[deMolay]

An interesting article with multiple links. And some info I haven't seen before, like the Kuwait Report. http://www.energyandcapital.com/article ... enial/1111

[Ludi]

End of Peak Oil denial? Not a chance.

[mcgowanjm]

An interesting article with multiple links. And some info I haven't seen before, like the Kuwait Report. http://www.energyandcapital.com/article ... enial/1111

Official forecasts had no cognizance of it whatsoever. All were confident that oil supply would continue to grow steadily to 130 million barrels per day (mbpd) and beyond, at prices that would be considered astoundingly cheap by today's standards. Oil companies rarely mentioned peak oil, and when they did, it was in a casually dismissive way.

But as time marched on, the cornucopian arguments fell one by one. My longtime readers have seen the story unfold, but for the benefit of new readers, here's a quick summary...

Since 2001. Cheney's Still not released Energy Task Force and 9/11.

Everything's been done with the recognition
of holding BAU as long as possible. Which
will guarantee the fastest crash possible.

It takes energy to power down civilization.

Oh, and What's This

Arthur Berman/ Matt Simmons/ and us Dirty
F(expletive deleted for sensitive souls ) Hippies were also right about Shale Gas not being the savior of BAU?:

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/files ... schork.gif

few times this year that he doesn’t see evidence that the big shale plays such as Barnett are actually providing big increases in natural gas production, despite the number of wells being sunk. He also pointed to the environmental problems with the hydraulic fracturing used to extract shale gas.

Geologist and energy consultant Arthur Berman has also been pointing out the rapid decline rates for some of the big shale gas plays for some time now. Berman and Lynn Pittinger wrote about their attendance at Haynesville shale symposium earlier this month:

[Oakley]

Of all the problems of mankind, how many do you think that government has successfully solved as compared to how many they have made worse?

I can hardly get excited to think that peak oil will become part of conventional wisdom, and that government will place its black hand upon us to find a solution.

[thuja]

Of all the problems of mankind, how many do you think that government has successfully solved as compared to how many they have made worse?

I can hardly get excited to think that peak oil will become part of conventional wisdom, and that government will place its black hand upon us to find a solution.

Yes I know because government has had no hand in solving problems such as...slavery, women and blacks not being allowed to vote, child labor laws, the 40 hour work week, protections for the mentally ill, the elderly and disabled, environmental protections, clean water, etc etc etc. Yeah we were so much better when government ignored all of those problems.

[mos6507]

Yes I know because government has had no hand in solving problems such as...slavery, women and blacks not being allowed to vote, child labor laws, the 40 hour work week, protections for the mentally ill, the elderly and disabled, environmental protections, clean water, etc etc etc. Yeah we were so much better when government ignored all of those problems.

<sarcasm>Ah, you're just a dirty statist.</sarcasm>

[eastbay]

Thanks for the great find, DeMolay. I've emailed it to a few friends.

[Keith_McClary]

problems such as...slavery, women and blacks not being allowed to vote, child labor laws, the 40 hour work week, protections for the mentally ill, the elderly and disabled, environmental protections, clean water

Does Oakley consider these to be "problems"?

[Oakley]

Of all the problems of mankind, how many do you think that government has successfully solved as compared to how many they have made worse?

I can hardly get excited to think that peak oil will become part of conventional wisdom, and that government will place its black hand upon us to find a solution.

Yes I know because government has had no hand in solving problems such as...slavery, women and blacks not being allowed to vote, child labor laws, the 40 hour work week, protections for the mentally ill, the elderly and disabled, environmental protections, clean water, etc etc etc. Yeah we were so much better when government ignored all of those problems.

Yes we would be much better off with very little government.

Slavery is created and enforced by government. Women and blacks not being allowed to vote resulted from laws passed by government. I sort of think your view is like someone robbing you in an alley, but giving you back $1 of what he just took from you for a bus ride home. This also makes me think of people thanking God when they recovered from a serious illness without thanking him for allowing them to get sick in the first place. If government had not created the problem of slavery or denying women and blacks a vote, then they would not need to solve those problems, now would they!

Child labor laws are a joke since they destroy jobs for the very people who need them, plus drive up costs of products, many of which are purchased by the poor. Do you think a child is better off out of work and starving, or working for what the market says he is worth? A 40 hour work week is none of government's business and absent the benefit to the industrial age from cheap energy would have driven down output with the result that fewer necessities of life would be available.

Family surely has a greater interest in caring for the mentally ill, and if you have ever seen a government run mental hospital, you would probably be sickened. As far as the elderly, how do you think it is going to play out when Social Security checks no longer go out because this Ponzi scheme collapses (just think Bernie Madoff). And what will become of the elderly and disabled when government finishes destroying the purchasing power of money.

As far as the environment, have you never read of the terrible conditions in Eastern Europe when the government owned the industry and created some of the worst pollution in the world? The government here sets the standards for pollution, thus depriving people damaged by the allowed pollution from securing compensation from the polluter.

One good thing I can say about government is that it has helped to keep the human population down just a little as they are great at war and killing.

[thuja]

Wow

[Ludi]

Wow

Yep, that was super.

[Keith_McClary]

Yes we would be much better off with very little government.

US and NATO are on a great Crusade to bring centralized Western style government ("in a box", no less!) to the redneck hillbillies of Afghanistan. Sounds like you're with the Taliban on this one.

This also makes me think of people thanking God when they recovered from a serious illness without thanking him for allowing them to get sick in the first place.

After every tornado TV news has a you-all in the wreckage of their trailer saying "Jesus must love us, we're still alive."

[mos6507]

Yes we would be much better off with very little government.

Katrina, anyone?

[Mesuge]

As you all know, or should know by this stage, there is a paper trail at least going as far as to mid 70s, documenting that CIA analysts tracked the "peak oil" issue, advised on high level gov. policy (e.g. export ban on advanced drilling equipment to USSR), and acted accordingly as we have seen recently the Cheney's task force policy being implemented during invasion into Iraq. So, clearly some parties within the powerstructure have been aware of the issue for several decades, whether their response to it is coherent, meanigfull or just haphazzard in nature as various power tribes fight each other is a different question. In case you still wait for the Time mag "comming out moment" type of cover story, that's beyond worthless, besides some of the major energy companies already ran major ad campaigns there, saying the cheap oil era is over..

Yes, you have got some exceptions, outliers, like parts of the Scandinavia were the issue is discussed more openly within the gov-public realm, but as we know most of the world is not set up this way.

[vtsnowedin]

In case you still wait for the Time mag "comming out moment" type of cover story, that's beyond worthless, besides some of the major energy companies already ran major ad campaigns there, saying the cheap oil era is over..

It seems that awareness is growing.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/28f1e2a6-432e ... ab49a.html

This week oil climbed to $87 a barrel, its highest level since October 2008 and prompted concerns that triple-digit crude was once again in the offing.

This was after a period of eight months when oil traded between $70 and $80, a narrow band that pleased oil producers without hurting consumers too much.

The latest surge seems to have been prompted by rising confidence in a global economic recovery, even if most traders and bankers are still cautious about supply and demand fundamentals.

Worries about the Greek economy have pegged prices back over the last couple of days but the more bullish Wall Street banks see prices climbing further, with Barclays Capital forecasting $97, Goldman Sachs $110 and Morgan Stanley $100 next year.

But the higher prices go, the deeper the concerns that they will stifle global growth. Jeff Rubin, a former CIBC chief economist and author of a book on oil and globalisation, says: “Triple-digit oil prices are going to threaten a world recovery.”

EDITOR’S CHOICE
In depth: Oil - Dec-16.Kazakh threat to expel expat oil workers - Apr-06.Hard task to offload North Sea assets - Apr-05.Desire suffers setback in Falklands - Mar-29.Afren to mop up Nigeria as majors leave - Mar-30.Premier Oil aims to double production - Mar-25..Pricier oil and other key commodities, notably iron ore and copper, could ripple through the economy and financial markets, potentially triggering inflation and forcing central banks to lift interest rates from ultra-low levels. This could force bond yields higher, but lower the attractions of equities.

However, higher oil prices could lift energy shares. In the S&P 500 index, the energy sector is up just 2.4 per cent this year and was barely positive in the first quarter, lagging behind the index’s 6 per cent gain for the year.

Nicholas Colas, ConvergEx Group chief market strategist, says: “With crude oil prices marching steadily higher, portfolio exposure to the energy sector could well become a key determinant of overall investment performance through the balance of 2010.”

Oil prices first hit $100 a barrel in January 2008, before continuing their rapid ascent to peak at $147 in July of that year. They fell to a low of $32 in December 2008, before recovering again. On Thursday oil traded at about $85 a barrel.

The latest rise comes as the economic recovery fuels a jump in oil demand after the first global decline in a quarter century. Supply is not a worry, as the Opec oil cartel has more than 6m b/d of capacity to spare in a pinch.

One difference from last year is that then the oil price was rising against the backdrop of a weaker dollar. This year crude and the dollar have risen together.

Policymakers seem untroubled. Energy ministers at the International Energy Forum in Mexico last week embraced less volatility, not lower prices. Lawrence Summers, director of the US National Economic Council, in remarks this week bemoaned his country’s dependence on foreign oil supplies, but did not complain about prices.

Some economists do not view $80 oil as a threat to global growth, which the International Monetary Fund projects at 4 per cent this year. James Hamilton, an economist at the University of California, San Diego, is author of a paper that found oil’s 2008 surge to $147 a barrel helped tip a housing-led slowdown into a recession. This time, the relatively steady nature of the price rebound has allowed consumers to adjust.

“The shock value is gone now,” Prof Hamilton says.

Hussein Allidina, commodity strategist at Morgan Stanley, says the $100 oil he predicts next year would increase the “oil burden” – a function of demand, prices and global output – to about 4 per cent from 2.8 per cent late last year. This would hurt developed economies more than emerging ones, as the latter are powering global growth and can afford fuel subsidies, he says. The IMF estimates consumer petroleum subsidies will reach almost $250bn this year.

“If we were to move to $100 a barrel, economic growth would start to slow, but ‘derail’ is likely too strong a word,” Mr Allidina says.

A move to higher oil prices would not necessarily generate corresponding gains in retail fuel prices, as new refining capacity has made petrol markets more competitive. In the US, filling stations in most states still sell petrol for less than $3 a gallon, well below the peak of 2008. In the UK, however, petrol prices are close to record highs, even though crude is well below its peak.

In any case, prices are as much an effect of the economic expansion as a threat to it. China, the fastest-growing economy, is alone expected to consume 520,000 b/d more this year than last, contributing a third of global demand growth, according to International Energy Agency estimates.

“You can’t have a global recovery without the oil price recovering as well,” says Lutz Kilian, a University of Michigan economist who has studied the effects of oil shocks. Because demand is fuelling prices, “the only way to keep oil prices down is to remain in a recession, which hardly sounds attractive”.

The prospect of higher prices is still alarming to many observers.

snip

[Keith_McClary]

Do a Google News search on "peak oil" or "plenty of oil". Then try same for past years.

Nor terribly scientific, but there are a lot fewer knee-jerk Cornie articles as time goes on.