Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Peak Oil Is for Real: The Era of Cheap Oil Is Officially Over

By Michael T. Klare, Tomdispatch.com. Posted June 12, 2009.


The era of plentiful oil is drawing to a close, and a new era of economic peril, rising starvation and environmental disaster is born.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Nobel Laureate Slams the Bible, Calls It "A Catalogue of Cruelties"
Mario de Queiroz

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
As Foreclosure Nightmares Increase, Will More Homeowners Pay Off Their Bankers in Violence?
Scott Thill

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why the End May Be Coming for Coal
Christine MacDonald

Food:
Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael Pollan Spreads Message About the Real Price of Cheap Food

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Study Claims Even the Most Sophisticated Readers Can Be Manipulated
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Michael T. Klare

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Every summer, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy issues its International Energy Outlook (IEO) -- a jam-packed compendium of data and analysis on the evolving world energy equation. For those with the background to interpret its key statistical findings, the release of the IEO can provide a unique opportunity to gauge important shifts in global energy trends, much as reports of routine Communist Party functions in the party journal Pravda once provided America's Kremlin watchers with insights into changes in the Soviet Union's top leadership circle.

As it happens, the recent release of the 2009 IEO has provided energy watchers with a feast of significant revelations. By far the most significant disclosure: the IEO predicts a sharp drop in projected future world oil output (compared to previous expectations) and a corresponding increase in reliance on what are called "unconventional fuels" -- oil sands, ultra-deep oil, shale oil, and biofuels.

So here's the headline for you: For the first time, the well-respected Energy Information Administration appears to be joining with those experts who have long argued that the era of cheap and plentiful oil is drawing to a close. Almost as notable, when it comes to news, the 2009 report highlights Asia's insatiable demand for energy and suggests that China is moving ever closer to the point at which it will overtake the United States as the world's number one energy consumer. Clearly, a new era of cutthroat energy competition is upon us.

Peak Oil Becomes the New Norm

As recently as 2007, the IEO projected that the global production of conventional oil (the stuff that comes gushing out of the ground in liquid form) would reach 107.2 million barrels per day in 2030, a substantial increase from the 81.5 million barrels produced in 2006. Now, in 2009, the latest edition of the report has grimly dropped that projected 2030 figure to just 93.1 million barrels per day -- in future-output terms, an eye-popping decline of 14.1 million expected barrels per day.

Even when you add in the 2009 report's projection of a larger increase than once expected in the output of unconventional fuels, you still end up with a net projected decline of 11.1 million barrels per day in the global supply of liquid fuels (when compared to the IEO's soaring 2007 projected figures). What does this decline signify -- other than growing pessimism by energy experts when it comes to the international supply of petroleum liquids?

Very simply, it indicates that the usually optimistic analysts at the Department of Energy now believe global fuel supplies will simply not be able to keep pace with rising world energy demands. For years now, assorted petroleum geologists and other energy types have been warning that world oil output is approaching a maximum sustainable daily level -- a peak -- and will subsequently go into decline, possibly producing global economic chaos. Whatever the timing of the arrival of peak oil's actual peak, there is growing agreement that we have, at last, made it into peak-oil territory, if not yet to the moment of irreversible decline.

Until recently, Energy Information Administration officials scoffed at the notion that a peak in global oil output was imminent or that we should anticipate a contraction in the future availability of petroleum any time soon. "[We] expect conventional oil to peak closer to the middle than to the beginning of the 21st century," the 2004 IEO report stated emphatically.

Consistent with this view, the EIA reported one year later that global production would reach a staggering 122.2 million barrels per day in 2025, more than 50% above the 2002 level of 80.0 million barrels per day. This was about as close to an explicit rejection of peak oil that you could get from the EIA's experts.

Where Did All the Oil Go?

Now, let's turn back to the 2009 edition. In 2025, according to this new report, world liquids output, conventional and unconventional, will reach only a relatively dismal 101.1 million barrels per day. Worse yet, conventional oil output will be just 89.6 million barrels per day. In EIA terms, this is pure gloom and doom, about as deeply pessimistic when it comes to the world's future oil output capacity as you're likely to get.

The agency's experts claim, however, that this will not prove quite the challenge it might seem, because they have also revised downward their projections of future energy demand. Back in 2005, they were projecting world oil consumption in 2025 at 119.2 million barrels per day, just below anticipated output at that time. This year -- and we should all theoretically breathe a deep sigh of relief -- the report projects that 2025 figure at only 101.1 million barrels per day, conveniently just what the world is expected to produce at that time. If this actually proves the case, then oil prices will presumably remain within a manageable range.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: economy, peak oil, doe, oil economy, michael klare, energy department

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts, and the author, most recently, of Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy (Henry Holt). A DVD of the documentary film based on his previous book, Blood and Oil, is available by clicking here.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Where's The Leadership ?
Posted by: mmckinl on Jun 12, 2009 12:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who is going to tell America the truth about the future of oil and its relationship to our economy, social structure, infrastructure, foreign policy and our transportation future.

Already we should be telling people that gas will be $5 in two years so that they have the opportunity to make wise choices about transportation and housing location ... but NO ... not a murmur from our so-called leadership ...

Between the trillion dollar bank gifts, the unrepentant war mongers, the private health care bought Congress and our looming oil shortages we have the worst leadership this country has ever seen ... From the White House on down, both sides of the aisle, the "think" tanks, the Universities and the Media are all leading this country and its people into a completely understood disaster of epic proportions ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Schizo Dissociation Posted by: james108
» In a way Posted by: james108
» RE: In a way Posted by: tommy_slothrop
Blah blah buy my book blah blah
Posted by: teel on Jun 12, 2009 12:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alarmist blah blah the world blah coming to an end blah buy canned goods blah blah buy my book some more blah blah.

Stay fearful america, it's what you do best.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are we sure this time?
Posted by: JerseyDweller on Jun 12, 2009 2:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can someone with a little time check the Alternet archives for me, because I'm positive that I've seen this headline at least twice before on this site in the three years I've been coming here, but it could be three times, and I want to be sure.

Look, I don't doubt that we will some day experience peak oil. I'm even willing to believe that this might be the beginning of peak oil, but Alternet contributors have told us the wells are running dry (at least) twice before, and both times prices dropped back to reasonable levels. Maybe we can wait and see if the recent spike in oil prices is a temporary result of something or other?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes, we are sure Posted by: socialpsych
» Tommy missed an important one Posted by: bornxeyed
» About spikes in oil prices Posted by: HeroesAll
» Good post. Here's another source Posted by: ReallyBearish
» This is the same time Posted by: leafsong1
Eco-awareness on the Part of the Consumer
Posted by: CTC123 on Jun 12, 2009 4:55 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Consider the Connection to:
Environmental Communication
Please Google or AIM Search:
Peak Oil
&
CTC123GREEN
CTC = Consider the Connection
123 = 3 PHOTOS = 3000 WORDS
Green = Going Green

Great article, Michael T. Klare

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Peak Oil ?
Posted by: itchyvet on Jun 12, 2009 5:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm pushin 60 years of age, and in my time, I've heard this mantra over and over, yet strangely, every time there is a huge increase in the price of oil, there follows a large push to become independant.
People look around for cheaper alternatives, and no sooner does the money begin to flow to alternatives, then WHAM, all of a sudden the price of oil miraculously drops,Govts and interested groups lose interest of the alternative measures, withdraw their subsidies and revert back to the old standard.
Now folks seriously, IF there were such a thing as 'Peak Oil' why on earth would people go away from alternatives, and why does the price of oil drop as soon as people do go away from it ?
Now, I dunno about young folk today, but there's one thing for sure, and that is a terrible smell about the whole issue, and there aint nothing wrong with my sense of smell either.
Check out our Middle Eastern suppliers building their monoliths as if there's no tomorrow with the proceeds of fossil fuel, are they concerned about running out of the stuff ?
Are they concerned what will happen to their countries when the stuff allegedly runs out, do you see them bustin a gut trying to establish something to sustain their economies when the 'peak' hits ?
Buildin fantasy cities which only millionares can afford, and even today, they are deserting such cities in their droves, will NOT fill the gap for them.
So pray tell, IF this so called peak has any validity at all, WHY arn't these Arab nations doing something about it ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I think I can explain... Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: Peak Oil ? Posted by: Mathew Trisencusean
» Lower supply, higher prices Posted by: clresu
» RE: Lower supply, higher prices Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: are you asking me? Posted by: clresu
» RE: Peak Oil ? Posted by: Tweck9
» RE: Peak Oil ? Posted by: kelly.nickell
Hey! When the oil does run out, not to worry.
Posted by: Centavo on Jun 12, 2009 5:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just open up AlterNet and you have access to more hot air than you could possibly use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Peak oil and prices
Posted by: ischindl on Jun 12, 2009 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is missing from most analysis, even peak oil aware analysis, is the interaction between economic production and peak oil. The best current tool to understand this interaction is the Ayres Warr model of economic production. My analysis of this model provided the following insights:



1. Price swings of energy produced by changes in energy supply are mitigated by changes in economic output. If production of energy increases, this creates greater economic production which increases the market for energy, thus damping the price decrease. Inversely if production of energy decreases, economic output decreases damping the price increase.

2. Energy efficiency increases the price per unit of energy. This can be understood in two ways. Increasing efficiency increases exergy, thus increasing economic production which increases the market for energy thus increasing the price. Second: the more work one can do with energy, the more one is willing to pay for energy which increases its worth. So increased energy efficiency is the greatest driver of economic growth, stimulating both the economy and energy producers.

3. Energy efficiency does not limit production of fossil fuels; it raises prices stimulating production. Therefore many policies people are encouraging to limit global emissions will in fact raise global emissions. If there is a threshold beyond which we cannot burn more fossil fuels, and it is commercially viable to produce beyond this threshold, the only way not to cross it is by sacrificing economic output.

4. Increasing efficiency ultimately increases energy prices which we need to assure future (renewable) energy production.

5. The Ayres Warr model is possibly a good tool to detect financial bubbles and troughs (periods in which the market over or undervalues assets) when they are due to over or under estimating economic output. For example increased exergy production during the 1990's implied that the world economy was growing robustly, so that oil was probably under priced in 1998 (at $10 per barrel). On the other hand, flat exergy production since 2005 was a portent of lower economic growth, thus a decrease in demand for oil so that the price of oil in July 2008 was probably too high.

6. Economic output is largely independent of population. Therefore demographic concerns that there will not be enough future workers to support an aging population are unfounded. Concern should rather be that exergy supplies will be insufficient.

More information can be found at Implications of the Ayres Warr Model of Economic Production: An Introduction (follow the link to my paper).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it's not just peak oil...
Posted by: ellie on Jun 12, 2009 5:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but peak everything... look at our track record to date:

oceans are getting warmer destroying aquatic life, glacier melts and this is all cutting back on surface wind tension... recent tests show midwestern winds are dying down, so wind power isn't the magic bullet...

biofuels take up too much land, turns topsoil into sandy beaches and it costs almost as much to make as petroleum based fuels... biofuels aren't the magic bullet...

natural gas fields are coming up empty suddenly... no magic bullet here either...

climate changes are effecting the ability to produce solar power... cloud cover from warming ocean evaporation is becoming more widespread planet-wide... nope, no bullet...

coal isn't clean no matter what you do to it, so scratch that idea...

nuclear is too scary to even think about...

ideas anyone???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Photovoltaics Posted by: D. Shenary
» RE: Photovoltaics Posted by: bornxeyed
» ideas anyone??? Posted by: toddcory
» RE: it's not just peak oil... Posted by: Squarehead
Alternatives to freezing and starvation...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jun 12, 2009 6:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...somehow seem to always come up when folks get hungry and cold enough.

Peak oil is frightening, like the boogie man.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The peak oil zealots...
Posted by: gnaw_bone on Jun 12, 2009 6:36 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...may indeed be right. Or not. What I find profoundly disturbing, however, is their inability to hide their glee at the prospect of the collapse of life as we know it. Kind of creepy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The peak oil zealots... Posted by: bingahaba
» RE: The peak oil zealots... Posted by: mark_proulx
» RE: The peak oil zealots... Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: The peak oil zealots... Posted by: tommy_slothrop
» RE: The peak oil zealots... Posted by: mark_proulx
» RE: The peak oil zealots... Posted by: bornxeyed
» A question Posted by: bingahaba
» rephrased (edit) Posted by: bingahaba
» RE: The peak oil zealots... Posted by: tommy_slothrop
So how abouts us getting rid of that drug war and growing some hempseed oil for fuel? And algoil?
Posted by: Wayne Etheridge on Jun 12, 2009 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sure we can avert the crisis if we'd just open up instead of crying doom and gloom all the time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: algoil Posted by: PaulK
» RE: algoil Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: algoil Posted by: bornxeyed
Competing for the Apocalypse
Posted by: advancedatheist on Jun 12, 2009 8:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it ironic that the people on the Right who tend to dismiss Peak Oil, especially the self-identified "Austrian" economist cranks, turn around and catastrophize the future -- hyperinflation and/or economic collapse -- based on their demons of fiat money, fractional reserve banking and the Federal Reserve System. "Austrian" economists apparently have the attitude: "We own the Apocalypse, damn it! not those other guys!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Peak Oil
Posted by: sunlakedude on Jun 12, 2009 9:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is all the more reason why the U.S. should not have gone down the dead end road of rampant suburbanization. The home builders continued to give us ever-larger houses, ever-farther out. Which is exactly the opposite of what they should have been doing. A perfect example of how private idustry often mis-serves and weakens our nation. When it comes to living arrangements and the energy needed to go about our daily activities, the U.S. is the most vulnerable nation in the world when it comes to looming energy shortages.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Peak Oil is a SHAM!
Posted by: falseflagusa on Jun 12, 2009 9:30 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Energy Non-Crisis by Lindsey Williams - Hear Reverend Lindsey Williams tell the real TRUTH about Alaskan oil and gas on YouTube. http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html

There is no true energy crisis. There never has been an energy crisis . . . except as it has been produced by the Federal government for the purpose of controlling the American people. That's a rather dramatic statement to make, isn't it? But you see, at one time I too thought there was an energy crisis. After all, that was what I had been told by the news media and by the Federal government. I thought we were running out of crude oil and natural gas. Then I heard, I saw, and I experienced what I am about to write. I soon came to realize that there is no energy crisis. There is no need for America to go cold or for gas to be rationed. We shall verify these statements as we provide the facts for you. You might be surprised to find that we will also show why the price of gas will remain high, and in fact will go higher than it is now.

You've read about the controversy. You've heard the statements, the claims, the counterclaims. You've read about the problems of environmental protection, such as the need to protect birds whose species are becoming extinct. What you haven't heard is that $2 million dollars was spent to go around the nest of one species. On your property, you'd have moved the nest—not so on the Alaska Pipeline. Not true? Questionable? We'll give you the facts. You've read about the objections of the native Alaskans whose territory is being exploited by those giant corporations that can never be satisfied. You've heard about the excessive profits made by the oil companies. But you haven't heard about the incredible regulations that forced the costs of the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline up from a projected $2 billion dollars to beyond $12 billion dollars. We'll tell you more about that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Peak Oil is a SHAM! Posted by: sunlakedude
» RE: Peak Oil is NOT a SHAM! Posted by: toddcory
» RE: Born Again Denial Posted by: D. Shenary
» RE: Born Again Denial Posted by: tommy_slothrop
Nervous about Peak Oil? Just wait until we reach "Peak Water..."
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jun 12, 2009 11:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nervous about Peak Oil? Just wait until we reach "Peak Water..."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Crossing the Rubicon
Posted by: atomic on Jun 12, 2009 11:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Peak oil is why we went into Iraq in 91 and this time around as well ... it's also why elements within our own system carried off a false flag terror event on 911 and why Bin Laden has never been caught.

We have watched while the elite bankers and wall street have ripped our economy out from under us and how our government has almost always stood by and or supported the elite over the constitution.

The corporate media from Fox to CNN have all cheered it on and made sure we were kept in the dark. Peak Oil has been a reality for maybe 20 years ... they have lied to us all to keep their filthy game going.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Crossing the Rubicon Posted by: rockpicker
CMO - the newest measure
Posted by: kelly.nickell on Jun 12, 2009 12:56 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's time to put a more visual representation on what we have produced, will produce and use as a planet.

That measure is the CMO, or Cubic Mile of Oil.

Depending on who you read in the geophysical circles, total production estimates through the 2006-07 timeframe put the number at about 40 CMO since we began; with yearly consumption of about 1-2 CMO depending again on who you believe.

And the idea that all of the “easy” oil has been tapped shows up in the most conservative reports of folks like Chevron, RDS, etc, particularly the “light sweet, and West Texas Intermediate” that is the most common and desirable to crack into its component parts.

So it’s going to cost more to get what’s left, it going to cost more to refine (medium heavy – more complex refining methods). Additionally, the water needed to pressurize fields and then recovered presents a huge problem as well. This is just the simple stuff that does not reflect the dogma of politics or denial, it simply is.

The technologies that have evolved in the last fifty years to allow producers to outrun the curve of “peak oil” has just about run out of legs as well – meaning huge investments in figuring out how to extract oil from oil shales from places like Canada that have plenty of them.

Money, money, money – aint it grand?

Some estimates of what we have in totality is somewhere around 45 to 90 CMO. In short, we’ve managed to burn through lots of evolutionary organic squeezings, produced in a over a few billion years (or a few thousand if you believe we shared the planet with dinosaurs and Noah in the not to distant past) in just a few hundred years.

The reality aint looking real promising for even the most skeptical of peak oil denials, and as others have pointed out, water will become the larger problem.

Don’t take my words for it, try a glass of oil or salt water on the rocks (ice, not Permian Limestone), and contemplate a future that looks pretty daunting right now.

The bottom line for me is this; leave the dogma at home. We have some serious work to do no matter which direction you turn your screws (righty-tighty, lefty-loosy).

I’ve been tracking geophysics since I was a kid in West Texas – I studied to be one for a while; go read what they have to say about it, and run “CMO” and “Peak Oil” through the Google-grinder, then picture it in your head. It’s some scary shit even for the most ardent cynic or skeptic, and let’s hope like hell the sun keeps shining and the wind keeps blowing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CMO - the newest measure Posted by: NoPCZone
The Other Shoe
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jun 12, 2009 1:25 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The production of coal bed methane (fracturing) and tar sands oil, both driven by high energy demand and declining conventional supply, require vast amounts of fresh water that is made toxic by the process. The scarring of the earth makes mountaintop removal look clean by comparison and the toxic waste is being piled up like coal ash in Canada- right next to the Athabasca River. Just like in Tennessee with the coal ash, the spill is a question of when- not if.

There is a way to live with the earth and a way to live against it. Industrial society has been treating the commonwealth of our water, soil and air like a toilet since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Maybe ignorance could be claimed at one time- but not for a very long time now. When the soil is polluted, the air unfit to breathe and no fresh water is available to drink, cook with, bathe in or irrigate our crops nobody will give a damn that it costs $100 to fill up their SUV fuel tank.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Other Shoe Posted by: madregal
Obama did manipulate the problem
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Jun 12, 2009 2:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He secretly went to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and took out oil in order to force the price down. He actually advocated doing this during the '08 campaign.

The way this was covered up is through swap contracts where Brent crude was "swapped" for Texas light sweet crude. We know this indirectly because light sweet was selling at a price BELOW Brent, which is an inferior, heavier, more sour crude and should be selling below Texas light sweet. The fact that it wasn't was due to the buying of Brent to swap out crude in the Petroleum Reserve.

In reality, our refineries can't use Brent, so the swap had to be replaced eventually. That's why the price has moved up significantly and the price of Brent and light sweet are coming closer together. When the price becomes "rational" again, you'll know that this scheme has come to its end.

The Brent was stored off shore in tankers. Some in the media thought this meant that there was a huge supply of oil waiting in the wings. In fact, it meant just the opposite.

I voted for Obama, so I'm not exactly an Obama basher, but I suspect that his relationship with Goldman Sachs is going to prove toxic. They're the king of financial manipulators.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» At least try to learn Posted by: james108
» RE: Obama did manipulate the problem Posted by: ReallyBearish
» Sorry Posted by: james108
» thank you Posted by: james108
What a waste
Posted by: FreeAmerica on Jun 13, 2009 1:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We could avoid all of this by tapping into the 300+ years of conventional gas & oil that we have here in the USA. All we need to do is take the left and enviros out of the way.

Most of Alaska is off limits, 95% of the coasts are off limits, the mountains are off limits, the Gulf of Mexico is off limits in most areas, the 40% of the US that the government (extra-constitutionally) owns is off limits, and the Manchurian candidate and his dem pals just locked up another 40,000,0000 acres of our most promising new oil and gas resources.

We will see artificially induced peak oil very soon. The suffering will be very real, but the peak will be 300 years early thanks to the environuts and their dem puppets. I guess they killed enough people (20 mil or so) with malaria after banning DDT, now they want to go global with their unnecessary death and suffering.

We can stop it all now by getting the stupid people out of the way. Good luck with that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What a waste Posted by: bingahaba
» RE: What a waste Posted by: FreeAmerica
Some Strategies Allow Us to By-Pass the Issue of Responsibility
Posted by: waves16 on Jun 13, 2009 11:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What most people do not know is that there are alternatives that would allow countries to by-pass most of the responsibility debate (see Cap-and-Trade Problems and Alternative Strategies for CO2 Emissions, Renewable Energy...).

The responsibility issue was a problem with the Kyoto Protocol from the outset! So is the possibility of fraud (now the object on numerous news articles) with cap-and-trade. There are better options, but they need your support.

Tags: New Solutions for Global Warming, Carbon Emissions, and the Environment

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Above comment was put there by mistake.
Posted by: waves16 on Jun 13, 2009 12:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, please ignore the above comment. It was placed there by mistake.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How Much?
Posted by: Kathy-B on Jun 13, 2009 5:07 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I read the comments, I see a few have talked about the petrochemicals used for fertilizer. What if we stopped using them? (Besides the obvious, food being better for us.)

What if we all stopped drinking bottled water, using plastic bags and all that other unnecessary plastic crap?

Then there are the petrochemicals in laundry detergent, dish detergent and just about everything else you want to clean.

The alternatives are a bit more expensive (well, except for TAP WATER) but it's got to help.

I've read the statistics about how much oil it takes to produce bottled water - the bottles themselves, shipping the bottles to the manufacturing site, then shipping the full bottles all over the world. The best description I've seen is to imagine each water bottle 1/4 full of oil each time you drink one. That's disgusting!

It may not stave off peak oil much, but it's got to be some help.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Peek or Peekaboo - Crude Oil Still Sucks
Posted by: DdC on Jun 15, 2009 1:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country... Corporations have bee enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- Abraham Lincoln, November 12, 1864


Hemp Car.jpg
Hemp Car.org

Ganja/Hemp

Peek or Peekaboo - Crude Oil Still Sucks w img's

Boycotting Exxon and Mobil gas for the greater good of the American people

Not when we do it.jpg

Peak Oil Imminent

Prohibition History I Never Knew CC

I'm watching the Jay Leno show tonight (2/16/09) and there's a fellow on that has a made a documentary film.

The reason I'm posting is that he told a story that I never knew about Alcohol Prohibition.

Henry Ford originally made his cars to run on ethanol, so farmers could create their own fuel. (He saw farmers really as his customers originally, since nearly all of us were farmers).

Along comes John D. Rockefeller, who wants people to use oil. He provides money to the anti-alcohol movement in order to make Prohibition a reality, and stop the ethanol fuel industry and promote the use of fossil fuels

The documentary is called: Fuel
Trailer is here
Directed by: Josh Tickell.

"I am against Prohibition because it has set the cause of temperence back twenty years; because it has substituted an ineffective campaign of force for an effective campaign of education; because it has replaced comparatively uninjurious light wines and beers with the worst kind of hard liquor and bad liquor; because it has increased drinking not only among men but has extended drinking to women and even children."
-- William Randolph Hearst,
initially a supporter of Prohibition,
explaining his change of mind in 1929.
From "Drink: A Social History of America"
by Andrew Barr (1999), p. 239

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Schmeak Oil
Posted by: Noah_Scape on Jun 15, 2009 10:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The stats defeat the premise in that by 2030 we can still produce 107 Billion Barrels of oil, and will use about that much.

The far more serious problem is that if we continue to burn that much oil for the next 20 years we will be knee deep in salt water sooner or later as the effect of CO2 accumulations takes effect. Oh ya, you don't believe in global warming or climate change do you...

Here are at least three reasons to reduce our use of fossil fuels:
- global warming
- toxins
- economics [renewable energy is cheaper for consumers in the long run, but we are not changing over because renewable energy is not as profitable for elite wealth and oilmen]

As for Toxins - if you saw the documentary titled "The Disappearing Male", you would know that plastics and other petrochemical based goods are causing significant human health problems.

So if you don't believe in global warming, or maybe just that if it is real it is the fault of sunshine alone, there are other reasons to end the era of fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. We should have started on that path 10 or 15 years ago, and in 10 or 15 years from now we will say the same thing, and on and on; so start now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anthony D'Auria
Posted by: Tony D on Jun 16, 2009 4:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The recent book, "Physics for Future Presidents" "The Science behind the Headlines" by Richard A Muller, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, states simply: "In the past, the OPEC cartel did not let prices rise high. OPEC's public reason for this control was that it wanted the Western economies to stay vibrant. However, most experts think that OPEC's motive was more self-serving. Once the price of oil reaches $50 per barrel, there are many alternatives. In the 1970s, OPEC's primary competition was energy conservation; that led to the drop in oil prices in the early 1980s. But ultimately, the competition OPEC fears most is coal."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement