The film contains contemporary footage interspersed with news and commercial footage from the growth heyday of petroleum production. The documentary focuses on information and testimony that supports the projection of a near-term oil production peak. The documentary examines our dependence on oil, showing how oil is essential for almost every aspect of our modern lifestyle, from driving to work to clothing and clean tap water. Richard Edward Rainwater June 15, — September 27, was an American investor and fund manager, with many investments in the petroleum industry.
He is of Lebanese roots. He was recognized by the national organization in as Kappa Sigma Man of the Year. Rainwater became t. Samuel Simmons — was an English printer, best known as the first publisher of several works by John Milton. External links "Simmons, Matthew". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography online ed. Oxford University Press. Subscription or UK public library membership required.
Baby Phat is an American apparel brand developed by model and entrepreneur Kimora Lee Simmons in The label caters to female urban wear. Initially, the Baby Phat symbol was placed on simple T-shirts and gifted as party favors to celebrities and models, including Lil Kim , Naomi Campbell and Christy Turlington. Under her direction, the brand focused on redesigning the line to be more fitted and feminine. Garrett's friendship with Rossi is also shown in the opening scene of the Criminal Minds: Beyond Borders seasons 1 episode "The Harmful One", where they have a practice session together at the gun range and bicker over negotiation tactics.
It stars Chadwick Boseman, J. Brothers Joe and Anthony Russo act as producers. Matthew Pritzker born May 28, is an American investor and businessperson based in Chicago, Illinois. Armed Response is a American action-horror film directed by John Stockwell, and produced by Wesley Snipes, who also starred in the lead role. Plot A team of trained operatives find themselves trapped inside an isolated military compound after its artificial intelligence is suddenly shut down.
There, they begin to experience strange and horrific phenomena as they attempt to uncover what killed the previous team. Pipelines in the Burgan oilfield The Burgan field is an oil field situated in the desert of southeastern Kuwait. Burgan field can also refer to the Greater Burgan—a group of three closely spaced fields, which includes Burgan field itself as well as the much smaller Magwa and Ahmadi fields.
Greater Burgan is the world's largest sandstone oil field, and the second largest overall, after Ghawar. The Burgan Field is located on the coast of the Persian Gulf which played a huge part in the creation of this prominent reservoir formation many million years ago. Connan et al. February 16, Retrieved March 7, March 3, Baskin, Brian February 16, Retrieved Kaminska, Izabella Financial Times. He won the league championship in seven of his last eight full seasons as a professional. At international level, he played for the France national team. A large, physically strong, hard-working, and tenacious forward, who combined technical skill and creativity with power and goalscoring ability, Cantona is often regarded as having played a key role in the revival of Manchester United as a footballing force in the s and having an iconic status at the club.
GasHole is a documentary film about the history of oil prices and the future of alternative fuels. The film was completed in , premiered and released directly to DVD in The film details the dependency of the United States on foreign supplies of oil. The documentary is directed by Scott D. Roberts and Jeremy Wagener and narrated by Peter Gallagher. Plot The movie begins showing video clips of speeches by presidents from Nixon to George W. Bush talking about how the United States needs to be less dependent on other countries for oil. Nixon even says that he wants to break the oil companies.
Despite all this talk the U. Next the movie talks about a "water-injected" Buick Roadmaster that got miles per gallon of gasoline. The gas was humidified and the pressure increased to get better mileage. The movie states that Shell Oil bought this idea and asked if they buried it. In the book Fuel Economy of the Gas Engine by Shell scientists states that they got mpg in a. An energy crisis is any significant bottleneck in the supply of energy resources to an economy.
Browse By Author: S - Project Gutenberg
In literature, it often refers to one of the energy sources used at a certain time and place, in particular those that supply national electricity grids or those used as fuel in vehicles. Industrial development and population growth have led to a surge in the global demand for energy in recent years. In the s, this new demand — together with Middle East tension, the falling value of the U. Causes The gasoline shortages of World War II brought about the resurgence of horse-and-wagon delivery.
Most energy crisis have been caused by localized shortages, wars and market manipulation. Some have argued that government actions like tax hikes, nationalisation of energy companies, and regulation of the energy sector,. Mahatma Gandhi spinning yarn in Gandhi believed in a life of simplicity and self-sufficiency. Simple living encompasses a number of different voluntary practices to simplify one's lifestyle. These may include, for example, reducing one's possessions, generally referred to as minimalism, or increasing self-sufficiency. Simple living may be characterized by individuals being satisfied with what they have rather than want.
Adherents may choose simple living for a variety of personal reasons, such as spirituality, health, increase in quality time for family and friends, work—life balance, personal taste, financial sustainability, frugality, or reducing stress. Simple living can also be a reaction to materialism and conspicuous consumption.
Some cite soc. Olduvai Theory The Olduvai theory states that industrial civilization as defined by per capita energy production will have a lifetime of less than or equal to years — The theory provides a quantitative basis of the transient-pulse-theory of modern civilization. The name is a reference to the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. History The Olduvai theory was introduced in by power system engineer Richard C. Duncan as the "transient-pulse theory of industrial civilization" with further details in the paper "The life-expectancy of industrial civilization: The decline to global equilibrium".
A map of world oil reserves, Oil reserves denote the amount of crude oil that can be technically recovered at a cost that is financially feasible at the present price of oil. Reserves may be for a well, a reservoir, a field, a nation, or the world. Different classifications of reserves are related to their degree of certainty. The total estimated amount of oil in an oil reservoir, including both producible and non-producible oil, is called oil in place. However, because of reservoir characteristics and limitations in petroleum extraction technologies, only a fraction of this oil can be brought to the surface, and it is only this producible fraction that is considered to be reserves.
The ratio of reserves to the total amount of oil in a particular reservoir is called the recovery factor. Determining a recovery factor for a given field depends on several features of t. Collapse, directed by Chris Smith, is an American documentary film exploring the theories, writings and life story of controversial author Michael Ruppert.
Overview Ruppert, a former Los Angeles police officer who describes himself as an investigative reporter and radical thinker, has authored books on the events of the September 11 attacks and of energy issues. Critics in the mainstream media and in D. Director Smith interviewed Ruppert over the course of fourteen hours in an interrogation-like setting in an abandoned warehouse basement meat locker near downtown Los Angeles.
The filmmakers distilled these interviews down to this 82 minute monologue with archival footage interspersed as illustration. What counts under that term has changed over time, as such this list is a jumble, and is intended to be suggestive, not definitive. Notable futurologists include: Name Birth Death Field or notable accomplishment Adrian Berry writer, journalist Alan Marshall living academic, environmentalist, social scientist, writer Aldous Huxley writer of Brave New World, psychedelic prophet Alvin Toffler wrote Future Shock, and sequels, technological singularity Anders Sandberg living human enhancement Andrey Korotayev living mathematical modeling of global future Anne Lise Kjaer living future trends, consumer mindsets and mobile technologies Archibald Low space Arthur C.
Tamsin Carlisle. The National. Retrieved August 16, Texas Voter Registration rolls. Retrieved August 13, Kennebec Journal. Deseret News Retrieved on Tom Fowler. Houston Chronicle. August 10, Simmons' Presentations". Ocean Energy formerly at Simmons-Co International. Archived from the original on Simmons, Matthew R. October Mud City Press. Retrieved 29 November Bangor Daily News. Retrieved 15 January The Economist.
Retrieved 10 January Tierney, John. NY Times. UFO Blogger. Tseng, Nin-Hai. Matt Simmons, Dr. Doom of the Gulf Coast spill. Retrieved 11 July Ray, Tiernan. Francis, Melissa and Kudlow, Larry. Nuke the Oil Well? Business Insider Matthew Simmons. August 26, Retrieved August 26, Simmons topic Jonathan Kimble "J. Simmons's performance in Whiplash received wide Folders related to J. Matt's research underlying the book was no doubt behind his Folders related to Twilight in the Desert: non-fiction books Revolvy Brain revolvybrain Peak oil books Revolvy Brain revolvybrain American non-fiction books Revolvy Brain revolvybrain.
Sophie Simmons topic Sophie Alexandra Tweed-Simmons is an American-Canadian singer, television personality, advocate for children, and model who promotes body positivity. Doomer topic A doomer is someone who believes that the global problems of ecological exhaustion—such as overpopulation, climate change, and pollution—will cause the collapse of civilization, and a significant human population die-off. Ehrlich and the Club of Rome's ideas about population growth are a possible influence here, as are some of the more recent works by Joseph Tainter who wrote The Collapse of Complex Societies in , and Folders related to Doomer: Survivalism Revolvy Brain revolvybrain Peak oil Revolvy Brain revolvybrain.
The End of Suburbia topic The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of The American Dream is a documentary film concerning peak oil and its implications for the suburban lifestyle, written and directed by Toronto-based filmmaker Gregory Greene. Revolvy Brain revolvybrain Documentary films about peak oil Revolvy Brain revolvybrain.
Peak oil topic A world oil production distribution, showing historical data and future production, proposed by M. When asked his name, Purvis gives a false name, then tries to esca Folders related to Bone Tomahawk: Western genre horror films Revolvy Brain revolvybrain Horror adventure films Revolvy Brain revolvybrain American splatter films Revolvy Brain revolvybrain. Simmons surname topic Simmons is an English surname. Revolvy Brain revolvybrain Lists of American drama television series chara Oil megaprojects topic Oil megaprojects are large oil field projects. Crystal Palace F.
Palace enjoyed a successful period in the top flight in the late s and early s, during which they achieved their highest ever league finish in —91 of third place in the old First Division, Folders related to Crystal Palace F. Revolvy Brain revolvybrain. Criminal Minds franchise topic Criminal Minds is a media franchise of American television programs created by Jeff Davis. Simmons—Smith reaction topic The Simmons—Smith reaction is an organic cheletropic reaction involving an organozinc carbenoid that reacts with an alkene or alkyne to form a cyclopropane. Richard Rainwater topic Richard Edward Rainwater June 15, — September 27, was an American investor and fund manager, with many investments in the petroleum industry.
Rainwater became t Folders related to Richard Rainwater: Deaths from progressive supranuclear palsy Revolvy Brain revolvybrain Disease-related deaths in Texas Revolvy Brain revolvybrain Deaths from motor neurone disease Revolvy Brain revolvybrain. Samuel Simmons topic Samuel Simmons — was an English printer, best known as the first publisher of several works by John Milton. Armed Response film topic Armed Response is a American action-horror film directed by John Stockwell, and produced by Wesley Snipes, who also starred in the lead role.
Absolutely agree - superb article. The previous article by Stuart last week did not entirely convince me. However, Stuart's detailed dissection of oil price, OECD economic performance and KSA output over 5 years, to my mind leaves very little room for alternative explanation. I think those of us who watch TOD should take this as warning that the peak oil storm will break upon us fairly soon.
IMHO, this will occur when this reality begins to be recognized by the MSM and hits the money markets and business optimism. My guess on this has been for some time, the second half of next year, but that may be optimistic. So those of us here have maybe months max.? Stuart - one of the things that jumped out at me looking at this chart was the symetry - that is the point you make from the chart. It is also quiet clear that Iraqi production surged , bpd settling back to , bpd just before the fall in Saudi production began.
And shortly after that the Baku-Tiblisi-Cayen pipeline was oppened with first oil on 6 May This was ramping to 1,, bpd over the course of a year I believe. So here we have from these two areas alone somewhwere between , and 1,, bpd new production coming to market and Saudi production has been reduced by around , bpd. Do you think that the Saudi decision to reduce their production may be related to all this new oil flooding onto the market? Euan, If Saudi Arabia has been cutting the production of oil voluntarily for the last 17 months, it can only mean that they want to drive the price of oil higher.
You can see that for the last 17 months, their production has declined consistently whereas the price of oil has been all over the place. In my opinion, the evidence is overwhelming that Saudi Arabia has peaked and the decline in production is not voluntary. Suyog, best to just address the issue raised in my edits to Stuart's chart. Do you think that an additional 1. WRT to Saudi actions and price, I imagine that they study supply and demand very closely and adjust their production accordingly.
Getting ths balance right is of course difficult. Price fluctuations will flow from these actions and not the other way around. Euan, I think what you are missing is that demand is a function of price. There is a lot of forced conservation going on in poor countries. Even in the US, quite a few people will buy SUVs and pickup trucks instead of small cars if price were to fall that low. I find it hard to believe that they suddenly started cutting production because they were concerned about an additional 1.
Saudi Arabia has stated several times that they are not going to flood the world with crude oil when refined product price margins expand. If you take those statements into consideration, you will find that they have no choice but to shut in production as refinery capacity is still limited. But the Saudis were telling the Asian refiners a few months ago that they will be cutting their supply of crude.
If refinery capacity was the issue, it would be the other way refiners would be telling the Saudis to ship less crude , wouldn't it? Stuart is trying to argue that Saudi production has been in decline before they implement OPEC cuts, and those production decline are caused by field exhaustion rather than business reasons. If that is Stuart's position, then I think there are many flaws with it coming from an analyst's perspective.
I perfectly understand Stuart's position. But you attributed Saudi production cuts to refinery capacity. My position is: if refinery capacity was the issue you would expect the crude oil consumers to tell Saudi Arabia to ship less oil; you wouldn't expect Saudi Arabia to unilaterally announce cuts in crude shipments to refineries. Also, note that Saudi production cuts of 1 million barrels per day so far are twice as large as their share of OPEC cuts.
These are contracts with pricing already predetermined based on market prices. All other cuts are from open market pricing. If refineries lack oil, they will bid up these prices, which is not happening. On the contrary, prices have been dropping and oil shipments from other OPEC members and from Caspian region via Turkey have been shipped out without contracts during latter half of The oil market picture is very clear that refineries do not lack oil at all.
The time frame you discuss might not be long enough for Saudi organizational politics to come to a course of action. The price signals might mean exactly what you think, and then again they might not. You will certainly get a better picture during the next demand surge - perhaps during this summer's drving season. Market reaction cannot be swept under the rug. The decling dollar has at least some impact. It looks to me that the Saudis increased production every time the price got out of control. Henceforth we have "plenty of oil". By the same token, there's no shortage of caviar either.
For those who have the money. If you want to maintain that they are adjusting their production up and down voluntarily in pursuit of something , what is the something? If they have voluntary control of their prouduction level, then in order to have a falsifiable hypothesis, you have got to suppose that they are in rational pursuit of some goal with that production level. What are they in pursuit of, in your view? Constant price? Maximum profit? Target OECD stock level? Stuart - I would suggest that they are striving to achieve a supply demand balance in the global market.
This needs analysis and forecasts of supply and demand, both of which are difficult to achieve accurately. But when they see several hundred barrels of new oil coming down the pipe they may act accordingly. I venture one flaw in the analysis that you lay forth and that is the notion that the Suadis watch the oil price and adjust their production accordingly. I imagine they are much more likely to monitor supply and demand, act accordingly and price will flow from those actions.
I'd be interested to hear others' views on this. One part of your yarn where you may be on the right track is the entering of a new era with OPEC. What has happened is that we have gone from an era where OPEC in concert were supposed to act as swing producer that never worked because of cheating to one where Saudi Arabia are all powerful within the OPEC block - being the only nation with significant reserve capacity. So we see an end of cheating that actually caused GWI and Saudi in the driving seat. I'm going to post a few more comments if that's OK, picking holes in your argument.
As I said in my post earlier this week, you may be right, I'm just a bit sceptical about drawing such firm and potentially catastrophic conclusions on a stack of well researched but circumstantial bits of evidence. We will end the evening on a humerous note! What about the United Arab Emirates? Do they have any spare capacity? They are significant producers, yet I hardly ever see them mentioned in any context whatsoever. And what about Kuwait? Does the decline of Burgan establish all by itself that they no longer have spare capacity?
But when they see several hundred barrels of new oil coming down the pipe they may act accordingly". Ok, but supply and demand will always, in some sense, balance absent major sudden disruptions. Prices will adjust one or the other until they do. So it doesn't really mean anything to say they want to specify supply and demand balance, since there are many possible balances.
Or what? If their goal is either a particular price or a particular stock level they've sure done a lousy job over the last few years, as I discussed in more detail in the post. What you seem to be groping towards in the comment here is the idea that they are trying to keep total global supply flat, so when somebody comes on with new production, they cut theirs to keep total global supply constant.
But why would they target flat total production? It's almost like they decided to bring peak oil early for some reason. But then in comments below, you're cherry-picking features out of the price graph and arguing that they explain certain features of the supply graph. Overall, the impression is you're grabbing bits and pieces of different explanations for different pieces of the production curve, whatever will fit each piece, without having any coherent hypothesis of what the Saudis are trying to do, and then showing how that hypothesis explains all of the data.
I can't really refute a hypothesis like that because it's not well specified enough to really know what its implications are. Stuart please expalin yourself. You know as well as I that global demand can go up as well as down? So if Global demand goes down or Global supply goes up e. Can you please detail which part of this you don't understand. Cut supply and sustain price or continue to produce flat out and dump the price. You seem to think they should have done the latter? You might understand Stuart's argument if you would learn the meaning of the terms, supply and demand.
These terms refer to schedules of quantities that producers or consumers are willing and able to offer or buy at different prices at a given time. Supply, to choose one term for clarification, does not mean the amount a seller puts on the market at a given price. That is quantity offered. Supply means the differing amounts offered at different prices.
Sofistek, lower down this page, points to the inaccurate use of the term 'demand' in data reports, when consumption is what is being described. So your misuse of the language is understandable. But it appears that a misconception underlies your misuse and this misconception is blocking your ability to comprehend Stuart's explanations. Your error is in believing that the economics-theory definition of "supply" applies strictly to the phrase "oil supply". I second toilforoil's comment above. From an economics perspective there is no such thing as free-floating demand independant of a specified price that must somehow be 'balanced' with supply.
It is also a reality that OPEC failed to address with its quota system. The accomodation of this led to the original label of cheating. OPEC's position is that the supply should be level through the year and inventories will take care of the high curve season. This is what transpired in Q4 of and may be the scenario unfolding for Q4. Euan's comments reflect this practical flaw. OPEC regular confernces and special meetings often are unable to respond to the dynamic marketplace in real time.
While some nations are pleased to surge when needed to get extra revenue , they frown upon the reverse requests of low call on OPEC because it hurts national revenues of NOC's. Saudi Arabia affluence dictates that it does not have these concerns and it yields indifferently to monthly changes in call. The risk of its actions has always been that other OPEC nations accuse SA of cheating and then rationalize doing it themselves.
This has forced SA at times to be right on the money wrt quota as one of Stuart's graphs demonstrates. Insolent OPEC members must learn to be team players and mature in their comprehension of the seasonal and geopolitical factors affecting global demand and the subseqent call on OPEC as the swing partner.
Impatience on this issue has caused SA to go public with statements of concern wrt whether it alone should be the swing producer or if OPEC as a pool should attempt that role. This is magnified by the reality that its surplus capacity was significant one or two decades ago; and could easily manipulate supply and price. Last Viking, you got any links on this point. This is not something I'd previously thought about but which clearly just has to be true. IMO this bit of the thread has gone off at a tangent. The point I made at the outset was that about 1.
The answer to your question is answered, in part, by the analysis of the Hotelling rule with regards to pricing a non-renewable resource such as oil. The methodology involves maximizing the present value of the stream of profits out to infinity. Now, the Hotelling scenario is far too simplistic to apply directly, but it gives us a very good intuition. Before , the world more or less seemed to perceive oil as being infinitely renewable, in the same way that coal is perceived today, even though technically, coal is not renewable. The Hotelling analysis is based on the "perception" of renewability within a generation or 2.
Thus, timber, while renewable, may also be viewed as a non-renewable resource for the purposes of the analysis. It could well be that Saudi Arabia got "religion", so to speak. This is especially true, when they discovered that there were no other viable swing producers out there. Your analysis also focuses on what I would call "near-term" capacity. Can KSA raise production 1. Probably not. Can they easily invest in up to rigs several times more than they currently have but a far lower number than other oil producers and then increase production by up to 3m bpd?
As I mentioned in my last comment, the key variable for me is the ratio of total recoverable barrels remaining in the ground and current production. If we assume KSA has about 85Gb left, then at 8. As noted below, it is within the Kingdom's strategic interest to have some semblance of order in Iraq.
I do not think it is a big stretch to now examine combined Saudi and Iraqi production for clues. The US will go out of its way to enable the Saudi's to minimize their decline rate at the cost of Iraq. The decline is combination of voluntary and involuntary factors. The kingdom is clearly in a transition phase and is at the tipping point, it is only a question of how long "above ground" factors can obscure the truth. I don't recall the poster that reiterates that 3Q07 will likely be the moment of truth Thxs for this keypost SS, and contrapost by Euan--Great food for thought!
Could this be a another method to help predict the possibility and error bars of KSU being postPeak? It depends on the real condition of Ghawar. Perhaps a heroic drilling campaign could result in a temporary bloom in production, lasting perhaps three years, followed by a swift, terminal collapse. On the other hand, it is possible that the field has been so thoroughly exploited already that we are seeing the irreversible, rapid decline.
At the ASPO conference a well-connected industry insider who wishes not to be directly quoted told me that his own sources inside Saudi Arabia insist that production from Ghawar is now down to less than three million barrels per day, and that the Saudis are maintaining total production at only slowly dwindling levels by producing other fields at maximum rates. This, if true, would be a bombshell: most estimates give production from Ghawar at 5. If one looks at SS's graph [green background with the two hand-drawn lines above]: this bombshell of info was right when Haradh III was turned on.
So, is this a valid equation? Is this even possible for the queens, princes, and barons: Berri, Abqaiq, Zuluf, Marjan,etc? So if Ghawar is dying, but the other oilfields last Aug had the capability to be only temporarily ramped up to cover this decline-- does that help explain all the unsold heavy crude and the further decline since last Aug?
I thank him for binging Nemesis to greater TODer attention. Additionally, has Heinberg's insider been accurate? Hard to tell without direct Aramco confirmation, but Deffeyes, WT, Darwinian, Ace, Simmons, Pickens, and others seem to be finding corroborating data with the passage of time. Now our very much admired data-freak SS seem to be reaching the same conclusions as Nemesis, Heinberg's insider, and the experienced data analysis of the aforementioned Deffeyes Group. As repeated again from my earlier posts when Heinberg first released this bombshell info in Aug He should have kept this confidential unless he could have found additional confirming evidence.
I contend that Heinberg was 'played', and benefits accrued to some [I just don't know whom]. Nonetheless, it has been added to the mindset of astute observers along with the Nemesis reports, and other FF market data. The geo-political and monetary aspects should not be underestimated vis-a-vis the strictly straight forward but data-obtuse geologic depletion. As Churchill said, "We are entering a period of consequences". I note the low prices mentioned by others at US election periods--Could Heinberg's source's revelation in Aug purposely have over-hyped the market early when combined with over-blown hurricane and ME expectations, then Goldman Sachs' index revision combined with other events to drive the gasoline price so low in Nov.
See a Problem?
Even RR, who I believe clearly watches inventories closely, was late in recognition. As Euan, RR, and others point out downthread, it is entirely reasonable for KSA to see early forsee climbing Russian and Iraqi output, plus the addition of the Caspian pipeline, and other factors: then adjust their output accordingly. But the question remains: has Aramco adequately forseen and invested in a timely manner to offset their inherent oilfields depletion's decline rate to retain sufficent swing capacity to market demand? If Heinberg's source [same as Nemesis? I don't know! Ghawar, the king, will be riding astride untold thousands of flagging horseheads into the depletion twilight.
If Heinberg's source revealed 'False Info', then RR, Euan, and Dave Cohen's Sadad Al-Husseini conjecture maybe correct that KSA retains additional capacity, and the voluntary resting of Ghawar, along with further drilling and infrastructure enhancement will allow later, and greater kingsize flows combined with the other oilfields' production. But then the earlier release of this 'False Info' [once proven false somehow] from Heinberg's source would strongly indicate that geo-political concerns override or will be used to direct geologic concerns going forward.
Time will tell what conclusions we can draw from this.
That is Stuart's point. Of course you know that. You're just trying to twist his words and give the impression he is saying something he isn't. I think you and Euan lately have done some admirable pieces of analysis well documented and supported by impressive graphics that has shed some more lights on the oil supplies situation in KSA. I'd suggest to TOD readers that they e-mail a link of this article, along with a few comments and some of the initial summary to news reporters and to influential people they know or have even slight contact with.
To link to the article, close out of the article and click on the permalink. Send a copy of the permalink address. I suggest they figure out what, if anything, they can do to protect themselves and their families, then take that action. Given your premise, "too late" , what is the action you suggest? Instability, resource grab local and global and the geopolitcal game of RISK, will quickly ensue.
Its never been about running out of oil, its been about the perception that oil will be readily supplied over near and intermediate future. I would recommend that Senate staffers and aides print this out and show it to all policy people in DC and elsewhere. However, as valid as your points are, all it takes is one respected authority CERA comes to mind to poo-poo it and the warning is lost, except to those who can connect the dots.
Nate, I agree this is one of the best articles ever to appear on TOD, perhaps even the best. And I must agree with Nate on this second point. Once it becomes obvious that Saudi does not have vast reserves, not even close to the billion barrels they claim to have, but more like 70 billion barrels instead, this will hit the financial world like a bombshell.
People will then realize that not only are Saudi reserves mythical, but so are the rest of those vast Middle East reserves. I shudder to think what effect this will have on the stock markets of the world. Of course, the diehard peak-oil theorists among petroleum geologists and those punditswith their own agendas still won't face up to their error. They continue to sound the alarm of shortages, price spikes, and economic decline just down the road. If this dubious line of reasoning sounds familiar, it is. Ever since oil was first discovered more than a century ago, alarmists have been predicting its imminent disappearance.
But such stubborn wrongheadedness isn't winning any new converts these days, merely casting the naysayers in the dim light of the ill-informed. Huffington Post. NYT with a cheshire grin : I luv being right. Maybe not, not if the decrease can be explanined by above ground factors on the evening news. For example what if there is millitaty acation againest Iran which somehow ends up a significant chunk of Saudi oil infrstructure being destroyed?
Production will be down — people will blame the war and live in hope for brighter times to come. Another example, reveloution in Saudi, the overthrow of the House of Saud with a period of civil unrest during which production falls. Again an above ground factor allowing people to hope to brighter times ahead. Chris - you're right. Its quite possible Peak Oil might never be realized as geologically based, but will be rationalized as due to some 'above ground factor' in perpetuity. Its like debating evolution with a religious apologist - 'well how do you explain that humans have tailbones'?
Hows this juicy rationalization - "well if those democrats hadnt removed the troops back in from basically the heart of oil central, we'd still have single digit gasoline! This is CERA's saving grace and probably true. As long as there is an "above ground" excuse for drops in production, no one can ever really declare a geologic peak.
It is a sick little spin. Not really. Buying a used land yacht in wasn't necessarily a mistake on a micro level. Buying a bargain priced monster SUV in the crunch period after peak oil probably won't work out even on a micro level. This isn't happening in a vaccuum. It doesn't matter what they believe. As, Deffeyes says, there's a snowballs chance in hell of a soft landing. Game Over is Game Over. It doesn't matter who they blame for it. Those with the power to grab everything they could in the last days of oil will still be in power. Probabally running little fiefdoms around the world.
Most others will die in some horrible fashion. No there won't be any great holding of hands and sharing of what is left. Those in enlightened Post-Oil communities will be knocked off for their resources or incorporated into the aforementioned fiefdoms and become serfs. Certainly the world will not continue as it has at a smaller scale. Those that think protest will accomplish anything; Yes it will. It will get your ass thrown into one of Haliburton's Concentration Camps. Yes we're all going to die. But if you are expecting a quick peak oil induced population crash, [it may come at some point in time if our choices are stupid enough for long enough], my contention is that most of us now living will die from old age.
Maybe with a sweater on American don't need to consume like we do to live very well. We don't need to buy as much stuff. Oil production won't stop. The tail to the right of the peak oil curve will be long and probably quite fat. There is a lot of uranium. Breeder technology -- yeah probably. The sun shines and biomass [probably algea] will make economic sense and a reasonable multiple on energy invested.
I suspect that pricing will take care of most of the problem if people are not flim flammed into believing that more oil is going to be forth coming. If the peak is now or even 10 years from now, CERA is the enemy. Politicians who believe in throttling energy production or push unsuitable "solutions" such as corn based ethanol, or price controls on energy are the enemy. Environmentalists who oppose construction of nuclear power plants or wind turbines because they are ugly or are threat to bird populations are the enemy. I have rarely been noted for my optimism, but even if I am wrong and we are indeed doomed as a civilization, we lose little or nothing by trying.
RR: IMO, you are basically correct. Remember, this is a country that will not even provide proper medical care for these people so IMO their oil usage is not a priority to TBTB. Believe together you have both outlined the dangers of ignorance and painted a most plausible outcome. Agreed - plus the political ramifications are quite different. Blaming supply problems on Ay-rabs, Lib-ruls, Joos, and Tree-Huggers will be easier if above-ground excuses are what the media and political system concentrate on.
Below ground causation would cut to the heart of the way we currently organize and run our society. Much easier to find internal enemies rather than focus on the entire society and, more importantly, its leadership elite. I imagaine that in the degenerate, primitive English that will be spoken after the collapse of our current civilization, the word 'Lib-rul' will come to be associated more fully with demons and Satanism than it is currently in some of the darker parts of North America.
Some folks implore TOD members to get this story out to the public, but this will do nothing except cause 1 above -- useless panic. Whereas, 2 keeps happening all too frequently e. Bartlett speaks to empty congressional chamber. When it gets up there again, we will again. The CERAs are only winning now because the price is currently low due to demand destruction. Once demand starts to grow again, and it cannot be supplied, the New York Times will change its tune. It will not be long. I agree that 2 above will eventually change. It's 1 above that's hard to relax about. TOD members seem to keep wanting some sort of validation from the MSM -- a scenario that could lead to useless panic.
I think some of our best political leader probably understand the situation but do not think they can be straight with the public about it because of the impact it would have on the next election and the pressure that would come about for your scenario 1. Bill Clinton has previously spoken about imminent peak but recently he quoted Matt Simmons as saying we would be out of oil in 35 years. The election will be dominated by the peak oil issue even if it does not soon come to be openly accepted.
I struggle with that.
My brother says if Im wrong I will look foolish writing what I write and if Im right I should shut up and share my analysis only with friends and not with the public. However, it feels like the right thing to do - to raise awareness of these issues by asking better questions and getting info into wiser and more influential minds than our own So we are left with the middle ground as our objective - raise awareness with policy and decisionmakers but NOT causing a mainstream media panic at the same time.
A tall task There is also the additional risk that an unfortunately timed and unrelated nasty recession could delay the price signals that drive mainstream opinion. Many people have been "disproved" socio-economically by just such events. The public has essentially no history of being able to separate an accurate theory from unrelated but confounding developments.
The threshold to credibility then widens dramatically. Considering that the bubble economy today was driven from the policies of our central banks i. Also the price of oil is not unrelated to our economy the relationship is complex but it exists. The fact that we should enter a bad recession in the first year that peak oil would be obvious is intresting Hopefully we will get a chance one day to find out exactly what people knew about our oil supply and when and if they acted based on this knowledge.
And surely someone like SS could sort out if oil prices are contracting like they should given a particular level of economic contraction. If PO is truly upon us, we may see an interesting phenomenon: the economy contracting in lock-step with oil-production. I don't know. The storyline can still read: 1 internet bubble and collapse, 2 dramatic interest rate cuts, aggrivated by the fed mis-reading their own inflation numbers, 3 resulting in unintended consequence of housing bubble, and finally 4 debt laden recession.
What people knew? I watched one Greenspan speech twice. The one that was very soon after his chairmanship ended, where he talked about the energy problem in front of a special committee. Very interesting. There was another panel which included the head of the IEA. Also very interesting. But none of this plays out in the storyline above. Yep, 1 and 2 are not either-or. They're both happeing right now. The smart money and in-the-know elites already made for the exits and reworked their portfolios. The MSM infotainment fed masses will get 2 untill reality has repoed their house and put them out on the stoop.
I agree. That may still be a year away and I don't rule out some "above-ground" factor being conjured up before or about then to try to hide the fact that it's due to geology. And further, an above ground factor could actually raise the price of oil not conjured up which again obscures the geological picture. In fact, above ground factors are perhaps more likely as supplies tighten. Question: What if any is the common tie that makes PO accepters different from the rest of the world? Less fearfulness of the unknown?
Carefulness caring for the future? Ignorance of what really matters - eat drink and be merry? If we can discover what that is, then we'll know why we believe as we do and how best to make the 'knowledge' more widely known. Certainly no-one I have introduced the idea to really gets it or wants to Peak Oil now is a good thing for our civilization. We need to launch onto a trajectory of declining CO2 emmissions and the slow squeeze from Peak Oil will do it nicely. I would never have guessed this was possible. Will it?
About the Author
I don't know but we've surely passed the point of 1. Peak oil probably means economies will transition to coal through ctl process or some such thing. To understate the case, coal is not real good for GW. I would make a rather decent bet that most believers in Peak Oil are latter-borns i. Why would one assume that first-borns would have more difficulty in accepting the reality of PO than latter-borns?
However, that could also be viewed as 'too stupid to know danger when they see it' and 'living in their own little world'. Which almost certainly describes me. First born. That might explain the technical bent and preference of the sight, but not of the interest in the world-changing "event" of peak oil. Gosh, I think we'd need at least 3 data points to calculate a normalized correlation coefficient. Seriously though, for example, a graph of the percentage support for "scientific controversies" by birth-order shows that laterborns support is far higher than support by firstborns until the "controversy" has been generally accepted.
I'm a first born son of five sons. I was made aware of Peak Oil in a financial news article on the web several years ago. Within-my-lifetime phenomena that could "change everything" greatly interest me, firstly as an observer of the phenomenon as it unfolds, and secondly to base current decisions with regard to the future situation.
By way of analogy, On a Sunday morning in August , I clearly remember taking my 10 year old son outside our Coral Gables apartment and explaining to him that the beautiful world around us was about to be destroyed - that night. Hurricane Andrew had been just upgraded to Category 5 over the Bahamas and was aiming straight for Miami. Forewarned, we took the proper precautions.
Now I live in Austin, Texas. It's the heart of the matter. I do wish for validation in the MSM. Principally because if above ground factors continue to be the dominant mainstream rationale for rising prices most people will tend to blame some geo-political event. If, for instance nationalization of oil in Venezuela is the reason access to oil is limited, then an 'above ground' 'bringing of democracy' to oil rich states might be in order. OTOH if it seems the long term potential to create increased access with military occupation is truly limited especially if what Stuart, Simmons ,WT are saying is right.
Why risk damaging access to a very limited resource which is increasingly going to be used in domestic consumption anyway. Time to transition to a more sustainable future a la Switzerland or Sweden? I figure there has been an overt insightful policy revision to make these changes happen. Enlightened public opinion would be a plus. If everyone buys there are still plenty of great fields to be conquered well then hell no I'm trying to imagine what support by the MSM would accomplish. Can you think of an issue where MSM support helped? After thinking for a few minutes I came up with "smoking".
There was a lot of industry resistance and other doubters about nicotine addiction. But eventually, MSM helped shift the public to fighting it. Of course there are many examples where MSM support hasn't really helped. And even the "smoking" issue took a long time. What's the model for moving forward? I'm not trying to "bait you", I just don't see it working. I still only see useless panic. No that's fine. Your view may prove to be the more valid. I am traveling now around Seattle. Nobody has slowed down there are lots of lb.
The cheap oil extraveganza. Reality belies the whole idea that our civilization could be suddenly altered by above ground or below ground events in the Mid-East. If something significant were to happen all this activity would be in jepordy. People will surely panic to some degree. Panic with shortage to add bite will make an intense situation. In the embargo of the 70's there was intensity, but most people believed that shortage would be 'solved' above ground which it eventually was. The taps were turned back on. Meanwhile we bought smaller cars we drove less, mpg went up we car pooled, and we drove 55 well that's what the sign said anyway.
Carter lectured us on energy from the White House wearing a sweater. We as a nation grumbled and groaned, waited in gas lines and drove on with a bit less. Of course this time it will be much worse. I guess what disappoints me so far is the lack of a strong mandate to change. There seems to be this mandate in other countries but not in the US. I guess we ask ourselves. What they got that we don't.
Is it high prices or threatened shortages. Maybe 'recent' memory of real hardship too. Meantime we boldly proclaim our lifestyle to be non-negotiable. That is of course absurd. Robert Hirsch looks damn worried when he urges us begin now. Roscoe Bartlett has been telling the truth for years. Simmons has been warning what Stuart is telling us may have evolved. The military commissioned a study from some big college and they came to the same conclusion about vulnerability.
Pretty strong stuff, don't have the link right here. That's interesting. If we are lucky we won't sail over the cliff in the darkness but the onset will be less than catastrophic. Then there will come a teachable moment or two. A 70's style mandate could form. A strong national voice recalling the truth that has been told could become a clearing house for dissemination. Leanan-like and urgent. Lou Dobbs for peak oil. National response type stuff. What did Barlett suggest we do? Alan Drake? Here maybe Olberman or someone may run some in-depth analysis.
With pain at the pump as a background there may be less channel switching. How much good will it do. Well it's reality. It does not go away because we stop believing in it. Every day the same dilema. The long emergency. Something's got to give. What will help. ELP, conserve, foster renewables. Some more coal and nuclear to be sure Back to the 70's with that one big difference.
What else will there be? I hope it doesn't come on so fast that we lose our way forget what works. I'd wager that a few well timed strong trusted voices will help. It seems when people get religion about peak oil they behave differently. Witness those of us here. A bunch of true beilevers just might make enough of a difference to save a whole lot of discomfort.
I think that the really influential people already know about PO. The price is enough for the public to deal with until solutions mature. I think this mindset severely underestimates alternative energy sources, and the market's ability to rapidly uptake them.
This does not necessarily mean immediate poverty; rather, it means a mild form of staglfation, which, arguably, has been brewing since , and has coincided with the collapse of the U. Consider; which economies will be stung most, and worst, by the peak? Consider which populaces. The Middle East population, by and large, has terrible purchasing power parity, as does Africa. Iran, if an when it falls, is going to fall in the other direction; towards military secularism. It'll just collapse into the same anarchy and chaos that ensued after the end of the cold war.
No, the nations that will be hurt worst by the peak are industrializing nations. Particularly nations whom have little to no flexibility in capital investments. These nations can, and have, gone nuclear; and mass transit, as well. Witness the joy that is Amsterdam's public transit system.
China, on the other hand, will see a collapse of industry as a export costs skyrocket, and b manufacturing costs balloon. On the contrary, financial management, intellectual property, and technological prowess become ever more important. In my experience, lots of development has been done in the past decade or so, but corporations have been waiting for prices to spike. The breadth of technology that has been patented regarding BioFuel production is stunning.
And I don't just mean ethanol, which is an incredibly crude sort of fuel. I mean heavy hydrocarbon blends which can be run through mostly-existing refineries, and existing sorts of petrochemical engines. And the products are substantially easier to work with than various oil "high-tech" products being extracted these days.
My own, personal experience encompasses face-to-face discussions with shockingly wealthy and high-powered business people. But there are rich, intelligent minds looking at the issues involved, technologies are patented and ready to go, but the capital investments required do not yet justify the unit profit possibilities, yet. There is a LOT of money to be made in managing peak oil. In the long run, however, sustainable, and more importantly, scalable energy supplies are a necessity for growth. There is a great deal of energy to be exploited out there, and mankind only really gets better at it when forced.
This isn't necessarily a rosy process hell, it explains the horrible cycle of violence as the world developed its thirst for oil , but there's no law of physics, or conditions of chemistry which impede these developments. The technology we need is out there, is tested, and works great.
Assuming you are not naming names, how would you characterize these people and businesses? Venture capital? Fortune ? Politically connnected? Energy sector? It may well be that the world is more or less on the optimal course to a post-peak future : oil price is high enough to stimulate innovation, not yet high enough to choke off the economies which are working on the innovations.
This raises the somewhat disturbing idea that maybe the Saudis are benevolently guiding us towards a better future, by managing the price within this new optimal band. Or else it's purely Hotelling-rule maximisation of returns, but if it comes to the same end result, it's all good In fact, perhaps the optimal result is if the hypothesis of a Saudi peak never actually gets tested : i.
Saudi production slowly sinks "because the demand isn't there" at whatever is deemed the appropriate price By the bye, Nuts, I'm not knocking your line of business, but I think that "turnkey petrochemical replacements", and liquid fuels in general, are pretty much a dead end. Quite simply, the ICE will never be efficient enough to be a good idea in a world where energy is expensive. Much much better to go for broke on electrical transport. Rolling out hybrids over 10 years, assuming that they are plug-in hybrids which only use liquid fuels as range extenders, may or may not be useful We need to recognize the folly of growth.
In summary, I think the problem with the semi-optimistic post-peak view is the net export situation. IMO, we are going to have to bid oil prices up much, much higher if we wish to keep our Total Petroleum imports into the US up. WT: You are right to hammer away at net oil exports.
For the global economy, the problem is that as KSA consumption as an example grows, this takes oil away from the economies which are more efficient at squeezing GDP out of oil usage India, Japan, China causing a drag on global GDP. Buy more toys? Take more trips? I suspect not. This is the insidious impact of lower net energy creeping into the facts. Much of that higher energy use went towards procuring more energy. It is VERY important that we change the debate from 'supply' or 'resources' to net liquids available to non-energy producing society. How much energy will it take to increase Saudi production from here?
Why hasnt Chevron sanctioned Jack II yet after a media fanfare of a 'major oil find'? These are much more important questions than how much oil remains underground? If oil exporting and importing nations are consuming too much oil - governments can institute policies to reduce frivolous consumption. However, if the geology requires substantially more energy to procure the energy, then there is nothing we can do, exports AND imports will both ultimately drop, year after year.
I think this is the main point that the Rex Tillersons and Dan Yergins of the world are missing. Of CERAs 3. In terms of dollars or energy? Nate, I don't think they are missing the point. There's a difference between public and private acknowledgement. I can only imagine the scrambling that is going on in the Exxon strategic sessions. Put yourself in the position of an Exxon stategic planner, write down the list of options.
Disingenious, definately, logically correct, moreso. Well, maybe Yergin misses the point, but then again he's isn't being paid to make decisions. So in the spectrum of major oil players they in a sense lie the least. From their perspective I'd say they feel if they are stretching the truth its nothing compared to the major oil companies. Not that I believe they are telling the truth. If you consider KSA's statements along with others from the industry its obvious that a lot if not all of it is a pack of lies.
If anything Iran is the most forthright. The Saudi population is still growing extremely fast at 2. Will second the Kudos to SS. This piece and the one on the effect of improved car efficiency are two of the best I've read in my short stay here. Stuart mentions: Probably the biggest potential issue is the political stability of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia once this news becomes clear to everyone. While not further discussed by Stuart, some posters take the position that PO will likely lead to internal instability for SA. It would seem to me, up to a point, the opposite is true and it is an instance of the rich getting richer.
In PO it seems the wealth transfer from oil importing to oil exporting nations might be expected to increase. From where I stand this is not a good thing, but likely wouldn't lead to SA instability. It would likely lead to a more rapid increase in domestic consumption in oil exporting nations, compounding the issue of oil available for export.
Of course at some point, unchecked, such a situation leads to world wide depression, an unstable system, and all sorts of doomer scenarios. There are, however, three countering influences which allow for more peaceful demand destruction. This helps to account for why gasoline expenditures are not currently near an all time high in regards to disposable income despite a relatively high absolute price.
It is analogous to Greenspan's oft noted productivity gains. As an aside, I would wish that efficiency gains, i,e. I realize the metrics might be a bear and fraught with peril, however, it seems the incessant drumbeat for economic expansion is a good part of what has gotten us into our current mess. This has been discussed at length at PO but would just second that increased oil price means increased incentive for alternatives development. Certainly, if the analysis presented by SS and others holds then this Summer and Fall could see the start of some real, not easily deniable problems.
Longer term the interplay of the countering influences should give an idea of how big of a hole we may have dug ourselves and whether this crisis has a significant component of opportunity to go along with the danger. The formula does not work as well when a single player cuts; prices do rise, but the net effect is typically reduced revenues.