No such thing as peak oil

Originally posted by el_madmaster
Calling me racist, selfish, and ignorant, simply because I stated a FACT that the Chinese and Indians are starting to use cars on a scale never before seen.

They did not and do not deserve a special mention so i pointed out the gross hypocrisy of you giving their energy consumption rates specific relevance. Did you ever stop to ask WHY they are only now able to accomplish these things and how much has to do with British and American imperialism?

Right... Whether or not you like it, it is a very simple rule of supply and demand that if more people are using oil faster than at any point in time, it will run out quicker.

Assuming it will run out at all ( whatever we do) and soon enough for it to matter at all. I have found absolutely NO evidence to suggest that it is or will in any timeframe worthy of panick or airtime. We are more like to have wars over fresh water than oil if we let TRUE market forces come into play.

I'm not blaming them for anything, it's about time they enjoy the benefits of using an automobile over bikes.

Then i got you all wrong and I'm sorry for my earlier remark. We , citizens of the world that we are , ALL deserve whatever we dream to have of this life and for our self styled ' leaders' to withhold such from us claiming that we are 'destroying the world' ( or using up 'limited' resources') is a betrayal of the worse kind. I just hate to see the lie perpetuated and especially with such seemingly racist overtones. Either way i apparently summed you up wrong so you have my apology.

Stellar

China and India do require special mention because as I said before, both have populations of over 1 billion people which is approximately the same as the combined population of North America and Europe.

The US, Canada, Germany, Mexico, France, Italy, The UK, Spain, and The Netherlands alone were consuming 43% of the worlds oil as of 2005

Where as China and India together were only consuming 10.8% as of 2005

Source

[edit on 31-7-2006 by deadboi]

Originally posted by deadboi
China and India do require special mention because as I said before, both have populations of over 1 billion people which is approximately the same as the combined population of North America and Europe.

Then we need solutions to the problems that will result from 2 billion additional cars in South East Asia by investigation of every nook and cranny of what can be considered science. We do NOT deprive entire nations of luxuries because they might ruin the planet even faster than we already are. I have mentioned very many solutions that will cure the earth of it's pollution issues for good but the establishment will only allow those to reach the market over their cold dead ( probably rather ours) bodies.

The US, Canada, Germany, Mexico, France, Italy, The UK, Spain, and The Netherlands alone were consuming 43% of the worlds oil as of 2005

Where as China and India together were only consuming 10.8% as of 2005

Source

Which is kind of my point but i guess when your audience has made up it's mind about who the REAL problem is ( those damn Asians in this case) your kinda stuck with it.

Anyways!

Stellar

I have had a quick read of some of the info supplied by the peak oil prophets or zealots. I have had a good laugh to be honest, thanks I needed that. Your blind faith in the peak oil theory has me rolling on the floor in hysterics. Before I get lambasted I want to make a couple of thinks perfectly clear. I believe "Peak Oil"will happen but only because the powers that be WANT it to happen. Any person who can sit there stoney faced at their keyboard and type out that they believe that politicians and those that control the world are not in collusion with the oil companies has a twisted view on history over the last 100 years or so. To back up "peak oil"by mentioning the 70's oil crisis and NOT having ANY idea HOW or WHY it came about is blind ignorance and stupidity. You "peak oilers"HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA AT ALL !!! You espouse the ideas put forward by the same people and organisations that LIED about the WMD's in Iraq and the ones who are profiting from deliberately RESTICTING the flow of oil, even creating terrorism and wars to make their plans come to fruition. Sigh, yes I do get a bit melodramtic at times. But I did mention your ignorance of the events surrounding the 197's oil crisis. So without further ado....

"In 1973, the powerful men grouped around Bilderberg decided to launch a colossal assault against industrial growth in the world, in order to tilt the balance of power back to the advantage of Anglo-American financial interests. In order to do this, they determined to use their most prized weapon -- control of the world's oil flows. Bilderberg policy was to trigger a global oil embargo in order to force a dramatic increase in world oil prices. Since 1945, world oil trade had, by international custom, been priced in dollars. American oil companies dominated the postwar market. A sharp sudden increase in the world price of oil, therefore, meant an equally dramatic increase in world demand for US dollars to pay for that necessary oil.

Never in history had such a small circle of interests, centered in London and New York, controlled so much of the entire world's economic destiny. The Anglo-American financial establishment resolved to use their oil power in a manner no one could imagine possible. Their scheme was utterly outrageous, and that was their chief advantage, they clearly reckoned."

Now that is just a little intro into what happened, though I am sure you "peak oilers" won't bother to read the following link I am going to provide it anyway. If you find that even remotely interesting I would suggest you actually purchase the book as I have done and have a good read. It may just open your eyes a little as to how the worlds history and the world wars were intrinsically tied to oil and it's affect on countries economies. Oh and yes the book does provide copies of parts of the documentations cited.

earth.prohosting.com...

Since you "peak oilers"are so well informed as to the origins of oil I take it you have actually read and investigated the papers written by JF Kenney before dismissing them out of hand. You dismiss abiotic oil so readily yet NO ONE has yet been able to prove or show that his theories... actually cross that one that his PROOF that oil is abiotic is false, wrong, incorrect etc. NO ONE.

You may also want to take a look at other research that has been done in regards to the origins of oil and natural gas, since as you people point out so often natural gas too is a "fossil fuel". Ooooh did you know that in the 90's that scientists actually made abiotic natural gas ( actually it was more than just natural gas ) and what did they find ? That the natural gas they made abiotically was INDISTINGUISHABLE from natural gas from alleged biotic origins. Take that into account next time someone says that the amount of natural gas produced abiotically is insignificant. ( Oh and in case you don't comprehend what I am getting at how can you say abiotic gas is insignificant if you can't tell the difference between it and biogenic gas ) Oh and since you "peak oilers" don't like links then perhaps you should do your own research to look into it yourself. Hint : Go to Science Daily. Use the search tool. It is amazing what you will find when you actually do a little digging.

Then we have that moon of Saturn, Titan. Oh geez you guys must cringe when new info is released about that one ( And no I am in no way indicating that we should get space tankers to ship the methane here to earth ) For the uninformed Titan has been releasing Methane into space for BILLIONS of years. How do they know ? Well because the atmosphere leaks like a sieve and despite that if you lit a ciggie on the suface... well lets put it this way, smoking would kill you and quickly. Oh and whats more they actually have lakes or oceans of liquid hydrocarbons on the surface. They have even said that there is a source generating methane below the surface. You'd think if it was biological matter doing this or even a slight hint of it then they'd be crowing about finding life on a nother planet ( ok moon then ) wouldn't they. Are you people so ignorant that you still believe that methane on earth is NOT produced the same way. Especially considering IT HAS BEEN REPLICATED IN A LAB and in conditions that WOULD EXIST in the very regions of the earth that they have said it is generated.

Or you could take into acount the amount of oil that is under the Caspian Sea. How about a conservative estimate of well over 200 Billion Barels. Oh and if you want a little bit of insight into why Iran is being given a hard time at the moment and why Lebanon is being bombed to buggary you may want to look into the oil supplies under the caspian sea to get a better understanding. Hint: Look at pipleine routes and the like... but hey you "peak oilers" are so busy listening to the people generating the "peak oil" hype to even bother looking into the simple fact that they are one and the same. Yes I am refering to the links between Matthew Simmons and the Bush Regime the ASPO and Halliburton the ASPEN institute and the oil companies to name a few.

And yes I have read and own quite a few peak oil books and doco's, even have Yergen's book too. But I like to look at both sides of the issue and have not been hoodwinked into having a blind faith in the same liars that like to preach terror and hatred and death. Oh and another tip. Look into who controls our education systems and the publishing houses as well. Those who run the oil companies are more influentual than you would realise.

"Ignorant : Unaware because of a lack of relevant information or knowledge"

Have a nice day.

After reading about this on this site... www.vialls.com...

I have a small, insignificant question...

If Russia has successfully drilled over 300 self replenishing oil wells, how come they are working on a pipeline to get oil from central asia?

www.google.com...

Ummm I think the answer was supplied in one of the links in the Google search you posted.

"Russia needs to invest heavily in new Eastern Siberian fields to make up for falling productivity in its Western Siberian fields. Gazprom is reportedly strapped for cash and would need to obtain major credit lines from the West and possibly China in order to achieve its production goals for 2010."

As for quoting from Joe Vialls... from what I understand he is or was on a disability pension living a few suburbs from my own residence in the most isolated city in the world, Perth Western Australia. Not to discredited someone just because they are on a disability pension but if you read some of his other articles he does seem a little less credible than would be ideal.

Oh and as for you original question though, why would the US want or need to spend trillions of dollars destroying the middle east when they have enough oil off their own coast... hint look for another article on China drilling of the coast of the US. It has NOTHING to do with having enough oil. They allready have enough of that, the idea is to restrict supply, conbtrol prices and the worlds economy.

You see "peak oilers" constantly state that the oil companies have reduced oil exploration because they have found most of the large oil fields etc etc etc ( insert BS here ) But the thing is why in the world would they bother when they know if supply is constricted they will earn more money.... just have a look at the recent insane profits of the oil companies.

Also your comments about piping gas fro Central Asia opens up some reasoning for the issues in Lebanon and the pressure on Iran. The US sees this as a threat. Actually more importantly the people who control the US know that the Russians and the Iranians and Chinese for that matter will not play ball with US/British oil companies and banks. So bomb the crap of the Iranians and deny the Russians Iranians and Chinese... it's all about control and power. "Peak Oil" is just a charade to justify esculating supply restrictions, price increases, wars and terrorism etc...

When discussing "Peak Oil: peakers love to quote T Gold, Vialls or anyone else they can easily discredit. They won't touch anyone who can't be easily discredited with a ten foot pole, hence ignoring completely the papers of Kenney, his Russian colleagues and also some of the other research I mentioned previously.

Oil, oil everywhere say the airheads to the sheeple, but you must pay more since every country is in on a super secret price fixing cabal that even 1000's of corporate leaders and commodity traders don't know about.

The airheads will have us believe that all nations love to screw up their economies, create mountains of record debt, and look forward to major depressions, because a collapsed, dejected society sewn with civil unrest is the best kind, and wars for resources are always just for fun.



The reality is we will still pay more and more as standards of living get lower and lower, whether you believe in peak oil or not. Wonder what excuses will be next when the Cantrell and Ghawar fields tank?

Consumer prices up, factory output slows

More time on solutions and less time on excuses is what we need.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Oil, oil everywhere say the airheads to the sheeple, but you must pay more since every country is in on a super secret price fixing cabal that even 1000's of corporate leaders and commodity traders don't know about.

Why do you think many governments would have to actively take part in the rigging of the market? What can most of the world do when the industrialized west agrees on at least that? Imperialism happened and how many set the policy? The massive reserves is just a proven fact so why suggest it's some mental construct invented by a few? Greenspan said we are not running out of oil so what is one to make of that?

The airheads will have us believe that all nations love to screw up their economies,

Why assume it screws up economies when it's just another ( and most equal) tax on industry? When everything is said and done competition on an industrial level is once again pretty much even...

create mountains of record debt,

Few records being set in that regard ( the US had more relative to GDP debt in the 30's/40's than now) and once again why do you think these issues are directly related to oil price manipulation? There are a dozen other factors but i guess that is too complex when your just hear to ramble on?

and look forward to major depressions,

Depressions have very little to do with anything other than currency manipulation which is completely unconnected to energy prices. These things can all be managed if our currencies were methods of exchange instead of a method to restrict growth to start with.

because a collapsed, dejected society sewn with civil unrest is the best kind,

It is the most easily manipulated kind of society and that is why our governments railroad us into these situations so frequently. Social engineering works best when there is upheaval.

and wars for resources are always just for fun.

Wars of aggression are almost always about control of one population or another and i would go so far as to say never about resources itself.

The reality is we will still pay more and more as standards of living get lower and lower, whether you believe in peak oil or not. Wonder what excuses will be next when the Cantrell and Ghawar fields tank?

There are plenty of new large oil fields being discovered and as many which have simply never been exploited.

More time on solutions and less time on excuses is what we need.

Once we expose all the lying and deception, about the world running out of oil, we might get to working on solutions.

Stellar

When you actually study history, war, economics, and markets, I'll reply to your post in detail and you'll know what my sarcasm is about. All you did is write a crazy bunch of mindless garbage devoid of facts.

Originally posted by StellarX
Greenspan said we are not running out of oil so what is one to make of that?

Oil Dependence and Economic Risk
The Honorable Alan C. Greenspan

Even before the devastating hurricanes of last summer, world oil markets had been subject to a degree of strain not experienced for a generation. Oil prices had been persistently edging higher since 2002 as increases in global oil consumption progressively absorbed the buffer of several million barrels a day in excess capacity that stood between production and demand. Today world oil production stands at about 85 million barrels a day, and little excess capacity remains. Just how much excess capacity, and of what quality oil, is a matter of debate. But no matter what the precise answer, the buffer between supply and demand is much too small to absorb shutdowns of even a small part of the world’s production. Moreover, growing threats of violence to oilfields, pipelines, storage facilities, and refineries, especially in the Middle East, have increased the private demand to hold oil inventories worldwide. Oil users judge they need to be prepared for the possibility that at some point a raid will succeed, with a devastating impact on supply.

Energy and the economy
by Ben S. Bernanke

In my remarks today, I would like to discuss the relationship between energy markets and the economy. As I am certain all of you are aware, the steep increases in energy prices over the past several years have had significant consequences for households, businesses, and economic policy. At least since the time of the first oil shock in October 1973, economists have struggled to understand the ways that disturbances to the supply and demand balance in energy markets influence economic growth and inflation. At the most basic level, oil and natural gas are just primary commodities, like tin, rubber, or iron ore. Yet energy commodities are special, in part because they are critical inputs to a very wide variety of production processes of modern economies. They provide the fuel that drives our transportation system, heats our homes and offices, and powers our factories. Moreover, energy has an influence that is disproportionate to its share in real gross domestic product (GDP) largely because of our limited ability to adjust the amount of energy we use per unit of output over short periods of time. Over longer periods, energy consumption can be altered more easily by, for example, adjusting the types of vehicles that we drive, the kind of homes that we build, and the variety of machines that we buy. Those decisions, in turn, influence the growth and composition of the stock of capital and the productive capacity of the economy.

You're still going to pay more for energy and have less expendable income,
with or without your blind rhetoric and excuse making.

ATS: Solving Peak Oil




[edit on 16-8-2006 by Regenmacher]

Ignorant fools !

"The airheads will have us believe that all nations love to screw up their economies, create mountains of record debt, and look forward to major depressions, because a collapsed, dejected society sewn with civil unrest is the best kind, and wars for resources are always just for fun."

Are you a moron or what ? Did you not read the link I posted or even bothered to check if anything I wrote was indeed valid. I DID NOT nor do I believe StellarX actually indicated that nations love to screw up their economies.

What is with you "peak oilers". IT IS EXTERNAL FACTORS that screw up many countries economies and since OIL is an integral part of ANY economy whoever excerts influence on oil prices and supplies ultimately controls any countries economy. DID YOU EVEN READ THE LINK ABOUT THE 1970's OIL CRISIS ? Geez it's like butting your head against a bleeding wall.

As for countries or their leaders screwing their own economies take the Asian financial crisis for example....

"Once the East Asian Tiger economies had begun to open up to foreign capital, but well before they had adequate controls over possible abuses in place, hedge funds went on the attack. The secretive funds first targeted the weakest economy, Thailand. American speculator, George Soros, acted in secrecy and armed with an undisclosed credit line from a group of international banks including Citigroup. They bet that Thailand would be forced to devalue the baht and break from the peg to the dollar. Soros, head of Quantum Fund, Julian Robertson, head of the Tiger Fund and reportedly also the LTCM hedge fund, whose management included former Federal Reserve deputy, David Mullins, unleashed a huge speculative attack on the Thai currency and stocks. By June, Thailand had capitulated, the currency was floated, and it was forced to turn to the IMF for help. In swift succession, the same hedge funds and banks hit the Philippines, Indonesia and then South Korea. They pocketed billions as the populations sank into economic chaos and poverty."

www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net...

Oh this comment really takes the cake.
"Wonder what excuses will be next when the Cantrell and Ghawar fields tank"

Me thinks you have been reading too much of the Gospell of Matthew Simmons and co'. Oh that's right he is also an integral cog in the Bush Cheney regime along with Halliburton and co' , yes the very ones who lied about WMD's. NOW THAT's A TRUSTWORTHY SOURCE if ever I saw one. Good old Matthew LOVES to state how the Saudi fields are drying up. It was with much mirth that I read "The end of Oil" by Paul Roberts and his rants about Ghawar and other Sauid oil fields. For the uninformed reading his book and being hoodwinked by the whole peak oil debate it is enough to scare the crap out of you. But what heppens when the language they use and what they say has no credibility at all ? That's a tough call huh.

Perhaps you should read this...
www.gasresources.net...(Crop%20Circles).pdf

I'm not even going to bother to quote from the above link. Read it for yourself you idiot.

Oh and not to want to attack you only we have this stupidity too.
"the buffer between supply and demand is much too small to absorb shutdowns of even a small part of the world’s production...."

How much grey matter does it take to realise the buffer between supply and demand is shrinking because of a RESTRICTION IN REFINING CAPACITY. Hell BP ( Oh and BP IS STANDARD OIL for the uninformed ) even wanted to close a profitable and the only refinery on the Western side of Australia a few years back until political pressure swayed their decisions stayed the course. Hell even Richard Branson realises this and is endeavouring to fund the building of HIS OWN refinery...."

StellarX I don't know how you can stay so composed and polite to people who can''t look into something properly before making dumbass comments.

Originally posted by Regenmacher
When you actually study history, war, economics, and markets, I'll reply to your post in detail and you'll know what my sarcasm is about. All you did is write a crazy bunch of mindless garbage devoid of facts.

Well i have and it's the conclusions i came to thus far. They are obviously subject to change when i have better/more accurate information but you have done nothing but quote nonsense so far.

Oil Dependence and Economic Risk
The Honorable Alan C. Greenspan

And interestingly he only mentions that the 'excess capacity' has declined meaning that there was not enough investment in production. He goes on to say that private ownership of oil has significantly increased and that that is the real reason for the dramatic rise in prices over the last two years. NOWHERE does he suggest that this is a fundamental 'resource in the ground' problem so your argument is not only fallacious but deliberately so. You will not fool be with these tactics and i will expose you.

Hypothetically, if we still had the 10 million barrels a day of spare capacity that existed two decades ago, neither surges in demand nor temporary shutdowns of output from violence, hurricanes or unscheduled maintenance would be having much, if any, impact on price. Returning to such a level of spare capacity appears wholly out of reach for the foreseeable future, however. This is not because there is any shortage of oil in the ground. The problem is that aside from Saudi-Aramco, few, if any, of national oil companies which own most of the world’s proved oil reserves are investing enough of their surging cash flow to convert the reserves into crude oil productive capacity. Only Saudi-Aramco appears sufficiently concerned, at least publicly, that high oil prices will reduce the long term demand for oil, which could significantly diminish the value of Saudi Arabia’s – or indeed, any country’s –oil reserves.

Extract from your source material.

Energy and the economy
by Ben S. Bernanke

And once again we are stuck with someone who tells us that the crisis is entirely due to manipulation of prices and the flow of oil AFTER it's come out of the ground. IF there was sufficient invesment in extraction there would not be a crisis large enough to give investors reason to chase up oil prices.

World reserves are growing far faster than we are using them ( finding 5 barrels for every 3 used for the last 20 years) and that is despite relatively modest investment in exploration.

WASHINGTON, DC, June 21 -- BP PLC tried recently to quell renewed concerns by some industry observers that world oil reserves are running out sooner than expected.

"2003 was a turbulent year in the world's energy markets, with supply disruptions, strong growth in both demand and production of oil and coal, and the highest prices in the oil and gas markets for 20 years," said BP Chief Economist Peter Davies.

However, he said, "The high prices were not driven by fundamental resource shortages: In 2003, the world's reserves of oil and natural gas continued their long term trend of growing faster than production."

BP: World oil and gas reserves still growing at healthy pace

At 2003 consumption levels [2], the remaining reserves represent 44.6 years of oil and 66.2 years of natural gas. Does this mean that the world will be out of fossil fuels in 50 years or so? That theory has been around since the 1970s. In fact, the figures for years of remaining reserves have remained relative constant over the past few decades as the industry has replaced consumption with newly discovered oil and gas deposits and has developed technologies to increase the amount of oil and gas that can be recovered from existing reservoirs.

No one can know for certain how much oil and gas remains to be discovered. But geologists sometimes make educated guesses. For example, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducts periodic assessments of U.S. mineral resources. In its most recent assessment (1995), the USGS estimated that the onshore U.S., including Alaska, has undiscovered, technically recoverable resources of 112.3 billion barrels of oil and 1,074 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In a separate assessment of offshore resources completed in 2000, the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) estimated that 75 billion barrels of oil and 362 trillion cubic feet of natural gas underlie the areas off the coasts of the U.S. The USGS and MMS resource assessments make clear that, despite being a very mature producing area, substantial resources still exist in the U.S.

World oil resources to 2025 may be more than two times current reserves, based on an estimate from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) using USGS data. Reserve growth of 730 billion barrels accounts for new discoveries and the expansion of what can be recovered from known reservoirs due to advances in technology and improvements in economics. But EIA estimates that in 2025, countries around the globe will still have more than 900 billion barrels of oil remaining to be discovered. EIA estimates total world oil resources at more than 2.9 trillion barrels of oil.

How much oil and natural gas i left?

You're still going to pay more for energy and have less expendable income,
with or without your blind rhetoric and excuse making.

The expendable income has to do with currency in circulation and nothing to do with the cost of basic sources of energy. The 'cash' in circulation is the problem as it is retained by a few very wealthy groupings who thus have the ability to cause by lending and extracting money from the general economy. Do not be fooled by the claims that rising energy cost hurts the world economy as the effect is much the same everywhere thus putting everyone back on equal footing. If governments choose not to increase the flow of 'credit' in the economy to negate these new costs you know who is to blame for economic contraction.

ATS: Solving Peak Oil

Few good posts but non by you or anyone trying to sell peak oil. You are way out of your depth here and i will correct you for as long as you try sell this particular deception.

Stellar


[edit on 17-8-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by netpaw
Ignorant fools !

It's not that i am disagreeing or anything...

StellarX I don't know how you can stay so composed and polite to people who can''t look into something properly before making dumbass comments.

Frankly i have no choice as people who tell the truth, rudely, will get banned far faster than those who blatantly lie and deceive on this forum ( and almost anywhere). For me sharing the truth is far more important than trying to return 'broadsides' in a vain attempt to protect myself against the slander and general mud slinging which there really is no pratical defense against anyways. The only way you ever get anything done in the truth telling business is to do it in the most polite manner whenever you spot ignorance being sold as reality.

I would advise that you assume a 'Borg' like indentity ( "Denial is futile; you will be informed" ) and just generally do your best to not respond to the abuse in kind as that is exactly what those mods who disagree with you are waiting for. They have the power and they WILL get rid of you ( and your solid information ) by whatever means you present them with.

Stellar

Originally posted by netpaw
Are you a moron or what ? Did you not read the link I posted or even bothered to check if anything I wrote was indeed valid. I DID NOT nor do I believe StellarX actually indicated that nations love to screw up their economies.

Oil has become an addiction, where as the addicts are suffering in denial.

I suggest from this point on, you start reading more than a few snippets about peak oil before formulating a hypothesis or opinion, rather than shooting your mouth off and directly insulting members with explicatives.

From the same author you so hastily deemed as essential to your argument.

Iraq and the Problem of Peak Oil
by F. William Engdahl

The problem in oil production is not how much reserves are underground. There the numbers are more encouraging. The problem comes when large oil fields such as Prudhoe Bay Alaska or the fields of the North Sea pass their peak output. Much like a bell curve, oil fields rise to a maximum output or peak. The peak is the point when half the oil has been extracted. In terms of reserves remaining it may seem there is still ample oil. But it is not as rosy as it seems. The oil production may hold at the peak output for a number of years before beginning a slow decline. Once the peak is past however, the decline can become very rapid. Past the peak, there is still oil, but each barrel becomes more difficult to exploit, and more costly, as internal well pressures decline or other problems make recovery more expensive for each barrel. The oil is there but not at all easy to extract. The cost of each barrel past peak is increasingly higher as artificial means are employed to extract it. After a certain point it becomes uneconomical to continue to try to extract this peak oil. Because most oil companies and agencies such as the US Department of Energy speak not of peak oil, but of total reserves, the world has a false sense of energy supply security The truth is anything but secure.

Oh this comment really takes the cake.
"Wonder what excuses will be next when the Cantarell and Ghawar fields tank"

Me thinks you have been reading too much of the Gospell of Matthew Simmons and co'.

Me thinks you haven't kept up with studying current events or data. As far as that Simmons insult, when you are selected to present a lecture to the DoD maybe you too can be deemed as relevant to industry and leaders.

Perhaps you should read this...
...Crop%20Circles).pdf

Here's a better one and readers can see all the holes in his ideas.
Note: the username of Spike is Lynch on this board.

Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil 76 pages

As far a Lynch's track record as an economist, he predicted that in 2005 crude would drop to $30/bbl, in 2006 it would be at $50/bbl. His advice, if followed, would of led me into bankruptcy. Too bad the great Lynch can't explain high prices.

This was from the Q&A section of the 2004 SPE conference. Lynch saying prices should be below $30 by the time of the 2005 SPE conference "because all the factors driving the price of oil up at this time are short-term." Oil had just got to $50. video source

Maybe you better work on your understanding of peak oil. There's plenty of helium-3 on the moon and liquefied hydrocarbons on Titan, but at what cost? Oil companies have not replaced production with exploration related barrels since the early 1980s , since all the shallow, low extraction cost, low sulfur, large oil fields have been found aka low lying fruit has been picked. If crude is no longer economically feasible to produce, then it might as well not exist and refineries won't be built with red ink. Throw in geopolitical animosity, wars, climate change, over population, fraud, theft, fiat and stock manipulation, etc. and we have made a precarious soup de jour of pending disasters all built on limited finite resources.

Learn something: New oil information site from a life-long petroleum engineer,
who has lived in more than 40 countries drilling wells for every multinational on earth:
www.energydigger.com...


History has shown a head in the sand is not a solution and Europe found that out when the cod became depleted.

Originally posted by StellarX
You will not fool be with these tactics and i will expose you.

If you continue to talk like a comic book character, don't expect me to think your opinion is legitimate. There's no tactics or cabal here, so drop the paranoia and nonsense talk.

Greenspan is serving vested interests and not you. He loves to play the role of a doublespeak Orwellian propagandist, so formulate the whole picture and read between the lines. Greenspan is in red alarm mode. He wouldn't be demanding alternative fuels and oil independence, if there were no catastrophic problems with oil production.

Greenspan: Still higher oil prices will inevitably move vehicle transportation to hybrids, and despite the inconvenience, plug-in hybrids. Corn ethanol, though valuable, can play only a limited role, because its ability to displace gasoline is modest at best. But cellulosic ethanol, should it fulfill its promise, would help to wean us of our petroleum dependence, as could clean coal and nuclear power.

Note his mood, he can't spin that: foreign.senate.gov...

Originally posted by StellarX
IF there was sufficient invesment in extraction there would not be a crisis large enough to give investors reason to chase up oil prices.

There isn't sufficient investment for the simple reason no energy company is going to drill for a loss, same goes with building storage and increasing refinery capacity. Greenspan doesn't go into detail on why they don't want to spend money to increase production, because he knows they're not going to flush money down a rat hole.

BP letter is to increase investor confidence. I suggest you buy BP stock if you like the article and make sure you put a stop loss in it.

How Much Oil and Natural Gas is Left? Data in this article is 2-12 years old, something current would be more relevant. Oil was $30/bbl or lower back then, so much for their forecast about supply meeting demand. Do you invest based on information from old company portfolios or by looking at only one point of view?

The expendable income has to do with currency in circulation and nothing to do with the cost of basic sources of energy.

I have studied several schools of economics, so which one did you garner the idea that resource costs are not connected to expendable income? Better show me, I haven't seen this new economic theory. Also show me how access to cheap energy resources are not connected to industralization and growth. Historical examples would be nice.

"An increase in oil prices slows economic growth in the short run primarily through its effects on consumer spending." ~Bernanke

Do not be fooled by the claims that rising energy cost hurts the world economy as the effect is much the same everywhere thus putting everyone back on equal footing.

Energy prices pose threat to U.S. economy, Greenspan says

Few good posts but non by you or anyone trying to sell peak oil.

Post on that thread and show us all what is bad then. Maybe you can actually come up with a viable solution instead of whining and blaming others.

Note: Personally I don't care if you believe there's finite limited resources or not, you'll just end up in the soup line with all the rest who don't take precautions. School of hard knocks has graduates too.

I'm glad you actually brought up a few of the points you did. I'll get to those in a moment.

But as for me insulting a member with expletives... I think that was a bit melodramtic. Calling someone a moron or ignorant or even a fool is not insulting members with expletive. Insulting well yeh sorry, won't happen again but expletives no.
Moron: A person of subnormal intelligence
Airhead: A flighty scatterbrained simpleton
Idiot: A person of subnormal intelligence
Ignorant: Uneducated in the fundamentals of a given art or branch of learning; lacking knowledge of a specific field

After looking up those definitions I have to admit I was quite rude and completely out of line. But as for your other comments...

"Oil has become an addiction, where as the addicts are suffering in denial."

Denial ? Er actually in my case I am not and I am sure Stellar X is not either. So you belive in ""Peak Oil" but do you drive a car ? Have you taken steps to unshackle yourself from as much energy consumption as possible. I have, I could list all the things I have done to do so but hey I know "Peak Oil" will happen but what I dispute is that it is simply because oil is running out. My understanding is it is a MANUFACTURED EVENT. There is a huge difference. Denial would be living my life in a manner that means I am oblivious or not prepared for any resulting energy shortages. I can assure you I am not in denial.

"I suggest from this point on, you start reading more than a few snippets about peak oil before formulating a hypothesis or opinion"

Now why is that anyone who swallows the whole "Peak Oil" agenda hook line and sinker always assume and sate that those who do not believe the "Peak Oil" hyperbole are only "..reading a few snippets about peak oil...". In fact I stated that I own many books about "Peak Oil" and in fact told yourselves that I had a copy of "The end of Oil" by Paul Roberts among others. That is not including the many ecenomic articles, watching of doco's, newspaper articles, books on history, history of those who founded the oil companies, the bankers that funded them and their influence on society... In fact I will readily admit I firmly believed in the "Peak Oil" message BEFORE deciding I needed to look at BOTH sides of the story. At first I refused to acknowledge many of the valid points brought up by the anti-"Peak Oil" proponents, it took me many many moths of digging and digging before I came to the conclusions I have. In fact from what I have read, watched and researched I know that the fact that "Peak Oil" is a manufactured event is even scarier than if "Peak Oil" as it is known was in fact a reality. But hey just ignore what I wrote previoulsy and make assumptions all you like. Everyone has a right to speak as they see fit. But stating I have only read snippets is incorrect. I hope I have clarified that slightly.

I'm actually glad you brought up that point about Endghal's belief in "Peak Oil". I should have noted that in my comments. I didn't mean to indicate that Endghal was anti-"Peak Oil". My point was to dispute comments that the idea of collusion by oil companies, governments, thinktanks and manipulations by very powerful people on a gigantic scale are a huge "conspiracy theory". Alos that the common misconceptions about the 1970's oil shock as stated by many "Peak Oil" comentators are all back to front. It is even more pertinant when it is coming from someone who has a belief in "Peak Oil".

Have to say I am REALLY glad you brought up the link to the ASPO forum which is frequented by M Lynch. Even better that you showed that his predictions of oil prices etc were completely wrong. Would you care to save me the time and quote where people such as Campbell and co'and Hubbert were wrong with their predictions and forecasts or where their graphs and figures were fallicious ? You'd save me the time. But if you have read some of Lynch's artciles you'd allready know this.

As for the ASPO.... are you aware that the ASPO is financially sponsored by companies such as Halliburton and Schlumberger ? Now why would companies that make Trillions from oil and oil price increases want to propagate somethink like "Peak Oil". But I guess you would view that as insignificant. Again if you even bothered to read a little history you would see that groups such as the Bildeberg group fund even environmental groups to aschieve desired outcomes... but hey if you refuse to acknowledge or investigate why they do this it is you that is living in denial not me. Oh and I should add to that you should be aware if you have looked into "Peak Oil" enough that even an oil company has set up a forum and website in association with the Aspen institute to promote "Peak Oil". Do you know anything about the Aspen institute and it's links to the oil companies and the thinking and beliefs of those who are associated with and founded it ? Oh you must know since you are so all knowing about "Peak Oil".

"As far as that Simmons insult, when you are selected to present a lecture to the DoD maybe you too can be deemed as relevant to industry and leaders."

Woohoo I am so glad you pointed that one out. You could quite rightly assume that from Simmons association with the Bush REGIME ( that is an extreme understatement ) that what is happening in the middle east is a result of their ( The Bush REGIME's ) knowledge of an impeding oil shoprtage. That is a little presumptious and simplistic in my view. The US in fact has the technology and the hydrocarbon reserves to make the middle east mostly irrelivant. What is important is denying future oil supplies and strategic positions around the globe for US military and ecenomic dominance. Remember all the people linked with the Bush regime are oil industry insiders... and make their vast wealth and hold great power all because of oil. Including Simmons, the more he preaches the "Peak Oil" gospel the more money he and the oil companies and those related make... Think about it for a moment at least. I hate to point out to you that these liars have murdered hundreds of thousands in Iraq and in fact any country that they have interests. Manipulate the financial system, keep countries in poverty etc... Do you know who is the largest sponsor of terrorism on a gigantic scale in the whole world. The US and those behind their government that's who. You can choose to believe their well thought out propaganda you like. The view of terrorism that is spread by the mainstream media is NOTHING compared to the way they spread it. Anyone who does not question the crackdown on our freedoms and the hypocracy of all this really does need their head read. But you are willing to accept that their spreading of "Peak Oil" propaganda is innocent and them just being honest ? "Peak Oilers" are really in denial.

"There's plenty of helium-3 on the moon and liquefied hydrocarbons on Titan, but at what cost?"

Oh geez this one really takes the cake. Did I not say that I did not indicate that we should be shipping it in space tankers back to earth ? I honestly don't belive that despite my "insultsing expletives" that you lack intelligence. In fact I belive you delliberately wrote this to confuse those who read these posts. My point and perhaps I did not make it clear enough is that these "fossil fuels" ( Since methane is in fact a fossil fuel according to the "Peak Oilers" ) have been replenishing for billions of years on Titan and in fact are still doing so DESPITE that their is NO LIFE on Titan. IE: IT IS ALL ABIOTIC METHANE. Now if you had of thought it of enough relevance you would have looked into this strange phenonemum further... I shouldn't really have to point out that the laws of physics and chemistry that apply on Titan or anywhere else in the known universe should apply here should they not. Nothwithstanding the fact that methane created in a lab is indistinguishable from biogenic methane.

So how in the world could we say that if methane is being generated currently deep within Titan that the same would not apply hear on earth. The fact that abiotic methane is indistinguishable from biogenic methane ( and yes this has been proven scientifically ) negates the much repeated "peak oil" propganda that abiotic methane is insignificant, especially considering they have no way of determining if it is from abiotic origins.

" since all the shallow, low extraction cost, low sulfur, large oil fields have been found aka low lying fruit has been picked"

How often does this have to be regurgitated "by the "Peak Oil" crowd. That is a fallicious statement. In fact the OIL COMPANIES ARE NOT LOOKING. I live in Western Australia. MOST of our coast or even the mainland has NOT EVEN BEEN EXPLORED by the oil companies. It has been noted many times recently in our one and only mainstream newspaper. The Oil companies are simply not looking. They know where the oil is, they DO NOT need to at this point in time to even bother exploring unexplored areas.... the same applies for Saudi Arabia and they have been milking their current oil fields for years.. Do you know how much of Saudi Arabia has not even been explored for oil ? Oh that's right Matthew Simmons won't tell you that. Or how about the caspian sea, the coast of the US Africa etc etc ? This ties in with your next comment.

"If crude is no longer economically feasible to produce, then it might as well not exist and refineries won't be built with red ink."

Are you really that naive ? Red Ink ? You looked at the profits of the oil corporations lately ? Doesn't it make MORE sense to NOT spend 10 Billion on exploration and running down current infrastructure and actually making MORE money because you hold the supply of the fuel that the entire world runs on than spending Billions on creating greater supply and reducing your profits and the cost of your product. When you hold the financial strings you know that no one else is going to take that control away from you. Is it any wonder that ANY country that does not toe the WTO, IMF ( insert acronym here ) line they are branded a terrorist state and are bombed into oblivion their people repressed even further and control of a national asset is given to the "western""oil companies so that instead of any profits benefiting the people it is shared out to "the deserving ones".

The much repeated comment that the oil companies are not investing because they know it is running out is THE DUMBEST thing I have ever heard. It is so naive it is beyond belief.

"Maybe you can actually come up with a viable solution instead of whining and blaming others."

Blaming others ? Ummm I dunno if any of us anti-"peak oilers" are intending to do that. What we are attempting to do is expose the blind faith and ignorance of the things that are ignored when preaching peak oil. In fact I for one and StellarX has said much the same thing can't wait for the human race to stop polluting the earth and would love if cheap/free energy would be available for all and to increase the living standards of all the worlds people. Fact is that this will NEVER happen if the lies of those propgating the "peak oil" lie are not exposed.

Originally posted by Regenmacher
If you continue to talk like a comic book character, don't expect me to think your opinion is legitimate.There's no tactics or cabal here, so drop the paranoia and nonsense talk.

Considering how you think ( not very much imo) i do not really value your opinion on what i have to say.

Greenspan is serving vested interests and not you. He loves to play the role of a doublespeak Orwellian propagandist, so formulate the whole picture and read between the lines.

You just ( not 3 lines up ) said that there was no 'cabal' here and that i should not be be paranoid? It looks to me as if you realiserather well that there IS a cabal and DO consider paranoia worthwhile as long as it is in line with your views? I have formulated a picture and i do believe that the evidence i present will indicate when and why Greenspan lies.

Greenspan is in red alarm mode. He wouldn't be demanding alternative fuels and oil independence, if there were no catastrophic problems with oil production.

He knows very well that most of the rise in prices comes from the action of the US government around the world and that it has nothing to do with essential ' oil in the ground' reality. The reason he is advising diversification is because he knows full well that the US and allies will continue to drive up global oil prices by invasions and staged terror attacks.

Note his mood, he can't spin that: foreign.senate.gov...

And nothing he says suggests that my initial points were wrong in any regard. Please listen to what he says instead of twisting his words to fit your perception.



'Rising vulnerability to high crude oil prices' means prices are rising and that the American government will not tax it any less...
Interesting that he mentions their capacity to pump oil and not their known reserves they can easily exploit had they tried. Your assuming what you want without any due reason

There isn't sufficient investment for the simple reason no energy company is going to drill for a loss, same goes with building storage and increasing refinery capacity.

Complete and unadulterated nonsense. Have you noticed their profits? They are, in some instances, closing their MOST PROFITABLE refineries to boot.

Greenspan doesn't go into detail on why they don't want to spend money to increase production, because he knows they're not going to flush money down a rat hole.

Once again a assumption that is simple not backed by facts. There is plenty of oil all around the world and even the US has very substansial reserves.

BP letter is to increase investor confidence. I suggest you buy BP stock if you like the article and make sure you put a stop loss in it.

How can you increase investor confidence when you tell them there will be a return to lower prices due to massive reserves? Illogical ....

Data in this article is 2-12 years old, something current would be more relevant.

Why would it be more relevant when those who claims these predicts false have been persistently wrong for decades?

Oil was $30/bbl or lower back then, so much for their forecast about supply meeting demand. Do you invest based on information from old company portfolios or by looking at only one point of view?

I do not invest. Supply ARE meeting demand! If some countries choose to fill their strategic reserves while staging terrorist attacks and general invasions to disrupt the world market what do you expect would happen to the oil price when it's largely based on things unrelated to oil production itself? There has been a surplus in basic oil production for all of the current century and we STILL have rising prices. How do you think that could be if supply and demand had anything to do with it?

I have studied several schools of economics, so which one did you garner the idea that resource costs are not connected to expendable income?

Well the flow of currency in a economy has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of energy so thus the issues are not related. When governments willing or by force take part in systems where currency flow is artificially restricted then higher energy costs will OBVIOUS cut into expendable income if wages are not adapted ( which requires more currency). You are assuming that currency has intrinsic value and that it's flow is therefor restricted for a reason other than manipulation people.

Better show me, I haven't seen this new economic theory. Also show me how access to cheap energy resources are not connected to industralization and growth. Historical examples would be nice.

They have put up a great show but the issues are not really related.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.kamron.com...

Access to cheap energy changes nothing as a currency should ideally be created to move goods speedily among the population and anything else is just manipulation of people's lives.

"An increase in oil prices slows economic growth in the short run primarily through its effects on consumer spending." ~Bernanke

Because currency is so manipulated these days enough extra means of exchange ( currency) is not created to alleviate the added 'cost' of rising energy cost. When people lose their buying power it is not a 'act of god' but either a coerced ( one government to another ) or deliberate act of government.

Do not be fooled by the claims that rising energy cost hurts the world economy as the effect is much the same everywhere thus putting everyone back on equal footing.

Energy prices pose threat to U.S. economy, Greenspan says

Because he knows the US government has to 'loan' money from the fed which charges interest that is slowly eroding government spending power. What his basically admitting is that he US government do no control the US economy.

Note: Personally I don't care if you believe there's finite limited resources or not, you'll just end up in the soup line with all the rest who don't take precautions. School of hard knocks has graduates too.

There may or may not be shortages, due to all the factors i mentioned above, but i will be one of those who realise that the crisis is artificial and intended to rob me of my freedoms. You will give up your freedoms, for a little energy, cause that's what your type does while you keep up your high minded nonsensical rhetoric.

Stellar

Good gawd: Currency doesn't make energy, energy creates currency!

Well that's enough disjointed incoherent crazy talk for me...hasta~