The Psychology of Peak Oil Denial

"Our society is in a state of collective denial that has no precedent in history, in terms of its scale and implication." ~scientist Jeremy Leggett

We are now seeing a growing and widespread denial because the enormity and nature of Peak Oil. People have virtually no cultural mechanisms in coping with or accepting Peak Oil. We are also seeing those in denial cannot simply be countered with information, and there's plenty of historical evidence that increasing the levels of information can actually intensify their denial (holocaust is a good example).

I have also noticed the phenomena of a growing movement of anti-Peak Oilers, that completely disregard the warnings of independent scientists and whistleblowers. They disregard warnings from the very same scientists and engineers with a proven track record, who started the peak oil theory decades ago against the better wishes of government and big oil (reminds me of the global warming fiasco).

Face it, nobody likes the idea of Peak Oil because it's like accepting death:

1. Politicians: Bad news is career suicide.
2. Media: No sponsors of peak oil, means no revenues.
3. Oil Companies: Good times are always ahead, buy, buy, buy!
4. Consumers: What me worry? Remember the 70's-80's and y2k!
5. Government: Keep paying more, we must win the war on terror!





So we must accept that many will stay in denial, and don't count on the government or industry who strive to maintain the status quo.

Kübler-Ross model: Five Stages of Grief
1. Denial and Isolation
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance
6. Hope

STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH DENIAL - Part I: The Many Faces of Denial

Denial in the face of the facts means their actions and solutions are likely to be reckless and dangerous to all of us. The hoarding phase has begun for those in the acceptance phase. Oil companies are providing us a good example of this, as they have cut almost all exploration and maintenance costs in order to rake in record profits.

So where do we go from here, since those in denial will eventually enter the anger phase?:

1. Supply them guns and drugs, so they will kill each other off.
2. Keep beating them upside the heads with facts and pray.
3. Forget about them and prepare to run. It's every man for himself.
4. ???

I'd like the idea of powering down and throwing money into research, but since most of the leaders and big money are in the "hoarding, me first, screw your pathetic arses, go to war and kill it all" phase...I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Further reading:
• Peak Oil Grief
• The Denial of Peak Oil
• Peak Oil: The Twilight Zone
• Peak Oil and Darwinism: the New Denial Industry

[edit on 20-8-2006 by Regenmacher]

However comprehensive your findings are, truth be told and that being we simply didn't see oil prices spike to the 1970s levels in the 1990s because only in this decade has the economies of India and China woken up from their long dormant slumber. Until both of the roaring economies plateau, we won't be seeing a significant decrease in oil prices no matter how good technology is in remedying the current situation.

[edit on 20-8-2006 by risitar]

Originally posted by risitar
However comprehensive your findings are, truth be told and that being we simply didn't see oil prices spike to the 1970s levels in the 1990s because only in this decade has the economies of India and China woke up from their long dormant slumber.

Yeah, I also saw the advent of the 70's energy reduction policies helped delay the inevitable.

Economies reaching an economic plateau phase are usually followed by going to war. It will interesting to see if a global recession reduces aggregate demand before it blows out into global war. My guess is that it won't.

The big oil companies are diverse in their opinions and foresightedness.

British Petroleum, despite their fiasco in Alaska, does accurately see the future of Peak Oil and recognizes that global warming is a result of fossil fuels. They want to be an energy company in the future generations, not just an oil company. They are a leading producer of photovoltaic solar energy panels.

Chevron is somewhere in between; they do not say much about global warming, but they do have an ad campaign saying that much less new oil has been discovered in the last few years/decade than has been consumed. This is, indirectly, an admission of Peak Oil.

ExxonMobil, is, sadly, the most ignorant of the Houston energy complex, and needless to say the most infested with know-nothing hard-right Republicanism.

If you prefer facts, try looking at www.theoildrum.com, the best science and rationality based blog on Peak Oil.

One factoid: despite oil prices increasing by a factor of 3 in the last few years, a nearly unprecedented event for decades, the international oil companies have NOT increased their production at all, in direct contrast to all past history.

Why?

They can't. There's lots of activity, and drilling and this and that, but it is only barely making up for the continuing decline of oil fields they already have. Almost all the action happens in existing, mature oil fields, because they aren't finding any more good, big new ones.

This is exactly what is predicted by Peak Oil.

Texas peaked, and despite prices going up by 1000%, production continued to decline. Texas, as a state, is now an *IMPORTER* of oil if you can believe it. At one time, the price from Texan production literally determined the oil price on the world market.

29 years later, despite much improved technology, North Sea oil peaked at exactly the same point as Texas oil did, and as predicted by the Hubbert theory. It is now in decline despite it being run by the highest tech firms in a friendly political environment. Oil in Norway & UK is why the price went down in the early 80's and we had 20 years of cheap oil.

Since the discovery and widespread use of oil, every generation has been better off that the previous one. More luxuries and goods, easier way of live etc. People don't' want to admit that that might be coming to an end or even admit that it has peaked.

most oil reserves still have oil in them because the machines don't tap it dry. Second of all if the US made more refineries it could process it faster and more efficiently.. there is tons of oil.. MASSIVE surplus... and tons more in the earth.. we have more than enough to run the world untill we can mass produce things that don't need oil to run.

Originally posted by CranialExtractor
most oil reserves still have oil in them because the machines don't tap it dry. Second of all if the US made more refineries it could process it faster and more efficiently.. there is tons of oil.. MASSIVE surplus... and tons more in the earth.. we have more than enough to run the world untill we can mass produce things that don't need oil to run.

Oil reserves are only favorable, if it takes less energy to recover/extract them than what is gained from using them. Many mature fields have become contaminated with water which makes them unusable, and fresh water resources are also becoming scarcer (can't use salt water, too corrosive).

Surplus is used as a stability buffer similiar to keeping a savings account for emergencies. Surplus crude production currently stands at just 1.0 to 1.3 million barrels per day with a daily global demand of 85 mbpd and rising. Last spring, when Nigeria exploded into violence, no surplus would of meant that crude would of shot up well above $78/bbl. Currently you can take off 400k bpd due to the Prudhoe Bay pipeline repair, meaning razor thin surplus equates to a volatile market. Some projections are already indicating $100/bbl by December.

Mass production requires funding that is created by energy. A higher cost of energy produces less funding. The problem is we don't have the energy/money to retool without major sacrafices to standards of living.

Building more refineries is like saying, "Since we cut down all the world's forests, we can fix the problem with more chainsaws."

[edit on 21-8-2006 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by mbkennel

The big oil companies are diverse in their opinions and foresightedness.

Thanks for breaking down some of the differences between oil companies. Stock performance could be used to see how well a company performs, when it lets the cat out of the bag. Note that BP has been flatlining for the last 3 months.



Energy ratio for solar sells is still rather poor ranging from 1:1 to 4:1 were as oil is anywhere from 20-30:1. BP has a lot of work to do in the solar cell arena, and solar cells can't directly be used as a fuel.

Here's the big 5:
Exxon Mobil - Market Cap: 410.80 Billion
Royal Dutch Shell - Market Cap: 243.66 Billion
British Petroleum - Market Cap: 233.16 Billion
Chevron - Market Cap: 147.84 Billion
ConocoPhillips - Market Cap: 109.41 Billion

Most of them are still in the public denial phase:





[edit on 21-8-2006 by Regenmacher]

Excellent post!

You have voted Regenmacher for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

I do not have time tonight to address the lunacy perpetuated by the 'peak freaks' but i will address all of later today. Regenmacher is not interested in a constructive debate where his fringe views ( from a scientific point of view anyways) are put to the test and here is some recent evidence of that.

I have never created a thread on this forum ( i have no agenda to draw attention to) but i do try fight the spread of ignorance when people post half-truths( at best) and knowingly so. Please do not buy into the fear mongering while the USA has in the past five decades used up their 'known reserves' a dozen times or more. 'Known reserves' as a standard means NOTHING once one understands that very basic reality. Do NOT preach the lowering of living standards while you could be promoting the dozens of alternatives without human development contracting as result.

There will be hell to pay later and i suggest a general evacuation of this thread before hellfire comes raining down to punish the 'evil-doers'. Your not the only one who takes a liking to a bit of melodrama mister Regen but i would suggest you apply it in defense of the truth and not towards fearmongering.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
There will be hell to pay later and i suggest a general evacuation of this thread before hellfire comes raining down to punish the 'evil-doers'.

Congrats! You have shown us a fine example of the anger phase.

Kübler-Ross model: Five Stages of Grief
1. Denial and Isolation
2. Anger

Originally posted by Regenmacher
"Our society is in a state of collective denial that has no precedent in history, in terms of its scale and implication." ~scientist Jeremy Leggett

Says a man who denies that entire countries almost floats on oil.

We are now seeing a growing and widespread denial because the enormity and nature of Peak Oil. People have virtually no cultural mechanisms in coping with or accepting Peak Oil.

What widespread denial? I would say most people around the planet do not even know about peak oil ( or would care considering their abject poverty) so the people that he refers to are mainly western citizens who demand higher standards of living than their governments really wants them to have. These people do not readily accept peak oil because they are inherently suspicious of government.

We are also seeing those in denial cannot simply be countered with information, and there's plenty of historical evidence that increasing the levels of information can actually intensify their denial (holocaust is a good example).

Which basically translates to ' well our campaign of lies and deception does not seem to be working so we are considering alternatives'.

I have also noticed the phenomena of a growing movement of anti-Peak Oilers, that completely disregard the warnings of independent scientists and whistleblowers.

When it's so easy to spot the blatant lying perpetrated by peak freaks one readily gains the courage to attack their vapid theories and general arguments in defense of the indefensible.

They disregard warnings from the very same scientists and engineers with a proven track record, who started the peak oil theory decades ago against the better wishes of government and big oil (reminds me of the global warming fiasco).

The founder of 'peak oil' ( even thought his words have been horrible twisted to the peak freak agenda) worked for a big oil company and it's a bit strange to even attempt a 'absence of collusion' argument. Big oil funds 'peak oil' ( i would assume they are to some extent forced by their various governments) as much as they fund much of the environmental movements that so 'terrorise' them.

Face it, nobody likes the idea of Peak Oil because it's like accepting death:

Plenty of people accept it but they are likely to keep driving their high performance cars while loudy proclaiming the evil that is SE Asian economic prosperity.

1. Politicians: Bad news is career suicide.

Governments and politicians are all about bringing bad news as without problems to solve they have no support from their 'voters'.

2. Media: No sponsors of peak oil, means no revenues.

The media is actively perpetuating the myth of peak oil and it is very much controlled by conservative interest and their government backers.

3. Oil Companies: Good times are always ahead, buy, buy, buy!

By driving up prices based on short term ( terrorist or hurricanes) or long term ( peak oil) they are all aiming to push up prices without public outcry. People have short memories so they forget that these same claims have been going on for decades and decades while global reserves keeps growing massively even with the limited investment.

4. Consumers: What me worry? Remember the 70's-80's and y2k!

Consumers can not always be deceived successfully and some actually learn from the past.

5. Government: Keep paying more, we must win the war on terror!

Just another fear mongering strategy in their vast arsenal of like weapons to drive the population herd where they can best manipulate it.

When ExxonMobil places an ad insisting oil production has not reached its topping point, there are reasons to disbelieve it.

ExxonMobil has placed an advert in the New York Times professing that "peak (oil) production is nowhere in sight". I and a growing chorus of whistleblowers say, on the contrary, that the day the world pumps as much oil as it ever can will happen in this decade. "The theory does not match the reality," ExxonMobil tells us.

Which shows that they would rather keep their customers and look less evil. Just more proof that the peak oil deception has more to do with government action than with that of big oil.

So we must accept that many will stay in denial, and don't count on the government or industry who strive to maintain the status quo.

The government always strives to revert back to past where they had more control and power with which to beat dissidents into submission.

Denial in the face of the facts means their actions and solutions are likely to be reckless and dangerous to all of us. The hoarding phase has begun for those in the acceptance phase. Oil companies are providing us a good example of this, as they have cut almost all exploration and maintenance costs in order to rake in record profits.

They have cut exploration and investment cost because it simple suits their business plans. There are plenty of known reserves and they do not make larger profits when they open more refineries or spend cash on infrastructure which will be attacked by the environmental freaks.

I'd like the idea of powering down and throwing money into research, but since most of the leaders and big money are in the "hoarding, me first, screw your pathetic arses, go to war and kill it all" phase...I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Government have too much to lose when it comes to abundant and near free energy and they would rather burn the world down than lose control. Why do you think their building all those bunkers and underground railways? Do you know where you nearest public shelter is? Good luck surviving in the basement of the nearest parking garage.

Stellar

Originally posted by risitar
However comprehensive your findings are, truth be told and that being we simply didn't see oil prices spike to the 1970s levels in the 1990s

Oil prices slumped to 8 USD a barrel and the Clinton team were pretty panicky about the whole situation.

because only in this decade has the economies of India and China woken up from their long dormant slumber.

You mean only recently did their imperial oppressors partly lift their iron boots from their respective necks?

Until both of the roaring economies plateau, we won't be seeing a significant decrease in oil prices no matter how good technology is in remedying the current situation.

We could supply oil to a fast growing market for 30 dollars or below for many more decades with not unsubstantial profits for the energy interest involved. Oil is NOT running out and i have vastly more information than i need to prove that.

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?

Stellar

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Yeah, I also saw the advent of the 70's energy reduction policies helped delay the inevitable.

All that happened was that some US interest realised that they could never compete with Cheap Saudi and even Russian oil and thus decided to dominate those regions for added profit while retarding local production.

Economies reaching an economic plateau phase are usually followed by going to war.

Shell game to fool the public but resources are only in shortage when the government creats policies to limit their availability.

It will interesting to see if a global recession reduces aggregate demand before it blows out into global war. My guess is that it won't.

Recessions have not much, if anything, to do with resources as it is all about the availability of currency. A recession happens when banks take back loans without extending any knew one's thus causing cash flow problems for business which then results in workers getting laid off and defaulting on their home loans or properties which the banks then happily reposes for cents on the dollars. It's a great big con game to gain control of the energy investment people made in building their homes and businesses. Don't be fooled into thinking resource shortages are in any way the primary mover when one of the major powers of the world goes into recession as those can only be imposed on you, against the wishes of the government, if they are not really in control of said countries resources or currency.

Stellar

Originally posted by mbkennel
British Petroleum, despite their fiasco in Alaska, does accurately see the future of Peak Oil and recognizes that global warming is a result of fossil fuels.

What global warming? What fiasco in Alaska?

They want to be an energy company in the future generations, not just an oil company. They are a leading producer of photovoltaic solar energy panels.

Corporations will pretty much do whatever they think will ensure their survival as profit and control manufacturing entities.

Chevron is somewhere in between; they do not say much about global warming, but they do have an ad campaign saying that much less new oil has been discovered in the last few years/decade than has been consumed.

Well at least that is 50% accurate. Oil discoveries in the last 2 decades have always outpaced consumption by a large margin.

This is, indirectly, an admission of Peak Oil.

Well i do not have your decoder so i guess i will have to stay ignorant.

ExxonMobil, is, sadly, the most ignorant of the Houston energy complex, and needless to say the most infested with know-nothing hard-right Republicanism.

Well i have no love of right wingers but assuming they gain the power they have over us due to ignorance is pretty ignorant IMO. They clearly do not see the need to manufacture lies when others will do it for them.

If you prefer facts, try looking at www.theoildrum.com, the best science and rationality based blog on Peak Oil.

I prefer facts and that is why i have not bothered to sign up for well managed deception. It being the 'best science' they have to offer does not say very much considering where science comes from. Should we go back to build or world on the best science could offer two thousand years ago?

One factoid: despite oil prices increasing by a factor of 3 in the last few years, a nearly unprecedented event for decades, the international oil companies have NOT increased their production at all, in direct contrast to all past history.

If they increase production they will only help to destroy the current price structure and their not stupid. There is no oil shortage even on the market and current high prices has nothing to do with market fundamentals as any number of 'experts' ( don't like them any more than you do) could tell you.

They can't. There's lots of activity, and drilling and this and that, but it is only barely making up for the continuing decline of oil fields they already have.

There are plenty of new discoveries ( any amount of research will indicate that) and world reserves have been consistently growing for decades without much effort.

Almost all the action happens in existing, mature oil fields, because they aren't finding any more good, big new ones.

Not true...

This is exactly what is predicted by Peak Oil.

He said that light sweet would go into decline and NOT that oil in general will go into decline. Study what he said and not what they say he said.

Texas peaked, and despite prices going up by 1000%, production continued to decline. Texas, as a state, is now an *IMPORTER* of oil if you can believe it.

And that is so mainly because production has very little to do with prices when you can not be sure that it will not fall back to 8 dollars or lower where profits are certainly not assured. The only places you can reliably produce from at consistent good profits is in Russia and great parts of the ME. I would love to see the data substantiating that claim as i would assume that the net importing would be due to refining and not a question of usage...

At one time, the price from Texan production literally determined the oil price on the world market.

Things change and stay the same. The US and Britain is still deciding world oil prices even if they can no longer claim it's based on their exploits in Texas.

29 years later, despite much improved technology, North Sea oil peaked at exactly the same point as Texas oil did, and as predicted by the Hubbert theory.

North sea oil did not peak as much as become totally unprofitable with the slumps in oil prices in the 80's and mid 90's. You can not spend that kind of resource investment ( even in pretense to deceive) when oil prices so wildly fluctuate when countries like Saudi Arabia can flood the market whenever they want. The current jump in price has a great deal to do with the decline in world excess production which once again has very little to do with oil in the ground. Saudia Arabia ( and more importantly many other) are simple not interested in creating massive excess capacity at great cost to themselves in a effort to stabilise prices when the west seeks to deceive people into higher price structuring which does not negatively impact the main oil producers anyways.

It is now in decline despite it being run by the highest tech firms in a friendly political environment. Oil in Norway & UK is why the price went down in the early 80's and we had 20 years of cheap oil.

And once again SUDDENLY the cheap oil ran out. Saudi/Iraqi/Iranian/Venezuelan/Nigerian/Russian ( and a number of others) still have massive resources of far cheaper oil than either of those locations so cheap oil is what we would have had supply and demand played any role in the current price structure.

Stellar

There are plenty of new discoveries ( any amount of research will indicate that)

This is factually incorrect. There are new discoveries but the rate and size of fundamentally new discoveries have been declining substantially even as consumption increased.

and world reserves have been consistently growing for decades without much effort.

There is a distinction between "reserves" and discoveries not fully appreciated.

An oil field, when discovered, is not officially booked as "reserves", at least according to accoutning standards of Western oil companies, until sufficient drilling and characterization has been done to ensure capability for production. This is intentionally conservative for financial reasons.

"reserves" go up frequently because oil companies drill new wells in existing oil fields, where they knew they already had oil, enough for near-term production so that they can officially call it "proven" or "probable" reserves in the technical standards.

This is how 'reserves' appear to have been growing easily but when it is done correctly, by backdating reserve growth in existing fields to original discovery of that field, a totally different picture comes out. True oil discovery from scratch peaked approximately in 1960's.

The reserves from OPEC members is a made up figure. They once doubled reserves at a stroke of their pen---this because production quotas were determined by their reserves, so magically everybodies reserves just doubled. I.e. the numbers are fiction, because there has been no independent verification of actual production and especially total reservoir quality. The actual state of the oil reserves is literally a classified state secret in Saudi Arabia.

What is happening is that consumption of oil is resulting in declines in production in the largest fields which is not at all being offset by new discoveries.

North Sea oil was pumped heavily in the 80's , declined in the early 90's because of lower demand (recession), increased, and is now declining again but this time, DESPITE, much higher prices. That is the result of physical depletion.

Here is the graph from the U.K.

www.og.dti.gov.uk...

Over the last few years the oil price has tripled, and yet North Sea oil production is declining. Why? The oil companies would love to be minting money at these prices, but they can't. Oil production is fundamentally limited by depletion and geology everywhere on the planet.

The previous post is an example of the "alternative" denial of Peak Oil----not the consumerist one that is a know nothing---but the one that imagines there is a grand conspiracy to keep all this dirt cheap oil out of our tanks.

Originally posted by dbates
Since the discovery and widespread use of oil, every generation has been better off that the previous one. More luxuries and goods, easier way of live etc. People don't' want to admit that that might be coming to an end or even admit that it has peaked.

Well Americans certainly do not like to admit that things might get worse as their already battling with current conditions. Whatever the case may be people do not like reality much, especially when it turns out different than they expected, and will do their best to resist the notion that the efforts towards enriching themselves will somehow be prevented. And people wonder why Americans are so scared and angry.

BP's 1-billion-barrel Thunder Horse (previously "Crazy Horse") field, the largest single field ever discovered in the Gulf of Mexico, which came online in January 2005,

www.eia.doe.gov...

And then some information about one of the 'peak prophets' , Matthew Simons, who argues with the same conviction and general lack of cohesion that most prophets display. From one of my earlier posts on this forum ...

Simmon's makes many claims wich Michael Lynch proves to be based ,at best, on pure speculation. Read here for why we should not trust Simmons when he claims a reasonable price for oil is actually 180 odd USD a barrel.

There simply is no evidence that the world is in fact running out of oil. There is plenty of evidence of oil price manipulation.

Stellar

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Oil reserves are only favorable, if it takes less energy to recover/extract them than what is gained from using them.

Energy mainly comes from the sun ( as good as 'free') and ultimate ends up being intelligently applied by human beings thus being the real energy 'resource' on this planet. Remember the matrix and the 'forest's of human 'batteries'? We have iron and we have coal and while we have humans to intelligently manage these resources will be able to extract oil for a very long time. We obviously have far better alternatives with cold fusion and ZPE but if we want oil we can certainly keep using it for a very long time.

Many mature fields have become contaminated with water which makes them unusable, and fresh water resources are also becoming scarcer (can't use salt water, too corrosive).

They actually inject water to get the oil out ( pressure) so what do you mean with 'contaminate'? Fresh water can be readily produced from salt water with sufficient electricity once again being mainly dependent on production of cheap methods of electrical production. I can only begin to imagine what would happen if the American government spent half of one years military budget on building a solar power infrastructure where everyone can produce hydrogen to fuel their cars in their back yards. There are so many options had the our governments in any interest in liberating us from our dependence on their energy infrastructures.

Surplus is used as a stability buffer similiar to keeping a savings account for emergencies.

Surplus is something that is not really required as whatever upheavals do happen it will only impact the market on the downstream side some weeks later giving any government many options on how to deal with it ( rationing etc). It can hardly be used as excuse for short term speculation against commodities that investors/funds now so love to indulge in.

Surplus crude production currently stands at just 1.0 to 1.3 million barrels per day with a daily global demand of 85 mbpd and rising. Last spring, when Nigeria exploded into violence,

Nigeria did not 'explode into violence' as much as prove that you can not endlessly rip off the locals without them seeing any return for the exploitation of their country. When these things happen it is just more evidence of manipulation as this crisis did not suddenly arrive without ample warning. These short term problems are mostly caused by the same people ( the west) who demands that others build excess capacity publicly while privately deciding to invade anyone who dares trying to flood the market with cheap oil. They did not invade Iraq and Afghanistan to 'liberate' oil/gas for themselves as much as they destroyed both countries to ensure that it the conditions did not exist for this oil to reach global markets.

no surplus would of meant that crude would of shot up well above $78/bbl.

Short term small scale ( few days at say half a million barrels) can not disrupt the market in any significant manner as the disruption will normally take place only a few weeks later which means those the few added dollars to price will cause some to countries to make alternative arrangements before having to pay the higher price. Any large scale price rise due to a short term disruption is just clear evidence of manipulation and speculative attack and has very little to do with such old fashioned things as 'supply and demand'.

Currently you can take off 400k bpd due to the Prudhoe Bay pipeline repair, meaning razor thin surplus equates to a volatile market. Some projections are already indicating $100/bbl by December.

The world is not volatile because there is limited excess capacity but because the US and allies are doing their best to interrupt the flow of oil. Their aim is ever higher oil prices and at current pace your quite right when you say it might reach 100 USD/bbl by then even if you have bought their deception plan hook line and sinker too.

Mass production requires funding that is created by energy. A higher cost of energy produces less funding. The problem is we don't have the energy/money to retool without major sacrafices to standards of living.

You got it all backwards but that is to be expected considering what i've seen so far. The primary source of energy on this planet is fact human beings and whoever can direct their intelligently applied energy can move mountains or do whatever else they want. The idea that retooling factories actually 'cost' anything is simply ludicrous as the currency human beings are paid with can be created in whatever quantity required if such a system is required to inspire them to work.

Building more refineries is like saying, "Since we cut down all the world's forests, we can fix the problem with more chainsaws

No new refineries have been built in the continental USA in 30 years and pretending that that has anything to do with world oil supplies dwindling is simply ludicrous. Oil is plentiful and i have seen absolutely nothing that begins to prove otherwise.

Stellar

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Come back when you mature and learn to drop the control freak issues, flaming, insults and threats of violence.

Maturity clearly has nothing to do with this ( your here after all) and i am clearly not in control as you keep evading what i have to say. I am not flaming unless that's what you call disagreement and i do not threaten people with violence. If i wanted to hurt you i would not give you any warning anyways so stop being paranoid about threats i never made or will make.

Your life is not in danger ( unless you fall and break your neck or drive too fast ) and whatever stupid things you do to hurt yourself i wont be involved. If your still worried i can send you my picture so you will at least have a face to look for in the crowd when you suffer from these paranoid delusions. It's the best i can do to help considering my general lack of interest in your life. We done or can i call a mod to get this discussion back to something worth my time?

Stellar

Well, well, ahh well. I need not copy and paste facts from web pages, as you all seem to be pretty good at. You do understand that putting ones view across dosen't make it any more truthful than the others argument. StellarX you can quote every line of Regenmacher's posts, but that only shows the defensivness of those aginst the argument all together. I'm not going to say that Oil Peak is happening as we speak, though i believe it is, but I find it hard to comprehend that you honestly feel you are not directly threatend by the Oil Peak "Senario".
The thing is my friend, even if oil reserves last another 150 years, you're still going to have a problem in 150 years. So if not you, maybe your great grandchildren are going to be in a dire state.
They say the primary objective for the Human species is to shed our DNA, and make sure that they are going to be safe and healthy when we die. We need to look out for the future, OIL IS NOT RENEWABLE...do you understand that. It does not matter what facts you have to make yourself feel better about the situation. We are on a collision course with chaos. We pump more and more oil every year. Populations get bigger and bigger. Our dependencey on oil becomes greater and greater. Graphs, Statistics and Quotes are not facts that make any difference in the long run.
I like the way you say- There are plenty of new discoveries ( any amount of research will indicate that) and world reserves have been consistently growing for decades without much effort. - You do understand, that by growing, that actualy means were tapping more than before, it isn't actualy oil growing under the surface of the earths crust. So in any case, that does'nt make me feel any more confident that we have an abundent amount of oil. Sure reserves are seen as what we are actualy drilling, but we rely on the discovery of new fields for the long term, and the long term is waht I'm talking about here.

It's possible there are big oil fields that the big oil companies are not tapping for the very reason of - demand vs price - , and they will wait till much later to rape it clean of anything that resembles black liquid. But what worries me is when you have acclaimed geologists and "oil experts" getting excited about signs of oil on mars, and the idea of going to Mars to consider suitability for oil drilling.... Is that an indicator of the Kübler-Ross model: Five Stages of Grief ...the 6th one, HOPE.