Peak Oil is a Corrupt Globalist Scam
fulco
Steve Watson, Alex Jones & Paul Watson | October 04 2005
They make the profits on creating artificial scarcity.
"Peak oil" is pure military-industrial-complex propaganda.
Publicly available CFR and Club of Rome strategy manuals from 30 years
ago say that a global government needs to control the world population
through neo-feudalism by creating artificial scarcity. Now that the
social architects have de-industrialized the United States, they are
going to blame our economic disintegration on lack of energy supplies.
Globalization is all about consolidation. Now that the world economy has
become so centralized through the Globalists operations, they are going
to continue to consolidate and blame it on the West's "evil"
overconsumption of fossil fuels, while at the same time blocking the
development and integration of renewable clean technologies.
In other words, Peak oil is a scam to create artificial scarcity and
drive prices up. Meanwhile, alternative fuel technologies which have
been around for decades are intentionally suppressed.
This year in particular we have seen a strong hike in oil prices and are
being told to simply get used to it because this is the way it is going
to be. In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita gas prices have shot
up amid claims of vast energy shortages. Americans are being asked to
turn off lights, change thermostat settings, drive slower, insulate
homes and take other steps. Meanwhile the oil companies continue to make
record profits.
Even The New York Times pointed out that the recent "energy crisis"
seems to be purely tactical:
"To Mr. Bush's critics, the call for conservation smacked of
showmanship, or of shutting the garage door after the S.U.V. had been
stolen. After all, the president has spent the past weeks dropping into
the hurricane region from the fuel-guzzling Air Force One, which the Air
Force estimates costs $40,000 an hour to fly."
Flying in the face of the so called peak oil crisis are the facts. If we
are running out of oil so quickly then why are reserves being
continually increased and production skyrocketing? ... ...
more at:-
http://prisonplanet.com/Pages/Oct05/041005oil.htm
--
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about ways to harm our country and our people, and neither
do we." - George W. Bush, August 5, 2004
abelard
typed:
it's a piece of trash by a person like you with very partial understanding
and plenty innumeracy...
first sort out in your mind the difference between short term realities
and long term trends....
then start to think about the widespread problems with oil quite
beyond world supply treated as an individual(item)
just *some* of the problems not comprehended by the write of your article.
the world price is manipulated to keep it *below* the cost of
alternatives...over the longer term...
the supplies are concentrated outside the simple reach of western
governments..
oil is a strategic issue...
the easiest supplies will be exploited first....
the world production machine is heavily directed by 'cheap' oil.....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,531,404 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GW Chimpzilla
> Peak Oil is a Corrupt Globalist Scam
> Flying in the face of the so called peak oil crisis are the facts. If we
> are running out of oil so quickly then why are reserves being
> continually increased and production skyrocketing? ... ...
Production peaked in October, 2004.
hummingbird
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>fulco wrote:
>
>> Peak Oil is a Corrupt Globalist Scam
>
>> Flying in the face of the so called peak oil crisis are the facts. If we
>> are running out of oil so quickly then why are reserves being
>> continually increased and production skyrocketing? ... ...
>
>Production peaked in October, 2004.
You have evidence of this? Most expert analysts are not so bold.
--
"Turkey should join the EU 'because it is a European country'"
...Jack Straw 2nd October 2005 in Luxembourg.
BBC: "only 22% of citizens across Europe want Turkey to join the EU"
GW Chimpzilla
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 17:31:25 GMT, GW Chimpzilla <g...@hotmail.com>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>fulco wrote:
>>
>>> Peak Oil is a Corrupt Globalist Scam
>>
>>> Flying in the face of the so called peak oil crisis are the facts. If we
>>> are running out of oil so quickly then why are reserves being
>>> continually increased and production skyrocketing? ... ...
>>
>>Production peaked in October, 2004.
>
> You have evidence of this? Most expert analysts are not so bold.
>
This year
http://www.mees.com/Energy_Tables/crude-oil.htm
2004
http://www.mees.com/Energy_Tables/crude2004.htm
October 2004's total of 30,280 has not been exceeded.
hummingbird
Interesting...
If these stats do confirm that oil production has already peaked,
it raises some questions as to why the various oil analysts haven't
picked up on them. I suspect the answers lie in:
1.production stats from OPEC are notoriously unreliable.
2,the figures only cover OPEC, not global production.
3.they assume that all OPEC members are actively producing flat out
but we do not know this. Some OPEC members claim the oil situation is
due to a shortage of refining, not supply shortage of crude and so may
be reigning back from flat out production.
4.they are MEES estimates and afaics don't take account of the known
back-door over-production against quotas in places like Saudi/Iran
which has always gone on and continues.
5.it's still very possible that global production will exceed the
Oct/2004 figures at some time given the amount of investment going in.
But they do paint the right picture of supply/demand being very tight.
Personally, I'd prefer to wait a while before declaring that peak oil
has been and gone.
fulco
Have you ever considered getting a job with Faux News? You'd fit right
in to their bizarre 'reality creation' scam.
> then start to think about the widespread problems with oil quite
> beyond world supply treated as an individual(item)
That is a different issue entirely. Here we are discussing a parallel to
the 'War on Terror', only this time it is a 'War on Oil Consumers' that
only benefits the suppliers.
>
>
> just *some* of the problems not comprehended by the write of your article.
>
> the world price is manipulated to keep it *below* the cost of
> alternatives...over the longer term...
> the supplies are concentrated outside the simple reach of western
> governments..
How naive! And their 'complex' reach?
> oil is a strategic issue...
> the easiest supplies will be exploited first....
> the world production machine is heavily directed by 'cheap' oil.....
>
You seem to be arguing this article's point for them!
--
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office."
Aesop
Roedy Green
quoted :
>Peak Oil is a Corrupt Globalist Scam
Peak oil is true. We have used the first half of our oil legacy in 200
years and we will consume the second half in the next 30.
On the other hand, oil shortages are caused by immediate supply not
long term shortage. That is cause by the Iraq war disrupting flow,
hurricane Katrina disrupting flow, and general humiliation of the USA
so she cannot jawbone prices down. Further oil companies have
consolidated through mergers making price fixing child's play.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
fulco
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 13:29:18 +0100, fulco <fu...@deuil.org> wrote or
> quoted :
>
>
>>Peak Oil is a Corrupt Globalist Scam
>
>
> Peak oil is true. We have used the first half of our oil legacy in 200
> years and we will consume the second half in the next 30.
Who are your sources for these figures? What are their aims and allegiances?
>
> On the other hand, oil shortages are caused by immediate supply not
> long term shortage. That is cause by the Iraq war disrupting flow,
> hurricane Katrina disrupting flow, and general humiliation of the USA
> so she cannot jawbone prices down. Further oil companies have
> consolidated through mergers making price fixing child's play.
And an examination of their recently declared profits...? Can you say
'Obscene'?
--
"I think we can say categorically we have not campaigned with the United
States government or any other government to take any sort of position
over Kyoto." - Exxon PA Nick Thomas, House of Lords, 2003
abelard
typed:
you can't help being a shallow fool....
but you can avoid advertising the fact...
>> then start to think about the widespread problems with oil quite
>> beyond world supply treated as an individual(item)
>
>That is a different issue entirely. Here we are discussing a parallel to
>the 'War on Terror', only this time it is a 'War on Oil Consumers' that
>only benefits the suppliers.
it doesn't....maintained high prices for oil will benefit just about
everyone....
the problem is far more with cheap oil than expensive oil.....
however the geopolitical realities of pressure on oil leave you
between a rock and a hard place if you do not work determinedly
to escape from the bind....
>> just *some* of the problems not comprehended by the write of your article.
>>
>> the world price is manipulated to keep it *below* the cost of
>> alternatives...over the longer term...
>> the supplies are concentrated outside the simple reach of western
>> governments..
>
>How naive!
you are indeed...that is the problem with your incredible lack of
knowledge
> And their 'complex' reach?
that is why you are in irak....
>> oil is a strategic issue...
>> the easiest supplies will be exploited first....
>> the world production machine is heavily directed by 'cheap' oil.....
>You seem to be arguing this article's point for them!
the article is tripe...
unless you do some serious study you will continue to blather....
your mental set remains in an infant school playground....
i don't give a toss if you are determined to remain ignorant....
but i will waste little effort on you if
1)you avoid study....
2)you continue to posture like a spoiled child...
you know very litle...adjust...and set about correcting your difficulty
GW Chimpzilla
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 20:14:12 GMT, GW Chimpzilla <g...@hotmail.com>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>hummingbird wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 17:31:25 GMT, GW Chimpzilla <g...@hotmail.com>
>>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>>
>>>>fulco wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Peak Oil is a Corrupt Globalist Scam
>>>>
>>>>> Flying in the face of the so called peak oil crisis are the facts. If we
>>>>> are running out of oil so quickly then why are reserves being
>>>>> continually increased and production skyrocketing? ... ...
>>>>
>>>>Production peaked in October, 2004.
>>>
>>> You have evidence of this? Most expert analysts are not so bold.
>>>
>>This year
>>http://www.mees.com/Energy_Tables/crude-oil.htm
>>2004
>>http://www.mees.com/Energy_Tables/crude2004.htm
>>October 2004's total of 30,280 has not been exceeded.
>
> Interesting...
> If these stats do confirm that oil production has already peaked,
> it raises some questions as to why the various oil analysts haven't
> picked up on them. I suspect the answers lie in:
>
> 1.production stats from OPEC are notoriously unreliable.
MEES isn't OPEC, though. They're an independent source, and they're located in
the Middle East. By the way, OPEC's data is also available on the internet for
free. Quite comprehensive, big pdf files.
http://www.opec.org/home/Monthly Oil Market Reports/2005/mr092005.htm
> 2,the figures only cover OPEC, not global production.
Global, non OPEC production is down a wee bit 0.2% this year.
> 3.they assume that all OPEC members are actively producing flat out
> but we do not know this. Some OPEC members claim the oil situation is
> due to a shortage of refining, not supply shortage of crude and so may
> be reigning back from flat out production.
If there was a shortage of refining, that would mean a shortage of demand, thus
the price of crude wouldn't have risen so much, so fast. The price of crude
stabilized after Katrina and AWOL Bush opened up the strategic reserves. But
the price of unleaded shot up and stayed high compared to the price of crude.
<http://ethanolmarket.aghost.net/index.cfm?show=203"e=CL5X&futures=yes&time=%7Bts%20%272005%2D10%2D06%2012%3A29%3A57%27%7D>
<http://ethanolmarket.aghost.net/index.cfm?show=203"e=HU5X&futures=yes&time=%7Bts%20%272005%2D10%2D06%2012%3A29%3A57%27%7D>
> 4.they are MEES estimates and afaics don't take account of the known
> back-door over-production against quotas in places like Saudi/Iran
> which has always gone on and continues.
Of course they do. They are an expensive source of data for investment dweebs
and government planners. If they were bullshit they wouldn't be able to get
away with the price they charge for their data.
> 5.it's still very possible that global production will exceed the
> Oct/2004 figures at some time given the amount of investment going in.
Sure. For instance, there could be a huge depression which lowers demand for
crude, while at the same time new oil production projects are coming online.
When the depression is over, demand could climb even higher than it is now and
there would be enough production to cover. But I sure as hell can't make a
prediction for future oil production based on a future depression.
>
> But they do paint the right picture of supply/demand being very tight.
> Personally, I'd prefer to wait a while before declaring that peak oil
> has been and gone.
>
Different people have different dates for peak. I'm one of the hawks, others are
predicting 2006/2007, the Association for the Study of Peak Oil recently
changed their prediction to 2010. Exxon/Mobile also predicts peak at 2010.
hummingbird
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>hummingbird wrote:
>>>> You have evidence of this? Most expert analysts are not so bold.
>>>>
>>>This year
>>>http://www.mees.com/Energy_Tables/crude-oil.htm
>>>2004
>>>http://www.mees.com/Energy_Tables/crude2004.htm
>>>October 2004's total of 30,280 has not been exceeded.
>>
>> Interesting...
>> If these stats do confirm that oil production has already peaked,
>> it raises some questions as to why the various oil analysts haven't
>> picked up on them. I suspect the answers lie in:
>>
>> 1.production stats from OPEC are notoriously unreliable.
>
>MEES isn't OPEC, though. They're an independent source, and they're located in
>the Middle East. By the way, OPEC's data is also available on the internet for
>free. Quite comprehensive, big pdf files.
>
>http://www.opec.org/home/Monthly Oil Market Reports/2005/mr092005.htm
Yes, I realise MEES are not OPEC. But the figures in OPEC's own
reports are still only official production figures - ie reported
figures by member states. They are still useful but unlikely include
production over agreed quotas.
>> 2,the figures only cover OPEC, not global production.
>
>Global, non OPEC production is down a wee bit 0.2% this year.
>
>> 3.they assume that all OPEC members are actively producing flat out
>> but we do not know this. Some OPEC members claim the oil situation is
>> due to a shortage of refining, not supply shortage of crude and so may
>> be reigning back from flat out production.
>
>If there was a shortage of refining, that would mean a shortage of demand, thus
>the price of crude wouldn't have risen so much, so fast. The price of crude
>stabilized after Katrina and AWOL Bush opened up the strategic reserves. But
>the price of unleaded shot up and stayed high compared to the price of crude.
A refining shortage would mean a demand shortage? How so?
Refining shortages are a known problem and that is why the price of
unleaded shot up after Katrina caused refining capacity to be shut
down. Bush opening up the SPR didn't help because of the refining
bottleneck.
><http://ethanolmarket.aghost.net/index.cfm?show=203"e=CL5X&futures=yes&time=%7Bts%20%272005%2D10%2D06%2012%3A29%3A57%27%7D>
><http://ethanolmarket.aghost.net/index.cfm?show=203"e=HU5X&futures=yes&time=%7Bts%20%272005%2D10%2D06%2012%3A29%3A57%27%7D>
>
>
>> 4.they are MEES estimates and afaics don't take account of the known
>> back-door over-production against quotas in places like Saudi/Iran
>> which has always gone on and continues.
>
>Of course they do. They are an expensive source of data for investment dweebs
>and government planners. If they were bullshit they wouldn't be able to get
>away with the price they charge for their data.
Unconvincing. The figures look to be official OPEC numbers but several
M/E OPEC members have been producing more than their quota on/off
for years. Saudi and Iran etc.
>> 5.it's still very possible that global production will exceed the
>> Oct/2004 figures at some time given the amount of investment going in.
>
>Sure. For instance, there could be a huge depression which lowers demand for
>crude,
That wouldn't cause production to increase would it.
>while at the same time new oil production projects are coming online.
Quite. But probably not for several years.
>When the depression is over, demand could climb even higher than it is now and
>there would be enough production to cover. But I sure as hell can't make a
>prediction for future oil production based on a future depression.
I don't understand your thinking here. There is no direct relationship
between economic depression and oil production 'capacity' (only actual
production output which is adjusted to demand).
>> But they do paint the right picture of supply/demand being very tight.
>> Personally, I'd prefer to wait a while before declaring that peak oil
>> has been and gone.
>>
>Different people have different dates for peak. I'm one of the hawks, others are
>predicting 2006/2007, the Association for the Study of Peak Oil recently
>changed their prediction to 2010. Exxon/Mobile also predicts peak at 2010.
Exactly. There are different dates from different groups...
I have also studied this subject for some while and my conclusion is
that the exact date of peak oil is not very important because I see it
not so much as a point in time, more of a phase which we have entered.
We are now in the era of expensive oil which will have a cumulative
effect on global economies as the price of oil stays relatively high.
GW Chimpzilla
Less demand for crude means there are fewer buyers of crude.
> Refining shortages are a known problem and that is why the price of
> unleaded shot up after Katrina caused refining capacity to be shut
> down. Bush opening up the SPR didn't help because of the refining
> bottleneck.
Bush opening it up cause the price to stabilize.
>
>><http://ethanolmarket.aghost.net/index.cfm?show=203"e=CL5X&futures=yes&time=%7Bts%20%272005%2D10%2D06%2012%3A29%3A57%27%7D>
>><http://ethanolmarket.aghost.net/index.cfm?show=203"e=HU5X&futures=yes&time=%7Bts%20%272005%2D10%2D06%2012%3A29%3A57%27%7D>
>>
>>
>>> 4.they are MEES estimates and afaics don't take account of the known
>>> back-door over-production against quotas in places like Saudi/Iran
>>> which has always gone on and continues.
>>
>>Of course they do. They are an expensive source of data for investment dweebs
>>and government planners. If they were bullshit they wouldn't be able to get
>>away with the price they charge for their data.
>
> Unconvincing.
So what? Have you got 'convincing' numbers? I'd like to see them.
> The figures look to be official OPEC numbers but several
> M/E OPEC members have been producing more than their quota on/off
> for years. Saudi and Iran etc.
>
>>> 5.it's still very possible that global production will exceed the
>>> Oct/2004 figures at some time given the amount of investment going in.
>>
>>Sure. For instance, there could be a huge depression which lowers demand for
>>crude,
>
> That wouldn't cause production to increase would it.
No, but extraction projects take several years to complete. There are many
deepwater project ongoing which are expected to bear fruit between 2008-2010.
They aren't going to shut those projects just because there is a depression.
>
>>while at the same time new oil production projects are coming online.
>
> Quite. But probably not for several years.
>
>>When the depression is over, demand could climb even higher than it is now and
>>there would be enough production to cover. But I sure as hell can't make a
>>prediction for future oil production based on a future depression.
>
> I don't understand your thinking here. There is no direct relationship
> between economic depression and oil production 'capacity'
There is a certain amount of oil which can be produced. Several fields are in
decline. The North Sea fields are in deep decline, on the order of 11% per
year. So if you pump 15% less this year out of the North Sea because of low
demand, you'll have much more that today's -11% available next year for
extraction.
fulco
LOL - you get less intelligent and intelligible by the day! Not a very
enlightening substitute for discussion based on fact, is it?
Let us back up here and get to the crux of this article you so disdain
you can't even make a valid attempt to refute, preferring instead to
wallow in irrelevant classroom ad hominems:-
"Flying in the face of the so called peak oil crisis are the facts. If
we are running out of oil so quickly then why are reserves being
continually increased and production skyrocketing?"
Answer that accurately and you might just begin to redeem yourself...
f
--
"you boiled up most foolishly into pride, the beginning and plague of
all evils. And, as those who came to hear you most often say, with an
air of boasting you esteemed all others, even the saints who had devoted
themselves to wisdom, as your inferiors just to show off." - Fulco to
Abelard, 12cAD
fulco
And there lies the crux of the article presented. Smoke and mirrors...
I do wish more people had a thorough grasp of Standard Oil history...
It's really just another case of emperors lack of clothes.
>
>
>>>5.it's still very possible that global production will exceed the
>>>Oct/2004 figures at some time given the amount of investment going in.
>>
>>Sure. For instance, there could be a huge depression which lowers demand for
>>crude,
>
>
> That wouldn't cause production to increase would it.
>
>
>>while at the same time new oil production projects are coming online.
>
>
> Quite. But probably not for several years.
>
>
>>When the depression is over, demand could climb even higher than it is now and
>>there would be enough production to cover. But I sure as hell can't make a
>>prediction for future oil production based on a future depression.
>
>
> I don't understand your thinking here. There is no direct relationship
> between economic depression and oil production 'capacity' (only actual
> production output which is adjusted to demand).
>
>
>>>But they do paint the right picture of supply/demand being very tight.
>>>Personally, I'd prefer to wait a while before declaring that peak oil
>>>has been and gone.
>>>
>>
>>Different people have different dates for peak. I'm one of the hawks, others are
>>predicting 2006/2007, the Association for the Study of Peak Oil recently
>>changed their prediction to 2010. Exxon/Mobile also predicts peak at 2010.
>
>
> Exactly. There are different dates from different groups...
>
> I have also studied this subject for some while and my conclusion is
> that the exact date of peak oil is not very important because I see it
> not so much as a point in time, more of a phase which we have entered.
A political phase more than anything else, IMO.
> We are now in the era of expensive oil which will have a cumulative
> effect on global economies as the price of oil stays relatively high.
>
Yep - but artificially inflated for the benefit of a very few...
f
--
"Helen, as I've told you many times, if this had anything to do with
oil, the position of the United States would be to lift the sanctions so
the oil could flow. This is not about that. This is about saving lives
by protecting the American people...." - Ari Fleischer, 2003
hummingbird
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>hummingbird wrote:
> You have evidence of this? Most expert analysts are not so bold.
...
>>>If there was a shortage of refining, that would mean a shortage of demand,
>>>thus the price of crude wouldn't have risen so much, so fast. The price of
>>>crude stabilized after Katrina and AWOL Bush opened up the strategic reserves.
>>>But the price of unleaded shot up and stayed high compared to the price of
>>>crude.
>>
>> A refining shortage would mean a demand shortage? How so?
>
>Less demand for crude means there are fewer buyers of crude.
Where does the "less demand for crude" come from?
Before, you said; "If there was a shortage of refining, that would
mean a shortage of demand".
>> Refining shortages are a known problem and that is why the price of
>> unleaded shot up after Katrina caused refining capacity to be shut
>> down. Bush opening up the SPR didn't help because of the refining
>> bottleneck.
>
>Bush opening it up cause the price to stabilize.
There was also a cutback in oil imports through N.O. ports which
was eased by Bush opening up the SPR. But the US refining capacity
shortage still existed even before Katrina. (Europe also has a growing
refining shortage, particularly for diesel fuel.)
>>><http://ethanolmarket.aghost.net/index.cfm?show=203"e=CL5X&futures=yes&time=%7Bts%20%272005%2D10%2D06%2012%3A29%3A57%27%7D>
>>><http://ethanolmarket.aghost.net/index.cfm?show=203"e=HU5X&futures=yes&time=%7Bts%20%272005%2D10%2D06%2012%3A29%3A57%27%7D>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 4.they are MEES estimates and afaics don't take account of the known
>>>> back-door over-production against quotas in places like Saudi/Iran
>>>> which has always gone on and continues.
>>>
>>>Of course they do. They are an expensive source of data for investment dweebs
>>>and government planners. If they were bullshit they wouldn't be able to get
>>>away with the price they charge for their data.
>>
>> Unconvincing.
>
>So what? Have you got 'convincing' numbers? I'd like to see them.
I have no better numbers than you but the issue is how much
credibility I am prepared to place in them. Clearly, you place more
than I do, although we broadly agree on the central issue of oil
production being very tight vs demand.
But my central theme is that the month of peak oil is not the key data
to watch in this game for the reasons I stated before. IMV peak oil
is a *phase* - possibly ~3-7 years - and during this phase, global
production will have ups/downs for various reasons. What is more
important to watch is the trend and when it really starts to fail to
meet demand. One must also factor in that demand in itself will have
ups/downs due to some countries reducing demand because of high oil
costs, economic downturns and alternative fuels.
So what you will see over the next few years is demand/supply/price
going through ups/downs - sometimes sharp gyrations - as the
speculators jump in/out of the markets to make some quick bucks.
The first gyration may well be this winter when America turns on
their central heating systems!
But watch the trends...
>> The figures look to be official OPEC numbers but several
>> M/E OPEC members have been producing more than their quota on/off
>> for years. Saudi and Iran etc.
>>
>>>> 5.it's still very possible that global production will exceed the
>>>> Oct/2004 figures at some time given the amount of investment going in.
>>>
>>>Sure. For instance, there could be a huge depression which lowers demand for
>>>crude,
>>
>> That wouldn't cause production to increase would it.
>
>No, but extraction projects take several years to complete. There are many
>deepwater project ongoing which are expected to bear fruit between 2008-2010.
>They aren't going to shut those projects just because there is a depression.
Quite. Some current development projects will increase supply in the
3-8 year timeframe. So it's premature to talk of peak oil having been
and gone already. By 2010, with already high oil prices we could see
global growth and thus demand pushed down so supply could once again
be meeting demand at that time. Hence my reference to peak oil being
a phase not so much a point in time.
>>>while at the same time new oil production projects are coming online.
>>
>> Quite. But probably not for several years.
>>
>>>When the depression is over, demand could climb even higher than it is now and
>>>there would be enough production to cover. But I sure as hell can't make a
>>>prediction for future oil production based on a future depression.
>>
>> I don't understand your thinking here. There is no direct relationship
>> between economic depression and oil production 'capacity'
>
>There is a certain amount of oil which can be produced. Several fields are in
>decline. The North Sea fields are in deep decline, on the order of 11% per
>year. So if you pump 15% less this year out of the North Sea because of low
>demand, you'll have much more that today's -11% available next year for
>extraction.
I don't think it works like that.
The North Sea is being pumped at pretty much max rates. Even if an
economic recession occurs, I cannot see N/S production being cut back.
That would take a very serious economic downturn with demand dropping
off seriously.
>> (only actual
>> production output which is adjusted to demand).
>
>
>>
>>>> But they do paint the right picture of supply/demand being very tight.
>>>> Personally, I'd prefer to wait a while before declaring that peak oil
>>>> has been and gone.
>>>>
>>>Different people have different dates for peak. I'm one of the hawks, others
>>>are predicting 2006/2007, the Association for the Study of Peak Oil recently
>>>changed their prediction to 2010. Exxon/Mobile also predicts peak at 2010.
>>
>> Exactly. There are different dates from different groups...
>>
>> I have also studied this subject for some while and my conclusion is
>> that the exact date of peak oil is not very important because I see it
>> not so much as a point in time, more of a phase which we have entered.
>> We are now in the era of expensive oil which will have a cumulative
>> effect on global economies as the price of oil stays relatively high.
--
hummingbird
I think the answer to this viewpoint lies in whether oil can be
produced in sufficient quantities from other sources - eg
coal/shale/tar sands etc - at economic prices and inside ecological
limits.
If it can, then you are probably right because it would mean that
the price of sticky black stuff has been artificially jacked up only
to make more profits and maybe to justify military invasions etc.
If it can't, we are in deep sh*t...
fulco
We're in deep doodoo anyway so long as we depend on oil...so why feed
the sharks?