This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Energy Independence - The Big Lie

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Jim Quinn of The Burning Platform

Energy Independence: The Big Lie


 PRICE OF A BARREL OF OIL 1978 – $14.00

“We are the generation that will win the war on the energy problem and in that process, rebuild the unity and confidence of America.” - President Jimmy Carter, 1979

“We have it in our power to act right here, right now. I propose $6 billion in tax cuts and research and developments to encourage innovation, renewable energy, fuel-efficient cars, and energy-efficient homes.” - President Bill Clinton, 1998

“I think that in ten years, we can reduce our dependence so that we no longer have to import oil from the Middle East or Venezuela. I think that’s about a realistic time frame…That’s why I’ve focused on putting resources into solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal. These have been priorities of mine since I got to the Senate, and it is absolutely critical that we develop a high fuel efficient car that’s built not in Japan and not in South Korea, but built here in the United States of America.” - President Barack Obama, 2008

“We don’t have to wait on OPEC anymore. We don’t have to let them hold us hostage. America’s got the energy. Let’s have American energy independence.”- Rick Perry, CNN Debate, October 18

“We must become independent from foreign sources of oil. This will mean a combination of efforts related to conservation and efficiency measures, developing alternative sources of energy like biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear, and coal gasification, and finding more domestic sources of oil such as in ANWR or the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).”Mitt Romney  


It is too bad that our 255 million cars can’t run on hot air. American presidents have propagated the Big Lie of energy independence for the last three decades. The Democrats have lied about green energy solutions and the Republicans have lied about domestic sources saving the day. These deceitful politicians put the country at risk as they misinform and mislead the non-thinking American public. They have been declaring our energy independence for 30 years, but we import three times as much oil today as we did in the early 1980’s. The CPI has gone up 350% since 1978, but the price of a barrel of oil has risen 800% over the same time frame. Today, I hear the same mindless fabrications from politicians and pundits about our ability to become energy independent. Any critical thinking analysis of the hard facts reveals that the United States will grow increasingly dependent upon other countries to supply our energy needs from a dwindling and harder to access supply of oil and natural gas. The fantasy world of plug in cars, corn driven vehicles and solar energy running our manufacturing plants is a castle in the sky flight of imagination. The linear thinking academic crowd believes a technological miracle will save us, when it is evident technology fails without infinite quantities of cheap oil.

I know the chart below requires some time to grasp, but I’m sure the average American can take five minutes away from watching Jersey Shore, Dancing with the Stars, or the latest update of the Kardashian saga to understand why the propaganda about energy independence is nothing but falsehoods. You have U.S. energy demand by sector on the right and the energy source by fuel on the left. Total U.S. energy use is nearly 100 quadrillion Btu. In physical energy terms, 1 quad represents 172 million barrels of oil (8 to 9 days of U.S. oil use), 50 million tons of coal (enough to generate about 2% of annual U.S. electricity use), or 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (about 4% of annual U.S. natural gas use).  

Please note that 37% of our energy source is petroleum, which supplies 95% of the energy for our transportation sector. That means your car and the millions of 18 wheelers that deliver your food to your grocery stores and electronic gadgets to your Best Buy. You can’t fill up your SUV with coal, natural gas, nuclear energy or sunshine. Without the 7 billion barrels of oil we use every year, our just in time mall centric suburban sprawl society would come to a grinding halt. There is no substitute for cheap plentiful oil anywhere in sight. The government sponsored ethanol boondoggle has already driven food prices higher, while requiring more energy to produce than it generates. Only a government “solution” could raise food prices, reduce gas mileage, and bankrupt hundreds of companies in an effort to reduce our dependence on oil. Natural gas as a transportation fuel supplies 2% of our needs. The cost to retro-fit 160,000 service stations across the country to supply natural gas as a fuel for the non-existent natural gas automobiles would be a fool’s errand and take at least a decade to implement.   


The green energy Nazis despise coal and nuclear power, which account for 31% of our energy supply. They want to phase coal out. They aren’t too fond of fracking either, so there goes another 23% of our supply. You might be able to make out that itsy bitsy green circle with the 7% of our supply from renewable energy. And more than half of that energy is supplied by hydro power. Less than 2% of our energy needs are met by solar and wind. For some perspective, we need to use the equivalent of 17 billion barrels of oil per year to run our society and solar and wind supplies the equivalent energy of about 300 million barrels of that total. I think our green energy dreams will come up just a smidgen short of meeting our demands. Nothing can replace oil as the lifeblood of our culture and there is no domestic supply source which will eliminate or even reduce our dependence upon the 10 million barrels per day we import from foreign countries. There are some hard truths that are purposefully ignored by those who want to mislead the public about the grim consequences of peak cheap oil:

  • The earth is finite. The amount of oil within the crust of the earth is finite. As we drain 32 billion barrels of oil from the earth every year, there is less remaining within the earth. We have drained the cheapest and easiest to reach 1.4 trillion barrels from the earth since the mid 1800s. The remaining recoverable 1.4 trillion barrels will be expensive and hard to reach.
  • The United States has about 2% of the world’s proven oil and gas reserves, but consumes 22% of the world’s oil production and 27% of the world’s natural gas production.
  • Demand for oil will continue to rise no matter what the United States does, as the developing world consumption far outstrips U.S. consumption. Oil is fungible and will be sold to the highest bidder.
  • The concept of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) is beyond the grasp of politicians and drill, drill, drill pundits. EROEI is the ratio of the amount of usable energy acquired from a particular energy resource to the amount of energy expended to obtain that energy resource. When the EROEI of a resource is less than or equal to one, that energy source becomes an “energy sink”, and can no longer be used as a primary source of energy. Once it requires 1.1 barrels of oil to obtain a barrel of oil, the gig is up.
  • There is a negative feedback loop that revolves around oil supply, oil price and economic growth. As demand continues to rise and supply is more difficult to access, prices will rise. Since oil is an essential ingredient in every aspect of our lives, once the price reaches $120 to $150 a barrel economic growth goes into reverse. Demand crashes and investment in new sources of energy dries up. Rinse and repeat.

Finite World

World oil production peaked in 2005 has been flat since then, despite a continuous stream of promises from Saudi Arabia that they are on the verge of increasing production. The chart below from the U.S. Energy Information Administration propagates the standard fabrications about energy supplies. Even though worldwide oil production has clearly peaked, the oil industry PR whores and government agencies continue to project substantial production growth in the future. The mainstream media trots out Daniel Yergin whenever it wants to calm the masses, despite his track record of being 100% wrong 100% of the time. The brilliance of his July, 2005 Op-Ed shines through:

“Prices around $60 a barrel, driven by high demand growth, are fueling the fear of imminent shortage — that the world is going to begin running out of oil in five or 10 years. This shortage, it is argued, will be amplified by the substantial and growing demand from two giants: China and India. There will be a large, unprecedented buildup of oil supply in the next few years. Between 2004 and 2010, capacity to produce oil (not actual production) could grow by 16 million barrels a day — from 85 million barrels per day to 101 million barrels a day — a 20 percent increase. Such growth over the next few years would relieve the current pressure on supply and demand.”

Oil production capacity has not grown by one barrel since Yergin wrote this propaganda piece. This is despite the fact that prices have almost doubled, which should have spurred production. The current energy independence false storyline – the Bakken Formation – has gone from production of 10,000 barrels per day in 2003 to 400,000 barrels per day now, while the hundreds of millions invested in developing the Canadian tar sands have increased production by 50% since 2005. Despite these substantial increases in output, worldwide production has remained flat as existing wells deplete at the same rate that new production is brought online.


The facts are there is approximately 1.4 trillion barrels of recoverable oil left in the crust of the earth. We currently suck 32 billion barrels per year out of the earth. This means we have 44 years of oil left, at current consumption levels. But we know demand is growing from the developing world. Taking this fact into consideration, we have between 35 and 40 years worth of recoverable oil left on the planet. That is not a long time. Additionally, the last 1.4 trillion barrels will much more difficult and costly to extract than the first 1.4 trillion barrels. The remaining oil is miles under the ocean floor, trapped in shale and tar sands, and in the arctic. Despite these hard facts, governmental agencies and politicians continue to paint a rosy picture about our energy future. I watched in stunned amazement last week as five bozos on the McLaughlin Group news program unanimously proclaimed the U.S. would become a net exporter of oil in the coming decade. Do these supposedly intelligent people not understand the basic economics of supply, demand and price?  

It seems the governmental organizations always paint the future in the most optimistic terms, despite all facts pointing to a contrary outcome. The EIA predicts with a straight face that oil production will rise to 110 million barrels per day, while the price of a barrel of oil remains in the current $100 to $125 per barrel range. Non-OPEC production has been in decline since 2004, but the EIA miraculously predicts a 15% increase in production over the next 25 years. OPEC production has been flat since 2005, but the EIA is confident their 50 year old oil fields will ramp up production by 25% in the next 25 years. Does the EIA consider whether OPEC even wants to increase production? It would appear that constrained supply and higher prices would be quite beneficial to the OPEC countries. And then of course there is the unconventional oil that is supposed to increase from 4 million barrels per day to 13 million barrels per day, a mere 325% increase with no upward impact on prices. These guys would make a BLS government drone blush with the utter ridiculousness of their predictions.


The picture below is an excellent representation of how the easy to access oil and gas of the earth have been tapped. They were close to the surface. The remaining oil and gas is deeper and trapped within shale and sand. The new technology for extracting gas from shale has concerns regarding whether fracking and disposal of waste water can be done safely, especially near highly populated areas. The relationship between fracking and earthquakes could also prove to be problematic. The wells also have rapid decline rates. Add a mile of ocean to the picture below and you have some really expensive to access oil and potential for disaster, as witnessed with the Deep Water Horizon.


The EIA projects natural gas supply to grow by 10% between now and 2035 due to a 300% increase in shale gas supply. It seems the EIA believes the fantasy of 8 Saudi Arabia’s in the Bakken formation of North Dakota and decades of gas within the Marcellus Shale. These fantasies have been peddled by the natural gas industry in order to get support for their fracking efforts. This false storyline is damaging to the long-term planning that should be taking place now to alleviate the energy scarcity that is our future. In 2006 the EIA reported the possibility of 500 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken formation, based on guesswork. The U.S. Geological Survey has since scaled this back ever so slightly to 3.65 billion barrels, which is six months of U.S. consumption. The deceptions peddled regarding Marcellus shale are also colliding with reality. The U.S. Geological Survey recently produced an estimate of Marcellus Shale resources, which will cause the EIA to reduce its estimate of shale gas reserves for the Marcellus Shale by 80%. The price of natural gas is currently $3.54 MMBtu, down from $13 a few years ago. Extracting natural gas from shale has high capital costs of land, drilling and completion. It is not economically feasible below $6 MMBtu.


Based on the known facts and a realistic view of the future, there will be less supply of oil and natural gas as time goes on. We can already see the impact of these facts today. Even though Europe and the U.S. are in recession, the price of oil continues to rise. The developing world continues to demand more oil and the supply is stagnant. Stunts like withdrawing oil from the Strategic Reserve are foolish and politically motivated. Is the world then running out of oil then? No, but any increase in future global oil production will be modestly incremental and production could be thrown off course by any number of possible events, from an Israeli attack on Iran to (another, but successful this time) al Qaida attack on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq oil refinery. Any forecast regarding future oil production and prices isn’t worth the paper it is written on unless consideration to wars, revolutions and terrorism are factored into the equation.

We Don’t Matter

Americans like to think we are the center of the universe. Those who propagate the misinformation about U.S. energy independence are clearly math challenged. The total proven oil reserves in the world total 1.4 trillion barrels and the United States has 22 billion barrels of that total, or 1.6% of the world’s oil. The U.S. burns 7 billion barrels per year, so we have enough oil to survive for three whole years. The U.S. consumes 22% of the world’s oil despite having 4.5% of the world’s population and less than 2% of the world’s oil. Do these facts lead you to the conclusion the United States will be exporting oil in the near future?


When you hear the pundits breathtakingly describe our vast natural gas resources you would think we are the dominant player in this market. Not quite. The United States has 4% of the world’s natural gas reserves. Predictably we consume 22% of the world’s natural gas. Russia controls 25% of the world’s natural gas reserves, with the Middle East countries controlling 40% of the world’s reserves. The pundits can hype our “vast” supplies of natural gas, but the facts clearly reveal it is nothing but hype.


The U.S. is consuming less oil than it was in 2005. U.S. consumption is not the crucial factor in determining the price of oil today and our consumption will matter even less in the future. Emerging market countries, led by China and India, will be the driving force in oil demand in the coming decades. According to the IEA, “Non-OECD [emerging markets] account for 90% of population growth, 70% of the increase in economic output and 90% of energy demand growth over the period from 2010 to 2035.”


This demand is being driven by the growth in vehicles in emerging markets. The U.S. market has reached a saturation point, but China, India and the rest of the world are just beginning their love affairs with the automobile. The accumulation of facts regarding both supply and demand should even convince the most brainless CNBC talking head that the price of oil will continue to rise. The 2008 peak price of $145 per barrel will not hold. The tried and true American method of ignoring problems until they reach crisis proportions will bite us in the ass once again.


Slippery Road Ahead

The concept of EROI is incomprehensible to the peak oil deniers. When Larry Kudlow or one of the other drill, drill, drill morons proclaims the vast amount of oil in North Dakota shale and in Alberta, Canada tar sands, they completely ignore the concept of EROI. Some estimates conclude there are 5 trillion barrels of oil left in the earth. But, only 1.4 trillion barrels are considered recoverable. This is because the other 3.6 trillion barrels would require the expenditure of more energy to retrieve than they can deliver. Therefore, it is not practical to extract. When oil was originally discovered, it took on average one barrel of oil to find, extract, and process about 100 barrels of oil. That ratio has declined steadily over the last century to about three barrels gained for one barrel used up in the U.S. and about ten for one in Saudi Arabia.

The chart below clearly shows the sources of energy which have the highest energy return for energy invested. I don’t think I’ve heard Obama or the Republican candidates calling for a national investment in hydro-power even though it is hugely efficient. The dreams of the green energy crowd are shattered by the fact that biodiesel, ethanol and solar require as much energy to create as they produce. Tar sands and shale oil aren’t much more energy efficient. It’s too bad Obama and his minions hate dirty coal, because has the best return on energy invested among all the practical sources.   

 File:EROI - Ratio of Energy Returned on Energy Invested - USA.svg

Worse than the peak oil deniers are those who pretend that oil isn’t really that important to our society. They declare that technology will save the day, when in reality technology can’t function without oil. Without plentiful cheap oil our technologically driven civilization crashes. We are addicted to oil. Americans consume petroleum products at a rate of three-and-a-half gallons of oil and more than 250 cubic feet of natural gas per day each.  You might be interested in a partial list of products that require petroleum to be produced.

Solvents Diesel fuel Motor Oil Bearing Grease
Ink Floor Wax Ballpoint Pens Football Cleats
Upholstery Sweaters Boats Insecticides
Bicycle Tires Sports Car Bodies Nail Polish Fishing lures
Dresses Tires Golf Bags Perfumes
Cassettes Dishwasher parts Tool Boxes Shoe Polish
Motorcycle Helmet Caulking Petroleum Jelly Transparent Tape
CD Player Faucet Washers Antiseptics Clothesline
Curtains Food Preservatives Basketballs Soap
Vitamin Capsules Antihistamines Purses Shoes
Dashboards Cortisone Deodorant Footballs
Putty Dyes Panty Hose Refrigerant
Percolators Life Jackets Rubbing Alcohol Linings
Skis TV Cabinets Shag Rugs Electrician’s Tape
Tool Racks Car Battery Cases Epoxy Paint
Mops Slacks Insect Repellent Oil Filters
Umbrellas Yarn Fertilizers Hair Coloring
Roofing Toilet Seats Fishing Rods Lipstick
Denture Adhesive Linoleum Ice Cube Trays Synthetic Rubber
Speakers Plastic Wood Electric Blankets Glycerin
Tennis Rackets Rubber Cement Fishing Boots Dice
Nylon Rope Candles Trash Bags House Paint
Water Pipes Hand Lotion Roller Skates Surf Boards
Shampoo Wheels Paint Rollers Shower Curtains
Guitar Strings Luggage Aspirin Safety Glasses
Antifreeze Football Helmets Awnings Eyeglasses
Clothes Toothbrushes Ice Chests Footballs
Combs CD’s & DVD’s Paint Brushes Detergents
Vaporizers Balloons Sun Glasses Tents
Heart Valves Crayons Parachutes Telephones
Enamel Pillows Dishes Cameras
Anesthetics Artificial Turf Artificial limbs Bandages
Dentures Model Cars Folding Doors Hair Curlers
Cold cream Movie film Soft Contact lenses Drinking Cups
Fan Belts Car Enamel Shaving Cream Ammonia
Refrigerators Golf Balls Toothpaste Gasoline


The propaganda blared at the impressionable willfully ignorant American public has worked wonders. The vast majority of Americans have no clue they have entered a world of energy scarcity, a world where the average person is poorer and barely able to afford the basic necessities of life. This is borne out in the vehicles sales statistics reported every month. There have been 10.5 million passenger vehicles sold through the first 10 months of 2011. In addition to the fact they are “purchased” using 95% debt and financed over seven years, the vast majority are low mileage vehicles getting less than 20 mpg. Only 1.8 small energy efficient vehicles have been sold versus 6.1 million SUVs, pickup trucks and large luxury automobiles. Americans have the freedom to buy any vehicle they choose. They also have the freedom to not think and ignore the facts about the certainty of higher prices at the pump. By choosing a 20 mpg vehicle over a 40 mpg vehicle, they’ve sealed their fate. How could the average soccer mom get by without a Yukon or Excursion to shuttle Biff and Buffy to their games? Have you ever tried to navigate a soccer field parking lot in a hybrid? The horror!

The American public has been lulled back into a sense of security as gas prices have receded from $4.00 a gallon back to $3.40 a gallon. This lull will be short lived. Oil prices have surged by 15% in the last two months, even as the world economy heads into recession. The link between high oil prices and economic growth are undeniable, even though the deceitful pundits on CNBC will tell you otherwise. Ten out of eleven recessions since World War II were associated with oil price spikes. Gail Tverberg sums up the dilemma of energy scarcity for the average American:

“High-priced oil tends to choke economies because high oil prices are associated with high food prices (because oil products are used in food growing and transport), and people’s salaries do not rise to offset this rise in food and oil prices. People have to eat and to commute to their jobs, so they cut back on other expenditures. This leads to recession. Recession leads to lower oil consumption, since people without jobs can’t buy very much of anything, oil products included. In some sense, the reduction in oil extraction is due to reduced demand, because citizens cannot afford the high-priced oil that is available.”

But don’t worry. The rising oil and food prices will only impact the 99% in the U.S. and the poorest dregs across the globe that spend 70% of their income on food. The 1% will be just fine as they will bet on higher oil prices, therefore further enriching themselves while the peasants starve. The market for caviar, champagne, NYC penthouses, and summer mansions in the Hamptons will remain robust.

There is no escape from the ravages of higher priced oil. There is plenty of oil left in the ground. But, the remaining oil is difficult, slow and expensive to extract. Oil prices will rise because they have to. Without higher prices, who would make the huge capital investment required to extract the remaining oil? Once oil prices reach the $120 to $150 per barrel range our economy chokes and heads into recession. We are trapped in an endless feedback loop of doom. The false storyline of renewable energy saving the day is put to rest by Gail Tverberg:

“Renewables such as wind, solar PV, cellulosic ethanol, and biogas could more accurately be called “fossil fuel extenders” because they cannot exist apart from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are required to make wind turbines and other devices, to transport the equipment, to make needed repairs, and to maintain the transport and electrical systems used by these fuels (such as maintaining transmission lines, running-back up power plants, and paving roads). If we lose fossil fuels, we can expect to lose the use of renewables, with a few exceptions, such as trees cut down locally, and burned for heat, and solar thermal used to heat hot water in containers on roofs.”

Predictably, the politicians and intellectual elite do the exact opposite of what needs to be done. We need to prepare our society to become more local. Without cheap plentiful oil our transportation system breaks down. Our 3.9 million miles of road networks will become a monument to stupidity as Obama and Congress want to spend hundreds of billions on road infrastructure that will slowly become obsolete. The crumbling infrastructure is already the result of government failure, as the money that should have been spent maintaining our roads, bridges and water systems was spent on train museums, turtle crossings, teaching South African men how to wash their genitalia, studies on the mating habits of ferrets, and thousands of other worthless Keynesian pork programs. If our society acted in a far sighted manner, we would be creating communities that could sustain themselves with local produce, local merchants, bike paths, walkable destinations, local light rail commuting, and local energy sources. The most logical energy source for the U.S. in an oil scarce scenario is electricity, since we have a substantial supply of coal and natural gas for the foreseeable future and the ability to build small nuclear power plants. The Fukushima disaster is likely to kill nuclear as an option until it is too late. The electrical grid should be the number one priority of our leaders, as it would be our only hope in an oil scarce world. Instead, our leaders will plow borrowed money into ethanol, solar, and shale oil drilling, guaranteeing a disastrous scenario for our country.

The United States is a country built upon the four C’s: Crude, Cars, Credit, and Consumption. They are intertwined and can’t exist without crude as the crucial ingredient. As the amount of crude available declines and the price rises, the other three C’s will breakdown. Our warped consumer driven economy collapses without the input of cheap plentiful oil. Those at the top levels of government realize this fact. It is not a coincidence that the War on Terror is the current cover story to keep our troops in the Middle East. It is not a coincidence the uncooperative rulers (Hussein, Gaddafi) of the countries with the 5th and 9th largest oil reserves on the planet have been dispatched. It is not a coincidence the saber rattling grows louder regarding the Iranian regime, as they sit atop 155 billion barrels of oil, the 4th largest reserves in the world. It should also be noted the troops leaving Iraq immediately began occupying Kuwait, owner of the 6th largest oil reserves on the planet. Oil under the South China Sea and in the arctic is being hotly pursued by the major world players. China and Russia are supporting Iran in their showdown with Israel and the U.S. As the world depletes the remaining oil, conflict and war are inevitable. The term Energy Independence will carry a different meaning than the one spouted by mindless politicians as the oil runs low.

And as things fell apart
Nobody paid much attention

Nothing but Flowers – The Talking Heads


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 11/14/2011 - 13:59 | 1876105 G_T_A_44
G_T_A_44's picture

Jim- You forgot the 5th C - CORRUPTION!

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:17 | 1876153 eureka
eureka's picture

Everybody forgot "the PEOPLE" - i.e. citizens; if US were really at war ("on terror") wouldn't its citizens carpool to conserve energy - and do other such civic and national minded things and minute sacrifices and pull together etc etc etc ????

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:08 | 1876337 Fukushima Sam
Fukushima Sam's picture

Jim, I like a lot of your articles, but you must be a fucking idiot to say that "green energy Nazis despise... nuclear energy" with what seems to be a dismissive tone.

Don't you understand that most nuclear power plants will melt down within 48 hours of losing grid power?

Are you not paying attention to what has happened at Fukushima?

Don't you know that a large solar storm could cause an EMP that would take out all of our electronics?  Causing these nuclear plants worldwide to then melt down?  This would be a global extinction event!

What the fuck, Jim?  Perhaps you are still asleep after all.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:51 | 1876556 derek_vineyard
derek_vineyard's picture

Unfortunately, life is survival of the fittest and we in the United States will have to use extreme force at some point to feed this addiction to oil.  Thats just the way it is.....we can't balance a budget, how the fuck can congress fast track and prioritize alternative energy sources as our #1 concern and then have the balls to pass and then enforce legislation to change to nat gas or nuke or other. We have proved we will kill for oil on small scale.....thus soon we will be forced to kill for oil on a much larger scale. law of nature.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 17:08 | 1876980 gmj
gmj's picture

Actually, the reverse is happening.  There are now plans to ship millions of tons of US coal to China.  They have our jobs and our money, and now they will have our fossil fuels.  This nation is being stripped bare of everything that has any value.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 17:13 | 1876998 trav7777
trav7777's picture

I hate otherwise decent articles where people start dividing reserves by consumption.

The US *does not* have 3 years worth of oil left.  We have 8 hours per day of oil.  And declining.

Oil production is about RATE of consumption versus RATE of production, not about consumption versus reserves.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 18:14 | 1877210 CPL
CPL's picture's weird how that gets omitted anytime I read one of these articles.


I suppose you have to wind up your reader to buy a book though.


I always love how the US population doesn't grow either.  Like people will stop fucking for 30 years.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 20:20 | 1877542 mophead
mophead's picture

Question: What is Energy Independence?

Answer: When money printing alone does not create the desired amount of price inflation required to lower the standard of living for most Americans.

Question: What is Global Warming?

Answer: When money printing alone does not create the desired amount of price inflation required to lower the standard of living for most Americans.

Question: What is a Nuclear Disaster?

Answer: When money printing alone does not create the desired amount of price inflation required to lower the standard of living for most Americans.

Question: What is a Corn Subsidy?

Answer: When money printing alone does not create the desired amount of price inflation required to lower the standard of living for most Americans.

Question: What is the FDA/Milk Regulation?

Answer: When money printing alone does not create the desired amount of price inflation required to lower the standard of living for most Americans.

Question: What are water quotas as they apply to California?

Answer: When money printing alone does not create the desired amount of price inflation required to lower the standard of living for most Americans.

Question: What are Middle Eastern wars?

Answer: When money printing alone does not create the desired amount of price inflation required to lower the standard of living for most Americans.

Question: What is Government Housing Support?

Answer: When money printing alone does not create the desired amount of price inflation required to lower the standard of living for most Americans.

Question: What are newer building codes about, such as requiring fire sprinkler systems, etc?

Answer: When money printing alone does not create the desired amount of price inflation required to lower the standard of living for most Americans.

Question: What is bacteria contamination is fruits and vegetables, and other food products?

Answer: When money printing alone does not create the desired amount of price inflation required to lower the standard of living for most Americans.

Question: What is the criminalization of garage sales in some parts of the US about?

Answer: When money printing alone does not create the desired amount of price inflation required to lower the standard of living for most Americans.


Tue, 11/15/2011 - 16:16 | 1880047 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

stop fucking for thirty years? I'll walk.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 16:28 | 1876778 Abitdodgie
Abitdodgie's picture

Fuku Sam ,you don,t need to worry about the power plants after an EMP because most of the population will be dead within 1 hour of an EMP , why you ask well the obummer admin do not think it is important to take our ICBN,s of auto fire after sensing a high alt EMP ( they will think the USA came under attack and auto fire and nobody can override them at the moment) . So if you do not have your own nuclear bunker you can see Global thermo Nuclear war

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 19:47 | 1877433 Fedophile
Fedophile's picture

A solar storm induced EMP would kill no one. Even a nuclear blast induced EMP would do no physical damage.

Tue, 11/15/2011 - 13:49 | 1879597 I did it by Occident
I did it by Occident's picture

except of course for the mass starvations due to all our modern machinery stop working, and time to replace many parts of the grid.  Other than, no problem. :)

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 18:47 | 1877282 doggings
doggings's picture

of course not, dont be stupid.  me myself mine. 

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:18 | 1876156 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

You spelled it wrong. It's C-O-L-L-E-C-T-I-V-I-S-M.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:23 | 1876175 duo
duo's picture

Is there a word for ignorance that begins with a "c"?

Like the lady in front of me in Srpouts yesterday who drove there in an SUV to buy one onion, one lemon, and one mushroom.  $2.64!  Gasoline is way too cheap.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:36 | 1876219 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

So, you really think there's a higher gas price that would stop her?

Oh, the answer to your question? Clueless.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 17:42 | 1877104 pvzh
pvzh's picture

Yes, it will. At some price point, the lady will not be able to afford fill up at all, so there will be no driving even for truckload of mushrooms / onions.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 21:45 | 1877815 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

presumably she paid for het petrol so to my mind, if not the intrusive peanut brains of others, she can do what the fuk she likes wih her petrol for these peanuts wanting to put the price of petrol up so she can't shop for her onion, we have the strong whiff of suicide socialists in the house ...why don't you lefties fuk off and top yourselves like your Brothers are doing to every country they run into the sewer bankrupt

...shame there's no 'social justice' for insolvent socialists ...if we sliced and diced the turds maybe the next generation of Lennon loons would think twice about fuking everything up (all these inept human tragedies are capable of)

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 22:59 | 1877990 pvzh
pvzh's picture

Do not worry. No "meddling-socialist interference" is necessary. Mother nature through lowering EROI will raise gasoline prices sky-high, so in 20-30 years having a car will be akin having private jet now. Unless, of course miracle happens, and we will find a new source of cheap and abundant energy in 5 years tops.

Tue, 11/15/2011 - 00:12 | 1878190 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You have literally no idea what you are talking about.  With WWII era technology, you can build a wood gassifier that will move your car even if gas is $1000 a gallon, using anything that burns.  Sure, it is inconvenient and expensive (compared to today), but it is a solid lid on gas prices.  Never mind newer technologies like bio diesel, or high capacity electric.

Tue, 11/15/2011 - 08:57 | 1878673 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Do a computation of how long the forests in the US last at current consumptions rates...

You really think the earth is infinite and everything scalable, don't you....

Tue, 11/15/2011 - 16:19 | 1880052 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

I've always wanted to live on Easter Island 

Flak do you know / read this guy?

Tue, 11/15/2011 - 17:55 | 1880399 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yes, Gregor is very sharp...

Tue, 11/15/2011 - 22:51 | 1881330 pvzh
pvzh's picture

Please do not imply about what I have or have not idea about. I do know about wood gasification technology. The problem is we have even less wood for that. Current uses of wood already consume forest at much faster rate that they are regrow. If you add use of wood for transportation, our forest will go poof.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:26 | 1876187 vast-dom
vast-dom's picture

The 5th C is really the 1st C.








Mon, 11/14/2011 - 18:04 | 1877168 AGuy
AGuy's picture

Like much higher prices than you suggest:

1. Between Israel and Iran is Sudia Arabia, Kwuait,  and Iraq. No doubt substantial collateral will occur affecting oil exports from the region.

2. I am pretty sure Iran already has a couple nukes already, acquired from former Soviet Republic states after the fall of the Soviet union. All it would take is one nuke to shutdown the ME exports for a significant period.


I think we will see $160-$200 before the global economy crashes (causing Oil prices to fall considerably).

Major war is comming to the Middle East. The whole regions is rapidly becoming severely destabilished with the sweep of the Arab spring. Nations falling to the Arab spring become more polarized and violent.  At the top of the list is Pakastan, which is very unstable, has a significant stockpile of Nukes, and numerious terriorist organisations, and is already engage in warm war with India.


Currently we are stuck on a production plateau, as global convential oil prodution falls by about 4%, and held in check by new unconventional production. This isn't sustainable resulting in significant production declines in a few years (perhaps as soon as next year). Once global production starts declining, it will be impossible to maintain BAU. Once global production is recognized in permanent decline, most exporters will cut back exports in order to husband remaining reserves that further cut global production.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 18:38 | 1877270 richard in norway
richard in norway's picture

good point, also the militatry will start stockpiling  oil or sieze oilfeilds. no oil no military power. when resorces becomr scarce they are always allocated to the military first

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:43 | 1876229 SRSrocco
SRSrocco's picture


Another factor coming down on the US Suburban Economy is the falling EROI (energy returned on invested) of oil & gas.  Currently the USA Oil & Gas EROI is 9-10/1 and the Global EROI is between 15-16/1 (estimated).  Anytime the Energy CEO's tout how Shale Oil will be the savior, they forget to realize that the EROI of Shale Oil is 4-5/1 or five to six times less the EROI was in building the great US Suburban Economy.  The US Economy was built and based on cheap oil with an EROI of 25/1 or greater.

The US suffers from over 250,000 water main breaks a year.  That number will rise exponentially when the dollar finally crashes.  The US infrastructure is falling apart while money is being siphoned into bailing out banks, mortgages and other countries.

Peak Oil is here.  On top of that we have a falling EROI and declining net exports....a disaster for our Car-Crude-Credit-Consumption economy.  This will all be described in my future article of the collapse of the US Empire.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:06 | 1876107 bigdumbnugly
bigdumbnugly's picture

c'mon aleady!

can't keep all these big lies straight.


Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:07 | 1876109 r101958
r101958's picture

Excellent article! I recommend Chris Martenson's book 'Crash Course' to shed even more light on this important subject.


Please feel free to read at least the first section of the following article which also came out today:

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 16:00 | 1876601 css1971
css1971's picture

Or follow the Oil Drum.

And Energy Bulletin:

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 17:14 | 1877006 r101958
r101958's picture

Or both!

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 18:17 | 1877220 CPL
CPL's picture

Or something worth the money if you are doing PM's and energy.


The northern miner.  Expensive but worth the subscription.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:01 | 1876111 Racer
Racer's picture

War for oil, yes that was obvious years ago when dreadful regimes were ignored yet those countries with oil were portrayed as huge threats to the US people

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:02 | 1876113 maxw3st
maxw3st's picture

Great article. Two points. The whole "peak oil" argument is a sham. Billions of barrels of oil are still being discovered every year. Alternative energy does not need subsidies to be cost effective. It just needs the government to stop heavily subsidizing the oil industry.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:15 | 1876150 samsara
samsara's picture

Ya,  they are drilling 8,000 deep water then another 5,000 feet of rock in the GOM for the fun of it. 

If there was a 'Big' field just outside of Houston,  do you really think they would be drilling 10,000 feet.  When their profits could be astronomically higher?

Think about it folks.  Geeze

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:21 | 1876171 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

Geez indeed. They are not drilling in shallow waters because the green movement has politicians in their pockets and there are now laws preventing shallow water drilling. Duh.

Al Gore meet Deepwater Horizon, Deepwater Horizon meet Al Gore.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:24 | 1876180 WonderDawg
WonderDawg's picture

Fucking please. Do you really think the "green movement" has more money to pay politicians than the oil companies? Duh.


Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:30 | 1876198 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

The green movement has the votes of the sheeple. It is the only thing which overrides money with politicians.

And to answer your question, yes I do think that. Do your research.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:40 | 1876233 WonderDawg
WonderDawg's picture

I've done a lot of research, thanks. If you think the TPTB give a fuck about the votes of the people (I can't stand the term "sheeple") you are hopelessly naive. TPTB are going to do whatever is in their best interests and produces the most profit TODAY. They don't give a fuck about tomorrow, and they don't give a fuck about the green movement, and they don't give a fuck about you. Research that.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:47 | 1876255 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

You're on the good track but you need to keep thinking. I have come to realize that TPTB don't give a fuck about profit or oil either. Their only concern is power. The IPCC and its offspring, the green movement, are one of their tools to condition "people" into a collectivist and slave thinking.

Ever met a free-market environmentalist? Think about that, then I'll hear your apology.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:50 | 1876267 WonderDawg
WonderDawg's picture

You're stuck, man. Here's the only thing you need to know: oil is power. Think about that, and I don't need an apology.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:06 | 1876327 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

Yes, that is where you are stuck, equating oil with power. Your failure to differentiate between them is your failure to make inroads in seeing the big picture.

TPTB were not born in an automobile. Just sayin'.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:39 | 1876491 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I suggest you take a gander at the following two articles

On the GOM


Here is the USGS update on the NPRA (if you do not know what the NPRA is, simply STFU)

In the words of Rick Perry...  oops....


Educate yourself and get back to us...


Mon, 11/14/2011 - 17:17 | 1877018 trav7777
trav7777's picture

ROTFL@NPRA.  What a debacle

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 17:25 | 1877041 fuu
Mon, 11/14/2011 - 17:16 | 1877014 trav7777
trav7777's picture

dude, you are a fucking idiot

Tue, 11/15/2011 - 16:41 | 1880134 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

you understand the irony of your claim that oil is not power don't you?

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:02 | 1876305 Broken_Trades
Broken_Trades's picture


You actually believe the green movement in the USA has somehow convinced all the other oil companies, third world countries (looking for cheap energy to replicate the wealth of the west), and investors (who like to make money), competing world powers like Russia and China (who need energy to fuel their war machines) to drill stupid expensive wells, that need massive capital investments, take huge risks with experienced people and equipment just because??

Sounds totally plausible, Dude.  You probably believe in abiotic oil coming from the center of the Earth too.  Tonnes of rock solid evidence to support that theory LOL

Go read a book.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:09 | 1876340 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

Arent they all doing the same for diamonds, iron, copper, uranium and so on? What is your book recommendation which I should read where they say that these ressources are left under the ground, unlike oil?

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:12 | 1876358 WonderDawg
WonderDawg's picture

A good book to start with, if you want to understand the big picture, is Crossing the Rubicon. I would also add The Creature From Jekyll Island. Those two books will help you understand the big picture.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:15 | 1876378 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

I've read Jekyll Island. How does that evidence your point that oil = power?

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:21 | 1876407 WonderDawg
WonderDawg's picture

Crossing the Rubicon provides the evidence. Reading that book should keep you warm and comfy through the winter.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 17:19 | 1877022 trav7777
trav7777's picture

are you a COMPLETE retard?  Oil IS power.  The combustion of it does work at a specific rate which is the motherfucking DEFINITION of power

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 18:07 | 1877181 tmosley
tmosley's picture

The Creature from Jekyll Island, therefore oil=power.  This is the argument of the grandparent.  You present a different logical equivilency, then call the parent an idiot.

You are so mad you can't think straight.  Amusing. 

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 23:24 | 1878055 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

I actually thought he made a funny reply. Not addressing the point of course, but funny.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:29 | 1876193 American Sucker
American Sucker's picture

I wasn't aware Al Gore was now the Republican Governor of New Jersey:


"I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of drilling off the coast of New Jersey," [Christie] said. "New Jersey's coast is one of its economic engines, and I would have to really be convinced of both the economic viability of having to do it and the environmental safety. And at this point, I'm not convinced of either."


Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:40 | 1876234 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

And what is your point? That Al Gore should be the only green politician?

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 18:16 | 1877215 AGuy
AGuy's picture

Al Gore isn't green, just another snake oil salesman. Gore made over a billion, but drives gas guzzlers, and travels in private jets with really crappy fuel economy (never bother to upgrade his plane or buy a more fuel efficent model). He Profiting handsomely selling green to the masses. Nothing but a two-bit con artist.



Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:43 | 1876246 blu
blu's picture

There is no credible green movement in the US. The save-the-earth movement in the US is just a fund raising vehicle aimed at single women having a lot of cats (no really, that is an actual target demographic). None of the money raised does anything of significance, certainly it never bought a single paragraph of legislation.

I think you were confusing us with the Germans.

Oh, I once wrote a short story on the topic, based on some personal experiences:

No I'm not in the story (ok my avatar is) but I know a few people I would like to catch sitting on the nervous-side of the dinner table.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:20 | 1876400 Fukushima Sam
Fukushima Sam's picture

Oxygen is also vital for animal life, but in pure form it is extremely flammable.

Too much of anything is usually a bad thing.  Your argument is senseless.  I'm not saying the EPA move is not without political cause, but it does have merit if indeed high atmospheric CO2 causes climate change.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:36 | 1876482 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

Ok but you then need to examine why CO2 was classified as a pollutant. I'll be glad to discuss with you. Only sayin here that it is based on the IPCC's work, which is based on mathematical climate models, which are built after economic models.

If you do trust economic models to be reliable tools, then we're just not on the same page...

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:49 | 1876551 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Ahh... no Peak oil and no Global warming...a standard blow hard denier....

So AGW is a hoax, eh?

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:53 | 1876571 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

Ah yes, that famous "denier" accusation. Good argument full of substance.

Wait, I'm a denier both ways, I also think that the Federal Reserve is a hoax, how crazy. Someone arrest me...

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 16:08 | 1876647 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Quit squirming...

You state that peak oil is a sham.... the onus is on you to demonstrate the validity of your hypothesis...

In other words,  if you cannot back up what you say, STFU...

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 16:19 | 1876713 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

Oh yes, the onus would not be on you to prove that peak oil theory is real.... After all, peak oil theory is not a theory, it's a fact aint it?

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 16:32 | 1876803 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Cute... I'll cite the above article, refute it, if you can....

How about this:

The world is finite, therefore the oil contained in the world is finite. Since the amount of oil, Q, at any time is finite, the rate at which oil is extracted, dQ/dt, must necessarily have a local or global maximum at some time. 

Surprise me  you beggar....

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 16:56 | 1876922 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

I like how quickly you fall into name calling.

Explain to me how your stuff is not Malthusian and why I should thus pay any more attention to your worthless babiage.

In case you did not know :

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 17:03 | 1876961 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

And just in case that you would be genuinely interested to challenge your beliefs :

Make sure to check Chapter 2 (Why Are Material-Technical Resource Forecasts So Often Wrong?).

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 17:09 | 1876987 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You still have not refuted my statement of Peak Oil....

Julian Simon won his bet purely because of the timing... You may want to revisit things and see what the outcome would be today....

I'll raise you one Daniel Yergin who has gotten every forecast about oil supply and price wrong for 10 years...

Quit squirming and come up with some real evidence that we are not at peak oil.... Otherwise admit defeat....

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 17:22 | 1877034 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

Julian Simon won his bet because he's not Malthusian. I'll side with non-Malthusians, you stick with your bull. And how's that global warming going at where you live?

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 17:30 | 1877062 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Quit hopping around like a ADD afflicted flea and disprove my statement about peak oil...

You were pwned, get over it.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 17:39 | 1877089 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

Are you slow or what? Your statement is a red herring because it can only be disproved by time, and it will be, like all forecasts of such things like the economy or resources. Malthusian maths have never worked but you assume now they will.

"Insanity : doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results " - A. Einstein

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 17:57 | 1877147 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Classic denier.... An exhibition of Normalcy Bias at its finest...

Do you even know how Hubbert came up with his estimates? In particular what the cultural implications of peak oil were? 

Try digesting this

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 18:31 | 1877252 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

Classic Malthusian/global warmist, unable to escape the tunnel of writings that fits his thinking, and especially unable to recognize the epistemological problems of the methodology followed by his mentors.

Instead of discarding Simon because he was right on a bet, try understanding why he was right on his bet. The answer is similar to why economists are wrong on their forecasts. I gave you the links. I will say no more.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 17:44 | 1877109 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Everyone should check this out...

What do you think?


Mon, 11/14/2011 - 17:21 | 1877027 trav7777
trav7777's picture

are you a fucking idiot?

54 of the top 65 oil producing nations have peaked and are in supply decline.

Do you live in a fucking CAVE?

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 17:25 | 1877042 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

And if you let it, the market will adjust the price of oil according to supply and demand, and once the price goes up enough, now there will be enough incentives to develop private, efficient alternatives. You guys should learn real economics, you know, before Keynes and Samuelsson.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 17:34 | 1877074 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yeah the market will sort it out... And you accuse me of believing in fairy tales...

Part of the problem is that the market cannot discount the 30-50 years required to transform our transportation system and the form of energy it relies on....

You really should read the following,

After all, it is only written by a physics professor at UCSD.....


Mon, 11/14/2011 - 17:41 | 1877103 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

Hi Malthus.

A physics professor at UCSD? Is that like an economics professor at Harvard? Or Michael Mann at the climate department of Penn State?

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 18:00 | 1877155 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You truly are a fucking idiot,  probably incapable of comprehending what the guy wrote....

Based on what you have wrote, you are clearly a Koch-sucker....

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 18:20 | 1877232 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

Ok. Name-calling is obviously your stronger ground. If you really had any mental ability, you'd know by now that I'm anti-Koch.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 20:03 | 1877488 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Come up with a well reasoned argument and maybe then we can discuss things... if you cannot then STFU. Very simple, eh?

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 20:19 | 1877544 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You say that, but you still tell people presenting well reasoned arguments to shut up as well.

FYI, name calling indicates (inconclusively) insecurity on your part.  Ever increasing amounts of such childish debate tactics, however, are conclusive.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 20:39 | 1877625 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Your idea of a well reasoned arguement is very different from mine....Well reasoned does not include parroting rightwing talk radio mouthpieces... 

I never know you had such a soft spot for ignorance.... quite touching and rather newly found it would appear.


Mon, 11/14/2011 - 23:35 | 1878067 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

Some people are still stuck in that right wing / left wing paradigm it seems. Same old, same old...

Ok, I am pro-life, a pacifist and I hate the GOP as much as the Dems, although I know that global warming is a hoax. At what speed is your head spinning now?

Tue, 11/15/2011 - 16:47 | 1880162 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

you do realize your response embraced the concept?

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 18:24 | 1877238 moldygoat
moldygoat's picture

I can tell you first that the amount of development in Alberta Tar Sands is growing and growing quickly. At $60 a barrel, using 3-7 barrels of water to extract, there must be a reason its ramping up. Iraq, Libya, Iran(soon). Somebody is desperate.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:07 | 1876333 samsara
samsara's picture

Get real,  Big Oil would drill in your back yard if they wanted to and legally run you off your property.  With a Court order...

If they ain't there,  it ONLY because Oil ain't there.  Period.

Green Movement.  That only exists in Rush Limburger's head.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:13 | 1876365 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

"Green Movement.  That only exists in Rush Limburger's head."

So funny. You talk me about it when the EPA has come to seize your car, forced you to spend 2 hours a day sorting out your garbage, issued you electricity quotas, and determined that you should live in a 400 sq ft appartment downtown with a water recuperation system on the roof.

Guess you'll look just like that deer in the headlights when you wake up, only it'll be too late and your freedom is gone.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:17 | 1876387 ian807
ian807's picture

The government will force little. It will, frankly, not have the means to. There will be electricity quotas as power will be on for a limited time each day. When it is on, you'll use it sparingly, because it's so expensive. Gas will be rationed for a while, until high prices make it unnecessary.

Forget the tyranny of the government. The tyranny of the market is coming to you courtesy of the laws of physics and economics. You have about 20 years of gradually decreasing comfort after which the supply chains start breaking down in earnest. I suggest you enjoy those years until then.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:49 | 1876540 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

Gee, sounds like Malthus 2012.

There are no shortages of coal or other fossil fuels but those created by the government and its agencies. All the rest follows.

I'm waiting for your "Coal, are you crazy? Did you think about global warming climate change?!?"

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:53 | 1876559 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yep, those damn Commie Vegans caused the Texas to peak back in 1970....

You are pathetic.... bring some real facts to the table, not the waves of  bullshit that you have up to now....

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 16:01 | 1876610 samsara
samsara's picture

As we both know Flak,   "Some Minds are like Cement,  All mixed up and Permantly set"


Mon, 11/14/2011 - 16:26 | 1876768 ian807
ian807's picture

I suggest you review the information in the book referred to at this site:

It has numbers. Try.

Tue, 11/15/2011 - 16:54 | 1880193 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

In your world, do all natural resources last forever? Is the population irrelvant? Does the government control and create all assets? Is Easter Island a head fake?

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:59 | 1876598 samsara
samsara's picture

"Forget the tyranny of the government. "

I agree completely.

I like Kunstler's comment,   "The Gov.  will be lucky just to be able to answer the phones...."

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 16:18 | 1876708 aerojet
aerojet's picture

Just out of curiousity, how many additional years could we buy if everyone 40 and under ran out, right now, and killed a Baby Boomer? 

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 17:37 | 1877084 WonderDawg
WonderDawg's picture

That's a great idea. Come on over, I'll be waiting on the front porch.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 22:10 | 1877886 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Since the baby boomers are also armed, I suspect it would be a 50/50 proposition that this would be your last day on earth.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 16:58 | 1876934 Abitdodgie
Abitdodgie's picture

I have a Searl effect gen running at my house ,so who gives a fuck about oil for energy, it was so last century, free energy is the new oil

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 18:03 | 1877166 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Awesome. Make it yourself? From plans? Bought?


Mon, 11/14/2011 - 19:06 | 1877313 JoBob
JoBob's picture

You really don't seem to know what is going on.....

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:27 | 1876190 r101958
r101958's picture

Judging by the score at the green and red arrows we can tell how many out there are still fully invested in maintaining the status quo delusion.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:30 | 1876197 Carlyle Groupie
Carlyle Groupie's picture

It's not always about the cost of drilling. Extraction costs can vary dramatically given various factors including, oil grade, well pressure, total amount of extractable oil.

Sometimes it's cheaper to go deeper.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:42 | 1876242 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Actually, they would.  NIMBY is a bitch.  The Gulf Oil Disaster was caused by local regulatory agencies forbidding drilling in shallower waters.

Hard to do much of anything when the government has a gun pointed at your head.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:13 | 1876367 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

I don't think that's very fair...  the gulf disaster was caused by the desire to risk the well for expected profits...  shallow or deep drilling won't fix that.

At the very best, it would have happened later rather than sooner...

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:20 | 1876396 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Bullshit... it was caused by the lack of significant plays in shallow water that interest a company the size of the majors.... BP, Exxon et al don't care for new fields that produce less than ~25000 bpd....

They drill in deep water because that is where the remaining big fields exist.... 

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 16:09 | 1876657 tmosley
tmosley's picture

I see.  So denial of application for drilling in shallow water==no oil in shallow water.  

I guess one might call this Peak Oil Logic.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 16:35 | 1876824 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

TM, you can do better than that...

Please refer to

After all, it is only a comprehensive review of the GOM....


Mon, 11/14/2011 - 17:23 | 1877035 trav7777
trav7777's picture

are you looking for yet ANOTHER asskicking?

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 17:36 | 1877082 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

He's like the trolls that pester the gold-bugs... Always getting the crap kicked out of them and coming back for more....

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 18:17 | 1877222 fuu
fuu's picture

I think I will have to make you a theme song when I have some more free time.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 18:09 | 1877185 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Says the guy who compares humans to bacteria, knowing nothing of the growth profiles of either.

If by "asskicking" you mean another round of empty ad-hominem and inept personal attacks, then sure, I'm game.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:19 | 1876159 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

True that peak oil is a sham and that new oil is being discovered every day. But you need a big wake-up with your views about alternative energies. They DO need subsidies to be cost effective, exactly because oil and coal are still the most effective.

PS : Oil is subsidized but also heavily taxed...

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:22 | 1876411 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

We have not found more oil in a given year than we have extracted since ~1980....

I only wish that all my investments were taxed the way the US royalty trusts are....

Quit blowing smoke, there are people here that know a fuck of lot more than you do about energy and oil....

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 16:16 | 1876697 Augustus
Augustus's picture


You are simply incorrect.  World oil reserves have incresed for the last 20 years.


Mon, 11/14/2011 - 16:39 | 1876842 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Please provide evidence of this... and don't play games that employ the SEC definition of a proven resource....

FWIW, you do know that peak oil is not about reserves, it is about flow rates. Do you?

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 18:11 | 1877193 tmosley
tmosley's picture

If it is about flow rate, then why are you commenting about discovery rates?

More and more holes in the peak oil argument.

I bet you can't debase yourself more than Trav will in this thread.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 19:39 | 1877402 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Good god, quit being intellectually bankrupt....

Care to refute the following? Its called the Energy Trap, it could also be called "EROEI for Dummies and Deniers" which is why I thought it would be good for you...

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 20:21 | 1877551 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Doublethink on your part is intellectual bankruptcy on mine?

Interesting peak oil logic you have there.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 20:44 | 1877643 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Well, since you want to play "Defender of the Faith",  could you please explain why we don't have to worry about declining net energy in world liquid fuel supplies, the decrease in global Net exports and declining EROEI?

I am all ears.... 

Tue, 11/15/2011 - 00:19 | 1878199 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Because there are legion other sources of energy, and liquid fuel can be generated artificially from any of them through known processes.  Further, other technologies exist which are of similar energy density to liquid hydrocarbons which don't require such setups (zinc-air batteries), which can easily be used for transportation (where rather than fuel ups, you trade batteries).

Just because the current top source of energy runs out doesn't mean there aren't any more to take its place.  All we need is for the government to get out of the way.

Tue, 11/15/2011 - 11:02 | 1878698 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I dub thee "The Energy Obama"...

Hope and Change! Hope and Change!

Sat, 11/19/2011 - 23:22 | 1890101 Lower Class Elite
Lower Class Elite's picture

"Because there are legion other sources of energy, and liquid fuel can be generated artificially from any of them through known processes. "

Legion?  Solar panels?  Windmills?  Oooh, I know, hydroelectric dams.  And of course the ever-popular thorium reactor!  Now how do you suppose those panels get made?  Or those super-trick carbon fiber blades?  How does all that concrete get made and poured?  How do the trucks that ship the panels and turbines and concrete get made?  How do they move all that shit around?  Have you ever heard of a perpetual motion engine?  Cause that's what it sounds like you are advocating.  "I made a solar panel and I used it to make another solar panel that also produced electricity to process algae and french fry oil into a gasoline-type substance."  ENERGY RETURN ON ENERGY INVESTED.  Look that shit up.  Also brush up on your Laws of Thermodynamics, especially #2.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:25 | 1876182 American Sucker
American Sucker's picture

Billions are being discovered every year.  Of course, billions are being burned.  If you burn more than you find, you lose.  Humanity has burned more than it has found almost every year since 1980 or so.  Google "oil discoveries versus oil production".  There are some sobering charts you should see.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:16 | 1876382 MrPalladium
MrPalladium's picture

"Peak Oil" refers to production, not discoveries or reserve additions. In other words, production volumes have been flat for 6 years despite dramatically higher prices. At bottom, the question is how high prices must go to call forth that addtional production. The biggest problem by far is the huge population increases in mid-east exporting countries driving increases in domestic consumption which in turn drive export volumes down.

"Alternative energy does not need subsidies to be cost effective. It just needs the government to stop heavily subsidizing the oil industry."

If the U.S. government were subsidizing the oil industry, then what do you suppose will happen to oil production and prices when it stops subsidizing the oil industry? Your argument makes no sense.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 16:21 | 1876730 aerojet
aerojet's picture

Every problem boils down to the size of the population.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 20:08 | 1877504 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

MrPalladium thoughtfully remarked:

"Peak Oil" refers to production, not discoveries or reserve additions. In other words, production volumes have been flat for 6 years despite dramatically higher prices. At bottom, the question is how high prices must go to call forth that addtional production.

Production volumes may have already transcended their former relationship with price points. Economists and politicians will wail, gnash their teeth, and practice every form of self-delusion to deny it, but flow rates will be determined by geology, not pricing or "markets".


Mon, 11/14/2011 - 16:28 | 1876769 SRSrocco
SRSrocco's picture

The whole "peak oil" argument is a sham. Billions of barrels of oil are still being discovered every year

While it is true that billions of barrels are being discovered...its mostly TAR SANDS, SHALE OIL, DEEP SEA, and HEAVY OIL.  These are all of an EROI of 8/1 or less.  TAR SANDS is 2-4/1.  The US ECONOMY needs an EROI of 20-25/1+ to survive.

Sticking a hole in the ground and having LIGHT SWEET CRUDE shoot up 100 feet in the air under pressure is different that shoveling millions of tons of TAR SAND, BOILING IT, REFINING IT and making subpar oil.


Tue, 11/15/2011 - 17:01 | 1880218 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

very simply put and very true. Not sure why it is so hard to get for some.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:03 | 1876114 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

Clicking on one of your charts took me here:

Although it's funny it hasn't anything to do with energy independence...

Just sayin'


Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:10 | 1876132 blu
blu's picture


Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:20 | 1876164 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture


In the middle of serious content and all of a sudden I'm chuckling quietly to myself, never read a funnier "peak oil" article...

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:26 | 1876185 blu
blu's picture

It's a vastly depressing subject. Gotta inject some levity where you can.

I guess.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:02 | 1876115 PAPA ROACH
PAPA ROACH's picture

I still don't understand why the entire workforce has to drive in bumper-to-bumper traffic to and fro every day, to sit in a cubical with very little human contact other than lunch and water cooler time and have meetings via computer cam conferences. This is why we use (waste) so much energy, not to mention the healthcare costs associated with long commutes/traffic. Well over 50% of jobs could be done more efficiently from home. We will never wake up to this, it will only happen when it is forced upon us because nobody can afford to drive anymore.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:24 | 1876181 Cugel
Cugel's picture

Exactly. There is so much waste in the system that if we just make the most blindingly obvious adaptations, decreasing consumption will actually raise our standard of living.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:34 | 1876214 Carlyle Groupie
Carlyle Groupie's picture

You two don't understand the whole GDP thing yet. Let's get some articles up on the necessity of ever increasing GDP and how it defines western human lifestyle.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:38 | 1876224 Cugel
Cugel's picture

Ever-increasing GDP is only "necessary" if you borrow to consume. Borrowing to consume is not necessary, therefore neither is ever-increasing GDP.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:41 | 1876241 Carlyle Groupie
Carlyle Groupie's picture

Like totally clueless or maybe too idealistic. Don't know. Wake up please.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:45 | 1876250 pods
pods's picture

Your argument holds on an individual basis. But on the aggregate, as long as there is interest charged on lending, we gotta grow.


Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:56 | 1876285 Cugel
Cugel's picture

Meh. If you borrow to produce, you can pay back into the sum total of wealth through the value of your produced goods. The wealth of society is increased by your productive output. The price of money and the money price of the goods don't change the underlying equation.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:08 | 1876335 pods
pods's picture

The underlying equation is that if the growth in the economy (your productive growth scenario) is less than the interest on the borrowed money, someone, somewhere defaults.

That is why we need growth.  Not agreeing with it, it is just how it is.  If the growth in the economy is less than the money extracted through interest, someone is going to default.

Bankers don't care about the wealth of society when the bill is due.  That is why so many have warned about banking.  It extracts interest for its own gain.  

If production is not greater than the extraction, game over.  


Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:15 | 1876379 PAPA ROACH
PAPA ROACH's picture

Funny how hard people fight to be slaves, perpetuating the game. Game over only means those who lent money as investment, the slave masters, lose to which I say, who the fuck cares. I am not some OWS guy, but I find we are playing a game that is way outdated, and only benefits a few. I am all for opening pandoras box to see what happens when the cogs stop rotating............

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:25 | 1876426 Cugel
Cugel's picture

But what you are saying is trivial. Of course if people value the inputs more than the outputs, production should stop. That is why default and bankruptcy are good -- they put a halt to wealth-destroying processes. The fact that "someone, somewhere defaults" just changes what hands the money is in. It is not the creation or destruction of wealth. Wealth is stuff, not money. An economy can be deflationary while its participants become wealthier. This is my point.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:53 | 1876568 pods
pods's picture

Not when things in that economy are measured in that which is increasing in value due to shrinking supply (fiat money in a deflation).

Why is it we always must grow?  

What I am saying is trivial?

What I am saying is of the utmost importance.  Watch what happens when the removes the 10-14% of GDP addition through deficit spending.  See how much wealthie people become when the USD implodes on itself.

It a fiat system where the money for P is loaned into existance, future P is today's P+I.  

Not sure what world you are living in (sounds like a theoretical one to me), but in this world when expansion stops, we go kaboom.  It will be a Roman Waterfall event and it WILL trigger a hyperinflation.  But the problem will be one of deflation, not of inflation.  Deflation is a self reinforcing effect in our system.  If we had a hard money standard, with no fractional reserve credit money allowed, sure deflation would be good.  But that is far from where we are now.

BTW, when someone defaults, the money does not change hands, it goes poof.  



Mon, 11/14/2011 - 16:07 | 1876644 Cugel
Cugel's picture

Again, you are confusing money with wealth. When the financial system implodes, it will still leave behind the knowledge and capacity for produciton. The fact that Americans will not have their accustomed share of those outputs is their own fault for borrowing to consume, as I mentioned earlier. The current state of the economy does not contradict, but reflects the points I have been making.

BTW, when someone defaults, the underlying wealth only goes "poof" to the extent that it has been consumed.

Mon, 11/14/2011 - 16:19 | 1876714 pods
pods's picture

I understand the difference between money (technically currency) and wealth.  When the system implodes, there will be nothing to value production.  Try a 50% reduction in the money (again, currency) supply. 

When someone defaults, the debt goes poof.  The holder of that debt holds it as an asset.  Where does it go?  It can only be recovered by repossessing the collateral, if there is any. Of course, the value of this collateral will plummet as it always does in a deflation, leading to a realized loss.  By nature anything that is financed through debt will have inflated in perceived value.  This also works on the contraction side.

I fully understand the points you are trying to make.  But your points are not reality based.  Of course the underlying knowledge is there, but there will be no market for goods as the money (currency) supply will have shrunk to the point to where commerce stops. 


Mon, 11/14/2011 - 16:31 | 1876794 Cugel
Cugel's picture

Then everything just gets repriced. Do you really think we'll revert to the stone age with factories and power plants and engineers all lying around? Or will people cobble something together and start trading with one another? Which scenario is "reality based"?


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