An overview of the work in Zero Point energy by scientists outside the history of Tesla, in the next link...this one is fascinating

Tesla The Race to Zero Point Free Energy

And finally, a new potential paradigm shift for cosmology and astrophysics...the Electric Universe

Thunderbolts Of The Gods

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 01:12 | 2827004 UnpatrioticHoarder
UnpatrioticHoarder's picture

Mainstream cosmology is such bunkum.

How is it possible for a comet, allegedly a small icey dirtball in space, travelling at hundreds of kilometers a second, to produce a glowing coma with the diameter of the Sun?! (eg Comet Hale-Bopp). Laughable, I know. Yet mainstream astonomers accept it at face value.

Comets are nothing but electrically charged asteroids on eccentric orbits...

And then there are sunspots, gaps through which we see the Sun's cool interior...

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 08:54 | 2827432 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Do you just make shit up on the fly?

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 09:57 | 2827646 BobPaulson
BobPaulson's picture

Those equations are not the subject of much research as they are well documented and essentially proven reliable.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 21:43 | 2826635 CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

One can keep posting on the geology and realize that people looking for price clues will skim over it, because it doesn't seem to define price.

It doesn't define price.  It defines death.  

The price of oil can be any level at all you can imagine the day you drive to your local convenience store and discover they have no gasoline to sell you.  With demand defining price as much as supply, or more so, given a fixed or declining supply, there is no reason to think price is going to warn you of shortages.  You will not discover them until you drive to fill up your car and can't.

1) Presently producing wells are declining in output.  That's what they do.  They always have.  They always will.  They DECLINE.  All additional flow coming online has to undo that decline before it can contribute to flow increase.  The decline grows every year.  

2) The new flow sought to combat this relentless decline is from more difficult sources.  Don't measure difficulty in dollars.  Measure it in joules or BTUs.  If you drill down 8 miles to find some oil, that requires a lot more effort than drilling down 1000 feet.  Then if you fuel the engines on an oil rig that has to move through water to the site, that's even more "effort" or BTUs.  This, at the core of everything, is why the world is unravelling.  The energy in to energy out ratio to obtain civilization's lifeblood is in terminal rise.  We won't survive it.

3) Any time you see an article that says Peak oil says the price will do this or that or reserves will fall or things of that sort, ignore the entire article.  Peak Oil has a very specific and precise definition.  It says oil output from the ground rises, peaks, and declines with time.  It doesn't say anything else.  It says that and only that.  Redefining it to debunk it is what you generally see in articles, and you see it above in Goldman's layout, which is worthless.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 23:27 | 2826872 samsara
samsara's picture

Standing Clapping...  Bravo

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 04:08 | 2827105 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Since I hate math perhaps you can answer this simple question- pumping oil through how many miles of horizontal oil pipeline would require the same amount energy as pumping oil up 8 miles of veritical pipe?  And how many miles of pipe does the average "oil btu" travel through before being consumed by an American?

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 09:26 | 2827544 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Most oil is not pumped, it flows to the surface under its own pressure....

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 13:25 | 2828568 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Until depletion becomes more than just an accounting issue.  But deeper wells, in and of themselves, don't belong in a discussion of btu math, but neither does the daily diesel consumption of a drilling rig when there are fleet carier deployments and ULCVs of the latest iCrap running between Shanghai and Longbeach. 

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 21:41 | 2826637 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

The alternative energy industry should be loving high oil prices. Alternative energy will not be seriously sought after by the average Joe until its cost competative oil.... even then he won't be ablo to afford it.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 21:52 | 2826656 CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

Wrong, Doc.  Unless you define cost properly.  The proper definition of cost is in BTUs.

Find me alternative energy that has 5.6 million BTUs in a 42 gallon barrel of liquid fuel, and you have successfully found an alternative.

Find instead solar panels that put out 100 watts in a square meter of surface area and you've found 1/7th of a horsepower.  It took you a square meter to get 1/7th of a horsepower.  

The top of a Camry is about 10 square meters.  Cover it and you got 1 horsepower, after various losses.  That's 0.01 what it has now with a 110 Hp engine running on a tank of gasoline.

BTW get rid of all losses and achieve 100% solar conversion energy with your solar panels and you get 13 Horsepower, which is less than my lawnmower.


Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:07 | 2826691 spinone
spinone's picture

Exactly.  A gallon of gas does the equivalent of one person's hard labor for a month.  Don't believe me?  Put a gallon of gas in your car, drive it 20 miles or so until it runs out, and then push it back.

Even at the equivalent of $200 a gallon, you'll still be buying gas.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:39 | 2826770 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

At $200/gal, I would bet you won't be buying as much gas.  I know I won't.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:11 | 2826698 The Grip
The Grip's picture

CIO knows the score like very few. Hedge accordingly.  

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:12 | 2826702 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

How about you get rid of most of the cars and trucks and use electric trains?  You can generate electricity with thorium.  This is just an example.  There's more possibilities.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:16 | 2826710 spinone
spinone's picture

What do you build the train tracks with?  What do you dig the Thorium out of the ground with? Diesel powered earth movers.

What do the workers get to work on?  Driving gas powered cars on roads paved with asphalt.

Where does the capital financing for the new power plants and electric trains and rail lines come from, when the economy is crashing due to peak oil?

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:26 | 2826734 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

All the gas stations that I go to have plenty of fuel.  They could go there to fuel up.

The gold miners don't seem to be having any difficulty getting fuel to dig gold.  Why would the thorium miners?  The French, and the Chinese too, are laying lots of new electrified tracks.  Why can't Americans"  Do the French and the Chinese get some kind of preference?  If so, maybe we need to send the Army over there.

Capital financing did you say?  Talk to Ben.  He can make some that the workers and the oil companies happily accept.

If there really was peak oil, why are there so many gas guzzlers on the road and during a depression too?   I smell bullshit.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:51 | 2826792 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Remind me, how many homes are using electricity from thorium reactors again?

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 23:07 | 2826829 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

How many people were fueling their wagons with diesel 150 years ago?

Just because something is not being currently done does not mean it's either impossible or uneconomical to do so.  If you've been awake for the last couple years while you were posting here, you may have read some of the reasons that the nuclear industry uses uranium based reactors rather than thorium ones.  In case you've forgotten or somehow otherwise don't know, it's because the military "needed" the plutonium byproduct of uranium reactors so they could kill people.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 03:46 | 2827090 Crash N. Burn
Crash N. Burn's picture

How many people were fueling their wagons with diesel 150 years ago?


Do you realize that in our 150 years of burning oil we burned half of it in the last 22 years? 

Oil prices, 0% growth and the environment



Tue, 09/25/2012 - 07:15 | 2827211 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture


Tue, 09/25/2012 - 09:20 | 2827446 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Pretty lame counter argument...

In the last 22 years we have burned roughly 550 billion barrels of the stuff, the most optimistic assessment of the orginal endowment of recoverable conventional crude is about 2 trillion barrels...

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 23:24 | 2826865 samsara
samsara's picture

I smell bullshit.


I do too.  Stop standing near me.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 07:29 | 2827234 andrewp111
andrewp111's picture

There is plenty of thorium. There are beaches in India that are almost pure thorium oxide. But as far as I know, no one has yet made a working thorium commercial power reactor.

Wed, 09/26/2012 - 00:03 | 2830872 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

The uranium nuclear power (and weapons) industry is very well entrenched.  They have lots of money and they don't want competitors nor do they want to learn new technologies.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 01:08 | 2827002 kedi
kedi's picture

You can turn out thousands of solar panels a day in a factory. Takes millions of years for a barrel of oil or cubic foot of natural gas. Every day the sun makes more energy the instant it hits the panel. Solar power is instant and will take several billion years to run out. Taken over the full term of the creation of fossil fuels, the solar wins, and continues to win. After all, fossil fuels are just solar energy that was processed over a very long time. Solar panels, wind turbines and even dams all make energy from the sun much faster and cleaner than fossil.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 07:15 | 2827212 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

Good luck finding enough silver for all of those panels.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 07:27 | 2827230 andrewp111
andrewp111's picture

The real problem with solar is a storage problem. You can cover roofs, decks, and parking lots with solar panels. But you still have to charge up the car's battery, which stores much less than a tank of gasoline.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 13:29 | 2828589 Matt
Matt's picture

Without a replacement for oil at the same energy density, we will have lower energy lifestyles. How is that a bad thing? Why do we "need" to travel 400 miles on one tank? why do we need to move a ton of steel and plastic? Too much inside-the-box thinking from the doomers.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 21:56 | 2826650 kevinearick
kevinearick's picture

Scale economies crash on demographic ponzi inversion, whether they are oil based or anything else, because the momentum of human behavior cannot be altered in real time, and all the false assumption of capital money come crashing down, leaving the robots with no discernable input from the empire, because the rats are all jumping overboard.

GS is cutting off its own head as one should expect.

like chinascam, wellsfargoscam will not work either.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:31 | 2826667 earleflorida
earleflorida's picture

"Peak Oil / Peak Everything?: The Most Important Video You'll Ever See" __ Professor Al Bartlett [8 part series @ 9:15min each]

Note: Video segment #3 is all about Oil/ Energy (coal & nat gas, etc.,)... definitely worth a look


thankyou tyler

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 21:58 | 2826672 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

The first massive layoffs in China are here

[Editor’s Note: Nanfang Weekend reported that, due to the reduction in the rate of growth of China’s economy, Chinese companies have started their first round of massive layoffs. These companies range from the global ones to Chinese brand names and from state-owned enterprises to local small businesses. Although the layoffs are taking place quietly in many places, they are widespread and their impact has been devastating. The following is a translation of an excerpt from the article.] [1] With the exception of 2008 when the financial tsunami affected China’s economy, China’s economy has grown without a hitch for the past ten years. Today, however, it is different. “Layoffs,” which have seldom happened in China, are starting to show up here and there.

Those industries on which the macro-economy have the most profound influence and the companies that are at the forefront of the economy have been the first victims of the wave of layoffs.

On August 14, 2012, Motorola announced a 20% reduction (about 4,000 people) in its global workforce and a plan to close one third of its 94 offices around the world. Earlier, the world’s number one cell phone manufacturer, Nokia, announced that it would lay off 10,000 employees globally, which is the largest layoff in Nokia’s history. In some divisions in China, one-third of their employees have been let go.

Also earlier, Heilongjiang Longmay Mining Holding Group, Co., Ltd, the largest coal company in the North-east area of China, initiated a plan to lay off a total of 12,000 people, while the second largest coal company in China is delaying its layoffs by initiating incremental pay cuts. 

There is a long list of large companies that are laying people off. However, the list of small companies that have the same problem is much longer. Although layoffs are not news in the U.S. and in European countries, this is the first time that massive layoffs have occurred in China.


Awwwwwwwwww yeah.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:12 | 2826703 spinone
spinone's picture

Because of their one child policy, China has a large portion of unmarried young males.  What will they do with all those out of work young men who will never find wives?

Send them to Japan with SKS's?

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:32 | 2826753 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Send them to NKorea and then South Korea.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 07:22 | 2827220 andrewp111
andrewp111's picture

China can solve its excess male problem with a little civil war. When the Muslim provinces revolt, the Han Chinese PLA can go in with a huge force, take away all the Muslim males (children included) for burial in deep trenches in the desert, give the Muslim females a little time to mourn, and then take those women for their brides and concubines.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:17 | 2826712 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

After The Big Dieoff, courtesy of the PTB, when 99% of Earth's population is snuffed out from some war, virus, malnutrition or some such, how much fuel will be needed then?

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 23:08 | 2826831 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Be afraid!  Be very afraid!!

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 01:07 | 2827000 Money Squid
Money Squid's picture

after the die off you will be dead too, so no neead to worry about fuel consumption. But, hey if you are connected to the 0.00000001% give me a holla bro !

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:34 | 2826716 Zer0head
Zer0head's picture


Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:22 | 2826721 Ignorance is bliss
Ignorance is bliss's picture

The ink jets are on, expect prices of oil to rise regardless of peak oil. I already see more people riding bikes, riding mopeds, and taking the bus. The poor can no longer consume gas. The real question is who are part of this new class of recently minted poor? Must avoid mirror...must avoid mirror...must..catch the bus.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:35 | 2826760 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

The busses in my area are mostly empty most of the time.  10mpg pickup trucks and SUVs with lift kits are very popular too.  The answer to the immediate problem of fuel use, if it really is a problem, is doubling the cost of fuel to discourage these gas guzzlers.   Use the increase to eliminate the personal income tax.   Traffic congestion should also improve.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 07:19 | 2827215 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

Have fun with your lack of economy then you statist dipshit. You've been sold a package of goods and bought into it completely. There are no supply issues in Oil.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 09:00 | 2827453 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You really are a blow hard with nothng substantive to add....I was hoping otherwise..

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:10 | 2827924 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

 Nid sty is half right: as long as USD hegemony prevails over oil producing nations ~9 mbd (US daily consumption) will be an easy target to meet for quite some time.

The irony of the comment is that the alleged 'anti statist' fails to mention that this 'glut' in supply for the US will only remain in place while the producing nations are looking down the barrels of the US weaponry pointed at all of them.

"He's the one, who likes all our pretty songs and he likes to sing along and he likes to shoot his gun but he don't know what it means, don't know what it means..."

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 22:59 | 2830807 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Me?  Statist?  You must have me confused with someone else or you have a reading comprehension problem.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:50 | 2826761 Payable on Death
Payable on Death's picture

Look, I love my ZH--more than most. I certainly believe our financial system is irretrieviably *ucked. Some of the investments flowing from my belief can be accused of being early. For example, I have been short JBGs since early 2012.

But that ain't nuttin' compared to the peak oil nut jobs. This crap has been going on for decades, centuries if you associate it with other resource doomers (Th. Malthus, circa 1800).

If you are going to spend the time to watch the video, do yourself a favor and read pages 42 and 43 of this report: We will have produced less than half the planet's oil by 2040.

I've seen the report presented live at an industry conference. The best proof of its veracity is that XOM is investing in a manner consistent with the report's conclusions.

The video doesn't really claim that oil has peaked, just that it's becoming more expensive to retrieve. How can any self-respecting ZH'er not see the fiat flaw in that logic? How can an industry PR campaign stop peak oil? Either we run out or we don't.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:51 | 2826795 Taint Boil
Taint Boil's picture



Look – this argument is getting old. It is NOT about running out of oil it is all about EROEI. If it takes one barrel of oil to get one barrel out (not now) it does not “pay”. If it costs $1,000,000 a barrel then you spend $1,000,000 to get it out of the ground ……. There are trillions of barrels down “there” go ahead and go get it … better fire up some aircraft carriers – you’re going to need them.

*no I didn't read the pages 42 / 43 - not yet

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 23:22 | 2826860 samsara
samsara's picture

People don;t understand it now doesn't matter how much is in the ground,  and EROEI.

It doesn't matter if I have a Million in the bank if I can draw out only $1000 a month.  (Ask an Argentinian about that).


EROEI and Flow Rate and Export Land Model are the 3 critical variables.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 23:02 | 2826821 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Alex Jones says that Big Oil is pushing the Peak Oil meme.  So you are saying he is wrong and Big Oil says there is plenty of oil?


Tue, 09/25/2012 - 09:01 | 2827456 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Alex Jones in the double bluff regime of conspiracy theory...

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 23:18 | 2826853 samsara
samsara's picture

"The video doesn't really claim that oil has peaked..."


It Peaked,  Past Tense.   It's a matter of public record.   

Look at the graphs.  Name a year that the daily average oil production was higher than it was in 2006-2008.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 07:23 | 2827221 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

Yes, because forbid they ever turn the pumps down, you know something OPEC said they were doing in response to Iraq... FFS it's like you guy are half retarded and remember nothing.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 08:52 | 2827423 Payable on Death
Payable on Death's picture

Production is down because demand is down. The economy has been having a hard time since 2006-08.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 09:22 | 2827530 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Could you explain to us then the rate of change of Chindian imports?

Maybe compare and contrast those to the net decline in American demand over the same period...

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:33 | 2827761 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Wait, so you're saying that there exist on this planet other places than the state of Texas? And that the demand for resources created by these otherwise worthless non-Texes in some way matters? Y'all bite your tongue now sir!

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:48 | 2826785 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

Good news about gasoline hitting $15/gallon.  Those fat broads who zoom by in their 8 mpg SUVs while giving you the finger will be on foot and thin and good looking.


Mon, 09/24/2012 - 23:16 | 2826850 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Good looking may be a stretch.

In reality, most of their trips are not really necessary, at least by my standards -- maybe not by theirs.  They could do their nails done at home instead of driving across town and burning a few gallons of gas, for example.  They could brew their own coffee, instead of going to Starbucks drive-thru.  Same with dinner instead of McD's drive-thru.

And they could drive much smaller cars.  A used Honda Civic will get 40 mpg or so, a far cry from 8 mpg.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:51 | 2826793 steve from virginia
steve from virginia's picture



... the industry has opened up two new credible sources of future supply: the ultra-deepwater and the “oil shales”.


Credible only to the credulous.


Today's world was built around crude oil in near-surface deposits that gushed out of dry land or inshore ... conveniently near refiners and transport. Whatever crude is in ultra-deepwater and the oil shales is a lot less than what is being burned up for nothing ... from Saudi Arabia.


We believe that these new sources of oil will be comparable in scale to the opening up of the North Sea and Mexico in the 1970s 


Not much, in other words. Meanwhile, demand rockets as anyone looking at a television instantly wants a new car. As can be seen in Syria, Libya and elsewhere, folks there are ready to kill/die to get theirs.


The reason for the current crisis is the real cost of fuel at the moment -- the cost relative to what burning the fuel returns -- is unaffordable. Because fuel burning returns zero, the cost of fuel must be added to the cost of credit required to subsidize both the fuel AND the consumption. It's all too expensive ... it's also game over.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 22:58 | 2826812 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Don't worry!  Alien lizard jews handed us cold fusion when they gave us computer technology and they will let us use it when we vote Romney for POTUS.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:19 | 2827785 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Was that a 'spoiler'? 6 seem to think so. The MSM is making it sound like that is what it will take?

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 23:20 | 2826857 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Yet another pointless peak oil thread on ZH.  How can oil be running out now when it ran out in the 1970s? 

Have fun analyzing those official figures.  I'm sure those numbers are a true and complete picture of the situation.  After all it's science, right?  No one has a motive for skewing those figures.  And I'm sure the official figures from ten years ago included the current natural gas boom and improvements to solar energy.

Be sure to place your bets on peak oil, but first check out what happened to oil investors in TX in the early 1980s.  I wouldn't want this new generation of peak oilers to go BK.

Mon, 09/24/2012 - 23:28 | 2826875 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

US oil production peaked in the 70's.  World production flat lined last decade.

Just the facts, Jack.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 00:01 | 2826931 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

If there really was peak oil, why are there so many gas guzzlers on the road?

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 00:13 | 2826950 RSBriggs
RSBriggs's picture

Rare earths are running out.  Why are there so damn many speakers (which use rare earth magnets) around?

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 00:22 | 2826961 earleflorida
earleflorida's picture

china controls rare earth elements [~90% of world market]... japan just ended production of electric cars. why? china said: we own the market... we hold all the cards, and the beating goes on?

time to smoke the bong 

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 00:16 | 2826954 tickhound
tickhound's picture

The answer lay buried on Easter Island. 

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 00:21 | 2826959 Money Squid
Money Squid's picture

Easy, there is always a peak...that can be extended for a short time, but the result of the extension is a steeper faster decline. Its a very basic concept...there is a physical limit to the maximum amount of oil that can be produced. If the price climbs higher, fields, areas, zones that were not economical before may be exploited. Rest assured oil companies pump the oil out as fast as they can. The oil companies do not give a shit about future production, they want, they need, a full return and profit on their investment as soon as they can get it, even if it means damaging the reservoir and the environment.

It used to be a simple shallow well on land produced oil. It shot out of the ground. Then had to be pumped out. There is a shit load of water down there there and the wells water out fast. Most of the "oil" pumped out of a field is mostly water. The oil skimmed off and the water injected back. Now, oil companies drill in thousands of feet of water looking for oil deeeeep under the ocean. If oil was so plentiful, they would just open the spigot on their wells next to their mansons.

Standard Oil drilled the shit out of Indonesia back in 1890s. Yep, the US oil companies were drilling around the world back then, looking for more oil. Look at the number of wells drilled in US fields. You will be stunned at the number of wells. No, not the ones you can see. The millions that were drilled and left open, some abandoned that you no longer see. With improving technology oil companies can go back and redrill/rework fields and wells and I assure you they are drilling new wells, redrilling and redrilling existing wells 24/7 chasing every fucking drop of oil. If there was so much oil, would they not work 8-5? You may not feel the crunch today, you may not understand why things around you are changing, but it is related to the physical limit of humans to keep producing an ever increasing amount.

Exponential growth bitchez!

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 00:36 | 2826973 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

If oil was so hard to get why isn't it more expensive?    It's clearly too cheap if so many people are able to support their gas guzzlers.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 01:02 | 2826992 Money Squid
Money Squid's picture

Oil was so cheap it was pennies per barrle. Now its about $100 per barrel. What's that an increase of a few percent or so? The oil companies are the CIA, DOD, Wall Street. There is no business bigger or more important than big oil. If oil consumption is running too high just increase the price enought until people squeel in pain and start cutting back. That will buy you some extra time to take out a few oil producing countries, just in case you want to deny the next biggest economy easy access. If you ony knew the amount of money and effort spent to chase down every drop of oil thousands of feet below ground you would immediately understand that it is not that plentiful, but becoming scarce and the price will rise. When the price get too high, the consumer has to cut back, which results in a slight "glut", then the price falls and people start consuming again and the price starts to rise. This will create a bumpy  plateau of price increases and decreases. So, not its not a sharp peak with a cliff on one side. The decline may be put off again and again for shorter and shorter periods of time, but that only translates into a steeper decline afterwards. Be greatful, you are witnessing the beginning of a great change upon the world. Get your popcorn.


Tue, 09/25/2012 - 06:14 | 2827180 Redhotfill
Redhotfill's picture

Abiotic Oil.....  if its not rare you wont pay top dollar for it.....  gotta keep up the idea its rare just like diamonds.......

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 09:04 | 2827463 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You don;t actually believe that shit do you?

Would you like to discuss Isotope ratios and biological markers??? It does require critical thinking and you may not be up to it...

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 10:10 | 2827680 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Would you like to show us the chemical process that has been proven in the laboratory to convert rotten vegetation and dead dinosaurs into petroleum?

BTW, it has been shown in the lab that it is possible to make oil from calcium carbonate, heat and pressure.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 10:21 | 2827718 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture


Maybe you should read up on bio-fuels from algae for a start, and toss in a little TDP....

Care to explain why the carbon isotope ratios in petroleum match organic material and not crustal minerals??

PS You forgot to add water.....

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 22:53 | 2830795 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Carbon isotope ratios vary depending on the depth of the resevoir.

"Sir Robert Robinson, who investigated the chemistry of natural petroleum in some detail, noted that the deeper one goes, the fewer are the signs of anything biological in the oil. This is clearly a case in point, but there are several others."

"The presence of non-racemic oil has in the past been taken to prove a biological origin of the oil. Now when one sees to high accuracy the absence of such effects at deeper levels, the argument is reversed. The origin of oil must be strictly racemic, and it is only contamination by certain types of microbes, that can live only at the shallower and cooler levels, that has made the oil non-racemic.

It should be noted that different sources of natural petroleum all show a preference for one or other chirality at shallower levels, but in detail the sign and magnitude of effects are different. One has to presume that this represents differences in the microbial activity.

Carbon Isotope Ratio Depending on Depth

Similar indications concerning microbial life in oil are given by the distribution of the ratio of the two stable isotopes of carbon, carbon-12 and Carbon-13, dependent on the depth from which the oil was obtained, as shown in Figure 2."


P.S. Fuck you.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 09:23 | 2827533 Amagnonx
Amagnonx's picture

I'm reasonably convinced that abiotic oil exists - after all, most of the other planets are swimming in hydrocarbon oceans - however, we just aren't finding enough oil when we drill as we did 50yrs ago - its deeper, poor quality or in difficult locations - all these factors make it more expensive.


I think there is probably plenty of oil - but our civiliztion is built on cheap oil - thats a crucial difference.

However, it is possible to extract energy from the environment - we do live on a relatively hot world after all.  With a low temperature turbine, you can use the ambient air temperature to cause a fluid to boil, exactly like we do with a steam turbine - just at lower temperatures - and extract energy from it as it expands into a gas.  There are actually plenty of alternatives - but they will not be (legally) available until the people at the top control everything to their satisfaction - and independent people generating their own power doesn't suit them one bit.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 10:50 | 2827817 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

+1 Especially for that last paragraph.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 07:35 | 2827239 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

The problem you see is that none of you really seem to understand economics, because if any of that were true, it would be priced in and the price of oil wouldn't be tracking Inflation, it would be tracking the Supply/Demand curve directly. The price would be rising on it's own with the need for endless QE to inflate it.


Forgive me for pointing how moronic you people are for falling for this bullshit though. It's not like it's expected this day and age for anyone to actually think for themselves.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 12:14 | 2828016 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Problem nidsty: I notice you keep neglecting to factor in how the supply/demand curve is, for now, dominated by the the demands issued at the business end of the hellfire missle supply. Statists depend on it.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 00:11 | 2826949 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

No argument here.  The official dinosaur goo figures flat-lined some time ago.  And I agree with Hubbert that the official dinosaur goo figures will never increase again.  I guess I will be filling my car in 2030 with unofficial non-dinosaur based petroleum product at the exact same price in gold as today.  I can live with that.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 00:37 | 2826971 Money Squid
Money Squid's picture

I argue wold production peaked in 2005/2006. By the way, when did US housing prices start to flatten in the US? Just curious.p

pea koil  = peak economic expansion

(Chevron reported peak oil imports at its San Ramon refinery in 2005).


* DOH !  2005/2006 was the last decade.

Doh ! bitchez

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 08:28 | 2827349 sessinpo
sessinpo's picture

And we are still here and the world didn't end. Unless the fact you posted or anyone else that wants to reply to this post or even give it an arrow down isn't fact but yet supports my point.


Peak oil is another environmental control. Where are you posters that rail against the left and right? Do you not realize this is another tactic much like man made global warming to control you?

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 09:05 | 2827467 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yes, it is all a big conspiracy.... they have been planning it for 40 years ever since the commie vegans overtook Texas in 1970...

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 10:16 | 2827699 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

I happy to see you've finally admitted it.  Will you tell us more about your duties as an oil company shill to "educate" the sheep to aid in the perpetuation of The Oil Empire?

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 10:24 | 2827729 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You gotta lay off the crack pipe so early in the morning....

Educate yourself with this

Just came out today and it should provide some realistic perspective on the Bakken....

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 00:13 | 2826951 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture


An interesting take on the history of oil exploration and its very early resource scarcity marketing approach to support price and controls by Rockefeller, if you haven't seen this link already.

Col. Fletcher Prouty explains why oil is not a "fossil fuel"


Tue, 09/25/2012 - 09:32 | 2827565 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture


Another asshat who failed basic geology and biology....

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 19:36 | 2830232 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

You would be more entertaining if you weren't so sad

Wed, 09/26/2012 - 09:28 | 2831535 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

And you would be less pathetic if you didn't always greenie yourself...

Wed, 09/26/2012 - 21:44 | 2834282 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

Hey Dummy.  I’m only leaving this comment because I know you’ll come back and check it. Now that’s pathetic!

At the risk of devolving to your infantile ego I will respond to one of your yet again unsolicited ad hominem attacks. 
No. I did not green arrow my comment after I made it.  I never have and never would do something like. But you know...I think I’ll make an exception...just this once to prove my point.


2 Green arrows! So you see, just a happen-chance straggler late on the thread thinks the same about you as I do...imagine what they’re thinking about you when you’re posting real-time...

Oh...and the the red arrow on your comment is from me.  I did it right now.  Just so there’s no confusion.

You should maybe consider going  back to charm school or cash that persona out. I sure hope no one’s paying you real money for it.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 09:06 | 2827462 falak pema
falak pema's picture

You want to know why that happened?

We were in Peak cheap oil in 1979, the whole industry recognised it, and Peanut Carter shouted : Synfuels here we come.

From 1981 onwards, Ronnie decided he didn't want to live in THAT scenario as it helped USSR oil production; his bete noire, and it hurt his post-industrial deregulated model; of a FIRE service economy based on WS asset pumping.

So he told Saudi king to keep open WIDE the Saudi oil tap in 1981 in the midst of mega recession (Volcker hi-interest money purge heralding in the post industrial age) and Irak-Iran war scam, that made Saud very dependent on US big stick if things went wrong there. 

In 1980 SAudi oil started hitting 10 MBPD upwards and that collapsed the oil market for eighteen years, as North Sea/Cantarell and encon in Europe helped ease  overall supply-demand scenario, even as Saudi oil choked back in 1984, all the while the Oil majors SUDDENLY lied and said PEAK OIL fears were groundless; to help Reaganomics full install. A tune they changed SUDDENLY in 1990s when Chindia became gas guzzler! 

Its a Oligarchy scam game, oil supply and demand, as rigged as Libor; now a fool's paradise lost.

Tue, 09/25/2012 - 09:08 | 2827478 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

We had "peaked" for political reasons (i.e. shut in supply because of geopolitical issues) then, not geological.... Cantarell, the North Slope and North Sea came along in the 80's and provided a respite....

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!