This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Doug Casey Uncovers The Real Price Of Peak Oil

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Doug Casey of Casey Research,

Doug Casey Uncovers the Real Price of Peak Oil

Doug Casey, chairman of Casey Research and expert on crisis investing, is on the search for real wealth – not investments in companies that push around paper. In this exclusive interview with The Energy Report, Casey shares his pragmatic take on what's next for oil, gas, and nuclear power.


The Energy Report: There will be a Casey Research Summit on Navigating the Politicized Economy in Carlsbad, California, in September. At the last conference, Porter Stansberry caused some excitement with his argument that oil could go to $40/barrel (bbl). What's your view?

Doug Casey: We like to have a range of defensible views represented at our conferences. But personally, I don't think it's realistic to suggest oil prices will drop as low as $40/bbl.

I am of the opinion that the Hubbert peak-oil theory is correct. In the 1950s, M. King Hubbert projected that US oil production would start declining in the 1970s, and he was accurate. Then he projected that in the mid-2000s, the world's production of light, sweet crude would start declining. He was quite correct about that, too.

There will always be plenty of oil at some given price, but to produce oil – even conventional, shallow, light sweet crude – now costs close to $40/bbl in many places.

It's extremely expensive to produce oil through unconventional techniques like horizontal drilling and fracking. Producing oil from tar sands is very expensive and problematical.

Drilling 15,000 feet under the ocean is very expensive and has a lot of risk.

Drilling in politically unstable jurisdictions with sparse infrastructure is neither cheap nor fun. We're talking about production costs of at least $80/bbl in many cases.

I don't think oil is going down much from here.

Let's not, in addition, forget that it's the most political commodity in the world, and that most of it still comes from the Middle East, where tensions will remain high.

I'm neutral to bullish on oil. I'm not bearish at all.

TER: How will US natural gas impact oil prices?

DC: The thing with natural gas is that it's almost an entirely local market. Oil is very transportable, very fungible – it's a world market. Oil prices are relatively consistent – say within 20-30% worldwide. But the price of gas differs by hundreds of percent around the globe because it's not very transportable. It doesn't seem that's going to change in the near future.

The price of gas is going to stay low in the US for some time because of new technologies, namely horizontal drilling and fracking, which allow the exploitation of vast new deposits. These deposits can produce large amounts of hydrocarbons, albeit at relatively high cost. As soon as prices start to rise, however, wells that have been shut because of low prices will start producing again – and that will keep a lid on gas prices for some time to come.

TER: Do you see potential for the US to become a natural-gas exporter at some point in the future?

DC: The problem with gas is that, unlike oil, it's hard to move and inconvenient to export. There are basically two ways that you can move gas. One is via pipelines. That doesn't work very well across oceans. The second is by liquefying it and putting it in liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers and then transporting it to some place where it is re-gasified again, but that is expensive and it's actually quite dangerous because the LNG tankers are almost like floating bombs.

I'm not convinced that gas is ever going to become a truly international commodity – at least not until it's much more expensive.

The idea of the US becoming a huge gas exporter is a politically driven fantasy. The government throws ideas out if it makes them look good. We bat them back when we weigh up the realities, then it's up to the reader to decide. It's why I think our summits and the world-shaping topics we discuss are so important.

TER: Can we assume that you're not as bullish on gas as you are on oil?

DC: Yes. I'm much more bullish on oil. Oil is a much more concentrated energy than gas. Oil is needed for cars. It's needed for airplanes. It's needed for everything. Gas is mostly used for utilities and heating. Oil is both a much denser energy and a much more important form of energy.

TER: Speaking of concentrated types of energies, you have called nuclear "the safest, cheapest, and cleanest form of mass power generation," yet we still haven't seen the uranium price return. What's your view on the future of uranium?

DC: I have to be bullish simply because of reality. It really is the safest, cheapest, and cleanest form of mass power, but unfortunately it's also the object of mass political hysteria. Many misinformed but well-funded nongovernmental organizations simply hate uranium, for purely ideological reasons.

Actually, thorium would be an even better form of nuclear power than uranium. We've been using uranium primarily because you can't make nuclear bombs out of thorium, and the US was building up its nuclear arsenal from World War II on. This is how uranium came to be used for nuclear power plants instead of thorium, but that's a whole different discussion.

Of course, now the disaster at Fukushima is held up as proof that nuclear isn't viable; the Japanese and German governments are panicking and shutting down their nuclear plants as quickly as they can. But doing so is extremely foolish.

To start, Fukushima used 50-year-old technology. That plant was – like most plants in the world today – an antique, two generations behind current designs. It was also poorly located. It should never have been put right on the ocean. Other design mistakes were made. Still, even over the next decade, only a few people will die from radiation released, whereas at least 20,000 died from the earthquake and tsunami.

But the real question is: if nuclear is not going to be used for mass power generation, where is the power going to come from?

Most of the world's power is generated by coal, but coal is extremely dirty and dangerous in every way possible – in the production process, and in the residues that it leaves both on the land and in the air.

In an industrial world with seven billion people, the only energy source that makes sense is nuclear power. Sure, you can use wind and solar from time to time and in certain places. But those technologies are extremely expensive, and they absolutely can't solve the world's energy problems. Certainly not when electrical grids start going down, as they did in India last month. That's why India and China will be building scores of nuclear plants in the years to come.

TER: Doug, thanks for sharing your insights. I greatly appreciate it.

DC: Thanks for having me. I encourage your readers to attend the Navigating the Politicized Economy Summit. If you can't make it, the audio collection is a great way to benefit from the information the conference's 28 expert presenters will be sharing – and if you preorder, you can save $100. It's a great deal.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 08/29/2012 - 13:51 | 2747168 Abraxas
Abraxas's picture

Interesting but irrelevant.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 13:58 | 2747194 12ToothAssassin
12ToothAssassin's picture

You lost me well before "Still, even over the next decade, only a few people will die from radiation released, whereas at least 20,000 died from the earthquake and tsunami."



Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:11 | 2747250 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

EROEI, bitchez

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:51 | 2747338 Badabing
Badabing's picture

“Sure, you can use wind and solar from time to time and in certain places. But those technologies are extremely expensive, and they absolutely can't solve the world's energy problems.”

Oh yes they can! Once put in place solar, wind, geo-thermal, or hydro  will produce power indefinitely.

Most systems have a return on investment in under 3 years.

Even small independent solar kits like this one will run a small freezer by adding a few deep cycle batteries and an inverter. And the ROI is about a year and a half. Don’t hook up to the grid you need a transfer switch that’s costly and the power company makes a profit selling you back the power you made with the equipment you invested in!

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:58 | 2747437 DCFusor
DCFusor's picture

Been off the grid on solar myself since about '80, and now even charge my electric car off it.

It works.  It won't work for all, I've got the roof space for it - an apt dweller never will.

This BS about thorium not being able to make bomb material is bogus, and yes, I AM a nuclear physicist.  Th-232 has to be bred into U-233 via neutron capture to get something directly fissionable, just like the case of U-238 capturing neutrons to breed into Pu 239 (after a beta decay in either case).

U 233 is pretty simple to chemically separate from a breed blanket, just like Pu is in a conventional reactor - no fancy centerfuges required.

The issue is, and always has been, proliferation, else we'd be reprocessing our fuel rather than ditching it after using only about 8% due to the buildup of nasty other stuff in it.  That reduces tons of hot waste into tons of reusable fuel, and ounces of "truly nasty byproducts" - but note the ratios, ounces are a little easier to store, and their short half life of the truly nasty stuff means you don't have to store it long either.

So much BS, so little fact in any of these debates.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 16:39 | 2747816 FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

Given all the concern about the waste from spent nuke fuel, couldn't we just shoot a rocket full of the stuff into the sun?  Given what I have read and seen about our sun, a rocket full of spent fuel rods wouldn't even be noticed by the sun's own explosions which are thousands of times greater.   I know there would be an uproar about sending our garbage out into space, but wouldn't that be a cost effective way to get rid of the stuff?

Also what about the reports that the Bakken field contains more oil than the Mideast?

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 17:15 | 2747941 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

And what happens if/when one of those rockets fails. . . ?

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 19:55 | 2748324 Vlad Tepid
Vlad Tepid's picture

You'd need a space elevator or a rail gun cargo system before that would be safe...thems is a long ways off at our current state of deevolution.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 20:31 | 2748374 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

"The problem with gas is that, unlike oil, it's hard to move and inconvenient to export."

Not a problem at all.  This keeps the manipulation down.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 18:26 | 2748124 Freddie
Freddie's picture

Where did you get your solar panels? 

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 23:18 | 2748610 monad
monad's picture

I don't anyone who said you couldn't. Its my understanding that a small amoutn of pu239 is the only final product of the thorium process, and that another major advantage is that thorium reactors operate at low pressures = much safer. The plutonium can be used. The only question I have is how well reactor materials hold up to molten thorium salts. It would be very handy to figure out to dispose of spent fuel in a breeder reactor...

Thu, 08/30/2012 - 09:51 | 2749283 Dr. Kenneth Noi...
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater's picture

It is conceivable that a nation or revolutionary group might expel IAEA observers, stop a liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) and attempt to remove U-233. Skilled engineers would need to modify the radioactive reactor’s fluorination equipment to separate uranium from the fuel salt. U-233 produced in a LFTR is a poor choice for nuclear weapons because the neutrons that produce U-233 also produce 0.13 percent contaminating U-232, whose decay products emit 2.6 mega-electron volt, penetrating gamma radiation. That would be hazardous to weapons builders and obvious to detection monitors.

Interesting, perhaps terrorist bomb builders would be happy to sacrifice themselves to Allah in the process of building a holy bomb, but given LFTR's other features they're still the best bet for base load power even if they require the same level of security as a uranium-powered station.


I also think reprocessing has politically been a greenie issue in the US rather than a nonproliferation issue.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:27 | 2747542 Nels
Nels's picture


Oh yes they can! Once put in place solar, wind, geo-thermal, or hydro  will produce power indefinitely.

The question is, and always is, at what cost? 

If you are out in the boonies, and only need a small freezer, a solar panel might be a lot cheaper than building and supporting 20 miles of distribution line.  But it isn't going to power the factory needed to build the solar panel, or the factory needed to build the truck used by FedEx to bring that panel to you.  Those factories need large, steady power flows, and the batteries haven't been built yet that can do that job on a cloudy week.

Your solar panels are cheap because they were built with cheap coal and nuke power, and delivered with cheap oil.  Or, at least these power sources are cheap compared to what power will cost with only solar, wind and .....

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 16:22 | 2747777 Badabing
Thu, 08/30/2012 - 02:34 | 2748833 o2sd
o2sd's picture

Oh yes they can! Once put in place solar, wind, geo-thermal, or hydro  will produce power indefinitely.

Sorry, but that is just not true. The mean time to failure for the technologies you mention are (roughly)

PV : 20 years.

Wind: HAWT 5 years, VAWT 15 years

Geo-Thermal: Unknown, but probably the same as coal fired power station. It's a steam turbine after all. Also has a running cost.

Hydro: The cement in most dams will probably calcify and lose compression strength in ~100 years. No hydro dam has ever paid back the cost of capital.

One energy source that can be harvested indefinitely is wood from managed forests. There is a running cost, but it is minimal.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:21 | 2747520 Kayman
Kayman's picture

Unless EROEI is measured in dollars, not BTU's, it is a meaninless measurement.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 16:24 | 2747782 Matt
Matt's picture

you mean how many $1 bills worth of energy you get back compared to how many you spend?

Measuring EROI in dollars doesn't make any sense.

EROI: Energy Return on Investment

ROI: Return On Investment

two different, useful metrics that should both be taken into consideration. If something provides profitable energy from a dollar stand-point, but produces less energy than it consumes, then likely there are subsidies, taxes and regulations distorting the dollar price.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 16:45 | 2747836 harposox
harposox's picture

Wish I could junk you a second time for this statement. Probably a negative EROEI in it, though. Oh well.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:16 | 2747277 Rasna
Rasna's picture

It really is the safest, cheapest, and cleanest form of mass power, but unfortunately it's also the object of mass political hysteria.

I can see where hysteria would set in when one is awwaked in the middle of the night by the green glow of your spouse lying beside you in bed.  Just ask the folks in Fukishima.  Or better yet the folks on the West Coast exposed to the steam clouds from reactor number 3.

Casey is an idiot on nuclear power.  I'm guessing that he won't have a problem accepting any of the 100,000 year spent fuel casks into the landfill near his house. 

Unfortunately, we won't see natural gas making any inroads toward making us energy independent anytime soon even though capacity is measured in the TRILLIONS of cubic feet.  That's why the price of NG is so low,  That coupled with flat demand.


Big oil and their money is a bitch.  Especially when the spend it to rent congressmen and women.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:00 | 2747444 jimod
jimod's picture

Thorium,  LFTR, fascinating technology, which is not uranium and plutonium.

Passively shuts down in the abscence of coolant.  Chemically reprocesses to continually regenerate new fuel.

Fascinating stuff,  discriminate between thorium and fast breeder reactors in order to make intelligent comments.


Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:09 | 2747489 Gordon Freeman
Gordon Freeman's picture

You can put as many spent-fuel casks under my house as you want.  You just have to pay me my price.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:30 | 2747547 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

No need. It's already essentially free to just sink 'em in the coastal waters of any nation holdouts still refusing to allow a GS alumni to head their central banks.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 16:26 | 2747786 Freddie
Freddie's picture

Or better yet the folks on the West Coast exposed to the steam clouds from reactor number 3.

Hopefully those steam clouds are gently misting Nancy Pelosi's fvvkking wine vineyards in Nor Cal.  2012 will be a good year for her label.  Her merlot as a sparkling hint of cesium and MOX.  

Doug Casey got rich because his old man developed a lot of Beltway real estate due to the explosion of the size of DC Govt post WW2. 



Wed, 08/29/2012 - 21:41 | 2748509 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"Casey is an idiot on nuclear power. I'm guessing that he won't have a problem accepting any of the 100,000 year spent fuel casks into the landfill near his house."

A typical uninformed and hysteric anti-nuclear talking point.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 16:42 | 2747824 harposox
harposox's picture

That sentence stopped me in my tracks as well, 12Tooth. The author's either an unrepentant industry schill, or a drooling imbecile.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:00 | 2747202 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture



they put man on moon and robots on mars but can't figure out a technology to beat oil?

that's because elites want it that way.


do you know why elites hate green energy?


they can't control it.



Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:08 | 2747235 Michael
Michael's picture

The Earth makes its own unlimited supply of a-biotic oil, more than we can ever use up in a 1,000 years.

Did you see that geyser of oil coming from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico ocean a few years ago?


The Ron Paul Wrecking Crew showed up at the Republican Nation Clusterfuck Convention yesterday like a bull in a china shop and made history on that date in the year of our creator, August 28th, 2012.

We've Done so much More Damage to the Establishment this Time than Last Time.

You should be proud of yourselves!

Don't you Think?


Thanks for the nice comments for me yesterday on that other thread.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:15 | 2747274 Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

That's pretty funny coming from you Mr Global Warming

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:17 | 2747285 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Always glad to provide a laugh...

Would you like to discuss the recent Arctic Ice news and the long term implications on Hadley cells and the position of the Jet Stream?

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:22 | 2747311 Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

No, like most here, I wouldn't want to discuss anything with you concerning weather patterns.

You wanna talk gold? 

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:29 | 2747340 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Gold will get slammed by Bennie this friday, BTFD....


As for discussing climate, yes, that is very wise of you.... Never bring a knife to a gun fight...

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:32 | 2747558 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

bitch slap +1

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:30 | 2747342 UGrev
UGrev's picture

Sure, as soon as you start talking about Solar Cycles and the unusually high activity of the sun. I would also love to talk about the GROWING Fjords when you're ready. For that matter, I wouldn't mind a talk about the conservation of energy and things like source to sink.. 

or ..fuckit.. 


dE/dt = mdot*j(in) - mdot*j(out) + Qdot + Wdot(external)

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:34 | 2747354 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Oh goodie....

A cherry picker and a bullshitter rolled into one...

So what has been the net solar forcing over the past 150 years in W/m^2?

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:39 | 2747367 Bay of Pigs
Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:16 | 2747504 UGrev
UGrev's picture

What.. did you pull that question out of the lefty handbook on how to defend bullshit science?

The sun produces 12.2 TRILLION watt-hours per square mile each year and you fucking morons think that energy goes into some fucking void or some shit.. 

We are gaining more energy than we are losing. 

Your COGNITIVE DISSONANCE..address it.  You eco tards had your fucking pants pulled down and your ass holes fisted with a garden hose on the coldest day of the year with all the emails that came out admitting that the science was being fudged to fit the narrative after the paranoia was proven to be bullshit. 

NONE OF THIS IS MAN MADE!!! we are so trivial compared to the amounts of energy produced by objects that can hold 1600 saturn sized objects in it. 

You bore me. I have software to write.. 

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:23 | 2747529 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

My what a feeble comeback...

I suggest you get up to speed here

Pay close attention to the solar flux over the past 40 years, i.e. figure 2....

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:50 | 2747650 UGrev
UGrev's picture

What part of EMAILS WERE HACKED AND BULLSHIT SCIENCE WAS EXPOSED did you mis-read? I can review it for you again if you like..



now stfu and go play in your sandbox..  

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 16:11 | 2747732 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

My what an angry fool...

So first, your arguement is that the Sun is so big and hot that it has to be that...

Now you tell me it must be  cosmic rays...Are you are implying that clouds have changed because cosmic rays have changed...

If you actually read the blurb, you would have noted this

The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," he says. 

Well here is the data on cosmic rays for the past 50 years or so...

I pinched the following from the above SKS link:

Numerous studies have investigated the effectiveness of GCRs in cloud formation.  Kazil et al. (2006) found:


"the variation of ionization by galactic cosmic rays over the decadal solar cycle does not entail a response...that would explain observed variations in global cloud cover"


Sloan and Wolfendale (2008) found:

"we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11-year cycle changes in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays."

Kristjansson et al. (2008) found:

"no statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and GCR"

Calogovic et al. (2010) found:

"no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude."

Kulmala et al. (2010) also found

"galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric aerosol formation events, and so for the connected aerosol-climate effects as well."

Low-Level Cloud Cover

Unfortunately observational low-level cloud cover data is somewhat lacking and even yields contradictory results.  Norris et al. (2007) found

"Global mean time series of surface- and satellite-observed low-level and total cloud cover exhibit very large discrepancies, however, implying that artifacts exist in one or both data sets....The surface-observed low-level cloud cover time series averaged over the global ocean appears suspicious because it reports a very large 5%-sky-cover increase between 1952 and 1997. Unless low-level cloud albedo substantially decreased during this time period, the reduced solar absorption caused by the reported enhancement of cloud cover would have resulted in cooling of the climate system that is inconsistent with the observed temperature record."

So the jury is still out regarding whether or not there's a long-term trend in low-level cloud cover.


And you still have to explain why the Stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming....

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 18:42 | 2748165 Acet
Acet's picture

Thanks. It's a shame that the skeptical crowd is reduced to "We found out some change to the raw data that we can't understand so it must ALL be a conspiracy to deceive us" since most lack the training to understand it.

The funny bit are the claims that there is this huge conspiracy by scientists to make false claims about Global Warming. The "funny" in it is that one can dismiss it simply using "follow the money" logic:

  • On one side there are several multi-billion dollar industries which would go bankrupt if people reduced fossil-fuel consumption to tiny levels
  • On the other side there are a bunch of academy nerds who have little or nothing to gain from being on one side or the other. Most care above all to preserve their good name as doing good science (i.e. their research is not exposed as bogus) and will thus try not to put out crap research (most people don't go into science for the money - for example a Physicist can make something like 4x more money as a Quant for an Investment Bank than as a Researcher)

Who has the most to loose, the multi-billion dollar corps or the scientists? Who has the most resources they can use to "sell" their side to the masses, to make shit up defending their case, to get politicians to side with them, to get the media to promote their ideas, the multi-billion dollar corps or the scientists? Who has the marketting, PR and spin know-how, the corps or the nerds (scientists)?

So what's more likelly a conspiracy of several multi-billion dollar corps who might loose everything if people believe in AGW and are thus buying "studies", airtime, politicians and deploying marketters, PR-men and spin doctors to confuse the masses or a conspiracy from a bunch of nerds (very intelligent yes, but not exactly the most socially adept people around) who will only loose if they defend the wrong side and are proven to be wrong (and in science, everybody is out to prove you wrong) and thus have little a priori natural inclination to defend one side or the other???

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 22:32 | 2748597 memyselfiu
memyselfiu's picture

Logic is a bitch....and you just bitchslapped most of these clowns. Well done.

Thu, 08/30/2012 - 11:57 | 2749693 mickeyman
mickeyman's picture

Following the money is more helpful than you might suppose. For some reason there is a lot of money available to fund research into warming, buckets of it are available for creating computer models of climate, yet there is little money and less interest in devising ways to test those models against the natural record.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 20:27 | 2748365 UGrev
UGrev's picture

So, you're trying to tell me that the glowing disc in the sky doesn't emit ANY radiation? 

Sun emits radiation

Sun blocks cosmic rays when.. lets just call it "busy" to make it easy for you to grasp

Sun doesn't block cosmic rays when not busy

Sun still transfers 12.2 TRILLION watt-hours of energy per square mile each year. You eco tards should know this because you've been miserable fucking failures at capturing it (Solyndra). 

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 20:57 | 2748426 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

With every post you make, you make a bigger fool of yourself...

Show me evidence that it is the sun...

Go ahead make my day....

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 21:48 | 2748519 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

If all else fails, continue by simply ignoring the opponents points.

Jesus H. Christ on a bicycle, you denialists...

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 21:46 | 2748518 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

Unsurprisingly, Ugrev changes the topic into the hysteria og the denialist crowd when he gets a question he can't answer (or haven't even got a clue what means).

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 17:18 | 2747949 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

LOL! Skeptical Science. Go away troll. 

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 17:44 | 2748016 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Hey, SKS has links to the *real* papers...

Go back and play with Anthony's muppets at WUWT if you can't handle the science...

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 19:50 | 2748311 UGrev
UGrev's picture

Still won't acknowlege the bullshit science that the primary scientists trying to push this agenda were proven to have hoaxed.. and we're supposed to believe your shit? lol.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 20:55 | 2748422 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Show credible evidence it was a hoax...

Surprise me...

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 21:51 | 2748523 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

Classical denialism : Attack source of info, not info itself. Make no argument. Behave like a child.

Check, check, check.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:49 | 2747647 LFMayor
LFMayor's picture

Ugrev, now don't go confusing the progs with physics n math an shit.  They have an agenda to hold up and feed to the unwary.  Someday, when these parasites crash the host at last, we'll get to rebuild with measures in place to early ID and remove them.

but first, the great die-off.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:53 | 2747663 UGrev
UGrev's picture

"Fun with numbers" was a sub-context class I had in high school where we applied real world math to everyday problems. The same class for progs was similar, only it consisted of how to make the numbers work to your favor in the same, everday problems. /end sarc

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 16:46 | 2747834 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I am glad I had "fun with numbers" a little bit beyond HS, if you catch my drift...

Tue, 08/28/2012 - 19:42 | 2745069


Wed, 08/29/2012 - 19:45 | 2748299 UGrev
UGrev's picture

I write software for a living.. you just live in a fantasy world where you think our farts and carbon foot print actually mean something to our planet. 

I learned this basic shit in HS if you catch my drift.. 

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 21:55 | 2748532 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"you just live in a fantasy world where you think our farts and carbon foot print actually mean something to our planet."

Always entertaining for an ignorant to tell others with far more knowledge of a subject in question that "they live in fantasy land".

Of course, the carbon footprint means nothing, because your whole worldview is based on an assumption of infinite resources, topped off with a dont-give-a-shit attitude to how the material goodies you think are necessary for 'modern life' arrive at where you pick them up. The trash is for the proles to deal with, right? Menial labor is beyond you.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 22:35 | 2748603 memyselfiu
memyselfiu's picture

I write software....and YOU live in a fantasy there!

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 19:03 | 2748211 Acet
Acet's picture

I suggest you and Ugrev read all about the "Black body theory". Basic physics, taught in entry-level classes at the university. Really old too, from before Einstein, so not exactly from scientists which you might accuse of being "part of the Global Warming conspiracy".

Ugrev's theory that more energy comes in than goes out is about as logic as perpetual motion machines. 6 billion years of excess energy being captured by the Earth and never released back would mean that the surface of the planet would by now be as hot as the Sun. (unless, that is, you believe that Earth is only 1000 years old, in which case you should stick to theology)

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 19:48 | 2748305 UGrev
UGrev's picture

I never said "never released back".. did I? Certainly that means some energy is still captured as the earth (ground) responds more quickly than does a large body of water. And where energy is removed from one source, it must end up in another. I.e, if it's warmer in one area, it is cooler in another given an amount of energy. 

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 22:38 | 2748609 memyselfiu
memyselfiu's picture

unless it's retained by greenhouse gases. You know sorta like putting a lid on a boiling pot of water. Your logic is so full of fucking holes you could almost call it swiss cheese.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 23:11 | 2748665 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Is water vapor a greenhouse gas?  Yes or No?

Is C02 a greenhouse gas?  Yes or No?

Does the Earths atmosphere contain C02 and WV?  Yes or No?

Given that the above are indisputable facts anyone professing any proficiency in thermodynamics would therefore conclude that the top of the atmosphere and not the earths surface is where you do the bookeeping of the the net effect of the solar flux....

Here is the 13th week of a course in "basic" Earth  Science

You should read it... and if you don't understand it, you really should simply STFU as you are clearly suffering from a classic case of D-K effect....

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:53 | 2747418 Michael
Michael's picture

I'd rather discuss the crop failures in the southern hemisphere and the historic snow in South Africa

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:04 | 2747461 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yeah.... I am sure you would given their non-relevant nature.....

Since you seem to prefer video clips, you can chew on this one

While you are at it, care to explain this?

or maybe this

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:09 | 2747487 Michael
Michael's picture

Everything about climate changing worth knowing;

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:19 | 2747512 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture


This is the guy that forgot to RTFM on this post from this very week?

It is clear that he doesn't know the difference between MASIE and IMS or how to tell the dates for which numbers apply....

I'm still waiting for his "game changing" paper that his co-author McIntyre fled from to be published in a reputable journal....

For more follies see

and the above two were from just this week...


Wed, 08/29/2012 - 19:59 | 2748334 Pinch
Pinch's picture

WUWT? The moron who runs that does not even have a college degree! Anyone following him is exemplifying the old saying of "The blind leading the blind".

More data here

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:12 | 2747264 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Abiotic oil is a joke.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:36 | 2747361 Hobbleknee
Hobbleknee's picture

So you think the dinosaurs all piled up in mass graves

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:54 | 2747421 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

No, but I am pretty sure he thinks you are an idiot for peddling out a childish strawman.....

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:35 | 2747572 LaLiLuLeLo
LaLiLuLeLo's picture

it was all algae - the same shit obama wants to grow all over northern Cali

a-biotic oil is masturbation promulgated by Jerome Corsi at WND.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 16:43 | 2747827 Matt
Matt's picture

Does the abiotic oil generate at a rate greater than 80 million barrels per day?

Does the rate of abiotic oil production increase exponentially by at least 7 percent per year?

If the answer is no to either of these questions, then it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the oil comes from dead animals or algae or heat and pressure deep in the Earth (or all of the above).

If it produces at a rate less than we consume it, we will have to use less or find alternatives (or both).

If it doesn't increase exponentially, then we cannot expand oil production at the same rate as before, and must either stop consuming more, or find alternatives (or both).

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 16:49 | 2747855 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You are being far too rational....

That doesn't go well with some of the knuckle dragging denialists that can now post here since the CAPTCHA requirement was abandoned....

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 17:34 | 2747994 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

We are knuckle draggin denialists eh? It's common for those of the uncivil mentality to use Ad-Hom through thinly veiled passive aggresive mannerisms in order to con everyone that they are correct. Most of us can see through it and call you what you are, you're a statist moron. 

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 17:49 | 2748026 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Well... anyone who parrots abiotic oil nonsense in the face of a mountain of evidence is a denier or an idiot, most likely both.... 

So, please explain the global climatic record of the past 400,000 years and where exactly we currently stand..I am all ears...

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 22:03 | 2748546 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"It's common for those of the uncivil mentality to use Ad-Hom through thinly veiled passive aggresive mannerisms"

togerther with

"Most of us can see through it and call you what you are, you're a statist moron. "


Wed, 08/29/2012 - 22:40 | 2748612 memyselfiu
memyselfiu's picture


Wed, 08/29/2012 - 21:02 | 2748429 Haole
Haole's picture

"So you think the dinosaurs all piled up in mass graves."


Apparently he, and others, do which would be really good humor if it wasn't so utterly astounding.  

Amazing that we were purportedly running-out of rotten lizards, plankton and palm trees in the 70s too but that stuff just keeps coming, with trillions and trillions of "barrels" left allegedly, almost half a century later.  My god, the power of biodegradation.   There must be an endless supply of dinosaurs and algae being produced, killed and cooked into crude thousands of feet down in the Earth's mantle.   Now that's the kind of science some ZH posters can really get their teeth into.  /sarc  "Un-fucking-believable" - Gordon Ramsay

Down votes and/or flames are gratefully interpreted as compliments so bring'em on.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 22:12 | 2748560 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"Down votes and/or flames are gratefully interpreted as compliments so bring'em on."

Yes, let nothing show your stance to be either wrong or simply obnoxious.

As for those 'trillions' in remaining oil reserves, as so many peak oil denialists out there, you just seem to ....MISS.... the price aspect. Convenient.

Good luck with getting around in 8 years when youre paying 10 $/gal, because of the last, high-sulphur laden oil must be sucked up from 2 miles below the surface of the sea with a resultant barrel cost of 150 $/barrel.

Thu, 08/30/2012 - 20:37 | 2751166 Haole
Haole's picture

What the hell does price have to do with the rotten lizard/abiotic oil discussion?   My comments had nothing to do with "peak oil" or price going forward so your response is irrelevant and meaningless as a reply.  I don't deny that demand could outstrip supply or that price will likely rise.  My issue is with bona fide morons that are and have been programmed to believe all the oil on the planet is "fossil fuel" and derived from biodegraded lizards and sea weed.   Are your interpretive skills with written words really that poor or do you just need to be right however you can?  Amazing, again.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:13 | 2747265 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

everybody's fave red-headed stepchild and zH prensent

THE Price of oil in "fiat"

how does it look in gold?

wrong question?

darn!  i'm soooo sorry!

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:46 | 2747379 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

After all, it is a Doug Casey interview:

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 16:50 | 2747860 Matt
Matt's picture

Is there a version of this chart that adds in the direct subsidies to world oil production (somewhere around $400 billion last I saw) plus the cost of security for oil production (military budgets, etc.)?

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 17:01 | 2747896 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

heh, yeah good luck finding that one.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 16:21 | 2747773 Bunga Bunga
Bunga Bunga's picture

My dear, in 1,000 years the earth will be hotter than the sun. The evil is called growth or the human inability to understand the exponential function.

Cheap energy and technology will end mankind within few hundred years. But don't worry, the planet will survive.



Wed, 08/29/2012 - 16:44 | 2747829 Freddie
Freddie's picture

ZH still has plenty of Cass Sunstein Hopey Chagey libturds.  I loathe the RINOs just as much. 

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 21:38 | 2748502 Chump
Chump's picture

Can we quit calling them RINOs yet and just call them Republicans?

Thu, 08/30/2012 - 06:38 | 2749003 Freeman-S-Stratos
Freeman-S-Stratos's picture

Personal thoughts are that it's Abiogenic... Not Abiotic.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:12 | 2747256 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

I agree with this actually. The oddity that we the taxpayer bailed out GM "and they decided to ramp up production of the biggest gas guzzlers in history" friginn pisses me off. If I were the Prez I want that CEO's dick on my plate for breakfast. Who the phuck do you clowns work for jerk-wads? This b.s. has Jack Jew's (sp?) name written all over it. "let's cut production of the Volt" hardeee Har Har! Yeah...good one guys. And let me guess "your IPO is right back if not below the offer" and "hey stupid Americans! Looks like we need another 50 billion for the privilege of..." well, you get the idea.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:30 | 2747343 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

auto industry turned around and now rolling all kinds of hybrids and electric vehicles in production within 2 YEARS!!!!?????


you damn well know capability was there......they just didn't want to do it.



= CHEVRON (Standard Oil of California)+ EXXON (Standard Oil of New Jersey) + MOBILE (Standard Oil Co. of New York)






FORD + MORGAN + ROCKEFELLER shut Tesla's attempt for wireless power which he proved with Wardenclyffe Tower back in early 1900s!

Morgan stopped financing after  realizing that there was no way to meter (tax consumption) wireless power.


we have the technology but requires government support to upgrade the infrastructure. status quo controls government and will not do it unless they can profit more from it.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:40 | 2747370 Hobbleknee
Hobbleknee's picture

Do you have an electric car, or do you just think everyone else should have one?

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:44 | 2747502 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

You wouldn't want one of these:


I know, I know, if you live more than 50 miles or so from where you work commuting would be out.

It all hinges on how you charge it; nuclear, burning Coal or natty?

OTOH, if you're handy, and live in a windy and/or sunny and/or wavey and/or actively volcanic place...

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 16:56 | 2747889 Matt
Matt's picture

"The oddity that we the taxpayer bailed out GM "and they decided to ramp up production of the biggest gas guzzlers in history" friginn pisses me off."

How dare they produce the cars that the consumers are buying! They should make more Volts that people are not buying, and the government should force people to buy them!

until / unless the price of fuel goes up or there is a shortgage, most consumers will continue to buy the large, lower efficiency vehicles that they have a preference for.

While I don't think anyone should be dictating to other people what they should be buying, I also do not believe in zero percent car loans and the military subsidy on oil prices.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:41 | 2747600 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

I don't want to pay taxes to subsize military industrial complex, exxonmobile chevron nor do I want everyone else to get sucked into this government forced fascism.


frankly, if Americans had less cars and walk more, they'd be less fat and healthcare costs would go down for people who take care of themselves and dont' use healthcare services as much.


Do you have SUV with government job or do you just think everyone should be forced to pay taxes to give you one?


Fuel Efficiency is not a choice if you take away oil subsidies paid by taxpayers.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:48 | 2747646 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Everyone else should take public transportation.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:57 | 2747429 mirac
mirac's picture

Agree-that is essentially it.  And Tesla's technology became HAARP.  There's good and evil.  Some people can't seem to grasp that.

Oil should be replaced, but it is not in short supply.  Gas is a great way to go.  Clean and efficient.  We have a NG/Electric plant in downtown London Canada.  No loss of output over long power transmission lines.  And lots of gas in and around the Great Lakes.  They drill and find oil in the lakes all the time!

Nuclear has to be dismantled.


Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:48 | 2747639 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

in china all buses and taxis run on natural gas.


but US elites hate natural gas because russia has plenty of them and will lose control.



elite dont' care what's the underlying energy as long as they can control the monopoly. that's the problem. money can be printed, wealth can be created, power over other human beings is finite.



Wed, 08/29/2012 - 16:30 | 2747795 smiler03
smiler03's picture

The US elites must hate this fact then:

"As of 2009, the U.S. had a fleet of 114,270 compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles, mostly buses; 147,030 vehicles running on liquefied pertoleum gas (LPG); and 3,176 vehicles liquefied natural gas (LNG)."

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 17:23 | 2747968 silverserfer
silverserfer's picture

in china you wouldnt be about to criticize your government on zerohedge. i dont think you can criticize central planing and refrence china for anything

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 17:25 | 2747971 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

Yeah - and in China they have empty cities too.  They are the poster children of efficient material investments.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 22:44 | 2748621 memyselfiu
memyselfiu's picture

no loss of output? since when? Even DC has a transference loss.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:37 | 2747314 Muppet of the U...
Muppet of the Universe's picture

you sir ARE EXACTLY CORRECT.  We can make ANTI-MATTER, discover the fabric of the universe that gives energy the property of mass, and quantum physics and levitation? 

& nuclear fusion is just around the corner?  Yea get fucked.  We are definitely being denied the use of quantum energies and nuclear fusion, which, IF WE WERE USING CAPITALISM, would be available to the public.


However, concerning our current predicament...  This video covers most of what you need to know concerning peak oil.


Although..  i must admit his perspective on nuclear energy is just fucking STUPID.  I mean what a butt fucking moron.  Yea lets play with the human genome even further...  radiate the fuck outta the earth's life until their dna is mutating rapidly.  LOL  Brilliantly fucking retarded.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:52 | 2747415 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

STANDARD OIL was broken up under anti-trust act...but after 100 years look at them now...



energy independence means independence from rockefeller's oil companies.

US goes to war for control of oil. US spends 50% of tax revenues on military.

Half of your taxes are to support the rockefellers!!!!


Why are all the other oil producers US enemies?? because Rockefeller want you to fight for their empire..... Iraq, Iran, Russia, Indonesia, Venezuela.....


Energy independence means you can live outside the shitty cities rockefellers own and tax.

FARM + ENERGY INDEPENDENCE = pretty much you got everything you need for survival....elites hate this.

They want you to get $100,000 student loan and then suffer some cubicle work rest of your life while paying taxes and mortgage for shitty house in crowded concrete jungle.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 17:57 | 2748048 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Could you remind us what fraction of world oil production Standard Oil controlled at the time of breakup and what fraction the reunited bits control now?

You will need to loosen the tin-foil hat first....

Thu, 08/30/2012 - 02:44 | 2748839 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

just don't forget to add in all those small no-name brands that we all like to go to b/c we think we're fucking over the Big Boys in doing so :)

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 13:55 | 2747182 HedgeAccordingly
HedgeAccordingly's picture

Gold clearly confused ahead of the HOLE.. as is Crude  -

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 18:03 | 2748064 HappyCamper
HappyCamper's picture

The United states currently has about 162.9 billion of recoverable oil reserves. That's enough to last more than 62 years at today's rate of consumption.

Each year this number get's larger because new oil plays are discoverd and oil recovery technology improves.

The US interior department estimates that the US has around 800 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil shale.  At today's rate of consumption, that would provide an additional 300 years of oil.

The United States has 486 billion short tons of recoverable coal. This is enough coal to provide 464 years of electricity at today's current rate of coal consumption.

North America holds 4.2 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas. That is enough natural gas to satisfy the United State's current natural gas demand for 575 years.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 22:17 | 2748567 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"The United states currently has about 162.9 billion of recoverable oil reserves. That's enough to last more than 62 years at today's rate of consumption."

Recoverable AT WHAT PRICE?

"The US interior department estimates that the US has around 800 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil shale. At today's rate of consumption, that would provide an additional 300 years of oil."

Again, at what price, both in recovery, and in the effects of the combustion products?

"The United States has 486 billion short tons of recoverable coal. This is enough coal to provide 464 years of electricity at today's current rate of coal consumption."

Again, at what price and consequence of use?

etc etc.

It's easy to say BAU is A-Ok and will work for hundreds of years if you only look at one factor in the equation.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 22:41 | 2748617 Tommy Gunner
Tommy Gunner's picture

Here's what you got in terms of population from cheap energy


Now imagine if we had free energy....

Thu, 08/30/2012 - 02:36 | 2748835 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

true, but recently, those societies who have had the cheapest energy see their populations on the verge of declining.

Thu, 08/30/2012 - 03:31 | 2748863 gold-is-not-dead
gold-is-not-dead's picture


Wed, 08/29/2012 - 13:47 | 2747156 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Still, even over the next decade, only a few people will die from radiation released, whereas at least 20,000 died from the earthquake and tsunami.

Most of the Fukushima casualties will be counted (or not) in 10-20 years when they manifest as cancer. But just as long as they can kick those deaths down the road...........................

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 13:50 | 2747161 pazmaker
pazmaker's picture

you beat me too it!  that is the exact same portion of this interview  i was going to quote!  thumbs up!

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:04 | 2747211 ThirdWorldDude
Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:53 | 2747419 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

Sorry to rain on your fear parade but a .197" (5cm) nodule is sub-clinical - it likely could not even be located for an aspiration biopsy without a CT. Autopsies reveal that most people have thyroid nodules, some even thyroid cancer (papillary, not medullary, of course) - which never produce a clinically observable effect. Can I blame Fukushima for my sub-clinical thyroid nodule?

You most certainly will be waiting years for any of those kids' thyroids to be operated on for nodules exceeding 1cm, many of which will be found to be benign.

Once again, don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:59 | 2747439 Dumpster Fire
Dumpster Fire's picture

I don't know wtf you just said but it sounded damned good.  +1

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:39 | 2747586 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

He said 'abnormal is normal, welcome to the new normal'. 

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:51 | 2747657 LFMayor
LFMayor's picture

He was talking about excising tumors.  Don't worry, your turn will come.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 18:57 | 2747828 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Dream on tough guy, I wouldn't go near that malignant lump nestled between your shoulders(?)... sorry: asscheeks.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 16:07 | 2747725 ThirdWorldDude
ThirdWorldDude's picture

So, what you're saying is radiation is good for your health?

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:32 | 2747350 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

And let's not even discuss the fact that he compares a "natural" disaster (earthquake and tsunami) with an entirely man made one (Fukushima) in order to downplay the man made one. And nowhere do I see any mention of the huge cost to bury this mess (it will never be cleaned up, only bulldozed over) nor the cost of dismantling all those other "design mistakes".....assuming they don't dismantle themselves first via meltdown.

I call bullshit Doug on your willfully blind and simplistic sociopathic viewpoint.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 13:53 | 2747174 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

I guess he views the world like Spock "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few"..... so what if a few people die...most of the rest of us will be okay.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:03 | 2747205 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

He is willfully ignorant of the consequences and fallout from his investments. Figuratively and literally!

Classic sociopathic behavior made socially acceptable by Tony Soprano. "It's just bidness".

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:11 | 2747242 Gringo Viejo
Gringo Viejo's picture

I've been plugged into Casey for 30 years. You'd have to stand on your mother's shoulders just to kiss his ass, sonny boy.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:22 | 2747312 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Most sociopaths are very good at what they do. Doesn't change what they are.

Now...........about you.........

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:03 | 2747210 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

He's not even going that far, but rather, ignoring the whole issue as a non-event.


Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:25 | 2747321 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I just hope my new body has a built in Geiger counter. :)

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:06 | 2747223 gaoptimize
gaoptimize's picture

CD: Those of us who see the Kurzweil Singularity on the horizon ~25 years out, don't see many cancer deaths in 20 years.  Kicking deaths down the road at some point means eliminating them.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 13:48 | 2747160 SelfGov
SelfGov's picture

Permaculture bitchez

Thu, 08/30/2012 - 02:33 | 2748832 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

damn straight

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 13:52 | 2747169 Toolshed
Toolshed's picture ya think this author has an agenda?

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:18 | 2747290 Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

So, stating REAL costs of producing something is an "agenda" now?

Look at silver miners. They are going backwards as the price of silver is below the cost of producing it.


Wed, 08/29/2012 - 13:52 | 2747171 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

To start, Fukushima used 50-year-old technology. That plant was – like most plants in the world today – an antique, two generations behind current designs. It was also poorly located. It should never have been put right on the ocean. Other design mistakes were made.

So Doug. Do we just bury all those "design mistakes" or do we let them bury us?

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 13:56 | 2747185 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

50 years from now somebody will write a similar article claiming the same thing about today's technology.  "Yeah we all know that reactor in New York blew up ,,but hey that technology was 50 years old. Nothing like what we have today".

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:06 | 2747225 OutLookingIn
OutLookingIn's picture

Its relative.

All is well and good bashing nuclear power and stopping any new developement as a viable source of energy, until that one fine crisp Autumn morn, when you turn the furnace on and are greeted with silence...

Then, lets see what the great freezing in the cold and dark, masses say?


Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:16 | 2747283 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Yup. Keep kicking that can down the road. Then one day, when the end of the road is within sight, claim it is too late to change direction so we might as well finish the string bro.

I understand the importance of keeping the fires burning now. I get it. But that argument has been used for decades to the point where it has been exposed for the farce that it is. 

When will we recognize that this is all part of the control system?

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:40 | 2747372 OutLookingIn
OutLookingIn's picture


Have never seen 'imagination' warm a home in Winter, nor light the rooms.

Point being, when push comes to shove, people will want their immediate needs met, not now, but RIGHT now!

And to hell with the consequences. If this be your definition of "can kicking" then call it for what it truly is -

human frailty. Seems that the commonality of can kicking, when it pertains to financial malfeasence, is acceptable along with its attached criminality. Although freezing in the dark is completely acceptable for those that won't be able to afford the high cost of energy, because of "kicking the can."


Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:58 | 2747430 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I disagree with the supposition that it is our "human frailty" that is the cause. Rather we are preyed upon by those who have no soul, sadly a condition we ultimately "allow" just as most conditioned slaves "allowed" the beatings of their master, despite often outnumbering the master and his overseers 5 to 1 or more.

Thousands of years of conditioning have made us ripe for the continuous harvest. What so many masters claim is human nature (go back and read what was being said about black slaves written by white masters hundreds of years ago) is in fact the result of hundreds of generations of conditioning and mind control.

This is why we must reclaim our inner sovereignty before we can every free ourselves from our own (self imposed) physical bondage. Any slave can be convinced he is happy if kept in decent enough conditions and is subjected to endless mind control conditioning.

The secret for the master is to never allow the slave to believe s/he can truly be free.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:02 | 2747452 Dumpster Fire
Dumpster Fire's picture

I feel empowered all to hell now but how the fuck will I heat my house?

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:14 | 2747272 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

"there also happened to be six of them." ooooops.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:22 | 2747305 Random_Robert
Random_Robert's picture

The answer to your question is simple:


In a free and self-sustaining market, obsolescence is punished to purgatory.  The need to update designs in the interest of safety and efficiency is driven by unrestrained price discovery and the ruthlessness of natural competition.


Anyone who recognizes the essence of natural selection is not a sociopath by default.


When confronted by the prescence of superior intellect, our only choices are:


1) Cower in fear

2) Bask in adoration and envy

3) Get busy with building your own intellect to remain competitive.


Nature weeds out the weak - living in denial of this truth does not make it any less true.


We are social beings EXCLUSIVELY because the "strength in numbers" premise guarantees us a shot at the statistical lottery that places our fellows between us, and the flying bullets, at the moment the bullets start flying...


As two Native American men team up to bring down the Bison - each of them is already strategizing on how he will deny the other the chance to cut out the beast's heart...


Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:48 | 2747364 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I strenuously object to your premise that there is (or ever was for that matter) a free and self-sustaining market.

The primary purpose of the economic/social system is to control and corral the masses for the benefit of the few. And just because relatively small portions of the world's population enjoys higher standards of living than they did 50 years ago (at least for now) in no way invalidates my stated position.

Slaves on plantations often enjoyed an increase in living standards as their master prospered off the slave labor. They were still slaves. 

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 14:56 | 2747426 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

But that is not his premise, congratulations on your new strawman.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 15:06 | 2747466 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Nice try. His whole argument is based upon his declaration that a free and self sustaining market exists. That is the premise upon which his conclusion is based (obsolescence is punished to purgatory) and the reason he starts off with that declaration. If the market is not free and self-sustaining would his conclusion still hold water. I say not.

A premise is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion. In other words: a premise is an assumption that something is true. His premise/statement is that "in a free and self-sustaining market".......after which he states his conclusion. I am saying that this premise does not exist, thus his conclusion is invalid.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 16:58 | 2747892 Random_Robert
Random_Robert's picture

The "free and self-sustaining market" I allude to is a metaphor for the forces of nature themselves...

Nature is a free market where the wares of the worthy are purchased, while the waste of the unworthy is relegated to the wastebin of history.

C'mon CD... I never thought I'd have to say this to you, but you are a few rungs too low on the ladder regarding this discussion.

"The primary purpose of the economic/social system is to control and corral the masses for the benefit of the few. "


-NO. That is only the primary purpose within "western" greco-roman philosophy based, caucasoid economic/social systems. It is NOT part of any "natural" hierarchical process- it is contrived solely out of our reverence of monarchy.

A pod of dolphins yields to none as their leader. The strong thrive, the week croak, and they do it in a well established society that requires no government...

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 19:01 | 2748203 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Sorry to disappoint you......but you and I disagree over what is "natural" behavior and what has been conditioned into us by the predators as well as our abandonment of our inner knowing and our inner sovereignty.

The conditioned cannot be conditioned without giving their consent, even if only by default, to the conditioner. We are not blameless for the mess with find ourselves within.

Thu, 08/30/2012 - 12:36 | 2749835 Random_Robert
Random_Robert's picture

The "gift" of the ability to condition others is not exclusively a predatory attribute.


Fear is a natural response-mechanism of PREY; and yet fear is the single most popular (and possibly the only valid) instrument of mass conditioning being used within human society today.


We are being "conditioned" to fear, by people who are, themselves, fearful. 


"The conditioned cannot be conditioned without giving their consent, even if only by default, to the conditioner."

 - I have no freaking idea what that means.  Are you suggesting that true and unblemished individual soveriegnty becomes impossible once we become  potty trained?

The degree of "inner sovereignty" you allude to is seeminlgy concurrent to the willfull abandonment of our self-awareness. 


Good luck with that.


I think you are preparing for a sermon on the power of choice, and I'm cool with that. Choice is AWESOME. 


In the real world, the awareness that we all have the "power" to deny each other of life should not be met with fear. It should be met with the eqauality of strength that comes from the personal awareness that "yeah, but I could kill you too, sucker"


I may have a gun, and I could/might use it to kill you, but there is the equal chance that I won't... So why do you fear me?


Cognitive Dissonance is not necessary in the real world.


Wed, 08/29/2012 - 16:49 | 2747854 Freddie
Freddie's picture

What sucks is they are essentially still selling the GE or Westinghouse old shit steam designs.   Let's try to build at least 1 new ractor with good quality non-GE/Westinghouse crap designs.

Wed, 08/29/2012 - 13:52 | 2747172 Stoploss
Stoploss's picture

Japan.. Land of the setting sun..

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