Guest Post: Selling The Oil Illusion, American Style

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Chris Martenson guest writer Gregor Macdonald

Selling The Oil Illusion, American Style

"The task of the real intellectual consists of analyzing illusions in order to discover their causes." ~ Arthur Miller

US production of crude oil peaked in 1970 at 9.637 mbpd (million barrels per day) and has been in a downtrend for 40 years. Recently, however, there's been a tremendous amount of excitement at the prospect of a "new era" in domestic oil production. The narratives currently being offered come in the following three forms: 1) the US has more oil than Saudi Arabia; 2) the US need only to remove regulatory barriers to significantly increase production; and 3) the US can once again become self-sufficient in oil production, dropping all imported oil to zero.

Let's first take a look at over 70 years of US oil production.

The US is currently enjoying its second stabilization phase since the peak in 1970. (Daily oil production has rebounded from a deep hole in 2008, from below 5 mbpd to above 5.5 mbpd). The first stabilization period lasted for more than 7 years, from 1977 to 1985. While it did not reverse the overall decline trend, which had resumed by 1990, this was certainly good news, just as our current production increases are good news. But the production history laid out graphically here is instructive and gives a clear warning: It would be unwise to herald the recent uptick in domestic production with a "new era" headline. Deepwater drilling, Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska were all "new era" events in their day as well. Or so they seemed.

Now, three respectable publications have recently cast the advent of new oil extraction in America as a kind of miracle. And indeed, technologically, the refinement of hydraulic fracturing techniques -- first used to extract natural gas, and now used to extract oil -- is miraculous. But a technique such as this, although replicable and repeatable, will not change the fact that newer, unconventional resources are developed and produce oil at a much slower rate. One year after the Black Giant of East Texas was discovered in the early 1930s, it was producing just 1 mbpd. The US no longer has resources such as this to exploit. The history of US oil production over the past 40 years should make this clear.

However, this did not stop the Telegraph of London from making triumphant assertions in their October 23 piece:

World power swings back to America

The American phoenix is slowly rising again. Within five years or so, the US will be well on its way to self-sufficiency in fuel and energy.

The US was the single largest contributor to global oil supply growth last year, with a net 395,000 barrels per day (b/d)," said Francisco Blanch from Bank of America, comparing the Dakota fields to a new North Sea. Total US shale output is "set to expand dramatically" as fresh sources come on stream, possibly reaching 5.5m b/d by mid-decade. This is a tenfold rise since 2009. The US already meets 72pc of its own oil needs, up from around 50pc a decade ago. "The implications of this shift are very large for geopolitics, energy security, historical military alliances and economic activity.


The claims made here (or should I say the conjectures here), are completely over-reaching -- but worse, the data is completely wrong. This matters because the article was widely distributed and sustained a very popular position for several days on Twitter and in other media outlets. I have written extensively on the problematic nature of energy data that’s produced by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) in Washington and International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris. So it’s not really surprising that the public, the average reader, cannot fact-check these numbers easily.

In Secrecy by Complexity: Obfuscation in Energy Data and the Primacy of Crude Oil, I explained how difficult it can be -- even for journalists -- to obtain a time series of commodity production and flows that is continuous, let alone understandable. For example, if one includes biofuels (which, of course, are not oil in any sense and do not contain the dense btu content of oil), perhaps one could claim that 2010 oil production in the US outpaced the rest of the world. But according to the EIA in Washington, 2010 saw China make the largest new contribution to world oil supplies at 277 kbpd (thousand barrels per day), followed by Russia at 199 kbpd, and then Canada at 153 kbpd. The United States? US oil production grew by an average 114 kbpd.

So in a world of global crude oil production currently running around 74 mbpd, we are asked to believe a new era has dawned for the United States on the back of an additional 114 kbpd? That would be funny, if it were not so ridiculous. Let’s also include the 2011 additions to US oil production, at 141 kbpd. Are you feeling excited yet? These are the volumes that will allow the US to re-conquer the world with new oil production, and wean itself off global oil imports? The New York Times is quite enthused about these “major developments,” as evidenced by this October piece:

New Technologies Redraw the World’s Energy Picture

This striking shift in energy started in the 1990s with the first deepwater wells in the Gulf of Mexico and Brazil, but it has taken off in the last decade as a result of declining conventional fields, climbing energy prices and swift technological change. The United States may now have the means to reduce its half century of dependence on the Middle East.


Sigh. The New York Times has been selling that dream for several years now. Indeed, if you are old enough to have followed the presidential election cycle since the 1970’s, you’ll know that “energy independence” has been a standard, vague promise trotted out since the Carter Administration.

But let’s say the US did indeed want to become less dependent on foreign oil. How would the country achieve such a shift, if not through a huge increase in production? After all, the recent “rise” or stability in US crude oil production is made partially on the back of a steeper four-year production decline that carried into 2008, when the rate fell to below 5 mbpd. So far in 2011, US production of crude oil just about matches the rate last seen in 2003-2004, around 5.5 mbpd. Despite the hype, the supply side of this equation has not changed enough. Could we do something about the demand side?

So, now you know. The longest and deepest recession (actually a financial crisis and a depression) in the post-war period reduced oil consumption by 12.8%. The “miracle,” if you can call it that, of US oil independence lies not in the illusion that 5.5 mbpd of oil production can be lifted to wipe out 11.5 mbpd of oil imports. Instead, it lies in a further de-industrialization of the US economy, a huge reduction in miles driven on the nation’s roads and highways, and no doubt some energy efficiency.

Perhaps some of these are good things. Even very good things. But they are not unequivocally good things. To the extent that portions of the US economy that can shift to the power grid have done so in the past three years, for example, much of that new grid demand has been met by coal. But more broadly, it is not so much that the US is wisely and strategically conducting energy transition as a matter of policy. No, a whole tranche of the US economy has been literally kicked off oil, mainly due to the financial crisis and high unemployment, but also partly due to the inelasticity of demand in emerging markets. I would remind readers that 100% of the new demand for global oil since 2005, mostly coming from the non-OECD, has not been met by new supply. Instead, in a world of flat oil production, the resources for the developing world have come solely from a reduction of demand in the developed nations. Global oil supply is now a zero-sum game. Let’s stop litigating this fact.

Of course, no tour through the world of badly mangled energy data or energy optimism would be complete without noting the opinion of Dan Yergin. Interestingly, Yergin’s research group CERA has produced one of the best indexes of rampant cost inflation in the global oil and gas industry over the past decade. This is a key point that often eludes even the educated reader not familiar with the complexities of resource economics, and which was a ghosted irony in the New York Times article cited previously: The unconventional resources on which we now depend are complex and costly. Most important of all, they are slow. The tar sands are slow. Ultra-deepwater off the coast of Brazil is slow. However, this does not stop Mr. Yergin, who has been given free range once again to make vague, grand forecasts about future supply. In an October 31 piece in the Financial Times, he is quoted:

Pendulum swings on American oil independence

“Over the past couple of years, there has been a great U-turn in US oil supply,” says Daniel Yergin of IHS Cera, the research group. “Until recently, the question was whether oil imports would flatten out. Now we are seeing a major rebalancing of supplies.”


It no longer amazes me to hear Yergin make such claims. U-Turn in US oil supply? A major rebalancing? Yeah, sure; whatever. This pabulum is, of course, not taken seriously by energy investors as a whole, and certainly not by some of the more notable hedge fund managers, who took it upon themselves to get out in front of oil depletion early last decade. Mr. Yergin is useful to a political complex that wishes to avoid the career risk of actually having to do something about our increasingly uneconomic transportation systems and the developed world’s dependence on oil. This is as true here in the States as it is in Europe. Indeed, why take the political risk of telling Americans they should choose to transition away from automobiles, when price will start to do some of that work regardless?

Department of Transportation: VMT - Vehicle Miles Travelled, 12 Month Moving Average on All Highways, (in Billion Miles):

Continuing with our theme, the Telegraph of London was completely wrong when it claimed that the US now meets 72% of its own oil needs, up from 50% a decade ago. Worrying to the cause of mathematical accuracy in journalism, that 72% figure nearly describes the amount of crude oil the US must import -- which is currently running at 68% of US consumption. Moreover, given the peak and decline in VMT (vehicle miles driven), we once again confront the myth that the US economy is recovering and has new oil supply to do so. This is a nasty combination of normalcy bias, which plugs in to the wish for resurrection and the plain old fallacy of composition. A very small amount of new oil production has been blown up beyond all scale and proportion. To the Arthur Miller quote in the header of this essay, the question is: Why has the media presented this illusion now, to the American audience?

We need to examine even more closely, however, the actual prospects for lifting US oil production, were we to imagine a kind of War on Oil Depletion in the United States. (No, we're never going to extract the kerogen deposits of the Green River Formation, despite the investment-opportunity (!!) spam in your email). Environmentalists probably believe for example, especially in the wake of their victory this week on the XL Pipeline, that the US is unlikely to ever adopt a full-on, drill, drill, drill policy for oil. I think that's a mistake, and I would point to a country like Australia, which, despite a new tax on carbon, has increasingly become a single, vast territory of resource extraction.

Unfortunately, our oil transition effort has only just begun. It's still taking place only in very minor fashion, at the margin. The balance of this decade must be tackled first, and it will be felt as an ongoing battle between oil prices bumping up against a ceiling as economies repeatedly fail to recover.

In Part II: How To Postion for the Next Great Oil Squeeze, I also show the specific data on US Imports of crude oil, and why Canada, with its very slow-flowing tar sands, is hardly going to save the US, XL pipeline or not. Most importantly, I will explain how oil depletion will likely mean quite a profitable future for America's independent oil and gas companies and address the key questions: how can the average investor position themselves for the next great oil demand shock? and when will it happen? All within the context of overall, energy-induced economic decline in the OECD, as resource depletion of oil -- which remains the master commodity and the primary energy input to the global economy -- means that a higher level of economic volatility will be the new normal until energy transition unfolds more fully.

Click here to access Part II of this report (free executive summary; enrollment required for full access).

Comment viewing options

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

Good grief Charlie Brown - another Peak Oil fanatic.  Zzzzzzzzzzzz

kaiserhoff's picture

All this hype and arm waving about nothing, the day after Pubama puts off a decision on the keystone pipeline until AFTER the election.  Thus selling out his union buddies for the sake of his tree hugger buddies.  Leadership no one believes in.

trav7777's picture

lol, the media cannot even be expected to get the numbers even vaguely RIGHT.

Consumption in the US is below levels seen 15+ years ago.  This isn't optional.

Our "U turn" in production is due to shit we consumed oil to produce, aka corn ethanol and other shit like that which is a net energy loser but some moron congressman will say "makes good sense."

Yes, we should burn 1.1 barrels of oil imported so we can get 1 gal of corn ethanol to market here.  Fuckin brilliant.  And idiots like this abound along with peak oil denier fools. 

Due to export land model,major importers like the USA face a reality where we have to invade to prevent people in other countries from consuming their own oil so that we can consume it.

Fuckin AGW people want to shut down the coal plants; they are living in a fantasy world where electricity can come from magic because so many liars and idiots and crooks and con artists have convinced them that their delusions are sane.  Where the fuck is the power gonna come from to charge all the iShit out there?

walküre's picture

My sentiments exactly.

Closing down Keystone XL now was a bad strategic move. Nobody understands the decision to postpone this until 2013.

Why is everything pushed into the future and past 2012?

Keystone XL, ZIRP...

Makes me nervous to think what 2012 could have in store for us. Almost like a self fullfilled prophecy?

Arkadaba's picture

The decision to postpone was entirlely politicallly based:

I'm not sure this was the right decesion but Canada is in the market. I actually don't support Harper but he will push forward for any deal that benefits Canada.


Ted K's picture

Nevermind there have already been NUMEROUS leaks in the Keystone pipeline which wastes the oil this right wing hack says we will be short on (About 5am tomorrow if you were to go by his melodramatic rhetoric).  But then if you are a Chris Martenson lackey who is long oil, you probably don't mind how many thousands of barrels of oil are spewed out of the Keystone pipeline or IF it leaks in any national parks.

This of course is ignoring the fact that the Keystone pipeline enriches the Koch brothers.

Of course this wouldn't bother Chris Martenson or Martenson's toe jam lickers, as he probably thinks the Koch Brothers are true American capitalists now, after he read they sold weapons to Iran.

Wave the American flag with your Koch brothers from another mother Martenson, maybe at the next Koch Brothers party they'll give you a complimentary dildo with Republican elephant emblem stuck on the tip.

Arkadaba's picture

I will check out your links -thanks!

But why is the one deal getting vilified? There may be good reasons but Canada has been sending Crude to the US for years. Including dirty oil.


Arkadaba's picture

I will check out your links -thanks!

But why is the one deal getting vilified? There may be good reasons but Canada has been sending Crude to the US for years. Including dirty oil.


Seer's picture

"Closing down Keystone XL now was a bad strategic move."

(as IF closing it down after it was in full operation would happen)

But, a bad strategic move based on what metrics?

People, you're basing your reasoning on a paradigm that will NOT continue.  Consider:

1) EVERY finite resource will, at some point, cease to be readily exploitable;

2) Energy is meaningless if you don't have the materials with which to apply it toward (talking about use in "production," not for such basic things like heating/cooling a home or cooking);

3) China is likely investing more USD in Canada that the US is- read "Canada is rising in influence in Canada while the US's economic influence is in decline;

4) If we're talking "free trade" and "open markets," then the cost of this oil will be subject to market forces, with the US's declining economy being less and less able to afford the (relative) higher costs;

5) Economies of scale in reverse.

It's point #5 that I will, from this point on, continue to belabor.  Eventually, at some point, the demand WON'T be there.  The existing scale of things demands equally high scales of demand (PLUS- always "growth," which is actually the thing that supports current output [attraction of future gains]).  We're in a contraction, and this contraction may not stop before it blows through the floor of  lower prices generated from economies of scale.  The "upside" has limits in the exponential, the "downside" has the limit of ZERO.

I was just talking to my wife about Boeing's recent news of its sale of 50 777s to the UAE.  I explained that a contract doesn't always = resultant product; it's not uncommon for cancellations (which had been occurring quite often with those on 787 orders).  So, back to the economies of scale in reverse issue... If people are increasingly losing jobs (higher-paying jobs), who is going to be flying?  Less people with money = less oil purchased, which means greater production costs, which = less profits to the UAE.  All of this adds up to an increase in idle capacity (factory as well as airplane).  And for Boeing?  Reduced sales in the future; and, what reduced R&D for future aircraft.

Slinky down the staircase.  "Bad strategy" would be to INCREASE something whose DEMAND is in (near) perpetual DECLINE.  Yes, I understand that this supply would be needed to help offset declines in production of conventional, but, clearly, the trend is set (according to the reversal of "economies of scale").


donsluck's picture

I think you have it backwards. He will approve the pipeline and he is waiting until after the elections, hoping to get the environmental vote. The old bait and switch. At least with Bush we knew what we were getting.

jeff montanye's picture

if you don't know what you're getting with obama by now, you have let your mind wander badly.

Tramp Stamper's picture

Why does the pipeline have to go from canada to houston?  Would it not be smarter just to build a refinery at the US Canadian border.

jaffa's picture

Preregistration causes gaps to appear between overlapping colors. By creating a trap, you prevent this gap from appearing. Thanks a lot.
landscape forum

defencev's picture

That is exactly right. The problem with this piece is the assumption that there is no substitute for oil. It is simply not true.

The right sibstitute for oil is liquified natural gas. No matter whar various m...fuckers are telling you here, the truth is that new fracking technology produced a revolution in available gas supply in US. It is not accidental that e.g. the price of natural gas I am using in my house for heating went down dramatically during last several years. And it is absolutely real no matter what various jerks are telling you. Now, it will take time to produce infra structure for liquified gas (e.g. as a fuel for vehicles) but it is doable,

cannot be outsourced and a source of well paid meaningful jobs in US (unlike Solindra-type fraud). The same is true for pipe line

mentioned in the post which Obummer just killed to transport oil from Canadian tar sands to US refineries. The same is true for new, cleaner technologies for coal which Obummer is trying to kill. The same is true for nuclear energy which ignorant green idiots are trying to kill refering to Fukushima (which is a non-event from global viewpoint).

 People, you are being  brainwashed quite delibiretaly with a simple goal:we all need to return to stone age just for the sake of few idiots hoarding the GOLD. It is just a bullshit! Absolute, f...cking bullshit!

jeff montanye's picture

fukushima a global non event? really? well, at least not bullish for nuclear power, perhaps we can go that far.

p.s. better spelling and less cursing might also help your persuasiveness.

TheMerryPrankster's picture

Read up on Petroleum.

natural gas does not have the same energy density as oil. It has much less energy, therefore it would take significantly more natural gas to replace existing oil supplies. Natural gas also cannot produce the same chemical spectrum that oil distillation does, so other sources will still need to be found for these chemical stocks.

Fracking uses very large amounts of freshwater, a single well can use as much as 600,000 gallons of fresh water just for the initial drilling. Over its lifetime an average well will require an additional 5 million gallons of water for the initial fracking operation and restimulation frac jobs

Thats a single well, think how many wells would be needed to replace our dwindling oil supplies.Where do we get all this freshwater from and what happens to our freshwater when there are so many wells drilled? If it comes down to freshwater or natural gas, which one can you live without?

Its not bullshit and its not brainwashing its science. read and learn, all the magic is gone.







trav7777's picture

c'mon man, we have "100s of years" of gas left and we'll "just figure out a way."

Yes, WE will.  Not "scientists," most of whom say effing bullshit because they understand thermo, but "we."  WE will do it.  I love how morons and laypeople always speak in terms of we when they have no fucking clue about anything.

Nevermind how the 100s of years figures come from current consumption rates.  When those rates double and triple due to substitution for oil, well, just suffice it to say shit's not so rosy.  Nevermind the apocalyptic decline curves of NG wells

geekgrrl's picture

Thanks MerryPrankster.

To add to what you said, earlier this year a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) said: "“Our results show evidence for methane contamination of shallow drinking water systems in at least three areas of the region [aquifers overlying the Marcellus and Utica shale formations of northeastern Pennsylvania and upstate New York] and suggest important environmental risks accompanying shale gas exploration worldwide."

From "Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing." Abstract and full-text available directly from PNAS.

It's all a joke to these deniers until it's their drinking water that becomes flammable and they, their kids, and their animals get sick. Then, not so much. See for yourselves:

BigJim's picture

Well, they can just purify their water with an excellent new Koch water purifier - now powered with cheap, clean, natural gas!

delacroix's picture

older big rig  diesel trucks  using 70% cng 30% diesel, meet all new emission standards.  conversion cost is around $5,000  for equipment,  including tank

Seer's picture

Simple research on energy density will inform you that NG cannot "replace" oil.

Further, people need to discount ANY statement or "argument" that fails to include projections on growth.  Claims that some given substance will meet all mankind's needs is meaningless w/o identifying future rates of growth.  If you increase the rate at which you drink your beverage you WILL consume it FASTER (duh)!

None of this has ANYTHING to do with politics.  And the use of emotions is a poor mechanism for decision-making.

jaffa's picture

In this capacity, self balancing BSTs have a number of advantages and disadvantages over their main competitor, hash tables. One advantage of self balancing BSTs is that they allow fast enumeration of the items in key order, which hash tables do not provide. One disadvantage is that their lookup algorithms get more complicated when there may be multiple items with the same key. Thanks.
air charter plane

rosex229's picture

For me a historical chart of U.S. oil production is a prescient example of why the cornucopian "technology will save us all" prognosticators are emperically wrong. 


Its not just that U.S. oil production has been on a steady (long term) decline for 40 years, but the fact that Marion King Hubbert predicted in 1956 that U.S. oil pdouction would peak in 1971. This indicates that 40 years of declining U.S. oil production was not mere coincidence, but was predictable 15 years ahead of time.


U.S. oil discoveries peaked 40 years before U.S. oil production peaked. Global oil discoveries peaked in 1964 (47 years ago), and global oil production on an EROEI basis has been stagnant since 2005. 


Human beings just 100 years ago dreamt of flying above the clouds, now we complain about the experience, 100 years from now the average person will dream of flight.


As the Saudi saying goes, "My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a car, I ride in a jet plane, my son will ride a camel."

trav7777's picture

lol, yep.  But don't say that because the environuts are preventing us from making that curve continue to go up up up exponentially.  It's all their faults.

Also, all the technology has done is NOT extend lifespan, but enable us to increase production.  AKA, we got bigger straws and sucked oil out FASTER with all the hightech.  We did not magically make huge producers produce for longer.  Technology kept our moving up the exponential curve for longer, but the downside is that the backside of the depletion curves are uglier.

The fields are essentially going fucking dry overnight like Cantarell or Prudhoe.  They fall off an effing cliff to nothingness.  Cantarell was the 2nd largest producing field in the world, then it hit peak.  That ONE field alone lost 2mbpd.  That's 1/40th of world supply GONE in just a few years.  It lost capacity faster than anybody could hope we could bring new production online.

And the magic deepwater Brazilian fields, lol...they're going to produce maybe 500kbpd out of a 10Gbbl resource, nothing AT ALL like surface fields produced from similar sized reserves.  The N Slope was around that size in URR and produced at a rate 3-4x that.

Seer's picture

I think that it's important to educate people to the fact that technology is a PROCESS, it cannot CREATE anything, it can only be used to TRANSFORM.  If you don't have something/the necessary thing to transform then technology is no more than a good book of fiction.

Energy and resources are EVERYTHING.  It's why wars are fought.

CPL's picture

Peak Coal is the new black evening dress!!


Peak oil was so four years ago.

trav7777's picture

lol, don't start, because we have "hundreds of years" of coal remaining.  Same with NG.  We just DO, ok?  There CAN'T be a problem.  If we ignore it strenuously enough, it will go away and won't be "our reality."

Yes, I've had people tell me that in THEIR reality, these things aren't an issue.

donsluck's picture

The issue is that we really can't attempt to burn all the available fossil fuels AND have successful agriculture. Global climate change will make farming more and more difficult.

TuesdayBen's picture

Frack you and your Warmer ilk

Lower Class Elite's picture

Your Koch-approved magical thinking talking points mean shit against thermodynamics.  Reality will make you its prison bitch.  Deniers will be prosecuted.

BandGap's picture

WTF thermodynamics are you talking about?  Do you even know what that means?

Let's keep it simple, the hockey stick model voodoo math is all we need to understand. Lies, big lies.

Lower Class Elite's picture

Why yes, yes I do know what thermodynamics means.  Do you know what shitting in your own nest means? 

Seer's picture

Ben, buddy, no hamburger for YOU!

BTW - the poster didn't mention "warmer."  Amazing at how programmed people are to knee-jerk.  There WILL be a next glacial period; sadly, those who warn of such things won't be able to say "I told you so" because pert-near everyone will perish (and for those who are left communication of what happened will be pretty meaningless).  NOTE: we can only affect the frequency, we cannot control the outcome; but, to claim that we don't have an affect on the planet doesn't understand the Observation Effect.

rosex229's picture

Yet the same people that believe energy is a non-issue tend to think that our current economic woes are purely the fault of politicians... Suddenly, since oil production peaked every single politician the world over began implementing economically destructive policies. Quite a coincidence right?


It could never be the laws of thermodynamics because human beings are so clever that the laws of nature need not apply.

TheMerryPrankster's picture

it goes back to the fantasy that we exist outside nature, and have conquered nature. Its one biosphere and we all participate and if we fuck it up, we are all gone. We actually do depend on each other.Plants, animals, bacteria, humans we are all bound to each other for survival.

All the economic growth of the last century has been a result of cheap oil. Cheap oil is disappearing, where does future growth come from? Oil is the economy, graph it and watch the convergence.

trav7777's picture

take a look at a graph of global population versus time and look at the rocket launch at the onset of the hydrocarbon age.

hannah's picture

if we keep bailing out 'big oil' we will never have any development of the hover cars we have been promised for 60 years. kill off big oil and we will be able to have flying cars.....!

Seer's picture

If you want to make your head scramble think about the battle that would occur between the oil and insurance sectors!

People can't drive in TWO dimensions, let alone in THREE! (for shits sake, people can't THINK in more than two dimensions to start with, let along drive!)

Sleep would be a bitch.  Drones colliding with little old ladies in flying automobiles...

tmosley's picture

Really pushing the peak oil today, aren't we?

trav7777's picture

IONIC LIQUIDS!!!!!111111

any more technobullshit to say to piss into this hurricane?

tmosley's picture

So, Trav, are you saying that ionic liquids can't separate bitumen from sand with very little in the way of energy input?

Or are you planning on denying some more reality today?

Of course, I think we all already know the answer to that question.

Iriestx's picture

Ionic Liquids = The New Cold Fusion.

Lower Class Elite's picture

Ionic liquids are produced by Skittle-shitting unicorns.  And they taste delicious!

BandGap's picture

We produce an ionic liquid used to recombine low molecular weight hydrocarbons into long chained molecules.  Not cold fusion but useful stuff, very useful in many applications.