Peak Oil

by **Dreams End** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:30 pm

Wolf: Once again, I called Ruppert a main proponent as in popularizer and the one connecting it to politics. As far as I know, he's done no original research or surveyed any oil fields...so I'm not suggesting the ideas originate with him. And Thanksgiving 2005...that's some serious precision there. I can't predict when I'll need my next haircut that precisely. I still assert that, for this particular group...readers of this site...who will question a political group because they took funds from a group that works closely with a CIA front group, to assume that the oil industry doesn't have the equivalent power to shape that debate anyway they want is ironic. Look at Rockefeller directly. He funds all kinds of things, including UFO research and this causes readers of this site to distrust those funded by him (such as Griffin...I have no opinion on that..just an example.) And yet ...well, I'm being repetitious. Yes, labelling someone a disinfo agent isn't a good idea. The feds even have a little trick called "agent jacketing" where they create the belief that someone is an agent so that others won't trust him and discord results. I don't like Ruppert's ideas about what peak oil implies. I shouldn't then assume he is responsible for what I consider disinformation. He could be an honest guy putting forward the truth as he sees it. And making some cash in the process. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin">

by **proldic** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:43 pm

The elites have a long history of suppressing the publication of critical histories about their power. When a real researcher like Gerald Colby tried to write a book about the Duponts he was nearly destroyed. It's a well-known case and worth looking into for anyone interested in how American history is REALLY written. The Rockefellers have harassed, sued, caused to be fired, and even in at least one case had murdered, journalists who tried to expose their evil deeds. During the 40-year reign of Mcarthyism, it would have been career suicide to tell the truth, not to mention being cast out socially. During those years of suppression of dissenting opinion, the CIA paid compliant professors to write twenty-five to thirty fraudulent books a year. Foundations and think tanks published thousands of books based on the original planted stories. Tens of thousands of CIA articles based on, and in turn supporting, the fraudulent books, were planted in the media around the world (700 CIA articles were planted worldwide during the overthrow of Allende). For over two generations social scientists have used, and are still using, those fraudulent books and articles as the foundation of their research. These books have become the official history of our capitalist state. With intellectual figures, and skillful writers, throughout the west supported (and coordinated) in this massive falsification of history, only academics on the fringe knew the difference, and even they could only be very unsure of what was real and what was not real. When it was revealed that the CIA had supported the printing of these thousands of books, sincere academics sued for the titles of those fraudulent books to be revealed. But in '78 the Supreme Court ruled that this would "..expose CIA methods and endanger the national security." "Layer upon layer of seminars, studies, conferences, and interviews [can] do much to push along, if not create, the issues, which then become the national agenda of debate....By multiplying the authorities to whom the media are prepared to give friendly hearing, [conservative donors] have helped to create an illusion of diversity where none exists. The result could be an increasing number of one-sided debates in which the challengers are far outnumbered, if indeed they are heard at all." (Rothmeyer) The Church and Pike Committee hearings exposed many of these black ops: The thousands of fraudulent books financed by intelligence services, the tens of thousands of articles planted all over the world, the massive literature put out by the subsidized think tanks and subsidized academics, the thousands of books written by sincere academics but sourcing all that fraudulent literature being passed off as honest scholarly work, as well as the massive fiction written to take advantage of the created hysteria. After forty years of this hysteria, when honest and sober works were dismissed as the works of radicals and conspiracy theorists, only a few on the fringes of academia understood how deeply they were involved in suppressing truth through parroting these carefully created belief systems. The truth can be found only through intense research and dedication and few of us have the time, money, or desire to do that. Thus, although the claim is made that it is long dead, the legacy of McCarthyism and the orthodoxy it created still rules the halls of academia, the media, and the masses. History is written by the powerful to protect their wealth and power.

by **robertdreed** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:51 pm

Nah...just as often, history is written by guys like Bernal Diaz. Or Tacitus. Or soldiers, writing home to their families. What has been widely published is a different matter. Still, "Truth crushed to the earth wil rise again." WE have the technoogy, these days. I wonder where Gerard Colby is, these days. He's written two of the best American history books, ever- DuPont Dynasty, and Thy Will Be Done. Both out of print. Both invaluable. Everyone likes to talk about Rockefeller (and the Rockefellers are, indeed, the central subjects of Thy Will Be Done.) But the real blockbuster of a book is DuPont Dynasty. The diagrams of the DuPont connections to the nuclear industry and the Contra affort make it work perusing, in and of themselves. In a way, the book DuPont Dynasty provides an example for my modest proposal that US public high schools should be abolished. Because I doubt that book will never be taught in a US public school history course...it's off the table in most all college courses, for that matter. Even when the "robber barons" and "the muckrakers" becomes a scheduled class unit- where are the DuPonts? Where is Colby's book? OOP. Perhaps students are better off not learning an "official version" of history. Operation of civics and government, okay. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 8/1/05 7:04 pm

by **proldic** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:53 pm

"Truth crushed to the earth wil rise again."

by **Dreams End** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:55 pm

Here's an article from "Peak Oil News." It is a skeptic site about peak oil, but not rude in any way. This article speaks to all of this debate so I post in full...sorry it's kinda long. I'll bold a thing or two, just to be annoying. taken from: <a href="http://peakoil.blogspot.com/2005/06/looking-for-equilibrium-in-oils.html">peakoil.blogspot.com/2005...-oils.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Looking for Equilibrium in Oil's Hubbert Hysteria Resource Investor By Tim Wood NEW YORK (ResourceInvestor.com) -- There are two issues that fire up the readership of this site more than any other. One is the valuation of individual metal stocks and the other is Peak Oil. Peak Oil is the hypothesis that we have already, or are on the verge of reaching the point at which we can no longer increase oil output because it is finite. If true, the consequences are profound because of the recent and projected rate of increase in oil consumption. The phenomenon is also referred to generically as Hubbert’s Peak, so named for geophysicist Dr. M. King Hubbert who accurately forecast a mid-point for oil depletion in the lower 48 states. The depletion midpoint for the world – when maximum oil output is reached – is now set between 2002-20 depending on which numbers you believe. But the point is that we are apparently somewhere close to the tipping point. Peak Oil is hardly new, but it has been getting increasingly heavy airplay for the past 18 months or so. So we need to be alert to Time or Newsweek cover stories on the subject to confirm saturation. The U.S. Geological Survey has a graphical representation of Peak Oil which puts the date for it “within our life times”, calling it the “Big Rollover”. Relatedly, it notes that the Big Rollover in oil exploration occurred in the late 1960s. Since the late 1970s there has been a steady deterioration in the rate of new oil reserve discovery. However, “old” oil reserves have been continually revised higher. Almost a century ago the USGS said exactly the same thing about Peak Oil. In 1919 the agency said the United States would run out of oil by 1928. One positive outcome of the alarm was the passing of the Mineral Leasing Act of February 1920 which promoted competitive bidding for mineral rights, and specified federal and state royalties. That was a reasonable market response which rapidly boosted discovery and production. Yet at the time of all this angst the USGS’s internal signals were pointing toward plentiful oil – its geologists were decamping en masse to the private sector to make their fortunes finding oil. Why would well trained scientists risk their livelihoods looking for something that was running out? Less positive than the Mineral Leasing Act was the follow-up of December 1924. The Peak Oil warnings remained so dire and the reported risks so grave that President Calvin Coolidge, a man who ordinarily detested government intervention, felt compelled to establish the Cabinet-level Federal Oil Conservation Board. Thus accelerated the command and control policy approach toward energy generally and oil specifically. Ironically, the USGS was founded in 1879 partly because of a national fear of oil shortages after John Strong Newberry, Ohio’s chief geologist, had forecast in 1875 the imminent desiccation of the oil market. In 1906 the USGS warned car manufacturers that they should be concerned about fuel supplies for the burgeoning industry, something repeated more urgently in 1919 by Scientific American. As history shows, the pessimistic reserve estimates were repeatedly wrong. The USGS, which can hardly be called a tub-thumper, has in the last two decades issued several large upward revisions in its estimate of world recoverable reserves – from 1.8 trillion barrels in 1987 to just over 3 trillion barrels in 2000. Even Dr. Colin Campbell, an ardent Peak Oil promoter if ever there is one, has issued repeated upward revisions. Clearly if the present equilibrium remains undisturbed then Peak Oil is a reality. But we have more than a century of confirmation that mineral equilibria are never constant. Demand and supply are in constant flux based on cost, price and technology as the three leading drivers. There appears to be a heathen haste to isolate oil as the one mineral that escapes market logic. Let’s not forget Jimmy Carter declaring in 1977, with all the conviction a pessimist in a sleeveless sweater can muster, that it was likely that the world’s oil reserves would be gone by the 1990s. This does not rule out the impact of short-term shocks, such as the 1973 and 1979 market quakes, but in the long-run we are shown over and over that supply and demand problems eventually resolve toward something better. Just consider how oil consumption per dollar of GDP has dwindled over the past three decades. Last year in Science Leonardo Maugeri wrote an article called ‘Oil: Never Cry Wolf - Why the Petroleum Age Is Far from over’. It was aptly titled given that it hearkened, probably unintentionally, to an April 1973 report in Foreign Affairs entitled: ”The Oil Crisis: This Time the Wolf is Here.'' It was written by Nixon appointee James Akins who was the State Department’s resident oil expert who effectively marked 1975 as depletion mid-point. Maugeri doesn’t dispute that mineral resources are finite, only that we actually have no idea how finite. He noted that oil doomsayers regularly exclude “non-conventional oil” (remember when oil 1,000 feet below the Gulf of Mexico was unconventional oil…) citing extraction cost and oil quality problems. The fact is that new reserve discovery is something of a straw man. Yes, it has declined, but reserves at existing fields have continually defied bearish expectations. The problem may be less one of finding fields than encouraging intensive exploration. And even new discovery may be turning a corner given recent events at the Kashagan field in Kazakhstan where reserve estimates have risen from 2-4 billion barrels in the 1990s to 13 billion barrels by last year – and this is only a fraction of the area presumed to host hydrocarbons. Likewise global oil reserve life has steadily increased from 20 years in 1948, to 35 years in 1972 and reaching about 40 years in 2003. Maugeri wrote: “Today, all major sources estimate that proven world oil reserves exceed 1 trillion (1012) barrels, while yearly consumption is about 28 billion barrels. Overall, the world retains more than 3 trillion barrels of recoverable oil resources.” Maugeri makes an especially good point: “International public oil companies have faced two sets of limits to their expansion in the last 20 years. The first is inaccessibility to foreign investment in the largest and cheapest reserves—those in the Persian Gulf. Second are the demands of financial markets, which for years have insisted that companies provide unrealistic, short term financial returns that are inconsistent with the long-term nature of oil investments. This has compelled private operators to reject opportunities that would normally be deemed economically worthwhile. This financial pressure partly explains recent proven reserve downgrading by some oil companies, starting with the amazing cuts announced by the “supergiant” Shell Group. Indeed, this Anglo-Dutch oil company has not lost its resources. This picture has nothing to do with physical scarcity of oil.” He is convinced, by history and science, that just as oil displaced coal, which displaced wood as the energy source of choice, so we will see oil displaced. “Oil substitution is simply a matter of cost and public needs, not of scarcity. To “cry wolf ” over the availability of oil has the sole effect of perpetuating a misguided obsession with oil security and control that is already rooted in Western public opinion - an obsession that historically has invariably led to bad political decisions.” If we’re only half optimistic then we have over a century of oil left at present consumption rates. If we’re half pessimistic then it’s perhaps half that time in which to become less dependent on oil. Whatever your persuasion, let’s not assume the trend is linear. Simply examine the exponential decrease in PGM consumption in auto-catalysts and fuel cells to see that out energy future will not be a linear event.<hr></blockquote> One article doesn't disprove peak oil, of course, but it shows that it is not unreasonable to question it.

by **hmm** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 9:02 pm

With you on the cash thing,as a left-of-center european it puts me off even more than most.But that seems to be the American way,and its hard to see when paying the bills morphs into buckets off money,because i do understand people need to pay their bills. But discarding something because you dont like the implications could be a dangerous way of approaching things. I dont like the implications of the suns destruction but if i get the news that has exploded i can not like the implication its gone but billions of people are going to die if i continue listening to the news or not <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> And this is how i feel about the global system at the moment. It has to change or millions will die. And like it or not if nothing changes its either going to be Americans dying or Americans killing on a huge scale. Now if the "worst" of the peak oil and global warming scientists are right its too late anyway. if we take the middle ground we might have between 5-15 years to fix things. And if we listen to the optimists we have plenty of time if we just ignore this and leave our children with the situation the worst-casers say we are at now. Because America takes the largest slice of the global "cake" its going to hurt it hardest if the cake shrinks

by **robertdreed** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 9:18 pm

"Because America takes the largest slice of the global "cake" its going to hurt it hardest if the cake shrinks." I disagree. We have a huge cushion of comfort here in the USA. There is a huge amount of belt-tightening that most Americans can do, without it causing them serious discomfort. And most Americans still feel affluent. House-poor in many places, perhaps, but still affluent. For instance, gasoline is about double what it was only about four years ago. But it doesn't even seem to have affected most Americans' travel plans for their summer vacations at all. They may wish they had saved more later on. But that's their decision. They aren't feeling a hit. I think that it's often overlooked that these days, a lot of the stuff that gets bought is manufactured incredibly cheaply, compared to the early days of a given technology. Color televisions, stereos, phones, cameras, video tech, etc....printing presses. Bucky Fuller called it "ephemeralization." And it's finally beginning to come to pass. I think that by and large, ambitious socialist programs don't have a hope of working, without the precondition of "saturation affluence" predicted by the Technocracy movement of which Fuller was a part. These days- and it's a recent thing, last 10 years or so- lo and behold, at long last something like saturation affluence appears to be attainable, in the case of many consumer goods. For the price of a modern aircraft carrier- and a fraction of the natural resources- everyone in Egypt could probably get a cellphone, and the infrastructure to support it. Sorry, I hate to indulge in such facile analogies as a rule. But somewhere in there is my point... a 19th century millionaire would probably change places with a modern mall rat teenager in a hot second... Where I live- the fertile Central Valley of California- homeowners could produce much of their own food in 1/8 acre plots. This was already done, in WW2! What's a lawn for, anyway? People have to learn to think outside the box, and becoming more resourceful and self-sufficient. I'm confident that they're up to the challenge, once they're convinced of the desirability/necessity of doing do. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 8/1/05 7:42 pm

by **proldic** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 9:20 pm

If that's what yer wantin... I'm waiting for my orders from my control agent at the AFT before I proceed further. Really.

by **robertdreed** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 9:32 pm

Imagine teaching DuPont Dynasty, to teenagers..."and so it came to pass that The Dynasty skated through another Congressional hearing or public investigation into their selling faulty munitions to the Union Army/supplying war Materiel to the Germans in WW1/poisoning the workers in their chemical plants/instigating the Chaco War between Paraguay and Bolivia/organizing the KKK-affiliated Black Legion to break strikes"...aw, the list is too long. And I've only gotten to the 1930s. Historically, the DuPonts have owned the biggest chunks of GM, GE, Honeywell, Babcock and Wilcox...lumber companies, paper mills, military tech...and what is a "Delaware corporation", anyway? You can't talk about that shit in an American public school.... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 8/1/05 7:40 pm

by **proldic** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 9:40 pm

Just to fill you in: in many inner-city schools, they are teaching with books such as that. My public high school had a former Black Panther speak, for example. And that was 25 or so years ago.

by **robertdreed** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 9:45 pm

Speaking as someone who wishes that he'd gotten his GED at the earliest possible opportunity. For all the difference it would have made to my higher education- I got a good one, in public community colleges and university- I should have done it. (Not a judgement against my teachers. I'm a big booster of community colleges, and most of them should have been teaching there, where their talents would be more appreciated. I tormented/mistreated/disrespected/disappointed my HS teachers a lot more than they did to me, that's for sure.) I don't like anyones pet ideology getting taught in school, as a pervasive gloss. And I don't equate "having a former Black Panther speak" with teaching the text of DuPont Dynasty. Anyway, I find high school superfluous. At best. That huge physical plant, almost completely devoted to a four-year age cohort. What a waste. I support K-6, or maybe K-8. Reading. Writing. Math. Best done by using practical electronics, starting with a DC battery flashlight circuit and proceeding from there. I often hear this conceit that it's possible to subvert The System that provides the educational infrastructure, politicizing the students against their own government. I seriously doubt it. The contradictions are too intrinsic. And even in cases when it happens, I find something wheedly and unethical about it. It isn't as if "thought control" is suddenly no longer taking place, that's for sure. More often than not, politicizing students to be hostile against their own government with public funds results in a huge backlash. And under the circumstances, it isn't as if the "loyal taxpayers" funding the schools don't have a case... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 8/1/05 8:20 pm

by **Starman** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 9:46 pm

Wait a minnut. Dreams end said: "Indeed, for people on this site to embrace so easily the word of the petroleum industry in terms of oil supply while we all worry about Rockefeller conspiracies is the height of irony." I disagree. Totally. WHERE did you ever get this nutty idea anyway? I probably should have avoided a lot of commentary and addressed this basic point (again!). But as I pointed it out already to no effect, the irony would be why I would expect it to have an effect now. But nevertheless, for anyone who MIGHT be paying attention. To begin with: Good Grief! My post wasn't 'thorough' enough? Then again, I've made several posts on this topic already -- to what purpose if I see the same errors being made that I pointed-out, and the passing-off of unqualified generalities and unwarranted assumptions and examples that don't prove the premise intended, and other innaccurate statements (such as EVERYONE who thinks there is a basis to Peak Oil agrees it will 'happen' in 2007, OR that's it's effects will be experienced by everyone --all consumers and markets-- immediately and to devastating effect). As I've ALSO previously posted, this assumption shows an enormous misunderstanding of what Peak Oil portends -- as I believe *someone* previously posted something to the effect, Peak Oil proponents must be dissapointed that shortfalls haven't been experienced yet. Such an attitude is SO -- Vile and Loathesome and Foul and inexplicable to me, as if ANYBODY would or should be 'sorry' that the awful catastrophe of Peak Oil hasn't hit yet -- such a gross and insulting, deliberate distortion, that frankly, I don't think it's possible to debate intelligently. But to address a core assumption (that I ALSO commented on to evidently no-effect) -- It is a great distortion if not outright falsity to claim that oil industry reps and insiders have been acknowledging or claiming that their firms may soon be running seriously short of meeting projected oil product demands. On only a very few occasions have the major oil companies made any kind of concessions to the implications of their being unable to boost production sufficiently, or that their reserves are seriously inflated. For the most part, they don't acknowledge a problem, or insist that they are working on production increases. Saudia Arabia only recently made a quiet, under-reported public press release on behalf of their oil industry that they 'may' run into some production problems by 2010 (or so.) A 'couple' of American oil companies had to scale-back their reserve figures because they were inconsistent with their SEC filings and industry reports. But one main reason why Politicians haven't been calling for Congressional Committees to at least investigate whether there is a problem and make recommendations to avert problems, is because for the most part the industry, and the public, doesn't acknowledge there IS a substantial problem. That's the flaw in this whole argument that Peak Oil is a scam. The oil industry has NOT been pushing the Peak Oil hypothesis -- why would they? That would just agitate the public to demand action to create solutions, and implement alternatives and conservation -- the LAST thing the oil companies want to do. For the most part, it is NON-industry experts that have confirmed the impending shortfall between production and demand. Most if not all of the qualified people making dire predictions about Peak Oil are those whose expertise is in investment analysis, financial markets, service providers, stock analysts, geologists and engineers, who do NOT directly work for the major oil companies (as a modest review of sources to check one's assumptions would reveal. Where did you get the idea that oil companies were publicizing Peak Oil projections? You were sold a bill of goods there.) Re: <a href="http://future.iftf.org/2005/03/oil_production_.html">future.iftf.org/2005/03/o...tion_.html</a> (BTW: Excellant health/technology and think-tank/discussion/info links) March 15, 2005 Oil production peaks (or, peaks?) Since last fall, Herold has done peak estimates on about two dozen oil companies. Herold believes that the French oil company, Total S.A., will reach its peak production in 2007. Herold expects 2008 to be critical, with Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., BP, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and the Italian producer, Eni S.p.A., all hitting their peaks. In 2009, Herold expects ChevronTexaco Corp. to peak. In Herold's view, each of the world's seven largest publicly traded oil companies will begin seeing production declines within the next 48 months or so. Executive vice president Richard Gordon, who heads Herold's global strategies team, says the firm's goal in doing peak-production estimates for individual oil companies is simple: "If the dinosaurs are going extinct, we are trying to figure out which ones are going to go extinct the soonest."... Herold does not do geologic analysis. Instead, its analysts mine the company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It also looks at the oil properties that the company has acquired or sold, along with new projects being drilled, and older oil fields in the company's portfolio. "We look at this data, put it into a financial model, and start asking questions," says Herold analyst Gordon.... Herold's projections have enormous ramifications both for stockholders in the major oil companies and for every energy consumer on the globe. (A nice bit of understatement, that last line.) Posted by IFTF on March 15, 2005 ** More: <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/03/15/herold/Running">www.salon.com/news/featur...ld/Running</a> on empty The leading energy analysts who foretold Enron's demise have an alarming new claim: The world's major oil companies are almost tapped out. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Robert Bryce March 15, 2005 | Four years ago, the analysts at John S. Herold Inc. were the first to call bullshit on Enron. On Feb. 21, 2001, three Herold analysts issued a report that said Enron's profit margins were shriveling, the company had too few hard assets, and its stock price was way too high. Less than ten months later, Enron filed for bankruptcy. Today, the analysts at Herold -- a research-only firm that issues valuations on several hundred publicly traded energy companies -- are making predictions even bolder than their call on Enron. They have begun estimating when each of the world's biggest energy companies will peak in its ability to produce oil and gas. Herold's work shows that the best minds in the energy industry are accepting the reality that the globe is reaching (or has already reached) the limit of its own ability to produce ever increasing amounts of oil. Many analysts have estimated when the earth will reach its peak oil production. Others have done estimates on when individual countries will hit their peaks. Herold is the first Wall Street firm to predict when specific energy companies will hit their peaks. Since last fall, Herold has done peak estimates on about two dozen oil companies. Herold believes that the French oil company, Total S.A., will reach its peak production in 2007. Herold expects 2008 to be critical, with Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., BP, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and the Italian producer, Eni S.p.A., all hitting their peaks. In 2009, Herold expects ChevronTexaco Corp. to peak. In Herold's view, each of the world's seven largest publicly traded oil companies will begin seeing production declines within the next 48 months or so. Executive vice president Richard Gordon, who heads Herold's global strategies team, says the firm's goal in doing peak-production estimates for individual oil companies is simple: "If the dinosaurs are going extinct, we are trying to figure out which ones are going to go extinct the soonest." Herold's projections have enormous ramifications both for stockholders in the major oil companies and for every energy consumer on the globe. If Herold is correct, and the world's biggest oil companies cannot increase their production in the coming years, then several things appear certain: Oil prices -- which are already at record levels -- will continue rising as demand outstrips supply. In a few years, gasoline prices of $2 per gallon could seem like a bargain. State-owned oil companies like Mexico's Pemex, Venezuela's PDVSA (Petroléos de Venezuela) and Saudi Arabia's Saudi Aramco may be unable to increase their production enough to meet burgeoning global demand. The producers who belong to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, and Saudi Arabia in particular, may have even more leverage over the global oil market in the coming years. The United States will be ever more reliant on oil imported from countries filled with people who don't like George W. Bush or his policies. While Herold's projections provide ammunition to the growing chorus of analysts who believe peak oil is imminent, they are not being welcomed by the oil companies. Last month, when I asked ChevronTexaco's chairman and CEO, David J. O'Reilly, to respond to Herold's projection that his company would reach its peak production in 2009, he replied snappishly, "I'm not going to comment on that." A spokesman for Royal Dutch/Shell in London was similarly coy, saying in an e-mail that the company had "no comment" on Herold's projection. However, the company's spokesman, Simon Buerk, pointed to a September 2004 report published by Shell that predicts the company will be producing the equivalent of 4.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2014, not the 4 million barrels per day that Herold foresees for that time frame. Charley Maxwell, an analyst at Weeden & Co., a Connecticut brokerage, says oil industry officials are loath to discuss Herold's projections because doing so would "circumscribe their future prospects and the future growth of their stock, and executives have no interest in doing that since so much of their compensation is tied to their stock options." Maxwell, one of the most respected stock pickers in the energy business, believes the non-OPEC oil producers will hit their peak oil production in the next five years. And he applauds Herold's research, saying that no other reputable firm "has been willing to make this type of prediction." Another energy industry veteran, John Olson, co-manager of Houston Energy Partners, an energy hedge fund, agrees. Olson believes that Herold's predictions about peak production are "very significant. It is perhaps the first cannon ball over the bow of a big tanker." But Herold has its critics. Brian J. Jennings, the chief financial officer of Oklahoma City's Devon Energy Corp., which Herold believes will hit its peak in 2009, says that Herold's analysis is "a truncated look at the company. It assumes that nothing we are going to do over the next five years will increase our production." Jennings says Devon expects to increase its oil production by 25 percent over the next five years -- and that figure does not include fields that the company is developing in the Gulf of Mexico. Of course, scientists, pundits and oil men have been predicting that the world will run out of oil ever since the gusher blew at Spindletop in Texas in 1901. Despite those predictions, the last century has been one of unbroken increases in supply. Each year, the oil industry has produced more oil than it did the year before. Today, the industry is producing about 83 million barrels of oil per day. New oil fields in the deep-water Gulf of Mexico, in the Caspian Sea and in Saudi Arabia will soon begin pumping oil onto the global market. Plus, huge deposits of oil are available in the Canadian tar sands and American oil shale. But turning tar sands and shale into motor fuel is a very expensive proposition. And those new, unconventional oil sources may be insufficient to replace the decline in production from existing fields, which deplete by about 6 percent per year. Further, they may be too small to quench the demand from the developing world -- China in particular. Last month, at a conference in Houston, Zhu Yu, the president of China's Sinopec Economics and Development Research Institute, said that between January and September of 2004, motor fuel use in his country soared by 20 percent. Yu also predicted that China's oil consumption will double over the next 15 years to more than 10 million barrels of oil per day. Meanwhile, the Energy Information Administration expects India's oil consumption to increase by nearly 30 percent over the next five years. The oil industry has plenty of other reasons to be nervous. The royal rulers of Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest producer, appear vulnerable to terrorist attacks and civil unrest. The Saudi government's biggest enemy, Osama bin Laden, has focused his ire on both the Saudi royals and the oil infrastructure in the Persian Gulf. And his loyalists are eager to attack both of those targets. In Iraq, insurgents are continually attacking that country's oil infrastructure -- thereby crippling the war-torn nation's economy and its future prospects. In Venezuela, which has the biggest oil deposits in the Western hemisphere, president Hugo Chavez has threatened to cut off the flow of oil to the United States if the Bush administration continues its efforts to undermine his government. In Russia, president Vladimir Putin's brazen, state-sponsored theft of Yukos, one of that country's biggest oil companies -- and his jailing of the company's CEO, Mikhail Khordokovsky -- is likely to slow investment in Russian oil fields for years. Furthermore, spare oil-production capacity has largely disappeared. Oil producers are running their wells at maximum capacity. Indonesia, a member of OPEC, cannot meet its OPEC quota of 1.4 million barrels per day. In February, Indonesia was able to produce only 942,000 barrels per day, its lowest level of production in 34 years. And last week, Algeria's energy minister, Chakib Khelil, said that OPEC "does not have the production capacity to increase its quotas." All of these factors are sending oil prices to record highs. Monday's NYMEX closing price for light sweet crude was $54.95 per barrel. Last week, the Department of Energy issued a report saying that it expects prices to stay near or above $50 per barrel for the rest of this year. That's a big change for an agency that has always been conservative in its price projects. At about this same time last year, the agency was predicting that oil would cost about $29 per barrel throughout 2005. Whatever price projections are used, it's increasingly clear that the era of cheap oil is over and that oil companies are having a harder time finding new oil to replace the oil they're pumping. In short, it appears that the late M. King Hubbert, a geophysicist who worked for Shell in Houston, is being proved right. In the 1950s, Hubbert used mathematical models to predict that American oil production would peak in the early 1970s. That's exactly what happened. Now, Hubbert's theories are being tested on a global scale. Herold's owner and CEO, Art Smith, is a believer in Hubbert's work. Smith and his fellow analysts at Herold have been building their peak production databases since 1996. About 10 months ago, Herold began publishing what it calls "strategic evaluations" of specific companies, which include graphics showing when that company will reach its peak production. Herold does not do geologic analysis. Instead, its analysts mine the company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It also looks at the oil properties that the company has acquired or sold, along with new projects being drilled, and older oil fields in the company's portfolio. "We look at this data, put it into a financial model, and start asking questions," says Herold analyst Gordon. Herold isn't the only Wall Street firm considering the issue of peak oil. In early December, Deutsche Bank issued a report that predicted global oil production will peak in 2014. The Deutsche Bank report also stresses political instability and China's surging demand. Those factors, Deutsche Bank believes, "could trigger a shortage shock leading to a price crisis." And while many analysts in Houston are convinced a peak in global production is in the offing, there are others who believe that today's high prices will trigger a surge in new oil production. David Pursell, a partner at Pickering Energy Partners, a Houston brokerage, says with oil at $50 per barrel, "a whole lot of oil fields that used to be woefully uneconomic suddenly become profitable and that means that any peak projections get delayed." Although Pursell is not ready to agree with Herold's projections about individual energy companies, he -- along with virtually everyone else in the oil industry -- agrees that the era of cheap energy is over and that America must begin adapting to the new geopolitical realities that come with that fact. Alas, it appears the Bush administration hasn't made that same transition. Last week, President Bush gave a speech on energy policy in Columbus, Ohio, in which he encouraged Congress to pass an energy bill. Once again, he touted his plan to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a move he said would "eventually reduce our dependence on foreign oil by up to a million barrels of oil a day." The key word here is "eventually." Even if approvals for drilling ANWR were granted immediately, the first oil from the refuge would not reach the continental United States for years. Furthermore, as the New York Times reported last month, it appears that the major oil companies may have cooled in their desire to drill in the refuge. During his speech, Bush also talked about efficiency measures that could save homeowners electricity. But during his 4,600-word, 35-minute-long speech, Bush uttered the words "hybrid vehicle" exactly one time. It's astonishing that Bush, the former Texas oil man, still doesn't understand the fundamental problem of America's imported oil addiction. Nor does he appear to grasp the threat that is posed by the possibility of peak oil. The majority of the oil that the United States imports from places like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela is used as motor fuel in automobiles. Yet the president conflated the idea that burning more coal and building more nuclear power plants will somehow allow America to reduce its oil imports. In his speech, Bush refused to discuss the obvious: We cannot cut our oil imports (read: gasoline addiction) without dramatic changes to our auto fleet. At some point, the United States will have to force the automakers to build more efficient automobiles. And a key part of that efficiency changeover will mean replacing increasing numbers of America's 200 million cars and trucks with hybrid vehicles. Even some of Washington's most hawkish neoconservatives are embracing the idea of high-mileage hybrid vehicles. Former CIA director James Woolsey, a key backer of the war in Iraq, is driving a Toyota Prius. Woolsey, along with neocons like Frank Gaffney have begun preaching the Greens' gospel of energy efficiency. The neocons haven't joined the Sierra Club. Instead, they're arguing that energy conservation is simply smart strategy when dealing with the Muslim extremists who reside in the oil-rich countries of the Persian Gulf. But so far, the neocons haven't been able to get Bush's ear. Remarkably, when it comes to thinking about peak oil and what it means for the future of America, Wall Street analysts and neocons are taking the lead, while the former oil man from Midland keeps his head up his tailpipe. salon.com ***** Considering you've been touting the 'oil company insiders are pushing the Peak Oil meme' as a fundamental premise, one now must wonder what other 'evidence' you provided may have no basis. I'd say there's kinda a credibility gap there-- which is why it's a good idea to check one's assumptions before taking-up people's time to check and rebut them -- as I've now done. For myself, I feel like I've given more attention than this flawed debate merits. To respond re: the '73 oil shortage -- I concur, having independant confirmation that oil tankers were being backed-up in the Gulf and prevented from offloading at oil terminals. So I don't doubt that oil company execs are willing and capable of lying and cheating, taking domestic oil out of production so they can benefit from greatly increased prices. But as US capacity has already been seriously depleted, I don't see this as anything more than a short-term windfall profit opportunity, unlikely to seriously affect the overall consequences of major shortfall. The thing is -- oil demand has been increasing exponentially, while oil production has begun flattening. On a final note: I completely concur with Robert Reed's excellant point about the insufferable inanity of drawing up Enemies' Lists. Despite additional reams of inflammatory rhetoric, I STILL think the project of discreditting Ruppert thru making spurious claims and attributing nefarious goals and agendas on him as being underhanded, unwarranted and fickle -- as claiming he is the 'leading proponent' of Peak Oil (he isn't -- why should I believe anything said by somebody who asserts this obviously wrong claim?) or that the date of 2007 is absolutely and irrevocably the year of widespread collapse -- that's not a concensus view, and anyway the US is powerful enough to deflect consequences for possibly several years after Peak Oil begins to hit undeveloped and non-Opec countries (4th world) first. Well, there are more objections and disagreements but this is way-nuff to make my point, I hope. Regrdz; Starman <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smokin.gif ALT=":smokin">

by **prophetlady** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 9:51 pm

The new Post Carbon Institute newsletter was just delivered to my inbox! In case you're interested, here's a sample: (who wants to be the one to tell these folks it's all bunk?!?) New Book: /Relocalize Now! / One of the main projects we have been working on is a book outlining Post Carbon Institute {<a href="http://www.postcarbon.org/}'s">www.postcarbon.org/}'s</a> philosophies, goals, analysis, and, most importantly, suggested action plans for those concerned about peak oil, climate change and environmental degradation. The book is called Relocalize Now! Getting Ready for Climate Change and the End of Cheap Oil (see the News Update section). This book is the foundation and master plan for Post Carbon's future direction. It will be a must-read for all Outposts {<a href="http://www.postcarbon.org/outposts}">www.postcarbon.org/outposts}</a> and Relocalization Network associates, and for anyone interested in making a big reduction in their energy use. Other major Post Carbon Institute activities include attendance at the ASPO conference in Lisbon, Portugal this May (see feature story "The ASPO Conference"). While in Europe, two Post Carbon directors traveled to England to meet with British environmentalists and climate change experts there (see feature story "Post Carbon Institute Gives Peak Oil Presentation in England"). And Post Carbon Institute is working on a new prototype Local Energy Farm project (see feature story "Local Energy Farm Initiative"). 2. The Relocalization Network Grows - Outpost News in Brief In our next and future Post Carbon Newsletters, we shall be featuring the outstanding work of Outposts {<a href="http://www.postcarbon.org/outposts}">www.postcarbon.org/outposts}</a> and affiliates in the Relocalization Network. For now, you can and look at Relocalization Network {<a href="http://www.postcarbon.org/groups}">www.postcarbon.org/groups}</a> to see the nearly twenty Outposts who already have web sites. There are several more who are about to be listed, and we are very pleased to be working with some larger existing organizations who have asked to be affiliated to the Relocalization Network - the Network is designed to include Outposts and other groups. Much of our technical communications effort is concentrated on developing a worldwide system to allow groups in the Relocalization Network to learn from each other, and to share and search for information about projects easily. We are developing new tools for Outposts so that they can communicate within their membership and with each other, so that we can build a network of shared expertise, experience and strengths. We shall have much more on the development of the Relocalization Network in the next few weeks, including some major new announcements about projects that you can participate in and develop! 3. The ASPO Conference On May 19th and 20th in Lisbon, Portugal, Post Carbon Institute's Julian Darley, Dave Room, and Celine Rich attended the fourth annual Workshop of ASPO (The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas) {<a href="http://www.peakoil.net/}">www.peakoil.net/}</a> . The range of speakers was very wide and knowledgeable, and will undoubtedly contribute to a wider and deeper understanding of our Peak Oil situation. This year's presentations included Post Carbon Institute Board {<a href="http://www.metafoundation.org/board.php}">www.metafoundation.org/board.php}</a> Member, Richard Heinberg, who spoke about 'The Likely Impact of Peak Oil on the United States'. The full text can be found here:<a href="http://www.postcarbon.org/files/ASPO2005_Heinberg-1.pdf">www.postcarbon.org/files/...berg-1.pdf</a> {<a href="http://www.postcarbon.org/files/ASPO2005_Heinberg-1.pdf}">www.postcarbon.org/files/...erg-1.pdf}</a>

by **proldic** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:18 pm

Let's not split hairs. My point about the Panther was meant as just one example of the many types of progressive history that have been taught by the many great teachers in inner-city schools for a long time now. Btw, in the '30's, before the communist purges, most of the teachers in big-city schools on the east coast were progressive. With all this talk of "the basics", what do you have to say to about the --fact-- that, in the US, dollar for dollar, public schools do a better job of teaching "the basics" than private schools? This should be a seperate string. I'm working the overnight tonight so I won't be able to respond until tommorrow p.m.. I'm sure you'll be waiting w/ baited breath.

by **Dreams End** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:33 pm

You get together with Wolf and decide if it is the consensus of experts that we are at peak oil. If yes, then decide if a large majority of those experts are either employed by or their research is utilized by the oil companies. If no, please explain to Wolf that there is no such consensus. Meanwhile, I actually am not concerned about people who simply say we are running out of oil and really need to get cracking on alternatives. I AM concerned about people who say that peak happens on Thanksgiving 2005 (Deffeyes) or that significant dislocation and upheaval will begin in 2007 (Ruppert). If that is a mischaracterization of your position, then I ain't talkin' about you, coz. But Ruppert is pushing this idea and the fact that it distorts the actual peak oil argument makes me more suspicious of him, not less. Deffeyes, of course, is former oil bidness. As for this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Most if not all of the qualified people making dire predictions about Peak Oil are those whose expertise is in investment analysis, financial markets, service providers, stock analysts, geologists and engineers, who do NOT directly work for the major oil companies<hr></blockquote> Umm...go tell that to Wolf also. He says I should study the science behind peak oil. At least you have geologists on that list. Stock analysts? And where do the financial analysts like the fellow in the article get their information exactly? I'm guessing from reports of the various oil companies. Are you suggesting because the oil companies issue "no comments" this is proof that they are not manipulating the market long term while denying it in the short term? Hey, but your salon.com article does push energy efficiency in cars, and I'm definitely for that. And, again, THAT sort of measure implies a version of Peak Oil that won't have us eating our neighbors for breakfast in January 2008. Anyway, it's the folks promoting the doomsday agenda that I'm worried about. The end is near and there is no room for argument about it. I'm not qualified to debate the merits of various studies that I probably can't even get access to. So I merely point out this apparent agenda (and since you suggest these folks mischaracterize the peak oil ramifications, you probably don't mind my questioning their spin on things) and the fact that intelligent people can question the assumptions that underly peak oil. I'm not sure why people keep coming back with some of these more moderate Peak Oil predictions in reference to what I've said. My argument is that Peak Oil of the "doomsday" variety is being pushed by people with a questionable agenda. If people like the author of that Salon article think Peak Oil is something that can even begin to be addressed by fuel efficiency or, as other sites do, alternative energy, etc, then I don't have a problem with that. Read Ruppert carefully...I swear there was an article on there from a woman literally suggesting we'd be cannibals in a few years just to survive. THESE are the folks I'm complaining about. I'm not doing a very good job though, because no one seems to get that point.

Peak Oil

"main proponent"

History

Re: History

.

Peak oil skeptic site

Re: on cash and not liking the implications

the future

Gatto

Re: Gatto

Thank God For Private Schools

Thank God for No High School At All...

'Embrace the Word of the Petroleum Industry" ????

Perfect Timing

Gatto

starman

Who is online