Exxon President Slams Peak Oil Concept

by JD » Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:57 pm

I'm LMAO at the "alternative thinking" folks who believe that the concept of Peak Oil is a scam put out by big oil to push up energy prices. In fact, such "alternative thinking" Peak Oil critics are parroting the same line as the President of Exxon. Sorry folks but on this topic the true challenger to mainstream thinking are the Peak Oil supporters. In the case of Peak Oil imo the supporters of the concept are correct; albeit when the that peak hits is very much up in the air. Read this - straight from the horse's mouth. Big oil doesn't get any bigger than this: <a href="http://calsun.canoe.ca/Business/2005/11/09/1298782-sun.html">calsun.canoe.ca/Business/...2-sun.html</a> Wed, November 9, 2005 Oil boss slams windfall taxes U.S. levy seen as damaging to energy projects By IAN WILSON, BUSINESS EDITOR A windfall tax on big oil companies in the U.S. would stifle energy development south of the border, says Exxon Mobil Corp.'s president. The heads of several major oil companies, including Exxon Mobil, will go before a joint hearing of the U.S. Senate energy and commerce committee today to discuss the possibility of a tax on record energy profits. "I hope that through the hearings (today) there's going to be an opportunity to talk about the nature of this business," said Rex Tillerson, who spoke at a Canadian American Business Council luncheon in Calgary yesterday. Tillerson will take over next year from Exxon Mobil CEO Lee Raymond, who will testify today. "It's a very long-term business and we invested $15 billion last year, when we had prices of $40 oil. If you look back to 1998, when we had $10 oil, we invested $15 billion and that's the nature of this business," said Tillerson. "We can't react to short-term fluctuations in prices." Tillerson said a windfall tax implemented in the U.S. in the 1970s resulted in a reduction in the development of that country's oil and gas supplies and increased dependence on energy imports. "I don't think that's a policy solution that anyone's really going to find attractive," he said. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> Meanwhile, Tillerson used part of his speech to denounce peak oil theories and indicated fossil fuels -- not alternative energy -- will continue to be the predominant energy supply well into the middle of the century. "We expect that these renewable energy sources, despite their healthy growth, will only meet 13% of our energy needs in 25 years time," he said. "Some contend that the world supply of oil is peaking, that we will soon reach a point of decreasing production. Similar predictions were made in 1914, in 1939, in 1951, when post-war demand was on the rise, and again in the 1970s," said Tillerson. "These predictions were always proven wrong." <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin">

by **Dreams End** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:12 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'm LMAO at the "alternative thinking" folks who believe that the concept of Peak Oil is a scam put out by big oil to push up energy prices.<hr></blockquote> We've done peak oil on this site and done it again and again. But JD brings up an interesting situation. Actually, several interesting situations. First, unless I miss my guess, our buddy JD here is the guy who runs the "peak oil debunked" website. Here it is: <a href="http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/">peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/</a> Now, that's kind of interesting on its own, isn't it. A guy who runs "Peak Oil Debunked" is here showing how people who don't believe in Peak Oil are laughably ignorant. (If you are NOT the same JD, then obviously much of this is irrelevant.) Specifically, JD is "Peak Oil light", which simply says that we are running out of oil but there's time enough and ways enough to conserve and develop alternatives. He spends a lot of time debunking not peak oil, but the peak oil of the gloom and doom scenarios. Overall, I didn't really have a lot of problem with that. But I am starting to get a bit concerned, as to why JD would come in here, a haven (well, it used to be) for doom and gloom peak oilers and absolutely ridicule those who don't buy peak oil? Another thing that's important is the logic here. He disputes the idea that oil companies might be manipulating peak oil themes in order to drive up prices by showing that Exxon is officially against peak oil concepts. I don't think ANYONE has ever argued that the oil companies are OFFICIALLY promoting peak oil. right or wrong, we've always suggested it was more covert. Obviously, all the stock reports and other papers put out by these companies say the same thing. But on the other hand we have Chevron, who has turned Peak Oil, or at least the idea of dwindling supplies into a whole PR campaign. <a href="http://www.willyoujoinus.com/discussion/">www.willyoujoinus.com/discussion/</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>One thing is clear: the era of easy oil is over.<hr></blockquote> So, I guess we can't believe that we have plenty and we can't believe that oil is getting low, as both positions are advocated by the big oil companies. Chevron and JD have something in common though. They are both pimping nuclear. Chevron: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Nuclear power has its proponents and skeptics, but it may reemerge as a significant source of energy.18 It has been developed extensively in several European countries, and currently provides 75% of France’s electricity.19 While concerns over operating safety and waste disposal linger, some environmentalists and governments find nuclear power appealing because it is relatively clean and emits no greenhouse gases.20 <a href="http://www.willyoujoinus.com/issues/alternatives/">www.willyoujoinus.com/iss...ernatives/</a> <hr></blockquote> JD: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In the long run, the solution to peak oil works like this: 1) Conservation to reduce demand for energy (liquid fuels in particular) to the lowest possible level. This will involve retrofitting first world cities to eliminate the need for cars in ordinary life. 2) Using replacements (tar sands, natural gas, GTL, ethanol, coal liquefaction etc.) to substitute for liquid fuel demand which cannot be eliminated. 3) Shifting as much of the electrical grid as possible to nuclear (supplemented with wind/solar) to free up natural gas and coal for transport and feedstock applications (see #42). 4) Managing with nuclear and the remaining fossil fuels until plentiful, clean space energy (see #5, #33, #51, #104) can be brought on line. Nuclear energy is a critical part of the solution, and the doomers often criticize it for it being unscalable. <a href="http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005_09_25_peakoildebunked_archive.html">peakoildebunked.blogspot....chive.html</a> <hr></blockquote> Hmm...well, JD, I'm just gonna put you in my yellow flag column. JD is doing a good job of ousting the gloom and doomers, so I recommend his site for that reason. However, I really question this whole "nuclear is the answer" scenario, and your little tighwalk of being "anti peak oil" while coming over here and posting as you just did. And I have to say, it's not even the thoughtful sort of thing you usually post. I'm sure you are well aware of the Chevron ad campaign, so obviously SOME oil companies are promoting this idea, though in their official pronouncements they are not nearly as dire as many Peak Oilers. I'm not accusing JD of being duplicitous, really. Here is the first paragraph of his very first post on peakoildebunked: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Peak oil is an inconvenience. If you want to get scared about something, try "Peak Energy". That's the point where all energy sources, totaled together, reach their peak and begin a grim decline. Obviously, we're not at that point now, and we never will be, as I will explain in a moment. The fact is, the solution is staring everybody right in the face: coal and nuclear. <hr></blockquote> From the getgo, he made his stance pretty clear. I don't know anything about JD. It looks like he may be a good "trekkie". That is, he ultimately looks to space as our energy frontier and is optimistic (well, I USED to be more optimistic) about humanity and our ability to harness technology for a promising future. And hey, I like Star Trek too. But I really have to question the whole nuclear or die scenario.

by JD » Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:22 pm

Thanks - I'll have to check out the blog referenced and see what's in it! Yes Chevron is starting to talk about the Peak. And Exxon denies it. Sounds like a healthy debate is occuring in industry and society as a whole to me. Opinions differ amoung knowledgable people on this topic. I personally believe that the topic is far more complex than a simple "Peak Oil" or not - it is about "when do we have Peak useable net energy production". My point is that to turn such a debate into a silly "oil company conspiracy" is laughable!<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> Jeff's thoughts on the matter are actually pretty perceptive as he recognizes the lack of importance of absolute barrels being produced and that it is indeed a question of net energy output. I'll have to see what the other blog you are referring to is all about too!

by **Dreams End** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:34 pm

The guy who runs that blog goes by: "JD". So when you came on and posted about Peak Oil I figured it was the same guy. Sorry for the mistake. You might want to go to the archives for the "peak oil" threads so we don't end up having the same arguments we've already had. If you have some new perspectives after reading all that...we'll check 'em out.

by **lurker** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:39 pm

i am still unclear about whether nuclear technologies are all bad,just because 20th century designs were rubbish for the environment and controlled by the military industrial complex .<a href="http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html">Let a thousand reactors bloom</a> is a wired magazine article about new chinese designs for nuclear power generation.Of course this article may contain propaganda,marketing and public relations elements,but seems more likely to be viable technologies than some of the "scalar " stuff promoted by Bearden Hoagland etc which i just do not understand or quite beleive in until somebody shows me one working.

by JD » Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:24 pm

Dreams End I think your mistake is totally understandable. The odds of me posting here as JD while that other dude with a blog having the handle JD are rather remote. Of course this could be coincidence, or maybe another one of those weird synchronous events that for all the world look like support of "conspiracy" but which aren't...... Really rather baffling, and potentially instructive. Let's project this occurance into something we are further away from. How could anyone truly believe that the two JD's aren't the same? Surely this must be evidence of conspiracy....... BTW I went to that site, and out of curiosity tried posting to see if my user name works there and it won't take my password. Works fine here though. Maybe User Names are site specific. What just happened is the smallest example of synchronicity, however more and more I'm coming of the opinion that many of the anomlous events we see in the world are not due to either chance or conspiracy but some other factor we are not considering.

by **AnnaLivia** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:03 pm

ooh ooh! i'll give you some synchronicity! i had not been on peakoil site even to read in a loong time, but just yesterday contacted an admin there to let him know about the whole stupid stormfront thang, and that their site was on the list of those to infiltrate (and yes the jerks are there). but while there, i found what i think was the most AWESOME thread i've read about peakoil, and i stayed up way late to read the whole long thing. just a sec...i'll go get the link and edit it into this post... ok, here 'tis <a href="http://peakoil.com/fortopic11783.html">peakoil.com/fortopic11783.html</a> this is just personal take, but matt savinar is a guy i came to believe was doing a lot of harm, if unintentionally, and i didn't like him. i watched youngsters come onto that board who were freaked out of their minds by his stuff. i also watched that board seem to drift farther and farther towards not only deep gloom, but toward what seemed like acceptance of and even promotion of eugenics. (that wasn't from matt...i don't know if he's involved in that.) i don't want any goddam part of that bullshit, which is why i ended up just flat leaving the place long ago. but in this thread, it seems matt is "moderating" at least somewhat, and i was glad to see that. if you just skip past the "cheerleading matt" posts, you'll find, i think, some pretty worthwhile discussion. i'm still chewing today on especially the excellent posts by both a Doctor Doom (who isn't a doomer) and by Dezakin (scientist of some kind and, yes, nuclear proponent). now, for another synchronicity, the thread ends as of now with a killer (forgive the pun) post about the danger of nuclear. me, i'd give anything to hear the Dezakin guy respond to that last post because i myself, am still gathering evidence and "tweaking" my view on all of this. i'll be watching the thread! after i read the very last post, i found myself asking myself "so, do we have to live close to the reactors?" i've read elsewhere the Finns have figured out how to contain the waste properly now. i don't want to debate anything. i'm just offering info for your perusal here. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=annalivia@rigorousintuition>AnnaLivia</A> at: 11/9/05 4:29 pm

by **slimmouse** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:15 pm

These peak oilers really could spare themselves lots of time. Both those who blindly follow on here, and anyone elsewhere. Really you peeps. This isnt rocket philosophy were talking here. <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=1807.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...1807.topic</a> Quick hint for the mockers of this thread. Where do you think paid teams in houston make a beeline for everytime someone registers an energy patent ? This is so fucking elementary it beggars belief that were even discussing this here.

by **glubglubglub** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:21 pm

Everyone knows that as peak oil hits the cost of oil will rise (demand rising, supply shrinking, all that), and because peak oil is closer to the act-of-god or natural disaster type of event (ie, an immutable physical eventuality that can be dealt with but not strictly avoided) the price rises will be understandable and not widely contested; the sooner you blow the 'peak oil' trumpet the sooner you can get away with exorbitant overcharges.

by **eric144** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:30 pm

and in 2 years time Mr Exxon will admit he was wrong. We'll have to restrict supply and double the price. What a shame.

by **Watchful Citizen** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:48 pm

You know, Dreams End/veritas, back when you were beating me with your accusational baseball bat for being only semi-informed about Larouche you should've mentioned that he promotes nuclear power. (Now that is horrifying to me, not 'golems.') I'm vehemently against nuclear power and there's an article by someone promoting 6,000 new nuke plants by 2050 at EIR. Crikey, the madness. I thought Larouche pushing Tarpley's 'Unauthorized Biography of George Bush' which blew my mind when I found it was what he was all about. I was wrong, as you showed in your informed-but-acerbic manner. Tangentially, I found some of Tarpley's 'Unauthorized Biography of George Bush' embedded in spam citing the same keywords in an article which AOL is filtering and have posted about the possible use of spam-blockers and 'hash-busters' being used as a binary system (downright Hegelian) to "spamjacket" information and thereby filter the revolution out of our email, so to speak. You might be interested: <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=1893.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...1893.topic</a>

by **OnoI812** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:01 pm

"Some contend that the world supply of oil is peaking, that we will soon reach a point of decreasing production. Similar predictions were made in 1914, in 1939, in 1951, when post-war demand was on the rise, and again in the 1970s," said Tillerson. "These predictions were always proven wrong." OK...I am not very familiar with 1914 POS. I'm going to try to research this 1914 scam a little more...What's also interesting, is what he left out. Why bring light to these more obscure peak oil scam dates , then leave out the pivotal mid twenties POS which was leveraged to the highest levels & led directly to the infamous Standard/IG agreement that helped the Nazi's immensely. Now I'm beginning to wonder if they trotted out POS prior to 1914?

by JD » Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:26 pm

“Where do you think paid teams in houston make a beeline for everytime someone registers an energy patent?” Uhhhhhh – let me guess. The bar? I mean to drown their sorrows as they can see the inevitable end of their fat-ass free-loading oil company jobs? Rocket Philosophy. “Disproving” quantum theory isn’t “rocket philosophy”? It certainly is something. I must say that everytime someone comes up with some new energy technology that involves reinventing modern physics and thermodynamics simple engineers like myself consider it all to be no big deal. Pretty simple really. Go into your basement with some glassware and soon you too can power the world. AnnaLivia – what are you referring to in the stormfront thing? I’ll have to workover that site. My personal belief is that Peak Oil is something that can be dealt with via conservation and additions of renewable energy, but the transition will be economy rattling and we should get on it NOW rather than waiting for the crisis to hit us. No doom and gloom required at the is point. I’m really laughing at some of this. I posted this to show the Peak Oil Skeptics are onto the same idea team as the President of Exxon. I guess that’s fine if you want to be on that team. Then I see a post whereby the commentor takes as a source the words of the President of Exxon wrt a 1914 “Peak Oil Scam” to run off and go build some oil company conspiracy theory upon. Irony is mighty tasty. In a rational world, Peak Oil Skeptics would say “Hmmm – wait the President of Exxon is saying the same thing as me! So either I’m right and in that case he ain’t a bad guy as he’s saying the same thing as me; or I’m being delusional for being a Peak Oil Skeptic. Or….. as the President of Chevron is saying something different maybe nobody really knows the answer and we are in the midst of a changing paradigm!” No that response would be entirely too rational. Instead any number of elaborate schemes must be devised; all involving the evil oil companies robbing innocent drivers at the gas pumps, and suppressed miracle energy technologies and 200mpg carburetors. What a waste of time arguing on the internet. I guess I’m just retarded: <a href="http://www.blamonet.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/Retard_Win.jpg">www.blamonet.com/gallery/...rd_Win.jpg</a>

by **eric144** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:31 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I guess I’m just retarded<hr></blockquote> I agree completely. The idea that the president of Exxon expresses honest opinions about things in public is completely retarded. It's his job to make money, not get into debates.

by **glubglubglub** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:47 pm

you try to maximize profit: by heralding the arrival of peak oil prior to its actual arrival, so you can convince the market to bear otherwise unjustifiable prices while minimizing risk: that another oil company may jump in and undercut your prices, as it would be possible to do if there's enough oil still easily extractable The 'debate' such as it is is, on the part of the oil companies, the results of different minimax calculations on the part of their respective strategy departments.

Exxon President Slams Peak Oil Concept

Exxon President Slams Peak Oil Concept

Re: Exxon President Slams Peak Oil Concept

Nope I'm not the blog guy

Re: Nope I'm not the blog guy

unclear about nuclear

Synchronicity

Re: Synchronicity?

Re: More PEAK OIL KACK.

it's very simple, really

the public debate has begun

Re: nuclear power as an alternative to oil

Very Interesting

Off to the bar

Re: Off to the bar

JD: it's not a conspiracy, just minimax

Who is online